ANDREW DOYLE / SINGAPORE
Judge refuses to admit last-minute evidence on the NTSB's correction of radar data
The Singapore judge hearing the damages claim brought by relatives of six victims of the SilkAir Boeing 737-300 crash in Indonesia in 1997 has retired to consider his verdict.
This follows his rejection of a last-minute attempt by the plaintiffs' lawyers to submit fresh evidence on the analysis of radar data by the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Boeing.
The two sides handed their final written submissions to the judge on 1 September after a five-week adjournment of the case. The court reconvened on 5-6 September for final arguments. The judge must reach a verdict within two months, although a decision is expected sooner, according to inside sources.
The relatives are sueing Singapore Airlines subsidiary SilkAir for compensation beyond that provided for by the Warsaw Convention by claiming that the crash, in which all 104 passengers and crew died, must have been deliberately caused by the captain Tsu Way Ming or first officer Duncan Ward.
The plaintiffs' lawyers presented evidence of Tsu's erratic behaviour while on flying duties and subsequent demotion in the months leading up to the crash to support their claim that he deliberately initiated the high-speed descent, from which the aircraft never recovered, after switching off the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder.
They further argued that data obtained from Indonesian air traffic control surveillance radars and "corrected" for enhanced accuracy by Boeing and the NTSB showed that the aircraft's descent profile could only have been achieved by deliberate and sustained pilot input rather than mechanical failure.
The defence, however, attempted to cast doubt on the accuracy of the corrected data by arguing it suggests the aircraft had achieved a speed approaching M1.3 at 19,500ft altitude even though it would be "very unlikely" that it would exceed its maximum design speed of M0.97. SilkAir's lawyers also put forward theories that the crash could have been caused by progressive electrical failure, the mishandling of a rapid decompression event or a bungled attempt at an aerobatic stunt.
The plaintiffs obtained more precise details of how the NTSB had corrected the radar data after the case had been adjourned, but the judge ruled that this could not be included in the final written submission.
Source: Flight International
