曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

NTSC’S COMMENTS:
The NTSC understood that the advisors to the US Accredited
Representative included representatives from General Electric as
the aircraft had GE CFM-56 engines. NTSC was not aware that the
representatives included Pratt and Whitney’s.
2 The HPG provided version 6.0 of its report to the NTSC; however, the document that was designated by
N-5
report is provided later in this document in connection with specific comments on
individual sections in the draft Final Report. Among other things, version 6.0 of the
report contains comprehensive information about the flight crewmembers, including
information about their professional, personal, and financial backgrounds. For example,
substantial information was developed indicating that the captain’s professional and
financial situations had undergone negative changes in the months preceding the accident.
It is disappointing that much of this information was either omitted from the draft final
report or was not fully analyzed.
NTSC’S COMMENTS:
The Australian BASI (now ATSB) advisor is not an official
representative. The Singapore Accredited Representative is
from the Ministry of Communications and Information
Technology and his advisors are from the Civil Aviation
Authority of Singapore, SIA Engineering Company and SilkAir.
The final draft is based on information that had since
overtaken the HPG report version 6.0, for example the
PricewaterhouseCoopers audit report. Hence, sole reliance on
version 6.0 would lead to inaccurate conclusions.
All group reports have been analysed and integrated into the
final report. Specific details, such the pilots’ personal
details etc., were not deemed appropriate for inclusion in
the final report.
Following this summary, this document suggests specific corrections,
clarifications, and/or additions for each section of concern. This summary provides an
overview of the primary areas of concern and offers an explanation for the accident that is
consistent with all of the evidence. As further discussed in this summary, when all of the
investigative evidence is considered, it leads to the conclusions that: 1) no airplanerelated
mechanical malfunctions or failures caused or contributed to the accident, and 2)
the accident can be explained by intentional pilot action. Specifically, a) the accident
airplane’s flight profile is consistent with sustained manual nose-down flight control
inputs; b) the evidence suggests that the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) was intentionally
disconnected; c) recovery of the airplane was possible but not attempted; and d) it is more
likely that the nose-down flight control inputs were made by the captain than by the first
officer.
the NTSC as the final HPG report (without consensus agreement from the HPG members) omits a
significant amount of information that was included in version 6.0.
N-6
NTSC’S COMMENTS:
The NTSC is aware that others may draw different
conclusions from the same set of facts. With reference to
the conclusions referred to in the statement “when all of
the investigative evidence is considered, it leads to the
conclusions …”, the NTSC has a set of different
conclusions based on the evidence available.
1. No airplane-related mechanical malfunctions or failures caused or contributed to
the accident.
The investigation examined the aircraft structures, flight control systems, and
powerplants extensively, and the results are presented in the NTSC draft Final Report. As
stated in the conclusions in the draft Final Report, there was no evidence of any preimpact
mechanical malfunctions or failures. Further, the pilots did not report any
problems with the airplane or make any distress calls to air traffic controllers throughout
the duration of the flight, as would be expected if they had experienced a mechanical
problem. Finally, engineering simulations of flightpath data (derived from pre-upset
DFDR data, recorded radar information, and wreckage locations) were conducted to
determine the motion of the airplane from the time it departed cruise flight until the end
of recorded data indicated. As noted in the NTSC draft Final Report, analysis of these
simulation results indicated that no single mechanical failure of the airplane structure or
flight control systems would have resulted in movement of the airplane through recorded
radar data points. Further, there was no evidence of any combination of systems failures.
Therefore, the evidence supports a conclusion that no airplane-related mechanical
malfunctions or failures caused or contributed to the accident.
NTSC’S COMMENTS:
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：NTSC Aircraft Accident Report SILKAIR FLIGHT MI 185 BOEING B(49)