If the Silk Air incident was suicide, then no-one but the pilot was to blame. But that leads to more questions. Hadn’t the CVR had a history of switching itself off in the past for periods of between 4 seconds and 11 minutes duration IIRC? Wasn’t a Company involved with the devices which actuate the rudder taken to court and made a settlement to the victims families?

The evidence for suicide was not strong enough to be certain. The same cannot be said of the company involved with the rudder, otherwise they would have appealed atthe highest level and never made a settlement.

The plain truth is that none of us will ever know what really happened. The crew took the secret to their graves.

Edited to add: Perhaps the most compelling evidence of uncommanded rudder hardovers being a problem with 737’s comes from Boeing. Didn’t the programme indicate that a training programme had been instigated and advice issued as to what course of action to take in the event of a rudder hardover?

PS I stand to be corrected on the above, as my memory may not be correct.

Regards,

kev35

All three crashes were shown to follow the procedure issued by Boeing in the event of such Rudder Hard-Overs and the problem was found to be a manufacturing issue with the units, some microscopic metal residue from cutting clogged holes allowing hydraulic fluid to flow,

If Parker-Hannifin was not to blame then why did they not challenge the evidence and not pay out such high amounts of money to the families

Wozza

I still think the third was suicide and that the Captain thought people would automatically believe it was a rudder hardover as the previous two incidents had happened not too long before…

If we are still talking about the Silk Air crash then after watching the Air Crash Investigation on the subject evidence for the rudder hard over being the cause it seems pretty definitive in my eyes that this was the cause,

Wozza

Oh yeah…737s were dropping out of the skies like nobody’s business.
Perhaps you should ommit the “huge”? It looks like you’re making it out to be a larger issue than what it was.

There were 2 crashes that were confirmed as full rudder hard overs. Perhaps another suspected. In how many rotations made by the 737?

There were 3 crashes, and despite the number of rotations made by the B737, 3 crashes is 3 too many and it would be fair to say that the problem was not ‘minor’ it was large then, taking up years of investigators time.

quick! Madrid’s escaping! get it before it flees the country!

lmao. Geneva! poor thing’s sunk!

No seriously, how can they get Geneva so wrong – i mean Birmingham is an acceptable inaccuracy – very possibly Newcastle but look they got Basel nad Zurich all right – Basel isnt exactly too far from Geneva

Geneva an island in the sea?

This map was brought up before, quite a few airlines have massively incorrect route-maps,

Wozza

LCY was built in the 1980’s and was designed only to handle to begin with, DHC-7’s and 146’s.

By now of course i handles F50’s ERJ135’s Dash 8’s, ARJ’s and 146’s plus the Biz Jets.

A318 is much larger than these, so it needs more apron space

The runway originally was shorter than its current length, significantly shorter – but in the mid-90s it was extended,

In this test did they park her up on the apron, as this test would have to be physically done before any certification can be awarded in my opinion.

Not been doing much flying lately, largely due to that stuff we all seem to love here, revision!

Heres some random shots taken over the last week or so

Simulated an Engine failure here on takeoff


Parked up at Bembridge

Wozza