曝光臺(tái) 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營(yíng)店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費(fèi)者

report should also elaborate that the state in which the wreckage was found
severely limited the extent to which meaningful reconstruction could be
undertaken.
NTSC’S COMMENTS:
The report has stated that the wreckage was very
fragmented. Section 1.12 contains details of
wreckage recovered.
Page 7 & 8 paragraph 1.12
The report should state expressly that the cockpit and the circuit breaker panel
were not recovered from the wreckage.
Page 9 paragraph 1.12.1.2 & Page 28 para 2.2
The report states that “examination of the recovered passenger oxygen
generators revealed no evidence of activation from which it concluded that the
aircraft did not experience depressurization in flight”.
Attachment to MCIT/CA/MI185
dated 8 December 2000
M-5
We suggest to insert a line before it, “Not all of the passenger oxygen
generators were recovered.”
Page 17 paragraph 1.12.4
The report states that “Approximately 370 kg of electrical wires, connectors and
circuit boards of the aircraft were recovered”.
We suggest that the word “Approximately” be replaced by “Only” to avoid any
misimpression that a very substantial part of the aircraft was recovered.
Page 6 Section 1.11.1
6. We propose to change the third paragraph to read as “The FDR module was first
cleaned and then packed in a container filled with clean water (to prevent the tape
medium from drying out and becoming brittle). It was hand-carried to the United
States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) HQ’s readout facility in
Washington D.C., USA.” This is to avoid readers having the misimpression that the
FDR tape was damaged because the FDR module was carried to the NTSB immersed in
river water.
Page 22 Section 1.17
7. In the third paragraph fifth sentence, it is incorrectly stated that "All managers
are seconded from SIA." SilkAir's Engineering Manager (now titled Senior Manager
Engineering) is a SilkAir employee and not on secondment from SIA. We suggest
changing the sentence to “The majority of SilkAir's senior managers are seconded from
SIA.”
Page 23 Section 1.17
8. We suggest changing the existing sentence “Disciplinary inquiries are rare.” to
read as “As SilkAir is a small organisation, it is natural that disciplinary inquiries are
rare.”
Page 25 Section 1.18.3.2
9. In the third paragraph it is incorrectly stated that the PIC was appointed Captain
on 26 January 1996. He was appointed on 27 January 1996. Also, SilkAir wishes to
add that while the PIC was selected for command training on 22 October 1995, he was
officially informed of his selection only on 20 November 1995. We suggest amending
the third paragraph to read as “The PIC was selected for B737 command training on 22
October 1995. He was officially informed of his selection on 20 November 1995. He
Attachment to MCIT/CA/MI185
dated 8 December 2000
M-6
was appointed Captain on 27 January 1996, and confirmed in that position on 27 July
1996.”
Page 25 Section 1.18.3.2
10. In the fourth paragraph, SilkAir wishes to advise that the PIC was written to and
advised that he had been selected for LIP training on 8 April 1997. Also, while SilkAir
wrote to the PIC to advise him of his de-appointment as LIP on 3 July 1997, this was
subsequently revised to 28 July 1997 following a company inquiry. We propose
amending the fourth paragraph to read as “SilkAir wrote to the PIC on 8 April 1997 to
advise him of his selection for LIP. He completed his training on 9 May 1997. He
performed satisfactorily thereafter in this position. On 3 July 1997, SilkAir wrote to the
PIC to advise him of his de-appointment as LIP. This was subsequently revised to 28
July 1997 following a company inquiry into an operational incident which occurred on
24 June (see Appendix 1 for details).”
Page 38 Section 2.9
11. In the earlier Section 1.7.4 (page 5) second bullet point, it was mentioned that
Qantas 41 reported that "the weather was good except for two or three isolated
thunderstorms about ten miles to the east of track near Palembang." On page 38
Section 2.9 the sentence about Qantas 41 stated that “Qantas 41 …. did not report
adverse weather over Palembang.” To be consistent with Section 1.7.4, we suggest
that the sentence on Qantas 41 in Section 2.9 on page 38 be changed to “The Qantas 41
…. did not report adverse weather over Palembang except for two or three isolated
thunderstorms about ten miles to the east of track near Palembang.”
Page 43 Section 2.14.5
　
中國(guó)航空網(wǎng) www.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(47)