Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

smartplane · Tue Oct 30, 2018 2:41 am

lightsaber wrote:
If there is one national from a nation onboard, they have the right to investigate.

No. They have the right to be invited to participate in the investigation, and if the invitation isn't extended, the right to view the data and findings without any redaction.

Lead investigator is the country where the crash occurs. Three other countries are automatically invited to participate - where the aircraft was made / designed, registered ownership and where operated (if different).

Unusual to exclude a country, though may request another country to act on their behalf.

Sancho99504 · Tue Oct 30, 2018 2:55 am

After reading a bunch of comments, I wonder if this might be a control issue similar to AS 261. I know there is a difference between the MD80 and 737. I read one post about them looking at pitot tubes and elevator control system, while another talks about flight control issues on WN MAX inaugural.

osiris30 · Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:09 am

Now take everything you just wrote and add in a potentially fault elevator feel system so what you think you are doing you aren't. Sounds like the perfect storm most of these things are comprised of.

Starlionblue wrote:
aden23 wrote:
HappyKasper wrote:

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that a pilot with 6,000 hours wouldn't know the difference between what it feels like when his aircraft is climbing, vs. when it's pointed straight at the ground?

The seat of your pants doesn't work well in large aircraft (and not much better in small ones). You'd be surprised how easily you can get disoriented even in the daytime and good conditions, especially when under a bit of stress. If you're in cloud, or it is night time, your senses will routinely try to fool you. For this reason, pilots are taught to trust their instruments And that's one of the main reasons why unreliable airspeed is such an insidious problem.

Korean Air Cargo 8509 is a textbook example of a pilot following faulty instrument data into the ground. At the time of impact, the aircraft was pitched down 40 degrees and banked left 90 degrees. You'd think the pilot would have "felt" this but evidently not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Cargo_Flight_8509

aden23 wrote:
SoCalPilot wrote:

Fascinating, I never would have suspected this. Aren't there backup artificial horizons? Would all of these ever realistically fail at the same time?

Airliners have two primary flight displays (captain and FO) plus a backup. They are fed from independent air data and inertial systems so unlikely to all fail except in cases such as where all pitot tubes are left covered. However it can take time to realise they disagree because your training teaches you to trust your instruments, not the seat of your pants. And if they all disagree you have to decide which one to trust. An insidious issue.

luv2cattlecall wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:

There are backups and flight in IMC is predicated on not all of them failing but.....stuff happens, just not very often if at all.

I understand the failure modes that could cause all the pitot-static system instruments on a plane to show false indications, but how often do all the artificial horizons in a commercial plane quit or show false info?

Artifical horizons are driven by the inertial units. Very unlikely you get a triple failure. Much more likely is an airspeed indication failure, since pitot tubes are literally pointing into the wind and can be clogged by non-removed covers, insects and Canada Geese.

mga707 · Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:24 am

rbavfan wrote:
ImperialEagle wrote:
YellowJ wrote:
Not to take away the focus from this sad situation; but is this a record from delivery to crash for any airline and/or aircraft made?

Well, the L-14, M-202, Comet, L-188 B-707 and B-727 come to mind.

Comet & Electra came apart after many flights.

The first L-188 Electra crash occurred on February 3, 1959. N6101A had been delivered to American about two months before the crash, which happened on final approach to La Guardia Airport. It had nothing to do with the later Braniff and Northwest 'whirl mode' in-flight break-ups.

SC430 · Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:14 am

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
They have been in business 14 years and had 14 crashes. That's the accident rate. How many other carriers average 1 crasht per year of operations?

Lion Air's been in business for 18 years - they commenced operations in 2000. Plus they didn't have 14 crashes - they had 5. The rest are incidents which are commonly occurrening in other airlines, like runway excursions (check Delta, Southwest, American, Singapore...), hard landing (check JAL) and gear problems, among others.

Since 2000 Southwest has had 7 incidents. Half as many as Lion and probably 100 times more flights.

benjjk · Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:27 am

FL420 wrote:
Very sad and shocking. Thoughts to all involved and their families. Gonna sit this one and wait for a report.

Probably the most reasonable comment thus far...

It's perfectly fine to discuss the events as they become clear and ask fair questions. It's not ok to extrapolate the very few facts we have right now into some wild baseless theories about what happened or trying to apportion blame. This website has been quoted by the media in the past, thinking this is a place where 'industry experts' share their insider knowledge. So if someone presents a half-baked theory on here it can latch on with the broader public and have real consequences.

Flightsimboy · Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:33 am

iamtom wrote:
afterburner wrote:
GE90man wrote:
It's possible someone uploaded a live video as it was happening, such as the case when someone uploads to Facebook live. The video that was streamed is then saved online.

Uploading a video needs an internet connection. Lion Air is a low cost carrier. There are no WiFi service in its aircraft.

At 1500m above Jakarta they were still well within 3G/4G range so it's entirely possible. The turbulence video doing the rounds is clearly fake though. I imagine most passengers presumed turbulence until it was too late to react anyway.

It could have very well have been from that plane. My point was firstly how do you find the video recording and not the plane. Secondly our minds make us believe what might not even be true hence believing that was supposedly video footage prior to impact.

Makes sense when those pics taken on board from the Brazilian soccer team's plane crash were posted. In this case we don't even know where this plane is yet evidence in the form of video exists. I will stand corrected should this get proven to be true.

Flightsimboy · Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:40 am

maxudaskin wrote:

Lion Air began flying in 2000. As of yesterday before the crash, they had 115 aircraft in their fleet.

Here is a list of their notable incidents. If we look through them, we can see that they have destroyed 8 aircraft in less than 20 years! The majority of their accidents are due to pilot error.

January 14, 2002
737-200 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Written Off
Takeoff accident due to incorrect flap configuration

November 30, 2004
MD82 - 25 Fatalities - Aircraft Destroyed
Landing runway excursion. Aircraft hydroplaned.

March 4, 2006
MD-82 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Written Off
Landing runway excursion. Left reverser was listed as INOP. Reverse thrust used on landing causing the aircraft to veer.

December 24, 2006
737-400 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Written Off
Landing accident. Incorrect flap setting and the aircraft was not aligned with the runway.

March 9, 2009
MD90 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Written Off
Landing runway excursion. The pilots continued with a non-stabilized approach. Only one reverser opened, causing the aircraft to pivot around the nose off of the runway.

November 2, 2010
737-400 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Written Off
Landing runway excursion. Non-stable approach, speed brakes not used until 42 seconds after touchdown.

April 13, 2013
737-800 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Destroyed
Landed short due to unstable approach.

August 6, 2013
737-800 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Damaged and Repaired
Landing excursion. Aircraft hit cows on the runway and veered off as a result of trying to avoid them.

February 1, 2014
737-900 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Damaged and Repaired
Hard landing resulting in tire damage and a tail strike. Four bounces before the impact.

February 20, 2016
737-900 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Not Damaged
Runway excursion. Late touchdown, delayed spoiler deployment, thrust levers not at idle position, and late of brake application. Aircraft came to a stop with the nose gear 1 metre past the end of the threshold.

April 29, 2018
737-800 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Damaged and Repaired
Runway excursion. Heavy rain was reported as they touched down and veered off to the left of the runway.

October 29, 2018
737-MAX8 - 189 Fatalities (Not confirmed) - Aircraft Destroyed
Aircraft crashed into water shortly after takeoff.

From all the above it is surprising to read only two, one prior to this crash and the crash in question have casualties. I was under the impression they had many more tragic crashes based on the way the airline is potrayed on here. Runway incidents have occurred with even the best airlines. However Lion Air does score high here. Thanks for putting this together.

iamtom · Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:54 am

Flightsimboy wrote:
iamtom wrote:
afterburner wrote:
Uploading a video needs an internet connection. Lion Air is a low cost carrier. There are no WiFi service in its aircraft.

At 1500m above Jakarta they were still well within 3G/4G range so it's entirely possible. The turbulence video doing the rounds is clearly fake though. I imagine most passengers presumed turbulence until it was too late to react anyway.

It could have very well have been from that plane. My point was firstly how do you find the video recording and not the plane. Secondly our minds make us believe what might not even be true hence believing that was supposedly video footage prior to impact.

Makes sense when those pics taken on board from the Brazilian soccer team's plane crash were posted. In this case we don't even know where this plane is yet evidence in the form of video exists. I will stand corrected should this get proven to be true.

Video recordings could have been sent via instant messenger (such as whatsapp) over data, you don't need the phone. The video doing the rounds cannot have been from that plane as it is a different aircraft type and the video is months old and already on youtube.

They know exactly where the plane is, they have dive teams surveying the crash site retrieving the FDR, CVR and of course wreckage.

spacecadet · Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:57 am

HappyKasper wrote:
because right at about 2000 feet is where they'd hit the clouds... someone reported a METAR of SCT020 earlier in this thread...

You're ignoring the most important part of that METAR, which is the "SCT". "Scattered" clouds means 3/8 to 4/8 of cloud cover. So at worst, they'd be in and out of clouds continuously. At best, they could easily avoid most of them if they had a problem, and they could also just stay under or over the top of the cloud layer - it's not like they couldn't see it. The fact that they actually leveled off at 5,000 feet suggests that they had a good idea of their altitude, and they probably leveled off there because it was above the scattered lower level cloud layer. (Admittedly this is speculation on my part, but if they did have an altitude data problem, there'd be no good reason to level off in the cloud layer. So they seemed to be aware of where they were at least on the vertical axis.)

Bottom line is that weather was pretty good and visibility should not have been an issue, which means spatial orientation should not have been an issue, which means airspeed should not have been an issue. It doesn't fit with pitot or static port blockage; at least not on its own. It may be that there was some problem with the data combined with other factors, but it's just impossible for me to imagine a scenario right now where that is the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of this plane staying in the air.

iamtom · Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:01 am

Flightsimboy wrote:
maxudaskin wrote:

Lion Air began flying in 2000. As of yesterday before the crash, they had 115 aircraft in their fleet.

Here is a list of their notable incidents. If we look through them, we can see that they have destroyed 8 aircraft in less than 20 years! The majority of their accidents are due to pilot error.

January 14, 2002
737-200 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Written Off
Takeoff accident due to incorrect flap configuration

November 30, 2004
MD82 - 25 Fatalities - Aircraft Destroyed
Landing runway excursion. Aircraft hydroplaned.

March 4, 2006
MD-82 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Written Off
Landing runway excursion. Left reverser was listed as INOP. Reverse thrust used on landing causing the aircraft to veer.

December 24, 2006
737-400 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Written Off
Landing accident. Incorrect flap setting and the aircraft was not aligned with the runway.

March 9, 2009
MD90 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Written Off
Landing runway excursion. The pilots continued with a non-stabilized approach. Only one reverser opened, causing the aircraft to pivot around the nose off of the runway.

November 2, 2010
737-400 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Written Off
Landing runway excursion. Non-stable approach, speed brakes not used until 42 seconds after touchdown.

April 13, 2013
737-800 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Destroyed
Landed short due to unstable approach.

August 6, 2013
737-800 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Damaged and Repaired
Landing excursion. Aircraft hit cows on the runway and veered off as a result of trying to avoid them.

February 1, 2014
737-900 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Damaged and Repaired
Hard landing resulting in tire damage and a tail strike. Four bounces before the impact.

February 20, 2016
737-900 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Not Damaged
Runway excursion. Late touchdown, delayed spoiler deployment, thrust levers not at idle position, and late of brake application. Aircraft came to a stop with the nose gear 1 metre past the end of the threshold.

April 29, 2018
737-800 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Damaged and Repaired
Runway excursion. Heavy rain was reported as they touched down and veered off to the left of the runway.

October 29, 2018
737-MAX8 - 189 Fatalities (Not confirmed) - Aircraft Destroyed
Aircraft crashed into water shortly after takeoff.

From all the above it is surprising to read only two, one prior to this crash and the crash in question have casualties. I was under the impression they had many more tragic crashes based on the way the airline is potrayed on here. Runway incidents have occurred with even the best airlines. However Lion Air does score high here. Thanks for putting this together.

Just a note to add in Lion Air's defence regarding runway excursions. It's worth remembering that Indonesia is a tropical country with pretty extreme weather events. Most of these excursions happen in bad weather on shorter runways. The weather can change in those parts very fast and provide exceptionally challenging flying conditions.

Starlionblue · Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:28 am

benjjk wrote:
FL420 wrote:
Very sad and shocking. Thoughts to all involved and their families. Gonna sit this one and wait for a report.

Probably the most reasonable comment thus far...

It's perfectly fine to discuss the events as they become clear and ask fair questions. It's not ok to extrapolate the very few facts we have right now into some wild baseless theories about what happened or trying to apportion blame. This website has been quoted by the media in the past, thinking this is a place where 'industry experts' share their insider knowledge. So if someone presents a half-baked theory on here it can latch on with the broader public and have real consequences.

I think you’re overestimating the impact of this forum. If some news organisation wants to make a big deal out of some theory on here without further fact checking, so be it. Tabloid news will find ways to sensationalise. They don’t need our help.

That being said, simply making it clear whether a statement is fact or speculation goes a long way...

SoCalPilot · Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:32 am

Everyone on here is using the altitude deviations at 5000' as being indicative of control issues, I'd say it's most likely due to the pilots having to hand fly the airplane with no flight director while troubleshooting an emergency and preparing to return to the airport. They're very minor altitude deviations, consistent with trying to hand fly an airplane while being distracted with something.

benjjk · Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:00 am

Starlionblue wrote:
benjjk wrote:
FL420 wrote:
Very sad and shocking. Thoughts to all involved and their families. Gonna sit this one and wait for a report.

Probably the most reasonable comment thus far...

It's perfectly fine to discuss the events as they become clear and ask fair questions. It's not ok to extrapolate the very few facts we have right now into some wild baseless theories about what happened or trying to apportion blame. This website has been quoted by the media in the past, thinking this is a place where 'industry experts' share their insider knowledge. So if someone presents a half-baked theory on here it can latch on with the broader public and have real consequences.

I think you’re overestimating the impact of this forum. If some news organisation wants to make a big deal out of some theory on here without further fact checking, so be it. Tabloid news will find ways to sensationalise. They don’t need our help.

That being said, simply making it clear whether a statement is fact or speculation goes a long way...

The A.Net of today, I guess I could be. But I think it might have been in the aftermath of MH370 where an 'expert' on this site was quoted with a viable theory. We can't control the media yes but we can be mindful when presenting accusations like the pitot covers being overlooked, or that the repairs weren't actioned, that someone who does not know about aviation safety redundancy can take the idea and run with it.

If nothing else, there are real people right now - the engineers who worked on the aircraft - who have the world's biggest microscope on them as everyone questions if they are responsible for the likely deaths of 189 people. The least we could do is avoid baseless speculation to add fuel to that fire.

Jouhou · Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:04 am

Question, aren't the black boxes supposed to ping in the water for a couple of days? How have they not been found yet? The aircraft is so new I doubt the batteries were dead.

deltal1011man · Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:14 am

FlyHappy wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Erebus wrote:

A curious premise. Not to stray far from the topic but suppose (hypothetically) an accident involved an A320/A220 that was assembled in the US but operated by a non-US airline, would the NTSB take part in those investigations?

Most likely they would not. It may have been assembled in the US but it is not a product of the US.

I believe the NTSB has participated ("assisted") in a number of investigations that do not involve US built aircraft and occur outside the US. Embraers, ATR's, DeHavilland , what have you.
They do so when invited, because, frankly, most of the world outside of Europe/Japan simply do not have the capacity to perform such detailed and technical work - no shame, just a fact. And knowledge about safety doesn't stop at national borders. It has value all its own.

Generally the NTSB get involved if the airplane and/or engine are from US OEMs and/or the flight has US citizens on it.

and as you said, most counties will request help due to capacity issues.

TTailedTiger wrote:
Erebus wrote:
STLflyer wrote:
Yeah I'm sure they will since it's an American made aircraft.

A curious premise. Not to stray far from the topic but suppose (hypothetically) an accident involved an A320/A220 that was assembled in the US but operated by a non-US airline, would the NTSB take part in those investigations?

Most likely they would not. It may have been assembled in the US but it is not a product of the US.

They absolutely would be due to the engine OEM.

Starlionblue · Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:24 am

Jouhou wrote:
Question, aren't the black boxes supposed to ping in the water for a couple of days? How have they not been found yet? The aircraft is so new I doubt the batteries were dead.

They do ping for at least 30 days.

No doubt the approximate location of the recorders is known, but even a "small" search area is not really that small in real terms, and there's the added difficulty of "broken ground" which is underwater. They might also be focusing on recovering human remains first.

Veigar · Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:28 am

So as of now, is the focus on recovering bodies?

pugman211 · Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:48 am

osiris30 wrote:
Now take everything you just wrote and add in a potentially fault elevator feel system so what you think you are doing you aren't. Sounds like the perfect storm most of these things are comprised of.

Starlionblue wrote:
aden23 wrote:

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that a pilot with 6,000 hours wouldn't know the difference between what it feels like when his aircraft is climbing, vs. when it's pointed straight at the ground?

The seat of your pants doesn't work well in large aircraft (and not much better in small ones). You'd be surprised how easily you can get disoriented even in the daytime and good conditions, especially when under a bit of stress. If you're in cloud, or it is night time, your senses will routinely try to fool you. For this reason, pilots are taught to trust their instruments And that's one of the main reasons why unreliable airspeed is such an insidious problem.

Korean Air Cargo 8509 is a textbook example of a pilot following faulty instrument data into the ground. At the time of impact, the aircraft was pitched down 40 degrees and banked left 90 degrees. You'd think the pilot would have "felt" this but evidently not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Cargo_Flight_8509

aden23 wrote:

Fascinating, I never would have suspected this. Aren't there backup artificial horizons? Would all of these ever realistically fail at the same time?

Airliners have two primary flight displays (captain and FO) plus a backup. They are fed from independent air data and inertial systems so unlikely to all fail except in cases such as where all pitot tubes are left covered. However it can take time to realise they disagree because your training teaches you to trust your instruments, not the seat of your pants. And if they all disagree you have to decide which one to trust. An insidious issue.

luv2cattlecall wrote:

I understand the failure modes that could cause all the pitot-static system instruments on a plane to show false indications, but how often do all the artificial horizons in a commercial plane quit or show false info?

Artifical horizons are driven by the inertial units. Very unlikely you get a triple failure. Much more likely is an airspeed indication failure, since pitot tubes are literally pointing into the wind and can be clogged by non-removed covers, insects and Canada Geese.

Regarding the artificial horizon units, could they display an incorrect reading? I.e. wings level when they are actually banked? Pitch at zero, but really it's say 5 degrees climbing etc? And if they were faulty, what would be the cause?

Note, I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm asking only for information purposes.

zeke · Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:03 am

SoCalPilot wrote:
Everyone on here is using the altitude deviations at 5000' as being indicative of control issues, I'd say it's most likely due to the pilots having to hand fly the airplane with no flight director while troubleshooting an emergency and preparing to return to the airport. They're very minor altitude deviations, consistent with trying to hand fly an airplane while being distracted with something.

The vertical speed variations are not indicative of normal hand flying. I am seeing pitch changes of 5 degrees to achieve those rates.

This accident is baffling to me, if they did encounter unreliable speed as per the previous sector it should be relatively straight forward in daytime, VMC, in sight of ground with the airport just next to you to recover and land.

I suspect that due to the unreliable speed safety devices for low and high speed activated making the manual control more challenging.

The final moments of this look similar to AF447 with a sudden climb into an undesirable aircraft state that was not recoverable. I remember many critics on this and other places stating categorically that this will never happen in a Boeing because the controls are interlinked and the throttles move.

The old and bold amongst us cautioned that it could happen in any aircraft. The industry went into a program of providing recurrent training to all pilots subsequent to AF447 as it was felt at the time training and awareness was lacking in industry.

This is a very different outcome to the Malaysian A330 that has no airspeed out of Brisbane, at night taking off into a black hole (no horizon or lights at night when taking off to the north).

mzlin · Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:20 am

zeke wrote:
SoCalPilot wrote:
Everyone on here is using the altitude deviations at 5000' as being indicative of control issues, I'd say it's most likely due to the pilots having to hand fly the airplane with no flight director while troubleshooting an emergency and preparing to return to the airport. They're very minor altitude deviations, consistent with trying to hand fly an airplane while being distracted with something.

The vertical speed variations are not indicative of normal hand flying. I am seeing pitch changes of 5 degrees to achieve those rates.

This accident is baffling to me, if they did encounter unreliable speed as per the previous sector it should be relatively straight forward in daytime, VMC, in sight of ground with the airport just next to you to recover and land.

I suspect that due to the unreliable speed safety devices for low and high speed activated making the manual control more challenging.

The final moments of this look similar to AF447 with a sudden climb into an undesirable aircraft state that was not recoverable. I remember many critics on this and other places stating categorically that this will never happen in a Boeing because the controls are interlinked and the throttles move.

The old and bold amongst us cautioned that it could happen in any aircraft. The industry went into a program of providing recurrent training to all pilots subsequent to AF447 as it was felt at the time training and awareness was lacking in industry.

This is a very different outcome to the Malaysian A330 that has no airspeed out of Brisbane, at night taking off into a black hole (no horizon or lights at night when taking off to the north).

That's a bit of a straw man argument, Zeke. Many have and will claim that interlinked mechanical yokes will allow one pilot to feel what the other is doing, which could help in episodes like AF447 or Air Asia 8501 when one pilot enters one input and the other enters another. There is also an argument that the stick shaker is a better alarm for an impending stall than an aural warning. These are issues relating to communication (pilot to pilot, or plane to pilot), with the argument being that more direct and clearer communication is better. But of course a Boeing can be stalled, despite linked yokes or stick shakers, especially if only one person flies, the other is not fighting them, and the flying pilot doesn't know to immediately push forward when the stick shaker activates, e.g. Colgan Air. I don't think anyone denies a bad pilot can stall a Boeing. In fact the claim of unstallable aircraft comes more often from the other side, with claims that Airbuses are unstallable due to envelope protection, a point that is sometimes made without remembering to attach the caveat that protections are lost in direct mode as was the case in AF447 and Air Asia 8501.

Sadly I think it's is these kinds of misleading arguments or unprovoked inaccurate insinuations that turn off some people, despite your expertise. I think you would gain much more respect and appreciation if you didn't do that.

zeke · Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:24 am

No airbus pilot will claim they cannot be stalled, this is something they learn from day one with the “golden rules”

Starlionblue · Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:49 am

pugman211 wrote:
osiris30 wrote:
Now take everything you just wrote and add in a potentially fault elevator feel system so what you think you are doing you aren't. Sounds like the perfect storm most of these things are comprised of.

Starlionblue wrote:

The seat of your pants doesn't work well in large aircraft (and not much better in small ones). You'd be surprised how easily you can get disoriented even in the daytime and good conditions, especially when under a bit of stress. If you're in cloud, or it is night time, your senses will routinely try to fool you. For this reason, pilots are taught to trust their instruments And that's one of the main reasons why unreliable airspeed is such an insidious problem.

Korean Air Cargo 8509 is a textbook example of a pilot following faulty instrument data into the ground. At the time of impact, the aircraft was pitched down 40 degrees and banked left 90 degrees. You'd think the pilot would have "felt" this but evidently not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Cargo_Flight_8509

Airliners have two primary flight displays (captain and FO) plus a backup. They are fed from independent air data and inertial systems so unlikely to all fail except in cases such as where all pitot tubes are left covered. However it can take time to realise they disagree because your training teaches you to trust your instruments, not the seat of your pants. And if they all disagree you have to decide which one to trust. An insidious issue.

Artifical horizons are driven by the inertial units. Very unlikely you get a triple failure. Much more likely is an airspeed indication failure, since pitot tubes are literally pointing into the wind and can be clogged by non-removed covers, insects and Canada Geese.

Regarding the artificial horizon units, could they display an incorrect reading? I.e. wings level when they are actually banked? Pitch at zero, but really it's say 5 degrees climbing etc? And if they were faulty, what would be the cause?

Note, I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm asking only for information purposes.

Yes, artificial horizons can display incorrect attitudes and while not common this has happened in notable accidents in the past, e.g. Korean Air Cargo 8509 mentioned above. The typical cause would be a fault in the inertial navigation unit providing data.

As with most primary flight instruments, artificial horizons are triple redundant from data generation to display, i.e. three separate inertial units driving three separate displays (two primary and one backup). The pilot monitor should be, ahem, monitoring primary instruments to prevent a malfunction on one instrument leading to a more serious issue. E.g. if you see a bank to the left when you expect a bank to the right, glance over at the other pilot's instruments to see if that is showing the same.

Starlionblue · Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:00 am

mzlin wrote:
zeke wrote:
No airbus pilot will claim they cannot be stalled, this is something they learn from day one with the “golden rules”

Again you are making a straw man argument. I didn't say an airbus pilot claimed that. Just that it is claimed, in this case in the press, either general press: https://www.economist.com/babbage/2011/ ... fin-corner

or specialty press: https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFA ... 200475.PDF

Yes even a magazine like FlightGlobal that should know what they are talking about will refer to Airbuses as "unstallable" without the necessary caveats.

Anyway, I respectfully gave you some friendly advice. You can leave it or take it. If you want to dismiss it with another straw man argument, that's your choice. The forum members will judge you accordingly.

Does it really matter what the press says? Pilot training and knowledge are the deciding factors... And speciality press or not, it is the press. The Flight International/Global article linked is neither an Airbus document nor an airline document. It feels a bit "almost there but not quite" with regard to content overall. Furthermore, it is from 1984, stating in the text that the A320 wasn't even certified yet. I can't criticise the author too much, though, because trying to describe the nuances of the Airbus flight control system in a few paragraphs is a challenge, especially if all you have are a press briefing and interviews.

Not really representative of Airbus pilot training.

On the point earlier about dual inputs on Airbus, this results in a very loud "Dual Input!" warning as well as a warning light right in front of your eyes. In my opinion, if the pilots don't notice that due to loss of situational awareness, they aren't very likely to notice unexpected yoke movement.

Bradin · Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:01 am

Veigar wrote:
So as of now, is the focus on recovering bodies?

I am thinking first priority immediately after an aircraft crash or incident is rescue efforts towards life safety. All other priorities are secondary. If one happens to find a black box, great. But their goals are to find and tend to survivors.

After the rescue effort likely comes recovery efforts - including the fatalities, and debris.

TheFlyingDisk · Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:16 am

SC430 wrote:
Since 2000 Southwest has had 7 incidents. Half as many as Lion and probably 100 times more flights.

Well they're flying in a country with advanced aviation facilities. Whereas Lion Air isn't. Not an apple to apple comparison.

KICT · Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:29 am

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
SC430 wrote:
Since 2000 Southwest has had 7 incidents. Half as many as Lion and probably 100 times more flights.

Well they're flying in a country with advanced aviation facilities. Whereas Lion Air isn't. Not an apple to apple comparison.

I'm sure the people Lion Air keeps killing will sympathize with this statement.

Lufthansa · Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:31 am

Not that we should ever laugh about crashes,
but when I saw that list produced, which isn't exactly good
the funniest one was hitting the cow on a runway. Luckily nobody
was killed like many of their crashes. Out of fairness to Lion Air though,
even some of the worlds most experienced carriers have had issues.
I'd imagine we'll have some answers pretty soon.

Jouhou · Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:32 am

Bradin wrote:
Veigar wrote:
So as of now, is the focus on recovering bodies?

I am thinking first priority immediately after an aircraft crash or incident is rescue efforts towards life safety. All other priorities are secondary. If one happens to find a black box, great. But their goals are to find and tend to survivors.

After the rescue effort likely comes recovery efforts - including the fatalities, and debris.

I think after seeing how tiny those aircraft fragments are, among the more gory details, giving false hope to loved ones would be cruel. I'll say that. Anyone still talking about survivors at this point aren't doing any favors for the loved ones left behind.

I mean, I guess that wasn't really your point, but I was just saying in this case, the potential rescuers probably realized quickly that there wasn't going to be any silver lining to this tragedy.

The biggest question now that needs to be answered is how to prevent the same thing from happening again, and I think that's where this community's interest in what happened comes into play. Internet geeks of all flavors like being problem-solvers.

scbriml · Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:37 am

iamtom wrote:
Just a note to add in Lion Air's defence regarding runway excursions. It's worth remembering that Indonesia is a tropical country with pretty extreme weather events. Most of these excursions happen in bad weather on shorter runways. The weather can change in those parts very fast and provide exceptionally challenging flying conditions.

This^

Runway excursions in Indonesia are not reserved just for Lion, either.

I spent a few days at CGK a few years ago (and even survived three Lion flights!). I was surprised to see flights operating 'normally' in a tremendous thunderstorm one afternoon. If that storm had hit Heathrow, the airport would have been closed.

MEA-707 · Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:51 am

KICT wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
SC430 wrote:
Since 2000 Southwest has had 7 incidents. Half as many as Lion and probably 100 times more flights.

Well they're flying in a country with advanced aviation facilities. Whereas Lion Air isn't. Not an apple to apple comparison.

I'm sure the people Lion Air keeps killing will sympathize with this statement.

Is this comment necessairy? It's Lion Airs 2nd fatal accident. Including Thai, Malaysian and Batik Air they have 188 737s, a 747, 41 A320s, 6 A330s and 71 ATRs, so their size would be 1/3rd of Southwest, not 1/100th. You guys suggest their planes are dropping weekly. That said I am aware there IS a safety issue at Lion Air, but let's wait for some results of the investigation and keep things in perspective. I would fly Lion Air tomorrow, still safer than taking a ferry boat or motor bike in Indonesia.

A330freak · Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:57 am

Regarding the accuracy of the leaked maintenance records

NTSC Chairman Soerjanto Tjahjono said there was a similarity between the maintenance log circulating online and the one received from Lion Air but he had not checked the exact details.

And eyewitness accounts of the crash

Two fishermen who saw the crash from their boat out at sea told Reuters that the plane swayed slightly but made no noise as it fell, almost horizontal with its nose slightly down. There was an explosive sound as it plunged nose-first into the sea, and then there was a column of smoke.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL3N1XA2G7

Starlionblue · Tue Oct 30, 2018 9:12 am

scbriml wrote:
iamtom wrote:
Just a note to add in Lion Air's defence regarding runway excursions. It's worth remembering that Indonesia is a tropical country with pretty extreme weather events. Most of these excursions happen in bad weather on shorter runways. The weather can change in those parts very fast and provide exceptionally challenging flying conditions.

This^

Runway excursions in Indonesia are not reserved just for Lion, either.

I spent a few days at CGK a few years ago (and even survived three Lion flights!). I was surprised to see flights operating 'normally' in a tremendous thunderstorm one afternoon. If that storm had hit Heathrow, the airport would have been closed.

Conditions in Indonesia, especially at small airports, can indeed be challenging. However, training and operations at the carriers operating into such places should reflect the conditions.

Side note: Having been to CGK a few times, I would venture to say that it isn't exactly the pinnacle of organised commercial aviation. And just like challenging weather conditions, that is also something to be accounted for in training and operations.

More nitpicky point: Airports don't "close" due to weather, unless the runways are flooded or something. They report the weather and the available approaches/runways, then the pilots decide whether to commence an approach, hold, or divert. Thunderstorm cells are localised events and in the tropics aircraft will maneuver around the cells to land in conditions that seem rather daunting from the ground.

cpd · Tue Oct 30, 2018 9:20 am

mzlin wrote:
zeke wrote:
No airbus pilot will claim they cannot be stalled, this is something they learn from day one with the “golden rules”

Again you are making a straw man argument. I didn't say an airbus pilot claimed that. Just that it is claimed, in this case in the press, either general press: https://www.economist.com/babbage/2011/ ... fin-corner

or specialty press: https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFA ... 200475.PDF

Yes even a magazine like FlightGlobal that should know what they are talking about will refer to Airbuses as "unstallable" without the necessary caveats.

Anyway, I respectfully gave you some friendly advice. You can leave it or take it. If you want to dismiss it with another straw man argument, that's your choice. The forum members will judge you accordingly.

Children, please! Can I ask exactly what Airbus stalling or not has to do with this accident which is in a Boeing 737 Max 8. Some of us are interested in finding out why this Boeing went down, not you two squabbling over Airbus planes.

Until the data recorders are recovered, we are all just guessing.

Aesma · Tue Oct 30, 2018 9:30 am

Flightsimboy wrote:
maxudaskin wrote:

Lion Air began flying in 2000. As of yesterday before the crash, they had 115 aircraft in their fleet.

Here is a list of their notable incidents. If we look through them, we can see that they have destroyed 8 aircraft in less than 20 years! The majority of their accidents are due to pilot error.

January 14, 2002
737-200 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Written Off
Takeoff accident due to incorrect flap configuration

November 30, 2004
MD82 - 25 Fatalities - Aircraft Destroyed
Landing runway excursion. Aircraft hydroplaned.

March 4, 2006
MD-82 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Written Off
Landing runway excursion. Left reverser was listed as INOP. Reverse thrust used on landing causing the aircraft to veer.

December 24, 2006
737-400 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Written Off
Landing accident. Incorrect flap setting and the aircraft was not aligned with the runway.

March 9, 2009
MD90 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Written Off
Landing runway excursion. The pilots continued with a non-stabilized approach. Only one reverser opened, causing the aircraft to pivot around the nose off of the runway.

November 2, 2010
737-400 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Written Off
Landing runway excursion. Non-stable approach, speed brakes not used until 42 seconds after touchdown.

April 13, 2013
737-800 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Destroyed
Landed short due to unstable approach.

August 6, 2013
737-800 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Damaged and Repaired
Landing excursion. Aircraft hit cows on the runway and veered off as a result of trying to avoid them.

February 1, 2014
737-900 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Damaged and Repaired
Hard landing resulting in tire damage and a tail strike. Four bounces before the impact.

February 20, 2016
737-900 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Not Damaged
Runway excursion. Late touchdown, delayed spoiler deployment, thrust levers not at idle position, and late of brake application. Aircraft came to a stop with the nose gear 1 metre past the end of the threshold.

April 29, 2018
737-800 - 0 Fatalities - Aircraft Damaged and Repaired
Runway excursion. Heavy rain was reported as they touched down and veered off to the left of the runway.

October 29, 2018
737-MAX8 - 189 Fatalities (Not confirmed) - Aircraft Destroyed
Aircraft crashed into water shortly after takeoff.

From all the above it is surprising to read only two, one prior to this crash and the crash in question have casualties. I was under the impression they had many more tragic crashes based on the way the airline is potrayed on here. Runway incidents have occurred with even the best airlines. However Lion Air does score high here. Thanks for putting this together.

Runway incidents come in all forms. Sometimes the aircraft misses a turn and puts a bogie in the grass. Sometimes there is ice and the aircraft ends up sideways to the side of the runway. Sometimes the aircraft barely touches the runway before crashing 1 mile further...

With Lion Air, they have had 7 hull losses before this one !

qf789 · Tue Oct 30, 2018 9:36 am

Indonesia orders inspections on all 737MAX aircraft. Officials have also confirmed that JT610 has an onboard airspeed problem prior to the crash

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/10 ... 8760964096

cpd · Tue Oct 30, 2018 9:46 am

qf789 wrote:
Indonesia orders inspections on all 737MAX aircraft. Officials have also confirmed that JT610 has an onboard airspeed problem prior to the crash

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/10 ... 8760964096

Surely some other 737 Max aircraft elsewhere would have had these issues if it were to do with the plane type? That's an interesting development - but I have doubts.

qf789 · Tue Oct 30, 2018 9:55 am

cpd wrote:
qf789 wrote:
Indonesia orders inspections on all 737MAX aircraft. Officials have also confirmed that JT610 has an onboard airspeed problem prior to the crash

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/10 ... 8760964096

Surely some other 737 Max aircraft elsewhere would have had these issues if it were to do with the plane type? That's an interesting development - but I have doubts.

Its probably just a precautionary measure at the stage though its probably to early into the investigation to ascertain if there is an issue with other 737MAX aircraft

keesje · Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:37 am

What systems apart from he cockpit IAS are fed by airspeed? GPS is available, also stand alone via EFB.
Snapshots via pprune from manual;

10.1
737 Flight Crew Operations Manual
Fill ieghHtiIgnhsltirguhmtents, Displays
Airspeed Unreliable
Condition: Airspeed or Mach indications are suspected to be unreliable. (Items which might indicate unreliable airspeed are listed in the Additional Information section.)
Objective: To identify are liable airspeed indication,if possible, or to continue the flight using the Flight With Unreliable Airspeed table in the Performance Inflight chapter.

1 Autopilot( if engaged).............Disengage
2 Autothrottle(if engaged)...........Disengage
3 F/Dswitches(both) .................. OFF
4 Sett he following gear up pitch attitude and thrust:
Flapsextended .......... 10°and 80%N1
Flapsup ................4°and75%N1
-----------------------
5 PROBEHEAT switches.............CheckON
6 Thefollowing are reliable:
Attitude
N1
Ground speed Radio altitude
7 Refer to the Flight With Unreliable Airspeed table in the Performance Inflight chapter and set the pitch attitude and thrust setting for the current airplane configuration and phase of flight.
▼ Continued on next page ▼
Note: Stick shaker, overspeed warning and AIRSPEED LOW (as installed) alerts may sound erroneously or simultaneously.
Note: The Flight Path Vector and Pitch Limit Indicator may be unreliable.

No doubt their would have been working through those if airspeed was an issue. Something must have broken down after 5 minutes of recovery attempts at 270kts at 5000ft. Or they took a (in hindsight) fatal decision.

ADS-B data plot. https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/614857-indonesian-aircraft-missing-off-jakarta-7.html

Starlionblue · Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:19 am

keesje wrote:
What systems apart from he cockpit IAS are fed by airspeed? GPS is available, also stand alone via EFB.
Snapshots via pprune from manual;

10.1
737 Flight Crew Operations Manual
Fill ieghHtiIgnhsltirguhmtents, Displays
Airspeed Unreliable
Condition: Airspeed or Mach indications are suspected to be unreliable. (Items which might indicate unreliable airspeed are listed in the Additional Information section.)
Objective: To identify are liable airspeed indication,if possible, or to continue the flight using the Flight With Unreliable Airspeed table in the Performance Inflight chapter.

1 Autopilot( if engaged).............Disengage
2 Autothrottle(if engaged)...........Disengage
3 F/Dswitches(both) .................. OFF
4 Sett he following gear up pitch attitude and thrust:
Flapsextended .......... 10°and 80%N1
Flapsup ................4°and75%N1
-----------------------
5 PROBEHEAT switches.............CheckON
6 Thefollowing are reliable:
Attitude
N1
Ground speed Radio altitude
7 Refer to the Flight With Unreliable Airspeed table in the Performance Inflight chapter and set the pitch attitude and thrust setting for the current airplane configuration and phase of flight.
▼ Continued on next page ▼
Note: Stick shaker, overspeed warning and AIRSPEED LOW (as installed) alerts may sound erroneously or simultaneously.
Note: The Flight Path Vector and Pitch Limit Indicator may be unreliable.

No doubt their would have been working through those if airspeed was an issue. Something must have broken down after 5 minutes of recovery attempts at 270kts at 5000ft. Or they took a (in hindsight) fatal decision.

ADS-B data plot. https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/614857-indonesian-aircraft-missing-off-jakarta-7.html

IAS feeds lots of stuff depending on the aircraft. For example (and I don't know if this is the case on the 737) landing gear logic, where normal extension is not permitted above a given IAS.

From that manual excerpt, it seems the stick shaker is driven by IAS instead of an AoA vane.

Luftymatt · Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:23 am

edu2703 wrote:
YellowJ wrote:
Not to take away the focus from this sad situation; but is this a record from delivery to crash for any airline and/or aircraft made?

An Etihad A340-600 crashed during a ground test before its first flight

That wasn't the fault of the airline, which is what was being asked.

TheFlyingDisk · Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:24 am

KICT wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
SC430 wrote:
Since 2000 Southwest has had 7 incidents. Half as many as Lion and probably 100 times more flights.

Well they're flying in a country with advanced aviation facilities. Whereas Lion Air isn't. Not an apple to apple comparison.

I'm sure the people Lion Air keeps killing will sympathize with this statement.

Prior to JT610, their last fatal accident happened in 2004 - 14 years ago. So, do you think your statement is a fair assessment of the situation?

If I go by your logic I should be avoiding American Airlines since they're known to cut corners in maintenance (American 191) & doesn't properly train their pilots (American 587).

keesje · Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:38 am

Disclaimer; not a 737 pilot, so every thought of me hereafter should be taken with grain of salt.

It seems from the data the crew disengaged the auto pilot at 20.25. The variation in speed & height after that indicates manual control. The autopilot would keep speed and/or level stable if the crew had set it. At 23.31 something happened. If something broke down, it would have most probable have been disabling controls or disabling the crew. If it was e.g. engines or electrical power, they would have tried to glide - ditch.

What is more likely IMO is that the busy crew (un) intentionally & possibly following procedures (de-, re-)activated something that made the aircraft uncontrollable.

190 Lives means a lot of families. May they RIP & their near ones recover well.

YULACYYZ · Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:49 am

Very sad indeed! RIP to everyone involved.

As an airline employee, it always affect me in such a way, as I have a hard time with preventable events. But such is life!

How horrible it must be for the tech guy that signed off this aircraft! I really feel for you.

Starlionblue · Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:50 am

The autopilot wouldn't keep speed and altitude if it wasn't receiving reliable airspeed data. Which is why the first line of an unreliable airspeed procedure is "disconnect AP".

Noshow · Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:54 am

With daylight and visual meteorological conditions any pilot could fly with just a thrust setting and attitude. This is why I think that some complete loss of control must be related to something else and to more than just unrealiable speed indications.

keesje · Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:02 pm

Noshow wrote:
With daylight and visual meteorological conditions any pilot could fly with just a thrust setting and attitude. This is why I think that some complete loss of control must be related to something else and to more than just unrealiable speed indications.

Agree, unrealiable (no) speed indication is bad but in itself doesn't lead to a crash.

Noshow · Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:03 pm

The crew before had completed their flight with the unreliable speed indication without a problem and just a log entry.

Revelation · Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:12 pm

Jouhou wrote:
Question, aren't the black boxes supposed to ping in the water for a couple of days? How have they not been found yet? The aircraft is so new I doubt the batteries were dead.

1) Scroll to the top of this page
2) Find 'Search this thread' box.
3) Type in 'ping'
4) Find viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1407217&p=20819535&hilit=ping#p20819535

cledaybuck · Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:12 pm

scbriml wrote:
iamtom wrote:
Just a note to add in Lion Air's defence regarding runway excursions. It's worth remembering that Indonesia is a tropical country with pretty extreme weather events. Most of these excursions happen in bad weather on shorter runways. The weather can change in those parts very fast and provide exceptionally challenging flying conditions.

This^

Runway excursions in Indonesia are not reserved just for Lion, either.

I spent a few days at CGK a few years ago (and even survived three Lion flights!). I was surprised to see flights operating 'normally' in a tremendous thunderstorm one afternoon. If that storm had hit Heathrow, the airport would have been closed.

I don't think you are helping Lion's case here.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net