salttee wrote:

I suggest that everyone who is looking for the actual cause of this accident remain a bit leery of information and guidance coming from publicity agents. There was another thread at this site where a PR guy dominated the conversation and consistently led the conversation to a dead end. I don't know if Lion Air or the Indonesian Government would choose to stonewall this investigation, but it would be wise for people reading this thread to keep their eyes open, so to speak.

Who might this "publicity agent" or "PR guy" be? I'd definitely like to have a lookout to make sure I don't fall to his/her "PR games", so to speak.

mandala499 wrote:

Finn350 wrote:

It looks suspicious that there are three different versions of the same document. If the document is real at all, it looks like that the "corrective actions" has been filled in after the crash (as why would anyone photograph the document before the crash, as it was not newsworthy then).

I questioned this to a former LionAir captain. His explanation was quite interesting.
The unfilled version usually be taken by either one of the pilots prior to handing the matter off to engineering. They routinely take this as evidence or "bragging rights to complain" with pilot chat groups (a habit that exists here). This is a remnant of the "bad old days" when significant distrust between pilots and engineers occured...
It looks like a photo of the page being flattened by a software to look like a scan and convert it to PDF, something that is relatively popular here.

Yes, but there is also this version of the log where the corrective action fields are empty. Who has photographed/scanned this version and did it happen before or after crash? Or more likely, is the document forged?

@mandala499
It is not my intention to steal this thread. My post #703 can stand on its own.

Finn350 wrote:

Yes, but there is also this version of the log where the corrective action fields are empty. Who has photographed/scanned this version and did it happen before or after crash? Or more likely, is the document forged?

Is there another version other than the 3 posted in the Air Current article? ( https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safe ... ial-media/ )
If not, then the 1st and 2nd would be identical except for the blue circles (unless I missed something else), and the 3rd was after the corrective action was done. As I said, according to the former Lion Air pilot I talked to, the photo with the unfilled corrective action is usually taken by one of the pilots to make sure he has evidence of his malfunction/discrepancies report. That's his version of what happened. The airline would definitely claim it was done correctly... whether the one with the filled corrective action was fake or not, there's no way of telling...

mandala499 wrote:

Finn350 wrote:

Yes, but there is also this version of the log where the corrective action fields are empty. Who has photographed/scanned this version and did it happen before or after crash? Or more likely, is the document forged?

Is there another version other than the 3 posted in the Air Current article? ( https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safe ... ial-media/ )
If not, then the 1st and 2nd would be identical except for the blue circles (unless I missed something else), and the 3rd was after the corrective action was done. As I said, according to the former Lion Air pilot I talked to, the photo with the unfilled corrective action is usually taken by one of the pilots to make sure he has evidence of his malfunction/discrepancies report. That's his version of what happened. The airline would definitely claim it was done correctly... whether the one with the filled corrective action was fake or not, there's no way of telling...

The picture I posted is basically the same as in the Air Current article, except the blue annotation has been added into a different place. All the handwriting in the completed log with the corrective actions is clearly by the same person.

While the circumstances are very sad, it is nice to read you again, Mandala499, many of us here really miss your generosity and deep knowledge regarding aviation. And don’t worry about the bad intentions of some journalists who are desperate for a tap on the shoulder from management, just be more careful next time, there are bad apples in journalism too.
Also Very sad to know a diver is the last victim of this tragedy.

There is something that’s intriguing for me, happened in the Aeroperu 603 case, and *maybe* in this Lion Air crash: the failure of the sensors and devices ( static ports and pitot tubes ) delivering speed and altitude information only occurs after the aircraft is airborne and not at an earlier stage of the take off roll, when there is a potential chance to reject the take off and solve the problem on the ground.
My guess is the higher density of the air on the ground could explain why the sensors appear to work fine and just a couple of minutes later are giving faulty readings to the cockpit...but I usually suck in the guessing game...Any insight will be appreciated.

Rgds.
G.

spacecadet wrote:

I still find it strange that the crew in this accident seemed to be hand flying and maintaining 5,000 feet reasonably well, then suddenly plummeted into the ocean. For one thing, that suggests that their altimeter *wasn't* giving them faulty data (suggesting the pitot tube but not the static port was blocked), and/or that they were maintaining altitude visually - but that's pretty hard to do. (Contrast that with the Aeroperu accident, which was all over the place.) I just don't know what could be responsible for that last turn into the ocean. 5,000 feet is also not too low to recover from most upsets - unless it was a high G rollover and they couldn't reach the flight controls.

1. Very unusual end result here. Even with all the problems with flight control, they were able to maintain reasonably level flight for some time, but then abruptly plunge into the ocean during daylight VFR conditions? Reminds me of the Alaska airlines flight with stuck jackscrew off California coast, but that was due to extreme mechanical failure with total loss of control. No evidence here (yet) of any such extreme failure.

2. The prior flight had developed serious instrumental indication abnormalities and/or difficulty in control. Simple ground check apparently uncovered nothing amiss, but the potential seriousness of *any* undiagnosed flight control failures should have meant immediate grounding of the aircraft, with further detailed ground and flight testing to resolve the problem *fully* before just return to service! Big Mistake!

Finn350 wrote:

The picture I posted is basically the same as in the Air Current article, except the blue annotation has been added into a different place. All the handwriting in the completed log with the corrective actions is clearly by the same person.

Do you mean the same handwriting is in all three 'corrective action' boxes, or the handwriting in the 'corrective action' boxes is the same as the handwriting in the 'discrepancies/malfunction' boxes?

seahawk wrote:

Erebus wrote:

estorilm wrote:

SO many crashes and incidents lately are in some way related to unreliable airspeed, pitot static failures, etc..

There is some on-going research in the use of optical methods to measure air data (TAS, AoA etc...) as an alternative to pitot tubes, AoA probes. Here's a research report if you are interested in knowing more. Airbus and Thales are among the many participants in that project. Hopefully someday, it will result in safer and more reliable systems for this purpose.

https://reports.nlr.nl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10921/470/TP-2012-068.pdf?sequence=1

The better question is why the pilots can simply call up the GPS measured speed. It should be fine to keep the plane in the air in most circumstances and help finding the faulty pitot.

GPS speed is uncorrected groundspeed. While certainly somewhat useful in a situation like this, it doesn't account for wind. Say you're aiming for 200 knots but you have a 50 knot tailwind. If you set speed to the GPS speed (groundspeed) of 200 knots your indicated airspeed will be 150 knots, and if you're in clean configuration you'll probably fall out of the sky.

This is why in unreliable airspeed situations you fly by reference to known pitch and power, not GPS speed.

packsonflight wrote:

From the FR24 data it looks like the suspected airspeed problem persisted all the flight, and it begs the question if the pilot passed the 80 kt speed threshold in the takeoff roll with both airspeed indicators with matching speed.

After the AF447 crash pilot training slowly started to change (much to late) from sole reliance on none normal checklist "unreliable airspeed", to pith and power flying. This checklist is complicated and it is 4 pages long, and it is no small defeat to go through it correctly shortly after takeoff with flaps down, takeoff thrust and stalled aircraft as the FR24 data indicates happened when the aircraft reached 6000 feet.
The question is if the pilots where trained to revert right away to pitch and power flying to keep the aircraft safe, and then go to the unreliable airspeed checklist, because in a situation like this the workload is so high, and so many factors that needs your full attention on top of the startling effect that there is really no time to read through the checklist.
There is really one way to deal with situation like this, and that is pitch and power flying, the question is if the pilots where trained to trust this method.

Taking the current A330 unreliable airspeed checklist you mention as an example, the list of items to be performed from memory is very short. You can do it in 15 seconds. This "from memory" part of the checklist involves disengaging autoflight, setting pitch and power, setting configuration.

The checklist then continues on for a few more pages, but all that stuff is done only after the flight path is stabilised, and is not done from memory. Moreover, much of the checklist is made up of tables to determine exact thrust settings, making it seem longer than it actually is.

Starlionblue wrote:

GPS speed is uncorrected groundspeed. While certainly somewhat useful in a situation like this, it doesn't account for wind. Say you're aiming for 200 knots but you have a 50 knot tailwind. If you set speed to the GPS speed (groundspeed) of 200 knots your indicated airspeed will be 150 knots, and if you're in clean configuration you'll probably fall out of the sky.

This is why in unreliable airspeed situations you fly by reference to known pitch and power, not GPS speed.

How wide is a typical safe speed window for an aircraft?
Apparently up there you have a "coffin corner", and winds can be stronger for GPS to be useless. (I was impressed with ~120 knots wind shown on IFE monitor on my latest flight)
But what is a safe window for FL50-100-150? Of course, extra 20 knots can be an issue on approach - but for level flight, while stabilizing the situation in an emergency, when FAA max 250 below 10k goes out of the window?
This is purely tech question; actually thrust and pitch seem a better option from my (pretty uneducated) perspective.

kalvado wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

GPS speed is uncorrected groundspeed. While certainly somewhat useful in a situation like this, it doesn't account for wind. Say you're aiming for 200 knots but you have a 50 knot tailwind. If you set speed to the GPS speed (groundspeed) of 200 knots your indicated airspeed will be 150 knots, and if you're in clean configuration you'll probably fall out of the sky.

This is why in unreliable airspeed situations you fly by reference to known pitch and power, not GPS speed.

How wide is a typical safe speed window for an aircraft?
Apparently up there you have a "coffin corner", and winds can be stronger for GPS to be useless. (I was impressed with ~120 knots wind shown on IFE monitor on my latest flight)
But what is a safe window for FL50-100-150? Of course, extra 20 knots can be an issue on approach - but for level flight, while stabilizing the situation in an emergency, when FAA max 250 below 10k goes out of the window?
This is purely tech question; actually thrust and pitch seem a better option from my (pretty uneducated) perspective.

At lower altitudes below 10000ft, there's lots of margin. You can probably fly clean between 190 and 330 knots.However if your actual IAS is unknown, you won't know what pitch to set. That is, if you're at 200 or 300 knots you need two different pitch settings unless you want to find yourself in a descent or climb, perhaps a rather steep one.

Thus, "pitch and power give performance".

The public backlash continues and kneejerk reaction has turned into a circus...
All 737Max are checked... ramp-checked by the government.... in the name of safety... by bringing all these people onto an active apron...



That ladies and gents, is "safety show"... often forced upon the industry on top of real safety!

I heard we had media following DGCA inspectors on the ramp the other day as they want to "show off" 'this is how a ramp check is done'.... It annoys a lot of people...

Yes, there's a lot of show business in Indonesia and Malaysia.
Don't we know it.

mandala499 wrote:

The public backlash continues and kneejerk reaction has turned into a circus...
All 737Max are checked... ramp-checked by the government.... in the name of safety... by bringing all these people onto an active apron...



That ladies and gents, is "safety show"... often forced upon the industry on top of real safety!

I heard we had media following DGCA inspectors on the ramp the other day as they want to "show off" 'this is how a ramp check is done'.... It annoys a lot of people...

Thousads Standing Around, Malasian version

CBRboy wrote:

Finn350 wrote:

The picture I posted is basically the same as in the Air Current article, except the blue annotation has been added into a different place. All the handwriting in the completed log with the corrective actions is clearly by the same person.

Do you mean the same handwriting is in all three 'corrective action' boxes, or the handwriting in the 'corrective action' boxes is the same as the handwriting in the 'discrepancies/malfunction' boxes?

In my opinion, the handwriting looks very similar on the whole form.

Starlionblue wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Erebus wrote:

There is some on-going research in the use of optical methods to measure air data (TAS, AoA etc...) as an alternative to pitot tubes, AoA probes. Here's a research report if you are interested in knowing more. Airbus and Thales are among the many participants in that project. Hopefully someday, it will result in safer and more reliable systems for this purpose.

https://reports.nlr.nl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10921/470/TP-2012-068.pdf?sequence=1

The better question is why the pilots can simply call up the GPS measured speed. It should be fine to keep the plane in the air in most circumstances and help finding the faulty pitot.

GPS speed is uncorrected groundspeed. While certainly somewhat useful in a situation like this, it doesn't account for wind. Say you're aiming for 200 knots but you have a 50 knot tailwind. If you set speed to the GPS speed (groundspeed) of 200 knots your indicated airspeed will be 150 knots, and if you're in clean configuration you'll probably fall out of the sky.

This is why in unreliable airspeed situations you fly by reference to known pitch and power, not GPS speed..

It is not meant to fly based on GPS, but to use it for trouble shooting. GPS gives you uncorrected ground speed, height and rate of climb or descent. Below 10.000 feet it is enough to avoid a crash in many situations. Now if the computer would use the METAR data to calculate a most likely airspeed, you should be doing okay even more often below 10.000 feet and near an airport - at least in normal weather conditions. You could then use the GPS height data (rate of climb) and the power setting to calculate a save pitch setting and display it on the flight instruments, as the AoA indicators should still work.

Finn350 wrote:

In my opinion, the handwriting looks very similar on the whole form.

Handwriting can be similar because guys went to the same school and were taught using same methods. Sometimes that becomes very obvious, e.g. if you see handwriting from a very different country.
I think I can see 3 different people writing in this sheet. Last paragraph in a second coloumn, "performed forward cargo...", for example, has N with a straight to somewhat rightish curvature of right streak, others tend to bend it inward..

kalvado wrote:

Finn350 wrote:

In my opinion, the handwriting looks very similar on the whole form.

Handwriting can be similar because guys went to the same school and were taught using same methods. Sometimes that becomes very obvious, e.g. if you see handwriting from a very different country.
I think I can see 3 different people writing in this sheet. Last paragraph in a second coloumn, "performed forward cargo...", for example, has N with a straight to somewhat rightish curvature of right streak, others tend to bend it inward..

Yes, you might be right regarding the handwriting.

Starlionblue wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Erebus wrote:

Taking the current A330 unreliable airspeed checklist you mention as an example, the list of items to be performed from memory is very short. You can do it in 15 seconds. This "from memory" part of the checklist involves disengaging autoflight, setting pitch and power, setting configuration.

The checklist then continues on for a few more pages, but all that stuff is done only after the flight path is stabilised, and is not done from memory. Moreover, much of the checklist is made up of tables to determine exact thrust settings, making it seem longer than it actually is.

i did not mention the 330 checklist, I never saw it, but the Boeing checklist is 4 pages with no tables and pitch and power memory items in the front. I am saying that only after AF447 the philosophy changed in the industry and the pitch and power memory ithem is added to the checklist. In my opinion sole reliance on pitch and power is the only way to keep aircraft like Lionair safe, but you have to apply this method right away.

Regarding the thech log pages circling the internet. I never saw a tech log page with out printed number sequence for each page

packsonflight wrote:

Regarding the thech log pages circling the internet. I never saw a tech log page with out printed number sequence for each page

Here is the picture of the full tech log page before the 3rd malfunction and corrective actions have been filled. Pink copy is supposed to be for the "Tech records" according to the legend at the bottom of the page.

Hello to everybody from Milan. This is my first post, even if I've been following your remarkable web site and blog for several years as a simple reader.
I'm a journalist, basically writing and filming (for dailies and RAI public broadcasting service) about XX century history and social related matters. I've been flying as private pilot from the late seventies to late nineties.
I have, as most of you, very poor opinions of how the media are generally treating aviation news.
So this is just to introduce myself. Hope to have fun with you and have the chance to learn new things from the very experienced people who write in the forum.

So, coming to the matter, I have a few points:

1) is anybody aware of any declaration/remark made by the pilot of the sunday (Bali-Jakarta) flight? I'm astonished that they've been talking about that crucial flight for a week without making public anything from the crew.

2) reading last hours report: SAR and Indonesian officials are proudly announcing that they are "extending" the search on the seabed for " another three days". Were they ever thing rally to behave differently???

3) They also announced they're currently unable to get any data from the recovered FDR.

4) They have "lost" the ping signal from the CVR.

Are we talking about an investigation or a joke? Thanks for your comments.

Gonzalo wrote:

While the circumstances are very sad, it is nice to read you again, Mandala499, many of us here really miss your generosity and deep knowledge regarding aviation.

Agreed.

Mandala499, it's good to read your insights again (sad circumstances though). It's also good to see some of your commentary / interviews regarding this tragic event being aired on the TV news here in Australia (ABC).

777Jet

Opinion:
It is not clear whether Indonesia mastered the science of safe flight or its ability to conduct an accident investigation, but they mastered the art of post-accident image management. They can look very busy for years without any results.

I ROFL whenever they put out FDR/CVRs in a clear acrylic display for media. Something you don't even see in movies.

giosue61 wrote:

1) is anybody aware of any declaration/remark made by the pilot of the sunday (Bali-Jakarta) flight? I'm astonished that they've been talking about that crucial flight for a week without making public anything from the crew.

Why do they need to be made public?

giosue61 wrote:

2) reading last hours report: SAR and Indonesian officials are proudly announcing that they are "extending" the search on the seabed for " another three days". Were they ever thing rally to behave differently???

I guess they did not know what to expect in the beginning. They have adjusted their plan.

giosue61 wrote:

3) They also announced they're currently unable to get any data from the recovered FDR.

I have read something different. Nothing official though.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-04/lion-air-crashed-plane-flight-recorder-69-hours-data-recovered/10464204

giosue61 wrote:

4) They have "lost" the ping signal from the CVR.

Known for some days already.

giosue61 wrote:

Are we talking about an investigation or a joke? Thanks for your comments.

To me it looks like an investigation, that keeps the so far gained knowledge where it belongs: Within the investigation people. Leaks to the public generate additional workload.
I prefer to get news regarding airplane accidents from official sources, not the media. As you realised before, media is treating aviation news poorly. Aviation Herald is the exception.

Well a minister said that spending money recovering pieces of the aircraft was a waste so that might be why they're now announcing they'll extend the search, to counterbalance the negative image that had projected.

giosue61 wrote:

1) is anybody aware of any declaration/remark made by the pilot of the sunday (Bali-Jakarta) flight? I'm astonished that they've been talking about that crucial flight for a week without making public anything from the crew.

That flight is now being put under the same investigation as the crashed flight. The investigators would be talking to the crew from that flight now, and that puts that crew under the accident investigation secrecy clause of the aviation law.

giosue61 wrote:

2) reading last hours report: SAR and Indonesian officials are proudly announcing that they are "extending" the search on the seabed for " another three days". Were they ever thing rally to behave differently???

This is standard for Indonesia. Initial search for 7 days, then extendable for whatever they decide. This of course is extendable depending on the accident investigators (NTSC) or the airline or government on behalf of the families/victims. Just one of those "silly Indonesian" way of doing announcements.

giosue61 wrote:

3) They also announced they're currently unable to get any data from the recovered FDR.

Are you sure?

giosue61 wrote:

4) They have "lost" the ping signal from the CVR.

My source within the diving team said they could still hear the ping from the SAR equipment at 2pm. The navy decided to send their ROV around that time and no updates on the ping since.

dtw2hyd wrote:

I ROFL whenever they put out FDR/CVRs in a clear acrylic display for media. Something you don't even see in movies.

Am not happy with the "oh let's take the data storage unit out of the salt water to display to the media despite it being in clear see through acrylic container" episode.... I mean... REALLYL?????
The NTSC isn't happy about that either...

That "post accident image management" is sickening... and a waste of money! But then, the public is to blame too... the public does not like real work... they like watching this show... and oh, yeah, the parliament too! #puke

Aesma wrote:

Well a minister said that spending money recovering pieces of the aircraft was a waste so that might be why they're now announcing they'll extend the search, to counterbalance the negative image that had projected.

I had a "stern discussion" with a member of parliament on friday at a radio station, he was criticizing the same thing... "SAR shouldn't be picking up pieces! They should be picking up bodies, this is a waste of government money! SAR divers need to work harder"
The guy doesn't realize that the airplane pieces may also have body parts...

And on the work harder, the next morning, one rescue diver died. The guy was also involved in the Air Asia crash recovery and was the guy who pulled up the most number of bodies.

At times like this... I really hate politicians meddling with stuff like this!

giosue61 wrote:

is anybody aware of any declaration/remark made by the pilot of the sunday (Bali-Jakarta) flight? I'm astonished that they've been talking about that crucial flight for a week without making public anything from the crew.

What I find even more frustrating is that the airport is sitting on its radar recordings of the flight (which they almost certainly have). Thus discussion goes on here and elsewhere hypothesizing what the speed of the aircraft was, whether or not it was hand flown, whether it was in the process of turning back when it began its descent and so on.That information exists and is readily available, yet it is not released.

It seems to be the opinion of quite a few people (as seen in michi's response to you) that the public has no need to know much of anything about well, anything, aircraft accidents included. So while there is a push for information by those of us who are interested in what happened to Lion Air flight 610, there are others who would prefer that we all just go back to rooting for our favorite soccer team or whatever, someday there will be a final report after all.

This holding back of information helps petty tyrants who would like to manipulate the facts of any event, it allows the manufacture alternate "truths". I don't see any reason to think that there is anything in particular being hidden in the case of Lion Air 610, but as always, especially in that part of the world, I assume that the authorities want to keep their options open.

Regarding the posts/photos #712 above of the “government crowd” ramp checking en masse that aircraft, just wondering if that same crowd was/will be standing over en masse the airline maintenance department regarding those maintenance logs post the inbound JT43 flight WADD to WIII where IMO a UAS event had occurred around 1425Z, and this same aircraft flew the WIII to WIPK accident flight the next day with (IMO) likely UAS issues, per the flight data available on FlightAware and Flightradar24 for both flights.

In those photos of the “crowd”, looks like a classic “reactive management” display, instead of what is desperately needed instead…”proactive management.”

That being said, IMO the Boeing team on the ground in Jakarta had better keep a close corporate oversight on all of this, and especially the (objective) results of the DFDR data, in assuring agreement between the accident investigation authorities and Boeing before any public communication of the results.

Hi all . I have just discovered this site subsequent to the Lion Air plane crash.
As a maintenance engineer with around 24 years of experience in the field (non aviation) , I expected a better level of discussion in a site dedicated to air travel.
I will give my observations based on this thread that i have read -
1. Rush to judgement - even before any details had emerged of the crash , their was a general blaming of the Lion airlines taking place. For some reason Boeing was given a clean chit from the first page , even though this was a brand new plane and was showing problems in the hands of 2 separate set of pilots.
2. Emphasise on pilot competence in a emergency rather than why a new plane reached that emergency stage.
3. Neglegible technical analysis. If pitot tubes are so critical in plane safety and operation , and have resulted in multiple accidents in the past , why no serious attempt has been made in the last few decades to prevent flight operation in case of blocked tubes ? Why rely on a pilot walk around inspection ?
4. Lot of extraneous discussions unrelated to the crash.

Just out of curiosity , do pilot or maintenace crew always check pitot tube everytime before plane take ofd?

gia777 wrote:

Just out of curiosity , do pilot or maintenace crew always check pitot tube everytime before plane take ofd?

Yes

salttee wrote:

What I find even more frustrating is that the airport is sitting on its radar recordings of the flight (which they almost certainly have). Thus discussion goes on here and elsewhere hypothesizing what the speed of the aircraft was, whether or not it was hand flown, whether it was in the process of turning back when it began its descent and so on.That information exists and is readily available, yet it is not released.

The radar data will not help answering those questions. The data is way to inaccurate with a low sample rate.

salttee wrote:

It seems to be the opinion of quite a few people (as seen in michi's response to you) that the public has no need to know much of anything about well, anything, aircraft accidents included. So while there is a push for information by those of us who are interested in what happened to Lion Air flight 610, there are others who would prefer that we all just go back to rooting for our favorite soccer team or whatever, someday there will be a final report after all.

As a pilot I am very curious to find out what happened. But there is not much someone can do from home until waiting for the official report. Early leaked details will drive the media crazy. Professionals will not use any details until the whole event is fully understood. Experience has shown, that there is a whole bunch of things that went south, which are discovered only by thorough analysis of all available data.

salttee wrote:

This holding back of information helps petty tyrants who would like to manipulate the facts of any event, it allows the manufacture alternate "truths". I don't see any reason to think that there is anything in particular being hidden in the case of Lion Air 610, but as always, especially in that part of the world, I assume that the authorities want to keep their options open.

Premature release of information helps the media in exaggerating little details into wrong storylines. One could call this also an alternate truth. Does not help at all.

As far as I remember AF447 did not fly directly into an thunderstorm. However media or the public still believe they did.

Michi you are right. Since there is an investigation in process. Should have written "is anybody aware of any unofficial remark/leaking" from the previous crew.

Coming to the news that they were "unable to download anything from FDR", it was in more than a website this morning. Probably (and happy to know that) FAKE NEWS.
Last reports are positive about many hours of datas now collected.

I have managed to complete the filtering of the data on the internet into a sensible flight path. I have made some screenshots of the flight path from different viewpoints to help visualise it.

The corkscrew motion I mentioned previously can been seen in the track from around the 500 second mark (relative to 2018-10-28 23:21:00Z). Vmo (red horizontal line is at 340 KTAS where Vmo is technically 340 KCAS) was almost reached in the turn after takeoff, TAS increased until it passed Vmo in the terminal dive.





This is the filtered data

time_2018-10-28 23:21:00Z,x_long_dd,y_lat_dd,z_m,z_ft,TRK_true,TAS_kts
5.14,106.63884,-6.14429,76.2,250,250,191
5.78,106.63832,-6.14448,76.2,250,249,193
7.858,106.6366,-6.14511,91.44,300,249,195
10.096,106.63441,-6.14594,106.68,350,249,196
10.366,106.6339,-6.14612,114.3,375,249,196
13.814,106.63088,-6.14718,137.16,450,250,202
16.7,106.62833,-6.14811,175.26,575,250,204
18.166,106.6279,-6.14827,182.88,600,250,204
19.81,106.62572,-6.14904,190.5,625,250,204
19.966,106.62534,-6.14918,190.5,625,250,204
22.858,106.62315,-6.14992,213.36,700,250,207
23.954,106.6227,-6.15011,220.98,725,250,207
25.062,106.62113,-6.15067,236.22,775,250,208
25.59,106.62023,-6.15099,243.84,800,250,209
26.66,106.61966,-6.15118,251.46,825,250,208
27.656,106.61829,-6.15165,266.7,875,250,211
28.88,106.61747,-6.15198,274.32,900,250,211
29.674,106.61691,-6.15216,274.32,900,250,211
30.152,106.61644,-6.15234,281.94,925,250,211
32.37,106.61421,-6.15312,297.18,975,250,213
34.388,106.61195,-6.15397,320.04,1050,250,213
35.168,106.61156,-6.15411,327.66,1075,250,215
36.946,106.60972,-6.15481,342.9,1125,249,216
38.03,106.60915,-6.15504,350.52,1150,249,216
38.596,106.60858,-6.15523,350.52,1150,249,216
39.542,106.60723,-6.15578,365.76,1200,249,218
40,106.60678,-6.15593,373.38,1225,249,218
41.8,106.6063,-6.1561,381,1250,249,218
44.044,106.60295,-6.15738,419.1,1375,248,219
45.082,106.60247,-6.1576,419.1,1375,248,219
46.102,106.60094,-6.15816,434.34,1425,248,220
47.222,106.59991,-6.15858,441.96,1450,248,220
49.65,106.59797,-6.15935,449.58,1475,248,222
49.744,106.5975,-6.15956,457.2,1500,248,222
50.214,106.59699,-6.15976,457.2,1500,248,222
51.99,106.59527,-6.16049,464.82,1525,247,223
52.6,106.5947,-6.16077,472.44,1550,247,224
53.074,106.5942,-6.161,472.44,1550,246,225
54.208,106.59376,-6.16124,472.44,1550,246,225
55.08,106.59281,-6.16175,487.68,1600,245,226
55.838,106.59158,-6.1624,487.68,1600,242,228
56.906,106.59068,-6.163,487.68,1600,242,228
59.63,106.58869,-6.16435,495.3,1625,237,231
60.221,106.58827,-6.16473,495.3,1625,237,232
60.75,106.58775,-6.1651,502.92,1650,235,232
61.184,106.58736,-6.16548,502.92,1650,235,232
63.256,106.58604,-6.16668,495.3,1625,231,235
64.852,106.58448,-6.16826,510.54,1675,227,237
65.174,106.58415,-6.16859,510.54,1675,226,240
65.316,106.58363,-6.1692,510.54,1675,225,239
67.37,106.58223,-6.17084,518.16,1700,222,241
67.87,106.58183,-6.17124,518.16,1700,221,242
69.852,106.58074,-6.17271,525.78,1725,219,243
70.174,106.58041,-6.1732,525.78,1725,218,245
70.976,106.5797,-6.17422,533.4,1750,216,246
72.924,106.57846,-6.1761,533.4,1750,214,249
73.974,106.57781,-6.1772,533.4,1750,212,249
75.148,106.57725,-6.17825,525.78,1725,213,250
75.994,106.577,-6.17879,525.78,1725,211,251
76.016,106.57674,-6.17931,525.78,1725,211,251
77.114,106.57618,-6.1805,525.78,1725,207,254
79.67,106.57506,-6.18335,525.78,1725,204,256
80.722,106.57483,-6.18388,533.4,1750,204,256
82.252,106.57401,-6.18642,563.88,1850,200,260
82.808,106.57381,-6.187,571.5,1875,199,261
83.87,106.57359,-6.18772,571.5,1875,199,261
85.158,106.57307,-6.18935,579.12,1900,198,262
85.844,106.57273,-6.19052,586.74,1925,198,262
86.86,106.57255,-6.19125,594.36,1950,197,263
88.186,106.57204,-6.19341,601.98,1975,194,265
88.618,106.57199,-6.19391,609.6,2000,194,265
89.67,106.57188,-6.19452,617.22,2025,192,265
89.682,106.57181,-6.19524,624.84,2050,194,265
91.104,106.57157,-6.19698,640.08,2100,188,266
92.114,106.57162,-6.19762,647.7,2125,188,266
92.388,106.5715,-6.1982,647.7,2125,187,266
94.412,106.57157,-6.20123,662.94,2175,183,267
96.052,106.57166,-6.20224,655.32,2150,181,268
97.808,106.57202,-6.20541,662.94,2175,176,271
98.248,106.57217,-6.20607,662.94,2175,174,272
100.178,106.57246,-6.20796,655.32,2150,171,276
100.762,106.57273,-6.20914,655.32,2150,170,278
101.776,106.57292,-6.20988,655.32,2150,170,278
103.712,106.57372,-6.213,640.08,2100,166,287
105.132,106.57413,-6.21446,632.46,2075,165,290
106.642,106.57487,-6.21684,594.36,1950,164,295
107.57,106.57534,-6.21821,571.5,1875,164,295
110.16,106.57655,-6.2216,525.78,1725,160,310
111.652,106.57685,-6.22231,518.16,1700,164,295
112.968,106.5779,-6.22497,495.3,1625,159,317
113.4,106.57841,-6.22623,487.68,1600,159,320
115.135,106.57932,-6.2285,449.58,1475,158,327
116.512,106.58028,-6.23062,441.96,1450,157,329
118.112,106.58135,-6.23288,449.58,1475,155,333
119.99,106.58178,-6.23372,449.58,1475,155,333
120.161,106.58254,-6.23507,457.2,1500,155,334
121.322,106.58382,-6.23721,472.44,1550,152,334
122.128,106.58419,-6.23791,480.06,1575,150,334
122.326,106.58466,-6.23854,487.68,1600,150,334
125.165,106.58675,-6.24163,495.3,1625,148,334
126.07,106.58717,-6.24225,510.54,1675,146,333
126.186,106.58798,-6.2434,518.16,1700,147,333
128.538,106.5895,-6.24517,525.78,1725,144,333
128.578,106.59049,-6.24633,541.02,1775,142,332
129.642,106.59087,-6.2468,548.64,1800,147,333
130.151,106.59154,-6.24747,556.26,1825,141,332
130.502,106.59248,-6.24843,579.12,1900,139,330
131.336,106.59299,-6.24902,586.74,1925,138,329
132.55,106.59352,-6.24954,594.36,1950,138,329
133.578,106.59584,-6.25169,624.84,2050,135,327
134.52,106.59627,-6.25211,632.46,2075,134,325
134.584,106.59693,-6.25266,647.7,2125,134,325
136.58,106.59927,-6.25452,678.18,2225,131,322
137.67,106.59997,-6.25507,670.56,2200,129,320
138.122,106.60048,-6.25534,685.8,2250,129,320
140.21,106.60342,-6.25723,739.14,2425,126,318
141.472,106.60406,-6.25754,746.76,2450,124,315
142.448,106.60664,-6.25886,784.86,2575,120,313
144.404,106.60796,-6.25946,792.48,2600,118,311
145.174,106.60929,-6.25997,807.72,2650,117,311
145.622,106.60993,-6.26024,815.34,2675,116,310
146.04,106.61062,-6.26044,830.58,2725,114,308
146.636,106.61226,-6.26097,853.44,2800,112,307
149.474,106.61607,-6.26193,891.54,2925,106,304
150.186,106.61658,-6.26211,899.16,2950,105,304
151.546,106.61876,-6.26258,929.64,3050,104,303
153.048,106.62013,-6.26286,937.26,3075,103,302
154.548,106.62293,-6.26351,975.36,3200,102,301
155.802,106.62413,-6.26376,1005.84,3300,102,299
158.362,106.62757,-6.26449,1051.56,3450,102,294
158.486,106.62809,-6.26463,1059.18,3475,102,294
160.189,106.62995,-6.265,1082.04,3550,102,292
161.374,106.6306,-6.26514,1097.28,3600,102,292
161.928,106.63188,-6.26542,1104.9,3625,101,291
162.156,106.63255,-6.26555,1104.9,3625,102,292
164.604,106.63567,-6.26616,1143,3750,101,287
165.161,106.63619,-6.2663,1143,3750,101,288
166.314,106.63841,-6.26672,1165.86,3825,101,286
168.218,106.63918,-6.26686,1173.48,3850,101,286
168.48,106.63986,-6.26697,1181.1,3875,101,287
169.568,106.64259,-6.26737,1219.2,4000,100,285
170.308,106.6431,-6.26747,1226.82,4025,99,284
171.13,106.644,-6.26761,1234.44,4050,99,284
171.58,106.64504,-6.2677,1249.68,4100,98,284
172.518,106.64632,-6.26784,1264.92,4150,97,282
174.124,106.64787,-6.26797,1287.78,4225,96,281
175.155,106.64918,-6.26807,1295.4,4250,96,281
176.114,106.65034,-6.26812,1303.02,4275,95,280
176.652,106.65177,-6.26817,1310.64,4300,93,280
177.678,106.65295,-6.26816,1325.88,4350,94,280
179.064,106.65414,-6.26817,1325.88,4350,92,279
179.218,106.65466,-6.26821,1325.88,4350,91,280
180.168,106.65608,-6.26817,1333.5,4375,91,280
184.212,106.66096,-6.26807,1363.98,4475,89,281
184.676,106.66223,-6.26803,1371.6,4500,88,282
186.24,106.66435,-6.26788,1379.22,4525,88,282
188.074,106.66607,-6.2677,1386.84,4550,86,282
188.508,106.66724,-6.26756,1402.08,4600,85,282
190.219,106.66905,-6.26733,1417.32,4650,83,283
190.896,106.67038,-6.2671,1417.32,4650,82,282
191.418,106.67101,-6.26692,1424.94,4675,83,282
196.474,106.67757,-6.26533,1447.8,4750,79,283
196.936,106.6781,-6.26519,1447.8,4750,78,284
197.894,106.67873,-6.265,1447.8,4750,75,286
200.422,106.68255,-6.2637,1470.66,4825,72,287
201.57,106.68409,-6.26317,1478.28,4850,71,287
202.54,106.6846,-6.26299,1478.28,4850,70,288
204.08,106.68655,-6.26216,1493.52,4900,70,288
204.172,106.68719,-6.26193,1501.14,4925,70,288
205.521,106.68795,-6.2616,1501.14,4925,69,289
205.714,106.68842,-6.26142,1508.76,4950,68,289
206.276,106.68932,-6.26104,1516.38,4975,68,289
206.586,106.69027,-6.26058,1524,5000,67,288
208.726,106.69293,-6.25923,1539.24,5050,64,288
210.185,106.6941,-6.25859,1546.86,5075,63,289
211.25,106.69572,-6.25768,1562.1,5125,63,288
212.71,106.69633,-6.25732,1569.72,5150,62,289
212.79,106.69761,-6.25657,1569.72,5150,60,288
214.11,106.69875,-6.25588,1584.96,5200,59,290
214.74,106.69987,-6.25516,1592.58,5225,59,290
216.386,106.70111,-6.25434,1607.82,5275,58,291
216.864,106.70215,-6.25369,1615.44,5300,58,290
217.778,106.70261,-6.25342,1615.44,5300,59,290
218.546,106.70383,-6.25259,1630.68,5350,57,289
218.77,106.70443,-6.2522,1630.68,5350,57,289
220.133,106.70533,-6.25164,1630.68,5350,57,289
221.068,106.70689,-6.25057,1645.92,5400,56,290
221.49,106.70746,-6.25015,1645.92,5400,56,290
221.992,106.70789,-6.24987,1645.92,5400,55,290
222.338,106.70831,-6.24954,1645.92,5400,55,290
224.482,106.71076,-6.24779,1653.54,5425,55,292
225.171,106.71134,-6.2474,1653.54,5425,55,293
226.932,106.71286,-6.24624,1653.54,5425,54,293
227.654,106.71432,-6.24522,1661.16,5450,53,294
230.217,106.71658,-6.24348,1661.16,5450,53,294
230.362,106.71722,-6.24298,1661.16,5450,53,293
230.87,106.7178,-6.24257,1668.78,5475,52,293
232.43,106.71949,-6.24126,1661.16,5450,52,293
233.49,106.72057,-6.24042,1661.16,5450,52,292
234.938,106.72209,-6.23926,1661.16,5450,52,292
236.46,106.72356,-6.23808,1653.54,5425,52,292
236.836,106.72422,-6.23758,1653.54,5425,52,292
237.504,106.72475,-6.23716,1645.92,5400,52,292
239.058,106.72649,-6.23581,1638.3,5375,52,292
239.632,106.7271,-6.23534,1630.68,5350,52,292
242.818,106.73069,-6.23254,1607.82,5275,51,294
245.094,106.73256,-6.23106,1577.34,5175,51,295
246.088,106.73362,-6.23021,1569.72,5150,51,297
247.936,106.73615,-6.22827,1546.86,5075,52,300
248.452,106.73683,-6.22774,1554.48,5100,52,300
248.906,106.73725,-6.22737,1546.86,5075,52,300
250.128,106.73837,-6.2265,1546.86,5075,52,301
251.854,106.74,-6.22517,1554.48,5100,51,301
252.308,106.74098,-6.22436,1554.48,5100,51,301
253.408,106.74203,-6.22348,1562.1,5125,50,301
253.836,106.74256,-6.22302,1562.1,5125,50,301
254.718,106.74364,-6.22208,1562.1,5125,49,300
257.374,106.74624,-6.21964,1569.72,5150,48,299
257.732,106.74666,-6.21927,1577.34,5175,47,299
258.344,106.74714,-6.21873,1584.96,5200,47,299
260.102,106.74861,-6.2173,1577.34,5175,46,298
260.824,106.74963,-6.21616,1584.96,5200,44,297
263.404,106.75094,-6.21474,1577.34,5175,43,297
263.684,106.7514,-6.21421,1577.34,5175,42,297
264.406,106.7524,-6.21309,1569.72,5150,42,298
264.988,106.75292,-6.21244,1562.1,5125,42,298
266.514,106.75429,-6.21085,1554.48,5100,40,297
268.166,106.75567,-6.20909,1546.86,5075,39,298
269.084,106.75699,-6.20746,1539.24,5050,38,300
270.086,106.75737,-6.20686,1531.62,5025,38,300
271.586,106.75898,-6.20472,1531.62,5025,37,300
272.612,106.75988,-6.20348,1531.62,5025,37,300
274.132,106.7602,-6.20306,1531.62,5025,36,300
275.203,106.76144,-6.20122,1531.62,5025,36,300
275.656,106.76192,-6.20053,1539.24,5050,35,299
276.084,106.7622,-6.20006,1539.24,5050,35,299
278.222,106.76414,-6.19689,1554.48,5100,32,297
278.694,106.76447,-6.19643,1554.48,5100,31,296
280.176,106.76514,-6.19522,1562.1,5125,32,297
280.226,106.76556,-6.1945,1569.72,5150,31,295
281.664,106.76642,-6.19298,1584.96,5200,30,294
284.76,106.76807,-6.18973,1592.58,5225,28,291
285.842,106.76839,-6.1891,1592.58,5225,27,291
286.804,106.76952,-6.18668,1584.96,5200,25,290
287.87,106.77007,-6.18544,1584.96,5200,25,290
289.838,106.77058,-6.18419,1577.34,5175,24,291
290.22,106.77106,-6.18307,1569.72,5150,23,291
290.754,106.77165,-6.18169,1554.48,5100,23,291
293.154,106.77286,-6.17865,1539.24,5050,22,291
294.78,106.77319,-6.1779,1539.24,5050,22,291
295.145,106.7737,-6.17651,1531.62,5025,22,292
295.904,106.77423,-6.17525,1539.24,5050,22,292
296.886,106.77449,-6.17464,1539.24,5050,22,292
297.438,106.77475,-6.17399,1546.86,5075,22,291
297.982,106.77527,-6.17278,1569.72,5150,22,291
299.012,106.77579,-6.17138,1569.72,5150,22,290
299.83,106.77608,-6.17079,1577.34,5175,22,289
300.798,106.77631,-6.17017,1584.96,5200,22,288
302.888,106.77729,-6.16782,1592.58,5225,22,287
302.948,106.77785,-6.16644,1592.58,5225,22,287
305.022,106.77878,-6.16412,1600.2,5250,22,289
306.492,106.7793,-6.16286,1600.2,5250,22,287
307.072,106.7798,-6.16164,1607.82,5275,22,287
307.898,106.78031,-6.1604,1607.82,5275,22,288
308.986,106.78082,-6.15912,1600.2,5250,22,288
310.168,106.78138,-6.15775,1592.58,5225,22,288
311.634,106.78194,-6.15639,1584.96,5200,22,289
312.232,106.78226,-6.15564,1584.96,5200,22,289
313.586,106.78315,-6.15335,1592.58,5225,21,291
314.042,106.78342,-6.15272,1592.58,5225,21,293
314.47,106.78361,-6.1522,1584.96,5200,21,293
315.106,106.78394,-6.15141,1592.58,5225,21,293
317.508,106.78517,-6.14815,1584.96,5200,21,296
318.116,106.78543,-6.14754,1577.34,5175,21,298
319.682,106.78576,-6.14662,1577.34,5175,21,298
320.066,106.7864,-6.1449,1577.34,5175,21,299
320.654,106.78668,-6.1441,1584.96,5200,20,300
323.172,106.78786,-6.14075,1577.34,5175,19,304
323.852,106.78806,-6.14019,1577.34,5175,19,304
324.05,106.78828,-6.13953,1569.72,5150,19,306
325.199,106.78869,-6.13829,1569.72,5150,19,307
326.288,106.7893,-6.13637,1569.72,5150,18,308
326.8,106.78953,-6.13568,1569.72,5150,17,309
328.926,106.79042,-6.13275,1569.72,5150,17,310
329.98,106.7908,-6.13135,1562.1,5125,21,298
331.292,106.79128,-6.12981,1562.1,5125,16,313
332.406,106.79185,-6.12781,1562.1,5125,16,315
333.504,106.79213,-6.12697,1562.1,5125,16,316
334.574,106.79251,-6.12553,1562.1,5125,16,315
335.166,106.79274,-6.12483,1554.48,5100,16,316
335.842,106.79331,-6.12288,1546.86,5075,16,316
336.858,106.79367,-6.12158,1546.86,5075,16,316
338.752,106.79421,-6.11957,1539.24,5050,16,317
338.96,106.79445,-6.11873,1539.24,5050,16,317
340.127,106.79469,-6.11771,1539.24,5050,16,318
341.554,106.79535,-6.11482,1524,5000,14,318
342.018,106.79549,-6.11407,1524,5000,13,319
343.226,106.79578,-6.11249,1531.62,5025,13,319
344.254,106.796,-6.11069,1531.62,5025,10,319
344.836,106.7961,-6.10998,1531.62,5025,9,319
347.996,106.7967,-6.10524,1546.86,5075,7,318
349.666,106.79691,-6.10365,1546.86,5075,7,318
350.131,106.79707,-6.10291,1554.48,5100,8,319
350.668,106.79735,-6.1013,1554.48,5100,8,319
351.136,106.79745,-6.10071,1546.86,5075,9,318
353.924,106.79847,-6.09668,1508.76,4950,12,319
355.176,106.79871,-6.09583,1516.38,4975,13,320
356.258,106.79945,-6.09343,1531.62,5025,15,320
357.718,106.79975,-6.09271,1531.62,5025,15,320
359.618,106.80136,-6.08857,1562.1,5125,19,319
360.038,106.80155,-6.08806,1554.48,5100,20,318
362.414,106.80303,-6.08496,1569.72,5150,23,317
362.984,106.80335,-6.08428,1569.72,5150,24,317
365.176,106.80447,-6.08221,1577.34,5175,26,318
366.356,106.80558,-6.08033,1569.72,5150,26,317
368.56,106.80762,-6.07721,1546.86,5075,30,317
369.03,106.80801,-6.07658,1546.86,5075,32,317
370.161,106.80857,-6.0759,1554.48,5100,32,317
372.64,106.81081,-6.07297,1569.72,5150,36,318
374.104,106.81211,-6.07137,1577.34,5175,37,317
374.664,106.8132,-6.07004,1584.96,5200,38,316
378.108,106.81635,-6.06619,1638.3,5375,39,313
379.772,106.81779,-6.06441,1623.06,5325,39,314
380.682,106.81837,-6.06376,1623.06,5325,39,311
381.96,106.81874,-6.06329,1630.68,5350,39,311
382.248,106.81926,-6.06264,1623.06,5325,39,311
383.64,106.82097,-6.06068,1615.44,5300,39,311
384.142,106.82201,-6.05952,1607.82,5275,40,309
385.166,106.82244,-6.0591,1615.44,5300,41,310
387.092,106.82485,-6.05645,1638.3,5375,42,309
388.028,106.82574,-6.05553,1638.3,5375,42,309
389.518,106.82722,-6.05403,1645.92,5400,43,307
390.532,106.82771,-6.05351,1638.3,5375,43,306
392.724,106.83041,-6.05077,1638.3,5375,44,305
394.206,106.83189,-6.04926,1645.92,5400,44,305
395.666,106.83342,-6.04774,1623.06,5325,44,305
396.788,106.83389,-6.04724,1623.06,5325,44,305
398.082,106.83543,-6.04573,1592.58,5225,43,307
399.23,106.83707,-6.04411,1569.72,5150,45,306
400.235,106.83749,-6.04374,1569.72,5150,46,308
402.74,106.84013,-6.04111,1584.96,5200,45,309
405.118,106.8426,-6.03868,1577.34,5175,45,309
405.174,106.84302,-6.03827,1577.34,5175,45,309
408.266,106.84618,-6.03516,1577.34,5175,45,307
408.724,106.84668,-6.03466,1577.34,5175,45,309
410.282,106.84782,-6.03359,1577.34,5175,45,308
411.034,106.8487,-6.03268,1577.34,5175,45,307
411.19,106.84924,-6.03215,1569.72,5150,45,306
413.96,106.84962,-6.03177,1569.72,5150,45,306
414.656,106.85217,-6.02926,1562.1,5125,45,307
415.098,106.85307,-6.02834,1569.72,5150,45,307
417.246,106.8553,-6.02614,1562.1,5125,45,307
420.14,106.85824,-6.02325,1569.72,5150,45,306
423.3,106.86145,-6.02005,1569.72,5150,45,304
425.164,106.86274,-6.01874,1569.72,5150,45,305
426.612,106.86425,-6.01725,1577.34,5175,45,304
428.694,106.86657,-6.01497,1577.34,5175,45,304
428.978,106.86714,-6.01436,1577.34,5175,45,304
430.149,106.86806,-6.01346,1569.72,5150,45,304
431.75,106.86856,-6.01297,1562.1,5125,45,304
431.906,106.87007,-6.01148,1539.24,5050,45,304
435.179,106.87295,-6.0087,1508.76,4950,46,306
435.692,106.87344,-6.00817,1516.38,4975,45,306
438.164,106.87649,-6.00522,1531.62,5025,45,306
440.026,106.87788,-6.00385,1546.86,5075,45,305
440.516,106.87884,-6.00296,1539.24,5050,45,304
442.102,106.87933,-6.00247,1531.62,5025,46,304
443.886,106.88177,-6.00016,1546.86,5075,45,304
444.312,106.88277,-5.99922,1554.48,5100,46,302
445.383,106.88329,-5.99872,1554.48,5100,47,301
447.104,106.88543,-5.99675,1554.48,5100,46,299
449.762,106.88818,-5.99423,1592.58,5225,47,298
450.302,106.88878,-5.99369,1607.82,5275,47,296
451.562,106.88935,-5.99313,1615.44,5300,47,295
453.168,106.89157,-5.99113,1630.68,5350,47,293
453.608,106.89218,-5.99057,1638.3,5375,47,293
456.234,106.89479,-5.98825,1630.68,5350,48,290
457.688,106.89616,-5.98699,1615.44,5300,47,292
459.234,106.89781,-5.98553,1630.68,5350,47,289
461.886,106.89967,-5.98382,1615.44,5300,47,289
462.244,106.90067,-5.98289,1607.82,5275,47,290
465.193,106.90326,-5.98055,1623.06,5325,47,289
465.338,106.90375,-5.98005,1623.06,5325,47,289
467.052,106.9053,-5.97858,1615.44,5300,46,288
468.532,106.90635,-5.97759,1623.06,5325,46,288
470.116,106.90801,-5.976,1630.68,5350,46,288
471.158,106.90954,-5.9745,1623.06,5325,46,288
473.184,106.91071,-5.97336,1607.82,5275,45,287
474.174,106.91224,-5.97189,1600.2,5250,45,288
475.601,106.91279,-5.9713,1600.2,5250,46,289
477.056,106.91499,-5.96915,1600.2,5250,45,289
480.028,106.91788,-5.96631,1592.58,5225,45,289
482.294,106.92011,-5.96411,1584.96,5200,45,289
483.126,106.92056,-5.96367,1569.72,5150,45,289
484.236,106.92094,-5.96329,1546.86,5075,45,289
485.207,106.92231,-5.96195,1623.06,5325,45,290
486.574,106.92373,-5.9605,1584.96,5200,45,291
489.838,106.92657,-5.95776,1562.1,5125,45,293
490.163,106.92714,-5.95715,1546.86,5075,45,293
492.374,106.92965,-5.95482,1516.38,4975,46,296
494.88,106.93263,-5.95226,1501.14,4925,47,298
495.836,106.93305,-5.95189,1508.76,4950,48,298
498.546,106.93603,-5.9496,1478.28,4850,51,300
500.161,106.93779,-5.9484,1455.42,4775,53,300
500.49,106.93896,-5.94768,1463.04,4800,54,300
502.08,106.93966,-5.94717,1455.42,4775,55,301
504.288,106.94236,-5.94566,1463.04,4800,58,302
504.864,106.94371,-5.94493,1447.8,4750,59,303
507.114,106.94692,-5.94319,1402.08,4600,60,304
510.161,106.95025,-5.94146,1348.74,4425,62,306
510.19,106.951,-5.94104,1341.12,4400,62,308
511.584,106.95279,-5.94008,1341.12,4400,62,309
513.686,106.9547,-5.93909,1348.74,4425,62,310
515.161,106.95659,-5.93806,1371.6,4500,62,310
516.204,106.95847,-5.9371,1379.22,4525,62,308
516.76,106.95926,-5.93669,1379.22,4525,62,308
519.638,106.96227,-5.93508,1386.84,4550,62,307
522.028,106.96597,-5.93318,1386.84,4550,62,308
525.159,106.96927,-5.93138,1386.84,4550,62,310
526.066,106.96978,-5.93111,1386.84,4550,61,310
528.596,106.97374,-5.92896,1409.7,4625,61,311
530.159,106.97499,-5.92822,1417.32,4650,61,312
531.052,106.97738,-5.92689,1440.18,4725,61,312
533.336,106.97993,-5.92552,1455.42,4775,61,312
534.074,106.98128,-5.92474,1470.66,4825,60,311
537.914,106.98543,-5.92219,1516.38,4975,59,309
540.175,106.98832,-5.92033,1539.24,5050,58,308
540.312,106.98894,-5.91991,1539.24,5050,57,307
544.11,106.9925,-5.91751,1562.1,5125,55,308
546.652,106.9957,-5.91525,1546.86,5075,55,310
548.502,106.99855,-5.91325,1554.48,5100,55,311
551.99,107.00274,-5.91028,1554.48,5100,54,314
553.866,107.00451,-5.909,1546.86,5075,54,315
555.141,107.00521,-5.90849,1554.48,5100,55,315
555.846,107.00665,-5.90744,1577.34,5175,54,316
558.552,107.01048,-5.90469,1577.34,5175,54,317
560.22,107.01177,-5.90369,1584.96,5200,54,318
561.61,107.01382,-5.90222,1600.2,5250,53,318
564.218,107.01716,-5.89975,1615.44,5300,53,318
565.149,107.01787,-5.89919,1607.82,5275,53,319
567.16,107.0209,-5.897,1577.34,5175,53,322
568.21,107.02213,-5.89612,1562.1,5125,53,322
570.428,107.02457,-5.89449,1508.76,4950,54,327
573.516,107.02899,-5.89165,1524,5000,56,332
576.014,107.03193,-5.88991,1531.62,5025,57,333
579.424,107.03719,-5.88702,1592.58,5225,60,333
582.566,107.0407,-5.88518,1623.06,5325,62,328
584.544,107.04427,-5.8835,1645.92,5400,63,326
585.718,107.04548,-5.88295,1623.06,5325,63,326
586.734,107.04699,-5.88225,1630.68,5350,64,325
588.112,107.04906,-5.88139,1623.06,5325,65,324
591.436,107.0532,-5.87964,1638.3,5375,66,323
594.186,107.05746,-5.87783,1661.16,5450,67,321
597.514,107.06196,-5.87587,1668.78,5475,66,319
600.066,107.06549,-5.87439,1668.78,5475,66,318
603.222,107.06982,-5.87247,1668.78,5475,66,318
605.896,107.07304,-5.87098,1661.16,5450,66,318
606.858,107.07427,-5.87042,1645.92,5400,65,318
609.662,107.07664,-5.86921,1638.3,5375,64,319
609.83,107.07787,-5.86858,1600.2,5250,63,320
612.516,107.08141,-5.86665,1569.72,5150,61,323
612.744,107.08208,-5.86623,1562.1,5125,61,323
615.41,107.08578,-5.86386,1531.62,5025,59,326
618.448,107.08952,-5.86121,1539.24,5050,55,327
624.114,107.09567,-5.85595,1493.52,4900,53,328
624.232,107.09621,-5.85535,1485.9,4875,48,329
628.486,107.09975,-5.85168,1455.42,4775,45,332
631.264,107.10246,-5.84848,1478.28,4850,41,332
633.208,107.10533,-5.84477,1478.28,4850,38,334
634.462,107.1058,-5.84418,1478.28,4850,53,328
636.614,107.10828,-5.84074,1455.42,4775,36,336
639.954,107.11111,-5.83676,1394.46,4575,35,345
640.136,107.11149,-5.83626,1409.7,4625,35,345
642.258,107.11376,-5.83309,1188.72,3900,35,352
645.159,107.11618,-5.8296,1112.52,3650,35,353
645.232,107.1167,-5.82884,1127.76,3700,34,370
648.18,107.1181,-5.82683,1021.08,3350,34,381
648.3,107.11921,-5.82522,975.36,3200,34,390
648.396,107.11982,-5.82431,944.88,3100,34,399
651.024,107.12238,-5.82061,762,2500,34,417
654.392,107.12541,-5.8161,441.96,1450,34,464
656.03,107.12698,-5.81346,129.54,425,33,472

michi wrote:

The radar data will not help answering those questions. The data is way to inaccurate with a low sample rate.

The radar data most certainly will provide accurate ground speeds The radar data will also be very likely to show if there was an attempt to turn before the descent. Over seven minutes of time the radar data will give very good indication whether the plane was on a stable flight path or not, whether there were excursions of speed, altitude or azimuth from the antenna. An analysis of the radar data will answer the question of whether the AC was being hand flown or not with certainty. It will shore up Zeke's data or show errors in that data.

michi wrote:

As a pilot I am very curious to find out what happened. But there is not much someone can do from home until waiting for the official report.

If we accepted what you're telling us here in the past, we would still be looking for MH-370 in the South China Sea.

michi wrote:

Premature release of information helps the media in exaggerating little details into wrong storylines. One could call this also an alternate truth. Does not help at all.
As far as I remember AF447 did not fly directly into an thunderstorm. However media or the public still believe they did.

Release of information is much much more likely to keep the "authorities" (and their lackeys) honest.

How is it of any concern what "the public" believes about the weather over the Atlantic on 1 June 2009? How do you even know what "the public" thinks the weather was like over the Atlantic on 1 June 2009?

You apparently represent the faction of pilots who want to keep a shroud of secrecy over activities on the flight deck, the same as the faction of Chicago policemen who want to keep a shroud of secrecy around the activities of the CPD, the same as an insurance executive who wants to keep secret their process for setting rates and so on and so on. There is nothing unique in your POV.

giosue61 wrote:

Michi you are right. Since there is an investigation in process.

I remember a time not so long ago when we were told about Hishammuddin bin Hussein's investigation into the disappearance of MH-370. That investigation must still be going on as the radar tapes from that incident still haven't been released

So much for "investigation in process". I prefer the light of day.

salttee wrote:

michi wrote:

The radar data will not help answering those questions. The data is way to inaccurate with a low sample rate.

The radar data most certainly will provide accurate ground speeds The radar data will also be very likely to show if there was an attempt to turn before the descent. Over seven minutes of time the radar data will give very good indication whether the plane was on a stable flight path or not, whether there were excursions of speed, altitude or azimuth from the antenna. An analysis of the radar data will answer the question of whether the AC was being hand flown or not with certainty. It will shore up Zeke's data or show errors in that data.

Ok, what's next after knowing the flight path? This will not tell the whole story.

michi wrote:

As a pilot I am very curious to find out what happened. But there is not much someone can do from home until waiting for the official report.

salttee wrote:

If we accepted what you're telling us here in the past, we would still be looking for MH-370 in the South China Sea.

I don't get your point? Did the airliners.net community convince the investigators to not look in the south china sea but somewhere else?

michi wrote:

Premature release of information helps the media in exaggerating little details into wrong storylines. One could call this also an alternate truth. Does not help at all.
As far as I remember AF447 did not fly directly into an thunderstorm. However media or the public still believe they did.

salttee wrote:

Release of information is much much more likely to keep the "authorities" (and their lackeys) honest.
How is it of any concern what "the public" believes about the weather over the Atlantic on 1 June 2009? How do you even know what "the public" thinks the weather was like over the Atlantic on 1 June 2009?

There are so many people looking over the data after a crash. Not only the authorities, but a whole lot of different companies. It would be very difficult to manipulate data in order to change the outcome of an investigation.
Regarding AF447: I have read the report. Nevertheless when I chat with people about aviation, a lot of them think, that AF447 flew directly into a thunderstorm. Of course, this is not the public. But still, there are people out there believing this untrue part of the story which was made up by some media or whomever.

salttee wrote:

You apparently represent the faction of pilots who want to keep a shroud of secrecy over activities on the flight deck, the same as the faction of Chicago policemen who want to keep a shroud of secrecy around the activities of the CPD, the same as an insurance executive who wants to keep secret their process for setting rates and so on and so on. There is nothing unique in your POV.

Quite the opposite. Pilots must learn from accidents! But they need to know the whole picture. Early speculation does't help at all. It is not the concept of secrecy but of total understanding.
Basarnas did a good job investigating the Air Asia crash. A lot was learnt. Airbus changed their inflight reset procedures. Quite a big step with a big impact.

With MH-370 still missing. You know what: I do want to know what happened that night. It is mysterious all over. But still, neglecting facts over fiction is not the proper answer. In this particular case the radar data might be helpful and add another piece of information that might help finding out what happened.

I don't think that the radar data will help with the Lion Air crash, as the ADS-B Data is quite ok. Zeke did a good job in visualising this data. Nevertheless the cause of the crash is still unknown.

When I read a log of an aircraft I am supposed to fly, I will use all the information for my flight planning. In this case I would have read something about unreliable air data. Not so great, but maintenance did their job according to their procedures. So I go flying. But I will brief this air data issue to my colleague and will make a plan in my mind in case this will happen again.
So I take off and voila, I have unreliable airspeed or altitude or both, whatsoever. I stick to my plan, follow the procedure. Not the best day in office, but heck, thats what pilots are there for.

The lion air flight path known so far looks stable after the initial "hiccup". What strikes me: What happened after minutes of stable flight to make them crash out of a sudden?

Did they really have unreliable air data? Is there more to the story?

The FDR was found. It hopefully will reveal a lot more data than the radar plot will.

The ADS-B Data and the FDR data come from the same source and there is serious doubt about the validity of that source. The radar data is crucial.

salttee wrote:

The ADS-B Data and the FDR data come from the same source and there is serious doubt about the validity of that source. The radar data is crucial.

Why is the validity of the FDR data in doubt?

Because it could only record data from the static port / pitot system which is suspected of being the failure point in the previous flight.

salttee wrote:

Because it could only record data from the static port / pitot system which is suspected of being the failure point in the previous flight.

The FDR will record much more than that. AOA angles for example, all of the static and pitot probes, IRS data, GPS data, AP status, Autothrottle status, throttle position and much more. This data should be enough for the investigators to make up the "real" flight path.

Edit:
Just to make sure. There is more than 1 static/pitot system on an airliner. Normally at least three. As far as I understand the previous leg data (if the log screenshot valid), only 1 system was affected.

It looks to me like you're throwing irrelevant / inaccurate information around in an attempt to confuse the reader. Was this aircraft equipped with the optional AOA sensor? I doubt it. All of the static and pitot probes are suspect from the last flight.

Here is a quote from none other than the New York Times (the newspaper of record) to highlight that fact:

“The erratic flight path makes us suspect a problem with the pitot-static system,” Gerry Soejatman, an Indonesian aviation expert, told The New York Times.

The INS and GPS might together verify the speed but GPS won't tell anything about altitude and we don't even know if we have that data yet. In any event, the radar data will provide more precision than either of those data sets. Sure that data should provide a flight path, but if that data disagrees with the radar data, I and most other knowledgeable people would see the radar data as carrying more weight simply because it isn't tainted by being associated with a system that has had unknown failures.

salttee wrote:

but GPS won't tell anything about altitude

Actually, GPS does provide altitude data in case of at least 4 available satellites (general purpose receiver normally sees 8-10)
Of course, this is geometric altitude above some model sea level, not barometric altitude used by airplane navigation - but this is tens feet, maybe 100-200' discrepancy, far from "won't tell anything"

salttee wrote:

It looks to me like you're throwing irrelevant / inaccurate information around in an attempt to confuse the reader. Was this aircraft equipped with the optional AOA sensor? I doubt it. All of the static and pitot probes are suspect from the last flight.

All modern aircraft have AOA Sensors. The display in the cockpit of the AOA value is optional.

By the way, my intention is not to confuse, but to inform. Unfortunately confusion is all around with fake news. Please look up B737-8 pictures. You will find AOA Vanes somewhere in the forward fuselage section.

salttee wrote:

Here is a quote from none other than the New York Times (the newspaper of record) to highlight that fact:

“The erratic flight path makes us suspect a problem with the pitot-static system,” Gerry Soejatman, an Indonesian aviation expert, told The New York Times.

A problem within the pitot-static system does not imply that all the independent pitot-static ports have been affected. This is more semantics.

salttee wrote:

The INS and GPS might together verify the speed but GPS won't tell anything about altitude and we don't even know if we have that data yet. In any event, the radar data will provide more precision than either of those data sets. Sure that data should provide a flight path, but if that data disagrees with the radar data, I and most other knowledgeable people would see the radar data as carrying more weight simply because it isn't tainted by being associated with a system that has had unknown failures.

It was possible to reconstruct the flightpath of AF-447 which crashed in an non radar environment. I don't remember if the Aero Peru or the Birgenair where in radar coverage when they crashed.

FDR has been read out. 1800 paramters from 19 flights.

Looks promising.

mandala499 wrote:

The guy doesn't realize that the airplane pieces may also have body parts...

Or clues to what happened.

mandala499" wrote:

And on the work harder, the next morning, one rescue diver died. The guy was also involved in the Air Asia crash recovery and was the guy who pulled up the most number of bodies.

Terrible. May he rest in peace.

salttee wrote:

The ADS-B Data and the FDR data come from the same source and there is serious doubt about the validity of that source. The radar data is crucial.

No offense, but you seem a little obsessed with the radar data, which is rarely very useful in any accident (and wasn't all that helpful in the Birgenair or Aero Peru accidents except as a contrast to what the pilots were seeing and why controllers couldn't be more helpful). As several people have pointed out (including me earlier), if you're talking about primary radar, it is very inaccurate and has a sweep interval of something like 7 seconds. So there is a lot of interpolation required when looking at this data, and you're never going to get a very accurate picture. You can get a "best guess" which in the early decades of aviation and ATC was better than nothing, but there are far better ways of reconstructing flight paths now. There's a reason the world has largely switched to using ADS-B...

You can read some good details about Boeing's standard redundancy for the altitude and speed displays here: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... tonly.html

(I don't think this has been linked here yet, or at least I haven't seen it, but it seems generally pretty germaine to this discussion overall, and is an interesting read-through for anyone following the details of this accident. Though hauntingly, one section reads "No accidents involving unreliable airspeed on large commercial airplanes have occurred when their crews managed to find or remain in daylight visual conditions.")

In short, both the computerized systems *and* the data collection systems have multiple redundancies built in. It's very likely that this plane was recording accurate data and displaying it somewhere for the pilots, as was the case for both the Birgenair and Aeroperu accidents. Boeing notes in the paper at that link that the primary danger is in pilots not recognizing which data is valid and which isn't. But investigators after the fact, with as much time as they need to take, certainly can.

spacecadet wrote:

No offense, but you seem a little obsessed with the radar data

I'm not obsessed at all. I just made a single statement on the subject:

salttee wrote:

What I find even more frustrating is that the airport is sitting on its radar recordings of the flight (which they almost certainly have). Thus discussion goes on here and elsewhere hypothesizing what the speed of the aircraft was, whether or not it was hand flown, whether it was in the process of turning back when it began its descent and so on.That information exists and is readily available, yet it is not released.

And I came under attack by people trying to poke holes in that simple premise. I believe those attacks were an attempt to divert the subject away from my real point in post #727 which was about open disclosure. I suggest that you go back and read post #727 and the following posts, and by doing that you will see the context.

However I again find myself having to push back against misinformation, this time by you. You say:

spacecadet wrote:

if you're talking about primary radar, it is very inaccurate and has a sweep interval of something like 7 seconds. So there is a lot of interpolation required when looking at this data, and you're never going to get a very accurate picture.

Primary radar operating at a range within a range of 32nm will be accurate to within inches in elevation, azimuth and range. Yes there is a sweep rate, but over that seven plus minutes flight 610 was at 5,000 feet, there were at least 60 data points captured by the radar. Ground speed would no longer be questionable if the tower radar data were available. The primary inaccuracy associated with primary radar systems is their elevation discrimination at long ranges. That wouldn't be a problem in this case as the maximum range was about 32nm.

Keep in mind the fact that the plane involved here had a reported fault with airspeed indication on its previous flight. An external means of verifying the ADS-B data is needed.

BTW
The country of Indonesia is a manufacturer of state of the art radar systems, I don't know what was installed at Soekarno-Hatta but everywhere else I've looked the equipment has been top notch.

salttee wrote:

spacecadet wrote:

No offense, but you seem a little obsessed with the radar data

I'm not obsessed at all. I just made a single statement on the subject:

salttee wrote:

What I find even more frustrating is that the airport is sitting on its radar recordings of the flight (which they almost certainly have). Thus discussion goes on here and elsewhere hypothesizing what the speed of the aircraft was, whether or not it was hand flown, whether it was in the process of turning back when it began its descent and so on.That information exists and is readily available, yet it is not released.

And I came under attack by people trying to poke holes in that simple premise. I believe those attacks were an attempt to divert the subject away from my real point in post #727 which was about open disclosure. I suggest that you go back and read post #727 and the following posts, and by doing that you will see the context.

However I again find myself having to push back against misinformation, this time by you. You say:

spacecadet wrote:

if you're talking about primary radar, it is very inaccurate and has a sweep interval of something like 7 seconds. So there is a lot of interpolation required when looking at this data, and you're never going to get a very accurate picture.

Primary radar operating at a range within a range of 32nm will be accurate to within inches in elevation, azimuth and range. Yes there is a sweep rate, but over that seven plus minutes flight 610 was at 5,000 feet, there were at least 60 data points captured by the radar. Ground speed would no longer be questionable if the tower radar data were available. The primary inaccuracy associated with primary radar systems is their elevation discrimination at long ranges. That wouldn't be a problem in this case as the maximum range was about 32nm.

Keep in mind the fact that the plane involved here had a reported fault with airspeed indication on its previous flight. An external means of verifying the ADS-B data is needed.

BTW
The country of Indonesia is a manufacturer of state of the art radar systems, I don't know what was installed at Soekarno-Hatta but everywhere else I've looked the equipment has been top notch.

I used to be an engineer on antiaircrat missile systems. Search radar, which is the type of radar used at airports, provides only slant range and azimuth. Altitude information is provided by the transponder. In order to determine altitude by radar, you need a vertically steerable beam, such as a height finder radar or a phased array radar. Since airplanes are large and somewhat complex shapes, the primary return can be from anywhere on the aircraft, so the accuracy is more like feet or even yards.

Radar has come a long long way since the days of the Nike system, they were built before transistors were invented; Nike used 100% vacuum tube technology.

There is a spec for the elevation accuracy of the radar used at Soekarno-Hatta and a person with a little diligence could find what kind of radar is installed there and look it up, but this whole conversation is getting a bit tedious for me what with all the trivia being thrown.

Why don't you use that Nike experience and look it up for us?

BTW
The tower radar at Soekarno-Hatta probably is a PAR radar. That's the way they make them now. They mount the phased array xmitter on top of the turntable.