Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
StTim
Posts: 3693
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:48 pm

777Jet wrote:
scbriml wrote:
morrisond wrote:
If the Autopilot had a fault due to a broken part and was pitching the nose down 22 times and the pilot didn't turn it off is that the plane's fault.


But it wasn't autopilot because that was already disabled by other issues. Is it the pilot's fault if the manufacturer doesn't tell them about a horribly implemented "nice new feature" that behaves differently to trim runaway that pilots would have recognised?

Despite the claims of all the non-pilots on a.net who would have all immediately just hit the trim cutoff switches, because there was nothing else to worry about at all, was there?


We know the a.net experts were not worried that a particular Lion Air frame was dispatched despite having reoccurring control issues after supposedly being fixed. What a safe practice! "Don't worry that it happened again. It was supposed to be fixed. Let it fly." :banghead:

At least Indonesian investigators acknowledge that particular frame was not airworthy on the previous flight and should not have been flying.


I do believe that the engineer who carried out that repair was on the doomed flight. Do you think if he for one moment thought it was not safe he would have got on the plane?
 
User avatar
NeBaNi
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:45 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:55 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
morrisond wrote:
MCAS was put in place to help pilots who weren't that good in the first place.


morrisond wrote:
The MAX does not need MCAS to fly safely - it was put in place to help lazy or inattentive pilots.

I would add a pithy comment, but I'm lost for words.

I'll add a longer comment here. Aircraft aren't certified to have systems to help lazy or inattentive pilots. The aim is to reduce workload during flight for pilots. This is in the certification requirements; from the FAR Part 25, Airworthiness Standards for Transport Category Airplanes (link here: https://ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14:1.0.1.3.11):
§25.1329 Flight guidance system
:
(n) For purposes of this section, a transient is a disturbance in the control or flight path of the airplane that is not consistent with response to flightcrew inputs or environmental conditions.

(1) A minor transient would not significantly reduce safety margins and would involve flightcrew actions that are well within their capabilities. A minor transient may involve a slight increase in flightcrew workload or some physical discomfort to passengers or cabin crew.

(2) A significant transient may lead to a significant reduction in safety margins, an increase in flightcrew workload, discomfort to the flightcrew, or physical distress to the passengers or cabin crew, possibly including non-fatal injuries. Significant transients do not require, in order to remain within or recover to the normal flight envelope, any of the following:

(i) Exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength.


(ii) Forces applied by the pilot which are greater than those specified in §25.143(c).

(iii) Accelerations or attitudes in the airplane that might result in further hazard to secured or non-secured occupants.

Whatever JT610 and ET302 were, it's clear that by certification requirements, to fly the airplane should not have required the pilots to have exceptional skill, alertness, or strength.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:59 pm

StTim wrote:
777Jet wrote:
scbriml wrote:

But it wasn't autopilot because that was already disabled by other issues. Is it the pilot's fault if the manufacturer doesn't tell them about a horribly implemented "nice new feature" that behaves differently to trim runaway that pilots would have recognised?

Despite the claims of all the non-pilots on a.net who would have all immediately just hit the trim cutoff switches, because there was nothing else to worry about at all, was there?


We know the a.net experts were not worried that a particular Lion Air frame was dispatched despite having reoccurring control issues after supposedly being fixed. What a safe practice! "Don't worry that it happened again. It was supposed to be fixed. Let it fly." :banghead:

At least Indonesian investigators acknowledge that particular frame was not airworthy on the previous flight and should not have been flying.


I do believe that the engineer who carried out that repair was on the doomed flight. Do you think if he for one moment thought it was not safe he would have got on the plane?


If correct:

1) Why was an engineer on that specific flight?

2) Do you think the engineer had a choice to be on that flight?

I suspect the answers will be:

1) Because something was known to be wrong with that frame and they thought it was likely to require more fixing between flights.

2) Not if the engineer wanted to keep their career.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:31 pm

scbriml wrote:
morrisond wrote:
If the Autopilot had a fault due to a broken part and was pitching the nose down 22 times and the pilot didn't turn it off is that the plane's fault.


But it wasn't autopilot because that was already disabled by other issues. Is it the pilot's fault if the manufacturer doesn't tell them about a horribly implemented "nice new feature" that behaves differently to trim runaway that pilots would have recognised?

Despite the claims of all the non-pilots on a.net who would have all immediately just hit the trim cutoff switches, because there was nothing else to worry about at all, was there?


That was totally taking my words out of context - nice. It was a long post talking about how Pilot's are there to catch things when the electronics are badly designed or break - which can happen even in a perfectly designed system.

I was not saying the autopilot on Lionair had an issue. I was making an alternative example that if it was the Autopilot doing weird things due to a part failure and the pilot tried it 22 times without shutting it down resulting in a plane crash would that be the pilots fault or the planes fault?

I was referencing the Ethiopian Flight where the Pilot Counteracted MCAS 22 times by using up Electric Trim - before handing off the plane to the FO who only had 200 hours of flight experience - which is nothing and there is no sane reason they should have been given the controls of a passenger jet.

I have not seen the traces on Lionair - Is it known how many times they tried to counteract MCAS? In my mind Lionair is about 90/10 Boeing/Pilot in terms of responsibility - Ethiopian with the issue being known and disclosed by Boeing is more like 5/95 Boeing/Pilot.

BTW - Although currently I am a non-pilot as I have not flown for 10 years I do have 120 hours of flight experience as a Private Pilot in Canada - a few more hours and I could get a Job as a FO in Ethiopia - that is very scary. The Canadian Private Pilot primary training is all about what to do when systems fail or aren't doing what you expect them to do - that is why I am having a hard time understanding these crashes and why they happened - they didn't need too.

Lionair is somewhat understandable as Boeing should have done a better job of explaining all the planes systems and how to fix issues, however as the back-up pilot on the previous flight was able to diagnose the issue and fix it, Lionair had a failure in there Professional Pilot Core to pass the issue along with the fix to the next crew along with maintenance and the training department so there Pilots who experienced the same issue knew what to do.

Maybe the back-up Pilot thought it was so obvious he didn't warrant it was necessary to pass along.

Ethiopian is really hard to understand as there was a known issue that any Pilot flying the MAX with responsibility for passengers should have taken it upon themselves to learn what to do if faced with similar issues.

Flying an aircraft manually is not that difficult if one practices - I fear that a lot of the current training is on systems management and what button to push and not what to do when that system isn't working correctly.

The only reason a plane shouldn't fly normally in Total Manual mode is if you lose Thrust, lose a control surface - or all your attachments to the control surfaces are severed. If an airplane is doing something weird it's almost 100% due to electronic issues. Electronics are aids and should not be considered the primary control method.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:36 pm

NeBaNi wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
morrisond wrote:
MCAS was put in place to help pilots who weren't that good in the first place.


morrisond wrote:
The MAX does not need MCAS to fly safely - it was put in place to help lazy or inattentive pilots.

I would add a pithy comment, but I'm lost for words.

I'll add a longer comment here. Aircraft aren't certified to have systems to help lazy or inattentive pilots. The aim is to reduce workload during flight for pilots. This is in the certification requirements; from the FAR Part 25, Airworthiness Standards for Transport Category Airplanes (link here: https://ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14:1.0.1.3.11):
§25.1329 Flight guidance system
:
(n) For purposes of this section, a transient is a disturbance in the control or flight path of the airplane that is not consistent with response to flightcrew inputs or environmental conditions.

(1) A minor transient would not significantly reduce safety margins and would involve flightcrew actions that are well within their capabilities. A minor transient may involve a slight increase in flightcrew workload or some physical discomfort to passengers or cabin crew.

(2) A significant transient may lead to a significant reduction in safety margins, an increase in flightcrew workload, discomfort to the flightcrew, or physical distress to the passengers or cabin crew, possibly including non-fatal injuries. Significant transients do not require, in order to remain within or recover to the normal flight envelope, any of the following:

(i) Exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength.


(ii) Forces applied by the pilot which are greater than those specified in §25.143(c).

(iii) Accelerations or attitudes in the airplane that might result in further hazard to secured or non-secured occupants.

Whatever JT610 and ET302 were, it's clear that by certification requirements, to fly the airplane should not have required the pilots to have exceptional skill, alertness, or strength.


Ok - if you consider the ability to maintain a consistent climb angle and airspeed an exceptional skill and not let the plane enter a stall (which is very easy to recover from) then I agree. However if you don't believe that pilots should have to be able to do even that basic thing I guess we should have no expectation that they should be able to fly straight and level either?

The equivalent in the Transport Truck world would be no expectation that they would be able to keep it between the lines as that would require exceptional skills.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:46 pm

7BOEING7 wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:

Actually if they had decided to turn it off they would have trimmed nose up until they relieved the forces and then switched off the stab trim.

Correct, that step belongs into the NNC. Otherwise it is dangerous.


I guess if you think a normal procedure for manually flying the airplane is dangerous you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

As you say: just cutting of the trim motors due to a malfunctioning MCAS (as advised by the NNC) might make your situation worse. There should be an additional line item in the NNC like this:
- If the runaway is due to malfunctioning MCAS ……. apply electric nose up trim before cutting off the trim

This additional check and the trim up action is another reason, why the NNC from the sixties is not sufficient to deal with MCAS.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
DL757NYC
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:07 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:56 pm

The bigger question is the reliability of the AOA sensors on brand new planes.
 
StTim
Posts: 3693
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:37 pm

777Jet wrote:
StTim wrote:
777Jet wrote:

We know the a.net experts were not worried that a particular Lion Air frame was dispatched despite having reoccurring control issues after supposedly being fixed. What a safe practice! "Don't worry that it happened again. It was supposed to be fixed. Let it fly." :banghead:

At least Indonesian investigators acknowledge that particular frame was not airworthy on the previous flight and should not have been flying.


I do believe that the engineer who carried out that repair was on the doomed flight. Do you think if he for one moment thought it was not safe he would have got on the plane?


If correct:

1) Why was an engineer on that specific flight?

2) Do you think the engineer had a choice to be on that flight?

I suspect the answers will be:

1) Because something was known to be wrong with that frame and they thought it was likely to require more fixing between flights.

2) Not if the engineer wanted to keep their career.

As I understand it there were not many qualified MAX engineers. This was a flight to an outstation where there was not a qualified engineer. So they rostered an engineer to be on the flight.

I may be proven wrong but that is my memory from the relatively early reporting.
 
asdf
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:57 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:

Additionally, are you aware that cutting the trim off at a late stage would have reduced survivability? It would have left them with a severely trimmed down nose, which would have required them to bring the nose back up using the trim wheel. A time consuming procedure, that possibly would not have been completed soon enough.


Actually if they had decided to turn it off they would have trimmed nose up until they relieved the forces and then switched off the stab trim.

Correct, that step belongs into the NNC. Otherwise it is dangerous.


its a shame that in an incident of that magnitude after so many weeks we still don´t know how the ET crew behaves.

can one even rule out that the crew has followed the MCAS air directive and has turned off the trim - and then without the electric trim alone with the handwheels it just was not possible for them to get the birds nose up again?

why dont they publish the data to rule out a scenario where a crew followed a AD and downed an airliner because of following the AD
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:24 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
Correct, that step belongs into the NNC. Otherwise it is dangerous.


I guess if you think a normal procedure for manually flying the airplane is dangerous you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

As you say: just cutting of the trim motors due to a malfunctioning MCAS (as advised by the NNC) might make your situation worse. There should be an additional line item in the NNC like this:
- If the runaway is due to malfunctioning MCAS ……. apply electric nose up trim before cutting off the trim

This additional check and the trim up action is another reason, why the NNC from the sixties is not sufficient to deal with MCAS.


It probably would not have mattered if they applied nose up trim - I believe they were past the point in Airspeed where the elevator would have been effective anyways and they might have suffered from something called blowdown.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:09 am

StTim wrote:
777Jet wrote:
StTim wrote:

I do believe that the engineer who carried out that repair was on the doomed flight. Do you think if he for one moment thought it was not safe he would have got on the plane?


If correct:

1) Why was an engineer on that specific flight?

2) Do you think the engineer had a choice to be on that flight?

I suspect the answers will be:

1) Because something was known to be wrong with that frame and they thought it was likely to require more fixing between flights.

2) Not if the engineer wanted to keep their career.

As I understand it there were not many qualified MAX engineers. This was a flight to an outstation where there was not a qualified engineer. So they rostered an engineer to be on the flight.

I may be proven wrong but that is my memory from the relatively early reporting.


Source?
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
Interested
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:21 am

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/busi ... error.html

Test Pilots safely landed the plane in simulator but only had 40 seconds to act

"The software, as originally designed and explained, left little room for error. Those involved in the testing hadn’t fully understood just how powerful the system was until they flew the plane on a 737 Max simulator, according to the two people."
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1866
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:09 am

777Jet wrote:
We know the a.net experts were not worried that a particular Lion Air frame was dispatched despite having reoccurring control issues after supposedly being fixed. What a safe practice! "Don't worry that it happened again. It was supposed to be fixed. Let it fly." :banghead:

At least Indonesian investigators acknowledge that particular frame was not airworthy on the previous flight and should not have been flying.



Are you referring that the previous flight should have landed rather than continue to their destination? Is that why it was not airworthy? I do have a question, if an issue arises on a aircraft that needs to be fixed before it is airworthy, how do you know it has been properly fixed?

I think you may be suggesting here, without proof, that the fix was not done correctly and thus the aircraft was not airworthy for the flight and should not have been used. I have no clue or opinion on this and will wait for the investigation, but why bring up the engineer if that is not where your thinking is leading?

As for the source, I believe Mandala was the one who said that engineers routinely fly on flights to outstations if there aren't the support available for that route. It is not an indication that there is a fault with the aircraft as it happens regularly, then again in this case it may be that he was on the flight to check the problem. Again, we will have to wait for the investigation to clear up why he was on the flight.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2134
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:58 am

777Jet wrote:
We know the a.net experts were not worried that a particular Lion Air frame was dispatched despite having reoccurring control issues after supposedly being fixed. What a safe practice! "Don't worry that it happened again. It was supposed to be fixed. Let it fly." :banghead:

At least Indonesian investigators acknowledge that particular frame was not airworthy on the previous flight and should not have been flying.
They did?
777Jet wrote:
Source?
Et tu Brute!

enzo011 wrote:
Are you referring that the previous flight should have landed rather than continue to their destination? Is that why it was not airworthy? I do have a question, if an issue arises on a aircraft that needs to be fixed before it is airworthy, how do you know it has been properly fixed?

Maybe he could consult the AFML?
LionAir/Batam Aero Technic wrote:
27 October 2018; For troubleshooting due to repetitive problem perform replaced angle of attack sensor in accordance with Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task 34-21-05-000-001 and task 34-21-05-400-801 carried out. Installation test and heater system test result good.

28 October 2018; IAS and ALT Disagree shown after take off ; (Refer to IFIM task 34-20-00810-801 REV 15 June 2018). Performed flushing Left Pitot Air Data Module (ADM) and static ADM. Operation test on ground found satisfied.

28 October 2018; feel diff press light illuminate; Refer IFIM 27-31-00-810-803 Rev 15 June 2018, performed cleaned electrical connector plug of elevator feel computer carried out. test on ground found OK


Of course I'm not a 737MAX maintenance engineer so what is stated above could just be a random selection of words and numbers concocted by a "3rd World poorly trained cowboy". :banghead:

enzo011 wrote:
I think you may be suggesting here, without proof, that the fix was not done correctly and thus the aircraft was not airworthy for the flight and should not have been used.
Shirley, he wouldn't do that?

enzo011 wrote:
As for the source, I believe Mandala was the one who said that engineers routinely fly on flights to outstations if there aren't the support available for that route. It is not an indication that there is a fault with the aircraft as it happens regularly, then again in this case it may be that he was on the flight to check the problem.

:yes: and :yes: and :yes:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
Lrockeagle
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:40 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:24 pm

DL757NYC wrote:
The bigger question is the reliability of the AOA sensors on brand new planes.

Do we even know if that was the original AOA sensor?
Lrockeagle
14 years ago

I got $20 says AA takes their 787's with GE powerplants. Just a hunch. Any takers?
 
User avatar
NeBaNi
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:45 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:43 pm

morrisond wrote:
NeBaNi wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:


I would add a pithy comment, but I'm lost for words.

I'll add a longer comment here. Aircraft aren't certified to have systems to help lazy or inattentive pilots. The aim is to reduce workload during flight for pilots. This is in the certification requirements; from the FAR Part 25, Airworthiness Standards for Transport Category Airplanes (link here: https://ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14:1.0.1.3.11):
§25.1329 Flight guidance system
:
(n) For purposes of this section, a transient is a disturbance in the control or flight path of the airplane that is not consistent with response to flightcrew inputs or environmental conditions.

(1) A minor transient would not significantly reduce safety margins and would involve flightcrew actions that are well within their capabilities. A minor transient may involve a slight increase in flightcrew workload or some physical discomfort to passengers or cabin crew.

(2) A significant transient may lead to a significant reduction in safety margins, an increase in flightcrew workload, discomfort to the flightcrew, or physical distress to the passengers or cabin crew, possibly including non-fatal injuries. Significant transients do not require, in order to remain within or recover to the normal flight envelope, any of the following:

(i) Exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength.


(ii) Forces applied by the pilot which are greater than those specified in §25.143(c).

(iii) Accelerations or attitudes in the airplane that might result in further hazard to secured or non-secured occupants.

Whatever JT610 and ET302 were, it's clear that by certification requirements, to fly the airplane should not have required the pilots to have exceptional skill, alertness, or strength.


Ok - if you consider the ability to maintain a consistent climb angle and airspeed an exceptional skill and not let the plane enter a stall (which is very easy to recover from) then I agree. However if you don't believe that pilots should have to be able to do even that basic thing I guess we should have no expectation that they should be able to fly straight and level either?

The equivalent in the Transport Truck world would be no expectation that they would be able to keep it between the lines as that would require exceptional skills.

Not normally, but you're ignoring bullet #2 from what I posted. By all indications, there two flights had significant transients that led to increased crew workload. Do we agree on this?
Then, from the certification requirement: Significant transients do not require, in order to remain within or recover to the normal flight envelope exceptional pilot skills. I'd agree with you that it does not take exceptional skill to maintain a consistent climb angle and airspeed under normal circumstances, but I'm not sure I'd qualify what was happening in these two flights as normal circumstances. Therefore, by certification standards, any qualified pilot should not have required exceptional skill to control the airplane. We know from the last flight before the fatal crash that it was only because of the third (off-duty) pilot, who was able to diagnose the problem and find a solution, that the flight landed safely. The other two were busy trying to aviate. What this suggests to me was that these instances put unreasonable workload on the flight crew.

Your Transport Truck analogy is only valid if the truck autopilot was turning the steering wheel to the right every five seconds. Again, not a normal circumstance, as I'm sure you'd agree.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4112
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:46 pm

777Jet wrote:
StTim wrote:
777Jet wrote:
If correct:
1) Why was an engineer on that specific flight?
2) Do you think the engineer had a choice to be on that flight?

I suspect the answers will be:
1) Because something was known to be wrong with that frame and they thought it was likely to require more fixing between flights.
2) Not if the engineer wanted to keep their career.

As I understand it there were not many qualified MAX engineers. This was a flight to an outstation where there was not a qualified engineer. So they rostered an engineer to be on the flight.
I may be proven wrong but that is my memory from the relatively early reporting.

Source?


Funny ( . . . not the right word) that people throw all kind of wild accusations, and when replied with a reasonably credible alternative start demanding for sources, without supplying any source for their own accusations to begin with in the first place.

BTW. the requested source was valued member Mandala499 . . . https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1407217&start=1670

mandala499 wrote:
In Indonesia, an onboard mechanic/engineer is nothing related to an aircraft having problems from the previous flight. They're there to release the aircraft should the aircraft develop a problem that can be deferred, should that problem occur at an outstation. Placing engineers at outstations can be more expensive than the loss of revenue from 1 seat plus flight pay, because aviation in Indonesia is very Jakarta-centric. Place someone at an outstation and the company has to fork out money for his accomodation and outstation pay, plus transportation to go back and forth to Jakarta or nearest maintenance base, and get a back up person. And you can't just get any engineer certified/rated on the type at an outstation to do stuff for you, the guy has to be approved on the type AND approved by the DGCA to do work for your airline. Now, Outstation based 3rd party contractors can be very expensive because of that. The same happens with dispatchers, and loadsheeters, it's not uncommon in Indonesia to see an engineer and a dispatcher onboard to outstations. Moves by the industry to make the use of certified 3rd party contractors and to make such a thing cheaper was effectively blocked by the previous transport minister in the aftermath of the Air Asia crash in end of 2014, because he seems to believe that safety should be expensive. Heck, he banned the use of centralized dispatch and tried to ban the use of approved weather information in computerized flight plans and dispatch briefs "because they're not from the national weather bureau", despite the national weather bureau were giving out the same exact information and source as those within the airline dispatch briefs!
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:00 pm

777jet wrote:
At least Indonesian investigators acknowledge that particular frame was not airworthy on the previous flight and should not have been flying.

You misunderstood what the investigators said. Your dispatch airworthiness is only valid up to the point of the aircraft taking off. Once you develop problems in the air, to that extent, the aircraft was no longer airworthy (after it got airborne). Once you land, you can fix it to make it airworthy again.

Gotta love how all this got lost in translations (especially by non-aviations savvy journalists.

StTim wrote:
I do believe that the engineer who carried out that repair was on the doomed flight. Do you think if he for one moment thought it was not safe he would have got on the plane?

The engineer that was onboard was there to sign off the MEL or ground the aircraft at an outstation where there are no 737Max approved engineers. The destination, is one of those destinations.
The engineer carrying out the repairs would have ran out of working hours to go on duty on that flight in the morning.

777jet wrote:
If correct:

1) Why was an engineer on that specific flight?

2) Do you think the engineer had a choice to be on that flight?

I suspect the answers will be:

1) Because something was known to be wrong with that frame and they thought it was likely to require more fixing between flights.

2) Not if the engineer wanted to keep their career.

See response above.
This question keeps coming up again and again and again!
It's becoming a real bore repeating the answers to the repeat questions.

Anyway, sorry to break your guess in the reply I quoted.

morrisond wrote:
I have not seen the traces on Lionair - Is it known how many times they tried to counteract MCAS?

It's available in posts with the FDR plots... My recollection is... "numerous times" to say the least.

enzo011 wrote:
As for the source, I believe Mandala was the one who said that engineers routinely fly on flights to outstations if there aren't the support available for that route. It is not an indication that there is a fault with the aircraft as it happens regularly, then again in this case it may be that he was on the flight to check the problem. Again, we will have to wait for the investigation to clear up why he was on the flight.

Wow! SOMEONE REMEMBERS !!!!!! OK, I can sleep easy tonight... :)
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1840
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:05 pm

mandala499 wrote:
Wow! SOMEONE REMEMBERS !!!!!! OK, I can sleep easy tonight... :)

FWIW I also remembered :)

But I couldn't be bothered to respond yet again since, like you, I have tried to counter this false story many times in the past.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2134
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:35 pm

mandala499 wrote:
777jet wrote:
At least Indonesian investigators acknowledge that particular frame was not airworthy on the previous flight and should not have been flying.

You misunderstood what the investigators said. Your dispatch airworthiness is only valid up to the point of the aircraft taking off. Once you develop problems in the air, to that extent, the aircraft was no longer airworthy (after it got airborne). Once you land, you can fix it to make it airworthy again.

mandala499 wrote:
Wow! SOMEONE REMEMBERS !!!!!! OK, I can sleep easy tonight... :)

Up thread I posted the following
:yes: and :yes: and :yes:
The first of those nods was me acknowledging you as the source of most of the good stuff posted here. The other two nods was me agreeing with what you actually said.

You are a LEGEND ! :bigthumbsup:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 1018
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:29 pm

Interested wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/business/boeing-simulation-error.html

Test Pilots safely landed the plane in simulator but only had 40 seconds to act

"The software, as originally designed and explained, left little room for error. Those involved in the testing hadn’t fully understood just how powerful the system was until they flew the plane on a 737 Max simulator, according to the two people."


Marketing stuff about the MCAS when it work as designed. This thread is about a highly fatal crash where the MCAS did not worked as expected.
:stirthepot: 737-8 MAX: "For all speeds higher than 220 Kts and trim set at a value of 2.5 units, the difficulity level of turning the manual trim wheel was level A (trim wheel not movable)." :stirthepot:
 
flybucky
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:44 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:06 pm

morrisond wrote:
I was referencing the Ethiopian Flight where the Pilot Counteracted MCAS 22 times by using up Electric Trim - before handing off the plane to the FO who only had 200 hours of flight experience - which is nothing and there is no sane reason they should have been given the controls of a passenger jet.

I have not seen the traces on Lionair - Is it known how many times they tried to counteract MCAS?

You've got the flights mixed up. For ET302, there has been no FDR data released yet. We do not know how many times the pilots used Electric Trim. The ET302 FO was the one with with 200 hours.

For Lion Air JT610, that was the one where the Captain used Electric Trim 21 times to counteract MCAS. The FO had 5000 hrs.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ol-system/
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:32 pm

enzo011 wrote:
777Jet wrote:
We know the a.net experts were not worried that a particular Lion Air frame was dispatched despite having reoccurring control issues after supposedly being fixed. What a safe practice! "Don't worry that it happened again. It was supposed to be fixed. Let it fly." :banghead:

At least Indonesian investigators acknowledge that particular frame was not airworthy on the previous flight and should not have been flying.



Are you referring that the previous flight should have landed rather than continue to their destination? Is that why it was not airworthy? I do have a question, if an issue arises on a aircraft that needs to be fixed before it is airworthy, how do you know it has been properly fixed?

I think you may be suggesting here, without proof, that the fix was not done correctly and thus the aircraft was not airworthy for the flight and should not have been used. I have no clue or opinion on this and will wait for the investigation, but why bring up the engineer if that is not where your thinking is leading?


I did not bring up the engineer. The person I quoted, StTim, brought up the engineer.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
StTim
Posts: 3693
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:40 pm

777Jet wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
777Jet wrote:
We know the a.net experts were not worried that a particular Lion Air frame was dispatched despite having reoccurring control issues after supposedly being fixed. What a safe practice! "Don't worry that it happened again. It was supposed to be fixed. Let it fly." :banghead:

At least Indonesian investigators acknowledge that particular frame was not airworthy on the previous flight and should not have been flying.



Are you referring that the previous flight should have landed rather than continue to their destination? Is that why it was not airworthy? I do have a question, if an issue arises on a aircraft that needs to be fixed before it is airworthy, how do you know it has been properly fixed?

I think you may be suggesting here, without proof, that the fix was not done correctly and thus the aircraft was not airworthy for the flight and should not have been used. I have no clue or opinion on this and will wait for the investigation, but why bring up the engineer if that is not where your thinking is leading?


I did not bring up the engineer. The person I quoted, StTim, brought up the engineer.


I admit I did - It was a memory item, which I probably got wrong.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:55 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
777Jet wrote:
We know the a.net experts were not worried that a particular Lion Air frame was dispatched despite having reoccurring control issues after supposedly being fixed. What a safe practice! "Don't worry that it happened again. It was supposed to be fixed. Let it fly." :banghead:

At least Indonesian investigators acknowledge that particular frame was not airworthy on the previous flight and should not have been flying.
They did?


It's an interesting story, with a twist...

'Lion Air plane 'not airworthy' and should have been grounded, say investigators'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/1 ... automatic/

'Indonesian investigators have said the Lion Air plane that crashed last month killing 189 people was not airworthy and should have been grounded.'

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46121127



Then the story changed. Lion Air threatened to sue the safety committee member who made the not airworthy comment. So the story changed from not-airworthy, to 'never said it was not air-worthy', after the threat to sue.

"Lion Air has threatened to sue Utomo for saying the aircraft was not airworthy."

“But in principle, when the engineer has stated it’s airworthy, then it’s airworthy,” he said.

"Wibowo said the pilot would make the final choice about whether or not to cancel or abort a flight, and the investigators were trying to understand how the pilot made his decision.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-u ... 278060d7fe

Seems like a certain airline is looking for anybody to blame except their own practices. They knew the history of that aircraft. The ongoing problems despite attempted fixes. The event on the penultimate flight clearly meaning the Bali fix did not work. They dispatched it again and it crashed. Maybe they thought they could just pull over to the side of the road the next time, and the next time, and the next time the same control issues appeared in flight... oh wait...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:02 pm

mandala499 wrote:
777jet wrote:
At least Indonesian investigators acknowledge that particular frame was not airworthy on the previous flight and should not have been flying.

You misunderstood what the investigators said. Your dispatch airworthiness is only valid up to the point of the aircraft taking off. Once you develop problems in the air, to that extent, the aircraft was no longer airworthy (after it got airborne). Once you land, you can fix it to make it airworthy again.

Gotta love how all this got lost in translations (especially by non-aviations savvy journalists.


Welcome back!

What was done to the aircraft in Jakarta after it had arrived from Bali when the failed fix / ongoing problems became known about?
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
deltacto
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:49 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:13 pm

mandala499 wrote:
Wow! SOMEONE REMEMBERS !!!!!! OK, I can sleep easy tonight... :)


SomebodyInTLS wrote:
FWIW I also remembered :)



SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Up thread I posted the following
:yes: and :yes: and :yes:
The first of those nods was me acknowledging you as the source of most of the good stuff posted here. The other two nods was me agreeing with what you actually said.

You are a LEGEND ! :bigthumbsup:


Mandala ... yes you are a legend ... thank you for sharing what you can with us ...
............. and note I spelled your name correctly :)
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2134
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:19 pm

777Jet wrote:
mandala499 wrote:
777jet wrote:
At least Indonesian investigators acknowledge that particular frame was not airworthy on the previous flight and should not have been flying.

You misunderstood what the investigators said. Your dispatch airworthiness is only valid up to the point of the aircraft taking off. Once you develop problems in the air, to that extent, the aircraft was no longer airworthy (after it got airborne). Once you land, you can fix it to make it airworthy again.

Gotta love how all this got lost in translations (especially by non-aviations savvy journalists.


Welcome back!

What was done to the aircraft in Jakarta after it had arrived from Bali when the failed fix / ongoing problems became known about?

Pending confirmation from Mandala, was there anything wrong with the AFML extracts I gave to you 7 hours ago, detailing exactly what was done in Jakarta?
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:25 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
777Jet wrote:
mandala499 wrote:
You misunderstood what the investigators said. Your dispatch airworthiness is only valid up to the point of the aircraft taking off. Once you develop problems in the air, to that extent, the aircraft was no longer airworthy (after it got airborne). Once you land, you can fix it to make it airworthy again.

Gotta love how all this got lost in translations (especially by non-aviations savvy journalists.


Welcome back!

What was done to the aircraft in Jakarta after it had arrived from Bali when the failed fix / ongoing problems became known about?

Pending confirmation from Mandala, was there anything wrong with the AFML extracts I gave to you 7 hours ago, detailing exactly what was done in Jakarta?


Other than they also did not work like previous attempted fixes and the plane then crashed, no, there is not anything wrong with the extracts you posted.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1866
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:54 pm

777Jet wrote:
I did not bring up the engineer. The person I quoted, StTim, brought up the engineer.


I thought your post asked about the source on why the engineer was on this particular flight.


777Jet wrote:
It's an interesting story, with a twist...

'Lion Air plane 'not airworthy' and should have been grounded, say investigators'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/1 ... automatic/

'Indonesian investigators have said the Lion Air plane that crashed last month killing 189 people was not airworthy and should have been grounded.'

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46121127



Then the story changed. Lion Air threatened to sue the safety committee member who made the not airworthy comment. So the story changed from not-airworthy, to 'never said it was not air-worthy', after the threat to sue.

"Lion Air has threatened to sue Utomo for saying the aircraft was not airworthy."

“But in principle, when the engineer has stated it’s airworthy, then it’s airworthy,” he said.

"Wibowo said the pilot would make the final choice about whether or not to cancel or abort a flight, and the investigators were trying to understand how the pilot made his decision.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-u ... 278060d7fe

Seems like a certain airline is looking for anybody to blame except their own practices. They knew the history of that aircraft. The ongoing problems despite attempted fixes. The event on the penultimate flight clearly meaning the Bali fix did not work. They dispatched it again and it crashed. Maybe they thought they could just pull over to the side of the road the next time, and the next time, and the next time the same control issues appeared in flight... oh wait...


Yeah, I am not sure how clear the BBC article is about when the aircraft was not airworthy.

He added that the plane experienced similar problems during its previous flight from Denpasar in Bali to Jakarta.

"In our opinion, the plane was no longer airworthy and it should not have continued," he said. The committee's report itself, though, does not spell out that conclusion.


Does he mean that the previous flight should not have continued when it had the same issues? Or does he mean this particular aircraft should have been grounded until it has been fixed? It was never clear for me whether it was meant that the airline missed that the aircraft itself was not safe to fly again. This was a view that was stated on this thread as well.

Then the next question was, when is it airworthy again? Who decides this? We will have to wait for the investigation if they find that the work done by the engineer on the aircraft was not to the procedure of the OEM. Either way this would have been another hole in the Swiss cheese that aligned for this flight to crash whereas the previous flight was able to continue safely.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:14 pm

morrisond wrote:

The only reason a plane shouldn't fly normally in Total Manual mode is if you lose Thrust, lose a control surface - or all your attachments to the control surfaces are severed. If an airplane is doing something weird it's almost 100% due to electronic issues. Electronics are aids and should not be considered the primary control method.


In *totally* manual mode, every Airbus in the air today would be doomed as would the 787 and 777x (pretty sure on the last one not 100%). True FBW aircraft in totally manual mode (aka EVERY piece of electrics on the plane fried) are screwed.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
SteinarN
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:26 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:14 pm

osiris30 wrote:
morrisond wrote:

The only reason a plane shouldn't fly normally in Total Manual mode is if you lose Thrust, lose a control surface - or all your attachments to the control surfaces are severed. If an airplane is doing something weird it's almost 100% due to electronic issues. Electronics are aids and should not be considered the primary control method.


In *totally* manual mode, every Airbus in the air today would be doomed as would the 787 and 777x (pretty sure on the last one not 100%). True FBW aircraft in totally manual mode (aka EVERY piece of electrics on the plane fried) are screwed.



Please stop adding completely false claims here!

No naturally stable aircrafts -like all passenger aircrafts are- do require an operative FCC to be able to continue controlled flight.
In Airbus aircraft you ultimately revert to direct law where the position of the flight control surfaces is directly proportional to the position of the control stick. This makes an Airbus in direct law fly pretty much like a manually operated aircraft like a small Cessna. I am sure Boeing from the 777 onwards is (exactly) like this too.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:20 pm

SteinarN wrote:
osiris30 wrote:
morrisond wrote:

The only reason a plane shouldn't fly normally in Total Manual mode is if you lose Thrust, lose a control surface - or all your attachments to the control surfaces are severed. If an airplane is doing something weird it's almost 100% due to electronic issues. Electronics are aids and should not be considered the primary control method.


In *totally* manual mode, every Airbus in the air today would be doomed as would the 787 and 777x (pretty sure on the last one not 100%). True FBW aircraft in totally manual mode (aka EVERY piece of electrics on the plane fried) are screwed.



Please stop adding completely false claims here!

No naturally stable aircrafts -like all passenger aircrafts are- do require an operative FCC to be able to continue controlled flight.
In Airbus aircraft you ultimately revert to direct law where the position of the flight control surfaces is directly proportional to the position of the control stick. This makes an Airbus in direct law fly pretty much like a manually operated aircraft like a small Cessna. I am sure Boeing from the 777 onwards is (exactly) like this too.


Fry every electrical system (I said everyone) and tell me how you land it. I didn't say the ap or alpha prot I said every. Huge emp burst and all these new planes are screwed.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Wed Mar 27, 2019 3:08 am

777Jet wrote:
Then the story changed. Lion Air threatened to sue the safety committee member who made the not airworthy comment. So the story changed from not-airworthy, to 'never said it was not air-worthy', after the threat to sue.

Let me explain what happened.
1.1. I heard the recording of the investigator statement, he specifically said that once the aircraft had become airborne and suffered those problems, the aircraft was deemed to no longer be airworthy and should have returned.
1.2. The local media, loving to jump to conclusion especially with their blood thirst to find a scape goat, immediately put on the headlines "aircraft was not airworthy". Yes, I received countless calls from the local media, asking for comments to their question of "how could Lion let an unairworthy aircraft depart?"
1.3. A local journalist working for a foreign media played the recording (mentioned in point 1 above), to ask exactly what it meant.
1.4. Lion Air's management was shocked to see the flood of allegation with the media claiming the NTSC had made the statement of "The aircraft was not airworthy", implying it was not airworthy prior to departure and forced it to depart.
1.5. Lion Air did make a call to NTSC. Evidence of the statement was given to Lion Air by NTSC and several credible journalists (eg: using the recording given in #3).
1.6. Lion Air agreed that NTSC did not make an erroneous statement but asked NTSC to clarify what it said. NTSC did so.
1.7. Once the aircraft was not airworthy in the air, normal convention states that it is up to the pilot on whether to continue or not. Armchair pilot syndrome has unfortunately hit mainstream media.
1.8. The aircraft kept reporting different problems. If they had 3 identical faults within 7 days, they would have grounded the aircraft. This is the "repetitive problem" methodology used after QZ8501 in 2014. Unfortunately, JT610 was the 3rd flight reporting the same problem. The engineer onboard was there to ground the aircraft at the destination or back at CGK if it had the same problem (3rd in 7 days = grounded, no matter what). Same like AF447,it was the last flight prior to having the pitot tubes changed/replaced.
1.9. How did the foreign media get it wrong? Simple, based on eyewitness statement to me: The foreign media was confused on what the NTSC said, and asked a local journo, what it meant. Of course the local journo would say, "airplane unairworthy, should not fly"... and the snowball started.
1.10. I did call one of LionAir's most senior management on points 1.4 to 1.5, which confirmed what various sources independently told me.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Pending confirmation from Mandala, was there anything wrong with the AFML extracts I gave to you 7 hours ago, detailing exactly what was done in Jakarta?

2.1. Am not an engineer.
2.2. I've asked several of my credible engineer and engineering analysis friends within LionAir and LionAir Group, they did what they needed to do according to the troubleshooting manual and repairs manual. There are other more detailed reports, but that is not for public disclosure (by order of the investigators), and I have not seen those either.
2.3. After several past mis-repairs (in the 737 classics days), I am told by an engineer in Lion that Boeing wanted Lion Air engineers to just follow specific instructions in the TSM and Repairs Manual, and not "get creative" on the field. I can understand why, but this limits the ability to problem solve in the field. The Engineering analysts in the office are the ones who should get creative. BUT, after QZ8501, a strict "repetitive defect" procedure is followed before you get creative. Again, pluses and minuses on each alternative.

enzo011 wrote:
Does he mean that the previous flight should not have continued when it had the same issues? Or does he mean this particular aircraft should have been grounded until it has been fixed? It was never clear for me whether it was meant that the airline missed that the aircraft itself was not safe to fly again. This was a view that was stated on this thread as well.

Then the next question was, when is it airworthy again? Who decides this? We will have to wait for the investigation if they find that the work done by the engineer on the aircraft was not to the procedure of the OEM. Either way this would have been another hole in the Swiss cheese that aligned for this flight to crash whereas the previous flight was able to continue safely.

#bangingheadontable
3.1.OK, read my reply #3119 above... or hang on... let me quote it below:
mandala499 wrote:
You misunderstood what the investigators said. Your dispatch airworthiness is only valid up to the point of the aircraft taking off. Once you develop problems in the air, to that extent, the aircraft was no longer airworthy (after it got airborne). Once you land, you can fix it to make it airworthy again.
Gotta love how all this got lost in translations (especially by non-aviations savvy journalists.

3.2. It is airworthy again once you've conducted the proper troubleshooting and repairs required on the aircraft. Then an engineer signs it off, and another engineer determines whether it should be deemed airworthy again for revenue flight.
3.3. Swiss Cheese? see 2.3. above. You can't win everything, however, you gotta continuously asses the situation to see what policies and procedures need to be changed to ensure you don't become a hostage to a previous policy decision.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
SteinarN
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:26 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:19 am

osiris30 wrote:
SteinarN wrote:
osiris30 wrote:

In *totally* manual mode, every Airbus in the air today would be doomed as would the 787 and 777x (pretty sure on the last one not 100%). True FBW aircraft in totally manual mode (aka EVERY piece of electrics on the plane fried) are screwed.



Please stop adding completely false claims here!

No naturally stable aircrafts -like all passenger aircrafts are- do require an operative FCC to be able to continue controlled flight.
In Airbus aircraft you ultimately revert to direct law where the position of the flight control surfaces is directly proportional to the position of the control stick. This makes an Airbus in direct law fly pretty much like a manually operated aircraft like a small Cessna. I am sure Boeing from the 777 onwards is (exactly) like this too.


Fry every electrical system (I said everyone) and tell me how you land it. I didn't say the ap or alpha prot I said every. Huge emp burst and all these new planes are screwed.


Well, then I can ask you to send a request to Airbus and ask them how the flight test pilots of for example the A350 managed to land that aircraft after their very first test flight of the A350. Because that very first test flight was actually made in direct law without any FCC online. This was done on purpose.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:54 am

SteinarN wrote:
osiris30 wrote:
SteinarN wrote:


Please stop adding completely false claims here!

No naturally stable aircrafts -like all passenger aircrafts are- do require an operative FCC to be able to continue controlled flight.
In Airbus aircraft you ultimately revert to direct law where the position of the flight control surfaces is directly proportional to the position of the control stick. This makes an Airbus in direct law fly pretty much like a manually operated aircraft like a small Cessna. I am sure Boeing from the 777 onwards is (exactly) like this too.


Fry every electrical system (I said everyone) and tell me how you land it. I didn't say the ap or alpha prot I said every. Huge emp burst and all these new planes are screwed.


Well, then I can ask you to send a request to Airbus and ask them how the flight test pilots of for example the A350 managed to land that aircraft after their very first test flight of the A350. Because that very first test flight was actually made in direct law without any FCC online. This was done on purpose.


Please read what I wrote. I said ALL electrical systems. ALL. EVERY ONE OF THEM. I didn't say they were flying in direct law, I said ALL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS HAVE FAILED. As in what would happen after an EMP burst. Or more plausibly a massive short in just the right place to take out the batteries and shut down the engines. You are talking about a computer. They still had instruments running, hydraulic actuators, etc.

My point was, compared to the old cable and pulley systems FBW has more failure modes. I know you've missed this up until now, hopefully you read this post instead of just restating an irrelevant (to the point I was making) counter 'argument'.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:28 am

mandala499 wrote:
777Jet wrote:
Then the story changed. Lion Air threatened to sue the safety committee member who made the not airworthy comment. So the story changed from not-airworthy, to 'never said it was not air-worthy', after the threat to sue.

Let me explain what happened.
1.1. I heard the recording of the investigator statement, he specifically said that once the aircraft had become airborne and suffered those problems, the aircraft was deemed to no longer be airworthy and should have returned.
1.2. The local media, loving to jump to conclusion especially with their blood thirst to find a scape goat, immediately put on the headlines "aircraft was not airworthy". Yes, I received countless calls from the local media, asking for comments to their question of "how could Lion let an unairworthy aircraft depart?"
1.3. A local journalist working for a foreign media played the recording (mentioned in point 1 above), to ask exactly what it meant.
1.4. Lion Air's management was shocked to see the flood of allegation with the media claiming the NTSC had made the statement of "The aircraft was not airworthy", implying it was not airworthy prior to departure and forced it to depart.
1.5. Lion Air did make a call to NTSC. Evidence of the statement was given to Lion Air by NTSC and several credible journalists (eg: using the recording given in #3).
1.6. Lion Air agreed that NTSC did not make an erroneous statement but asked NTSC to clarify what it said. NTSC did so.
1.7. Once the aircraft was not airworthy in the air, normal convention states that it is up to the pilot on whether to continue or not. Armchair pilot syndrome has unfortunately hit mainstream media.
1.8. The aircraft kept reporting different problems. If they had 3 identical faults within 7 days, they would have grounded the aircraft. This is the "repetitive problem" methodology used after QZ8501 in 2014. Unfortunately, JT610 was the 3rd flight reporting the same problem. The engineer onboard was there to ground the aircraft at the destination or back at CGK if it had the same problem (3rd in 7 days = grounded, no matter what). Same like AF447,it was the last flight prior to having the pitot tubes changed/replaced.
1.9. How did the foreign media get it wrong? Simple, based on eyewitness statement to me: The foreign media was confused on what the NTSC said, and asked a local journo, what it meant. Of course the local journo would say, "airplane unairworthy, should not fly"... and the snowball started.
1.10. I did call one of LionAir's most senior management on points 1.4 to 1.5, which confirmed what various sources independently told me.


Thanks a lot for that great information.

Re: 1.1 & 1.7- I have no problem with a pilot deciding to continue on after an aircraft has an issue that makes it unairworthy once it is already in the air, if the pilot deems that to be the best / safest decision. Sometimes it gives them time to trouble shoot, run tests and do other things (eg: QF32).

1.8- That explains why it was allowed to fly that day. Whilst I don't agree with "3 identical faults within 7 days" being the standard (seems like a low standard), it is what it is and in this case, it failed its purpose and an accident occurred.

1.9- That fake news media!!!
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:37 am

osiris30 wrote:
SteinarN wrote:
osiris30 wrote:

In *totally* manual mode, every Airbus in the air today would be doomed as would the 787 and 777x (pretty sure on the last one not 100%). True FBW aircraft in totally manual mode (aka EVERY piece of electrics on the plane fried) are screwed.



Please stop adding completely false claims here!

No naturally stable aircrafts -like all passenger aircrafts are- do require an operative FCC to be able to continue controlled flight.
In Airbus aircraft you ultimately revert to direct law where the position of the flight control surfaces is directly proportional to the position of the control stick. This makes an Airbus in direct law fly pretty much like a manually operated aircraft like a small Cessna. I am sure Boeing from the 777 onwards is (exactly) like this too.


Fry every electrical system (I said everyone) and tell me how you land it. I didn't say the ap or alpha prot I said every. Huge emp burst and all these new planes are screwed.


For the A320, in the event of a complete loss of electrical flight control computer signals, the airplane reverts to a mechanical mode. The side stick is inoperative, pitch is controlled via pitch trim wheel, roll and yaw are controlled through the rudder pedals.

http://www.a320dp.com/A320_DP/flight-co ... .3.22.html
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:12 am

Finn350 wrote:
osiris30 wrote:
SteinarN wrote:


Please stop adding completely false claims here!

No naturally stable aircrafts -like all passenger aircrafts are- do require an operative FCC to be able to continue controlled flight.
In Airbus aircraft you ultimately revert to direct law where the position of the flight control surfaces is directly proportional to the position of the control stick. This makes an Airbus in direct law fly pretty much like a manually operated aircraft like a small Cessna. I am sure Boeing from the 777 onwards is (exactly) like this too.


Fry every electrical system (I said everyone) and tell me how you land it. I didn't say the ap or alpha prot I said every. Huge emp burst and all these new planes are screwed.


For the A320, in the event of a complete loss of electrical flight control computer signals, the airplane reverts to a mechanical mode. The side stick is inoperative, pitch is controlled via pitch trim wheel, roll and yaw are controlled through the rudder pedals.

http://www.a320dp.com/A320_DP/flight-co ... .3.22.html


Ahh so the 320 is off the list (although that would still be a hell of a landing). However, pretty sure the 330, 350 787 would be squarely on the list.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:26 am

osiris30 wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
osiris30 wrote:

Fry every electrical system (I said everyone) and tell me how you land it. I didn't say the ap or alpha prot I said every. Huge emp burst and all these new planes are screwed.


For the A320, in the event of a complete loss of electrical flight control computer signals, the airplane reverts to a mechanical mode. The side stick is inoperative, pitch is controlled via pitch trim wheel, roll and yaw are controlled through the rudder pedals.

http://www.a320dp.com/A320_DP/flight-co ... .3.22.html


Ahh so the 320 is off the list (although that would still be a hell of a landing). However, pretty sure the 330, 350 787 would be squarely on the list.


All A320-A380 have similar mechanical back-up system. I don't know about Boeing backups.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:35 am

osiris30 wrote:
SteinarN wrote:
osiris30 wrote:

Fry every electrical system (I said everyone) and tell me how you land it. I didn't say the ap or alpha prot I said every. Huge emp burst and all these new planes are screwed.


Well, then I can ask you to send a request to Airbus and ask them how the flight test pilots of for example the A350 managed to land that aircraft after their very first test flight of the A350. Because that very first test flight was actually made in direct law without any FCC online. This was done on purpose.


Please read what I wrote. I said ALL electrical systems. ALL. EVERY ONE OF THEM. I didn't say they were flying in direct law, I said ALL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS HAVE FAILED. As in what would happen after an EMP burst. Or more plausibly a massive short in just the right place to take out the batteries and shut down the engines. You are talking about a computer. They still had instruments running, hydraulic actuators, etc.

My point was, compared to the old cable and pulley systems FBW has more failure modes. I know you've missed this up until now, hopefully you read this post instead of just restating an irrelevant (to the point I was making) counter 'argument'.


Yes one fully understands only electric has failures, mechanics never. :sarcastic:

But, perhaps you start thinking about it, it is not the A320neo that falls out of the sky, it is the 737MAX.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:43 am

Finn350 wrote:
osiris30 wrote:
Finn350 wrote:

For the A320, in the event of a complete loss of electrical flight control computer signals, the airplane reverts to a mechanical mode. The side stick is inoperative, pitch is controlled via pitch trim wheel, roll and yaw are controlled through the rudder pedals.

http://www.a320dp.com/A320_DP/flight-co ... .3.22.html


Ahh so the 320 is off the list (although that would still be a hell of a landing). However, pretty sure the 330, 350 787 would be squarely on the list.


All A320-A380 have similar mechanical back-up system. I don't know about Boeing backups.


I was unaware the newer ones had still bothered running cables (surprised by the 350 frankly).
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 1018
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:59 am

Finn350 wrote:
osiris30 wrote:
Finn350 wrote:

For the A320, in the event of a complete loss of electrical flight control computer signals, the airplane reverts to a mechanical mode. The side stick is inoperative, pitch is controlled via pitch trim wheel, roll and yaw are controlled through the rudder pedals.

http://www.a320dp.com/A320_DP/flight-co ... .3.22.html


Ahh so the 320 is off the list (although that would still be a hell of a landing). However, pretty sure the 330, 350 787 would be squarely on the list.


All A320-A380 have similar mechanical back-up system. I don't know about Boeing backups.


Actually this is a bit more complicated. Please see the page 24 of this document.
https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Sch ... ntrols.pdf

Primary Flight controls: Back-up Control
Logical evolution of A320 / A340 / A340-600 family:
Full Fly-By-Wire, with a “Back-up” as an additional precaution to
keep control of the aircraft during temporary loss of:
> all Primary Flight Control computers
> all Electrical power supply
• A320 : full FBW controls, mechanical Back-up (Pitch Trim & Rudder)
• A340/A330 : like A320, additional Yaw Damper to improve Dutch Roll
damping even in Back-up mode (BYDU with hydraulic micro generator)
• A340-600 : like A340 for pitch, Rudder becomes fully Electrical
(BPS + BCM : Back-up Power Supply + Control Module)
• A380 : like A340-600 for Yaw control + BPS+BCM also power
> Electrical Pitch Back-Up (elevators) linked to side-stick
> Electrical Roll Back-Up (ailerons) linked to side-stick
> Pitch Trim (Wheel is replaced by Switches).


Please note that the backup system have a fully independent electrical circuit. First part of the document show how each important actuators is both hydraulic and electric for backup. Mid part show the high redundancy of power sources, controls, computers and network. Last part show the electrical backup control.
:stirthepot: 737-8 MAX: "For all speeds higher than 220 Kts and trim set at a value of 2.5 units, the difficulity level of turning the manual trim wheel was level A (trim wheel not movable)." :stirthepot:
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:08 am

PixelFlight wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
osiris30 wrote:

Ahh so the 320 is off the list (although that would still be a hell of a landing). However, pretty sure the 330, 350 787 would be squarely on the list.


All A320-A380 have similar mechanical back-up system. I don't know about Boeing backups.


Actually this is a bit more complicated. Please see the page 24 of this document.
https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Sch ... ntrols.pdf

Primary Flight controls: Back-up Control
Logical evolution of A320 / A340 / A340-600 family:
Full Fly-By-Wire, with a “Back-up” as an additional precaution to
keep control of the aircraft during temporary loss of:
> all Primary Flight Control computers
> all Electrical power supply
• A320 : full FBW controls, mechanical Back-up (Pitch Trim & Rudder)
• A340/A330 : like A320, additional Yaw Damper to improve Dutch Roll
damping even in Back-up mode (BYDU with hydraulic micro generator)
• A340-600 : like A340 for pitch, Rudder becomes fully Electrical
(BPS + BCM : Back-up Power Supply + Control Module)
• A380 : like A340-600 for Yaw control + BPS+BCM also power
> Electrical Pitch Back-Up (elevators) linked to side-stick
> Electrical Roll Back-Up (ailerons) linked to side-stick
> Pitch Trim (Wheel is replaced by Switches).


Please note that the backup system have a fully independent electrical circuit. First part of the document show how each important actuators is both hydraulic and electric for backup. Mid part show the high redundancy of power sources, controls, computers and network. Last part show the electrical backup control.


Last comment as we are so far OT, but basically as you move down the line you get progressively further reliant on some form of electric system and if you did have a massive solar flare that fried (again, ALL) the systems you'd be pretty screwed.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 1018
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:33 am

osiris30 wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
Finn350 wrote:

All A320-A380 have similar mechanical back-up system. I don't know about Boeing backups.


Actually this is a bit more complicated. Please see the page 24 of this document.
https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Sch ... ntrols.pdf

Primary Flight controls: Back-up Control
Logical evolution of A320 / A340 / A340-600 family:
Full Fly-By-Wire, with a “Back-up” as an additional precaution to
keep control of the aircraft during temporary loss of:
> all Primary Flight Control computers
> all Electrical power supply
• A320 : full FBW controls, mechanical Back-up (Pitch Trim & Rudder)
• A340/A330 : like A320, additional Yaw Damper to improve Dutch Roll
damping even in Back-up mode (BYDU with hydraulic micro generator)
• A340-600 : like A340 for pitch, Rudder becomes fully Electrical
(BPS + BCM : Back-up Power Supply + Control Module)
• A380 : like A340-600 for Yaw control + BPS+BCM also power
> Electrical Pitch Back-Up (elevators) linked to side-stick
> Electrical Roll Back-Up (ailerons) linked to side-stick
> Pitch Trim (Wheel is replaced by Switches).


Please note that the backup system have a fully independent electrical circuit. First part of the document show how each important actuators is both hydraulic and electric for backup. Mid part show the high redundancy of power sources, controls, computers and network. Last part show the electrical backup control.


Last comment as we are so far OT, but basically as you move down the line you get progressively further reliant on some form of electric system and if you did have a massive solar flare that fried (again, ALL) the systems you'd be pretty screwed.


Aircraft shield routinely sustain lightning strikes. The local energy density of a lightning strike event on the mechanics, electric and electronics is pretty high. A such energy density distributed by a gigantic solar flare over all exposed Earth ground surface would probably terminate our actual civilization.
:stirthepot: 737-8 MAX: "For all speeds higher than 220 Kts and trim set at a value of 2.5 units, the difficulity level of turning the manual trim wheel was level A (trim wheel not movable)." :stirthepot:
 
zoom321
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:05 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:51 am

Air worthy or not, there is no indication from the investigation or B that Lion maintenance didn't follow B manuals. So even if indeed it was not air worthy, B is mostly to blame.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:07 am

zoom321 wrote:
Air worthy or not, there is no indication from the investigation or B that Lion maintenance didn't follow B manuals. So even if indeed it was not air worthy, B is mostly to blame.


I don't think B has EVER made a statement like that about any customer, even when MX was faulty. As for the investigation, let's let it finish before we decide what it does and doesn't blame. There is no doubt MCAS will be on the list for the Lion flight, but let's see what else is.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:25 am

777Jet wrote:
1.8- That explains why it was allowed to fly that day. Whilst I don't agree with "3 identical faults within 7 days" being the standard (seems like a low standard), it is what it is and in this case, it failed its purpose and an accident occurred.

Well, that is for identifying repeat errors/problems... The pre-requisite for this is for the previous rectification to have been done according to the Troubleshooting Manual. This means that the problem is beyond what you expect the guy on the field to deal with. It's 3x because 2x could be because the 1st repair may have had deficiencies or the problem was not identified correctly, so 3rd time, there HAS to be a problem beyond the TSM & the guy on the field.

That morning, someone at Engineering Management was supposed to look at the "numerous faults over the weekend" because that hit another maintenance occurence trigger... but the plane crashed before the guy who was supposed to look at it got to the office. Sad... :(

777Jet wrote:
1.9- That fake news media!!!

Well, this is how the media is from time to time, unfortunately...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:07 am

PixelFlight wrote:
osiris30 wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:

Actually this is a bit more complicated. Please see the page 24 of this document.
https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Sch ... ntrols.pdf



Please note that the backup system have a fully independent electrical circuit. First part of the document show how each important actuators is both hydraulic and electric for backup. Mid part show the high redundancy of power sources, controls, computers and network. Last part show the electrical backup control.


Last comment as we are so far OT, but basically as you move down the line you get progressively further reliant on some form of electric system and if you did have a massive solar flare that fried (again, ALL) the systems you'd be pretty screwed.


Aircraft shield routinely sustain lightning strikes. The local energy density of a lightning strike event on the mechanics, electric and electronics is pretty high. A such energy density distributed by a gigantic solar flare over all exposed Earth ground surface would probably terminate our actual civilization.



Yes. Would have thought A/Cs would be at more direct risk with extremely high neutron flux density drilling holes through micro circuits than electrical induction effects. Secondarily, loss of Comms, GPS, beacons and airport landing systems would be the worry, assuming the neutron flux had not killed the crew in short order.


Ray
 
trent768
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:32 pm

Re: Lion Air 737MAX8 Crashed Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang

Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:49 am

mandala499 wrote:
777Jet wrote:
Then the story changed. Lion Air threatened to sue the safety committee member who made the not airworthy comment. So the story changed from not-airworthy, to 'never said it was not air-worthy', after the threat to sue.

Let me explain what happened.
1.1. I heard the recording of the investigator statement, he specifically said that once the aircraft had become airborne and suffered those problems, the aircraft was deemed to no longer be airworthy and should have returned.
1.2. The local media, loving to jump to conclusion especially with their blood thirst to find a scape goat, immediately put on the headlines "aircraft was not airworthy". Yes, I received countless calls from the local media, asking for comments to their question of "how could Lion let an unairworthy aircraft depart?"
1.3. A local journalist working for a foreign media played the recording (mentioned in point 1 above), to ask exactly what it meant.
1.4. Lion Air's management was shocked to see the flood of allegation with the media claiming the NTSC had made the statement of "The aircraft was not airworthy", implying it was not airworthy prior to departure and forced it to depart.
1.5. Lion Air did make a call to NTSC. Evidence of the statement was given to Lion Air by NTSC and several credible journalists (eg: using the recording given in #3).
1.6. Lion Air agreed that NTSC did not make an erroneous statement but asked NTSC to clarify what it said. NTSC did so.
1.7. Once the aircraft was not airworthy in the air, normal convention states that it is up to the pilot on whether to continue or not. Armchair pilot syndrome has unfortunately hit mainstream media.
1.8. The aircraft kept reporting different problems. If they had 3 identical faults within 7 days, they would have grounded the aircraft. This is the "repetitive problem" methodology used after QZ8501 in 2014. Unfortunately, JT610 was the 3rd flight reporting the same problem. The engineer onboard was there to ground the aircraft at the destination or back at CGK if it had the same problem (3rd in 7 days = grounded, no matter what). Same like AF447,it was the last flight prior to having the pitot tubes changed/replaced.
1.9. How did the foreign media get it wrong? Simple, based on eyewitness statement to me: The foreign media was confused on what the NTSC said, and asked a local journo, what it meant. Of course the local journo would say, "airplane unairworthy, should not fly"... and the snowball started.
1.10. I did call one of LionAir's most senior management on points 1.4 to 1.5, which confirmed what various sources independently told me.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Pending confirmation from Mandala, was there anything wrong with the AFML extracts I gave to you 7 hours ago, detailing exactly what was done in Jakarta?

2.1. Am not an engineer.
2.2. I've asked several of my credible engineer and engineering analysis friends within LionAir and LionAir Group, they did what they needed to do according to the troubleshooting manual and repairs manual. There are other more detailed reports, but that is not for public disclosure (by order of the investigators), and I have not seen those either.
2.3. After several past mis-repairs (in the 737 classics days), I am told by an engineer in Lion that Boeing wanted Lion Air engineers to just follow specific instructions in the TSM and Repairs Manual, and not "get creative" on the field. I can understand why, but this limits the ability to problem solve in the field. The Engineering analysts in the office are the ones who should get creative. BUT, after QZ8501, a strict "repetitive defect" procedure is followed before you get creative. Again, pluses and minuses on each alternative.

enzo011 wrote:
Does he mean that the previous flight should not have continued when it had the same issues? Or does he mean this particular aircraft should have been grounded until it has been fixed? It was never clear for me whether it was meant that the airline missed that the aircraft itself was not safe to fly again. This was a view that was stated on this thread as well.

Then the next question was, when is it airworthy again? Who decides this? We will have to wait for the investigation if they find that the work done by the engineer on the aircraft was not to the procedure of the OEM. Either way this would have been another hole in the Swiss cheese that aligned for this flight to crash whereas the previous flight was able to continue safely.

#bangingheadontable
3.1.OK, read my reply #3119 above... or hang on... let me quote it below:
mandala499 wrote:
You misunderstood what the investigators said. Your dispatch airworthiness is only valid up to the point of the aircraft taking off. Once you develop problems in the air, to that extent, the aircraft was no longer airworthy (after it got airborne). Once you land, you can fix it to make it airworthy again.
Gotta love how all this got lost in translations (especially by non-aviations savvy journalists.

3.2. It is airworthy again once you've conducted the proper troubleshooting and repairs required on the aircraft. Then an engineer signs it off, and another engineer determines whether it should be deemed airworthy again for revenue flight.
3.3. Swiss Cheese? see 2.3. above. You can't win everything, however, you gotta continuously asses the situation to see what policies and procedures need to be changed to ensure you don't become a hostage to a previous policy decision.

Completely agree with Mandala. I followed the discussion here and read the preliminary report and were so confused when all the local online media states the exact opposite. I'm studying abroad right now so I don't have access to the proper local newspaper, which is way more credible than those clickbaity online news. I wonder how the report looks like on that one *wink wink* channel that always report the exact opposite of what happened, no matter what issues there is (y'all Indonesian know what I'm m talking about, right? Lol!).

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos