Could an in-flight breakup still cause the plane to keep its velocity up as well? That is an incredibly straight line down, just seeing if its possible at all. Among the wreckage, pieces of jeans were found by fisherman as well as small parts of the aircraft (per Telegraph)

Actually, not reported in this forum, Sriwijaya had an incident the day before (see Aviation Herald), SJ-591 on a 737-800 flying from Makassar UPG to Jakarta (CGK). Engine problems, and fortunately, the crew managed to turn around and land safely. Awful week for SJ.

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:

RIP to all those onboard, hope they didn't suffer. The speeds shown on FR24 seem pretty weird to me. I compared it with the speeds of the Metrojet crash in Egypt in 2015 (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/pinn ... d3#7d986d3), and both flights reported a massive loss in airspeed during the very rapid descend. Based on that, it sounds like it may have been a bomb...

Keep in mind that FR24 generally does not report airspeed, but groundspeed (I think even their premium features like true airspeed are derived from the groundspeed). And an aircraft going into a steep descent will travel less distance across the ground and report a lower groundspeed.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Just fell from the sky at 11,000 feet, or was it forced that way? The fall appears to be a free fall or straight vertical (plunged into the ocean) as it was less than 2 minutes from climbing to crash. I would imagine there would be eyewitnesses to this crash. Planespotters noted a nose-dive.

The first concern that comes to mind would be possible spatial disorientation. I don't know if this -500 had any modern equipment in the cockpit, or was it original steam dials? Speculation at this point.

Indonesia just cannot get a break from these horrible disasters. My heart is going out to those lost, the loved ones, and the airline community.

F9Animal wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Just fell from the sky at 11,000 feet, or was it forced that way? The fall appears to be a free fall or straight vertical (plunged into the ocean) as it was less than 2 minutes from climbing to crash. I would imagine there would be eyewitnesses to this crash. Planespotters noted a nose-dive.

The first concern that comes to mind would be possible spatial disorientation. I don't know if this -500 had any modern equipment in the cockpit, or was it original steam dials? Speculation at this point.

Indonesia just cannot get a break from these horrible disasters. My heart is going out to those lost, the loved ones, and the airline community.

Digital dials for EICAS, but not full glass cockpit. Retrofits to make PFD and ND as glass cockpit available, from 2 standard screen like 737NG, to 787-inspired large screen display (https://www.flightglobal.com/picture-southwest-launches-737-300-cockpit-upgrade-with-boeing-and-ge/84447.article).

EDIT: 737 Classic was already glass (CRT) for PFD and ND. Retrofits were to replace them with LCD a la 737NG or, like Southwest-Boeing-GE Collab, a 787 like single giant LCD.

F9Animal wrote:

I don't know if this -500 had any modern equipment in the cockpit, or was it original steam dials? Speculation at this point.

Probably. This was a Continental plane until 2012

Can’t see a spatial disorientation, stall or some other instrument failure leading to such an immediate and dramatic event. The data looks like some sort of catastrophic structural failure which made the aircraft immediately uncontrollable but obviously it’s too early to say anything with any certainty.

Wouldn’t it have been in autopilot? Seems like that would take away the spatial disorientation angle. Unless they all of the sudden didn’t trust it for some reason to the point they thought they needed to really over correct.

polywad6963 wrote:

Could an in-flight breakup still cause the plane to keep its velocity up as well? That is an incredibly straight line down, just seeing if its possible at all. Among the wreckage, pieces of jeans were found by fisherman as well as small parts of the aircraft (per Telegraph)

If something desintegrates in mid-air, be it an aircraft or a grenade, the fragments keep their veloctiy and the combined center of gravity of all fragments continue to fly on the original trajectory.

The big difference is, that the many fragments have a much bigger air drag and so the fragments will slow down very fast (ground speed) and fall down to earth in a ballistic curve.

F9Animal wrote:

The first concern that comes to mind would be possible spatial disorientation. I don't know if this -500 had any modern equipment in the cockpit, or was it original steam dials? Speculation at this point.

There are a few photos from 2012-2014 of PK-CLC's cockpit in the database.

Lighthouse wrote:

Can’t see a spatial disorientation, stall or some other instrument failure leading to such an immediate and dramatic event. The data looks like some sort of catastrophic structural failure which made the aircraft immediately uncontrollable but obviously it’s too early to say anything with any certainty.

Can I go a limb and say that, if catastrophic structural failure happened, it cannot be explosive decompression at all? The 737 cabin pressure can only be at 8000ft max at FL270 (http://www.b737.org.uk/pressurisation.htm), hence at FL100-FL110, the difference in pressure is definitely too low to create any explosive decompression.

anatolialevant wrote:

Lighthouse wrote:

Can’t see a spatial disorientation, stall or some other instrument failure leading to such an immediate and dramatic event. The data looks like some sort of catastrophic structural failure which made the aircraft immediately uncontrollable but obviously it’s too early to say anything with any certainty.

Can I go a limb and say that, if catastrophic structural failure happened, it cannot be explosive decompression at all? The 737 cabin pressure can only be at 8000ft max at FL270 (http://www.b737.org.uk/pressurisation.htm), hence at FL100-FL110, the difference in pressure is definitely too low to create any explosive decompression.

It would be highly unusual for a plane to go pop at that level for pressurisation related reasons. There will be a pressure differential so it’s feasible but very unlikely to be a JAL123 type event.

My guts feeling think of these possibilities:
1- Pilot suicide or intruder in cockpit. Many major accidents in the last years like MH370, Germanwings 9545, LAM, earlier Egyptair 990, RAM, Silkair turned out to be something like that.
2- (Part of) stabilizer or wing broke off
3- Spatial disorientation maybe due to instrument failure, can make an aircraft make a 90 degree turn and dive to earth

The aircraft was a former Continental Airlines 737-500 (N27610).

Ironically, N18611 was the aircraft that crashed in Denver in December of 2008. CO #1404

Not sure if those were delivered back-to-back but I found it interesting.

flyingturtle wrote:

:worried:

vrbarreto wrote:

has already come to the conclusion that it was pilot error/suicide/poor maintenance

With these three possibilities, chances they are right must be 85%... in other news, I might be male, female, or a friendly, green alien.

How about...a bomb?

Antaras wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

:worried:

vrbarreto wrote:

has already come to the conclusion that it was pilot error/suicide/poor maintenance

With these three possibilities, chances they are right must be 85%... in other news, I might be male, female, or a friendly, green alien.

How about...a bomb?

Wouldn't an organisation will quickly claim about doing it already? Especially since it's already 9-10 hours after accident?

At least no local news reported any claim from any organisation yet (and hopefully not).

mxaxai wrote:

morrisond wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

That graph is crazy, the aircraft is climbing but then loses altitude and loses speed in 10 seconds? Extremely odd. If I had to take guess, high AOA stall. Icing maybe?

...
Icing was involved in the Saratov Airlines flight, and could be a contributing factor here as well.

...

Icing after 4 mins of flight in tropical Indonesia? Is that even possible?

MEA-707 wrote:

My guts feeling think of these possibilities:
1- Pilot suicide or intruder in cockpit. Many major accidents in the last years like MH370, Germanwings 9545, LAM, earlier Egyptair 990, RAM, Silkair turned out to be something like that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we still have no idea what happened to MH370, right?

EgyptAir Flight 990 and SilkAir Flight 185 being incidents of pilot suicide are still disputed

Draken21fx wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

morrisond wrote:

...
Icing was involved in the Saratov Airlines flight, and could be a contributing factor here as well.

...

Icing after 4 mins of flight in tropical Indonesia? Is that even possible?

Standard ISA cooling is around two degrees per thousand feet, so if it's low twenties at the airfield you might just be touching on the freezing level at 10-15,000ft but you'd be right on the bottom edge of what's plausible. The airframe would still have a fair amount of heat and the wings would be full of warm fuel. On the other hand, they could have flown into cumulus clouds with super-cooled rain droplets.

Overall, I highly doubt it was a factor.

kennethP3 wrote:

MEA-707 wrote:

My guts feeling think of these possibilities:
1- Pilot suicide or intruder in cockpit. Many major accidents in the last years like MH370, Germanwings 9545, LAM, earlier Egyptair 990, RAM, Silkair turned out to be something like that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we still have no idea what happened to MH370, right?

EgyptAir Flight 990 and SilkAir Flight 185 being incidents of pilot suicide are still disputed

We have some idea you'll find most say it was either pilot suicide or an intruder. They are certainly the most likely. With 990 it is highly likely that it was pilot input, it's really only the ECAA that disagree. 185 is probably a little trickier but again you'll find most reputable people agree that it was pilot input.

Could this be a possible bombing? That could explain the sudden fall from the sky very abruptly. Just my two cents.

kennethP3 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we still have no idea what happened to MH370, right?

The only thing we knew is that the signal was (actively?) turned off when it nearly entered SGN-airspace, and it flew for a few hours on the Indian Ocean.

I know we don't know much about the debris field but if an aircraft broke apart in flight (a Bomb) the debris field would be over a large area. If the Aircraft nosedived into the sea the debris field would be compact. I am waiting to see where the wreckage is.

travaz wrote:

I know we don't know much about the debris field but if an aircraft broke apart in flight (a Bomb) the debris field would be over a large area. If the Aircraft nosedived into the sea the debris field would be compact. I am waiting to see where the wreckage is.

Local news reported that SAR team already pinpoint the location. 5 ships from Indonesia Navy and SAR are on the way. The aircraft was predicted to be at 20m below sea level.

Correction: it was the navy that founded the coordinate, not SAR

So there is a good chance to find and download the recorders telling us what happened.

anatolialevant wrote:

Digital dials for EICAS

AFAIK the 737 does not have EICAS. (Any iteration)

76er wrote:

anatolialevant wrote:

Digital dials for EICAS

AFAIK the 737 does not have EICAS. (Any iteration)

Ah, I mean EIS (after consulting the b737.org.uk)

MattFewer wrote:

I'd assume anyone participating in a specialist aviation forum online like this one might be better informed ? There are copious amounts of discussion, links and information as to the current status of the Max and where it's flying again. Unfortunately all this proves is that 'Max hysteria' is as we expected, still a thing.

Set aside the fact that much of this "Max hysteria," as you colorfully, is perfectly justified, given Boeing's cutting of corners. The fact that the Sriwijaya crash involved a 737-500 in no way clears the 737-MAX, any more than the Pakistan Airlines A320 crash last year cleared the MAX.

Antaras wrote:

kennethP3 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we still have no idea what happened to MH370, right?

The only thing we knew is that the signal was (actively?) turned off when it nearly entered SGN-airspace, and it flew for a few hours on the Indian Ocean.

And that it performed some extraordinary maneuvers between airspaces.

SurlyBonds wrote:

MattFewer wrote:

I'd assume anyone participating in a specialist aviation forum online like this one might be better informed ? There are copious amounts of discussion, links and information as to the current status of the Max and where it's flying again. Unfortunately all this proves is that 'Max hysteria' is as we expected, still a thing.

Set aside the fact that much of this "Max hysteria," as you colorfully, is perfectly justified, given Boeing's cutting of corners. The fact that the Sriwijaya crash involved a 737-500 in no way clears the 737-MAX, any more than the Pakistan Airlines A320 crash last year cleared the MAX.

And who said it did? This has nothing to do with the MAX.

The only one linking the 3 types in a post is you.

Aesma wrote:

It's one of the risks associated with keeping the 737 going instead of building a new aircraft. Once the 737 brand is in the gutter, that's a problem for all 737 operators. I wonder if those who ordered new 737Max recently have thought about that.

It is also reasonable to point out that Boeing pooh-poohed the 737-200 and -300 rudder problems in the mid-1990s. The MAX is not the first iteration of safety problems with the 737 family.

scarebus03 wrote:

Pure speculation on my part but a rudder hard over has caused such a dive in the past. In theory all affected B737's should have been modified years ago.

The servo thing? Yes I am sure they were.

evanbu wrote:

The aircraft was a former Continental Airlines 737-500 (N27610).

Ironically, N18611 was the aircraft that crashed in Denver in December of 2008. CO #1404

Not sure if those were delivered back-to-back but I found it interesting.

There is no irony. That is merely coincidence.

MEA-707 wrote:

My guts feeling think of these possibilities:
1- Pilot suicide or intruder in cockpit. Many major accidents in the last years like MH370, Germanwings 9545, LAM, earlier Egyptair 990, RAM, Silkair turned out to be something like that.
2- (Part of) stabilizer or wing broke off
3- Spatial disorientation maybe due to instrument failure, can make an aircraft make a 90 degree turn and dive to earth

I am going with a catastrophic event

Just found a photo on Twitter which allegedly shows the Captain and FO in the cockpit just before the flight. Eerie.

https://twitter.com/jokibandit/status/1 ... 1039199232

Bradlee102896 wrote:

Could this be a possible bombing? That could explain the sudden fall from the sky very abruptly. Just my two cents.

Aircraft transponder probably would have stopped working though? It had power clear until the plane hit the ocean.

As an aside, from an article dated on 10/19/2019:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-boeing-airplanes/cracks-found-on-38-of-810-boeing-737-ng-jets-inspected-globally-idUSKBN1WP2BD
Indonesia's Sriwijaya Air said on Friday that it had grounded two planes.

Planes with cracks “may need to be taken out of the fleet for up to 60 days for maintenance,” Syth said.
The FAA last week said inspections would look for “cracking of the left and right hand side outboard chords of frame fittings and failsafe straps.”
It added that the cracking “could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane and result in loss of control of the airplane.”

Aircraft with more than 30,000 cycles must be inspected within seven days, while planes between 22,600 and 29,999 cycles must be inspected within 1,000 cycles, which typically correspond to the number of flights. In total, 1,911 U.S. 737 NGs are covered by the FAA directive.

Additionally, from another article on the same issue:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/10/08/boeings-737-in-another-pickle-part-2/
The combination of a wing center-wingbox pushing wing and landing gear forces into the fuselage in an area where the fuselage has a large cutout for the folded main landing gear makes this area complex regarding forces and how these work the parts during flights.
The stress spectrum in the area can also have been affected by the later fitting of winglets on the NG, not foreseen in the original design of this area.
Winglets change the pressure distribution of the wing to a distribution spreading further outboard, by it increasing the wing root bending moment.

The reported aircraft involved is a 737-500, but also carried winglets.

twinotter wrote:

evanbu wrote:

The aircraft was a former Continental Airlines 737-500 (N27610).

Ironically, N18611 was the aircraft that crashed in Denver in December of 2008. CO #1404

Not sure if those were delivered back-to-back but I found it interesting.

There is no irony. That is merely coincidence.

Yup. The type was relatively rare and Continental had a massive fleet of them, often of a later production date making them attractive for resale when Continental/UA retired the type. It is only to be expect that 737-500s built for Continenal would be more likely to end up featuring in multiple accidents.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 2012_q4/4/

This is pure speculation. The loss appears to be dramatic and sudden. I would not rule out lightning strike.

The flight was delayed due to storm activity and was lost at an altitude where lightning strikes are most likely to occur. As the attached Boeing report reads, despite designing and building lightning protections into aircraft, flashes of unusually high intensity can damage internal components.

zeke wrote:

I just hope this is not a max. The last position is near where lion air went down.

My first thought would be the safety and well-being of the passengers and crew, rather than what variant of the Boeing 737.

Interested wrote:

AeroplaneFreak wrote:

zeke wrote:

I just hope this is not a max. The last position is near where lion air went down.

Light fires much? As if you don't already know Sriwijaya Air don't have the MAX let alone it being allowed to fly in Indonesia at the moment.

Fact is the first thought for vast majority when they read a 737 has crashed shortly after take off would be the same

Please Lord not another Max

Let's be honest

Being honest, my first thought would be the safety and well-being of the passengers and crew, rather than what variant of the Boeing 737 has crashed.

Breathe wrote:

Being honest, my first thought would be the safety and well-being of the passengers and crew, rather than what variant of the Boeing 737 has crashed.

When the thread was started all is said an aircraft crashed a few minutes after takeoff, no aircraft model had been identified, the thread title was “Breaking: 737 Crashed Indonesia”. The position of the crash is near where the Lion air 737 crashed, north of Jakarta over water, survivability for such an event is realistically is very very low.

.

Is the course deviation to the left (approx 3 km before impact) before or at/after the sudden speed/altitude change?
There are two events 1) bank to left and then 2) deek to right (moment of in-air breakup?)

Noshow wrote:

A very steep fall. Not a descent anymore.
From that altitude he could have glided back to the runway even with engines out?

Yes, of course. From 10,000ft they could have glided 30 miles.

My understanding of ADSB data is that it reports ground speed.

Just my opinion/not an expert:

If you look at the data in three dimensions - the increasing FPM rate of descent in Z axis along with loss of ground speed, and then the rapidly increasing groundspeed at the very end of the ADSB data - it looks a lot like the airspeed never changed all that much. There is NO way a 737 could have picked up +243kts groundspeed in 6.5 seconds due to engine thrust alone at the end of the ADSB data. So, the energy (airspeed) was already there (due to the high rate of descent). This implies a controlled pull up from a descent, which implies an intact airframe and intact control systems. It also implies (at least the strong possibility of) a controlled entry into this rapid descent.

The photos released so far would also imply a high speed impact (although I admit the photos released so far are pretty darn scant).

My wife & I travelled SUB-CGK on B737-3Y0 PK-CKI. (Currently in storage)

Sad news, thoughts & prayers to the families with loved ones onboard SJ182.

I see the zebras are in full gallop.

Recent report on CNN was the boat on the water heard a loud boom and experienced a significant swell. My read, most likely the intact or mostly intact plane hitting the water.

All things being equal this will most likely be a mechanical and/or human error problem. Rapid loss of control. Unrecoverable due to mechanical or human impairment. We need the black boxes

TV channels are still saying "is feared to have crashed" even after people saw it hit the sea and smash into 1000 pieces. There's no doubt at all that it happened, the only question is why.

It looks like it suddenly went into a nosedive and continued that nosedive until hit the water.

By my count that’s two ex Continental -524’s destroyed in fatal accidents and one seriously damaged in a runway overrun


They haven’t had much luck!

This may be a dumb question but since I am not a pilot, is it common for a 737 (or any aircraft outside of military for that matter) to make that steep an ascent at about 7:35 on the graph? It looks as if the aircraft went almost straight up (and very quickly) before it dropped but perhaps I am not properly interpreting the graph. That doesn't seem normal to me.