Sriwijaya Air flight #SJ182 feared crashed minutes after departure from Jakarta.

@flightradar24

I get what you mean...

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

Early reports are very very grim.

My thoughts and prayers are with all on the plane.

zeke wrote:

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

They don't have MAX....and it is not cleared to fly in Indonesia yet.

It is a 737-500 btw

This is the plane; a former Continental/United

https://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b737-27323.htm

PK-CLC, formerly N27610 (since May 1994) with Continental and later, UA. With Sriwijaya since 2012.

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.

https://www.dw.com/en/indonesia-sriwijaya-air-plane-loses-contact-shortly-after-takeoff/a-56178706
The flight was carrying 59 passengers, including five children and a baby, reported Indonesian newspaper Republika.
It was heading to Pontianak, the provincial capital of West Kalimantan.
The plane lost more than 10,000 feet of altitude in less than a minute, reported flight tracker website FlightRadar24.

Early reporting, admittedly - but so far, this is what is being reported to the public.

Noshow wrote:

From that altitude he could have glided back to the runway even with engines out for some reason?

Even with two engines out, a 737 would not lose over 10.000ft in less than a minute.

Just a reminder if you are posting factual information it MUST BE sourced correctly. This includes providing a link to the news story plus adding your own comments, quotes of the story are optional though only a fair use portion of the article is permitted to be used.

Really sad news to hear.

It seems that debris have been found.
Source: https://www.airlive.net/breaking-sriwij ... r-takeoff/

Sky News actually said Boeing 737-500 in their report minutes ago.

andz wrote:

Sky News actually said Boeing 737-500 in their report minutes ago.

There was never any question that is wasn't a 735.

AeroplaneFreak wrote:

andz wrote:

Sky News actually said Boeing 737-500 in their report minutes ago.

There was never any question that is wasn't a 735.

Knowing Sky News I’m guessing the fact they actually said it was a 500 is the reason he has highlighted it. Unfortunately I’m guessing the MAX (because it’s a Boeing) will be mentioned at so point by the gutter press.

wezgulf3 wrote:

AeroplaneFreak wrote:

andz wrote:

Sky News actually said Boeing 737-500 in their report minutes ago.

There was never any question that is wasn't a 735.

Knowing Sky News I’m guessing the fact they actually said it was a 500 is the reason he has highlighted it. Unfortunately I’m guessing the MAX (because it’s a Boeing) will be mentioned at so point by the gutter press.

Good point and apologies to andz, I am dreading the number of comments and articles that will relate this somehow to the MAX.

So far Indonesian media's (at least the most popular one) didn't mention MAX. All news sources that I've run through says it was Boeing 737-524.

A.net is great at giving tomorrow's news today. The 735 went down just after 07.40 GMT. its now 11.32 and this thread announcing the accident was started 8 hours ago.

AeroplaneFreak wrote:

wezgulf3 wrote:

AeroplaneFreak wrote:

There was never any question that is wasn't a 735.

Knowing Sky News I’m guessing the fact they actually said it was a 500 is the reason he has highlighted it. Unfortunately, I’m guessing the MAX (because it’s a Boeing) will be mentioned at so point by the gutter press.

Good point and apologies to andz, I am dreading the number of comments and articles that will relate this somehow to the MAX.

Sadly, we already have (in the comment section of local medias). It doesn't help with the fact that the sequences (from take-off to missing) looks eerily similar to the MAX crash, and the public hastily points their pitchforks at Boeing straight away.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4e18553c&opt=0

The Jakarta Airport METAR showed a Thunderstorm was over the airfield just prior to departure along with CB clouds to the West and North West, which was where the departure track of the aircraft was.

Those graphs do not look good, ugh.

anatolialevant wrote:

AeroplaneFreak wrote:

wezgulf3 wrote:

Knowing Sky News I’m guessing the fact they actually said it was a 500 is the reason he has highlighted it. Unfortunately, I’m guessing the MAX (because it’s a Boeing) will be mentioned at so point by the gutter press.

Good point and apologies to andz, I am dreading the number of comments and articles that will relate this somehow to the MAX.

Sadly, we already have (in the comment section of local medias). It doesn't help with the fact that the sequences (from take-off to missing) looks eerily similar to the MAX crash, and the public hastily points their pitchforks at Boeing straight away.

Yet 95% of those commenting wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 737 and an A320. They also probably don't realise that most accidents occur on take off or landing.

According to ADS-B data the aircraft had departed Sokarno's runway 25R at 07:36Z, was climbing through 10,600 feet at 07:39:50Z about 11nm north of Sokarno Airport and was at 07:40:11Z at 1400 feet about 1.6nm northnortheast of that position (average sink rate 26,300 fpm).

Metars:
WIII 090900Z 29006KT 6000 -RA BKN017 25/23 Q1006 NOSIG=
WIII 090830Z 29008KT 4000 RA OVC017 25/24 Q1006 NOSIG=
WIII 090800Z 28008KT 4000 -RA BKN016 OVC018 26/24 Q1006 NOSIG=
WIII 090730Z 30006KT 5000 -RA FEW017CB OVC018 25/24 Q1006 NOSIG=

http://avherald.com/h?article=4e18553c&opt=0

07:36Z is 14:36L, so broad daylight.
However, the METAR indicates a closed cloud cover starting at 1,800 ft (OVC018) and some thunderstorm activity (FEW017CB). So they could've easily been in IMC, which makes spatial disorientation possible.
That alone should not cause a crash, though, so I'd expect at least one further contributing factor.

Sad events, either way.

Residents of the islands nearby (Thousand Islands) were out on the sea in two boats when they heard two explosions, then found debris afloat at the sea. It was raining at that time. The residents returned to their islands about 2 hours later and reported to police.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4e18553c&opt=0

Likely no survivors...

(Presumed) Debris found near the Laki Island (link in Bahasa Indonesia):
https://nasional.okezone.com/read/2021/01/09/337/2341685/ini-foto-foto-yang-diduga-serpihan-pesawat-sriwijaya-air-di-kepulauan-seribu

EDIT: There's a video on the lower part of page of the rescue teams and locals picking up pieces of the (presumably from SJ182) aircraft

SimProgrammer wrote:

A.net is great at giving tomorrow's news today. The 735 went down just after 07.40 GMT. its now 11.32 and this thread announcing the accident was started 8 hours ago.

Are you living in GMT+8 timezone? This thread was started just over an hour ago. You need to set your time-zone in the User Control Panel so when you log-in it will auto adjust the timing.

Sriwijaya Air has a poor safety record, even for Indonesia. Plenty of incidents and a fatal accident within the last 12 years, especially with such a small number of aircraft. Recently they severed their relationship with Garuda and there were conflicts over payment for maintenance services and fears about how a small airline could operate without larger support.

In 2019 Sriwijaya’s own Director of Safety recommended the airline be grounded temporarily over concerns about safe maintenance practices and lack of engineers, spare parts and tools:

https://en.tempo.co/read/1269504/anothe ... wijaya-air

If an Indonesian Airline Executive recommends his own airline be grounded then you know something must definitely be wrong with that company’s operations.

Quick update: AV Herald has updated the news with photo of the first debris found.
http://avherald.com/h?article=4e18553c&opt=0

A torn jean, wirings, and what could be some reinforcing plates or structures (the plates has so many rivet holes, hence the guess). Looks like, sadly, a catastrophic crash.

wezgulf3 wrote:

AeroplaneFreak wrote:

andz wrote:

Sky News actually said Boeing 737-500 in their report minutes ago.

There was never any question that is wasn't a 735.

Knowing Sky News I’m guessing the fact they actually said it was a 500 is the reason he has highlighted it. Unfortunately I’m guessing the MAX (because it’s a Boeing) will be mentioned at so point by the gutter press.

Of course they will mention it. It’s their job, it is relevant to the story. They aren’t the PR department of Boeing.

wezgulf3 wrote:

AeroplaneFreak wrote:

andz wrote:

Sky News actually said Boeing 737-500 in their report minutes ago.

There was never any question that is wasn't a 735.

Knowing Sky News I’m guessing the fact they actually said it was a 500 is the reason he has highlighted it. Unfortunately I’m guessing the MAX (because it’s a Boeing) will be mentioned at so point by the gutter press.

The BBC that have made the connection to the MAX.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-55601909

RIP to those involved. A sad day.

Sandyb123

sandyb123 wrote:

wezgulf3 wrote:

AeroplaneFreak wrote:

There was never any question that is wasn't a 735.

Knowing Sky News I’m guessing the fact they actually said it was a 500 is the reason he has highlighted it. Unfortunately I’m guessing the MAX (because it’s a Boeing) will be mentioned at so point by the gutter press.

The BBC that have made the connection to the MAX.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-55601909

RIP to those involved. A sad day.

Sandyb123

To be the fair, BBC clearly states that 737500 is not a max. They have done right by showing this is different airplane.

RIP to those involved. Amen.

I check FR24 and the plane suggested to have stalled to the sea. And no survivors report to. 1 year ago UIA crashed and a year later another 737 crash in Indonesia. Sad day to aviation.

anatolialevant wrote:

Quick update: AV Herald has updated the news with photo of the first debris found.
http://avherald.com/h?article=4e18553c&opt=0

A torn jean, wirings, and what could be some reinforcing plates or structures (the plates has so many rivet holes, hence the guess). Looks like, sadly, a catastrophic crash.

For me the debris looks more like household waste than debris from an a/c crash.

Especially the colours ot the wires are those, which are typicaly used in household electric installations.

Correct me, if I'm wrong.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Recently they severed their relationship with Garuda and there were conflicts over payment for maintenance services and fears about how a small airline could operate without larger support.

SJ failed to pay their bills, which made Garuda stop providing services. Only then did they terminate the agreement. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... y-concerns

SJ is certainly one of the less reputable airlines within Indonesia, though past accidents do not seem to involve maintenance issues.

“The removal of the Garuda Indonesia logo from planes operated by Sriwijaya Air is part of an effort to protect the Garuda Indonesia Group brand, especially considering that the services provided by Sriwijaya Air Group haven’t been up to our standards since the start of the dispute,” Garuda Indonesia spokesperson M. Ikhsan Rosan said in a statement on Tuesday. “We’ve decided to remove the Garuda Indonesia logo to ensure that our brand only represents the highest standards of on-flight service and safety.”

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/201 ... spute.html

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

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

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.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4e18553c&opt=0

The Jakarta Airport METAR showed a Thunderstorm was over the airfield just prior to departure along with CB clouds to the West and North West, which was where the departure track of the aircraft was.

CB clouds would be reported every day in CGK, and something the crew would be very familiar with. A CB cloud or something like FEW018CB on the metar is something any pilot would expect every day operating in the area. If they are experiencing heavy rain and strong wings, and reduced visibility that would indicate some significant weather.

JannEejit 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.

When I wrote that post the thread was brand new with no replies, the aircraft type had not been established. I had no personal knowledge of what equipment was being used by that flight. It’s been reported on this thread and aherald subsequently as a 735, FR24 has it as a 738.

Reminds me of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Airlines_Flight_604

Heinkel wrote:

anatolialevant wrote:

Quick update: AV Herald has updated the news with photo of the first debris found.
http://avherald.com/h?article=4e18553c&opt=0

A torn jean, wirings, and what could be some reinforcing plates or structures (the plates has so many rivet holes, hence the guess). Looks like, sadly, a catastrophic crash.

For me the debris looks more like household waste than debris from an a/c crash.

Especially the colours ot the wires are those, which are typicaly used in household electric installations.

Correct me, if I'm wrong.

Looks ok to me...especially the black "snake skin" wire sheathing you see in the top left of the picture.

Heinkel wrote:

anatolialevant wrote:

Quick update: AV Herald has updated the news with photo of the first debris found.
http://avherald.com/h?article=4e18553c&opt=0

A torn jean, wirings, and what could be some reinforcing plates or structures (the plates has so many rivet holes, hence the guess). Looks like, sadly, a catastrophic crash.

For me the debris looks more like household waste than debris from an a/c crash.

Especially the colours ot the wires are those, which are typicaly used in household electric installations.

Correct me, if I'm wrong.

Doubt it. Wire colours are standardized, and so it could be from aircraft as it is from electric install. However, due to their length and uniform sizes, I assume it is from untangled wiring loom.
New photos also surfaced from the SAR team:
https://news.detik.com/foto-news/d-5327420/puing-puing-diduga-pesawat-sriwijaya-air-ditemukan-di-kepulauan-seribu/3?zoom=1

Looks like pieces of the rear end or vertical fins, since the pieces have 2 shades of blue (the body only has dark blue, white and red). And pretty shredded too.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Sriwijaya Air has a poor safety record, even for Indonesia. Plenty of incidents and a fatal accident within the last 12 years, especially with such a small number of aircraft. Recently they severed their relationship with Garuda and there were conflicts over payment for maintenance services and fears about how a small airline could operate without larger support.

In 2019 Sriwijaya’s own Director of Safety recommended the airline be grounded temporarily over concerns about safe maintenance practices and lack of engineers, spare parts and tools:

https://en.tempo.co/read/1269504/anothe ... wijaya-air

If an Indonesian Airline Executive recommends his own airline be grounded then you know something must definitely be wrong with that company’s operations.

Usual nonsense about Indonesian carriers. Sriwijaya have never killed a passenger, in 2008 an overrun ran over a farmer and that’s it. Very sad day for their good record to end but no need to pretend it’s a pre-existing condition.

zeke wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4e18553c&opt=0

The Jakarta Airport METAR showed a Thunderstorm was over the airfield just prior to departure along with CB clouds to the West and North West, which was where the departure track of the aircraft was.

CB clouds would be reported every day in CGK, and something the crew would be very familiar with. A CB cloud or something like FEW018CB on the metar is something any pilot would expect every day operating in the area. If they are experiencing heavy rain and strong wings, and reduced visibility that would indicate some significant weather.

The satellite precipitation/cloud cover image on avherald suggests that CGK may have been on the edge of a large CB cluster but the crash site does not appear to have any rain.

A regular satellite image even shows some ocean surface through the clouds at the crash site, weather conditions would have improved on their way north: https://himawari.asia/himawari8-image.h ... 0178000000

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.

cedarjet wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Sriwijaya Air has a poor safety record, even for Indonesia. Plenty of incidents and a fatal accident within the last 12 years, especially with such a small number of aircraft. Recently they severed their relationship with Garuda and there were conflicts over payment for maintenance services and fears about how a small airline could operate without larger support.

In 2019 Sriwijaya’s own Director of Safety recommended the airline be grounded temporarily over concerns about safe maintenance practices and lack of engineers, spare parts and tools:

https://en.tempo.co/read/1269504/anothe ... wijaya-air

If an Indonesian Airline Executive recommends his own airline be grounded then you know something must definitely be wrong with that company’s operations.

Usual nonsense about Indonesian carriers. Sriwijaya have never killed a passenger, in 2008 an overrun ran over a farmer and that’s it. Very sad day for their good record to end but no need to pretend it’s a pre-existing condition.

I don't know anything about this airline, but on balance, Indonesia must have one of the world's worst safety records stemming from strains in the system brought on by very substantial and growing demand, difficulties with pilot training and maintenance, and so forth. This is just terrible news.

cedarjet wrote:

Usual nonsense about Indonesian carriers. Sriwijaya have never killed a passenger, in 2008 an overrun ran over a farmer and that’s it.

What nonsense? Indonesia has one of the world’s poorest aviation safety records. And amongst that country it appears Sriwijaya have had multiple landing accidents, a case of mistaken airport, and their recorded history of poor maintenance issues. All for a carrier with a relatively small number of aircraft.

All talk now and assigning of blame is speculation of course, even the FR24 data can be corrupted or misleading. But let’s not pretend we’re talking about an reputable airline being overseen by a first world regulator.

Very sad day for their good record to end but no need to pretend it’s a pre-existing condition.

An aviation safety expert once told me “just because an airline has not had a fatal crash does not automatically make them safe, nor does having a previous fatal crash automatically make them unsafe”.

mxaxai wrote:

zeke wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4e18553c&opt=0

The Jakarta Airport METAR showed a Thunderstorm was over the airfield just prior to departure along with CB clouds to the West and North West, which was where the departure track of the aircraft was.

CB clouds would be reported every day in CGK, and something the crew would be very familiar with. A CB cloud or something like FEW018CB on the metar is something any pilot would expect every day operating in the area. If they are experiencing heavy rain and strong wings, and reduced visibility that would indicate some significant weather.

The satellite precipitation/cloud cover image on avherald suggests that CGK may have been on the edge of a large CB cluster but the crash site does not appear to have any rain.

A regular satellite image even shows some ocean surface through the clouds at the crash site, weather conditions would have improved on their way north: https://himawari.asia/himawari8-image.h ... 0178000000

Someone on a flight within that area on the hour of accident (GA409, A330) reported pretty rough approach to Jakarta. (DISCLAIMER: "pretty rough" is a subjective matter, and not an official, scientific indication of the actual severity of the weather. Please read it with a load of salt). -> https://twitter.com/bayusutr/status/1347860467046207488

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. I also cannot rule out an in-flight breakup, although the tracking goes to 250 feet.

You mean deliberately flown downward? I doubt it, since ADS-B data suggested that the plane lost speed after 10900 feet, and continues to do so until the last 250 feet (to which the speed jumped significantly to 300+ knots). My hunch is on stalling, but I cannot answer on how or why.

Very sorry to learn this

anatolialevant wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

zeke wrote:

You mean deliberately flown downward? I doubt it, since ADS-B data suggested that the plane lost speed after 10900 feet, and continues to do so until the last 250 feet (to which the speed jumped significantly to 300+ knots). My hunch is on stalling, but I cannot answer on how or why.

ADS-B data on FR24 suggests to me that the plane did not lose speed, but altitude, very suddenly. It lost ground speed thereafter, but it is probably due to the vertical fall. Even a stall is not so sudden, and the speed does not suggest it at all. Of course, we do not know the wind, but I cannot imagine such a sudden change in the wind that a plane climbs with 287 knots GS at one moment and then stalls with the same speed.