Lion Air 738 Ditches In Sea Short of DPS Runway

zkokq · Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:03 am

Just came up on the news, more to come they have said. Anyone know anything more? Tried searching the net with nothing

Update: Apparently the aircraft has made a missed landing at Ngurah Rai airport at Bali and ended up in the nearby sea.

[Edited 2013-04-13 01:11:10]

[Edited 2013-04-13 01:22:25]

zkokq · Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:16 am

PIcTures on tv show a 737-800 in the water split in two. All passengers and crew are 100% safe

starbucks · Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:18 am

From Twitter:
http://twitter.com/ryan_gp/status/322980379483058176/photo/1

[Edited 2013-04-13 01:18:45]

zkokq · Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:21 am

Quoting starbucks (Reply 2):

Cheers. I was just About to do that!

777ER · Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:26 am

That aircraft would certainly be a write off. Guess we need to wait for an interim report to be released on what caused it

wolbo · Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:36 am

Lion Air, the masters of the runway overshoots. I'm starting to understand why they ordered so many planes.

NZ107 · Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:45 am

Reports are saying it could be PK-LKS, delivered 19 Feb 2013!

Starlionblue · Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:48 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 6):

Reports are saying it could be PK-LKS, delivered 19 Feb 2013!

So new there are no pics in the database!

doug_or · Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:50 am

Quoting Wolbo (Reply 5):
I'm starting to understand why they ordered so many planes.

You owe me new keyboard.

mach92 · Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:55 am

I'm telling you these guys are one UNSAFE airline.

They go off a runway about every 1-2 months somewhere.

ukoverlander · Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:01 am

Quoting mach92 (Reply 9):
I'm telling you these guys are one UNSAFE airline.

I don't think rash generalizations are very helpful. Glad everyone got out unharmed.

Bluebird191 · Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:05 am

I've heard conflicting reports of number of passengers onboard - it is comfitned to be 101 or 172? I've heard both numbers reported

Cipango · Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:07 am

Quoting mach92 (Reply 9):

I'm telling you these guys are one UNSAFE airline.

I was at a UK flying school open day recently and they told me they will help their graduates get a job with any airline in the world except for Lion Air.

[Edited 2013-04-13 02:08:13]

Sean-SAN- · Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:08 am

Keep in mind, Lion allows expat pilots with 200hrs flight time to pay $30k USD to work free and and get some flight time. The captains are basically flying on their own (200hr FO is basically useless) in challenging conditions with very hard work rules.. Often 4 days off per MONTH.

mach92 · Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:17 am

I fly in Indonesia (not for Lion) everyday we watch these guys it's scary.

Lion works these guys like slave labor. I have many a conversations in the hotel van with them. Flying 23-26 days a month, min rest, crappy hotels, long days. The DCGA always blames the weather here never the pilots. Today was sunny and clear in Bali with light winds.

Starlionblue · Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:18 am

Quoting Sean-SAN- (Reply 13):

Keep in mind, Lion allows expat pilots with 200hrs flight time to pay $30k USD to work free and and get some flight time. The captains are basically flying on their own (200hr FO is basically useless) in challenging conditions with very hard work rules.. Often 4 days off per MONTH.

200hr FO may be useless or not. It very much depends on the training he/she has received. If you take a zero hour pilot and give him high-quality scenario-based multi-crew training in jet sims from day one (there are airlines that do so), he or she will perform pretty well. If said pilot comes directly off 200 hours of mostly hour building in small pistons plus a type rating but no airline experience, it will be much harder for him/her to perform.

I'll take one guess as to what kind of 200hr F/O is flying for Lion Air.

4 days off a month is pretty standard in these parts, but I will agree for a stressful job like pilot it does not give much time to recover. Add to this working for free and basically counting hours until you can get out, and performance will probably suffer...

Indonesia is full of these kinds of "opportunities" for pilots. Google Susi Air, though to be fair Susi seems pretty serious.

[Edited 2013-04-13 02:19:43]

[Edited 2013-04-13 02:20:55]

[Edited 2013-04-13 02:21:27]

[Edited 2013-04-13 02:22:35]

[Edited 2013-04-13 02:24:55]

[Edited 2013-04-13 02:32:54]

rifkyrifky · Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:18 am

Local media reported 101 passengers and 8 crew members

Regards, Rifky

HB-IWC · Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:19 am

Reports say that the flight came in from Bandung (BDO) at 15.35 local time, about 1 hour and 40 minutes ago now. That would make it flight JT960 (delayed 50 minutes, but that is pretty standard for JT) and a B738, because the B739ERs cannot operate into BDO. However, Indonesian media here in Jakarta are reporting the aircraft to be a B739ER. Same reports indicate a grand total of 101 on board.

photoshooter · Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:26 am

I just heard the news on the radio. Not many details so far but they have some pictures already.
It looks like a write off indeed!

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/960/Buitenl...e-alle-inzittenden-overleven.dhtml

Sorry, the link is in Dutch but the images do not need to be translated...

9MMPQ · Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:34 am

Read this from another news update, made me

The plane was travelling from London to Denpasar when it experienced trouble.

Boy, have those 737s got some range. Link to the article, it doesn't add anything new:

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/p...-bali/story-e6frfq80-1226619817622

[Edited 2013-04-13 02:36:46]

Starlionblue · Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:36 am

Quoting 9MMPQ (Reply 19):

Read this from another news update, made me

The plane was travelling from London to Denpasar when it experienced trouble.

Link to the article, it doesn't add anything new:

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/p...17622

Apart from humor!!!

It was not immediately known if any Australians were on board or if the broken fuselage was caused mid-air or on impact.

Mid-air? Really?

flyingbird · Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:37 am

Looks like this is the flight before crash
http://www.flightradar24.com/2013-04-13/06:50/12x/LNI904/1227ee4

longhaul67 · Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:47 am

Imagine what things will be like when they take delivery of more than 500 additional aircraft already on order.

davidho1985 · Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:52 am

I know why they need to order a huge number of new aircrafts.

kaitak · Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:00 am

I forgot that they had 738s as well as 739s. Just saw the report on Sky and immediately thought of 739s.

Reading the reports about Lion Air, above, I'm wondering about Indonesia's oversight of them; GA has been allowed back into Europe for a few years now and while it has improved hugely in recent years, the real issue was Indonesia's civil aviation oversight. If they allow conditions such as those described above, this must call that into question.

The fact that they are allowing 200hr pilots fly is not my main concern (FR doesn't require much more, I think?), but the rest hours and the apparent lack of CRM (if the captains don't allow FOs to do any flying).

Clearly, however, this is becoming WAY too common for Lion Air; how many aircraft have they lost like this?

Here's the report from Aviation Herald - with some pictures.

http://avherald.com/h?article=460aeabb&opt=0

Still not clear what the registration is, as PK-LKS was originally delivered in Malindo Air colours. Unless it was repainted to Lion Air pretty soon after?

[Edited 2013-04-13 03:11:48]

(Edited to add: acft is indeed 'LKS, which was repainted in Lion c/s. This has to be one of the shortest careers for a 737 in many years. Also, acft undershot the runway - it did not run off. If you look at the picture in the Aviation Herald, none of the fencing around the runway/airport boundary is torn away, which would have been the case if it had run off the end.)

[Edited 2013-04-13 03:23:52]

Tobias2702 · Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:09 am

Quoting kaitak (Reply 24):

Clearly, however, this is becoming WAY too common for Lion Air; how many aircraft have they lost like this?

Lion Air had seven hull loss accidents, (6x landing, 1x take-off incidents), involving a 737-200, 737-400 (2x), MD-82 (2x) . MD-90 and now 737-800.

kaitak · Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:15 am

Quoting Tobias2702 (Reply 25):
Lion Air had seven hull loss accidents, (6x landing, 1x take-off incidents), involving a 737-200, 737-400 (2x), MD-82 (2x) . MD-90 and now 737-800.

That's an appalling record for a relatively new airline. Thankfully, all have been non-fatal, but sheesh - still worthy of some strong corrective action by the Indonesian CAA.

I can only imagine that the Australian CAA will give them a right going over with a fine tooth comb, before ever letting them operate domestically there (if that is still their plan).

qf002 · Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:17 am

How many more of these incidents have to happen before people start dying again and action is taken? Surely JT realises that they need to maintain a decent reputation if they are going to expand to the degree that they plan -- their existing market might tolerate the risks, but the more developed markets (and governments) won't.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 20):
Mid-air? Really?

Welcome to the Australian media. If this was QF then it would already be a confirmed mid-air explosion...

BestWestern · Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:23 am

Over the past 18 months I had gone from questioning the sheer volume of orders and the business model of Lion Air to understanding the untapped demand in Indonesia. However, this airline continues to churn up the bad news on Indonesia.

This is one airline I now refuse to fly on. Only one of two - the other is UN for a damn scary approach into Heathrow a few years back on a 734.

Flying Belgian · Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:24 am

Is JT banned from Oz airspace ?

BAeRJ100 · Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:27 am

Quoting kaitak (Reply 26):
Thankfully, all have been non-fatal

Lion Air 538 had 25 fatalities. Runway overrun on an MD-82.

sandrozrh · Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:28 am

Quoting Sean-SAN- (Reply 13):

Just because you can't land a decent flying job in the US with 200 hours doent make it useless. Thanks to starlionblue i need not waste my time on explaining why. Would you rate LH, LX, KL etc. F/Os as useless?

Starlionblue · Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:31 am

Quoting sandrozrh (Reply 31):
Just because you can't land a decent flying job in the US with 200 hours doent make it useless. Thanks to starlionblue i need not waste my time on explaining why. Would you rate LH, LX, KL etc. F/Os as useless?

You can add CX and KA to the list.

[Edited 2013-04-13 04:06:17]

shufflemoomin · Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:39 am

This question may a tiny bit off topic, but I'm curious: I understand that aircraft only need to carry lifejackets on board if they're flying OVER water, but are the rules where the entire flight is over land but one of the airports has sea at the end of the runway like this airport? Is it conceivable that an accident like this could occur to an aircraft with no jackets on board or do laws of certain countries require that all aircraft are stocked with jackets regardless of which routes they fly?

3rdGen · Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:43 am

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 17):
because the B739ERs cannot operate into BDO. However, Indonesian media here in Jakarta are reporting the aircraft to be a B739ER. Same reports indicate a grand total of 101 on board.

Ya, well given their standards maybe it was a 739 and maybe that's why they crashed

dirktraveller · Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:44 am

Despite the severity of the incident, thankfully all 101 passengers and 7 crew members (according to local media) are safe.

Interesting to see errors from media in reporting the incident.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 20):
It was not immediately known if any Australians were on board or if the broken fuselage was caused mid-air or on impact.

Quoting 9MMPQ (Reply 19):
The plane was travelling from London to Denpasar when it experienced trouble.

Local Indonesian news even put headlines as "crashed into sea" which I think is an exaggeration, although it is a write-off incident.

Quoting Wolbo (Reply 5):
I'm starting to understand why they ordered so many planes.

I was thinking of that when I saw the news!

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 6):
Reports are saying it could be PK-LKS, delivered 19 Feb 2013!

Sad to see a recently delivered bird have to be written off.

Just heard in a local TV news, a survivor in the incident described that upon impact evacuation process were uncoordinated, and only passengers helped each other, until the authorities reached the scene.

Regards,
Dirktraveller

Starlionblue · Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:50 am

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 33):
I understand that aircraft only need to carry lifejackets on board if they're flying OVER water, but are the rules where the entire flight is over land but one of the airports has sea at the end of the runway like this airport?

You certainly don't need to fly over land the whole time. FAA rules don't require life jackets if you stay within a certain distance of land. However AFAIK they do require flotation devices, typically in the form of the seat cushions.

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 33):
Is it conceivable that an accident like this could occur to an aircraft with no jackets on board or do laws of certain countries require that all aircraft are stocked with jackets regardless of which routes they fly?

Yes it could occur. I don't know Indonesian regs but since most of the country is water I assume they require life jackets on all flights.

KarelXWB · Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:54 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 6):
Reports are saying it could be PK-LKS, delivered 19 Feb 2013!

Only 2 months old. Now that explains why they need so many new planes.

BestWestern · Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:05 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 37):

Those passengers are so lucky tonight. This could have been a far worse tragedy if the aircraft had ended in deeper water.

swallow · Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:05 am

If, as it appears, ceiling and visibility were OK, did the crew come in too high and too fast?

At this rate, JT need to have runway overrun prevention system (ROPS) fitted as standard to all Airbus aircraft they have ordered.

Is there any evidence of crew re-training after these multiple hull losses?

comorin · Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:09 am

AVHerald reports it was a ditch into the sea before reaching Runway 09, not an overshoot. Altimeter was showing a plus 171' error. Speculation includes a ditching to save pax - altimeter was off by 171' and also possible wind shear.

KarelXWB · Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:17 am

Here is a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgkuhvDbh0s

migair54 · Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:29 am

it´s looks like a ditch before the runway, no damage in the fence and the plane is short of runway 09, or at least that what i understand on the pics and the diagram of the google earth picture...

WADD 130700Z 09006KT 9999 BKN017 30/26 Q1007 NOSIG I don´t think it was windshear..... and with such a light load they mush have been able to go around even in Windshear.

101 pax and 7 crew on board... very light load...

It´s such a strange case... I can´t imagine what can cause a plane to land before the runway during daytime with 10kms visibility and 6 knots of wind.

queb · Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:30 am

Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 10):
Quoting mach92 (Reply 9):
I'm telling you these guys are one UNSAFE airline.

I don't think rash generalizations are very helpful.

Lion Air is still in the list of airlines banned within the EU

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/safety/air-ban/index_en.htm

bueb0g · Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:31 am

Updates now that this was an undershoot/ditching. Unconfirmed reports that crew declared an emergency.

Quoting Sean-SAN- (Reply 13):
Keep in mind, Lion allows expat pilots with 200hrs flight time to pay $30k USD to work free and and get some flight time.

They don't do pay 2 fly anymore.

Quoting Sean-SAN- (Reply 13):
(200hr FO is basically useless)

Not true at all. Depends on how they've been trained. Many of the world's safest airlines take 200hr pilots, it's only in the US that the system is backwards and there's a strange obsession with "hours", as if a 1500hr pilot with no jet time is any better in an airliner than a 200hr pilot with no jet time.

Quoting sandrozrh (Reply 31):
Would you rate LH, LX, KL etc. F/Os as useless?

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 32):
You can add CX and KA to the list.

And BA, Ryanair, Easyjet, Monarch, Thomas Cook, Thomson, etc etc

RickNRoll · Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:33 am

Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 10):
I don't think rash generalizations are very helpful. Glad everyone got out unharmed.

Looking up Aviation Herald, I get these incidents in four years.

Lion Air B738 at Denpasar on Apr 13th 2013, overran runway and came to stop in sea
Lion Air B734 and Air Asia B733 at Surabaya on Oct 30th 2009, runway incursion
Lion Air B734 at Pekanbaru on Dec 13th 2009, overran runway
Lion Air B739 at Balikpapan on Oct 23rd 2011, runway excursion
Lion Air B739 at Padang on Jan 19th 2010, runway excursion on landing
Lion B734 at Pontianak on Nov 1st 2012, overran runway on landing
Lionair B734 at Pontianak on Dec 30th 2012, runway excursion on landing
Lionair B734 at Pontianak on Nov 2nd 2010, overran runway on landing
Lionair B734 at Pontianak on Nov 2nd 2010, overran runway on landing
Lionair B739 at Pekanbaru on Feb 14th 2011, runway excursion on landing
Lionair B739 at Pekanbaru on Feb 15th 2011, overran runway on landing
Lionair MD90 at Jakarta on Mar 9th 2009, departed runway on landing

JU068 · Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:42 am

I am sure that thanks to them the company that ensures their aircraft made a small fortune.

GCPET · Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:44 am

PK-LKS was delivered to Lion Air on the 20th of March 2013.

GCPET

pvjin · Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:55 am

Hmm I had never noticed that Lion Air has that many accidents and smaller incidents in its history, I thought it was better than some other low cost airlines in the country.

Oh well, now I know to definitely avoid Lion Air whenever I happen to visit Indonesia.

Starlionblue · Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:00 pm

Quoting comorin (Reply 40):
AVHerald reports it was a ditch into the sea before reaching Runway 09, not an overshoot. Altimeter was showing a plus 171' error. Speculation includes a ditching to save pax - altimeter was off by 171' and also possible wind shear.

171 feet off on a calm day with good visibility should not lead to an accident. It's not like they had to shoot an ILS or anything.

Quoting swallow (Reply 39):
At this rate, JT need to have runway overrun prevention system (ROPS) fitted as standard to all Airbus aircraft they have ordered.

ROPS? Is this a real thing?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net