Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Lion Air Down

Recommended Posts

Lion Air crash: Indonesian Aircraft goes down after Jakarta take-off

A Lion Air Boeing 737 passenger plane has come down after taking off from Jakarta, say Indonesian officials.

Flight JT-610 was on a scheduled flight from the Indonesian capital to Pangkal Pinang, the main city in the Bangka Belitung Islands.

It lost contact with ground control a few minutes after take-off, as it was crossing the sea.

It was not immediately clear how many people were on board the plane, believed to be a Boeing 737.

Yusuf Latif, a spokesman for the national search and rescue agency told reporters: "It has been confirmed that it has crashed."

A Lion Air official earlier told the BBC the company did not yet know what had happened to the plane.

The aircraft was reported to be a Boeing 737 MAX 8, a model only in use since 2016.

Twitter post by @flightradar24: We're following reports that contact has been lost with Lion Air flight #JT610 shortly after takeoff from Jakarta. ADS-B data from the flight is available at

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is one messed up speed and altitude graph. 334 knots at 1600 feet.  Holy crap!! They were all over the place. 

Screen Shot 2018-10-28 at 11.57.04 PM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrible news. As Ex-9A Guy said, that’s a weird profile. Also this is the first hull loss a 737 MAX. 

 This one probably won’t be a cut and dried case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

189 Pax and crew.

Debris already found...still trying to locate the aircraft

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46015899

 

Updated link...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/lion-air-crash-live-update-indonesia-plane-victims-jt610-death-toll-jakarta-passengers-a8606116.html

 

Edited by Kip Powick
updated link added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks similar to  Aeroperú Flight 603...pitot static problem ???

At least the CVR and FDR are easily recoverable......reports indicate the aircraft is in 100 feet of water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of some interest from Aviation Safety Net Website unconfirmed ACARS maintenance message from inbound flight....

"The previous flight of the accident aircraft, JT043 from Denpasar, showed similar erratic values in altitude and airspeed after takeoff. After 8 minutes the values stabilzed. An unverified tech log item for that flight, sent to ASN, remarks "Airspeed unreliable and alt disagree shown after take off.[...] Identified that CAPT instrument was unreliable and handover control to FO." While this particular purported tech log note is unconfirmed, Lion Air did confirm that the aircraft had a "technical problem" on the previous flight, "which had been resolved according to procedure,” according to the airline."

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20181029-0

Young airframe only operated for 3 months since new.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna make an assumption here.

Lets say there was unreliable airspeed and altitude indications on both sides.

The weather  was VFR and daylight...... what is the problem ??

=========================================

The CVR and FDR are going to be really interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Lion Air: How could a brand new plane crash?

 

Lion Air flight JT 610 has crashed into the sea, with nearly 190 people on board, shortly after taking off from the Indonesian capital, Jakarta.

A lot of attention has focused on the fact the plane, a Boeing 737 MAX 8, was brand new. This is the first major incident involving that kind of plane.

Details so far have been scant and the cause will not be confirmed until a full investigation has been carried out.

Plane crashes are often the result of a combination of factors - both technical and human - but could the fact that the plane was so new have played any part?

The Boeing 737 MAX 8 has only been in commercial use since 2017.

Budget carrier Lion Air said in July it was "very proud" to be the first in Indonesia to deploy the plane, and that it had ordered as many as 218 units.

The plane involved in Monday's incident has only been in operation since 15 August.

It had logged only 800 hours of flight time, according to the head of the National Transportation Safety Commission, Soerjanto Tjahjano.

The pilot is reported to have radioed air traffic control in Jakarta asking for permission to turn back, shortly after taking off.

Now it has emerged that the plane had some technical problems on Sunday on its penultimate flight.

A technical log obtained by the BBC for that flight - from Denpasar airport in Bali to Jakarta - suggests that the airspeed reading on the captain's instrument was unreliable, and the altitude readings differed on the captain's and first officer's instruments.

As a result of the problem, the captain handed over control of the plane to the first officer, the crew continued their flight and they landed safely at Jakarta.

Lion Air have not confirmed the report, but this may have been the unspecified "technical problem" that the company's chief executive said the plane's Denpasar to Jakarta flight had suffered from.

Edward Sirait said that this problem had been "resolved according to procedure".

He added that Lion Air was currently operating 11 aircraft of the same model. He said there were no plans to ground the rest of the planes.

'Snags' sorted quickly

Aviation analyst Gerry Soejatman told the BBC that usually it is old aircraft that are at the highest risk of accidents but that there can also be problems with very new ones.

"If it's very new there are sometimes snags that only reveal themselves after they are [used routinely]," he said. "These usually get sorted [within] the first three months."

Map of crash Presentational white space

The plane would have hit the three-month mark in just a few weeks.

Another analyst, Jon Ostrower of aviation publication The Air Current, said there were "always new teething issues... that's common, but a far cry from something that would threaten the safety of an aeroplane".

He added that new planes generally "enjoy a maintenance holiday because everything is so new, not the reverse".

Both analysts said it was too early to draw definitive conclusions about what had gone wrong with Flight JT 610.

"I don't know what would make a plane this new crash," Mr Ostrower told the BBC. "There are so many different factors that can contribute to an accident like this."

Mr Soejatman said he believed it was "likely to be technical issues that caused it but it's still very early days".

"We can really [only determine the cause] when we get more information," he said.

Indonesia's poor aviation safety record, though, has other experts believing that factors such as human error or poor oversight are more likely to be behind Monday's tragedy.

According to Boeing, the 737 MAX series is the fastest-selling plane in its history, and has accumulated almost 4,700 orders.

The MAX 8 has been ordered by airlines including American Airlines, United Airlines, Norwegian and FlyDubai.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not familiar with the 737. What is the procedure for unreliable airspeed and altitude indications on the Capt’s side? Do you need to select ADC#2? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, conehead said:

I’m not familiar with the 737. What is the procedure for unreliable airspeed and altitude indications on the Capt’s side? Do you need to select ADC#2? 

I think the more recent Boeing (777, 787, and Max) aircraft all have the same memory item for this event. Everything is turned off and simply fly an attitude and power setting. It quickly becomes a real CRM exercise and probably a handful when you least expect it.

So a system defect that caused an event momentarily beyond their pilot skill level and could Boeing be having some quality control issues on their production line?

Edited by blues deville
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inbound flight has a problem - overworked MTC does a power down/powerup and says, "no fault found" or, even worse, swaps ADCs or some other component and doesn't tell crew.  Now problem comes back - airspeed and altitude disagree - and crew believes, based on prev flight, that the Capt's side is at fault and FO attempts to fly on bad info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, seeker said:

Inbound flight has a problem - overworked MTC does a power down/powerup and says, "no fault found" or, even worse, swaps ADCs or some other component and doesn't tell crew.  Now problem comes back - airspeed and altitude disagree - and crew believes, based on prev flight, that the Capt's side is at fault and FO attempts to fly on bad info.

So they go in like a lawn dart ??? Good grief...it was daylight VFR....does no one know how to look out the window and fly???

Again.....my assumption that it was an airspeed/altitude indication problem....like I posted before....the FDR and CVR are going to be really interesting...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ADS-B signal received from Flight Radar 24 is generated by the aircraft itself not SSR.  So that track should be indicative of exactly what the aircraft was seeing.  It would be interesting to see the track compared to the actual SSR trace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kip Powick said:

So they go in like a lawn dart ??? Good grief...it was daylight VFR....does no one know how to look out the window and fly???

Again.....my assumption that it was an airspeed/altitude indication problem....like I posted before....the FDR and CVR are going to be really interesting...

 

Well, I agree with your sentiments  - just positing some thoughts - not saying I understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, acsidestick said:

It might be a historical Industry turning point for the improper and sometimes overused  “Ground Checked Servicable”.  

As if.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, acsidestick said:

It might be a historical Industry turning point for the improper and sometimes overused  “Ground Checked Servicable”.  

Yeah, I doubt that.  It’s not always improper.  How about, “System re-set accomplished and tested serviceable I.A.W. AMM 34-10-00”. Sometimes that’s all that’s necessary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, conehead said:

Yeah, I doubt that.  It’s not always improper.  How about, “System re-set accomplished and tested serviceable I.A.W. AMM 34-10-00”. Sometimes that’s all that’s necessary.

Pitot static test?  Sure, fine, if they did it.  More than likely it was a PD/PU and a cursory check for an active fault.  NFF?  Alrighty then, carry on, good to go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Kip Powick said:

So they go in like a lawn dart ??? Good grief...it was daylight VFR....does no one know how to look out the window and fly???

Good point unfortunately there may be some newbies who cannot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, seeker said:

Pitot static test?  Sure, fine, if they did it.  More than likely it was a PD/PU and a cursory check for an active fault.  NFF?  Alrighty then, carry on, good to go!

Neither you nor I have any idea what went on regarding maintenance prior to that flight. How about we just wait until the facts come out, instead of slamming the Maintenance people involved, or the pilots that couldn’t seem to fly an airplane in clear weather?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, conehead said:

How about we just wait until the facts come out,

I agree...but it is hard to reconcile what we already know, concerning the problem with the previous airspeed and altitude problems, with what we can see with the spd/alt graph and early photos of the crash site and description of some of the recovered occupants

Based on the graph alone it would appear that the aircraft was in descent at a high speed and that fact alone would allow for extreme  destruction of the air-frame and its occupants.

Let's assume the airspeed/altitude  problem was happening during the crash...and BOTH pilots were consumed with attempting to rectify the problem, in other words, neither was aware that they were  in dangerous proximity of the water and the airspeed was increasing.

I have personally only done two landings on water, (twin otter), and I can tell you that the worst condition for KNOWING how high you are above the water is when flying over relatively calm water without looking at a fully serviceable altimeter. If you look at the photo of the crash scene as well as the wx reports  you can see that the ocean would be  pretty calm at the time of the crash. Blue sky, blue water, little or no definitive  horizon and perhaps some confusion in the cockpit with respect to "how high are we and how fast are we going? " could contribute to an upset with a unfortunate  ending.

Like I posted....CVR and DVR will tell the tale and we can all speculate till the cows come home and obviously,at this time, we are all just guessing.

4550.gif

Have a nice Halloween .....Thud.gif.eeb0f169056cdcae16bb940b341bcd31.gif

 

Edited by Kip Powick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, conehead said:

Neither you nor I have any idea what went on regarding maintenance prior to that flight. How about we just wait until the facts come out, instead of slamming the Maintenance people involved, or the pilots that couldn’t seem to fly an airplane in clear weather?

 

Really?  Every single time?  Yeah, we know, "wait for the facts to come out."  Thanks for posting this sage advice but it won't stop people from discussing the accident or putting forward possible causes based on their life and work experience.

Those pilots, apparently, couldn't fly the airplane in day, VFR conditions so that's part of it.  Will poor maintenance procedures be the other part?  I guess we should wait to find out (but I don't think anyone would be too shocked to hear it was).  Don't read too much into that  - not necessarily saying that some individual failed in their duties or was negligent, might be at the corporate level or even a poor procedure designed by Boeing.

 

Edited by seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, seeker said:

 

Really?  Every single time? 

 

I'll chime in here.  Yes.  Every single time.  Of course the temptation is strong.  But speculation is not a risk free exercise. The question we might want to ask is, why do we allow ourselves to follow that rabbit hole?  The 'well, it improves flight safety' argument IMO is, quite frankly, BS.  Safety is built on what we know.  Not what we think we know but can't prove.

Has no one here ever flown or worked with someone who was doing something silly or outright dangerous because they heard that so and so had followed the SOP and it screwed them up, so this was better somehow?  Well. I have.  And I have been on the team that has followed the end game of the spread of speculation-based SOP drift.  Real answers sometimes take a long time to become public.  Some of the crap that speculation creates to fill the void can fester for months and morph into really serious trouble.

While everyone has their own opinion (this IS, after all, a forum), I don't see any real learning going on.  What I see instead is a suggestion that the two pilots might have been incompetent or maintenance may have either been fraudulent, incompetent, both, or following a maintenance culture that was unsafe.  All of that is pretty high octane stuff to be throwing into the mix, one that includes a lot of pretty busted up people, some of whom are still praying that their loved one miraculously survived.  It just seems rather cruel to me.

So, speculate if you must, but it's offside to go after someone for reminding us all that waiting for the facts is an option.

Vs

 

Edited by Vsplat
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this