Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Lion Air Down

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

 

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.

 

 

You don't see any real learning?  What are you looking at because I see a lot of learning happening.  Someone mentions the importance knowing the recovery for unreliable airspeed and their technique, Kip mentions the insidious nature of low-level flight over calm water, someone else mentions the possibility that the maintenance personnel might not have been thorough as they could have been.  There are lessons to be learned from considering all of those points.  Is that not learning? 

I value these discussions amongst experts; those who have flown, maintained, controlled, dispatched, designed, built and flight-tested these aircraft.  Experts who have flown or maintained similar aircraft in similar situations talking between themselves about what might have happened and considering possible causal factors is not cruel - going on the morning news and spouting a bunch of unsubstantiated gossip would be cruel - I see a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aircraft has 3 independent systems for measuring airspeed and altitude.  any 2 of which can fail and the aircraft still be flown reliably.  You may lose autopilot and certainly you would not be allowed to fly in RVSM airspace or operate ETOPS but you can still reliably fly the aircraft.  I believe there is a checklist item for unreliable airspeed and altitude.  The pilots have the ability to switch the DU to the reliable system once identified.

They should have had plenty of Time to identify the faulty system and take action.  

This is all based on the information available that there WAS a history of an issue with the aircraft and that that is POTENTIALLY the issue with this flight.  It does not take into account that something else may have gone wrong.  

I have a pretty accurate 737-800 simulation program at home and flew the route of the aircraft yesterday with the prevailing weather conditions loaded.  This should have been a no brainer but that is without knowing the failure mode.

 

Share this post


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

 Someone mentions the importance knowing the recovery for unreliable airspeed and their technique, Kip mentions the insidious nature of low-level flight over calm water, someone else mentions the possibility that the maintenance personnel might not have been thorough as they could have been

....unsubstantiated gossip would be cruel

I agree with your last line, obviously. 

Is there learning going on?  Well, learning implies influence.  Influence without fact is gossip. 

Let's break this down.  (Again, all my opinion)

The 'possibility' that maintenance personnel might not have been thorough is straight up conjecture at this point.  All you would need is to add a name and you'd be in legal trouble for defamation.  What learning would you like taken from that?  The next time maintenance does a ground reset procedure, should the pilots call them back to the aircraft and suggest wrongdoing?  If not, then what?

Recovery from unreliable airspeed is a drill in every aircraft I have flown for at least the past 20 years.  There is no learning in that statement.  Put another way - we had better HOPE that airline crews don't have to come here to learn that or we are screwed - and again, it is assuming what the problem was. Was it unreliable airspeed,  loss of all instruments?  Something else that perhaps included AP misbehaviour or control malfunction?  Has anyone heard? 

Low level flight over calm water - well, until we have some data, is anyone actually sure the aircraft came out of the sky in one piece and was flown into the water?  Is it impossible to consider that whatever got ahold of the aircraft broke it up or placed it into an unrecoverable state before the crew had any chance to attempt VFR flight?

Like I said, you're welcome to your opinion.  But if you are, so are those who remind us that the facts are not known.  Your decision to go after another poster for THEIR opinion to wait for the facts is where I took issue.

Vs

Edited by Vsplat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Kip.  OT - couldn't help but notice the deck person barefoot while handling twisted and torn, likely contaminated wreckage.  Yikes.

Vs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

Your decision to go after another poster for THEIR opinion to wait for the facts is where I took issue.

Vs

OK, first of all, I didn't "go after" anyone.  

 

Conehead posted; 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.

I posted; 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!

Then conehead posted; 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?

 

So it's ok for him to post the opinion that the AME did everything correctly but when I post about the possibility that things weren't done correctly I get slammed with; "how about we wait for the facts?"  Same goes for you Vsplat; you tell me it's cruel to post about possible factors but then casually throw out that the crew should have been able to handle the scenario and maybe the aircraft lost all instruments, had an AP failure, had a control malfunction, broke up in flight or ended up in an unrecoverable state - you just mentioned 5 possible scenarios while telling me I shouldn't be cruel and should wait for the facts.  Good one.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not suggest that Maintenance did everything correctly, I said that at this point in time we do not know what they did. We also don’t know the failure mode. Truth is, we don’t know much.  That’s why I don’t see much point in speculation.

Share this post


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

I did not suggest that Maintenance did everything correctly, I said that at this point in time we do not know what they did. We also don’t know the failure mode. Truth is, we don’t know much.  That’s why I don’t see much point in speculation.

Yes, that's true, I overstated that.  You simply mentioned the possibility that everything was done correctly while I mentioned that maybe they weren't.  You're right, we don't know much, but we do know a few things; the airplane crashed and on the previous flight it had some sort of avionics/instrument problem.  I think it's pretty unlikely that the crash was not in some way connected to the previous problem but, as you say, we don't know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Possible seabed position of crashed Lion Air jet located
Niniek Karmini and Stephen Wright, The Associated Press
Published Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:45PM EDT
Last Updated Wednesday, October 31, 2018 6:14AM EDT

JAKARTA, Indonesia -- A massive search effort has identified the possible seabed location of the crashed Lion Air jet, Indonesia's military chief said Wednesday, as experts carried out the grim task of identifying dozens of body parts recovered from a 15-nautical mile-wide search area, and chilling video of passengers boarding the fatal flight emerged.

The 2-month-old Boeing plane plunged into the Java Sea on Monday just minutes after taking off from Jakarta, killing all 189 people on board.

"This morning I've been briefed by the head of Search and Rescue Agency about the strong possibility of the location co-ordinates" of Flight 610, said armed forces chief Hadi Tjahjanto. "Hopefully that is the main body of the plane that we've been looking for."

 
Indonesian rescuers collect wreckage pieces from the plane crash at Tanjung Priok Harbour, Jakarta, Indonesia, 30 October 2018. According to media reports, Lion Air flight JT-610 lost contact with air traffic controllers soon after takeoff then crashed into the sea. EPA/MAST IRHAM
 Separately, the head of the National Transportation Safety Committee, Soerjanto Tjahjono, told reporters that pings detected by search teams are definitely from the aircraft's flight recorder because of their regular interval.

The disaster has reignited concerns about safety in Indonesia's fast-growing aviation industry, which was recently removed from European Union and U.S. blacklists, and also raised doubts about the safety of Boeing's new generation 737 MAX 8 plane.

Boeing Co. experts are expected to arrive in Indonesia on Wednesday and Lion Air has said an "intense" internal investigation is underway in addition to the probe by safety regulators.

Navy officer Haris Djoko Nugroho said the 22-meter (72-foot) -long object that could be part of the fuselage is at a depth of 32 metres (105 feet). He said divers will be deployed after side-scan sonar has produced more detailed images. He said it was first located on Tuesday evening.

"There are some small objects that we found, but last night, thank God, we found a large enough object," he said.

Data from flight-tracking sites show the plane had erratic speed and altitude in the early minutes of a flight on Sunday and on its fatal flight Monday. Safety experts caution, however, that the data must be checked for accuracy against the plane's black boxes, which officials are confident will be recovered.

Several passengers on the Sunday flight from Bali to Jakarta have recounted problems that included a long-delayed takeoff for an engine check and terrifying descents in the first 10 minutes in the air.

Two interviewed on Indonesian TV recalled details such as a strange engine sound, a smell of burnt cables, and panicked passengers crying out for God to save them as the plane rapidly lost altitude. Later in the flight, a man who was either the captain or first officer walked through the plane and returned to the cockpit with what looked like a large manual.

Lion Air has said maintenance was carried out on the aircraft after the Sunday flight and a problem, which it didn't specify, was fixed.

Officials said searchers have sent 48 body bags containing human remains to police identification experts.

Anguished family members have been providing samples for DNA tests and police say results are expected within 4-8 days.

Musyafak, the head of Said Sukanto Police Hospital, said nearly 150 samples for testing have been collected but more are still needed, especially from parents and children of victims.

Indonesian TV broadcast a smartphone video of passengers boarding Flight 610, its mundane details transformed into unsettling moments by knowledge of the tragedy that would transpire.

It showed passengers' boarding passes being checked and people walking along a concourse and then down stairs with bright red and white Lion Air jets visible on the tarmac.

At one point, the passenger who shot the video, Paul Ferdinand Ayorbaba, zooms in on the flight number on his boarding pass. A part of the video shows passengers walking up the mobile boarding stairs attached to a Lion jet.

"My husband sent that video to me via WhatsApp. It was his last contact with me, his last message to me," said Inchy Ayorbaba, interviewed at the Jakarta police hospital where she had taken her three children for DNA tests.

The messaging app's timestamps showed the video was sent about 35 minutes before the plane took off, said Ayorbaba, who first saw the message at 6:30 a.m., some 10 minutes after the plane departed, and then went back to sleep.

Indonesia's Transport Ministry has ordered all Boeing 737 MAX 8 planes operated by Lion Air and national carrier Garuda to be inspected. Lion has ordered 50 of the jets, worth an estimated $6.2 billion, and currently operates nine.

Boeing declined to comment about potential inspections globally.

The aircraft manufacturer told airlines in a bulletin, "Boeing has no recommended operator action at this time," according to two people familiar with the matter.

Lion Air President Edward Sirait told The Associated Press that the timing of a meeting with Boeing experts is still uncertain. Daniel Putut, a Lion Air managing director, said Tuesday evening the airline hopes to meet with Boeing officials on Wednesday afternoon.

"Of course there are lots of things we will ask them, we all have question marks here, 'Why? What's the matter with this new plane,"' Putut said.

The crash is the worst airline disaster in Indonesia since 1997, when 234 people died in the crash of a Garuda flight near Medan. In December 2014, an AirAsia flight from Surabaya to Singapore plunged into the sea, killing all 162 on board.

Indonesian airlines were barred in 2007 from flying to Europe because of safety concerns, though several were allowed to resume services in the following decade. The ban was completely lifted in June. The U.S. lifted a decadelong ban in 2016.

Lion Air, a discount carrier, is one of Indonesia's youngest and biggest airlines, flying to dozens of domestic and international destinations. It has been expanding aggressively in Southeast Asia, a fast-growing region of more than 600 million people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An update on the suspensions:

Quote

Jakarta suspends Lion Air's technical director

  • 31 October, 2018
  • SOURCE: Flight Dashboard
  • BY: Firdaus Hashim
  • Singapore

Indonesian transport minister Budi Karya Sumadi has ordered the temporary suspension of Lion Air technical director Muhammad Asif, following the fatal crash of one of its Boeing 737 Max 8 jets on 29 October.

In addition to the director's suspension, he also ordered the airline to suspend an unspecified number of engineers who gave the jet clearance to operate.

Media reports quote Sumadi as saying that the suspensions will facilitate the National Transport Safety Committee (NTSC) investigation into the crash, in which all 189 aboard were killed.

Following the accident, the transport ministry plans to conduct intensive ramp checks to at least 40% of Lion's in-service fleet, as compared with 10-15% for other Indonesian airlines.

Flight Fleets Analyzer shows that Lion Air operates 112 aircraft: three Airbus A330-300s, and 109 Boeing 737s. This suggests that up to 45 of Lion's in-service jets will undergo the intensive ramp checks.

Sanctions and penalties could also be imposed on Lion Air, depending on the outcome of NTSC's investigation.

"The transport ministry is waiting for the investigation results done by NTSC. If there's evidence of neglect by the airline, we will impose sanctions in line with the law," says Sumadi.

Lion has named Muhammad Rusli as its acting technical director until further notice.

The Lion Air 737 registered PK-LQP was operating as flight JT610 on the Jakarta-Pangkal Pinang route, where it took off from Jakarta's Soekarno-Hatta International airport at 06.20 before losing contact 13 minutes later. It crashed into the sea near the town of Karawang in the province of West Java.

Flight Fleets Analyzer shows that the aircraft was delivered on 13 August 2018, and bears serial number 43000. It is equipped with 180 seats, and managed by CMIG Leasing.

 

Share this post


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

 

So it's ok for him to post the opinion that the AME did everything correctly but when I post about the possibility that things weren't done correctly I get slammed with; "how about we wait for the facts?"  Same goes for you Vsplat; you tell me it's cruel to post about possible factors but then casually throw out that the crew should have been able to handle the scenario and maybe the aircraft lost all instruments, had an AP failure, had a control malfunction, broke up in flight or ended up in an unrecoverable state - you just mentioned 5 possible scenarios while telling me I shouldn't be cruel and should wait for the facts.  Good one.

 

 

I didn't say that the crew should have been able to handle anything.  You added all of that.

I asked questions to underscore what is not known. That should have been clear.

You really need to go back and read my post.  And dial back.  Being asked to wait for the facts is not being slammed.  Your replies are just aggressive.

But this is a forum.  Do whatever you want. 

Vs

Share this post


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

I didn't say that the crew should have been able to handle anything.  You added all of that.

I asked questions to underscore what is not known. That should have been clear.

You really need to go back and read my post.  And dial back.  Being asked to wait for the facts is not being slammed.  Your replies are just aggressive.

But this is a forum.  Do whatever you want. 

Vs

You said;  "Recovery from unreliable airspeed is a drill in every aircraft I have flown for at least the past 20 years" and "we had better HOPE that airline crews don't have to come here to learn that."  So, yes, you didn't actually say this crew in particular should have been able to handle it , just airline crews in general.  Am I stretching the meaning of what you did say?  Well, I leave that to the jury.  IMO, BTW, I think you're right, the crew should have been able to handle it.  You know, of course, based on the little info we have.

Look, let's back up.  

conehead said (paraphrasing) - maybe the maintenance was done right?

I said - maybe it was done wrong.

conehead says - we should wait for the facts.

 

I typically call people out when I detect self-serving contradiction.  He now explains that he wasn't saying that at all but rather saying we don't know what happened.  OK, well, in that case, that's what my post means too.

maybe it was done right (conehead), which means - we don't know what happened

maybe it was done wrong (seeker), which means - we don't know what happened.

So, I called him on, what I perceived to be a, contradiction - posting about what might have happened but telling others they should wait for the facts before posting about what might have happened.  This is where you come in.  Over the next couple of posts you list 5 things that might have happened, or might not, and then say that you listed these things simply to underscore what it not known and chastising me to go back and re-read your post and saying that the meaning should have been clear.  Oh yeah, and I should "dial back".  I'm frustrated and I guess that comes across - you seem to be holding me to different standard than you apply to yourself.

 

Edit:  Let me just add;  I agree that spouting random guesses at what might have happened in public to uninformed people is wrong and should be avoided.  We are in agreement on that.  I guess I just see this little corner of the world as being different.  We all know that until the final report is published our analysis is incomplete and may be entirely wrong.  As you say, I hope no pilot needs to hear on this forum about the importance of knowing their aircraft's drill for unreliable airspeed but that doesn't mean there's no value in being reminded or in hearing someone else's opinion or re-telling of some account pertaining to it.

Edited by seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suffice it to say, guys, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED based on the available evidence, of which there is very little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vsplat said:

Thanks Kip.  OT - couldn't help but notice the deck person barefoot while handling twisted and torn, likely contaminated wreckage.  Yikes.

Vs

That’s Indonesia for you...

9D860596-6A12-4638-83CA-1044BC9044E3.jpeg

Share this post


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

Yes, that's true, I overstated that.  You simply mentioned the possibility that everything was done correctly while I mentioned that maybe they weren't.  You're right, we don't know much, but we do know a few things; the airplane crashed and on the previous flight it had some sort of avionics/instrument problem.  I think it's pretty unlikely that the crash was not in some way connected to the previous problem but, as you say, we don't know for sure.

Thanks Seeker.  And I agree, I’ll bet the previous flight problem is probably related to the crash.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gumbi said:

That’s Indonesia for you...

9D860596-6A12-4638-83CA-1044BC9044E3.jpeg

The exterior wiring above the streets of Jakarta are something to see. Hard to believe so many wires can be suspended in unison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick note from the peanut gallery ( and certain posters can ignore this) but even when the data recorders are recovered and the results analyzed and all agree ( for example) that the air speed indicator was defective, would not all agree that multiple factors contribute to almost every incident explosive devices excluded? As was said on this forum, the Air France flight crew operating the ill-fated south Atlantic flight let a perfectly operable aircraft pancake in the ocean because they failed to fly the aircraft. KP has made a similar reference in this thread as has Boestar.....look out the window and actually pilot the aircraft without the immediate aid and assistance of instrumentation. And so...I suggest that again absent catastrophic events, the ultimate conclusion will be that a confluence of factors both human and mechanical resulted in the premature end of this flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of some of the Teslas that have crashed into stationary objects when using autopilot mode...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may…a Short Story,

I was a Check Pilot on the C130E in Trenton. The vast majority of check rides are pretty boring, mainly because the “checkee” had been well trained by experienced Captains in the Squadron. Certainly all Check Pilots wanted to see how well the “Checkee” ran his crew, CRM, and as well his personal flying ability, and normally, there were just little points to bring up on the debrief. As such, most check rides included an overnight stop, again to see how the “Checkee” handled his crew and all ground arrangements/operations.

I was doing a Check Ride on a young fellow and his route of flight was CFB  Trenton, Thule AFB  (overnight), and then CFS Alert, Thule AFB , and back to CFB Trenton the next day. The ride was going quite well and it certainly looked like the young man was ready to be upgraded to Captain.

I thought…how about something unusual ?? We were about 30 miles north of Thule AFB  on a beautiful VFR day and descending through about 10,000 feet when I advised the “Checkee” who was in the left seat for this sector, that I was going to “blank out “ all his flight instruments and he would have to do a complete visual approach and landing with only visual cues  but could set his power at whatever he wished for dropping gear/flaps and final approach speed. (The C130 E was not glass cockpit at that time). Paper towel and scotch tape blanked out his flight instruments and a clipboard held by the FE did not allow him to see the FO’s dials. I advised Thule Radar that we were doing a visual approach.

Ideally he should have leveled out at 2000 feet and turned final at 2000 Feet , (Thule AFB  was very close to sea level) He was motoring in at about 1500 + or – 300  feet and would soon turn final. As he turned final, about a 65 degree left hand turn, he started to loose altitude and I advised him we were approaching 1000 feet ASL, he pulled up but forgot to add power and the speed dropped a bit low but he caught it before I had to say anything. As we approached the field, he started his descending approach and called for gear and flaps…..Now with all the drag out there, he started to sink and realized he was going to be short of the runway, so he added power, leveled and got back on “his mental/visual ” glide path  which was still too low and his final approach speed was about 25-30 kts high.

At 400 feet I advised the left seat to give control to the right seat and called “Go-Around” when the transfer of control was complete. Cleaned up the paper towels and scotch tape and advised the left seat to take control and do a visual full stop with all nav aids available….it was a no problem approach and landing.

Why did I do that? I had noticed that many pilots were glued on their instruments during all phases of flight and wondered if any could fly without reference to the dials. I was amazed that there was very little lookout by either pilot  when departing or arriving at an airport and there were instances where ATC called traffic “out there” and neither pilot could see it.  It seemed to me that the ability to fly without reference to speed/altitude/navigation aids , even for a very  short time  was not very evident on the C130.

I discussed this with other Check Pilots and it was decided, weather and traffic permitting, to give all checkees a “partial panel” section of the flight, even if it was just in a local circuit just to let them see how well they could handle the aircraft without all the dials. It was not part of any syllabus test and was classified as an "experience."

Yes, the young fellow passed his check ride, he did well and my little ‘game’ was not part of any regulated check ride however he did admit that he was afraid he failed but also stated that he considered the exercise a worthwhile event.

As an aside….it is more difficult that one might think to fly where you have no reference as to, are you going up or down because from a pilots point of view there is nothing out the front windows to give you any references, other than a horizon if distinctly visible….there are no aircraft parts sticking out there in front that you can use as a visual cue against a horizon as to your attitude. It is much easier in a “whiz-bang” as the nose section can always be used as a reference .

I have always wondered if the fatal C130 accident outside of CFS Alert could have been avoided if more eyeballs were x-checking the dials with the outside environment..

 

************TRIVIA...Thule AFB on Greenland has a white runway with all markings in red. White runway to reflect the sunlight and heat so the runway didn't sink in to the permafrost. I think there were at least two runways, one on top of the other because of the sinking factor.

 

Edited by Kip Powick
speling
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Lion Air crash: Black box from crashed plane retrieved

p06qg6b7.jpg
 

Divers find Lion Air plane 'black box'

A "black box" flight data recorder from Lion Air flight JT 610 has been found by divers off the coast of Indonesia.

The plane, carrying 189 people, crashed soon after taking off from Jakarta, the Indonesian capital, on Monday.

It plummeted into the Java Sea - no survivors have been found, nor has the body of the Boeing 737.

There is as yet no indication of what caused the crash, but the aircraft is believed to have experienced technical problems on its penultimate flight.

The plane was making a one-hour journey to the western city of Pangkal Pinang when it went down.

 

The pilot had asked air traffic control for permission to turn back to the airport, but then contact was lost.

Buried on the sea floor

A diver told reporters on board one of the search and rescue vessels scouring the Java Sea: "We dug and we got the black box."

The diver, identified as Hendra, said the box had been buried in debris on the sea floor, Reuters reports.

Officials say it was a data recorder, and that they are still searching for a second "black box" which would have recorded conversations between the two pilots.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen confirmation, but someone told me the unit was damaged and the data is unrecoverable?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DEFCON said:

I haven't seen confirmation, but someone told me the unit was damaged and the data is unrecoverable?

 

Seems that "Some one" was wrong.

Quote

Lion Air crash: Investigators recover 69 hours of flight data from black box

Updated about 2 hours agoSun 4 Nov 2018, 7:53am

Investigators have retrieved hours of data from the flight recorder of the Lion Air jet that crashed off Jakarta on October 29, killing 189 people on board.

Key points:

  • Fourteen of 189 victims identified from recovered remains
  • Search for victims extended by three days
  • Investigators still searching for second black box

 

The news came as Indonesian authorities on Sunday extended the search at sea for victims and debris.

National Transportation Safety Committee deputy chairman Haryo Satmiko told a news conference that 69 hours of flight data was downloaded from the recorder including its fatal flight.

The Boeing 737 MAX 8 jet crashed just minutes after take-off from Jakarta on October 29 in the country's worst airline disaster since 1997.

The flight data recorder was recovered by divers on Thursday in damaged condition and investigators said it required special handling to retrieve its information.

The second black box — a cockpit voice recorder — has not been recovered but searchers are focusing on a particular area based on a weak locator signal.

"From here we will analyse what happened to that flight," Nurcahyo Utomo, head of Indonesia's transportation safety committee, told reporters.

Analysis of the data and a recovered aircraft landing gear and engine will begin on Monday and information will be passed to police if needed, Mr Utomo said.

 

Search extended by three days

The National Search and Rescue Agency chief Muhammad Syaugi said on Sunday the search operation, now in its seventh day and involving hundreds of personnel and dozens of ships, would continue for another three days.

Mr Syaugi paid tribute to a volunteer diver, Syahrul Anto, who died during the search effort on Friday.

 

The family of the 48-year-old refused an autopsy and he was buried on Saturday in Surabaya.

As of Sunday a total of 105 body bags, few containing intact remains, had been recovered and handed to police for forensic identification, yet only 14 victims had been identified.

"I'm sure the total will increase," Mr Syaugi said, adding remains were also now washing up on land.

The second black box is thought to be around 50 metres from the main search area, where the water is only 30 metres deep, but ocean currents and mud on the sea bed that is more than a metre deep have complicated search efforts.

Mr Syaugi said a considerable amount of aircraft "skin" was found on the sea floor but not a large intact part of its fuselage as he had indicated was possible on Saturday.

 

Patchy safety record

The pilot of flight JT610 had asked for, and received, permission to turn back to Jakarta, but what went wrong remains a mystery.
The sadness in the Lion Air crash is that no-one would really be shocked by it — the Indonesian aviation sector has a bad reputation for good reason, writes former Indonesian correspondent Samantha Hawley.

 

Flight tracking websites show the plane had erratic speed and altitude during its fatal 13-minute flight and a previous flight the day before from Bali to Jakarta.

Passengers on the Bali flight reported terrifying descents and in both cases the different cockpit crews requested to return to their departure airport shortly after take-off.

Lion Air has claimed a technical problem was fixed after the Bali fight.

The first crash of a Boeing 737 MAX is the focus of scrutiny by the global aviation industry.

Preliminary findings of the investigation are expected to be made public after 30 days.

Indonesia is one of the world's fastest-growing aviation markets but its safety record has been patchy.

The Lion Air crash is the worst airline disaster in Indonesia since 1997, when 234 people died on a Garuda flight near Medan.

In December 2014, an AirAsia flight from Surabaya to Singapore plunged into the sea, killing all 162 on board.

Its transport safety panel investigated 137 serious aviation incidents from 2012 to 2017.

"There's still a lot we need to improve," Air Transportation Director General Pramintohadi Sukarno said at a press conference on Saturday, referring to safety rules.

AP/Reuters

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this