Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Lion Air Down

Recommended Posts

One of the best phone calls I've ever taken was from a colleague who'd recently landed in the aircraft I was due to take over. He'd had some "fun" on the previous leg and wanted to tell me first hand exactly what had happened. Some of it was stuff you couldn't write in even the most detailed of log entries. It was very helpful as I dealt with Maintenance Control because I knew what I was willing to accept - and what I wasn't. I still owe that guy a beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always try to get the MTC guy to meet me at the airplane so I can give the background and clarify what happened, what we saw and did, etc.  I've had some very good interactions, and learned a lot myself by talking directly to the guy who's going to address the snag.  I consider waiting at the aircraft after the flight to discuss snags with the AME to be one of my main responsibilities  - and I don't shirk my responsibilities.

Share this post


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

I always try to get the MTC guy to meet me at the airplane so I can give the background and clarify what happened, what we saw and did, etc.  I've had some very good interactions, and learned a lot myself by talking directly to the guy who's going to address the snag.  I consider waiting at the aircraft after the flight to discuss snags with the AME to be one of my main responsibilities  - and I don't shirk my responsibilities.

Finally.... AME. I wondered when you were going get closer to his/her correct title. They don’t give away those licenses either. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Oh my  !!

Well....I don't.  I knew when I wrote that I'd probably get a response from someone.  What I was trying to get across is that I see handling snags, making sure cosmetic and grooming issues are called in to the right dept and passing info to the outgoing crew as an important part of my job - irritates me to no end the guys who are already out on the 401 before the last passenger is off the airplane.

Edited by seeker
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Well....I don't.  I knew when I wrote that I'd probably get a response from someone.  What I was trying to get across is that I see handling snags, making sure cosmetic and grooming issues are called in to the right dept and passing info to the outgoing crew as an important part of my job - irritates me to no end the guys who are already out on the 401 before the last passenger is off the airplane.

I believe that’s all a part of good airmanship as well as being a good employee. The added bonus is what you can learn about systems or your airplane in general when you do get speak directly to a qualified engineer. There’s also the mutual respect gained for each other’s job in the airline because the next time you’ve got a serious problem it’ll be someone who now knows you working with you to solve it. 

Edited by blues deville

Share this post


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

Well....I don't.  I knew when I wrote that I'd probably get a response from someone.  What I was trying to get across is that I see handling snags, making sure cosmetic and grooming issues are called in to the right dept and passing info to the outgoing crew as an important part of my job - irritates me to no end the guys who are already out on the 401 before the last passenger is off the airplane.

Of course..... I certainly agree with you within the context concerning your intent  to post a personal opinion with respect to your aviation industry work ethic.

My comment was in jest...... in that  your remark  could be construed  as rather pompous if that opinion has to do with the functionality  of your entire life.4322.gif

No harm...no foul...have a great one4494.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wall Street Journal

By
Andy Pasztor and
Andrew Tangel

Updated Nov. 13, 2018 1:56 p.m. ET

. . . .

"Boeing marketed the MAX 8 partly by telling customers it wouldn’t need pilots to undergo additional simulator training beyond that already required for older versions, according to industry and government officials. One high-ranking Boeing official said the company had decided against disclosing more details to cockpit crews due to concerns about inundating average pilots with too much information—and significantly more technical data—than they needed or could digest. "

. . . .

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-withheld-information-on-737-model-according-to-safety-experts-and-others-1542082575

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen some horrible write ups in my time.  I once had a crew (probably more than once actually)  Tell me their autopilot was not working but when pressed for specifics were unable to elaborate.  Once I took the MEL out and was questioned as to what I was going to do, I said Defer it to an overnight when troubleshooting can be done since I do not have sufficient information.  Suddenly there was a plethora of information which led to a simple fix.  The devil is in the details.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Likely the first of many:

December 28, 2018 / 3:25 PM / Updated 6 hours ago

Family of Lion Air co-pilot sues Boeing in Chicago over fatal crash

  •  

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The family of the Indonesian co-pilot of a Lion Air flight that crashed in October, killing all 189 on board, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Boeing Co in Chicago, adding to litigation piling up against the manufacturer in its hometown.

The lawsuit, filed on Friday in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, alleges that a Lion Air-operated Boeing 737 MAX 8 was unreasonably dangerous because its sensors provided inconsistent information to both the pilots and the aircraft.

Boeing declined to comment on pending litigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the industry discussion seems to be focused on NG pilots not being made aware of a very critical 'difference' between sub-types.

What about the pilot that's never flown the type before?

It seems kind of odd that the manufacturer and regulators all missed and or ignored the need for new pilots to be informed of the workings of a major aircraft system?

This situation has the same sort of stink about it as followed the AA A 300 tail loss due to rudder inputs that exceeded structural limits even though the aircraft was well below Vma.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Rich Pulman said:

That accident wasn’t caused by using full-scale rudder deflection in itself, but because of a rapid full-scale rudder reversal. Imagine the lateral force & inertia involved with that, even at low speed. 🤔

Lots of misconceptions out in the pilot community about this accident.  I carry a copy of the accident report with me and will frequently discuss it with new pilots.

From the report:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer’s unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program.

Accident report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Rich; yes, the forces would be fantastic.

Thanks for posting the link to the accident report Seeker; it's been an interesting re-read and a good memory jog.

From the report you can see that AA and the FAA were a big part of the problem beginning with the fact the pilots weren't even issued AFM's.

And as primitive as the aircraft was technologically, much like the Max, a form of 'maneuvering augmentation system' that managed rudder deflection angles etc. was included, but not well understood by pilots.

The more I read, the greater the stink.

The way the Max was introduced to pilots seems to suggest the industry failed to fully appreciate 'all' the lessons contained within the NTSB's A300 crash findings?

 

   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

every large airplane out there has a rudder limiter that limits rudder travel based on airspeed.  Mostly they are automatic systems or even hydraulic pressure reduction systems.  Without it flying would be much more difficult.

 

Share this post


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

Buried under 26’ of mud. That airplane must have been vertical when it hit. Don’t think I want to hear their voices. 

Edited by blues deville

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sea bottom was stated as 98 feet. I would assume that the bottom of the sea in that area has a very large covering of soft sand, slurry mud  and silt. It would be impossible for the recorder to penetrate 26 feet on a normal sandy ocean bottom, no matter what the speed of the aircraft was when impacting the ocean surface.

Normally, at 100 feet, there is little surge on the ocean floor unless it has been subjected to extreme storms . Seeing victims were found during the dredge, one has to assume the bottom was very soft .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the BBC:

Lion Air crash: 'Black box' voice recorder recovered

Indonesian officials find cockpit voice recorder from Lion Air JT610 plane crashImage copyright EPA Image caption The bright orange voice recorder was discovered on Monday

The "black box" voice recorder from a Lion Air flight which crashed off the coast of Jakarta in October has been recovered, said officials on Monday.

All 189 people on board died when Flight JT610 fell into the sea shortly after taking off for the short journey to Pangkal Pinang.

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

Investigators say the plane had encountered technical problems.

The aircraft - a new Boeing 737 Max - broke into many pieces when it hit the water at high speed. The plane should not have been flying on the day it went down as it was not airworthy, Indonesian investigators have said.

The bright orange voice recorder was found at least 50m (165ft) from where the first black box - the plane's flight data recorder - was found last November.

The voice recorder was found on Monday morning but was "broken into two pieces".

"Hopefully it's still useful [to investigators]," Haryo Satmiko, deputy head of Indonesia's transport safety committee (KNKT) told Agence France-Presse.

Workers load up recovered debris and belongings believed to be from Lion Air flight JT610 onto a truck at Tanjung Priok port in JakartaImage copyright Reuters Image caption Officials have been working for months to recover debris from the flight

Indonesia's Navy spokesman Agung Nugroho told Reuters that the recorder was found 8m deep, under mud on the sea floor.

Mr Nugroho said that a weak signal from the recorder had been detected "for several days".

He added that the recorder had "obvious scratches on it", but that it was unclear what damage it had suffered.

Human remains had also been found near where the voice recorder was discovered, said Mr Nugroho.

When the flight data recorder was found in November, officials said that it could take up to six months to analyse data.

Indonesian Navy diver (bottom L) holding a recovered "black box" under water before putting it into a plastic container (R)Image copyright AFP Image caption The plane's flight data recorder was recovered last November

Listening to the last conversations between the pilots and ground control on the CVR should help investigators finish piecing together what went wrong in the short flight.

'Not airworthy'

Flight JT610 took off from Jakarta at 06:20 on Monday (23:30 GMT on Sunday).

It crashed minutes after the pilot asked for permission to turn back to the airport.

Map of crash Presentational white space

Findings by Indonesia's transport safety committee (KNKT) suggest that Lion Air had put the plane back into service despite it having had problems on earlier flights.

The pilots appeared to struggle with an automated system designed to keep the plane from stalling - a new feature of the Boeing 737 Max.

The anti-stalling system repeatedly forced the plane's nose down, despite efforts by pilots to correct this, the findings suggest.

Investigators have now said that the plane was not airworthy and should have been grounded.

Some victims' families are suing Boeing over the accident.

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