Sriwijaya Airlines 737 badly damaged in landing accident, Indonesia
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sriwijaya off runway in Jambi & further EU bashing
I read this wonderfully naive article in todays Jakarta Post from Air Chief Marshal Chappy Hakim the former chairman of the National Team for the Evaluation of Transportation Safety and Security in Indonesia, emphasising that the EU ban on Indonesian Airlines was a reflection of 'a Colonial mindset' and that EU airlines should be banned from Indonesian Airspace:
EU ban: Colonial mindset | The Jakarta Post
It was therefore unsurprising to hear of another incident a couple of hours later in Jambi where a Sriwijaya 737 has overrun the runway leaving it badly damaged and the runway closed.
Although my Bahasa is not up to scratch, I gather there are 18 people injured, 1 critically, and I hope we do not see the numbers rising (I believe this happened about 90 minutes ago with news quite slow to trickle through).
ANTARA :: Korban Kecelakaan Sriwijaya Air 18 Orang Dirawat di RS
I look forward to Chappy's comments tomorrow.
EU ban: Colonial mindset | The Jakarta Post
It was therefore unsurprising to hear of another incident a couple of hours later in Jambi where a Sriwijaya 737 has overrun the runway leaving it badly damaged and the runway closed.
Although my Bahasa is not up to scratch, I gather there are 18 people injured, 1 critically, and I hope we do not see the numbers rising (I believe this happened about 90 minutes ago with news quite slow to trickle through).
ANTARA :: Korban Kecelakaan Sriwijaya Air 18 Orang Dirawat di RS
I look forward to Chappy's comments tomorrow.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sriwijaya Airlines 737 badly damaged in landing accident, Indonesia
A B737-200 operated by Sriwijaya Airlines was badly damaged while landing at Jambi Airport, Indonesia, at the end of a flight from Jakarta. Reports so far are sketchy, but suggest that one person (a farmer) was badly injured and about sixteen suffered less serious injuries.
Sriwijaya currently operates around 16 737-200s, from a variety of sources - mostly US Air and Olympic:
CH-Aviation - Airline News, Fleet Lists & More
Sriwijaya currently operates around 16 737-200s, from a variety of sources - mostly US Air and Olympic:
CH-Aviation - Airline News, Fleet Lists & More
What a great article about the EU's "arrogance"!
I like the bit about the brand new Airbus with an Indonesian registration that is not allowed to enter EU airspace immediately it is registered.
Surprise is expressed!
Doesn't matter if the plane has come straight off the production line. If some half-wit decides to land it at 220kts with 5 degrees of flap it will end up in the same heap beyond the end of the runway!
I like the bit about the brand new Airbus with an Indonesian registration that is not allowed to enter EU airspace immediately it is registered.
Surprise is expressed!
Doesn't matter if the plane has come straight off the production line. If some half-wit decides to land it at 220kts with 5 degrees of flap it will end up in the same heap beyond the end of the runway!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sriwijaya Airlines 737 badly damaged in landing accident, Indonesia
As a frequent flyer of the Jakarta to Semarang route, it amazes me the amount of times the pilot will land his plane in Semarang with a tail wind. Yes, there is ample runway for when everything goes to plan.
When it doesn't..............why take unecessary risks?
When it doesn't..............why take unecessary risks?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of the solution has to be equipping Indonesian airlines with a more modern fleet. There is no place for 737-200s and their generation.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can have the most modern fleet in the World, but if you operate them like muppets then you will still end up with plenty of smoking holes in the ground.
You might as well argue that vintage cars are unsafe on modern highways!
(the fact being, they were built for far more primitive roads,inferior fuel,tyres and lubricants....used on modern roads,they lead a cushy life as their continuing use affirms.)
Old, WELL MAINTAINED aircraft should be MORE inherently suited to these 3rd. world "airports" than modern stuff.
they're slower, more robust,lower-tech, less complex,therefore easier to
maintain. In short, they were built to operate in those environments.
Staff and administrative training is obviously lacking....I'm sur there's a way round Indonesian airspace, if that's what they want....but then they really would be up s**t creek, with half the world refusing to fly goods/pax to them.
the bloke's a cretin.
Re #4, perhaps the Indonesian Airlines and the Air Chief Marshal should be sent a copy of Managing Threats and Errors During Approach and Landing.
A modern fleet does not necessarily improve safety, that requires modern thinking.
A modern fleet does not necessarily improve safety, that requires modern thinking.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safetypee...
Bahhh....modern thinking is the problem...
I see both the 'modern' standard of pilot training, and that new multicrew licence (read cheap) licence stuff being a real threat to the current level of flight safety.
General statement - there are many operators out there that are little more than computer operators (game console operators), and hence rely fully on the computer screen to both advise the problem and what to do about it!
How many of the current young crop of pilots would know how to fly an airplane that's equipped with older round dial flight instruments, and thereby demonstrate their understanding of conventional navigation.
I'll say no more - I can feel my blood pressure rising - it just ticks me off when I hear of this modern stuff, when it's all just TV screens and follow the little arrow to the destination!
I had to laugh the other day when I was reading thru my QRH again, it was the statement that was the last line of the dual FMC failure procedure, it simply said "revert to conventional navigation", what a laugh!
Rant over, I'll get my own coat thanks!
Cheers...FD...
Bahhh....modern thinking is the problem...
I see both the 'modern' standard of pilot training, and that new multicrew licence (read cheap) licence stuff being a real threat to the current level of flight safety.
General statement - there are many operators out there that are little more than computer operators (game console operators), and hence rely fully on the computer screen to both advise the problem and what to do about it!
How many of the current young crop of pilots would know how to fly an airplane that's equipped with older round dial flight instruments, and thereby demonstrate their understanding of conventional navigation.
I'll say no more - I can feel my blood pressure rising - it just ticks me off when I hear of this modern stuff, when it's all just TV screens and follow the little arrow to the destination!
I had to laugh the other day when I was reading thru my QRH again, it was the statement that was the last line of the dual FMC failure procedure, it simply said "revert to conventional navigation", what a laugh!
Rant over, I'll get my own coat thanks!
Cheers...FD...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cockney Steve,
I have operated regularly in to 6 indonesian airports and been a passenger in to many others. I can assure you that there are many european airports that are far far inferior. Should we retain few older a/c avaliable to fly in to these european "third world" airports?
It is the whole attitude to aviation (and progress in general) in Indonesia that is the problem, Not the facilities.
I have operated regularly in to 6 indonesian airports and been a passenger in to many others. I can assure you that there are many european airports that are far far inferior. Should we retain few older a/c avaliable to fly in to these european "third world" airports?
It is the whole attitude to aviation (and progress in general) in Indonesia that is the problem, Not the facilities.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Detent: "General statement - there are many operators out there that are little more than computer operators (game console operators), and hence rely fully on the computer screen to both advise the problem and what to do about it!
How many of the current young crop of pilots would know how to fly an airplane that's equipped with older round dial flight instruments, and thereby demonstrate their understanding of conventional navigation.
I'll say no more - I can feel my blood pressure rising - it just ticks me off when I hear of this modern stuff, when it's all just TV screens and follow the little arrow to the destination!"
Good idea - actually, let's get rid of the Internet and www thing and all progress, because these days with computers kids have pretty well forgotten how use pencils. Isn't this just as stoopid as your rant?
How many of the current young crop of pilots would know how to fly an airplane that's equipped with older round dial flight instruments, and thereby demonstrate their understanding of conventional navigation.
I'll say no more - I can feel my blood pressure rising - it just ticks me off when I hear of this modern stuff, when it's all just TV screens and follow the little arrow to the destination!"
Good idea - actually, let's get rid of the Internet and www thing and all progress, because these days with computers kids have pretty well forgotten how use pencils. Isn't this just as stoopid as your rant?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read the accident report.
http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/aaic.htm
On final at flaps 15 to a not very long wet runway with a CB overhead when they lost 'A' hydraulics. Decided to continue and no checklist was done. In order to not land long, it was briefed to approach a but below the glideslope. But speed was close 30 knots fast at touchdown which was quite smooth, and they had no reverse available and the spoilers never deployed. Some brakes are not operable either. Two hours fuel on board.
http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/aaic.htm
On final at flaps 15 to a not very long wet runway with a CB overhead when they lost 'A' hydraulics. Decided to continue and no checklist was done. In order to not land long, it was briefed to approach a but below the glideslope. But speed was close 30 knots fast at touchdown which was quite smooth, and they had no reverse available and the spoilers never deployed. Some brakes are not operable either. Two hours fuel on board.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: On a survey line somewhere...
Age: 42
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many years ago, a similar incident (not accident) happened at Nadi Airport, Fiji involving a Boeing 737-200. Shortly after take off loss of System A Hydraulics occurred.
The crew held in VMC in the local area until the Loss of System A checklist was completed and a return to Nadi was made. The runway length was in excess of 10,000 feet; far in excess of that needed for a flap 15 landing.
A normal touch down was made at the correct planned speed and the pilot attempted to select reverse thrust. He was unable to move the reverse thrust levers beyond the interlock position and assumed an unidentified defect caused this. He applied maximum manual braking bringing the 737 to a stop half way down the runway. He then set the park brake while he discussed the situation with the first officer.
Unknown to him the brakes were very hot which resulted in the fuseable plugs actuating and the brakes seized. It took a considerable time to arrange to get the aircraft cleared from the runway so other aircraft could land.
This all happened many years ago. Initial Type Rating training for company pilots was conducted by third party. That would have included manual reversion or loss of System A and System B. It is not known if slow operation of thrust reversers was emphasised during that training. However the FCTM (and that includes the 737 Classics to this day), cautioned that thrust reversers will deploy and retract at a slower rate. The FCTM did not amplify that statement by saying anything about the time needed to get past the thrust lever interlocks before reverse could be applied. In fact it is a lot longer than one would think.
At the time, recurrent training in the company 737-200's was conducted in the real aircraft due to occasional logistical problems with obtaining simulator time. Of course there are common sense constraints on what non-normal can be tested in the real aircraft. That includes landing with hydraulic failures
Unless pilots have experienced in the simulator the delays caused by the "hang ups" against the interlocks (for want of a better description) that are a characteristic of reverse thrust lever operation if using the standby hydraulic system, then such an event is liable to catch them by surprise. In the Nadi incident, the pilot understandably thought the reversers had failed on him at a critical time and he rushed to get on to the brakes. That is being wise after the event of course
Different simulators for the same aircraft type should still have standardised responses but that is not always so. One 737 Classic simulator can take up to eight seconds from reverse lever actuation to get through the interlocks and that is a long time if the pilot is sweating on getting into full reverse asap.
Another simulator can take less than half that time. The lesson here is that it is important for pilots to be given practice in the simulator at experiencing the delay or hang up in reverse lever operation if operating on the standby hydraulics (lower capacity hydraulic pump). To experience this characteristic for the first time in a real event is quite startling. While the QRH correctly states that a thrust reverser will deploy and retract at a slower rate if normal hydraulic pressure is inoperative, it could be argued the statement is somewhat vague, leaving it to the imagination of the pilot to define `slower rate`.
The crew held in VMC in the local area until the Loss of System A checklist was completed and a return to Nadi was made. The runway length was in excess of 10,000 feet; far in excess of that needed for a flap 15 landing.
A normal touch down was made at the correct planned speed and the pilot attempted to select reverse thrust. He was unable to move the reverse thrust levers beyond the interlock position and assumed an unidentified defect caused this. He applied maximum manual braking bringing the 737 to a stop half way down the runway. He then set the park brake while he discussed the situation with the first officer.
Unknown to him the brakes were very hot which resulted in the fuseable plugs actuating and the brakes seized. It took a considerable time to arrange to get the aircraft cleared from the runway so other aircraft could land.
This all happened many years ago. Initial Type Rating training for company pilots was conducted by third party. That would have included manual reversion or loss of System A and System B. It is not known if slow operation of thrust reversers was emphasised during that training. However the FCTM (and that includes the 737 Classics to this day), cautioned that thrust reversers will deploy and retract at a slower rate. The FCTM did not amplify that statement by saying anything about the time needed to get past the thrust lever interlocks before reverse could be applied. In fact it is a lot longer than one would think.
At the time, recurrent training in the company 737-200's was conducted in the real aircraft due to occasional logistical problems with obtaining simulator time. Of course there are common sense constraints on what non-normal can be tested in the real aircraft. That includes landing with hydraulic failures
Unless pilots have experienced in the simulator the delays caused by the "hang ups" against the interlocks (for want of a better description) that are a characteristic of reverse thrust lever operation if using the standby hydraulic system, then such an event is liable to catch them by surprise. In the Nadi incident, the pilot understandably thought the reversers had failed on him at a critical time and he rushed to get on to the brakes. That is being wise after the event of course
Different simulators for the same aircraft type should still have standardised responses but that is not always so. One 737 Classic simulator can take up to eight seconds from reverse lever actuation to get through the interlocks and that is a long time if the pilot is sweating on getting into full reverse asap.
Another simulator can take less than half that time. The lesson here is that it is important for pilots to be given practice in the simulator at experiencing the delay or hang up in reverse lever operation if operating on the standby hydraulics (lower capacity hydraulic pump). To experience this characteristic for the first time in a real event is quite startling. While the QRH correctly states that a thrust reverser will deploy and retract at a slower rate if normal hydraulic pressure is inoperative, it could be argued the statement is somewhat vague, leaving it to the imagination of the pilot to define `slower rate`.
You can have the most modern fleet in the World, but if you operate them like muppets then you will still end up with plenty of smoking holes in the ground.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the EU issues a blanket ban on all airlines registered in a particular state it is because that countries aviation regulators/regulations are not up to ICAO standards. In excess of 90% of the airlines in Annex A to the regulation are in this category. Any airline can dispute the EUs ban in respect of their operations. A number have, such as TAAG, Garuda and Iranair, and can operate some or all of their aircraft to/from the EU.
