Yes everything is there , but a bit diluted , so you have to look for the interesting bits..
One of the main cause can be found in para 1.18.1 page 39. if you read carefully. Many errors , asumptions , a fatal one was to change the aircraft type on the plan sent to Jakarta APP to a SU30 ( A military jet fighter used by the Indonesian air force) Halim is a joint military airbase, so for the APP controller everything looked like a Military fighter going to a training area. Rate of climb of the aircraft was in excess of 3000ft/min up to 10.000 ft and very fast, plus a Russian accent,(instructors were russians on the SU-30s) it all fitted.
The maps used by the crew did not contain the training area, no published MSAs, a handling agent not used to those demo flights, local staff not briefed as to what was expected, etc.. Everyone asumed things , while others, incl crew , asumed different ones ( training areas, radials/headings, orbits to loose alt , etc..)
From the crew side, we have a test pilot of an unregistered proptotype flying pax , and playing salesman in cockpit while flying in a unknown area low level in bad weather . A F/O who did not know what was the plan (if there was a plan , see CVR between 07:31 and 07:33 ) confused, maybe even lost (CVR 07:32:22 ) , bad teamwork , then finally disregarding 7 Terrain warnings.
No a bright day for Russia and Indonesia Aviation . But a good and fair final report. Congratulations to the NTSC.
PS : For my ATC friends here, have a good look at page 46 , para 2.5 , especially the part about working alone on the sector with no assistant and no supervisor . Rings a bell ?
Thank you and, as I said, I was surprised to read the Pravda article. Now that the report is out, confirming there was nothing wrong with the aircraft itself, best wishes to Sukhoi in putting this accident behind them. Btw, I have no bias for/against Sukhoi, Embraer or Bombardier; the competition between them can only make for better and safer airplanes. Hopefully this accident will make for safer demo piloting.
Perhaps, but an accident never has a single cause. Had Jakarta ATC the correct a/c type and flight plan , the aircraft would have never been cleared to descend to 6000 ft in that area, and be left alone after that. . A decend on a return leg to land , yes but that would have been on a different course/heading.
These errors, or rather asumptions that led to errors, explains the ATC involvment discussed ( and speculated) at length at the begining of this thread.
For thought; was the use of 'SU30' a mistake, perhaps aggravated by language? Or perhaps there was no ICAO coding for the SU100 before final certification, thus the choice appeared logical?
“Accidents arise from the unforeseen and often unforeseeable concatenation (linking) of diverse events, each one necessary, but singularly insufficient”. J Reason
alf5071h : There is an ICAO code for the SSJ, it is SU95 . (there since more than a year ) interestingly there is no SU30 in ICAO, the SU-30 ICAO type designator is SU27, to complicate things many Suhkoi type designators do not follow common ICAO designations , (do not ask me why they do this ) hence adding another possible layer of confusion , (e.g. a SU-39 is for ICAO code a SU25 , a SU-47 is for ICAO SU37 , while the real SU-37 is for ICAO a SU27.. etc) Search
It would appear that the ATS system (the computer software used) aircraft types database was not ICAO , but rather local, and that unknown types for the system could not be entered. Hence the " logical choice" to enter another Sukhoi type .
For a low trained, low pay assistant entering flight plans in a computer , a Sukhoi is a Sukhoi. To his defense, and if you type Sukhoi in google you get fighters, not civil airliners. Interestingly during the debrief, , nobody in Jakarta ACC said they knew Sukhoi was making civil airplanes and that one was in the country.
A thorough report but poorly written with much duplication. I read it right through and I read the same things three times under three different headings. I am a trifle unfair though because it is written in a second language (English)!
It's actually not so easy to translate Bahasa Indonesia precisely into English - it lacks precision with regard to time and dates - the classic is the word "waktu" which can be translated as "when" but generally means "if" - a good translator therefore repeates dates and times for example just to make sure you know where and when you are
Last edited by Heathrow Harry; 20th Dec 2012 at 13:20.
With respect, the grammar of the report suggests that it is indeed a translation.
I can assure you that it's not a translation. There is only one final report released and it's in English. All of the aviation accident reports produced by the NTSC in recent times have been in English, even domestic accidents and incidents.
I can assure you that it's not a translation. There is only one final report released and it's in English. All of the aviation accident reports produced by the NTSC in recent times have been in English, even domestic accidents and incidents.
I can assure you that it's a translation of a draft (not published) written in the native language of the country Or .. if it's not a translation .. this mean that all the investigators and administrative personnel involved have english as mother language ... and this is practically impossible
Hi, Or .. if it's not a translation .. this mean that all the investigators and administrative personnel involved have english as mother language ... and this is practically impossible
Going by your own logic, since you are from Germany, then, did you write your reply to this post in German and then translate it to English before posting? Or did you learn how to speak English and therefore are capable of independently reading and writing in English? Anyway, this is getting off topic. The fact of the matter is, the NTSC has published one report and it is in English. And the same goes for all other aviation incident and accident reports I've read from the NTSC in recent times.
IF the pilot had taken the same route as he did in the morning
IF they'd flown from Sukarno-hata and not Halim......
Actually I would replace those with something a lot more basic - something not connected with a mere 'chance':
If the crew had a map of terrain they were flying over. There was a navigator aboard and he did not even bother to have an aeronautical chart of the area, makes you wonder what he was paid for.
plus the fact that they'd been in the same rough area earlier in the day - those volcanoes are BIG and can be seen in the morning fro well over 100 kms away
to go low level in cloudy conditions when you know there are big mountains around is pretty stupid
) hence adding another possible layer of confusion , (e.g. a SU-39 is for ICAO code a SU25 , a SU-47 is for ICAO SU37 , while the real SU-37 is for ICAO a SU27.. etc)
