Originally Posted by
patplan
#2 was vaguely described in the log. Not knowing it was MCAS [or even its existence] doing its job, they thought it was a malfunctioning STS going the wrong way due to speed difference, so they wrote it that way in there.
Where #2 was
They stopped the Trim actuation (MCAS) by stab cutout switches.
There is no mention, vague or otherwise, of the trim problem or the requirement to disable both electric trim systems in '
the [Aircraft Flight Maintenance]
log'. There was a reference to the Speed Trim System '...
running to the wrong direction, suspected because of speed difference ...' in an entry made through the Company's A-SHOR electronic reporting system. At this stage we don't know who got to see that report.
What is notable from the A-SHOR report is that the use of the Airspeed Unreliable and ALT DISAGREE NNCs is mentioned but not the use of the Runaway Stabilizer NNC.
It is pretty clear that the KNKT has a clear cut view on whether JT43 should have continued on to Jakarta after having to disable the electric trim and with a stick shaker active. I have not yet found one commercial pilot who would have pressed on under similar circumstances. From an admittedly small but highly experienced pool, all of them have made it clear that they would have returned to Denpasar. It was interesting that the JT43 PIC appears to have noted that none of the three NNCs he ran contained the instruction “Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport”.
I'd be interested to see what Lion Air company policy states on such matters.