Lionair plane down in Bali.

[FR8R H8R]

RAF?

Seriously? Someone tried to argue that a 2000 hour RAF pilot is somehow equal to a Lion Air captain? YGTBSM. Pay for training and flying a completely automated aircraft is nothing like flying in the RAF.

I have also been to Bali numerous times. if the fence is intact, how does one think this was an overrun from 27? Looks like a visual approach gone horrible wrong to runway 9 off the Indian Ocean.

[philipat]

If it overshot 09 it would have taken out the main highway running down from Ngurah Rai to Nusa Dua? If it was landing on 09 it must have landed short NOT overshot. Oh, and in reverse?

If it landed short why are all the media reports still referring to "Overshooting"?

[ad-astra]

It was landing on runway 09 and crashed short of the runway.

Its not that hard! Jesus wept!

Look at the radar traces.

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by 1a sound alseep

If radar data confirmed the aircraft was fairly consistently about 100 feet below a 3 degrees glide path then it sounds more like pilot error than a sudden wind shear event.

Have you done any NPAs? Unless you are coupled to an FMS VNAV path, being 100ft below on an NPA is no big deal, and in fact is a good idea especially with low cloud but good vis, because it allows you to get Visual during the level-off at the MDA while still being just below the on-slope PAPI. The only requirement is not be below any limiting steps during the approach.

If I am correct, that suggests that the aircraft overflew the entire length of Runway 27 before landing in the ocean, which raises the question of why the PF did not just go around?

Oh come on. End up in the water, 50m from the seawall, bascially in one piece, after overflying the whole length on the runway? Don't be ridiculous.

[repariit]

If you had the FDR, what is the first thing you would want to know????

Engine status!

[TRF4EVR]

Were they schtooping any of the F/As?

[bubbers44]

On a clear day landing on 09 and landing short I would weap unless I lost power. Did they?

[wooski]

philipat ,
you can see all the other planes landing on 09 , then the virgin aircraft circle as im guessing he was next in line to touch down

LNI904 live flight tracking - Plane Finder

as well as on Accident: Lionair B738 at Denpasar on Apr 13th 2013, landed short of runway and came to stop in sea which shows this track.

edit: removed img as it doesnt allow linking.

[ad-astra]

If it landed short why are all the media reports still referring to "Overshooting"?

If we have to explain the accuracy of the press in such circumstances then we will have no hope in convincing you that they were landing on 09.

[Sabreman24]

Main gear on the reef.

You can see part of the main gear on the reef, just left of the nose.......

[philipat]

OK thanks, apologies and I stand corrected. 09 is the default and there was very little wind at the time. I guess the aircraft must have turned around on impact to face West.

[Slasher]

I totally agree with an Avherald (wooski's link) quote -

Facts
By WorldWideWelshman on Saturday, Apr 13th 2013 20:18Z

What do we know?

It ended up short of the runway, and without warning
according to interviews with pax. Happily, everyone
survived.

Errr.... that's it. We have no clue whether this crew is Sully
v2 or whether they were at fault, and nor will we for some
time. (my bold)

Speculation is utterly pointless. Racist, childish remarks
even more so.

Wait and see. As is always the case, the truth will out in
due course.....

[repariit]

I guess the aircraft must have turned around on impact to face West.

The photos indicate that it is floating well, With wind and currents it could pivot on any ground contact.

[philipat]

On a clear day landing on 09 and landing short I would weap unless I lost
power. Did they?

Exactly, which is why it took so long to understand. There were scattered low clouds and localised rain showers but nothing heavy and visibility was good.

[bubbers44]

A track I got shows they were landining on 09 so unless they lost power I guess they just landed in the water. Why? Did they just follow the FD?

[blueloo]

Have you done any NPAs? Unless you are coupled to an FMS VNAV path, being 100ft below on an NPA is no big deal, and in fact is a good idea especially with low cloud but good vis, because it allows you to get Visual during the level-off at the MDA while still being just below the on-slope PAPI. The only requirement is not be below any limiting steps during the approach.

What the? You can't be serious.

[bubbers44]

I only had one female FO that stupid trying to land in vinyards short of ONT. Her FD stuck nose down. Wasn't her fault she said.

[Tangan]

Not sure if it has been mentioned however simply "forgetting" to set the QNH could have caused this accident. If the pilots left standard 1013 set instead of the actual QNH of 1007 it would place the aircraft 180' low on the approach.
Combine this with poor visibility !!!!!

[airbus_driver319]

Blogg, you do know that levelling off at MDA is banned by most aviation authorities? Not to mention it is a requirement to pass the IOSA audit that you don't conduct dive and drive approaches.

With a modern aircraft flying a continuous descent down to a DDA is simple.

[PENKO]

Sure...and then continue below minimum, continue below 50..30...20.10.. without the runway in sight? Guys, this speculation is useless.