Lionair plane down in Bali.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RoD wasn't being monitored, and even though the PIC started a GA, if at this stage of the doomed Flight Path he'd commenced say 3 seconds earlier, the outcome would have been worse. Yeah! The embankment would have been painted red.
These guys and all those in the back were very very lucky.
These guys and all those in the back were very very lucky.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a direct link to the preliminary NTSC report.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
258 hrs in 30 days?
According to the report the captain flew:
Last 90 days: 279 hrs 8 min
Last 60 days: 20 hrs 51 min
That would mean that between -90 and -60 days he logged 258 hrs and 17 minutes in 30 days!!
Surely that can't be true! Or can it? Please tell me it's a typo!
Last 90 days: 279 hrs 8 min
Last 60 days: 20 hrs 51 min
That would mean that between -90 and -60 days he logged 258 hrs and 17 minutes in 30 days!!
Surely that can't be true! Or can it? Please tell me it's a typo!
They flew a perfectly serviceable 738 into the water for no good reason......
(Yes, I know, there is no good reason to run out of fuel, and Yes, I know, there is no information that fuel was an issue.
)
1.4 Other Damage
There was no other damage to property and/or the environment.
There was no other damage to property and/or the environment.
Dear god.
If this report turns out to be more or less factual, then there really is NOTHING that i will learn from reading it.
Outrageous, (almost) criminal recklessness....
If this report turns out to be more or less factual, then there really is NOTHING that i will learn from reading it.
Outrageous, (almost) criminal recklessness....
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Here
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that despite applying full power a/c continued to descend is seriously shaken by the CVR transcript.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
Posts: 350
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lionair...what is it that they have written on their 747's..
"we make people fly"!
A correct statement It would certainly appear to be, if their pilots are proved to be exceeding flight time limitations.
And from now on it may have to apply to their passenger marketing strategy.
"we make people fly"!
A correct statement It would certainly appear to be, if their pilots are proved to be exceeding flight time limitations.
And from now on it may have to apply to their passenger marketing strategy.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF the preliminary report is correct regarding flight hours, then the Lionair AOC has to be revoked with imediate effect.
This accident absolutely beggars belief. IF they had no contact at (m)DA and continued, with a decision to go around at 20 bloody feet, then this is one of the most unprofessional and unnecessary crashes ever. No unintential mistake but attempted mass murder.
I sincerely hope that this report is incorrect and we are missing the causal factors of this accident.
This accident absolutely beggars belief. IF they had no contact at (m)DA and continued, with a decision to go around at 20 bloody feet, then this is one of the most unprofessional and unnecessary crashes ever. No unintential mistake but attempted mass murder.
I sincerely hope that this report is incorrect and we are missing the causal factors of this accident.
Pegase Driver
Just for the sake of not being misquoted ad vitam...
when I wrote :
This is what the Capt had apparently told his management after the accident.
He did not say how high he did do it. The Report does not tell us either. It only mention a CVR remark to go around at 20ft . one second before impact.
The FDR print out on page 21 does not include engine parameters unfortunately..
when I wrote :
that despite applying full power a/c continued to descend
He did not say how high he did do it. The Report does not tell us either. It only mention a CVR remark to go around at 20ft . one second before impact.
The FDR print out on page 21 does not include engine parameters unfortunately..
It may be worth comparing the latter stages of the approach shown on the FDR trace (link #780) with that of this Windshear Incident
Note the changes in GS, ASI, and VS. Any conclusions from this might also reflect on aspects of surprise, attempting to understand a rapidly developing situation, change of PF, and thus potential for distraction and reduced attention to normal flying practices.
Note the changes in GS, ASI, and VS. Any conclusions from this might also reflect on aspects of surprise, attempting to understand a rapidly developing situation, change of PF, and thus potential for distraction and reduced attention to normal flying practices.
The AOC should be revoked, but it won't be because there is too much money greasing the palms of the Indonesian officials. The regulator is responsible to the Indonesian public to provide a safe industry but fails to meet that responsibility.
Nothing short of manslaughter if allowed to continue.
Nothing short of manslaughter if allowed to continue.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South of Watford
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The hours referenced to 90 days and 60 days would make more sense if it was 90 days and 7 days for both the Captain and his Copilot.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
So a brand new and fully operational B737 is crashed...
Because of what appears to be an incompetent crew...
1- Well if the flight hours at 60 days and 90 days are correct then they have a major safety issue.
2- Not "going around" at MDA with no runway in sight is another major safety issue.
3- Waiting to take over the controls at 150' AGL is another (IMHO) safety concern. Why not just instruct the PF to "Go around"? Why wait so long in the first place?
4- Waiting until 20' AGL before "deciding" to "Go Around" and apply GA power is well "too late" and the crash was now unavoidable.
Not typed on a B737, but why was the auto throttle system disconnected at the same time as the AP at minimums? Can you not have the ATs working for you on the B737 with its AP off?
I thought it was mentioned and perhaps confirmed on here by a pilot that the F/Os could not fly the aircraft below 5000 feet at this airline because of past incidents/accidents. If true this is another breach of company SOPs.
In any case this company as a bad track record and I would'nt fly on them.
1- Well if the flight hours at 60 days and 90 days are correct then they have a major safety issue.
2- Not "going around" at MDA with no runway in sight is another major safety issue.
3- Waiting to take over the controls at 150' AGL is another (IMHO) safety concern. Why not just instruct the PF to "Go around"? Why wait so long in the first place?
4- Waiting until 20' AGL before "deciding" to "Go Around" and apply GA power is well "too late" and the crash was now unavoidable.
Not typed on a B737, but why was the auto throttle system disconnected at the same time as the AP at minimums? Can you not have the ATs working for you on the B737 with its AP off?
I thought it was mentioned and perhaps confirmed on here by a pilot that the F/Os could not fly the aircraft below 5000 feet at this airline because of past incidents/accidents. If true this is another breach of company SOPs.
In any case this company as a bad track record and I would'nt fly on them.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: In the sky
Age: 39
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From 900 feet AGL to the minima descent altitude was 465 feet AGL, the crew continued his approach. However at 900 feet, the Pilot Flying (First-officer) reported the runway was not in sight.
At 465 feet, we can expect the visibility was enough to continue approach.
As the report say, at 150 feet PIC took over control of aircraft... What does it mean really ? Does the captain realise the aircraft was in bad conditions to assume a safe landing ? And obviously, perhaps does he think " I should have had to apply full trust to make another approach ? "
According to me, at 465 feet, the crew should have ordered a go-around.
Just behind another aircraft was forced to proceed a missed approach due to the poor visibility at the MDA.
I'm french and i hope my english is enough correct ! Please if you see some grammatical mistake let me know ! thanks Guys
At 465 feet, we can expect the visibility was enough to continue approach.
As the report say, at 150 feet PIC took over control of aircraft... What does it mean really ? Does the captain realise the aircraft was in bad conditions to assume a safe landing ? And obviously, perhaps does he think " I should have had to apply full trust to make another approach ? "
According to me, at 465 feet, the crew should have ordered a go-around.
Just behind another aircraft was forced to proceed a missed approach due to the poor visibility at the MDA.
I'm french and i hope my english is enough correct ! Please if you see some grammatical mistake let me know ! thanks Guys
nitpicker330;
A preliminary report is supposed to provide some early sense of accident causation or at least outline the factors which may have contributed to the accident. It is supposed to provide as much information as is available, normally from the data recorders, for the various user-communities to understand what occurred to that it can be prevented from happening again.
This "report" provides none of this; it is insufficient to understand what actually occurred.
There is nothing "wrong" in the report - there is nothing of substance in the report with which to be wrong.
Other than hearsay, from whom or where does this information come? At this stage of an investigation, that kind of information no longer belongs in the rumour or witness category, it belongs in a preliminary report as derived from the data recorder(s). But there is nothing in the report that discusses power, nothing even to say it was, or wasn't applied, nothing that discusses any kind of go-around decision, nothing that discusses whether the airplane actually stalled in or was just flown into the water; the report does not discuss either pilot taking any preventative action.
That is why I think that the preliminary report is both insufficient and inadequate.
1/ this is a preliminary report
2/ what in the report is wrong?
2/ what in the report is wrong?
This "report" provides none of this; it is insufficient to understand what actually occurred.
There is nothing "wrong" in the report - there is nothing of substance in the report with which to be wrong.
Forget about full thrust, it never happened….
That is why I think that the preliminary report is both insufficient and inadequate.
The decision to go-around at 20ft with no runway in sight is not the problem that needs fixing.
The failure of the PF flying to react to the lack of runway in-sight with a go-around from a safe altitude needs fixing, as well as ;
The second more senior pilot accepting a handoff at an unsafe condition without calling an immediate go-around.
It took two grevious early human errors as a cause and the decision to go around at an unsafe altitude was a result and not a cause.
The failure of the PF flying to react to the lack of runway in-sight with a go-around from a safe altitude needs fixing, as well as ;
The second more senior pilot accepting a handoff at an unsafe condition without calling an immediate go-around.
It took two grevious early human errors as a cause and the decision to go around at an unsafe altitude was a result and not a cause.