Lionair plane down in Bali.
I had Sriwijaya tell the tower the other day that he had me visual when he was actually 5 miles away heading in the other direction to turn inbound for the approach.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shame rain repellant (rainbow) is no longer climatically acceptable. Might have saved the day. B*** good stuff. I wonder how many accidents have/will occur due to it's withdrawal. But then monitoring & sense will also work.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shame rain repellant (rainbow) is no longer climatically acceptable. Might have saved the day. B*** good stuff. I wonder how many accidents have/will occur due to it's withdrawal. But then monitoring & sense will also work
would have saved the day, when the crew descended well below the MDA far from the airline. Perhaps had they followed SOPs and gone around when they lost sight of the runway... well you have the proper sight picture.As a side bar, I use to apply Rain-X to my wind screen on the old 727 way back when. Worked better and lasted a longer time
. Never landed 1/2 mile short of the runway either
. But I guess that was because of proper adherence to SOPs and situational awareness.
Last edited by captjns; 20th May 2013 at 00:17.
+1 for the rain repellant! Brilliant goo. Now I get deafened by wipers that sound like they're going to explode! Just what you need at the MDA, a cacaphony of noise to distract you.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somehwere on the planet
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are all missing the point..this is a huge improvement. Most of Lion Air's previous incidents and general destruction of Boeing's finest products have been because of unstabilized approaches. Here they were nicely stable all the way down into the sea.
Now if they can combine that with not continuing when you can't see anything perhaps they can order half as many aircraft next time and not wreck as many.
Now if they can combine that with not continuing when you can't see anything perhaps they can order half as many aircraft next time and not wreck as many.
FYI rain repellant has been changed and is fitted to lots of aircraft although I have no idea if it was on this aircraft. Given the reported severity of the rain reported I doubt if it would have made much difference in this case.
Rain repellant or no rain repellant...........irrelevant really.
PF ( whether the Captain or not ) NOT having the required visual reference at the minima OR losing it after the minima REQUIRES an immediate go around.....
It's not Rocket science.
PF ( whether the Captain or not ) NOT having the required visual reference at the minima OR losing it after the minima REQUIRES an immediate go around.....
It's not Rocket science.
It's not Rocket science.
Why is this thread still going.
The evidence is out. Pilot error, pure and simple, the reasons are not necessary. Who cares why they had ge-thome-itis
Rain repellant or no rain repellant...........irrelevant really
Later windscreens were coated by a special material which in theory gave better visibility in rain. Experience showed that that coating soon wore away and it became useless.
If inadvertently the rain repellent was squirted on a dry or merely damp windscreen it would form a white residue on the windcreen. The only way to clean it off was with a special very expensive bottle supplied by Boeing I think. An easier way and far less expensive, was to shake a bottle of Coca-Cola then squirt the contents on the windows. That stuff cut right through the residue, quick smart. That is probably why, as many teen-agers later discovered, Coca Cola could eventually rot their guts!
.
Some 737 pilots in SE Asia would sometimes carry in their navigation bag, bottles of commercially available Rainex car window rain repellent, which was quite effective. At $5 a bottle, it was good insurance. Of course it had to wiped on to the windscreen before engine start if the forecast indicated heavy rain at the destination.
In the case of the Bali accident, if rain repellent was installed, then its immediate actuation on entering the area of heavy rain nearing the MDA could have allowed the crew to keep the runway in sight at that critical period rather than letting the aircraft descend in the blind hope of spotting the runway through the rain when there was no hope.
Last edited by Centaurus; 20th May 2013 at 10:59.
I don't care if the 738 was fitted with rain repellant or not the facts seem to be the CAPTAIN couldn't see the runway through his windshield. ( why we don't know, rain? Cloud? Dirty window? Glasses fogged up!!?? )
Either way he couldn't see, otherwise he wouldn't have flown into the water ( one would hope )
Either way he couldn't see, otherwise he wouldn't have flown into the water ( one would hope )
Last edited by nitpicker330; 20th May 2013 at 10:59.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is starting to get ridiculous ... two supposedly professional pilots puts a brand new 89 million dollar airplane into the water on Kuta beach and you're saying a cheap bottle of rain repellant could have saved the day? Have we ran out of things to discuss in this thread? Seems like it. This and the earlier other ridiculous suggestion above that the crew didn't bother to go around because the pilot didn't want to miss out on his nasi goreng is bordering on the insanely ridiculous things I've ever read on pprune.
Last edited by VH DSJ; 20th May 2013 at 12:26. Reason: typo
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some 737 pilots in SE Asia would sometimes carry in their navigation bag, bottles of commercially available Rainex car window rain repellent, which was quite effective. At $5 a bottle, it was good insurance
This and the earlier other ridiculous suggestion above that the crew didn't bother to go around because the pilot didn't want to miss out on his nasi goreng is bordering on the insanely ridiculous things I've ever read on pprune.
Ask the pilots that run into mountains in IMC flying a published route but not at or above LSALT?
The controller who simply forgot about a large hill and turned a DC 10 into it whilst he was vectoring them to the approach?
The loading crew who thought it was totally acceptable to smoke whilst unloading 44 gallon drums of gasoline from a BAe 146?
I think those are more suited to your "insanely ridiculous things" quote
