Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Indonesian aircraft missing off Jakarta

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Indonesian aircraft missing off Jakarta

Closed Thread

Old 29th Oct 2018, 08:10
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...duction-lines/

"And about 60 LEAP engines were removed from A320neos for modification, none from 737 MAXs."

gg
garpal gumnut is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 08:12
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 908
A memo has been sent to all Batik/Lion pilots advising of Unreliable airspeed issue just in the last hour.

The wrong application of a recall item in a perfectly good aircraft hopefully not.
BAe 146-100 is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 08:13
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 445
Originally Posted by WingNut60 View Post
Did anyone ever see any report for the Bali ditching other than the initial 30 day report?
"Final Report No. KNKT.13.04.09.04, PT.Lion Mentari Airlines (Lion Air) Boeing 737 - 800;PK-LKS Ngurh Rai International Airport, Bali Republic of Indonesia 13 April 2013"
CurtainTwitcher is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 08:16
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Singapore
Age: 61
Posts: 16
Statement by Lion Air on crew

The aircraft is commanded by Captain. Bhavye Suneja and co-pilot Harvino with six cabin crew Shintia Melina, Citra Noivita Anggelia, Alviani Hidayatul Solikha, Damayanti Simarmata, Mery Yulianda, and Deny Maula. The captain has 6,000 flight hours and the co-pilot has more than 5,000 flight hours.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/66410740.cms

Prayers and condolences.
AmuDarya is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 08:22
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Noosa and Hong Kong
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by StormyKnight View Post


Or just 1... Flightradar data shows resonable airspeed, maybe a little high for so early in the flight, but if the pilots were getting a stall warning, they may have increased the throttle setting.
I wonder where the flightradar data transmitted from the plane comes from, i.e. which pitot tibe or which flight computer? Is it the one currently selected as the main by the pilots?
If just on pitot was faulty, airspeed & stick shaker warnings will operate until it is determined which one needs to be disabled. This should leave two to work with. How quickly the faulty one can be determined is an interesting question.
I hope the pilot in control was flying the plane rather than trying to diagnose the issue.
Looking at the flight on FlightAware, the speed and altitude are quite unstable from a minute or two into the flight.

Less than two minutes into the flight speed increases and altitude decreases, then reverses again to climb, the rates are all over the place - looks like they were trying to hold 5,000 feet. About ten minutes into the flight, according to FlightAware ADS-B, they start down at -1,114 fpm, then -3,857 fpm, and the last recorded is at -7,688 fpm. Then nothing.
RE Koyich is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 08:25
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: korea
Posts: 153
First flight of the day....pitot covers
allaru is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 08:25
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 22
I would like to see the fuel load. The video of the recovery efforts does not show much of a slick.
flopzone is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 08:27
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,915
Originally Posted by allaru View Post
First flight of the day....pitot covers
Based on the minimal data available, that would be my bet...
If they were 'out of gas', the impact would still have been controlled.
tdracer is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 08:28
  #49 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 411
Hmmm.

ADC/Static or load....

P/S, Static main issue. Maybe. Hard to believe that Birgenair/Aeroperu comes up again so think of likely non static alternatives.

Load error, possible Static.

sad day.

Last edited by fdr; 29th Oct 2018 at 08:54. Reason: change "Pitot" to "static". excess TAS/GS on climb indicates static fixed, giving low speed indication, crew fly fast.
fdr is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 08:33
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The lion city
Posts: 365
Write up on the aircrarft the flight before

*Ada info flight record* *penerbagan sebelumnya

A: PK LQP, B737 Max 8

D: 28.10.2018

O: Airspeed unreliable and alt disagree shown after take off. STS was also running to the wrong direction, suspected because of speed difference. Identified that CAPT instrument was unreliable and handover control to FO. Continue NNC of Airspeed Unreliable and ALT disagree. Decide to continue flying to CGK at FL280, landed safely rwy 25L

R: DPS CGK LNI 043

E: AFML

R: Capt William Martinus/133031, FO M Fulki Naufan/ 144291
etops777 is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 08:47
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: D(Emona)
Age: 39
Posts: 365
How was the defect rectified / followed up?
Dufo is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 08:54
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 55
Posts: 1,488
Originally Posted by allaru View Post
First flight of the day....pitot covers
It seems unlikely to me that a takeoff would be continued past the normal "airspeed alive" callout speed if the pitot covers were still installed. I can't imagine a likely scenario that an airplane would be taken airborne, even by a really inattentive crew, with no airspeed indication. Maybe I'm not following your theory.
A Squared is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 08:57
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 551
You can not load 189 passengers wrongly on a 737. It is the maximum capacity, so that weight distribution is always within limits. The fuel will also never cause any problems either with a full pax load, because of design.
Leaves the luggage. Knowing that indonesians will carry fairly bulky stuff with them,I dont see how the cargo compartments could not be full. This would imply an evenly distributed load among all 4 compartments.
> this will not turn out to be a load distribution accident. I go for pitot covers as well.
fox niner is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 08:59
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aus
Age: 26
Posts: 234
Originally Posted by A Squared View Post
I seems unlikely to me that a takeoff would be continued past the normal "airspeed alive" callout speed if the pitot covers were still installed. I can't imagine a likely scenario that an airplane would be taken airborne, even by a really inattentive crew, with no airspeed indication. Maybe I'm not following your theory.
You say that; yet a Malaysian A330 did the very same thing at Brisbane just a few months ago. Airborne without even a V1 call. The pitot covers were left on.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2018-053/
junior.VH-LFA is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 09:01
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 288
Originally Posted by deSitter View Post
Could be loss of one engine combined with a bad turn back and stall. Plane was pretty heavy. New type, lack of hand-flying experience on it, etc.

-drl
A stall seems unlikely as they rather seemed to be going quite fast. The data from FR24 are groundspeed data and that is of course influenced by wind too.
But still to stall at that altitude with a groundspeed of 320 kts you would probably need winds of over 100 kts so that is very unlikely.
Especially with surface winds of less than 5kts on departure.

I roughly checked the timestamps and distance between a set of coordinates and got an average ground speed of 315 kts. I used about the 5 last minutes of the track, the timestamps are not very accurate so you can't just check between two positions. Anyway this is just to check if one can suspect the ground speed data to be faulty which there is no hint that they are.


Quite the opposite: The ground speed data suggest they were going near top speed.

It's quite easy to compare it to a flight that was flying at a similar altitude and direction / position.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f...jt320#1e5feece
Marked acceleration at 10000ft on this flight might suggest they were flying at 250 kts IAS below 10000 but i don't know local departure procedures so that is speculation.

Anyway the accident airplane was going a lot faster than a similar type at that altitude in the same conditions.
Also in regards to the one engine speculation quoted I doubt they would be able to go that fast with one engine.
wiedehopf is online now  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 09:03
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 359
Originally Posted by fox niner View Post
You can not load 189 passengers wrongly on a 737. It is the maximum capacity, so that weight distribution is always within limits. The fuel will also never cause any problems either with a full pax load, because of design.
Leaves the luggage. Knowing that indonesians will carry fairly bulky stuff with them,I dont see how the cargo compartments could not be full. This would imply an evenly distributed load among all 4 compartments.
> this will not turn out to be a load distribution accident. I go for pitot covers as well.
With the snag report of the previous flight in mind, it appears to be a case of badly repaired unreliable airspeed/altitude indications and the mismanagement of the re-occurrence on this fatal flight.
sabenaboy is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 09:22
  #57 (permalink)  
ddd
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Paradise
Age: 56
Posts: 87
Originally Posted by fox niner View Post
You can not load 189 passengers wrongly on a 737. It is the maximum capacity, so that weight distribution is always within limits. The fuel will also never cause any problems either with a full pax load, because of design.
Leaves the luggage. Knowing that indonesians will carry fairly bulky stuff with them,I dont see how the cargo compartments could not be full. This would imply an evenly distributed load among all 4 compartments.
> this will not turn out to be a load distribution accident. I go for pitot covers as well.
What you are forgetting is that they also load CARGO, for eg. Gold or other heavy items!!!!! ....so loading could be a problem, but I doubt it on this flight.
Pitot probes should give wrong take off speeds during take off run as well?
ddd is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 09:22
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 55
Posts: 1,488
Originally Posted by junior.VH-LFA View Post
You say that; yet a Malaysian A330 did the very same thing at Brisbane just a few months ago. Airborne without even a V1 call. The pitot covers were left on.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2018-053/

Thanks for that. I guess that I was thinking about it in a very binary way, ie: that either the pitot covers have been removed, or there will be zero or no airspeed indication. Apparently it is possible to have some airspeed indication, even with the covers installed.
A Squared is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 09:28
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Not so the C of G is very different

Originally Posted by fox niner View Post
You can not load 189 passengers wrongly on a 737. It is the maximum capacity, so that weight distribution is always within limits. The fuel will also never cause any problems either with a full pax load, because of design.
Leaves the luggage. Knowing that indonesians will carry fairly bulky stuff with them,I dont see how the cargo compartments could not be full. This would imply an evenly distributed load among all 4 compartments.
> this will not turn out to be a load distribution accident. I go for pitot covers as well.
The CoG is way forward on the MAX due to the much heavier donks mounted further forward, on a NG a normal load config would 66%aft 34% forward, the MAX needs it all in the back. ( on this point FR will have fun and games with their hold two load policy)

I would be surprised if pitot covers fitted for over night.

Conversion course will depend on individual operators and their governing authority, in Norwegian we have a 3 hour CBT and you're good to go, apart from the start sequence which is akin to the count down for a Saturn 5 launch its basically straight forward once you figure out where the switches have gone. The FMC is v different and could cause issues for the VNAV inept whats it doing now brigade, but how do you lose control of a modern jet in daylight VMC that will not be anywhere near its 82000kg max take off mass....

Having had to un-train and re train ex Lion air pilots from P2F and listen to the very many stories of incompetence from the LHS I would be very surprised if this is anything beyond pilot error in one form or another, be it missing if fitted pitot covers, CoG or unreliable airspeed.

The MAX is now a mature product, we operated some of the first MAX in Europe out of the box and Transatlantic within a couple of weeks from delivery, Im not surprised the Australian government have issued a no fly for staff & contractors, did they not ground Lion air some years back when ex bmi flight management became the fall guys.
EIFFS is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 09:40
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 9,111
Originally Posted by sabenaboy View Post
Reader comment on Avherald says the aircraft had been snagged the day before for unreliable airspeed and alt disagree.
The BBC are also quoting Lion Air as saying that the aircraft had had a recent previous issue, but that it had been resolved.
DaveReidUK is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service