Indonesian aircraft missing off Jakarta
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep
I vote for airline disingenuous.
But it sure is troubling to think that the FC w engineer, presumably fully briefed on/even anticipating a particular problem, were still overcome. Assuming the issue was the same as prior flight of course.
But it sure is troubling to think that the FC w engineer, presumably fully briefed on/even anticipating a particular problem, were still overcome. Assuming the issue was the same as prior flight of course.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me this all boils down to a very simple set of questions. We have an airframe with a known set of technical issues which were easily managed on the previous flight. Those known issues should have generated a very specific review of certain procedures and been addressed in detail in the preflight planning/brief.
So...
1) were the memory items and checklist briefed prior to takeoff as would be expected?
2) was the problem identified in a timely manner and were the memory items and checklist preformed in a timely manner?
So...
1) were the memory items and checklist briefed prior to takeoff as would be expected?
2) was the problem identified in a timely manner and were the memory items and checklist preformed in a timely manner?
a)the accident crew were aware of the previous flights UAS because it was written up in the tech log and would prohibit that Commanders acceptance of the
aircraft unless it had been signed off by a licensed engineer.When the accident Captain signs for the aircraft,he acknowledges reading the write up by the previous commander and the corrective action taken by the engineer.He must do this to accept the aircraft.
We CAN REASONABLY assume that:
a)The accident crew would have given special attention to UAS during the pre-flight briefing.They would have reviewed memory items and/or a plan of action.
b)The accident crew would have tried to obtain first hand information from the previous crew if possible(phone)
c)The flying spanner was added to the accident crew because of the tech issue.Lionair is a big airline and will have engineers based at most destinations.
d)The accident crew would have discussed the absolute need NOT to take a known pitot static anomaly into the air,of the need to abort the takeoff if ASIs diasgree at 80 knots.
e)The fact that they did not abort the takeoff implies strongly that the UAS was undiscoverable on takeoff.Prime suspect static vent(s).
We CAN HOPEFULLY assume:
a)Both accident crew members had been trained in UAS events in the simulator on one or more occasions in their flying career.
b)that both crew members knew verbatim the UAS memory items and of the absolute need to disengage ALL AUTOMATION and recognize that there is a mismatch between reality and perception and fly the plane using common sense attitude/thrust combinations.
c)That the crew would have sufficient lateral thinking to disengage any system fed by ADIRU false data that might conflict with their ability to control the aircraft.eg STS.The pilots see/hear the trim wheel spinning.They know or should know it is fed via AP stab trim motor.They know where the AP stab trim cutout switch is.
We can NEVER assume:
a)that the startle effect in all non normal situations will be controlled and handled well by a crew.The longer the startle effect lasts the more chance for loss of muscle memory,cognitive thinking,and onset of panic.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We MUST assume that :
a)the accident crew were aware of the previous flights UAS because it was written up in the tech log and would prohibit that Commanders acceptance of the
aircraft unless it had been signed off by a licensed engineer.When the accident Captain signs for the aircraft,he acknowledges reading the write up by the previous commander and the corrective action taken by the engineer.He must do this to accept the aircraft.
.
a)the accident crew were aware of the previous flights UAS because it was written up in the tech log and would prohibit that Commanders acceptance of the
aircraft unless it had been signed off by a licensed engineer.When the accident Captain signs for the aircraft,he acknowledges reading the write up by the previous commander and the corrective action taken by the engineer.He must do this to accept the aircraft.
.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: MAN
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A worrying inability to handle an air data non-normal in a "new" jet
I'm personally concerned that the CAA UK has signed off UK operators doing a bit of CBT at home and thats the end of any differences training. Training in the UK has reached rock bottom in terms of quantity and in many training events quality
Sad state of affairs
I'm personally concerned that the CAA UK has signed off UK operators doing a bit of CBT at home and thats the end of any differences training. Training in the UK has reached rock bottom in terms of quantity and in many training events quality
Sad state of affairs
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We MUST assume that :
a)the accident crew were aware of the previous flights UAS because it was written up in the tech log and would prohibit that Commanders acceptance of the
aircraft unless it had been signed off by a licensed engineer.When the accident Captain signs for the aircraft,he acknowledges reading the write up by the previous commander and the corrective action taken by the engineer.He must do this to accept the aircraft.
We CAN REASONABLY assume that:
a)The accident crew would have given special attention to UAS during the pre-flight briefing.They would have reviewed memory items and/or a plan of action.
b)The accident crew would have tried to obtain first hand information from the previous crew if possible(phone)
c)The flying spanner was added to the accident crew because of the tech issue.Lionair is a big airline and will have engineers based at most destinations.
d)The accident crew would have discussed the absolute need NOT to take a known pitot static anomaly into the air,of the need to abort the takeoff if ASIs diasgree at 80 knots.
e)The fact that they did not abort the takeoff implies strongly that the UAS was undiscoverable on takeoff.Prime suspect static vent(s).
We CAN HOPEFULLY assume:
a)Both accident crew members had been trained in UAS events in the simulator on one or more occasions in their flying career.
b)that both crew members knew verbatim the UAS memory items and of the absolute need to disengage ALL AUTOMATION and recognize that there is a mismatch between reality and perception and fly the plane using common sense attitude/thrust combinations.
c)That the crew would have sufficient lateral thinking to disengage any system fed by ADIRU false data that might conflict with their ability to control the aircraft.eg STS.The pilots see/hear the trim wheel spinning.They know or should know it is fed via AP stab trim motor.They know where the AP stab trim cutout switch is.
We can NEVER assume:
a)that the startle effect in all non normal situations will be controlled and handled well by a crew.The longer the startle effect lasts the more chance for loss of muscle memory,cognitive thinking,and onset of panic.
a)the accident crew were aware of the previous flights UAS because it was written up in the tech log and would prohibit that Commanders acceptance of the
aircraft unless it had been signed off by a licensed engineer.When the accident Captain signs for the aircraft,he acknowledges reading the write up by the previous commander and the corrective action taken by the engineer.He must do this to accept the aircraft.
We CAN REASONABLY assume that:
a)The accident crew would have given special attention to UAS during the pre-flight briefing.They would have reviewed memory items and/or a plan of action.
b)The accident crew would have tried to obtain first hand information from the previous crew if possible(phone)
c)The flying spanner was added to the accident crew because of the tech issue.Lionair is a big airline and will have engineers based at most destinations.
d)The accident crew would have discussed the absolute need NOT to take a known pitot static anomaly into the air,of the need to abort the takeoff if ASIs diasgree at 80 knots.
e)The fact that they did not abort the takeoff implies strongly that the UAS was undiscoverable on takeoff.Prime suspect static vent(s).
We CAN HOPEFULLY assume:
a)Both accident crew members had been trained in UAS events in the simulator on one or more occasions in their flying career.
b)that both crew members knew verbatim the UAS memory items and of the absolute need to disengage ALL AUTOMATION and recognize that there is a mismatch between reality and perception and fly the plane using common sense attitude/thrust combinations.
c)That the crew would have sufficient lateral thinking to disengage any system fed by ADIRU false data that might conflict with their ability to control the aircraft.eg STS.The pilots see/hear the trim wheel spinning.They know or should know it is fed via AP stab trim motor.They know where the AP stab trim cutout switch is.
We can NEVER assume:
a)that the startle effect in all non normal situations will be controlled and handled well by a crew.The longer the startle effect lasts the more chance for loss of muscle memory,cognitive thinking,and onset of panic.
of the situation. If they intended to continue why not maintain a gradual ascent like the previous flight? If in fact they had flight control issues (vs strictly UAS) why not declare an emergency? Is it possible that the engineer was in the jump seat and making trouble shooting recommendations or observations/requests? Would this create a distraction or complication that would lead to a sudden loss of control?
If the crew had never had a 3rd person involved in a sim setting is it a possibility that the unexpected distraction of that additional voice and potential trouble shooting interaction created enough confusion to lead to a sudden upset or undertake a course of action outside of the preflight brief? I'm wondering if the tech might have asked them to reengage the AP at some point for example?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was airborne and found out that I was now a test pilot, flying an aircraft that was not performing at all like it is supposed to, I would try to maintain the airspeed close to where I first found the problem, and then move cautiously toward the most forgiving portion of the flight envelope considering the current aircraft configuration.
It is perhaps unfortunate in this instance that the crew did not have a few stone-age instruments onboard. (edit: at least instruments they paid any attention to) I often thank the almighty that the only things on my little crate that can even remotely be considered electronic are the lights and radios.
And
We can NEVER assume:
a)that the startle effect in all non normal situations will be controlled and handled well by a crew.The longer the startle effect lasts the more chance for loss of muscle memory,cognitive thinking,and onset of panic
a)that the startle effect in all non normal situations will be controlled and handled well by a crew.The longer the startle effect lasts the more chance for loss of muscle memory,cognitive thinking,and onset of panic
This is assuming it wasn't a totally unrecoverable problem with the airframe (which I would consider extremely remote).
Salute!
Dat's right, Henra.
++++++++++++++++++++
Had to go back to the Alaska Airline crash with the " jackscrew nut. Wanted to see if there had been a squak on a preceding flight. Couldn't tell, but it would seem to me with all the damage that jackscrew had and the metal trapped in the big nut, that there would have been some slight indication to the PF. OTOH, with the use of the AP, the jammed stab was overcome by basic elevator trim. Finally, aero forces and commands by the PF caused the frst failure.
===================
Looking for a silver lining, this crash is a wakeup call to examine not only procedures but the design of the stab and pitch feel system, then all the air data inputs.
I tend to go with 'bird ( as in Machin') about possible PIO due to bad data coupled with a flaky pitch trim. You do not need a massive structural failure to reach extreme vertical pitch and speeds. We saw that at Rostov and that whole maneuver was done by the crew ( still have chills seeing the video). And one of our 73X drivers here claims that losing some or all of that trim/feel system can be challenging, especially at higher speeds.
And I have been a non volunteer test pilot on at least two flights, two types. Not fun. Only one required instant action and even that one I did the "don't just do something, sit there!" for first few seconds. Jet was still flying, so whatever I had was good enuf for then. picture on my Pprune profile bio.
Gums opines...
Dat's right, Henra.
++++++++++++++++++++
Had to go back to the Alaska Airline crash with the " jackscrew nut. Wanted to see if there had been a squak on a preceding flight. Couldn't tell, but it would seem to me with all the damage that jackscrew had and the metal trapped in the big nut, that there would have been some slight indication to the PF. OTOH, with the use of the AP, the jammed stab was overcome by basic elevator trim. Finally, aero forces and commands by the PF caused the frst failure.
===================
Looking for a silver lining, this crash is a wakeup call to examine not only procedures but the design of the stab and pitch feel system, then all the air data inputs.
I tend to go with 'bird ( as in Machin') about possible PIO due to bad data coupled with a flaky pitch trim. You do not need a massive structural failure to reach extreme vertical pitch and speeds. We saw that at Rostov and that whole maneuver was done by the crew ( still have chills seeing the video). And one of our 73X drivers here claims that losing some or all of that trim/feel system can be challenging, especially at higher speeds.
And I have been a non volunteer test pilot on at least two flights, two types. Not fun. Only one required instant action and even that one I did the "don't just do something, sit there!" for first few seconds. Jet was still flying, so whatever I had was good enuf for then. picture on my Pprune profile bio.
Gums opines...
Had to go back to the Alaska Airline crash with the " jackscrew nut. Wanted to see if there had been a squak on a preceding flight. Couldn't tell, but it would seem to me with all the damage that jackscrew had and the metal trapped in the big nut, that there would have been some slight indication to the PF. OTOH, with the use of the AP, the jammed stab was overcome by basic elevator trim. Finally, aero forces and commands by the PF caused the frst failure.
That was indeed a really harrowing accident. And one which was completely unrecoverable by the crew. I can't imagine a similar mechanical problem in an only 6 months old (read: brand new) 737 MAX, though, despite the fact that the final dive reminds indeed somewhat of Alaska 261.
Looking for a silver lining, this crash is a wakeup call to examine not only procedures but the design of the stab and pitch feel system, then all the air data inputs.
I tend to go with 'bird ( as in Machin') about possible PIO due to bad data coupled with a flaky pitch trim. You do not need a massive structural failure to reach extreme vertical pitch and speeds. We saw that at Rostov and that whole maneuver was done by the crew ( still have chills seeing the video). And one of our 73X drivers here claims that losing some or all of that trim/feel system can be challenging, especially at higher speeds.
I tend to go with 'bird ( as in Machin') about possible PIO due to bad data coupled with a flaky pitch trim. You do not need a massive structural failure to reach extreme vertical pitch and speeds. We saw that at Rostov and that whole maneuver was done by the crew ( still have chills seeing the video). And one of our 73X drivers here claims that losing some or all of that trim/feel system can be challenging, especially at higher speeds.
Still it might be worth having a second look if the systems cannot be made to act more benignly. UAS in itself is probably a challenge to a Crew and topping this with automatic mis- trimming due to bad air data is obviously not a terribly good idea and has led to accidents in the past. That is one area of flight safety where there might be a little room for improvement from an engineering perspective (although how to do it exactly will have to be very cautiously thought through - it is easy to create unwanted side effects in other cases when not done properly).
Regards,
Henra
Had to go back to the Alaska Airline crash with the " jackscrew nut. Wanted to see if there had been a squak on a preceding flight. Couldn't tell, but it would seem to me with all the damage that jackscrew had and the metal trapped in the big nut, that there would have been some slight indication to the PF. OTOH, with the use of the AP, the jammed stab was overcome by basic elevator trim. Finally, aero forces and commands by the PF caused the frst failure.
A mis- behaviour of the STS / Elevator feel system as a result of an Air Data problem ist indeed probably quite high up the probability scale as a main culprit for this one.
Some of the first checklist items are to start switching things off.
You’d be behind the 8-ball the whole time if this failed and if you tried to turn around before you were stabilised.
Can the input source be switched on the STS? (I’m assuming it could be)
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Antarctica
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You only have to look at that video of the wreckage, look at what is left of that engine (just the core), look at the shredded aircraft skin, read the reports that there seems to be no major piece of wreckage and of course that no victims remains are likely to be found intact, and you realise that this airplane from just few thousand feet hit the sea with such force that it was akin to flying into a mountain face or a building. Assuming MH370's final act was a similar nose dive into the ocean, but from a much higher altitude, is it any wonder nothing has been found? The engine cores of MH370 and some landing gear would fall to the bottom to be indistinguishable among rocks and detritus while the rest of the aircraft shredded into a million tiny pieces would slowly sift itself over hundreds of square miles of the Indian Ocean as these pieces drifted in the current and slowly descended the four miles to the bottom. Very much a case of "there's nothing to see here folks, go home".
But this Lion Air accident happened in only thirty metres of water. So I guess most of the remains will be concentrated but they may be buried in a similar way to the Value Jet crash that buried itself deep in a swamp. Like the Lion Air crash, the Value Jet aircraft ( loss of control due to fire in their case) was airborne for just 10 minutes before it rolled over and head down at 860km/h impacting with the swamp near vertically. The aircraft was destroyed on impact, with no large pieces of the fuselage remaining, and like Lion Air there were little in the way of intact human remains. I guess why I'm comparing these two is to understand just how difficult it may be to find or extract the CVR from the ocean bed. Although, the pinger going off is a really good sign that maybe the CVR is still above the sea bottom. The FDR presumably was and I assume that they are both co- located in the tail?
But this Lion Air accident happened in only thirty metres of water. So I guess most of the remains will be concentrated but they may be buried in a similar way to the Value Jet crash that buried itself deep in a swamp. Like the Lion Air crash, the Value Jet aircraft ( loss of control due to fire in their case) was airborne for just 10 minutes before it rolled over and head down at 860km/h impacting with the swamp near vertically. The aircraft was destroyed on impact, with no large pieces of the fuselage remaining, and like Lion Air there were little in the way of intact human remains. I guess why I'm comparing these two is to understand just how difficult it may be to find or extract the CVR from the ocean bed. Although, the pinger going off is a really good sign that maybe the CVR is still above the sea bottom. The FDR presumably was and I assume that they are both co- located in the tail?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad assumption, large pieces of MH370 were found and in fairly good condition, whatever was found was not "shredded", so the current assumption is that MH370 hit water in a fairly benign fashion. Anyway, I would not mix both accidents, I would not draw any parallels, there is enough trolling in this thread already.
Re pitot pressures and pitot covers etc., pitot pressures for the elevator feel computer are sourced from individual pitot tubes located on either side of the vertical fin, (and not the pitots supplying data to the ADRs).
The static ports for inputs to the elevator feel computer are located on the lower left rear of the fuselage, (below/fwd of the horizontal stab). This is for the -400 series and may differ for the Max.
This may distinquish a unique "UAS" problem, (single failure, referenced generally in the thread), from any possible combined UAS / STS / Elevator feel problem, (ref D.Bru comments). The SSDFR and CVR information become critical to understanding.
The static ports for inputs to the elevator feel computer are located on the lower left rear of the fuselage, (below/fwd of the horizontal stab). This is for the -400 series and may differ for the Max.
This may distinquish a unique "UAS" problem, (single failure, referenced generally in the thread), from any possible combined UAS / STS / Elevator feel problem, (ref D.Bru comments). The SSDFR and CVR information become critical to understanding.
Last edited by PJ2; 5th Nov 2018 at 06:41.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Antarctica
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad assumption, large pieces of MH370 were found and in fairly good condition so the current assumption is that MH370 hit water in a fairly benign fashion. Anyway, I would not mix both accidents, I would not draw any parallels, there is enough trolling in this thread already.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: antipodies
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that the decision of the preceeding flight to continue to destination may have been quite properly made on safety grounds, they could have felt that they needed that transit time to become fully confident in controlling the craft in manual mode, they had an agreed flight plan and could plan ahead, It may well have taken them that length of flight to become confident that they could manover without entering PIO.
Trouble is these modern, highly automated and computerised jets are so simple to operate that most of the time a school kid can fly them.
But when the computers and automation get glitchy, they suddenly need a pilot, and a good one at that.
It seems that most of the time, that pilot is right there, and ready- but when he isn't, we get AF447 or any of the recent 'loss of control' type accidents.
Maybe the memory action for some of these system failures should be 'Automatics off. FLY. Do nothing for a while. Think'.
But when the computers and automation get glitchy, they suddenly need a pilot, and a good one at that.
It seems that most of the time, that pilot is right there, and ready- but when he isn't, we get AF447 or any of the recent 'loss of control' type accidents.
Maybe the memory action for some of these system failures should be 'Automatics off. FLY. Do nothing for a while. Think'.