If they cannot keep their ships in one place because of the strong currents, and they are denied permission to anchor their ships above the crash site because of Pertamina pipelines underwater, and if the divers are using handheld lights, you have to wonder about the state of the seabed there where an airliner crashed through it all.
|
Originally Posted by xfsd
(Post 10300236)
Have not seen any mention of CCTV from JKT ground ops/control of a 737 with streamers on the side of it taxiing/departing?
Pitot covers would surely have have red 'Remove before flight' streamers - new A/C standard equipment? |
Originally Posted by xfsd
(Post 10300236)
Have not seen any mention of CCTV from JKT ground ops/control of a 737 with streamers on the side of it taxiing/departing?
Pitot covers would surely have have red 'Remove before flight' streamers - new A/C standard equipment? |
Originally Posted by FullWings
(Post 10300004)
I find it interesting that the pilot asks for “airspeed” from ATC.
|
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10300080)
I would think a brand new 737 MAX would have EHS capability. If so and if ATC did as well, maybe the 332 knot reading was indeed indicated airspeed and transmitted with the Mode S data.
|
The aircraft I used to fly had so many interconnects between left hand, right hand and sby instruments we were told even if two are indicating the same it might be those two that are wrong, why are aircraft being designed like this? everything is now so over complicated it’s almost impossible to have a working knowledge of systems. simple solution have sby instruments from a c152 without any computer between the sensors and instruments. this won’t remedy poor flying skills though! |
I find it interesting that the pilot asks for “airspeed” from ATC. Keep it up. |
I find it interesting that the pilot asks for “airspeed” from ATC. |
If it has not been said already, you would be lucky to find a square metre of that particular segment of ocean floor that was not already covered in man made objects long before the aircraft added to the burden.
|
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 10300382)
Entirely logical! You're close to the ground (IAS vs TAS not an issue), in good radar contact (airport just behind you) and your speed indications are haywire. Why not? Use the resources available to you.
|
Originally Posted by TangoAlphad
(Post 10300397)
Don’t most ATC units display data sent from the aircraft, not radar calculated ground speed? Genuine question. |
O/T
Originally Posted by AGBagb
(Post 10300286)
Like these ? Malaysian at Brisbane, pushing back, taking off and trying to climb with all 3 pitot cover streamers perfectly visible....
|
Originally Posted by A Squared
(Post 10300399)
All that is true, but I think the point the poster was making was that the crew requested "airspeed" rather than "groundspeed". As I said earlier, I think that trying to find deeper meaning in this is reading the tea leaves a little too hard.
Also, it confirms to you ‘What’ on your instruments is correct. Okay, so now you know GS readout is correct. |
Icarus2001 . . .
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
(Post 10300213)
They may well have plenty of understanding but in today's environment the crew simply follow what the QRH or recall says to do. They have to, there is no choice. When multiple failures occur the crucial aspect is determining the root cause. I have been with crew in the sim that announced a generator failure, the actual failure was an engine failure, inability to sort the wheat from the chaff will kill people. Knowing WHICH QRH item or recall to do first is important,
|
At no stage in a Boeing manual , FCTM or QRH does it imply to ask ATC for a airspeed reading.
It does however , merely advise quailfied crews that ATC radars may be utilised for a ground speed readout. |
Originally Posted by glad rag
(Post 10300440)
That report makes sobering reading. At a location renown for insect problems the crew did not look at the pressure heads, didn't count them, anything; or did they just see what they wanted to see?
|
Originally Posted by A Squared
(Post 10300423)
No, *some* ATC facilities have the ability to receive and display airspeed data sent from the airplane. It's not anywhere close to *most* This is implemented in Europe, and maybe a few other places. It is not implemented in the US, at least according to my conversations with US Controllers. I'd be surprised if this was installed in Indonesia. Generally, Air Traffic Control is transitioning to being based on self reported position and altitude but it's just in the beginning stages of that. For the most part Air Traffic control is still based primarily on ground radar information .
|
Originally Posted by groundbum
(Post 10299904)
if the instruments were displaying faulty data because of blocked pitot tubes/dodgy connections/et al, wouldn't it follow that the FDR data will also be suspect?
|
Originally Posted by aterpster
(Post 10300481)
ADS-B is capable of providing ATC with indicated airspace as I understand it, not true airspeed.
Originally Posted by aterpster
(Post 10300481)
The FAA claims they do not plan to implement this feature.
|
The safety record of Lion Air is but one piece of the puzzle. Regardless of their history, they can still be involved in an accident that is not the fault of the crew. If you are biased at the start of an investigation you are likely to miss vital clues. On a purely statistical side note, many well known carriers have a higher fatality record than Lion Air.
Significant investigative effort should also be placed on examining the procedures, training, and corporate culture at the accident airline. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:04. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.