|
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...duction-lines/
"And about 60 LEAP engines were removed from A320neos for modification, none from 737 MAXs." gg |
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. |
Originally Posted by WingNut60
(Post 10295323)
Did anyone ever see any report for the Bali ditching other than the initial 30 day report?
|
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. |
Originally Posted by StormyKnight
(Post 10295321)
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. 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. |
First flight of the day....pitot covers
|
I would like to see the fuel load. The video of the recovery efforts does not show much of a slick.
|
Originally Posted by allaru
(Post 10295339)
First flight of the day....pitot covers
If they were 'out of gas', the impact would still have been controlled. |
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. |
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 |
How was the defect rectified / followed up?
|
Originally Posted by allaru
(Post 10295339)
First flight of the day....pitot covers
|
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. |
Originally Posted by A Squared
(Post 10295364)
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.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2018-053/ |
Originally Posted by deSitter
(Post 10295272)
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 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. |
Originally Posted by fox niner
(Post 10295366)
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. |
Originally Posted by fox niner
(Post 10295366)
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. Pitot probes should give wrong take off speeds during take off run as well? |
Originally Posted by junior.VH-LFA
(Post 10295369)
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. |
Not so the C of G is very different
Originally Posted by fox niner
(Post 10295366)
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. 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 “what’s it doing now” brigade, but how do you lose control of a modern jet in daylight VMC that will not be anywhere near its 82’000kg 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, I’m 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. |
Originally Posted by sabenaboy
(Post 10295312)
Reader comment on Avherald says the aircraft had been snagged the day before for unreliable airspeed and alt disagree.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:23. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.