Jump to content

Click the Links to Support our Sponsors >>  Thai Friendly | ThaiMatch.com 100% Free Thai DatingLuxury Pattaya Nightly Condo Rentals | Le Pub Soi Diamond | Pattaya InvestigationsBabydolls Agogo | Agoda Users PLEASE READ  | Pattaya News | Pattaya Bars | Agoda Hotels | Donating to the Forum | Add your Text or Event here

bakufoz

Indonesia Lion Air

Recommended Posts

bakufoz

RIP to all those on board what was a brand new 737 MAX.

 

Possible pitot tube problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nekkid

I've been thinking international air travel was super safe. Quite shocking incident - and the airline concerned is continuing to fly its other examples of this plane, of which there are are something like 7,000 orders placed globally.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-aviation-safety/2017-safest-year-on-record-for-commercial-passenger-air-travel-groups-idUKKBN1EQ17F

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fostraswift

scary alright,, i still feel safe flying thou..

wont stop me anytime soon

will be interesting to see what actually happened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
per anum

3 month old aircraft with 800 flying hours......scary as shit!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bukone

Can’t beat the old 747, my mate said once your up you could lose all engines bar one and still be ok 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explorer8939

I would guess that the issue was related to some operational issue having to do with differences between the old and new models. In other words, the pilot pushed a button that on the old model, put the plane into Autopilot, but in the new model, reversed the thrust. Obviously, that specific scenario is not likely, but something along those lines probably happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bigmuu

lion air allways problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bira

Just read that divers have found the flight data recorder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
duffMaster

We don’t know what happened here but it’s not uncommon that airlines in certain parts of the world have a different safety culture, where the lower end people are afraid to report safety problems that would impact management, so it’s swept under the carpet. Safety is no:1 for reputable airlines no matter where the problem lies, it’s not ignored. 

The most dangerous place to fly is Africa followed by South America  followed by Asia. African airlines are by far the worst. Then certain airlines are of course worse than others. This is not the first serious incident involving a lion plane.I personally wouldn’t use them if I had a choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whalley

Qantas.  97 years.  Legacy Carrier.  Perfect safety rating.

Lionair.  18 years in service.  Low Cost Carrier. The list of accidents/incidents growing.

 

.

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Epicurus.

If I crashed into the ocean I'd just lift myself onto a piece of debris with bouyancy and wait to be found. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explorer8939
7 hours ago, Epicurus. said:

If I crashed into the ocean I'd just lift myself onto a piece of debris with bouyancy and wait to be found. 

 

Because hitting the sea at 300 mph would barely scratch you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gmingot

You quote Qantas as having a perfect safety rating, is that true? They may not have had fatality but there have been many incidents during those years, the A380 at Singapore for being the biggest example. It may have been an engine fault, not down to the airline, just like this latest incident may not be down to the Lion Air, especially as it is a brand new aircraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dean2926
22 hours ago, Epicurus. said:

If I crashed into the ocean I'd just lift myself onto a piece of debris with bouyancy and wait to be found. 

 

Seriously?

Hard to do when you're dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whalley
On November 2, 2018 at 18:37, gmingot said:

You quote Qantas as having a perfect safety rating, is that true? They may not have had fatality but there have been many incidents during those years, the A380 at Singapore for being the biggest example. It may have been an engine fault, not down to the airline, just like this latest incident may not be down to the Lion Air, especially as it is a brand new aircraft

 

Yes, it's a fact.  Qanta has never crashed an aircraft in it's 80 year history.  

The Qantas A380 incident was an abysmal failure of the Airbus A380 design and it's inability to contain the engine failure to minimize damage. The cowls are meant to to contain such failures.

 It was an amazing feat on the part of the Qantas crew to land the severely crippled aircraft.

Lion Air, on the other hand has managed to crash 10 aircraft in it's very short 18 year history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explorer8939
On 31/10/2018 at 01:15, Explorer8939 said:

I would guess that the issue was related to some operational issue having to do with differences between the old and new models. In other words, the pilot pushed a button that on the old model, put the plane into Autopilot, but in the new model, reversed the thrust. Obviously, that specific scenario is not likely, but something along those lines probably happened.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2018/11/16/united-pilots-say-they-were-already-trained-to-override-boeing-737max-automatic-stall-recovery/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwi6weXii9zeAhUULX0KHae_BlQQiJQBMAB6BAgJEAQ&usg=AOvVaw0_nj0DxHqNxXy6SzeWQ58e&ampcf=1

Yep. Automatic stall recovery on the 737Max is different from the older model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mikesch4ever

Lion Air Indo is the only airline in the world I hate and wouldnt use again. They are absolutely terrible and its no coincidence their plane crashed.

Edited by mikesch4ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bakufoz
On 15/11/2018 at 01:19, Whalley said:

 

Yes, it's a fact.  Qanta has never crashed an aircraft in it's 80 year history.  

The Qantas A380 incident was an abysmal failure of the Airbus A380 design and it's inability to contain the engine failure to minimize damage. The cowls are meant to to contain such failures.

 It was an amazing feat on the part of the Qantas crew to land the severely crippled aircraft.

Lion Air, on the other hand has managed to crash 10 aircraft in it's very short 18 year history.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whalley
On November 17, 2018 at 13:53, Explorer8939 said:

 

1 hour ago, bakufoz said:

 

 

Just like United Airline's pilots, the pilots in Canada at our two major airlines have also come forward to state they were already fully trained in overriding the new MCAS system on the Max and have no concerns in light of the sensationalism in the media.

I'm very familiar with the Boeing 737, and the new system is awesome and will save lives.

image.png

image.png

Edited by Whalley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
forcebwithu

Saw this article posted on another forum. Good explanation of the MACS.
FAA evaluates a potential design flaw on Boeing’s 737 MAX after Lion Air crash

What was even more interesting and informative were the article's comments. This one in particular I thought was spot on.

J1205 days ago

I am type rated in the larger wide body cousin of the 737. I fly the 767. I can look at the QRH from the 737 and compare it to the 767 and see that it is essentially the same procedure. The 767 has an alternate trim system the 737 doesn’t have, and we do not have manual trim wheels. Other then those minor differences, the procedure is pretty much the same.

I have to look at things from the practical pilot way of looking at the world. If I am flying the plane and the nose just starts pitching for the ground I am going to first pull back on the yoke. In feeling all sorts of force against pulling back I am automatically going to try to trim off that force. If that isn’t working I am going to think the trim is running away and hit the cutouts. My understanding is that this aircraft pitched down at least two additional times before it nosed over. You’d think during one of those dive and recoveries the crew might have considered the possibility the trim was running and pitching the nose down. Unlike the 767, the 737 has a tactile indication of the trim operating in the form of two large trim wheels that spin when the trim system is operating. If the pilots are hand-flying (which was likely with the unreliable airspeed) they likely would have seen the trim running nose down on the first two pushovers. That would have been a big clue to disconnect the trim system that they apparently did not consider. I have a good friend who is a Captain on an E 175 who also had a stab trim runaway on takeoff. Lucky for his crew the nose pitched up and not down on takeoff. He was able to keep the aircraft under control by basically bench pressing the yoke forward and holding it and by having the F.O. Hit the stab trim cutouts. Same procedure on a different plane, but with a well trained Captain you don’t have a crash.

I personally don’t like dragging people’s reputation through the mud, but it is my opinion that too much emphasis is being placed on automation over basic airmanship in the airline industry. The airlines and even aircraft companies are trying to de emphasize the importance of flying ability and basic airmanship. It is a problem that exists with some American pilots, but tends to be an even bigger problem overseas. It is my opinion the pilots should have been able to handle this situation by knowing their procedures and by paying attention to what the aircraft was doing. To me, this was a preventable crash without re-designing the entire 737 max. Unfortunately the reason these pilots were put into the situation in the first place was an attempt to create yet another automated system to prevent pilots from crashing. As a result of what one would think would be the most fundamental procedure taught to each and every licensed pilot in existence in the form of recovering or preventing a stall we create an automated system that unchecked nose-dives a plane into the ocean. Do we really need an automated system to pitch the nose down preventing a stall in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whalley
On November 20, 2018 at 22:30, forcebwithu said:

Saw this article posted on another forum. Good explanation of the MACS.
FAA evaluates a potential design flaw on Boeing’s 737 MAX after Lion Air crash

What was even more interesting and informative were the article's comments. This one in particular I thought was spot on.

J1205 days ago

I am type rated in the larger wide body cousin of the 737. I fly the 767. I can look at the QRH from the 737 and compare it to the 767 and see that it is essentially the same procedure. The 767 has an alternate trim system the 737 doesn’t have, and we do not have manual trim wheels. Other then those minor differences, the procedure is pretty much the same.

I have to look at things from the practical pilot way of looking at the world. If I am flying the plane and the nose just starts pitching for the ground I am going to first pull back on the yoke. In feeling all sorts of force against pulling back I am automatically going to try to trim off that force. If that isn’t working I am going to think the trim is running away and hit the cutouts. My understanding is that this aircraft pitched down at least two additional times before it nosed over. You’d think during one of those dive and recoveries the crew might have considered the possibility the trim was running and pitching the nose down. Unlike the 767, the 737 has a tactile indication of the trim operating in the form of two large trim wheels that spin when the trim system is operating. If the pilots are hand-flying (which was likely with the unreliable airspeed) they likely would have seen the trim running nose down on the first two pushovers. That would have been a big clue to disconnect the trim system that they apparently did not consider. I have a good friend who is a Captain on an E 175 who also had a stab trim runaway on takeoff. Lucky for his crew the nose pitched up and not down on takeoff. He was able to keep the aircraft under control by basically bench pressing the yoke forward and holding it and by having the F.O. Hit the stab trim cutouts. Same procedure on a different plane, but with a well trained Captain you don’t have a crash.

I personally don’t like dragging people’s reputation through the mud, but it is my opinion that too much emphasis is being placed on automation over basic airmanship in the airline industry. The airlines and even aircraft companies are trying to de emphasize the importance of flying ability and basic airmanship. It is a problem that exists with some American pilots, but tends to be an even bigger problem overseas. It is my opinion the pilots should have been able to handle this situation by knowing their procedures and by paying attention to what the aircraft was doing. To me, this was a preventable crash without re-designing the entire 737 max. Unfortunately the reason these pilots were put into the situation in the first place was an attempt to create yet another automated system to prevent pilots from crashing. As a result of what one would think would be the most fundamental procedure taught to each and every licensed pilot in existence in the form of recovering or preventing a stall we create an automated system that unchecked nose-dives a plane into the ocean. Do we really need an automated system to pitch the nose down preventing a stall in the first place?

 

The above pilot makes some good points but to compare a B767 to a B737, is apples to oranges and in no way similar.  The B757 would be a fair comparison.

The B757 and B767 have very different stall management systems, triple redundancy on hydraulic systems and a Ram Air Turbine (RAT) for backup emergency hydraulics and electrics.

The need for the new MCAS system lies in the fact that the B737 relies on Manual Reversion as the backup in the event of total hydraulic failure and has been the case for the past 50 years.  Elevators and Ailerons have absolutely no hydraulic assist during manual flying.  

It is much harder to control the B737 aircraft in manual and the new MCAS system was much needed.

There is no RAT to provide emergency hydraulics and electrics, like on the B757 and B767.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bernie Num Nums

The 737-MAX is different in many ways from other 737 and if the onboard systems get an incorrect angle of attack input signal then it reacts differently - IE it noses down. The elephant in the room is why weren't the pilots able to handle it? It is a known issue, documented and most airlines train their pilots for this scenario.

I for one would never fly with an Indonesian or Malaysian airline. The training standards including ongoing testing of pilots and the respect for human life are just too poor in those countries.

Edited by Bernie Num Nums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bernie Num Nums
On 21/11/2018 at 14:30, forcebwithu said:

Too much emphasis is being placed on automation over basic airmanship in the airline industry.

 

How true that is. Pilots are becoming systems operators rather than Pilots or Airmen. Once the problem is outside of parameters or training scenarios is when panic sets in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bernie Num Nums

Pilots golden rules in a crisis.

  1. Aviate
  2. Navigate
  3. Communicate
     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.