Indonesian Airline Crashes. 189 Presumed Lost

The plane was almost brand new. Factory defect?

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/29/indonesia-says-lion-air-flight-from-jakarta-to-sumatra-crashed.html

A statement from Lion Air said that the plane took off at 6:20 a.m. local time (7:20 p.m. ET Sunday). It added that the aircraft was a Boeing 737 Max 8, manufactured in 2018, and was in operation since Aug. 15, 2018. The Boeing 737 Max 8 is one of Boeing’s newest airplanes and a variant of its best-selling narrowbody jets.
 

The 737 is the world’s largest selling aircraft. More 737s have been sold than any other plane in the world. The Max-8 is Boeing’s newest model of the 737. Onboard, it has all of the latest buttons and whistles in the avionics department.

If there is any one bad thing that I would have to say about the Max-8 is that Boeing may have stretched this plane maybe just a bit too much, so that it is a bit uneasy to keep it flying straight.

Any plane crash is bad, but crashing into an ocean is the worse. If the plane has gone down in deep water, it may be a slow recovery. I remember Air France flight 447, which went down in the Atlantic. It took divers and recovery experts two years to recover the black boxes and cost AF millions of dollars to recover pieces of the plane, along with the boxes.

As for “Trade’s” comment about there may be is a factory defect, I’m not sure what he/she is referring to. There is always a chance that something may have malfunctioned, but we will need to wait and see what the investigation comes up with.

I wish the families of the victims well and that they find peace.
 
I just read the latest news on this crash and I hate to speculate, but the statements that I read stated that the plane took off erratically before falling into the sea. It kind of sounds like “maybe” the plane was not configured properly for takeoff, the correct weight was not entered into the flight’s computer management properly or something just went completely wrong.

But, we’ll know once the investigation has been completed.
 
oldman said:
I just read the latest news on this crash and I hate to speculate, but the statements that I read stated that the plane took off erratically before falling into the sea. It kind of sounds like “maybe” the plane was not configured properly for takeoff, the correct weight was not entered into the flight’s computer management properly or something just went completely wrong.

But, we’ll know once the investigation has been completed.
Click to expand...

Oldman, who is responsible for configuring the plane and the weight and all that? Is it the pilots? Or the ground crews?
 
Butterfly said:
Oldman, who is responsible for configuring the plane and the weight and all that? Is it the pilots? Or the ground crews?
Click to expand...

Great question. First, in early commercial aviation, many of the crashes were determined to be caused by improper weight balance or overweight aircraft. After the umpteenth air crash, the FAA made up a set of guidelines to be used to determine GTOW, or Gross Takeoff Weight. The pilots use the weight of the empty plane, and then add the weights of the fuel, baggage and freight and of course the weight of the passengers. Once the final weight number has been determined, the next thing is to get the weather information, especially the wind direction and the wind speed. These numbers are all necessary to determine the takeoff speed of the aircraft and to make sure that the runway being used for takeoff is long enough to support the actual takeoff length necessary to achieve a good takeoff.

Just a side note that some may find interesting. Up and until about the mid 80's, we (pilots) would figure about 150 pounds per adult. However, as America grew in size, (if you get my drift), that number was increased to 180 pounds per adult passenger, plus five pounds in winter. Normally, I used the number 200 when figuring each adult's weight. As a whole, we Americans are increasing in size on an annual basis, according to government studies. The last number and mention about the size of Americans was in a copy of the magazine that I get from my union and it stated that for the first time since the early 70's, American's weight stayed about the same from 2017-2018. This doesn't mean that we are getting smaller, but not bigger either.
 
Last edited:
Do you think that that 200 lb weight averages out between large people and smaller people? Especially with all the stuff people carry on planes plus coats, purses, laptops, etc.? Just my purse sometimes weighs a ton. I used to carry very little on the plane, but after my luggage got lost (thanks, Lufthansa!) coming home from Heidelberg for my father's funeral, I wound up stranded overnight in Chicago with literally nothing and finally got home for the funeral (which was that very day), with no change of clothes -- literally nothing -- and I looked like I had been dragged through a bush backwards. So ever after that I always carried as big a carry on as I could get away with.
 
The 200 pound number that I used worked out really well. I never had an imbalance or overweight issue. As for what people bring onboard, I have some really good stories about that issue. People bring or try to bring some of the weirdest stuff onboard. We once had a man that visited a zoo while on vacation and brought a six foot stuffed toy giraffe onboard and tried to stuff it into an overhead bin, but it wouldn't fit. The Flight Attendants were kind enough to allow the giraffe to be placed at the main cabin door until we arrived at our destination in Albuquerque. But, can you imagine walking through the airport with a six foot tall toy giraffe?
 
Configuring the plane for takeoff is done by the pilots using the pre-flight check list. Depending on the total weight, the pilots will usually extend the wings by extending the flaps. You need to understand that planes depend on air flowing over the wings to gain lift. Therefore, when the pilots extend the flaps they are allowing more air to pass over the wings, even though doing so will create some drag and may slow the plane from gaining altitude as quickly as they would like it to. But, the last thing any pilot will want to do is to have a stall while flying. So, it is important to keep the necessary speed, which is done by allowing more air to flow over the wings by extending the flaps. On landing, the flaps will eventually be extended to what we call "full flaps" and that will cause some drag to slow the plane, but also will allow enough air to flow over the wings to prevent a stall.

Some years back, you may remember of a crash in Detroit where a plane went down (Northwest Airlines) and the only survivor onboard was a little girl about 4 years old. It was discovered by the NTSB during their investigation that the pilots were interrupted during their pre-check prior to takeoff by Air Traffic Control and they skipped over the part where they were to extend the flaps and slats while configuring the plane for takeoff. When the plane lifted off of the runway, it would not or could not gain lift because the flaps and slats had not been extended. There is a warning system onboard that alerts the pilots when the plane is not configured properly. On this flight, however, it was discovered that the circuit breaker had been tripped for an unknown reason, which in turn did not allow the warning system to work properly. The slats mentioned in the statement below are located on the leading edges of the wings, which are also extended for takeoff.

The following statements are from the NTSB:
"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the flight crew’s failure to use the taxi checklist to ensure that the flaps and slats were extended for takeoff. Contributing to the accident was the absence of electrical power to the airplane takeoff warning system which thus did not warn the flight crew that the airplane was not configured properly for takeoff."

If you fly, you probably have heard a roaring noise during taxiing. That noise is caused by the pilots extending the slats and flaps prior to takeoff and is usually done when taxiing out to the runway.

This probably all sounds Dutch to you, but believe me, this works very well.
 
oldman said:
The 737 is the world’s largest selling aircraft. More 737s have been sold than any other plane in the world. The Max-8 is Boeing’s newest model of the 737. Onboard, it has all of the latest buttons and whistles in the avionics department.

If there is any one bad thing that I would have to say about the Max-8 is that Boeing may have stretched this plane maybe just a bit too much, so that it is a bit uneasy to keep it flying straight.

Any plane crash is bad, but crashing into an ocean is the worse. If the plane has gone down in deep water, it may be a slow recovery. I remember Air France flight 447, which went down in the Atlantic. It took divers and recovery experts two years to recover the black boxes and cost AF millions of dollars to recover pieces of the plane, along with the boxes.

As for “Trade’s” comment about there may be is a factory defect, I’m not sure what he/she is referring to. There is always a chance that something may have malfunctioned, but we will need to wait and see what the investigation comes up with.

I wish the families of the victims well and that they find peace.
Click to expand...

When you says stretched could that also mean skinny. Point being would a longer body make a jet in particular have more characteristics closer to a rocket or missile. Would this also mean less time to react even if fractions of seconds?
 
No, the plane is stretched simply to add seats inside the plane. McDonnell Douglas once manufactured a plane labeled the MD-80 and several versions of that series after that. In the business, we referred to it as “the tube.” The MD-80 was a long, very narrow bodied, single aisle plane that had three engines with one engine mounted on the tail. There were several variations of the plane and depending on how far the plane was stretched, enabled it to seat more passengers by stretching the plane.

I don’t remember United having this plane in its livery, but it may have just slipped by me. I do remember the plane having been grounded for a short time due to a few crashes close together. It was discovered by the NTSB that the jack screw that operated the horizontal stsbilizer would dry out and the threads would become worn, which in turn would not operate the stabilizer properly. Just 15 cents of grease on the jack screws could have saved hundreds of lives.

I know, TMI.
 
Boeing "forgot" to include the fix for the computer malfunction that pointed the nose of the craft toward the ground sensing a storm is coming. All they had to do is turn off the sytem using a dashboard switch. Even Microsoft alerts users of system changes in your home computers.
 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-withheld-information-on-737-model-according-to-safety-experts-and-others-1542082575

This sounds criminal to me. Like huge lawsuits and orange jumpsuits coming for Boeing and some of their people.

Boeing withheld information about potential hazards associated with a new flight-control feature suspected of playing a role in last month’s fatal Lion Air jet crash, according to safety experts involved in the investigation, as well as midlevel FAA officials and airline pilots.
The automated stall-prevention system on Boeing 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9 models—intended to help cockpit crews avoid mistakenly raising a plane’s nose dangerously high—under unusual conditions can push it down unexpectedly and so strongly that flight crews can’t pull it back up. Such a scenario, Boeing told airlines in a world-wide safety bulletin roughly a week after the accident, can result in a steep dive or crash—even if pilots are manually flying the jetliner and don’t expect flight-control computers to kick in.


The Boeing 737 Max 8 features a new stall-prevention system that may have contributed to crash of Lion Air flight 610. Erroneous information sent from data probes to the plane's flight control system may have triggered a sharp descent. If the sensor reading shows the nose of the plane is rising too far, the automatic stall-prevention kicks in, pushing the nose down. But on the Lion Air flight, the faulty data may have activated the system even though the nose wasn't rising. Pilots would have had to quickly switch off the system to recover.


That warning came as a surprise to many pilots who fly the latest models for U.S carriers. Safety experts involved in and tracking the investigation said that at U.S. carriers, neither airline managers nor pilots had been told such a system had been added to the latest 737 variant—and therefore aviators typically weren’t prepared to cope with the possible risks.

“It’s pretty asinine for them to put a system on an airplane and not tell the pilots who are operating the airplane, especially when it deals with flight controls,” said Capt. Mike Michaelis, chairman of the safety committee for the Allied Pilots Association, which represents about 15,000 American Airlines pilots. “Why weren’t they trained on it?” One Federal Aviation Administration manager familiar with the details said the new flight-control systems weren’t highlighted in any training materials or during lengthy discussions between carriers and regulators about phasing in the latest 737 derivatives.

Boeing declined to immediately answer specific questions Monday. “We are taking every measure to fully understand all aspects of this incident, working closely with the investigating team and all regulatory authorities involved,” the company said in a statement. “We are confident in the safety of the 737 MAX.” On Monday, an FAA statement reiterated that the agency had mandated flight manual changes to emphasize proper pilot responses to the new flight-control systems. “The FAA will take further action if findings from the accident investigation warrant,” the statement noted, but declined to comment further.

Boeing marketed the MAX 8 partly by telling customers it wouldn’t need pilots to undergo additional simulator training beyond that already required for older versions, according to industry and government officials. One high-ranking Boeing official said the company had decided against disclosing more details to cockpit crews due to concerns about inundating average pilots with too much information—and significantly more technical data—than they needed or could digest.

The deadly crash of a Lion Air Boeing 737 aircraft in Indonesia is one of the worst aviation catastrophes of 2018. Minutes after takeoff from Jakarta in good weather, Lion Air Flight 610 experienced problems with airspeed indicators and a related system that feeds data to computers about the angle of the nose. The crash killed all 189 people on board.
Click to expand...
 
I am not quite understanding just what the entirety of the issue here is. Anytime the nose pitches up in most any aircraft, a warning will sound that a "Stall" may be eminent. A verbal warning will be heard stating, "Stall, Stall, Stall" until either the pilot turns off the warning indicator or that he/she takes corrective action to eliminate the imminent "Stall." I should also add that just before the plane stalls, there is a secondary device called a "Stick Shaker" that will actuate. This is when the control column or the wheel (yoke) that the pilot is holding onto will begin to rapidly shake warning the pilots that the plane is going into a Stall.

It sounds to me from reading the preceding statements that no matter what the pilots did and before the verbal "Stall" warning was announced, the automated system onboard took its own corrective action to avoid the "Stall," which in turn would confuse the pilots as to "What the heck just happened?"

If this is the case, then YES, I think Boeing has a huge problem. I flew Boeing for 27 of my 34 years as a pilot and never had any issues with the warning systems or the Autopilot systems. But, I can see where this is going to be a big problem for Boeing if it is determined to be what has been stated. Like the FAA Supervisor stated, "Why would a plane manufacturer put a warning or corrective action system on a plane and then not tell anyone?"

There are some airports that major commercial jets fly in and out of like John Wayne in Orange County, California, where a noise abatement program is in place because the jets on takeoff will sometimes fly over the tops of houses. In order to prevent the vibration of the engines from breaking the windows in those homes, the pilots must pitch up at a very steep angle on takeoff to avoid this from happening. So, in this case, if a Boeing 737-Max lifts off at a very steep angle would the automated system kick in believing that a Stall may be imminent and take control of the plane? If so, this would be a very dangerous situation for the pilots.

At this point, I want to wait until the investigation is over before determining who I should be mad at, if anyone.
 
Last edited:
'phased in' was used. Meaning everyone has been informed or trained before activation. Is disclosure enough on Boeing's part?
 
Well, it sounds to me like someone at the airlines, perhaps at the higher level, may have been made aware that this system was being fazed in, but was not yet made aware to the pilots, which is just plain ignorant, if that’s the case.

In most cases, whenever a new or newer version of a plane is built, any of the airlines that has purchased that particular plane also receives a simulator for training purposes. In the past, Boeing has allowed the airlines to send in two pilots to be trained by their (Boeing) test pilots and engineers before releasing the plane to the airline for commercial use after the plane has been approved for its air worthiness.

There is a process involved for the airline to follow before receiving the new version. In the past, the very first thing Boeing has done is to advise those in the industry as to what is being developed, then when the new system is put into place, everyone is then made aware of it at that time. IOW, NO SURPRISES!

I have been away from the business for awhile, but do try to keep up. This doesn’t mean that I haven’t missed something. The aviation industry, like so many other industries out there, evolve continuously.
 
Oldman, do you think we'll ever know exactly what happened? If they never find the cockpit voice recorder, can they figure out what happened without that?

PS: I've always wondered -- since the pilots are of course aware of the CVR, are they especially careful of their language at all times? I mean like saying "Aw Shucks!" when they spill coffee in their laps? I was in a VERY scary near miss of an accident in my car a couple years ago, and I would have hated to have my last utterances recorded for posterity! "Aw shucks" was definitely not in those moments' vocabulary.
 
The second paragraph made me laugh, not at you, but the realization of what people would say if cars would be equipped with CVRs and they knew they were about to crash. I think the insurance companies would love it if cars had recorders in them.

Getting back to your question, because this accident occurred on foreign soil, neither the NTSB nor the FAA may have been invited to attend the investigation. I am sure Boeing reps and engineers have been asked to go over and lend a hand using their knowledge and expertise. Here in the states, anytime the NTSB investigates an accident, the findings are made aware to the public. Let me just make this point clear. The NTSB is not a legislative body. They investigate accidents, find causes and then makes recommendations to the FAA as to what should be implemented to prevent any future accident with the same cause. The FAA will then take into consideration the NTSB's recommendations and/or their own recommendations to fix the problem that caused the crash and order the airlines to comply with those recommendations, which if the airlines balk at doing so, the FAA will then go to the Congress and strongly suggest that they (Congress) make it mandatory for the airlines to comply. Then, if the airlines fail to comply, they could be facing fines in the millions.

Often, foreign air investigation agencies have invited the American NTSB to aid in any plane crash investigation only because they have such a vast experience at doing so all over the world. IMO, the French and British air investigators are not far behind. I have never been in a situation where I worried about what my last words would be if I was about to crash (Thank God). There is a bunch of recordings from pilots saying their last words just before they crashed on YouTube, if you would care to listen to them. It kind of freaked me out and I stopped after listening to just a few. The last one that I heard really broke my heart and that's when I quit listening. I forget the flight, but the pilot said, "I love you, Maw."

It will be up to the foreign air investigation authority if they wish to release their findings. I would expect that they may, but I wouldn't bet on it.
 
As everyone probably can tell, I really enjoy talking about aviation. That being said, I want to add a new term and some information that may or may not relate to this issue with the "Auto Stall Correct" on the Boeing 737-Max.

On every Boeing and Airbus passenger jet, there is a feature named "ACARS," which stands for Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System. This feature is a highly sophisticated automated reporting system that is broadcast via satellite and goes between the plane and the ground. For example; Randomly, (maybe every one-half to one hour), ACARS, (on its own), will run a systems check of the plane's avionics systems and the engines and report their conditions to the company's ground maintenance department (GMD). This way, it is possible that the maintenance department may know before the pilots if the plane was experiencing any negative issues with any of the plane's main functions and could then forewarn the pilots of any issues that were being reported. The system would also alert the GMD during times when the pilots may already be involved with an issue and were too busy to report it to the GMD.

So, what I am wondering is, "Did ACARS report any issues regarding the Auto Stall Correct function that is being addressed? I guess that I may be able to assume that there was no report or certainly someone would have made mention that they had received such a report from the ACARS system regarding the Auto Stall Correct. To me, this is a tricky question, but I would like to know the answer.
 
UPDATE: Boeing has sent out a safety bulletin regarding the accident in Indonesia with the Boeing 737-Max. Boeing is stating that there "may" be a problem with the AOA Sensor. AOA stands for Angle Of Attack. In layman's terms, this means the angle at which the plane is climbing. When a plane climbs too steep, it is possible that there will not be enough air flowing over the wings to keep the plane aloft, which in turn will cause a stall. Unlike your car when a stall occurs and the engine shuts off, in an airplane the engines keep running, but thrust alone will allow the plane climb. There has to be enough air flowing over the wings in order to keep the plane aloft and flying.

The Indonesia (Lyon Airlines) crash was "possibly" caused by a defective AOA Sensor while the plane was climbing out after takeoff. The pilot flying the plane was hand flying the plane at the time of the crash. It was also noted that the AOA Sensor was replaced just the day before this crash. So, is it coincidence or reality? The AOA Sensor will be tested and if there is a software problem with the sensor, my question is , "What will Boeing or the FAA do about it?" Will all 737-Max airplanes be grounded until the problem is fixed? We don't know because no one has commented on that question as yet.

Here in the U.S., many pilots will turn on the Autopilot (AP) and let the plane operate under the direction of the software in the AP. It is not unusual for a pilot to turn on his AP after takeoff and reaching above 1000 feet. The AP knows what the climb rate is and will not let the plane climb so steep as to cause a stall. Generally, I liked hand flying the plane on takeoff just because I enjoyed taking the plane up to its cruising altitude. There were times when I would use the AP to take us up to our cruising altitude, but mostly I liked to keep my skills sharp, so I would hand fly the airplane. It's all about personal preference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top