By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
Forum sponsored by:
Forum sponsored by CML

Lion Air Crash

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
Josip Vrandecic -Mes18/11/2018 09:59:36
avatar
2920 forum posts
246 photos

Recent expert opinions :

**LINK**

Edited By Josip Vrandecic -Mes on 18/11/2018 09:59:56

Jim Carss18/11/2018 11:03:16
avatar
2012 forum posts
54 photos

Jo

Link is not working for me !!

JIm

Paul C.18/11/2018 11:07:11
avatar
494 forum posts
115 photos

Working ok for me, but I am in Spain on holiday if that makes any difference wink

Paul.

Stearman6518/11/2018 11:07:14
avatar
363 forum posts
354 photos
Posted by Jim Carss on 18/11/2018 11:03:16:

Jo

Link is not working for me !!

JIm

Works for me!

Jim Carss18/11/2018 11:12:45
avatar
2012 forum posts
54 photos

Problem at my end,using explorer,had to right click and open ok.

Colin Leighfield18/11/2018 12:45:38
avatar
5551 forum posts
2269 photos

It seems appalling in this day and age that this problem wasn’t foreseen. With all of the computer simulated testing it’s hard to believe that this predictable scenario wasn’t identified. I’m a great fan of Boeing but if this is correct, and it seems to be, they really need to be flogged over this one.

ken anderson.18/11/2018 13:49:32
avatar
8226 forum posts
762 photos

worked OK for me Jo, poor people losing their lives through something like that is really unforgivable....

ken anderson...ne...1..... what a shame dept.

Paul Marsh18/11/2018 14:26:23
avatar
3397 forum posts
933 photos

Sounds like a repeat of Quantas Flight 72, luckily, the aircraft managed to land ok, similar problem. incorrect information going into the flight computer.

Problem there is millions of lines of code, and many conditions where they get tested before the aircraft enters service, but a section of code can cause loss of an aircraft and lives to something so small.

Josip Vrandecic -Mes18/11/2018 22:02:19
avatar
2920 forum posts
246 photos

@ HI Ken and Jim , Ken please to help our generous friend Jim(I'm fond of him heart) about the link ,and thanks so much.face 1

@ Hello dear Colin, I'm afraid this is repeated at Boeing....sad

Colin Leighfield18/11/2018 22:33:20
avatar
5551 forum posts
2269 photos

Very sad Jo.

Jon - Laser Engines19/11/2018 08:43:47
4157 forum posts
155 photos

I think it might be premature to dump all of the blame on boeing. We do not know what training these specific pilots had and if it was sufficient. If it wasnt and it didnt include this information then was that boeing's omission or the airline?

We also do not know if there was another problem, or if in the heat of the moment they were simply unable to diagnose the fault and then think about the proper corrective action as they would have had to deal with the sizeable stream of error codes from the flight computers, and then consult the manual for each eventuality, all while trying to fly the plane and i doubt that is particularly easy.

Piers Bowlan19/11/2018 11:01:38
avatar
1513 forum posts
41 photos

As Jon says, premature! Boeing have so far answered criticism that they did not supply pilots with information regarding the stall protection system fitted on the B737 Max. Boeing say that the failure that the Lion Air aircraft experienced was covered by a check list item, which was also a required 'pilot memory item'. In which case they should have know what to do when faced with an aircraft that was not responding correctly to their control inputs. The fact that the aircraft had a history of similar faults in the days leading up to the accident might also suggest that the company in question do not have a robust maintenance regime in place? As the pilots would have read the Tech Log entries prior to their fateful flight they should have briefed each other for possible air data failure scenarios prior to take-off. It is easy for me to say that but it would have been good airmanship at any rate. I am not criticising Boeing, the pilots or the companies maintenance procedures but pointing out that when accidents occur it is usually the result of a whole series of events. Hopefully when the full FAA report is published the results will be disseminated throughout the industry. I hate the expression 'and lessons learned' but here it seems appropriate!

Josip Vrandecic -Mes19/11/2018 11:21:22
avatar
2920 forum posts
246 photos
Posted by Jon - Laser Engines on 19/11/2018 08:43:47:

''I think it might be premature to dump all of the blame on boeing. We do not know what training these specific pilots had and if it was sufficient. If it wasnt and it didnt include this information then was that boeing's omission or the airline?

We also do not know if there was another problem, or if in the heat of the moment they were simply unable to diagnose the fault and then think about the proper corrective action as they would have had to deal with the sizeable stream of error codes from the flight computers, and then consult the manual for each eventuality, all while trying to fly the plane and i doubt that is particularly easy.''

Hi Jon , absolutely not easy to fly, especially on new passenger planes, it might be a bit,call in a negative context to name of this company, but it has already proven that new aviation products went to exploitation without the expert's human attention and tracking by the manufacturer (profit) ... And I I'm a fan of Boeing, and I flew to 727, which I still consider to be the best thing that happened to me ... but I forgot I was still with my head... in the analogue era.

Regards

Martyn K19/11/2018 11:54:23
avatar
4760 forum posts
3436 photos

Force Nose down anti stall has been around for years. The reason for the Trident crash at Staines in 1972 was because the pilot over-rode the anti stall pitch down after retracting the LE slats too soon.

Martyn

Colin Leighfield19/11/2018 12:54:30
avatar
5551 forum posts
2269 photos

Martyn, that’s right but the Trident didn’t go in nose-down. It stalled level nose high and it still was flat when it hit the deck. A number of passengers were still alive when rescuers arrived but died very shortly afterwards. This whole thing with tail blanketed nose up stall really kicked off with the BAC111prototype crash in 963 that killed Mike Lithgow and others. In stall tests at different angles of attack it got into a tail blanketing position in deep stall and the elevators were ineffective in correcting it. It stalled flat all the way to the deck and the Trident did the same thing. After the 111 crash stick-shakers were fitted to warn the pilot before the critical angle of attack was reached. The Trident would have had that system but because the pilot had retracted the leading edge flaps at too low an air speed the whole sequence probably occurred too quickly before he realised what he had done and he was at low altitude anyway.

The 737 crash is totally different. Boeing installed this new nose down corrective system that is completely new to anything fitted previously but it is being claimed that they didn’t inform adequately, so experienced 737 pilots were taken by surprise when it functioned and didn’t know the corrective information. It sounds like more than conjecture and it appears that Boeing isn’t denying it either. We will know eventually but it sounds like something that wasn’t caused by defective systems or pilot error in the usual sense.

Jon - Laser Engines19/11/2018 13:15:10
4157 forum posts
155 photos
Some useful analysis here. gives a good overall explanation of the factors involved.
Nigel R19/11/2018 13:59:25
avatar
1969 forum posts
366 photos

"Problem there is millions of lines of code, and many conditions where they get tested before the aircraft enters service, but a section of code can cause loss of an aircraft and lives to something so small."

Are you familiar with 178B/C DAL A software certification?

Edited By Nigel R on 19/11/2018 14:01:25

Colin Leighfield19/11/2018 14:08:25
avatar
5551 forum posts
2269 photos

Thank you Jon, excellent. We have to wait and see now. Reading back I might owe Martyn an apology for misreading what he was saying. I thought at first he was implying that the Trident went in nose-down, but I see now that he wasn’t. He was spot on in saying that the pilot over-riding the nose down pitch correction was part of the sequence of events beginning when he retracted the leading edge flaps too early. I jumped in too quickly.

Geoff Sleath19/11/2018 16:10:45
avatar
3017 forum posts
247 photos

Thanks, Jon. Those Mentour videos are always interesting (even the dog, which sometimes features) and gives non-patronising information accessible even to those unfamiliar with flying. It just shows how complicated flying big aircraft is.

I just hope they get to the bottom of this quickly and make effective steps to stop anything like this happening again.

 

As for the millions of lines of code. I've reviewed code at work for software that's not totally flight critical but affects engine testing and it really is the most boring job I've ever done. I loved writing software using both low (assembler) and relatively high ('C' ) level languages but going through someone else's code is a different matter all together.

However, even an apparently trivial change done incorrectly can have completely apparently random effects, so checks are necessary. Mind you the Appolo programs were probably full of bugs and they worked OK (I don't think the Appolo 13 problem was s/w related).

Geoff

Edited By Geoff Sleath on 19/11/2018 16:11:36

Jon - Laser Engines19/11/2018 16:44:24
4157 forum posts
155 photos

I think the biggest thing to remember about these accidents is that the chain of events needed for the accident to occur is considerably longer than most members of the public, and especially the media, actually realise.

When i was at uni i went to lecture which detailed the full investigation into the causes of the Concorde crash in France. It must have taken nearly 2 hours to get through the various contributory factors that finally lead to the crash. It was nowhere near as simple as just running over a piece of metal and bursting the tyre. The shape of the metal, the tyre design, the speed, fuel load at that time, the point of impact...and that was just to make it leak. There was then a huge list of events that caused to it actually catch fire.

If you could go back in time and present the accident report before the crash, i doubt anyone outside aviation would have believed it was even possible.

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!

Find RCM&E! 

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Wings & Wheels 2018
electricwingman 2017
Slec
CML
Gliders Distribution
Overlander
Airtek Hobbies
Motion RC
Expo Tools 14 July
Sarik
Advertise With Us
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Which part of building a new traditional balsa aeroplane do you enjoy the most?
Q: Which part of building a new traditional balsa aeroplane do you enjoy the most?

 Research & choosing the model
 Building the fuselage
 Installing the engine and radio systems
 Building the flying surfaces
 Covering/painting/finishing
 All of it!
 None of it. I'd rather someone else did it!
 Other

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us