Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lion Air crash in Bali

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Philm35 View Post
    According the the New York Times, the aircraft skidded off the runway into the water.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/wo...ref=world&_r=0
    According to Av herald, it landed short(they also have a map of the flight path to the crash)

    Also, you can see from pics that the speed brakes are not extended, which probably meant they haven't landed.(unless there is another malfunction or the pilots forgot to extend it)

    Comment


    • #17
      The position of the aircraft with respect to the barrier at the end of the runway is not head-on. This may suggest that the aircraft hit the water much further away from land and was brought close (and displaced wrt the center line) by the motion of the sea?
      I can see why New York Times deducted /from the first picture available/ that they had ovverun the end of the runway.

      There´s more than average luck at work in this accident. The approach speed being somwhere in the 150 knots range (~77 m/s), one bounce on the waves before settling would have brought them into the rock barrier. The tail being broken off may suggest a high angle of attack when hitting the water. This could be what saved them.

      It will be extremely interesting to see the analysis of the flight path, once the FDR has been read. Not to mention the CVR of course.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by orangehuggy View Post
        ...the pilots...could have messed up and stalled...

        What makes you say that?

        I'm thinking there's other things bad pilots can do besides stalling.

        Fuel mismanagement is one.

        Plus, stalling tends to make for a relatively unplesant contact with the Earth- the planes and passengers typically do not fare quite as well.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #19
          More misinformation from AP


          .............. Sydney-based aviation expert Tom Ballantyne said ..............................."I'm surprised. The airplane split in two upon impact," he said, estimating it was likely traveling close to 300 miles (483 kilometers) per hour............................

          I assume Ballantyne was misquoted here. This just goes to show that many, if not most, journalists are not technically minded.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            What makes you say that?

            I'm thinking there's other things bad pilots can do besides stalling.

            Fuel mismanagement is one.

            Plus, stalling tends to make for a relatively unplesant contact with the Earth- the planes and passengers typically do not fare quite as well.
            A low level stall like Turkish could explain it.

            Of course other things could too:

            CFIT (the pilots just kept descending into the water)

            Microbrust / windshear

            Dual engine failure due to:
            - Birds
            - Fuel exhaustion / mismanagement
            - Mismanaged single engine failure (wrong engine shut down)

            Another technical failure.

            Depending of the failure mode, these pilots could be heroes or liable for attempted murder.

            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

            Comment


            • #21
              Turkish Airlines Similarity

              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              A low level stall like Turkish could explain it.

              Depending of the failure mode, these pilots could be heroes or liable for attempted murder.
              The Turkish Airlines was also an 800 and there seems to be something very similar with this Lion crash, I agree. Might reporting 'trouble with the engines' refer to the throttles retarding as in the Turkish incident?

              Comment


              • #22
                My totally unqualified opinion of this accident is that the pilot(s) were unqualified, a mile behind the airplane, and are lucky to swim out with no deaths.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Well, there are similarities with the BA B-777 short of Heathrow.

                  Originally posted by Deadstick
                  My totally unqualified opinion of this accident is that the pilot(s) were unqualified, a mile behind the airplane, and are lucky to swim out with no deaths.
                  The fact is that, at this point, there is too little information to make even an opinion.

                  I share your feeling that there is a good chance that pilot performance can be a major factor here. But only because there was an airplane crash and pilot performance is almost always part of these events, and not because of the specific circumstances surrounding this accident, of which we know almost none other than a plane ended in the water short of the runway and everybody escaped alive.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
                    My totally unqualified opinion of this accident is that the pilot(s) were unqualified, a mile behind the airplane, and are lucky to swim out with no deaths.
                    The captain is one of the most senior at Lion, and has over 12,000 hours, for what that's worth (if anything).
                    Trump is an idiot!
                    Vote Democrats!!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
                      More misinformation from AP


                      .............. Sydney-based aviation expert Tom Ballantyne said ..............................."I'm surprised. The airplane split in two upon impact," he said, estimating it was likely traveling close to 300 miles (483 kilometers) per hour............................

                      I assume Ballantyne was misquoted here. This just goes to show that many, if not most, journalists are not technically minded.
                      I'll wager it was going a touch slower than 483 km/hr at point of impact!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...130415?irpc=43

                        * Pilots lost visibility, felt jet forced lower -source

                        * Probe likely to examine wind shear as possible cause

                        * Lion Air pilots passed drug and alcohol tests - source

                        * Airport officials contradict reports of bad weather (Adds airport official quote, black box progress)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          this is new info, seems weather was the main culprit:

                          According to initial pilot debriefings, details of which have been described to Reuters, flight JT-904 was on an eastwards approach to Bali's Ngurah Rai Airport at mid-afternoon on Saturday following a normal flight from Bandung, West Java.

                          The co-pilot, an Indian national with 2,000 hours of relevant flying experience, was in charge for the domestic trip, which was scheduled to last one hour and 40 minutes.

                          As the Lion Air plane was coming in to land, with an aircraft of national carrier Garuda following behind and another about to take off on the runway just ahead, the co-pilot lost sight of the runway as heavy rain drove across the windshield.

                          The captain, an Indonesian citizen with about 15,000 hours experience and an instructor's license, took the controls.

                          Between 400 and 200 feet (122 and 61 metres), pilots described flying through a blur of heavy rainfall, according to the source. Heavy localized showers that temporarily reduce visibility are not uncommon in the tropics but the aircraft's low height would have meant the crew had little time to react.

                          With no sight of the runway, according to this account, the captain decided to abort the landing and perform a "go around", a routine manoeuvre for which all pilots are well trained. But the captain told officials afterwards that instead of climbing, the brand-new 737 started to sink uncontrollably.

                          From 200 feet, well-practised routines unravelled quickly. "The captain says he intended to go around but that he felt the aircraft dragged down by the wind; that is why he hit the sea," said the source, who was briefed on the crew's testimony.

                          "There was rain coming east to west; very heavy," the source said, asking not to be named because no one is authorized to speak publicly about the investigation while it is under way.
                          moving quickly in air

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            oh i can't wait to see what the lil black boxes tell us on this one...rain, heavy rain, no rain, 11knot winds, microbursts, failed go around...sounds to me--and i'm just guessing here--that the pilots are covering up for their MAJOR f-up.

                            hope i'm wrong for the traveling public's sake...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              All new A/C should have GoPros installed. City buses have them, why not A/C?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                                Well, there are similarities with the BA B-777 short of Heathrow.



                                The fact is that, at this point, there is too little information to make even an opinion.

                                I share your feeling that there is a good chance that pilot performance can be a major factor here. But only because there was an airplane crash and pilot performance is almost always part of these events, and not because of the specific circumstances surrounding this accident, of which we know almost none other than a plane ended in the water short of the runway and everybody escaped alive.
                                I always appreciate your logic and thoughts Gabriel, but this doesn't happen anywhere, anymore, to my knowledge in the past, what, couple of decades? Wind shear and microbursts haven't been a crash phenomenon since, I don't know, when? Someone was way behind the airplane and the difference in reported weather needs to be sorted out. The boxes will tell, but I think that First Officer got caught so far behind the airplane, and the Captain reacted too late. I am thoroughly happy no one died but the 737-800.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X