Sriwijaya Air flight SJ182, a Boeing 737, has disappeared from radar(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Sriwijaya Air flight SJ182, a Boeing 737, has disappeared from radar
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1347856317839417345
164 comments
Wow. that rate of descent, and so shortly after takeoff (no time/altutude for hypoxia, etc) points strongly to a major structural failure or at least a catastrophic failure of flight control systems.
In that phase of flight, pressurization would be just starting to build, I wonder how many cycles that 26 year old airframe has on it?
Also, is it known if there was anyone of major political or financial consequence on board? Getting to that altitude is also a common trigger for barometric switches.
In that phase of flight, pressurization would be just starting to build, I wonder how many cycles that 26 year old airframe has on it?
Also, is it known if there was anyone of major political or financial consequence on board? Getting to that altitude is also a common trigger for barometric switches.
25+ yo airframe, Island hopping, budget airline, Indonesia
All points to fuselage maintenance
All points to fuselage maintenance
Did they figure the pickle fork issue?
Not applicable, that problem was introduced in 1997 with the 737-NG. This aircraft here was manufactured in 1994.
Or wiring given the 737 history but then again, it's a shot in the dark.
Elevator are hydraulically operated, while trim is actuated by steel cables + electric trim. I imagine an electrical short with the trim mechanism cannot be ruled out. But this is all pointless armchair speculation, borderline bad taste.
In case anyone gets the wrong impression: there is mechanical control of trim too, and "runaway trim" has a checklist item set of responses that every pilot trains for. You can lose electric trim without crashing.
What wiring issue would get you nose down?
A fire and then damage to control surface connections.
737 isn’t FBW.
Plenty of wiring in and around the fuel system and running close to control cables.
Are you implying that fire couldn't interfere with control of a non FBW aircraft?
Are you implying that fire couldn't interfere with control of a non FBW aircraft?
The 737 classic (which the incident aircraft is) uses hydro-mechanical controls. It can be flown with zero functioning electrical buses.
The only electric parts of the primary control system are the electrically-driven auxiliary (backup) hydraulic pumps, the stick shaker (stall warning), and the motor for pitch trim (located in the cockpit, connected to the trim wheel). Unlike the MAX, the classics have a large pitch trim wheel with lots of leverage, so you really can fly it with manual trim.
In the event of a full hydraulic failure, the ailerons can be operated mechanically from either seat, and pitch can be controlled via the elevator trim mentioned above.
The only electric parts of the primary control system are the electrically-driven auxiliary (backup) hydraulic pumps, the stick shaker (stall warning), and the motor for pitch trim (located in the cockpit, connected to the trim wheel). Unlike the MAX, the classics have a large pitch trim wheel with lots of leverage, so you really can fly it with manual trim.
In the event of a full hydraulic failure, the ailerons can be operated mechanically from either seat, and pitch can be controlled via the elevator trim mentioned above.
No fbw on the concord yet they lost control of air surfaces seconds after the fire started.
I don’t get the downvotes. Jammed or severed wire linkages were involved in many non-FBW crashes.
If the weather was bad it could also be caused by a pilot getting disoriented, or perhaps an instrument failure. Plenty of aircraft with perfectly working flight controls have been nosedived to the ground either due to spatial disorientation, or pilots believing a faulty attitude indicator.
Of course suicide is another possibility in such cases.
Of course suicide is another possibility in such cases.
Suicide by pilot is another possibility. It's certainly happened before (SilkAir 185, EgyptAir 990, Germanwings 9525, possibly Malaysian 370)
Judging from the flight path and altitude data that seems extremely unlikely, it looks like the plane just fell apart and came down like a brick in an instant.
I'm not sure that alone rules anything out. If we look at the flight profile of EgyptAir 990, for example, it dropped 15,000 feet in about 30 seconds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990#/media/Fil...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990#/media/Fil...
Also you wouldn't expect a single pilot to be in the cockpit at that stage of the flight.
What damage could a co-pilot cause even with another pilot present? A steep enough descent might not be recoverable under certain conditions?
Aircraft are designed to not enter those “certain conditions” by default - I understand the PF needs to override the flight-control-law to intentionally crash the plane, but I don’t think there’s a two-person-rule before that can happen.
Anyway - this is why I’m glad I’m not involved in safety-engineering because supposing that setting sensible defaults that reduce accidents in 99.999% of cases would lead to horrible terrifying deaths in 0.001% of cases (e.g. one-way lockable reinforced cockpit doors) would be too much on my mind.
Anyway - this is why I’m glad I’m not involved in safety-engineering because supposing that setting sensible defaults that reduce accidents in 99.999% of cases would lead to horrible terrifying deaths in 0.001% of cases (e.g. one-way lockable reinforced cockpit doors) would be too much on my mind.
Some more modern aircraft indeed have such protections, but this was an old 737 without any such stuff. Simply pushing the control column fully forward would send the plane into a dive pretty quickly.
The controls are mechanically linked. Unless the perpetrator incapacitated the other flier, it’s a test of strength. There’s no method for disconnecting the second set of controls in a 737.
That is incorrect. There is a friction clutch between the controls in case there is a mechanical jam the other pilot can at least control half the control surfaces. It needs a significant amount of force to detach, though. It is documented on Egypt Air 990 however that both elevator surfaces turned into opposite directions.
Like @FeeJai already wrote, that's incorrect.
Look up for Atlas Air Flight 3591 crash, boeing 767.
Spatial disorientation, dual imputs on yokes, split elevator.
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/628156-atlas-air-3591-nt...
I am not disagreeing with you, but I just want to point out the absolutely stunning safety of modern air travel. Using your 99.999% number against the number of FAA flights of 16,405,000[1] per year (that's just US FAA, not global). This would result in 16405 "incidents" per year. Luckily for us, the actual number is far lower than 16405.
[1] https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/
[1] https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/
Germanwings Flight 9525[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
That was F/O without another pilot present
Even if another pilot was present, from that altitude a suicidal co-pilot could easily cause an unrecovable dive and crash. If two pilots pull/push controls to opposite directions they kind of neutralize each other, and obviously the suicidal one would have element of surprise as an advantage.
In fact just that happened on EgyptAir flight 990. A suicidal copilot was able to crash the plane even with another pilot present, and that happened from a higher altitude.
In fact just that happened on EgyptAir flight 990. A suicidal copilot was able to crash the plane even with another pilot present, and that happened from a higher altitude.
How does that make a suicidal pilot “extremely unlikely”? That’s exactly what I’d expect a plane directed downwards to look like.
Does the airline have a two-person rule for the flight-deck and/or lockable doors though?
What concerns me about the cockpit lockable doors is how obviously it would lead to tragedy (e.g. Germanwings) - I’d have hoped that the locks would open if unusual aircraft attitude changes were detected - because what’s the point of keeping the cockpit door locked if the aircraft is already erratic? Chances are something weird is going on in the flight deck and it’s in the pax’ best-interests if the cabin-crew can get in.
What concerns me about the cockpit lockable doors is how obviously it would lead to tragedy (e.g. Germanwings) - I’d have hoped that the locks would open if unusual aircraft attitude changes were detected - because what’s the point of keeping the cockpit door locked if the aircraft is already erratic? Chances are something weird is going on in the flight deck and it’s in the pax’ best-interests if the cabin-crew can get in.
I wonder how "walkable" a plane is after it takes a nosedive, and if the type of doors would make any difference in one's ability to reach the cockpit.
Apparently, some manage to make it to the cockpit (that was before reinforced doors):
> the aircraft suddenly went into a rapid dive nose-first, resulting in weightlessness (zero-g) throughout the cabin. Despite this, the captain was able to fight the zero-g and re-enter the cockpit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990
> the aircraft suddenly went into a rapid dive nose-first, resulting in weightlessness (zero-g) throughout the cabin. Despite this, the captain was able to fight the zero-g and re-enter the cockpit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990
As long as there is air friction complete zero-g is highly unlikely. It takes a lot of training to set the engines correctly to cause zero g by compensating exactly the air friction
A malicious pilot could injure/incapacitate anybody who wasn't strapped into a seat with aggressive maneuvering. I expect it takes a lot of training for a 'vomit comet' pilot to not toss everybody around like ragdolls, but a suicidal pilot trying to kill everybody wouldn't be gentle about it..
Zero-g is very disorienting to humans. But an experienced pilot could probably handle it and push themselves towards the cockpit.
An experienced airline pilot almost certainly has zero experience moving around in zero-g. Pilots just aren't trained for moving around a freefalling airplane. There are only a handful of 'vomit comets' in existence that could provide such training, and I've never heard of airline pilots being trained in them.
I didn't mean to say that pilots have zero-g training. I just assume that most pilots could handle zero-g enough to orient themselves towards the cockpit. But maybe that's optimistic.
[deleted]
What an odd time to do it, unless for some crazy reason the lat/lon location mattered.
I'm just saying it takes less than a second to hit a ditch or another plane or commo tower while taxi-ing on the ground. Or suddenly do almost anything when you're 50 feet off the ground at takeoff surrounded by all sorts of interesting ground targets to hit. Drop the landing gear or flaps at the wrong speed at a low altitude. I suppose someone indecisive or having medical / drug issues could take a long time to talk themselves up to it hours into the flight.
There is one situation I'd expect a crash halfway thru climbout right after takeoff and from military experience if a load is incorrectly lashed down in the cargo hold and lets say the strapdowns in the front of a tank or howitzer are installed correctly but the ones in the back snap or were incorrectly attached or the tiedowns rusted off LOL (I suppose it happens) then sliding a tank or an artillery piece thru the nose of the plane while in flight will make quite a mess. Yes I'm well aware a civie 737 is not a military C130 but the general case holds that's just about the right time in a flight profile for something in the cargo hold to start sloshing around if not strapped down correctly.
Plenty of opportunity for cascading failure. Trivial to engineer a cargo system where one thing breaking loose cannot screw up weight/balance enough to crash the plane. But one thing breaks loose, slides at high speed into another thing breaking it loose, now you got two uncontrolled loads sloshing around in turbulence, repeat, repeat...
I'm also well aware that a 737 is not a military transport in WWII but there was a documented problem with sabotage in WWII where enemy agents dumped water into the rotary engine oil system and the water eventually boiled about ten minutes into flight, steam popped open the oil system, the engines seized without oil, the mechanics got blamed and the agents continued their work because no evidence just water... Obviously almost certainly not the situation now, but the general idea of "it gets up to full temp a couple minutes into flight" remains valid. I wonder what happens to the airframe if an engine bearing catastrophically seizes and cold welds itself in flight. At minimum I bet the entire engine tears itself off the pylon. Worst case maybe the engine takes the wing with it even if its not supposed to. AFAIK the shroud around engines is supposed to be able to eat a turbine blade that snaps off to prevent damage to the wing, but maybe there's a freak situation of the engine disassembling itself in flight such that the shield shroud thing is blown off milliseconds before the turbine blades are shed into the wing...
I'd extend my remarks based on radar data from
http://www.b737.org.uk/incident_pk-clc.htm
This is a very low performance aircraft (In the sense of not like a F-16) and 11 seconds isn't long enough to intentionally maneuver from a normal climbout based on radar transponder data into falling out of the sky. A F-16 could turn 40 degrees and point straight down in 11 seconds but a 737 literally can't, so essentially it went from a normal climbout to cloud of parts falling from the sky slower than the plane at cruise. The radar transponder profile looks a lot different for a plane in one piece under control pointed at the ground. Pieces of aircraft are not aerodynamic at all, which is why parts fell at 10K to 20K feet/min but the groundspeed collapsed from 300 kts to 100 kts in eleven seconds. I'm honestly not sure even a F-16 can drop from 300 kts to 100 kts in eleven seconds in a steep dive, although a random collection of torn metal falling from the sky can do that.
Its interesting that if you google for the flight manual data for a 737, best maneuvering speed to handle maximal turbulence loads is just a couple knots below best climb speed, which the plane was at. So if a pilot was suicidal, he tried to pull the wings off at exactly the flight condition where the plane was strongest; no pilot is uneducated enough to make a noob error that huge. Pull up as hard as you can at cruise, sure. Wiggle the rudder as hard as humanly possible (usually due to crosswind) while landing has torn tails off planes. But try to pull the wings off when flying at manuevering speed? That's just dumb. So no the pilot almost certainly was not suicidal.
I'm just saying it takes less than a second to hit a ditch or another plane or commo tower while taxi-ing on the ground. Or suddenly do almost anything when you're 50 feet off the ground at takeoff surrounded by all sorts of interesting ground targets to hit. Drop the landing gear or flaps at the wrong speed at a low altitude. I suppose someone indecisive or having medical / drug issues could take a long time to talk themselves up to it hours into the flight.
There is one situation I'd expect a crash halfway thru climbout right after takeoff and from military experience if a load is incorrectly lashed down in the cargo hold and lets say the strapdowns in the front of a tank or howitzer are installed correctly but the ones in the back snap or were incorrectly attached or the tiedowns rusted off LOL (I suppose it happens) then sliding a tank or an artillery piece thru the nose of the plane while in flight will make quite a mess. Yes I'm well aware a civie 737 is not a military C130 but the general case holds that's just about the right time in a flight profile for something in the cargo hold to start sloshing around if not strapped down correctly.
Plenty of opportunity for cascading failure. Trivial to engineer a cargo system where one thing breaking loose cannot screw up weight/balance enough to crash the plane. But one thing breaks loose, slides at high speed into another thing breaking it loose, now you got two uncontrolled loads sloshing around in turbulence, repeat, repeat...
I'm also well aware that a 737 is not a military transport in WWII but there was a documented problem with sabotage in WWII where enemy agents dumped water into the rotary engine oil system and the water eventually boiled about ten minutes into flight, steam popped open the oil system, the engines seized without oil, the mechanics got blamed and the agents continued their work because no evidence just water... Obviously almost certainly not the situation now, but the general idea of "it gets up to full temp a couple minutes into flight" remains valid. I wonder what happens to the airframe if an engine bearing catastrophically seizes and cold welds itself in flight. At minimum I bet the entire engine tears itself off the pylon. Worst case maybe the engine takes the wing with it even if its not supposed to. AFAIK the shroud around engines is supposed to be able to eat a turbine blade that snaps off to prevent damage to the wing, but maybe there's a freak situation of the engine disassembling itself in flight such that the shield shroud thing is blown off milliseconds before the turbine blades are shed into the wing...
I'd extend my remarks based on radar data from
http://www.b737.org.uk/incident_pk-clc.htm
This is a very low performance aircraft (In the sense of not like a F-16) and 11 seconds isn't long enough to intentionally maneuver from a normal climbout based on radar transponder data into falling out of the sky. A F-16 could turn 40 degrees and point straight down in 11 seconds but a 737 literally can't, so essentially it went from a normal climbout to cloud of parts falling from the sky slower than the plane at cruise. The radar transponder profile looks a lot different for a plane in one piece under control pointed at the ground. Pieces of aircraft are not aerodynamic at all, which is why parts fell at 10K to 20K feet/min but the groundspeed collapsed from 300 kts to 100 kts in eleven seconds. I'm honestly not sure even a F-16 can drop from 300 kts to 100 kts in eleven seconds in a steep dive, although a random collection of torn metal falling from the sky can do that.
Its interesting that if you google for the flight manual data for a 737, best maneuvering speed to handle maximal turbulence loads is just a couple knots below best climb speed, which the plane was at. So if a pilot was suicidal, he tried to pull the wings off at exactly the flight condition where the plane was strongest; no pilot is uneducated enough to make a noob error that huge. Pull up as hard as you can at cruise, sure. Wiggle the rudder as hard as humanly possible (usually due to crosswind) while landing has torn tails off planes. But try to pull the wings off when flying at manuevering speed? That's just dumb. So no the pilot almost certainly was not suicidal.
There is a documented accident like this of a civilian B747 cargo plane carrying military equipment that shifted to the back.
National Airlines Flight 102
Very scary and impressive videos of the crash on YouTube
Very scary and impressive videos of the crash on YouTube
This type of comment is one reason I keep coming to HN.
What’s so good about it? There’s a lot of musing about why this wasn’t a suicide, but for all the claims of relative certainty it makes it doesn’t once refer to one of the existing cases of pilot suicide we already know of. If this theory is correct, there’s already precedence to show how it fits into past events as well, but there’s not a word about it.
The area under the passenger cabin is pretty constrained. 737 operators pretty much just chuck luggage into the hold. And because it’s a manual operation, nobody is going to sneak a huge chunk of tungsten or DU onto the plane, at least not in quantities that would throw off weight and balance on a 737.
[deleted]
Usually when a plane "falls apart" you'll have an accident scene with larger pieces intact compared to a plane nosediving to the ground in one piece.
Please don't. This is unsubstantiated bullshit at this point. It is a lot more likely that they fought the plane (or their own somatogravic illusion, or ..?) to the bitter end. To put pilot suicide out there, requires some supporting evidence on your part.
I think most of speculation in this thread is mostly unsubstantiated, as we know nearly nothing. I think it’s fine that the parent points this out, at the very least should not be berated like this.
Fun fact. When I flew Delta for the 4 years before the pandemic, anytime a pilot used the restroom, it was mandatory that a flight attendant take their place -- for exactly this reason. Sit in first class long enough you begin to get comfortable with common flight procedures.
Keep in mind it's not that the flight attendant can pilot a plane, it's that they can unlock the door to let the other pilot back in the cockpit.
While it is unlikely, it's still a possibility, and one that Delta, at least, is worried about happening.
Keep in mind it's not that the flight attendant can pilot a plane, it's that they can unlock the door to let the other pilot back in the cockpit.
While it is unlikely, it's still a possibility, and one that Delta, at least, is worried about happening.
Yes. But there are, of course, plenty of reasons why this policy is a good idea besides the unlikely possibility of malicious/suicidal actions on the part of a pilot.
No. That's pretty much the main reason.
No, it’s one reason but it’s far from the only reason.
Medical events and incidents that cause incapacitation of a flying pilot are rare, but less rare than suicide by pilot incidents.
Consider what would have happened on BA 5390, for example, if only one pilot had been in the cockpit with the cockpit door locked.
Medical events and incidents that cause incapacitation of a flying pilot are rare, but less rare than suicide by pilot incidents.
Consider what would have happened on BA 5390, for example, if only one pilot had been in the cockpit with the cockpit door locked.
I actually asked the crew and that was the reason stated.
I think this might be ruled out- Indonesian news sources have cited sounds of explosions as well as an eyewitness account of the plane exploding in midair. If it's pilot suicide, it's certainly unconventional.
Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Wouldn't put much stock in that for now.
The 737-Classic is more reliable than humans, so some amount of human error would be my first guess.
If you look at my comments you will see that I am generally against American powerful institutions and the sadly common American arrogance, but in these kind of things I am 100% behind the American mindset. How convenient that all these clearly suicide-by-pilot incidents are called "inconclusive" by the national , non-US, agency. Is saving face a price worth paying for? This does not help anybody and basically protects a person, who no matter how troubled and depressed, was in essence a mass-murderer.
> How convenient that all these clearly suicide-by-pilot incidents are called "inconclusive" by the national , non-US, agency.
The French and German agencies investigating Germanwings 9525 ruled it a suicide.
The French and German agencies investigating Germanwings 9525 ruled it a suicide.
I thought about saying "western" mindset, but I didnt want to open that can of worms
BTW what do you mean by the American mindset?
truth over feelings, appearances or face saving. Not always true, but pretty much spot on in air disasters investigations
True. That happened to Atlas-Air 3591. Investigation conclusion was basically bad pilot.
If the flightradar route ends where it crashed (and it wasn't just when the ADS was turned off) then that is only in 15-20M of water so wreckage and black box will be retrievable.
[deleted]
Very informative article, thank you ^
"The water is about 15 to 16 meters deep at the crash site“
Although this is tragic, the relatively shallow water will make this a faster cleanup and investigation compared to other recent crashes.
[deleted]
Mods can we change the link to this avherald page instead of a tweet which is just a headline?
They found the debris
https://twitter.com/HZLABZ/status/1347859200135868418?s=19
https://twitter.com/HZLABZ/status/1347859200135868418?s=19
Anything to back this up? The account tweeting it seems unrelated to the people in the images and I can’t see a source.
The video is making rounds. Seems like it's legit, the Basarnas (Indonesian National SAR) and KNKT (Indonesia's NTSB) is still confirming the findings.
If you read the proper news, ie avherald, you will read that two fisher boats were 5nm from the crash site. They heard two explosions, saw the parts falling down, went there, picked up the debris. One stayed there, in shallow water, easy to check the cause of the explisions, the other went 2hrs to report to police.
A bomb is very unlikely, lots of better explanations. We'll see.
I expect you're overstating how unlikely it is: there are not that many better explanations for a plane suddenly falling out of the sky.
For a moment there I was fairly confused, trying to figure out how the fishing boats could possibly have been mere nanometers from the crash site.
Now that you wrote "bomb", my brain just chimed with the info that the Indonesian government banned an extremist Islamist group a week or 2 ago...
[deleted]
> A bomb is very unlikely
Why?
Why?
26 year old 737-500.
Weather is pretty bad in the area right now.
A well-maintained airplane can work for many more years than this. They are not like cars. All the important functional parts are being replaced regularly and the structure of the frame is checked and repaired if needed.
Indeed, a regularly maintained older aircraft is a virtual Ship
of Theseus.
I love the Ship of Theseus story it reminds me of a Chrysler I used to own. Always replacing parts. I finally named my van Theseus. Then I got rid of it and went into a Toyota.
The airframe of the fuselage still remains largely the same though right so there's never really the moment where there's no original parts left.
Average flight length matters. The airframe wears out based on pressurization and depressurization cycles, not just age or flight hours. Planes associated with short hop routes tend to wear out faster.
A car could work this way too.
This post on reddit from a few years ago describes what all would be required to maintain a car the same way as an airplane:
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/3v1hzj/how_do_old...
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/3v1hzj/how_do_old...
In theory it could, the same principles and judgements are in play - it's just that the relative prices of keeping an old car vs. replacement are different to that of an airliner so the decision tends to be more towards replacing old cars. The equation is of course different for valuable collector's cars.
More importantly, you are allowed to drive a car without aircraft-style inspection and part replacement regimes and periodic total rebuilds.
If you weren't, few car accidents would occur due to poorly maintained vehicles, but fewer people would be able to afford to drive.
If you weren't, few car accidents would occur due to poorly maintained vehicles, but fewer people would be able to afford to drive.
As it is already, very few car accidents are caused by poorly maintained vehicles.
Humans are the weak link.
Humans are the weak link.
Could is the keyword
Given the little environmental issues we have these days, a car must work this way.
I was shocked when I saw that what percentage of car emissions are due to manufacturing. “Only”
driving a car for something like 100,000 miles doubles the per-mile carbon emissions. (I can’t remember the exact number.). EV’s have more embodied carbon, so they’re removing less than half the emissions in that part of their life.
This will drastically improve as the grid decarbonizes. However, we really should be focusing on swapping out the drive trains on 2000-2020’s most popular models.
This will drastically improve as the grid decarbonizes. However, we really should be focusing on swapping out the drive trains on 2000-2020’s most popular models.
[deleted]
The airline has constant safety complaints and was a week away from losing the ability to fly over safety concerns some time in the last year
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2019-1...
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2019-1...
Yes if I'm not mistaken B52 bombers are at least twice this age!
You're still subject to max pressurization cycles, though.
A well maintained car can outlast an airplane ;-)
Not in kilometers "driven".
Well, except for that one Tesla, probably also not for kilometers flown ;)
Not a 737 Max, just to be clear
The weather looks pretty calm in the pictures of the debris.
It was only raining. No storm or such.
METARs at the time from avherald:
WIII 090800Z 28008KT 4000 -RA BKN016 OVC018 26/24 Q1006 NOSIG= WIII 090730Z 30006KT 5000 -RA FEW017CB OVC018 25/24 Q1006 NOSIG=
So, light rain and light winds, 4km vis and broken at 1600ft. Very benign conditions for any plane, never mind a well maintained 737.
WIII 090800Z 28008KT 4000 -RA BKN016 OVC018 26/24 Q1006 NOSIG= WIII 090730Z 30006KT 5000 -RA FEW017CB OVC018 25/24 Q1006 NOSIG=
So, light rain and light winds, 4km vis and broken at 1600ft. Very benign conditions for any plane, never mind a well maintained 737.
The flight path shows a sharp right turn before the crash: https://twitter.com/omrockett/status/1347856795239292929?s=2... based on the curve before that it doesn't seem part of the scheduled path. Possibly manul course change or part of losing control?
Maybe the right turbine had a malfunction.
After seeing images of passenger fleets grounded in storage outside during covid, Im personally reluctant to fly until air travel gets back to pre pandemic levels and all the maintenance kinks thoroughly addressed.
I halfway agree, but storing planes in the desert for a while is a pretty standard thing, so we know how to do this, and it's not like we're bringing the entire fleet back over a month; it'll be more gradual.
This is plain stupid, do the maths and you'll realise the cab ride over to the airport gives you a higher chance of death than flights themselves. You can't just worry endless about low probability events
During normal travel, I would agree. But planes are meant to be flown, not sit grounded like a large number did for 6+ months
Not really. If my memory serves me right, Planes are much safer than cars in terms of fatalities per km, safer than car per hour, and on par with cars in terms of fatal accident per flight. Planes flights are faster and longer than car trips.
Wow. Considering most airlines are operating at >20% of normal volume it’s amazing we’d see a crash right now.
I know two pilots in their 50s (husband and wife, who met through their work). Because of covid, they're back in flight simulators. For them, it's very very weird to be in a simulator unless it's for extreme scenarios like zero visibility, treacherous wind, engine failure etc. He's had a handful of flights in the last few months so his licence is ok, but she's got to fly as co-pilot for a while because she hasn't flown for 3 months. There's a critical mass issue though... If an airline doesn't have enough pilots who can fly, it takes a while for the rest to get the co-pilot fly time. So now she's in the simulator, and the instruction is simply "Take off from London, touch down in Dublin".
I thought it was like riding a bicycle - you don't forget. While that's true to an extent, I was told that you do "lose your edge" without constant practice. (I'm sure every developer knows what is like to go back to a language after a year of not using it).
I'm not suggesting that it's a factor here, just wanted to give a different angle to the low flight volume.
I thought it was like riding a bicycle - you don't forget. While that's true to an extent, I was told that you do "lose your edge" without constant practice. (I'm sure every developer knows what is like to go back to a language after a year of not using it).
I'm not suggesting that it's a factor here, just wanted to give a different angle to the low flight volume.
It is not like riding a bike at all. A few weeks of not flying, and I notice my landings getting sloppier and less smooth.
Particularly IFR.
Indeed, a leading cause of fatalities in general aviation is CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) often induced by a on-again-off-again pilot with very distanced hours. They fool themselves into thinking they are just as good as the pilot they used to be months ago, and as a result miss obvious warning signs and fail to adhere to procedure causing a disaster.
I don't feel like I'm as good of a driver after only driving a few miles per week. I can do it, but I definitely feel a little out of practice.
This reminds me of Blancolirio speaking of “perishable skills” in a recent video: https://youtu.be/u19R0zfusiQ&t=14m30s
That was in regard to mid-air refueling but I’m sure it extends to other skills as well.
That was in regard to mid-air refueling but I’m sure it extends to other skills as well.
Operating at such a low volume introduces other problems similiar like surgeons doing too few procedures and therefore not gaining enough routine
A reason why I have been avoiding restaurant foods here in India due to covid - it's not because of covid per se, but due to possible other cuts being done due to lower volumes and I just can't rely on quality of food.
Yeah. I am a SAR medic and due to rolling lockdowns, was only able to get to sea for training about 10% of the norm last year (4 times vs ~40 in 2019). The same is true for clinical placements (0 vs 4), classroom training (2 vs ~50), etc.
They're all perishable skills and it's left me rusty on everything from boat handling to nav to CPR (BLS is an extremely perishable skill - used to do BLS refreshers every two weeks). On call outs, I can the difference in all the crew - even those on the job for decades. Things just aren't as smooth.
I can't wait to get vaccinated and back into training. Otherwise, I worry we're going to start making mistakes.
They're all perishable skills and it's left me rusty on everything from boat handling to nav to CPR (BLS is an extremely perishable skill - used to do BLS refreshers every two weeks). On call outs, I can the difference in all the crew - even those on the job for decades. Things just aren't as smooth.
I can't wait to get vaccinated and back into training. Otherwise, I worry we're going to start making mistakes.
What is BLS?
BLS = Basic Life Support
https://cpr.heart.org/en/cpr-courses-and-kits/healthcare-pro...
From the linked page:
What does this course teach?
High-quality CPR for adults, children, and infants
The AHA Chain of Survival, specifically the BLS components
Important early use of an AED [Automated External Defibrillator]
Effective ventilations using a barrier device
Importance of teams in multirescuer resuscitation and performance as an effective team member during multirescuer CPR
Relief of foreign-body airway obstruction (choking) for adults and infants
https://cpr.heart.org/en/cpr-courses-and-kits/healthcare-pro...
From the linked page:
What does this course teach?
High-quality CPR for adults, children, and infants
The AHA Chain of Survival, specifically the BLS components
Important early use of an AED [Automated External Defibrillator]
Effective ventilations using a barrier device
Importance of teams in multirescuer resuscitation and performance as an effective team member during multirescuer CPR
Relief of foreign-body airway obstruction (choking) for adults and infants
Sorry - Basic Life Support. It's the certification all medical practitioners must keep as a prerequisite for working with patients, and covers CPR, advanced airway management, defibrillation, and the chain of survival. Most countries issue two-year certifications, but every frontline service I ever worked with have monthly or fortnightly refresher training.
Agreed. This is an under-appreciated impact of widespread, long-term lockdowns. It disrupts basically everything in both obvious and non-obvious ways ranging from subtle to severe.
I've been reading some concerning analyses by supply chain experts documenting the increasing stresses and failures in supply chains throughout the economy. Basically, you can't change this much, this fast, across so many interlinked systems and not cause significant unexpected failures.
I've been reading some concerning analyses by supply chain experts documenting the increasing stresses and failures in supply chains throughout the economy. Basically, you can't change this much, this fast, across so many interlinked systems and not cause significant unexpected failures.
Is this just an assumption? It's an interesting thought, I'm curious if there's some sort of data to back it up.
There is a variety of anticipated risks linked to the reduced activity during the pandemic and its effects on air travel as a whole.
However, this kind of oversight might not be equally managed everywhere in the world
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/review_of...
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/review_of...
I personally don't know about the not enough routine/repetition step, but the FAA did have a recommendation for pilots to reduce the use of autopilots due to similar reasoning.
https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/safety/faa-recommends-p...
https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/safety/faa-recommends-p...
That is from 2013 (not saying it’s invalid advice, just that it’s not related to current flying schedules).
Children of the Magenta Line is a great presentation on automation dependence and quite funny at moments. https://youtu.be/5ESJH1NLMLs
(The GPS flight plan track is standardized to be drawn in magenta.)
Children of the Magenta Line is a great presentation on automation dependence and quite funny at moments. https://youtu.be/5ESJH1NLMLs
(The GPS flight plan track is standardized to be drawn in magenta.)
+1 for Children of the Magenta Line. Seminal work.
Also their equipment sitting idle
Interestingly even though there have been a significant decrease in the number of flights and passengers flying, the number of absolute fatalities was higher in 2020 than 2019: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-55515525
As the article says, 176 out of the 299 fatalities in 2020 were due to the "shooting down of a Ukraine International Airlines flight by Iranian armed forces last January". So that's the only reason
2020 did have fewer accidents than 2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...), with a major accident early January. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines...
And most accidents happened before June, which was still relatively early on in the pandemic.
And most accidents happened before June, which was still relatively early on in the pandemic.
2020 was so wild I forgot Iran shot down a Ukrainian airliner.
Wouldn't surprise me if to save some money airlines become more lenient in maintenance. Especially in less regulated airspaces.
Not saying this is the reason of the crash, but just it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case.
Not saying this is the reason of the crash, but just it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case.
Beancounters have always been complaining about beans, but for the first time in aviation history (well, maybe a couple weeks around 9/11) operations is not driving maintenance insane with demands to keep em in the air.
There is a valid counter argument that planes are built to fly and nothing seems to attract problems like hanger queens that just sit there. Seals dry out, birds nest, corrosion is arguably worse on the ground that on flying planes...
Its interesting that the linked airline has no documented google-able history of maintenance related problems, but their pilots have repeatedly historically done some real cowboy stuff like land at the wrong airport and several episodes of "the weather isn't really that bad" turning out to be vastly optimistic. I would guess past performance predicting future performance would indicate it is much more likely to be an operations failure rather than maint...
There is a valid counter argument that planes are built to fly and nothing seems to attract problems like hanger queens that just sit there. Seals dry out, birds nest, corrosion is arguably worse on the ground that on flying planes...
Its interesting that the linked airline has no documented google-able history of maintenance related problems, but their pilots have repeatedly historically done some real cowboy stuff like land at the wrong airport and several episodes of "the weather isn't really that bad" turning out to be vastly optimistic. I would guess past performance predicting future performance would indicate it is much more likely to be an operations failure rather than maint...
Do you mean '<'?
BTW it's a 30-year-old airframe, not a recent 737-Max.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
anshumankmr(1)
The area around Indonesia is the new Bermuda Triangle (yes yes, while noting that there was nothing significant or statistically significant about the Bermuda Triangle)
https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1347850078644563969
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/pk-clc#26860e0e