[Gobbledock]

WTF???

”Airservices Australia yesterday said the incident had not been reported”.

Ummmm, ok. So I might not jump the gun here because it’s all very fresh, but considering the ATsB and the Regulator like you to report
the most trivial bullshit known to man, and in a timely manner, seems strange that an incident such as this is low on their priority list?

Just sayin............tick tock Miniscule.

[Peetwo]

Around the traps - 

First with:

YMML ATC  - "Where are you going?"

(pause)

Malindo Air Pilot: "Err...Indonesia??"    

Malaysian plane takes wrong turn

ROBYN IRONSIDE

---

Concerns have been raised about another Malaysia-based carrier following an incident at Melbourne airport last week.

Two months after a safety failure involving a Malaysia Airlines’ flight from Brisbane, a Malindo Air flight bound for Denpasar surprised Melbourne air traffic controllers by turning left as the plane took off from runway 34.

When air traffic control ­inquired where the plane was going, there was a long silence ­followed by the pilot’s reply: ­“Indonesia.”

A further inquiry about why the Boeing 737 had turned left ­instead of going straight ahead resulted in a response indicating that the pilots thought they were on a different runway.

Australian pilots yesterday ­expressed their concern that the incident could have easily resulted in a mid-air collision had there been incoming traffic at the time.

Civil Air Australia president and full-time air traffic controller Tom McRobert said the incident certainly had the potential to be “extraordinarily unsafe”.

“Essentially, the aircrew had the correct flight route but the wrong runway keyed into their flight data computer,” he said.

“It meant as they left the runway they veered hard left, which came as a surprise to air traffic control.

“It was just completely unexpected.’’

The runway the crew thought they were on (27) was closed because of strong northerly winds.

Mr McRobert said it was ­expected the crew of the Malindo Air flight would be interviewed to gain a better understanding of what went wrong, but Airservices Australia yesterday said the incident had not been reported.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau was unable to comment due to a public holiday.

Retired airline captain Robert Cassidy said the issue of fatigue should be investigated in relation to such an incident.

It is the second Malaysian carrier to trigger concerns in recent months following a Malaysia Airlines’ incident at Brisbane Airport in July.

The ATSB is investigating why pilots on flight MH138 took off with the pitot tubes covered, leaving the aircraft with no reliable airspeed indication.

Malindo Air, which was set up by Indonesia’s Lion Air, is considered a safe airline despite several incidents over the past five years.

In a previous incident in April, a Malindo Air 737 skidded off the runway at Kathmandu in Nepal and became stuck in the mud, forcing the airport to close for 12 hours.

Malindo Air had not commented by the time of publication last night.

Update to Air Niugini undershoot ditching accident in Chuuk, Micronesia:

Survivors of Chuuk plane crash demand answers
7:41 pm today 
 
Jamie Tahana, RNZ Pacific Journalist
@JamieTahana jamie.tahana@radionz.co.nz

The Air Niugini plane after it crashed into the sea short of the runway at Chuuk, in Federated States of Micronesia. Photo: Supplied / US Navy

For Bill Jaynes, it seemed like a normal landing. Air Niugini flight PX073 to Chuuk was descending smoothly, the weather was clear, there were no weird noises, there was no warning.

But at the last minute, something wasn't quite right.

"My thought as I was watching the vapour trails off the wing as we descended was: usually when we're this low, we're on the runway.

"And then we were in the water," he said.

---

Listen to Dateline Pacific interview with Bill Jaynes duration5′ :45″
from Dateline Pacific 
Download - https://podcast.radionz.co.nz/pacn/datel...rs-128.mp3

---

The Boeing 737 had crash-landed into the ocean about 200 metres short of the runway at Chuuk, one of the main islands in Federated States of Micronesia.

Mr Jaynes, who is the editor of Micronesia's Kaselehlie Press newspaper and a regular visitor to Chuuk, said he was thrown forward by the impact, which caused a head wound.

He then turned around to see water pouring through a gash in the side of the plane.

"It's not what you want in your plane," he chuckled.

Within minutes, passengers poured out of the emergency exits and gathered on the wings, which were the only things floating as the fuselage rapidly took on water.

Chuuk locals, who saw the crash, rushed out in about a dozen small boats to meet the passengers, and a US Navy construction team who happened to be nearby also raced to join them.

"If it had been full we would not have made it off," Mr Jaynes said.
Air Niugini claimed that everyone on board had been saved.

Four of the passengers were transferred from Chuuk to Guam on Sunday for further medical treatment, as the Papua New Guinea-based airline then announced that, in fact, one person was unaccounted for.

On Monday, Air Niugini said a man's body had been recovered by divers from the wreckage, which by now has sunk to the sea floor, about 90 feet below.

RNZ Pacific understands there were problems with the plane's manifesto, and one crew member was not marked properly, which led to the mix-up.

But as Navy divers scour the scene for clues and to recover the plane's black boxes, which PNG authorities say will be sent there, those who were on board are demanding answers.

Mr Jaynes said the pilot had claimed that there was no visibility as he came in to land, which is something he and several other passengers disputed.

"It wasn't raining, as the pilot claimed," he said, citing the fact that as the plane was descending, he could clearly see the Chuuk docks, which sit more than a mile-and-a-half from the airport.

"There was no wind shear that a passenger felt. There was no downward push. It was just a normal landing, except that it was ridiculously low," said Mr Jaynes.

"I simply thought that we had landed awfully, awfully hard for a landing in Chuuk, until I looked over and saw a hole in the plane behind me and water was coming in."

"In my personal opinion and the opinions of many of the passengers I talked to is that it was pilot error, he was too low, and that at the last moment he made the best of the bad situation that he had perhaps created" by landing on the water.

Several investigations into the crash are now underway. Papua New Guinea authorities say they are investigating, and the Federated States of Micronesia has asked the United States to investigate on its behalf.

The Air Niugini plane in the lagoon off Weno airport in Chuuk. Photo: AFP or licensors

Mr Jaynes said US Navy divers were at the scene when he left Chuuk, and investigators from both the FBI and the National Transportation Safety Board had arrived. The US is responsible for airports and aviation in Federated States of Micronesia, which is an associated state of the US.

On Tuesday, Mr Jaynes had returned to his home in Pohnpei, one of the other states that make up FSM. He had lost all his camera gear, and apart from what he was wearing - denim shorts and an aloha shirt - his entire wardrobe had gone down with the plane.

"I'm thankful to be alive," he said.

"There were dozens of local boats that came out and approached this dangerous wreck, kind of at risk of their own life and brought us back to the main dock in Chuuk."

"I'll never forget the local Chuukese who pulled off the rescue, they weren't officials they were private citizens."

Gobbledock said - 

---

WTF???

”Airservices Australia yesterday said the incident had not been reported”.

Ummmm, ok. So I might not jump the gun here because it’s all very fresh, but considering the ATsB and the Regulator like you to report the most trivial bullshit known to man, and in a timely manner, seems strange that an incident such as this is low in their priority list?

Just sayin............tick tock Miniscule.

---

[Peetwo]

Chuuk undershoot ditching update - 

Via the Oz:

Death a blow to reputation
ROBYN IRONSIDE
Air Niugini’s reputation as a safe carrier has been left in tatters after Friday’s crash claimed the life of a passenger.

---

Air Niugini’s reputation as a safe carrier has been left in tatters after Friday’s crash at Chuuk in Micronesia, which claimed the life of a passenger.

The Indonesian man was declared missing on Saturday, a day after the airline announced all 47 passengers and crew survived the crash into water short of the runway at Chuuk International Airport. Two Australians on board the flight from Pohnpei to Port Moresby via Chuuk, were confirmed as safe.

Late Monday, a further statement revealed the body of a man had been found by divers searching in and around the submerged Boeing 737. Aviation experts described the sequence of events as “extraordinary” and said it served to highlight the poor response by crew to the crash. Australian aviation consultant Randal McFarlane said it was a “catastrophic accident” for Air Niugini.

“It would appear that the crew was more intent on getting off the aeroplane and getting away from it than they were accounting for everybody,” Mr McFarlane said.

“Unless the captain or first officer were injured, they should’ve gone back and done a final check to be clear everybody was off, even if there’s water pouring in.”

Papua New Guinea authorities have indicated they will investigate the crash, as it involves the country’s national carrier. But responsibility for the investigation lies with the Federated States of Micronesia.

---

Aussie hero of Air Niugini crash
ROBYN IRONSIDE
A passenger on the fatal Air Niugini crash in Micronesia said there were insufficient lifejackets on board.

---

A passenger on the fatal Air Niugini crash in Micronesia said there were insufficient lifejackets on board and it was left to passengers to inflate a liferaft and open the door of the aircraft.



US citizen Bill Jaynes, who has lived in Pohnpei for 18-years, said an Australian passenger he knew as Adam played a central role in the aeroplane’s evacuation after it crashed into water well short of the runway at Chuuk last Friday.



Mr Jaynes said Adam’s composure was “amazing” as he guided people off the stricken jet to the safety of boats and liferafts in water up to 30m deep.



“He was extremely calm and he helped things along,” he said of the Australian.



Others were not so calm as cabin crew “panicked” and passengers jostled to escape the aircraft. “One person was trying to push the crowd forward and I had to turn around and grab him by the shoulders, look him in the eye and tell him ‘Please calm down, we’ll get out’,” Mr Jaynes said.



“Some other passengers were climbing over seats and trying to get their carry on out of the overhead compartments.”



The flight from Pohnpei was carrying 35 passengers and 12 crew. Although Air Niugini initially said all survived the crash, days later the body of a male passenger was found by divers searching the submerged Boeing 737 and surrounds.



Mr Jaynes said he was left with a very poor impression of the cabin crew.



“If you fly United Airlines, they always brief the passengers sitting in the exit row on how to open the door and make sure they are willing to take on that responsibility,” he said.



“The Air Niugini safety information said, ‘Our crew members will open the exit doors in the event of an emergency’. Well, the crew members were running around pushing people.



“They didn’t open the door, it was a passenger. He’s also the one who put the raft out the door and inflated it. He was from PNG and a civilian.”



Another source of alarm was the lack of lifejackets, which were “not where they were supposed to be”, Mr Jaynes said.



“I checked three other seats and I ended up going out the door without a lifejacket,” he said.



Air Niugini yesterday failed to respond to questions from The Australian about the incident, which is under investigation by the Federated States of Micronesia Division of Civil Aviation.



An update released yesterday said divers had recovered the flight data recorder and were continuing to search for the cockpit voice recorder. “The recorders will be transported to the PNG Aircraft Incident Commission laboratory in Port Moresby accompanied by FSM investigators for data downloading and analysis to determine the cause of the accident,” the update said.


Mr Jaynes said it was the first time he had flown Air Niugini and he would not be in a hurry to repeat the experience.

MTF...P2 

[Gobbledock]

I wonder how the CAA Chairman, Mr Rob Collins Class Submarine will handle any adverse fallout upon the Airline and Regulator?

Tick $$$$$$$& tock

[Peetwo]

United flight UA839: A serve of reality sprinkled with spin & faery dust??  

Not going to bother to comment on yesterday's United 839 fuel Mayday occurrence at YSSY - zzziiip!...  

However for those of you that may have missed the almost endless MSM coverage, here is two of the slightly less dramatised media reports... :

Mayday as flight runs low on fuel
ROBYN IRONSIDE

A fuel mayday from United Airlines that triggered a major emergency at Sydney Airport yesterday morning was the second time the US carrier has been caught short in 12 months.

As flight UA839 came into land in Sydney from Los Angeles, the aircrew was faced with the prospect of a long holding pattern due to heavy rain.

With fuel starting to run low on the Boeing 787-9, the pilots alerted air traffic control they would need to land earlier than specified and a “fuel mayday” was issued to move them to the front of the queue.

That triggered a full emergency response, involving road closures outside the airport to provide a clear passage for fire, police and ambulance vehicles.

An Airservices Australia spokeswoman said a “level three full emergency response” was standard procedure when such an aircraft declared a mayday.

United Airlines also declared a low fuel emergency in Melbourne this year, when air traffic control informed the crew of a 30-minute holding requirement.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said the intention of the fuel mayday was to make sure everyone was clear that a particular aircraft needed to land as soon as possible. “It’s nothing more than that,” Mr Gibson said.

He said the United Airlines’ flight still had about 40-minutes worth of fuel when it landed.

United Airlines’ spokesman Madhu Unnikrishnan attributed the incident to a “mechanical issue” and said they were continuing to investigate.

United Airlines came under fire in 2014, for only carrying enough fuel to divert to Canberra Airport from Sydney, 55-minutes away. On that occasion, passengers and crew were forced to remain in the aircraft for four hours without food or sanitation, because there were no immigration facilities available.

The ATSB was yesterday still considering an investigation. P2 - That's code for - "...we need to establish whether it will be diplomatically and politically correct to investigate this incident..."

Next an informative piece, from the other Aunty, on what occurs at YSSY when a Mayday/emergency is declared by an inbound aircraft:

Sydney Airport: Inside the flow-on effects of a mid-air emergency
By Annika Blau and Kevin Nguyen
Updated about an hour ago


VIDEO: United Airlines mayday call triggers emergency response (ABC News) http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-04/un...y/10338038

It was just after 6:00am on UA839, the red-eye from Los Angeles to Sydney, and the flight hadn't gone exactly to plan. The 787-900 Dreamliner had burned through more fuel than expected in its 12,000 km journey across the Pacific.

The United Airlines plane was cutting it fine. Its fuel gauge showed it had 40 minutes of fuel remaining.

The 180 passengers were packing away their pillows and filling out their arrival cards with no idea what was going on. But it was a very different situation on the ground.

The mayday had been received and the control tower was ready. The crew believed they could land safely, telling air control they also had enough fuel to taxi to the bay.

But when air safety is involved, Sydney Airport is always prepared for the worst. Its emergency plan swung into action, reaching beyond the airport's wire fences and into Sydney's roads and emergency departments.

An emergency with a long reach

There's potential for mass disruption to the city's infrastructure if an emergency strikes in peak hour.

Port Botany and its industrial area is a stone's throw away. Hundreds of thousands of Sydneysiders live under the airport's flight paths.



PHOTO: Sydney's international airport is close to the CBD. (Reuters: Jason Reed)

Sydney Airport is closer to the CBD than many Australian airports so closing the roads is no easy task.

Southern Cross Drive — a major highway into the city — snakes its way through part of the airport and traffic chaos could engulf the city for hours.

The latest details of the airport's emergency plan are unknown. It's a restricted document, with "access granted on a need to know basis" for airlines and emergency services only, that's prepared in accordance with international and domestic regulation.

But aviation experts, some of the agencies involved and an earlier publicly available version of the plan give us some clues to what happened to prepare for the arrival of UA839.



PHOTO: Police are one of around a dozen agencies involved in the emergency response. (Reuters: David Gray)

'Danger of an accident'

A plane has to issue a mayday call if its fuel supply dips below 30 minutes, according to accident expert Geoffrey Dell from the University of Queensland.
But on Thursday morning, a "full emergency response" was declared with 40 minutes of fuel in the tank — the highest level of alert, reserved for when there is "danger of an accident".

So what happens when a plane issues a mayday call? It's quite literally a "captain's call" and the more information they can give those on the ground, the better. If the plane's been hijacked there's universal signals that the crew can give covertly.

The team on the ground determine the threat level and the more passengers, the higher it's graded.

The 1994 version of the emergency plan listed nine different scenarios to match various threats, including plane crash, bomb threat, fires, terrorist attacks, natural disasters and hazardous material risks. More than a dozen major agencies, from frontline responders to the Department of Health and Department of Community Services, have roles to play.

The first steps are establishing a base of operations or forward controls and shutting down the roads so emergency vehicles can get to the airport quickly.

In many airports, nearby highways are reserved for emergency landings and designed to be extra wide with no median strip, according to aviation academic Chrystal Zhang. There are strict height restrictions on buildings around Sydney Airport for the same reason, she says.



PHOTO: Air traffic controllers at Sydney Tower. (Supplied: Air Services Australia)

Police shut down roads

If there's no bomb threat, the main job for police is traffic control, according to Botany Bay police inspector Ben Johnson.

It might not sound heroic, but traffic control can be the difference between life and death. Every minute matters for getting emergency responders to the scene, says Dr Dell, who was commissioned to review the airport's plan in 2000.

"We've seen cases where fire trucks were able to chase a burning plane down the runway as it landed and immediately start putting out the flames.

"If they'd been a minute later, the fire would've engulfed the cabin, but instead, the worst injury was a broken ankle."

Traffic control is also about reducing risk to motorists, in case the plane needs to land on a highway.

While Sydney Airport is smack bang in the middle of city traffic, this also means help is close at hand.

"Say you had 500 casualties, then ambulances could be a limited resource and in the worst-case scenario, some ambulances could be making several trips. Having world-class hospitals nearby is definitely going to help," Dr Dell says.

"There's a lot of cities with airports 50 kilometres from the city so chances of survival would be a lot less than in Sydney, particularly if there's burns involved."

The airport's fire services are required to be at the emergency site within three minutes.

Water police will also spring into action — they were "on standby" in Botany Bay on Thursday, according to Inspector Johnson.

YOUTUBE: In 1961 an Ansett Airlines plane crashed into Botany Bay

What's happening on the plane?

Up in the air, the crew will make a call about how much to tell passengers. In UA839's case, they kept passengers in the dark, confident they had enough fuel.

Passenger panic is not helpful in an emergency situation, but Mr Dell says if a true crisis is imminent, "keeping passengers in the dark until the last minute is likely to provoke a worse reaction".

Some airlines have policies around whether or not to tell passengers, for others it will be the captain's discretion, Mr Dell says.

Once the plane lands, the priority is evacuating passengers and quarantining hazards like chemical spills or oil fires. Botany Bay is an industrial area, so police and emergency services are trained to deal with hazardous sites.

Passengers are medically assessed and treated either in a casualty processing area or in a nearby hospital. On-site counselling and support is offered to victims and relatives.

Nick Dole

@NicholasDole
[/url]




The 787 Dreamliner at the centre of the @united Airlines emergency in Sydney has just departed for San Francisco. #UA839 @abcnews @flightradar24
11:05 AM - Oct 4, 2018

Then, the recovery operation begins. If there is wreckage, it will be locked down and later removed. Next, the investigation phase begins, which could involve NSW police, coroners, civil aviation authorities, airport operators and even insurance companies.

On Thursday, UA839 landed without difficulty and passengers disembarked as normal, exhausted after a long flight but safe from harm. Shortly after refuelling, the plane took off for San Francisco.

What's the risk of a crash?

Inspector Johnson says full emergency responses are a "rare occurrence", but there have been three this year. But emergencies that turn into accidents are unusual.

Most plane crashes involve light aircraft rather than the large passenger planes that dominate international airports.

In June, a light plane crashed in a suburban Victorian street and burst into flames. Last year, another crashed into the roof of the DFO shopping mall in Essendon Fields ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-24/es...d/10295982 ) as horrified commuters watched from the highway.

[url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-08/plane-crashes-at-mordialloc/9851722]

PHOTO: A plane bursts into flames as it crashes into a street at Mordialloc, near Moorabbin Airport in Melbourne, on June 8, 2018. (Supplied)

The last fatal crash at Sydney Airport was in 1980, when Advance Airlines Flight 4210 suffered an engine failure shortly after taking off. The pilot flew back to the airport but crashed into the sea wall surrounding the runway while trying to land. All 13 people on board died.

Some 14 years later, a chartered flight bound for Norfolk Island would also suffer an engine malfunction after take-off. This time, the plane was "ditched" in Botany Bay. Its 21 passengers — students and teachers from Scots College plus a few journalists — watched in shocked silence as water poured in through the vents, convinced they were headed for the bottom of the harbour. But all of them, plus four crew, were rescued.

PHOTO: In February 1980 a plane crashed at Sydney Airport killing 13 people.

An ongoing challenge

Both Mr Dell and Ms Zhang say Thursday's emergency response shows how prepared and well-coordinated the emergency services are for air disasters.

Ms Zhang points out that there are international regulations that oblige airports to have flawless emergency response plans. But as Mr Dell points out, in some countries, there's a gap between theory and practice.

No matter how thorough the plan is, coordination between this many agencies is not easy.

"It's an ongoing challenge to keep everyone in the agencies skilled up to the level they need to be when emergency personnel are moving around a lot," says Mr Dell.

"You might have a police inspector who'd normally respond to the airfield posted elsewhere, so it's a constant challenge to make sure everyone understands what they're doing."

"It's a huge organisational activity with people under stress, but that's what the emergency services are used to — that's their bread and butter."

Sydney Airport said their emergency response plan is regularly updated and tested yearly, with the most recent simulation in August this year.

[Peetwo]

Latest on Greenville Falcon 50 bizjet crash??

Via Greenville online news...

Greenville plane crash: Pilots question effectiveness of 'honor system' for certifications
Gabe Cavallaro and Daniel J. Gross, The Greenville News Published 7:22 a.m. ET Oct. 8, 2018 | Updated 12:06 p.m. ET Oct. 9, 2018

A video shows the Dassault Falcon 50 aircraft overshooting the runway at the Greenville Downtown Airport. Trophy Club surveillance video, Submitted



Last month's fatal plane crash in Greenville highlighted a troubling statistic: More than 120 people have died in the past decade on flights involving pilots who lacked the required certification for takeoff, National Transportation Safety Board data shows.

The cases have brought the Federal Aviation Administration's oversight of pilot credentials into question for some in the aviation community. In interviews with The Greenville News, several pilots said following the regulations is largely an "honor system" and pilots of private planes, unlike those who work for major airlines, are rarely checked after certification.

Opinions differ, however, on whether there needs to be tougher oversight.
From 2008 through 2017, lack of certification by the pilot or copilot was determined to have been a factor in 161 aviation accidents, resulting in 127 fatalities, according to NTSB data. Still, those figures make up less than 2 percent of all aviation accidents nationwide over that period.

In last month's crash at Greenville Downtown Airport, a Dassault Falcon 50 jet barreled off the end of runway 19, killing both pilots and seriously injuring both passengers. FAA records show both the pilot and co-pilot lacked the required certification to be operating that aircraft.

The finding is another example of how the responsibility to follow FAA licensing regulations falls largely on pilots themselves, said Micah Rea, a Greenville-based pilot and president of the Upstate Aeronautics Association. Rea responded to the Falcon 50 crash as an FAA safety team representative.

“A lot of it in a sense is the honor system. You’ve been given a responsibility,” he said. “You’re a pilot, you’ve gone through training, you’ve invested in it, you’re flying valuable assets, you’re flying people, you’ve been given a responsibility. It’s been required of you to use that responsibility in the right way.”

Still, flying a plane in the U.S. isn't an unregulated wild west — to fly any aircraft carrying passengers, you must have a pilot certificate issued by the FAA. Applicants must pass a test on the aircraft with an FAA-designated pilot examiner, according to the agency.

FAA safety inspectors also perform inspections of commercial air carriers operating scheduled flights as well as customer-driven charter flights, with the level of review tailored to the performance of each individual operator, according to an agency spokesperson. 

The FAA would not say how often random inspections of private planes are administered, only that "resource limitations" prevent the agency from conducting "routine and scheduled inspections."

Rea said he's never heard of it happening in the seven years he's been flying.
And Robert Katz, a longtime pilot and flight instructor in Dallas, Texas, said he's been approached for a spot inspection by the FAA just twice in 37 years of flying.

"It’s up to the pilot of the aircraft to make sure it’s in compliance and if it’s not, there’s no sorts of checks and balances to make sure that's happening," Katz said.

He believes the issue is bigger than people realize.

“There are scofflaws in general aviation operating airplanes every day of the week because there is no real practical way to enforce compliance," Katz said. “I do not believe this is a rare occurrence."

Just two months ago, in fact, a small Beechcraft BE58 that crashed at Greenville Downtown Aiport was flown by a pilot with an expired medical certificate, according to FAA airmen registry records. The pilot and two passengers, one of whom owned the plane and downtown Greenville restaurant Halls Chophouse, all survived.

But some in the aviation community say pilots flying without the required certification is more the exception than the rule.

John Cox, a former pilot and CEO of aviation consulting firm Safety Operating Systems, said he studies accidents across the world in his work, and rarely sees cases that involve pilots flying without the required FAA certification.

"Pilots generally as a rule stick by the training," Cox said.

Richard McSpadden, the executive director of the Aircraft Operators and Pilots Association's Air Safety Institute, said he, too, believes it's not a widespread issue in aviation.

“No mode of transportation is as regulated as aviation. It’s also safe and getting safer, and it is important not to draw broad conclusions from very rare and tragic exceptions to the rule," McSpadden said.

As it stands, the FAA's regulations are already "quite stringent" and pilot licensing is sufficiently regulated, said Jan Hoynacki, executive director of the United States Pilots Association. She questioned the practicality of having an FAA representative at every airport to ensure compliance with regulations.

Hoynacki pointed to driver's licenses with cars or gun control, saying even though the law may prohibit driving while intoxicated or prevent certain people from obtaining guns, that doesn't keep those things from happening. It's up to individuals to actually follow those rules, she said.

“I don’t think more rules in aviation is going to stop people from doing stupid things," she said. "You can’t account for bad decision-making."

Meanwhile, the NTSB investigation into last week's fatal Greenville crash continues — the final report isn't expected for another 12 to 18 months, according to the agency.

Rea for his part thinks there could be more FAA oversight coming in light of the recent crash and others.

“There’s going to be more regulations and more procedures that come about because of that,” he said. “That’s going to be annoying, but if people don’t follow the rules and are not doing what they’re required to do, there’s going to be that. Safety is that paramount for other people.”

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Air Canada Flight 759: Seconds from disaster.

I was reflecting on the disturbing evidence that the Australian aviation safety bureaucracy, that is supposedly fully compliant and operating under a ICAO Annex 19 SSP, has been obfuscating it's safety promotion and oversight responsibilities for identified safety issues such as fatigue - see FRMS & the timeline of regulatory embuggerance - for the better part of two decades...

It was therefore heartening to be provided another perfect 'other hemisphere' point of comparison with the NTSB final investigation report into the Air Canada FL759 taxiway overflight at San Francisco Airport on July 7 2017: see abstract here - 
https://ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/D...stract.pdf

Note the way the NTSB in their recommendations do not pull any punches...  
 

Recommendations

As a result of this investigation, the NTSB makes safety recommendations to the FAA and Transport Canada:

To the Federal Aviation Administration:

1. Work with air carriers conducting operations under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 to (1) assess all charted visual approaches with a required backup frequency to determine the flight management system autotuning capability within an air carrier’s fleet, (2) identify those approaches that require an unusual or abnormal 
manual frequency input, and (3) either develop an autotune solution or ensure that the manual tune entry has sufficient salience on approach charts.
2. Establish a group of human factors experts to review existing methods for presenting flight operations information to pilots, including flight releases and general aviation flight planning services (preflight) and aircraft communication addressing and reporting system messages and other in-flight information; create and publish guidance on best practices to organize, prioritize, and present this information in a manner that optimizes pilot review and retention of relevant information; and work with air carriers and service providers to implement solutions that are aligned with the guidance.
3. Establish a requirement for airplanes landing at primary airports within class B and class C airspace to be equipped with a system that alerts pilots when an airplane is not aligned with a runway surface.
4. Collaborate with aircraft and avionics manufacturers and software developers to develop the technology for a cockpit system that provides an alert to pilots when an airplane is not aligned with the intended runway surface and, once such technology is available, establish a requirement for the technology to be installed on airplanes landing at primary airports within class B and class C airspace.
5. Modify airport surface detection equipment (ASDE) systems (ASDE-3, ASDE-X, and airport surface surveillance capability) at those locations where the system could detect potential taxiway landings and provide alerts to air traffic controllers about potential collision risks.
6. Conduct human factors research to determine how to make a closed runway more conspicuous to pilots when at least one parallel runway remains in use, and implement a method to more effectively signal a runway closure to pilots during ground and flight operations at night.

To Transport Canada:
7. Revise current regulations to address the potential for fatigue for pilots on reserve duty who are called to operate evening flights that would extend into the pilots’ window of circadian low.

And for the Oz take:

Runway mix-ups cause concern

ROBYN IRONSIDE
Aviation authorities are watching the US response to a series of incidents in which aircraft have mixed taxiways for runways.

---

Aviation authorities keep eye on runway mix-ups

Australian aviation authorities are closely watching the US response to a series of incidents in which aircraft have mistakenly lined up for landing on an airport taxiway rather than a runway.

The National Transportation Safety Board released its report this week on an incident in San Francisco last year in which an Air Canada jet came within a couple of metres of landing on four aircraft lined up for departure on a taxiway. With each aircraft filled with passengers and tonnes of fuel, the incident could have been a disaster of monumental proportions. The NTSB report found pilot fatigue was a factor, along with ineffective review of airport information.

But after a series of similar close calls in the past three years, the NTSB is considering whether further measures are needed, such as enhanced cockpit warning systems and new technology in air traffic control towers.

In November last year, a Delta 737 approaching Atlanta in cloudy weather came within 20m of landing on a taxiway, and a month later a turboprop operated by Horizon Air mistakenly landed on a taxiway at Pullman, Washington.

Research has found such ­errors tend to occur at night, when taxiway lights are mistaken for runway lights, and when one of two parallel runways is closed to traffic. Any extra measures to guard against these mistakes have previously been resisted by regulators due to airline opposition and cost concerns.

In Australia, there has been only one confirmed incident of an aircraft landing on a taxiway.

According to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, a Cessna 206 landed on the taxiway at Archerfield Airport in Brisbane on July 20, 2011. There was no ­effect on any other aircraft as a result of the incident.

The ATSB has also recorded seven other incidents since 2015 relating to aircraft inadvertently approaching a taxiway rather than a runway. “None of these incident involved regular public transport or passenger carrying aircraft,” an ATSB spokeswoman said. “In each instance, air traffic control intervened and advised of the error and the issue was ­resolved.”

Airservices Australia provides air traffic control and does not have any specific concerns in relation to taxiways being mistaken for runways at Australian airports. But a spokeswoman said occurrences such as the Air Canada incident and the subsequent NTSB report were used by Airservices to check and learn.

“We will take this information as a lessons learned activity across our operation,” she said.

“The report does not trigger any need for changes here in ­Australia.”

Pilots believe the more pressing issue is that of fatigue, with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority recently deferring the implementation of new fatigue risk ­management guidelines from October to next September.

Australian Air Line Pilots Association acting president Murray Butt said CASA’s response was hugely disappointing.

Reference: Frank and Ernest.

"..What a bloody shambles. What a disgrace. What a horrendous cost – but most of all; what an unashamed arrogance it is to ignore the worlds best practice set by the USA..."

Indeed 'what a bloody shambles ' the state of aviation safety is in the 'lucky land' Downunda - TICK TOCK miniscule McDo'Naught...  
  

Cont/-

Via the CBC news today:

Air Canada plane was 'a few feet' from 'worst crash in aviation history,' NTSB report says

'Over 1,000 people were at imminent risk of serious injury or death,' board member says of 2017 near-collision

The Associated Press · Posted: Oct 12, 2018 9:29 AM ET | Last Updated: 5 hours ago


The Air Canada captain was supposed to report the San Francisco incident to the airline as soon as possible, but waited until the next day because he was 'very tired' and it was late on the night of July 7, 2017, according to the final U.S. NTSB report. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

A near-collision of airliners in San Francisco last year was a few feet from becoming the worst crash in aviation history and underscores the need for faster reporting of dangerous incidents before evidence is lost, U.S. safety officials say.

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board issued a final report Thursday on the incident involving an Air Canada plane, which nearly crashed into planes lined up on the ground at San Francisco International Airport.

The pilots were slow to report the incident to superiors. By the time they did, the plane had made another flight and the cockpit voice recording of the close call was recorded over.

The NTSB says the recording could have helped investigators understand why the Air Canada pilots missed the runway and were about to land on a taxiway where four other planes were idling before they halted their landing.

The Air Canada jet swooped to just 18.2 metres above the ground while passing over other planes packed with passengers waiting to take off shortly before midnight on July 7, 2017.

"Only a few feet of separation prevented this from possibly becoming the worst aviation accident in history," NTSB vice-chairman Bruce Landsberg said in a statement accompanying the report.

Over 1,000 people at risk
Another board member, Earl Weener, said the Air Canada plane came close to hitting another plane and colliding with several others.


A preliminary report Canadian air safety regulators released about a week after the near-disaster said the aircraft, arriving from Toronto, came within 30 metres of crashing into two of four planes lined up to take off. The NTSB's final report says the jet swooped to just 18.2 metres above the ground. (CBC)

"Over 1,000 people were at imminent risk of serious injury or death," he said.

The deadliest aviation accident occurred in 1977, when two Boeing 747 jets collided on a runway in Tenerife on the Canary Islands, leaving 583 people dead.

The Air Canada captain, identified in NTSB documents as Dimitrios Kisses, was supposed to report the San Francisco incident to the airline as soon as possible but didn't because he was "very tired" and it was late. He waited until the next day. By that time, the plane was used for another flight, and the audio loop on the cockpit voice recorder was taped over.

Watch video of the close call released by the NTSB:

Video shows Air Canada plane narrowly missing several planes as it attempts to land on taxiway instead of runway 1:16

The NTSB did not allege that Kisses and co-pilot Matthew Dampier deliberately delayed reporting the incident, but it did say investigators could have gained a better understanding of what the crew was doing before the close call.

The NTSB is considering recommending that cockpit recorders capture the last 25 hours of flying time, up from two hours under current rules.

Critical of reliance on self-reporting
Weener also criticized the airline industry's reliance on self-reporting of safety issues, saying the industry and the Federal Aviation Administration should consider stronger measures to intervene after a dangerous situation.

Weener noted that other pilots were alert enough to turn on lights to warn the off-course Air Canada jet. Yet once the danger passed, he said, they took no action to prompt "an intervention and evaluation of the Air Canada crew."

The five-member board determined last month that the incident was caused by the Air Canada pilots being confused because one of two parallel runways was closed that night. The closure was noted in a briefing to the pilots, and nine other planes had made routine landings after the runway was shut down.

1 controller on duty
The safety board also criticized the FAA for having just one controller on duty at the time of the incident, and recommended better lighting to tell pilots when a runway is closed at night.

"It is noteworthy that the NTSB's recommendations were not directed at Air Canada specifically and address many areas for improvement," said Air Canada spokesperson Peter Fitzpatrick.

Air Canada told the NTSB it has taken steps to increase safety since the event, including emphasizing proper procedures for landing approaches and specific training to familiarize pilots with the San Francisco airport.
The NTSB recommended development of technology to better warn pilots and air traffic controllers when a plane appears to be off-course for a runway.

Ref: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acci...IR1801.pdf

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

I wish I had a beer in the fridge for every time I've (sometimes pointedly) stressed the need for folk outside a pressurized aircraft, to please, NOT open the bloody door.

Shit happens.

Probable Cause:


CONCLUSIONS:
1. When the aircraft is parked outside for a longer period, some pilots may close the outflow valve to prevent the ingestion of contaminants into the valve, or upstream into the cabin.

2. When the APU is being run one must check that the outflow valve is fully open. If it is not possible to ensure that the valve is open or to remove differential pressure by other means, the door must not be closed.

3. The door had no indication warning of excessive cabin pressure, nor an opening for depressurisation. The cabin was pressurised because the APU bleed air was ducted into the cabin, the outflow valve was closed and the door was also closed. Significant differential pressure existed between the cabin and the outside.

4. Cabin pressurisation on the ground also creates a hazard for several other groups of professionals, such as aircraft mechanics, ground handling staff, aircraft cargo loaders and rescue personneL.

And yet.........................

[P7_TOM]

Just another brick in the wall.

My week for O/S accident reporting - HERE

"An Air India pilot flew a Boeing 737 through a brick wall on Friday. Incredibly, that marked the beginning of its journey and not the end."

Not too much to say about this one; I think we all know why, how and in what sequence.
Speaks well of the inherent toughness of Boeing; as to the rest,......................

[Gobbledock]

LION AIR 737 DOWN

Lion Air passenger plane crashes after taking off from Jakarta: official
UPDATED 10 MINUTES AGO
Email Facebook Twitter WhatsApp
A Lion Air passenger plane has crashed into the ocean after taking off from Jakarta, according to Indonesia's search and rescue agency.

"It has been confirmed that it has crashed," Yusuf Latif, a spokesman for the agency, said by text message when asked about the fate of plane.

The pilot reported technical difficulties shortly after take-off, and the plane lost contact 13 minutes afterwards, according to the official.

It was not immediately clear how many people were on board.

"We cannot give any comment at this moment," said Edward Sirait, chief executive of Lion Air Group.

"We are trying to collect all the information and data."

The jet was a Boeing 737 MAX 8, according to air tracking service Flightradar 24.

[Gobbledock]

The blame game begins.....

Way way too early for speculation, however it is interesting that the aircraft made it to 10,000 and then things went pear-shaped. 10,000 feet gives you enough airborne time to be a reasonable distance over the ocean and away from land making it harder to retrieve aircraft debris, a known ploy of terrorists.

10,000 feet also creates a variance in air pressure and there has been numerous decompressive failures at that altitude, so again a catsotrophic mechanical failure could be possible.

However the big tell-tale at the moment is the decent and composure of the debris. High speed decents as are not normally indicative of a stall. Some photos of the fuselage pieces show jagged tearing, something often seen with bomb detonations.

Either way it will be interesting to follow....

[Peetwo]

Update: Lion Air FL JT 610 -    

Via the ABC News:

Lion Air plane carrying at least 188 people crashes after taking off from Jakarta: official

By Indonesia correspondent Anne Barker, wires
Updated 25 minutes ago Mon 29 Oct 2018, 8:27pm

Video: Grieving relatives arrive at a crisis centre in Jakarta (ABC News)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-29/r...a/10442944

There are no reports of survivors from a Lion Air passenger plane that has crashed into the ocean off Indonesia, carrying almost 200 people.

Key points:

• Flight JT610 had "asked for a return to base before it finally disappeared from the radar"
  
• Workers have begun retrieving debris and passengers' personal items from the ocean
  
• Authorities cannot confirm what caused the crash and are waiting for the black box to be retrieved
  

Flight JT610 — which had 188 people on board — lost contact 13 minutes after take-off, and witnesses reported seeing it nosedive into the sea.

Debris, including life jackets and body parts, has been found floating in the sea off the north coast of Java, but the estimated 300 people involved in the search are yet to locate the Boeing 737's fuselage.

Divers are in the water looking for more bodies.

Indonesia's disaster agency tweeted photos of a crushed smartphone, books, bags and parts of the aircraft fuselage collected by search and rescue vessels that have converged on the area.

Muhmmad Syaugi, the head of the search and rescue agency, said authorities were "praying" for survivors to be found.

"We don't know yet whether there are any survivors," Mr Syaugi told a news conference.

"We hope, we pray, but we cannot confirm."

Those on board the one-hour-and-10-minute flight to Pangkal Pinang, on an island chain off Sumatra, included two babies, a child, two pilots and five flight attendants.



Photo: Wreckage retrieved from the water by workers on an offshore rig. (Twitter: Sutopo Purwo Nugroho)

It was unclear what caused the crash, although there were heavy monsoonal storms overnight and overcast conditions this morning.

An official of Indonesia's safety transport committee said he would have to wait until the recovery of the plane's black box, which contains the cockpit voice recorder and data flight recorder.

"We will collect all data from the control tower," said Soerjanto Tjahjono.

"The plane is so modern, it transmits data from the plane and that we will review too. But the most important is the black box."

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation said the plane "asked for a return to base before it finally disappeared from the radar".

Lion Air said in a statement the plane's pilot and co-pilot had together amassed 11,000 hours of flying time.

The Boeing 737 MAX 8 was delivered to Lion Air in mid-August and put in use within days, according to aviation website Flightradar24.

'We hope that our family is still alive'

Families who were waiting for their relatives at Pangkal Pinang began weeping when they were told the plane had crashed.

"Ya Allah (Oh my God)," a woman said while wiping away tears. 

The Ministry of Transportation has now opened crisis centres for the families in Jakarta and Pangkal Pinang.

Video: Divers prepare for an underwater search as debris floats on the ocean (ABC News)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-29/a...e/10443926

Feni, who uses a single name, went to the disaster agency's headquarters in Jakarta, hoping desperately for news about family members on the flight.


"We are here to find any information about my younger sister, her fiance, her in-law to be and a friend of them," Feni said.

"We don't have any information," she added, as her father wiped tears from reddened eyes.

"No one provided us with any information that we need. We're confused. We hope that our family is still alive."

Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs said it was aware of the crash and the embassy in Jakarta was making urgent inquiries to determine whether any Australians were affected.
Australian Government officials and contractors have been instructed to not fly on Lion Air.

Luggage puts human cost in focus



Photo: A child's shoe's stood out amongst the wreckage. (ABC News: Anne Barker)

Many items belonging to passengers were brought back to Jakarta, where they lay piled up on a dockside, a mute testament to the disaster's human cost.

Shredded and soaking, they included clothing, a purse, many backpacks and other personal effects.



Photo: Luggage recovered from the crash site was taken to a port in Jakarta. (ABC News: Anne Barker)

A small pair of children's shoes could be seen among the wreckage. 

All the items, including sections of the plane torn away during crash, were placed on white canvas at the port.



Photo: Workers place items recovered from the crash site on white canvas. (ABC News: Anne Barker)

'We are trying to collect all the information and data' 

Preliminary flight tracking data from air tracking service Flightradar24 showed the aircraft climbed to around 5,000 feet (1,524 metres) before losing and then regaining height, and then finally falling towards the sea.  

It was last recorded at 3,650 feet (1,113 metres) and its speed had risen to 345 knots, according to raw data captured by the website, which could not immediately be confirmed.  

Its last recorded position was about 15 kilometres north of the Indonesian coastline, according to a Google Maps reference of the last coordinates reported by Flightradar24, and it crashed in waters 30 to 35 metres deep. 



Photo: Debris and body parts have been found in the water. (Twitter: Sutopo Purwo Nugroho)

The jet was a Boeing 737 MAX 8, according to Flightradar 24.  

Flight JT610 took off around 6:20am and was due to have landed in the capital of the Bangka-Belitung tin mining hub at 7:20am, the tracking service showed.

Embed: Lion Air crashed plane tracker map
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/zaA9g/2/?a...height=500

"We cannot give any comment at this moment," said Edward Sirait, chief executive of Lion Air Group.

"We are trying to collect all the information and data."

Lion Air is one of Indonesia's youngest and biggest airlines, flying to dozens of domestic and international destinations.

The low-cost carrier has a mixed safety record. Before Monday's crash the airline had not reported a fatal accident since 2004, when 25 people died when the DC-9 they were on crashed amid heavy rain at Solo City in central Java.

In 2013, one of its Boeing 737-800 jets missed the runway while landing on the resort island of Bali, crashing into the sea without causing any fatalities among the 108 people on board.

Lion Air announced early this year it was among three major Indonesian airlines that were upgraded to the highest level of safety rating after Indonesia passed a key international audit.

This accident is the first to be reported that involves the popular Boeing 737 MAX, an updated, more fuel-efficient version of the manufacturer's workhorse single-aisle jet. 



Photo: Belongings reportedly from passengers of the Lion Air flight are retrieved from the water. (Twitter: Sutopo Purwo Nugroho)

The first Boeing 737 MAX jets were introduced into service in 2017.

Lion Air's Malaysian subsidiary, Malindo Air, received the very first global delivery.

Boeing said on Twitter it was "closely monitoring" the situation.

Indonesian airlines were barred in 2007 from flying to Europe because of safety concerns, though several were allowed to resume services in the following decade.

The ban was completely lifted in June this year. The US lifted a decade-long ban in 2016.

Video: The head of the search and rescue agency speaks to the media (ABC News) 
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-29/1...0/10442902

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

FL JT610: Latest 

Via the Oz:

Lion Air black box a break in the hunt for clues
[img=565x0]https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/f257df4b5a46345ec682480091c9fe1c?width=650[/img]Families of the victims of Lion Air flight JT 610 look for personal items of their lost relatives at Tanjung Priok port yesterday. Picture: Getty Images

• By AMANDA HODGE and NIVELL RAYDA
  
• 12:00AM NOVEMBER 2, 2018
  

The pilot on the previous flight of Lion Air’s doomed plane made a distress call shortly after takeoff due to technical problems, it has emerged.

However the problems seemed to right themselves and the plane continued on its planned flight to Jakarta. Hours later the same jet crashed into the Jave Sea on another flight, killing all 189 on board.

After the call on Sunday the pilot updated the control tower to say that the plane was flying normally and he would not return to the airport as requested, according to Herson, chief of the airport authority for the Bali-Nusa Tenggara area.

“The captain himself was confident enough to fly to Jakarta from Denpasar,” said Herson, who goes by one name.

The pilot of another plane that was approaching Bali just after the Lion Air jet took off said he was ordered to circle above the airport and listened in to a radio conversation between the Lion Air pilot and air traffic controllers.

“Because of the Pan-Pan call, we were told to hold off, circling the airport in the air,” said the pilot, who declined to be named.

“The Lion plane requested to return back to Bali five minutes after take-off, but then the pilot said the problem had been resolved and he was going to go ahead to Jakarta.”

Meanwhile, Indonesian authorities say the discovery yesterday of the black box flight data recorder from Lion Air Flight JT610 represents a “huge break in the investigation”.

More than 1000 search and rescue personnel continued to scour the ocean floor late yesterday for the fuselage in which many of the victims are believed still to be trapped, as well as a second black box that may contain the last recorded conversations between pilots in the cockpit before the plane went down just after 6.30am on Monday.

Investigators are hoping the discovery of the intact flight data recorder, found at a depth of 30m and buried under mud and debris, will help determine the cause of the country’s worst aviation dis­aster in decades.

“This is a huge break in the investigation,” National Search and Rescue Agency chief Muhammad Syaugi said, adding that the data from the flight recorder would be downloaded and analysed in coming days. “We also found debris bigger than what we have in previous days that appear to be part of the fuselage.”

One piece measured 1.5m by 50cm while another piece was too heavy to lift into the boat, he said.

A navy dive team equipped with a “ping locator” fought strong underwater currents throughout Wednesday and early yesterday to find the source of the sound emitted by an underwater locator beacon attached to the black box.

“We combed the area and dug through the mud where the signal was strongest and indeed we found the black box,” First Sergeant Hendra Saputra said.

There was no sign of the fuselage, however.

Aviation safety expert Gerry Soejatman told The Australian the fact that the tail of the Boeing 737 Max 8 plane, where the black boxes are fitted, had not been found nearby suggested it had “disintegrated” on impact.

“There is a chance the fuselage might have been completely destroyed. That would explain why we haven’t found huge parts, because there are no huge parts, and why no victims’ bodies are intact,” he said.

Transport Minister Budi Karya Sumadi said the government had asked Lion Air to suspend four employees — its engineering maintenance director, quality control manager, flight maintenance manager and release manager — to assist the investigation and help clarify why a two-month-old aircraft that had experienced technical problems the night before the crash was cleared for flight.

Boeing engineers are in Jakarta assisting with the investigation.

The government had ordered an immediate inspection of all Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft operated by Indonesian carriers and had left open the possibility of grounding all 11 planes — operated by Lion Air and Garuda — if a specific issue was identified with the aircraft model. Mr Budi said all 11 had been deemed airworthy and cleared for flight.

He would meet Australian embassy officials to ask that they lift the ban on Australian government employees and contractors flying Lion Air or its subsidiaries pending the results of the probe into a crash that has raised fresh questions over air safety standards in Indonesia.

“What can we do? We have a good bilateral relationship. Surely we can work it out with them. Maybe there is a middle ground where we can meet,” he said.

Lion Air does not fly under its own banner into Australia, but does operate flights on routes under the liveries of regional subsidiary carriers Batik Air, Thai Lion Air and Malindo Air.

Fifty-six body bags containing human remains have been recovered from waters around the crash site, and 238 DNA samples have been taken from relatives hoping to take at least something of their missing loved ones home for burial. So far, only one passenger, 24-year-old Jannatun Cintya Dewi, has been positively identified and returned to her family in Sidoarjo, East Java.

Ms Jannatun, a civil servant with the Indonesian Department of Energy and Mineral Resources, was buried yesterday morning in a small village cemetery, her grave covered in pink, white and green flower petals.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Flight JT610: Update - 6 Nov 2018.

From Reuters/AP, via the ABC news:

Lion Air crash: Investigators recover 69 hours of flight data from black box
Updated Mon at 7:09am

Investigators have retrieved hours of data from the flight recorder of the Lion Air jet that crashed off Jakarta on October 29, killing 189 people on board.


Key points:

• Fourteen of 189 victims identified from recovered remains
  
• Search for victims extended by three days
  
• Investigators still searching for second black box
  

The news came as Indonesian authorities on Sunday extended the search at sea for victims and debris.

National Transportation Safety Committee deputy chairman Haryo Satmiko told a news conference that 69 hours of flight data was downloaded from the recorder, including its fatal flight.

The Boeing 737 MAX 8 jet crashed just minutes after take-off from Jakarta on October 29 in the country's worst airline disaster since 1997.

The flight data recorder was recovered by divers on Thursday in damaged condition and investigators said it required special handling to retrieve its information.

The second black box — a cockpit voice recorder — has not been recovered but searchers are focusing on a particular area based on a weak locator signal.

"From here we will analyse what happened to that flight," Nurcahyo Utomo, head of Indonesia's transportation safety committee, told reporters.

Analysis of the data and a recovered aircraft landing gear and engine will begin on Monday and information will be passed to police if needed, Mr Utomo said.



PHOTO: Officials inspect an engine recovered the from crashed Lion Air jet

Search extended by three days

The National Search and Rescue Agency chief Muhammad Syaugi said on Sunday the search operation, now in its seventh day and involving hundreds of personnel and dozens of ships, would continue for another three days.

Mr Syaugi paid tribute to a volunteer diver, Syahrul Anto, who died during the search effort on Friday.



PHOTO: The search and rescue agency posted this photographic tribute to Syachrul Anto on its Instagram account. 

The family of the 48-year-old refused an autopsy and he was buried on Saturday in Surabaya.

As of Sunday a total of 105 body bags, few containing intact remains, had been recovered and handed to police for forensic identification, yet only 14 victims had been identified.

"I'm sure the total will increase," Mr Syaugi said, adding remains were also now washing up on land.

The second black box is thought to be around 50 metres from the main search area, where the water is only 30 metres deep, but ocean currents and mud on the sea bed that is more than a metre deep have complicated search efforts.

Mr Syaugi said a considerable amount of aircraft "skin" was found on the sea floor but not a large intact part of its fuselage as he had indicated was possible on Saturday.



PHOTO: Indonesian navy frogmen try to retrieve debris from the water during a search operation. (AP: Tatan Syuflana)

Patchy safety record

The pilot of flight JT610 had asked for, and received, permission to turn back to Jakarta, but what went wrong remains a mystery.

A long list of air safety incidents



The sadness in the Lion Air crash is that no-one would really be shocked by it — the Indonesian aviation sector has a bad reputation for good reason, writes former Indonesian correspondent Samantha Hawley.

Flight tracking websites show the plane had erratic speed and altitude during its fatal 13-minute flight and a previous flight the day before from Bali to Jakarta.

Passengers on the Bali flight reported terrifying descents and in both cases the different cockpit crews requested to return to their departure airport shortly after take-off.

Lion Air has claimed a technical problem was fixed after the Bali fight.
The first crash of a Boeing 737 MAX is the focus of scrutiny by the global aviation industry.

Preliminary findings of the investigation are expected to be made public after 30 days.

Indonesia is one of the world's fastest-growing aviation markets but its safety record has been patchy.

The Lion Air crash is the worst airline disaster in Indonesia since 1997, when 234 people died on a Garuda flight near Medan.

In December 2014, an AirAsia flight from Surabaya to Singapore plunged into the sea, killing all 162 on board.

Its transport safety panel investigated 137 serious aviation incidents from 2012 to 2017.

"There's still a lot we need to improve," Air Transportation Director General Pramintohadi Sukarno said at a press conference on Saturday, referring to safety rules.

AP/Reuters

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Flight JT610: Update - 9 Nov 2018. 

Emergency AD link provided by Grant Brophy off twitter:

Grant Brophy
@airsafetyman
Emergency AD 2018-23-51: the Boeing Company Model 737-8 & 737-9 airplanes. https://t.co/37xroHOmIT #aircraft

---

And for a good breakdown of the Boeing service bulletin please refer to this Air Current blog piece: https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safet...air-crash/

Not even going to try and keep up with the constant stream of media coverage on JT610, especially now with the Boeing service bulletin and subsequent emergency FAA AD.

To say that this tragic accident and ongoing investigation is rapidly escalating would be an understatement - 

Anyway in the interest of trying to sort the wheat from the chaff I have picked out a copy of articles/blogs that have come out in recent days after some of the JT610 AAI developments.

First from Christine Negroni's Flying Lessons blog:

The Hidden Message in Boeing’s Lion Air Service Bulletin

November 8, 2018 / Share your comments... http://christinenegroni.com/the-hidden-m...n/#respond

(photo courtesy www.merdeka.com)

From the time the pilots retracted the flaps of the new Lion Air jetliner that flew as Flight 610, they were presented with anomalous readings, chaotic warnings and an airplane that was not flying as it should. This is what can be learned reading between the lines of the service bulletin Boeing sent to airlines operating the planemaker’s newest 737, the MAX.

The airplane crashed into the sea 13 minutes after taking off from Jakarta on October 29th killing 189 people. In the bulletin, Boeing says during the Lion Air crash investigation, it was determined that a faulty reading of the flight sensor measuring the plane’s angle of attack “can cause uncommanded nose down stabilizer trim movements” without the pilots’ input.

Further, the nose down maneuvers could last as long as 10 seconds and reoccur every 5 seconds even when the autopilot is turned off.  Boeing says “there will be no indication to the pilots that the stabilizer trim is activating.”  In response, pilots are told to disconnect the system controlling the position of the horizontal stabilizer.
[size=undefined]
It is an indication that very early in the flight, possibly as soon as the flaps were retracted, (extended flaps inhibiting the stabilizer trim) the pilots of the brand new airliner were dealing with an unexpected loss of altitude, a problem the pilots may not have understood and from which they did not have sufficient time to diagnose and respond.

At American, which has sixteen MAX aircraft it its fleet, spokesman Ross Feinstein said the document reiterated “existing, well-established procedures for 737 MAX 8 pilots.” And some pilots to whom I spoke to agree, instances of uncommanded nose down can occur for reasons other than this faulty sensor and pilots are trained to deal with them.

“There has been training for a runaway stabilizer trim since the beginning of time. We train for it in the sim,” said Cort Tangeman, an airline pilot who flies the MAX. You can have a ground fault on the side of the motor and you have to know how to stop it.”



Many factors could have increased the difficulty of recovery for the Lion Air pilots;  including the lack of an indication that the plane was going nose down and a series of sensory alarms on the flight deck triggered by the erroneous information.

“There are so many hidden things in there and it’s only getting more complicated,” Tangeman said. “You can get a stick shaker and it has nothing to do with airspeed. That’s the confusing part of having data in an electronic airplane send information to the jet telling it to do stuff and telling you to do stuff that’s not right. You have to figure it out and the only way to figure that out is with experience, unfortunately.”

The pilots of Lion Air Flight 610 reportedly had five and six thousand hours of flight time, though it is not clear whether that was total accumulated time or time in the 737. But their time in the MAX had to be brief considering it came into the fleet just months earlier. It is possible that given the choice of trusting their own judgment or the information offered from their brand spanking new airplane, they opted to believe the airplane and its erroneous data.

One factor commands attention; the early onset of the problem. Automatically sending the airplane into a nose down orientation could have begun as soon as the crew retracted the flaps after takeoff. Looking at Flight 610’s flight profile from Flight Aware, two 737 pilots told me it had an unusual flight profile from the time of takeoff. Meaning that the pilots were burdened during a time of high workload and without the benefit of altitude and therefore time.

“Unreliable airspeed tricks the airplane into thinking its stalling. It’s showing you are stalling on the airspeed indicator. You have to determine by what its really doing. And again, that takes a lot of experience,” Tangeman told me.[/size]
[size=undefined]
This dilemma is likely to get closer scrutiny according to an American air safety investigator to whom I spoke but who wished to remain unidentified. Pointing to other accidents in which pilots failed to recognize bad data or mishandled an airplane in an auto recovery mode, this investigator said the Lion Air probe “should be part of a broader question about airplane design and pilot training and whether the procedures generated are predicated on basic assumptions on how pilots will react and interpret information.”

Assuming that pilots will be able to quickly diagnose and react appropriately to an unexpected event is nothing new. That’s what simulator training is for. What’s still a work in progress are effective methods for managing safety in the digital age – when the computer competes with the pilot for control of the flight.

“Does this whole system have one failure mode which could cause a cascading failure with a human component? It appears as if it does,” John Gadzinski, of Four Winds Aerospace Safety Corp and a Boeing 737 Max pilot told me in a discussion of the Boeing service bulletin.

“If that one failure mode can make the system work against its intended function,” which is to prevent the airplane from stalling, “then the whole system is working against the pilot.”

So while Boeing’s alert to airlines may be – as American says – a reiteration of procedures already taught to pilots, make no mistake, the logic that allows pilots to find themselves in a situation like Lion Air 610 is about more than the pilots. It’s about the airplane too.[/size]

Next from Jamie Freed via Reuters...  

After deadly Lion Air crash, new focus on torrid industry growth in Indonesia

Jamie Freed, Fanny Potkin

JAKARTA (Reuters) - In April 2013, a Lion Air Boeing 737 missed the runway on the Indonesian resort island of Bali in bad weather and plowed into the sea, cracking its fuselage open on the rocks.


A pilot of Lion Air Group leaves an aircraft simulator after a routine practice session at Angkasa Training Center near Jakarta, Indonesia, November 2, 2018. REUTERS/Willy Kurniawan

All 108 on board survived. But a September 2014 report by Indonesia’s air crash investigators highlighted errors and poor training, saying the 24-year-old co-pilot had failed to adhere to the “basic principles of jet aircraft flying.”

Lion Air, struggling to get off a European Union blacklist because of “unaddressed safety concerns,” asked Airbus, which supplies part of its fleet, to help improve training.

The EU removed the privately owned budget airline from the list in 2016 after it determined Lion Air met international safety standards. None of Indonesia’s roughly 100 airlines - most of them tiny - remain on the EU blacklist, with the last few coming off in June. All were banned in 2007; the national carrier, Garuda Indonesia, was the first to be removed in 2009.

The crash of a Lion Air jet on Oct. 29 into the sea off Jakarta has put a spotlight back on the airline’s safety record, although the cause remains undetermined. None of the aircraft’s 189 passengers and crew survived.

Lion Air’s latest crisis illustrates the challenge relatively new carriers face as they try to keep pace with unstoppable demand for air travel in developing nations while striving for standards that mature markets took decades to reach.

Retired air force chief of staff Chappy Hakim, an adviser to the transport ministry, told Reuters he avoided flying with Lion Air or other Indonesian airlines, with the exception of Garuda, which has not had a fatal crash since 2007.
[size=undefined]
“I know Garuda,” he said of the national carrier. “The other airlines, I don’t believe they do the maintenance and training properly.” He declined to elaborate further.

Lion Air Managing Director Daniel Putut disputed any laxity in the airline’s safety culture, stressing that it conducted maintenance in accordance with manufacturer guidelines.

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation, the Indonesian aviation authority, did not respond to multiple requests for comment about Lion Air’s safety record.
Putut, a former pilot, also told Reuters during a visit to the airline’s training center near the Jakarta airport that it complied with all regulatory requirements.
He said Lion Air had worked hard to install an attitude of “zero tolerance” for accidents after the Bali crash, making last week’s disaster a painful eye-opener. Thousands of Lion Air flights have taken off and landed without serious incident since then.

“We are also looking into what went wrong - new aircraft, experienced crews, and we have applied the zero-tolerance culture, yet another accident happened,” Putut said. “But we still don’t know the cause, so we will wait for the investigation from NTSC (National Transportation Safety Committee).”

SAFETY CULTURE

Frank Caron, head of a risk consulting firm who served as Lion Air’s safety manager from 2009 to 2011 after insurance companies requested a foreign expert, said that at the time he was troubled by what he regarded as the airline’s attitude that accidents were inevitable.

“Safety is much more than running concepts and procedures,” he said. “Safety is a spirit, a state of mind, a way of thinking, an attitude in the daily aspects of an operational life. And that is precisely what Lion never got. They would say, ‘The airline has 250 flights a day, it is not abnormal that you have accidents.’”

For example, after the 2013 Bali crash, Lion Air co-founder Rusdi Kirana told local media who asked about the airline’s safety record: “If we are seen to have many accidents, it’s because of our frequency of flights.”

Caron claimed he left Lion Air after some of his safety recommendations were not implemented. Lion Air’s chief executive declined to comment on Caron’s account of his departure or his other assertions.

Indonesian accident investigators made four recommendations after the Bali crash, including that Lion Air should “ensure that all pilots must be competent in hand flying” and teach proper cockpit coordination.

They also urged the aviation authority to ensure all airlines under its control did the same.

Putut said Lion Air embraced those recommendations.

Between the Bali crash and the one last week, Lion Air had three non-fatal accidents, including one in April in which a 737 skidded off a runway, according to Flight Safety Foundation’s Aviation Safety Network database.

Since it began operating 18 years ago, Lion Air has seen a total of eight planes damaged beyond repair in accidents, two of which killed a combined 214 people, according to the Aviation Safety Network database.

During the same period, five jets from its chief rival, the national carrier Garuda Indonesia (GIAA.JK), were damaged beyond repair, and two accidents killed a combined 22 people, according to the database. Garuda declined to comment about its safety record.

Since the 2013 Bali crash, Lion Air has sought to improve safety by gaining European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) certification for its pilot training and maintenance facilities.

EASA certifies its training center to instruct other airlines’ pilots on A320 simulators and is seeking the same approvals for 737 jets and ATR72 turboprops, said Audy L Punuh, Lion Air’s Angkasa Pilot Training Organisation Director.

RAPID GROWTH

Lion Air has expanded quickly since it started flying in 2000, overtaking national carrier Garuda by capturing more than half of the domestic market and establishing offshoots in Thailand and Malaysia.
It has ridden a wave of aviation growth in Indonesia, where air travel has become critical for the economy.

Domestic air traffic more than tripled in Indonesia over the past decade as prosperity and low fares made flying affordable for more people.

With 129 million passengers in 2017, the Southeast Asian country was already the world’s 10th-largest aviation market and is projected to continue growing.

That growth has been accompanied by an air-accident rate that was twice the global average in 2017 and consistently higher than Indonesia’s neighbors in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, according to the United Nations’ aviation agency.

Indonesian pilots are allowed to fly a maximum of 110 hours a month, which is more than the 100 hours in most other countries.

Last year seven commercial planes were damaged beyond repair around the world, according to Boeing data; two were in Indonesia, wrecked in non-fatal accidents involving Sriwijaya Air and Tri M.G. Airlines.

LATEST CRASH

Flight JT610 took off from Jakarta at 6:20 a.m. on Oct. 29, bound for Bangka island, off Sumatra, and plunged into the sea 13 minutes later. Just before the crash, the pilot asked to return to the airport.

The aircraft flew erratically on its previous flight and its airspeed readings were unreliable, according to an accident investigator and a flight tracking website.

Investigators on Monday said the flight data recorder from the downed jet showed an airspeed indicator had been damaged during its final four flights, raising questions about maintenance and mechanical problems.

Boeing said on Wednesday it had issued a bulletin to airlines reminding pilots about what it described as existing procedures for handling erroneous data from sensors.

The Federal Aviation Administration later issued a directive calling for revisions to “operating procedures of the airplane flight manual.”
It is too early for regulators to decide whether to reconsider the decision to remove Lion Air from the EU blacklist, EU Ambassador to Indonesia Vincent Guerend told Reuters.

“The European Commission continues to monitor the situation on a regular basis,” he said. “It is still too early to have any conclusive views on the causes of the accident.” 

(This story fixes typo in name of Lion Air’s Angkasa Pilot Training Organisation Director) 

Reporting by Jamie Freed, Fanny Potkin, Jessica Damiana, Cindy Silviana, Fathin Ungku, Ed Davies, Gayatri Suroyo and Tabita Diela in Jakarta and Tim Hepher in Hong Kong; Editing by John Chalmers and Gerry Doyle
[/size]

 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Flight JT610: Update 13 Nov 2018. 

From Reuters, via news.com.au: 

Search for Lion Air crash victims stops
Indonesian authorities say they will keep looking for the crashed Lion Air flight's cockpit voice recorder but stop searching for victims.

Reuters NOVEMBER 10, 2018 9:06PM

Indonesian authorities say they have stopped the search for victims of a plane crash that killed all 189 people on board, but would keep looking for the Lion Air flight's second black box, the cockpit voice recorder.

"There is nowhere left to search and we have stopped finding victims' bodies," Muhammad Syaugi, the head of the national search and rescue agency (Basarnas) told media on Saturday.

"We will limit our operations to monitoring."

The nearly new Boeing Co. 737 MAX passenger plane crashed into the sea on October 29 just minutes after taking off from Jakarta en route to Bangka island near Sumatra.

Syaugi said 196 body bags containing human remains had been retrieved and 77 victims identified after forensic examination.

Authorities have downloaded data from one of the black boxes found last week, the flight data recorder, but are still looking for the cockpit voice recorder.

Soearjanto Tjahjono, the head of the transportation safety committee (KNKT), said finding the voice recorder would be critical to understanding the cause of the crash.

"From the black box data, we know about 70-80 per cent of what happened but to 100-per cent understand the cause of the accident... we need be able to know the conversation that took place in the plane's cockpit," he said, declining to elaborate on what the flight data recorder had revealed.

KNKT has brought in a pinger locator and a vessel capable of sucking up mud to help with the search for the voice recorder, in addition to remotely operated underwater vehicles equipped with cameras.

Tjahjono said he was worried the cockpit voice recorder may have been damaged on impact because KNKT had yet to detect any "ping" sounds that would indicate its location, as had happened with the first black box.

He said authorities were searching for 15 aircraft parts, including an "angle of attack" sensor on the aircraft, which helps the plane's computers understand if the aircraft is stable. Investigators have said one of these sensors had provided erroneous data.

KNKT told Reuters on Wednesday that there was a problem with the sensor on the previous flight taken by the doomed plane from the island of Bali to Jakarta. One sensor had been replaced in Bali.

Via Negroni's  Flying Lessons blog:

737 Pilots Not Told of MAX Design Change That Could Factor in Lion Air Crash

November 12, 2018 / Share your comments...

How concerned are 737 MAX pilots about their new airplane? Plenty concerned.

Over the weekend, two U.S. operators of Boeing’s newest model narrowbody were sending out memos with details of a new system unique to the MAX called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, which may have contributed to the fatal crash of Lion Air Flight 610 last month in Indonesia. This memo had to be sent because until last week this system was a secret to the men and women who fly the plane.

The MCAS on the Boeing 737 Max was added as part of its Federal Aviation Administration certification. Pilots at American Airlines, which has 16 MAX-8s in its fleet and at Southwest with 26, were told over the weekend that the MCAS was added, “to enhance pitch characteristics during steep turns with elevated load factors and during flaps up flight at airspeeds approaching stall.”

Pilots have been abuzz over the Lion Air accident and what appears to have been the pilots’ inability to pull out of an airplane-induced nose-over on October 29. The din got louder when Boeing sent a Service Bulletin to operators and the Federal Aviation Administration followed up with an Emergency Airworthiness Directive nine days later.




“This is the first description you, as 737 pilots, have seen. It is not in the AA 737 Flight Manual Part 2, nor is there a description in the Boeing FCOM (flight crew operations manual),” says the letter from the pilots’ union safety committee. “Awareness is the key with all safety issues.”

The APA told pilots an update to the airline’s and Boeing’s crew manual would be added soon.

Pilots of any version of the 737 could encounter situations in which the elevator trim puts the airplane in a nose down position unexpectedly. It is something for which they train in the simulator. What makes the addition of the MCAS to the 737 MAX problematic for pilots, is not knowing about it.





“Events that happen seemingly for no reason can be very difficult to deal with.

That’s the whole reason we learn about systems in ground school and practice responding to their failures in the sim, to make a mental blueprint that acts as a vaccination against unexpected issues,” said John Gadzinski, a 737 MAX pilot and the president of Four Winds Aerospace Safety Corp (link: https://www.linkedin.com/company/four-wi...ety-corp./ ).

“There’s a huge dissonance here. At best we’re trained so that when the airplane tells us to do something, we do it. There’s an enormous part of your brain that wants to trust what the airplane is telling you and to all of a sudden to be told, ‘Wow, in this case, the airplane – which is the most advanced version of the most trusted airplane in the world – can’t be trusted,’ that’s kind of a big deal. That’s a huge deal.”

Via ABC News: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-13/l...tion=world

Lion Air crash investigators find anti-stall system not covered in pilots' manual
Updated about 3 hours ago



PHOTO: The training for Boeing 737 MAX aircraft includes three hours of computer-based training and a familiarisation flight. (Reuters: Willy Kurniawan)

Investigators looking into the deadly Lion Air crash in Indonesia have suggested more training is needed for Boeing 737 MAX pilots after they found automatic emergency systems to prevent stalling are not mentioned in instruction manuals.

Key points:

• Lion Air's flight JT610 from Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang crashed on October 29 killing all 189 on board
  
• Investigators' attention was initially on potential maintenance problems, but now procedures and pilot training is the focus
  
• US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued an emergency airworthiness directive urging airlines to update their flight manuals
  

US pilots were also not aware of potential risks, two US pilot unions told Reuters.

The comments shed further light on the areas under scrutiny as investigators prepare to publish their preliminary report on November 28 or 29, one month after the Lion Air Boeing 737 MAX dived into the Java Sea, killing all 189 on board.

Until now, public attention has focused mainly on potential maintenance problems including a faulty sensor for the 'angle of attack', a vital piece of data needed to help the aircraft fly at the right angle to the currents of air and prevent a stall.

Lucky escape from Lion Air: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-30/i...c/10445988



An Indonesian man who was supposed to board the ill-fated Lion Air plane that plunged into the sea with 189 people on board only missed his flight because he was stuck in Jakarta's notorious traffic.

Now the investigation's focus appears to be expanding to the clarity of US-approved procedures to help pilots prevent the 737 MAX over-reacting to such a data loss, and methods for training pilots.

Dennis Tajer, a 737 captain and spokesman for Allied Pilots Association (APA), which represents American Airlines Group Inc pilots, said his union was informed after the crash about a new system Boeing had installed on 737 MAX jets that could command the plane's nose down in certain situations to prevent a stall.

"It is information that we were not privy to in training or in any other manuals or materials," he said.

Soerjanto Tjahjono, head of Indonesia's transportation safety committee of crash investigators (KNKT), said on Monday (local time) that Indonesian regulators would tighten training requirements as a result of the findings of the investigation so far.

"We know, because this incident happened, we know we need additional training," he said.

The comments focus attention on the contents of aircraft manuals and a conversion course allowing pilots of the previous generation of Boeing jet, the 737NG, to upgrade to the MAX.



PHOTO: Investigator are expected to deliver a report into the Lion Air crash on November 28 or 29. (Reuters: Beawiharta)

The manual had not covered how to handle a situation like the one that occurred in the crash, Mr Soerjanto told reporters.

Lion Air officials said on Monday that they had followed a training regime approved by both US and European regulators.

The approved training was restricted to three hours of computer-based training and a familiarisation flight, Lion Air Training Centre general manager Dibyo Soesilo said during a media tour of the centre on Monday.

The October 29 crash was the first accident involving the 737 MAX, an updated version of Boeing's workhorse narrowbody jet that entered service last year.

Crash investigation sparked warning to US airlines
Information recovered from the jet's flight data recorder last week led the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to issue an emergency airworthiness directive urging airlines to update their flight manuals.



PHOTO: Indonesian navy frogmen try to retrieve debris from the water during a search operation. (AP: Tatan Syuflana)

The directive warned pilots that a computer on the Boeing 737 MAX could lead to the plane being forced to descend sharply for up to 10 seconds even in manual flight, leading to potential difficulties in controlling the plane.

Pilots could stop this automated response by pressing two buttons if the system behaved unexpectedly, but questions have been raised about how well prepared they were for such an automatic reaction and how much time they had to respond.

A long list of air safety incidents: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-30/l...s/10445326



The sadness in the Lion Air crash is that no-one would really be shocked by it — the Indonesian aviation sector has a bad reputation for good reason, writes former Indonesian correspondent Samantha Hawley.

An American Airlines spokesman said the carrier had received the FAA directive as well as a bulletin from Boeing on updating the flight crew operations manual.

Boeing declined to comment directly on its training program but said it was taking "every measure" to fully understand all aspects of the incident and working closely with the investigating team and all regulatory authorities involved.

Last week it said the fix for this type of event — known as a runaway stabiliser — was covered by existing procedures.

Even though this problem was, according to investigators, not covered in the operating manual, pilots did have access to a checklist designed to turn off errant systems when the plane started nosing downwards at the wrong time, said Soejono, a Lion Air instructor who like many Indonesians goes by one name.

VIDEO: Indonesian divers are reported to have retrieved one of two black boxes but is still searching for the voice recorder.(ABC News) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-01/r...k/10457050

Experts say investigators will be examining whether the crew examined this checklist and if so whether they had time to cut off the automated nose-down system while flying at a relatively low altitude of about 1,500m. Pilots on a previous flight are reported to have overcome a similar sensor problem.

To answer that question fully, investigators may need access to cockpit voice recordings thought to be hidden in the seabed.

A search for the jet's missing cockpit voice recorder is continuing and could provide important information about human factors relating to the crash, Mr Soerjanto said.

The FAA said in a statement that it would take further action if that was warranted by findings from the accident investigation.
Reuters

MTF?- No doubt...P2 

[Peetwo]

Flight JT610: Update 15 Nov 2018.

Via the Oz (not necessarily in chronological order):

Lion Air fault ‘not in 737 training manual’

ROBYN IRONSIDE
Pilots have piled pressure on Boeing over a potential issue unique to the 737 Max aircraft not outlined in training manuals
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines...df6c26699f

---

Pilots berate Boeing over potential issue with 737 Max aircraft following Lion Air crash

Pilots have turned up the heat on Boeing over a potential issue unique to the 737 Max aircraft that is not outlined in the flight training manual.

The issue came to light last week, when Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration warned airlines operating 737 Max of the potential for the automated stall-prevention system to push down the nose of the plane hard, making the aircraft difficult to control.

The system known as MCAS, receives information on the angle of the aircraft and is unique to the Max.

If that information is flawed, as is thought to be the case with the Lion Air crash off Indonesia last month, the MCAS issues repeated nose down commands to the flight computer potentially leading to a steep dive or crash.

The American Airlines’ pilots association issued an alert to their members about the anomaly with the MCAS this week.

“This is the first description you, as 737 pilots, have seen,” said an email from the Allied Pilots Association (APA) this week.

“It is not in the American Airlines 737 Flight Manual Part 2, nor is there a description in the Boeing manual. It will be soon.”

APA safety committee chairman Mike Michaelis said it was “pretty asinine for (Boeing) to put a system on an aeroplane and not tell the pilots operating that aeroplane, especially when it deals with flight controls”.

“Why weren’t they trained on it?” Captain Michaelis said.

The gravity of the problem and the lack of transparency by Boeing, is thought to be behind the Federal Aviation Administration’s decision to release an emergency airworthiness directive last week, rather than a routine bulletin.

“It suggests there is a problem they hadn’t previously seen,” said Australian Federation of Air Pilots technical and safety director Marcus Diamond.

“This is the aeroplane pitching nose up and down with air data, so to me it is a new failure.”

A statement from Boeing did not address why the potential issue was not included in the flight training manual.

“We are taking every measure to fully understand all aspects of this incident, working closely with the investigating team and all regulatory authorities involved,” said the statement.

“We are confident in the safety of the 737 Max.”

The APA email said at the present time there had been no anomalies found with American Airlines’ 737 Max 8 aircraft.

“That is positive news but it is no assurance that the system will not fail,” said the email.

“It is mechanical and software-driven. That is why pilots are at the controls.”

It went on to say that “awareness was the key with all safety issues, and no pilots were aware that this anomaly may occur”.

“There is a mitigation procedure. No different than should you experience an engine failure.”

No Australian carriers operate 737 Max 8 aircraft as yet but Silk Air flies the aircraft into Cairns and Darwin from Singapore.

The investigation into the crash of Lion Air flight JT610 is continuing following the completion of the body retrieval process.

All 189 people on board the flight died when it crashed into the Java Sea on the morning of October 29, just 13 minutes after takeoff.

The aircraft had experienced problems with airspeed indication on previous flights and technicians had replaced an angle of attack sensor.

Days after the crash the Lion Air technical director was suspended, along with several technicians.

---

---

FAA launches Boeing probe
ANDY PASZTOR, ANDREW TANGEL
US aviation regulators have launched a probe into the safety analyses of Boeing in the wake of the Lion Air disaster.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines...292799e440

---

US aviation regulators launch probe into Boeing’s safety analyses in wake of Lion Air crash

US aviation regulators, responding to last month’s Lion Air jet crash, launched a high-priority probe of the safety analyses Boeing has performed over the years. Regulators are interested in what information Boeing distributed to airlines regarding potential hazards associated with a new automated flight-control system introduced on the latest versions of workhorse 737 aircraft.

The Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday said it was reviewing details surrounding the safety data and conclusions the Chicago plane maker previously provided the agency as part of certifying 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9 models. The agency’s statement, which came after roughly two weeks of declining to comment on any facet of the accident that killed all 189 people on board, also indicated that officials are looking into training requirements for pilots.

Signalling that future regulatory action and generally stepped-up oversight of Boeing’s risk-assessment procedures are coming, the statement said, “the FAA and Boeing continue to evaluate the need for software and/or other design changes,” including “operating procedures and training as we learn from the ongoing crash probe headed by Indonesian authorities.”

The statement is the clearest sign yet of internal FAA concerns stemming from preliminary clues about why the twin-engine aircraft plunged in the Java Sea at a steep angle and high speed.

A Boeing spokesman didn’t immediately respond to questions on Tuesday. On Monday, the Chicago-based plane maker said: “We are taking every measure to fully understand all aspects of this incident, working closely with the investigating team and all regulatory authorities involved.” When Boeing opted to install the new flight-control feature, according to government officials, the company concluded it was virtually impossible for a combination of sensor failure, pilot actions and automated nose-down commands by the new system to result in a serious safety hazard.

But now, with preliminary crash data indicating the plane experienced just such a sequence of events before crashing, the company’s risk analyses and decision making are under heightened public scrutiny. So, too, is the oversight of the FAA, which agreed to allow two US airlines to start flying the new models without Boeing providing cockpit crews or senior pilots details about how the new flight-control system operates and what risks it may pose under unusual circumstances, by automatically and strongly pushing down an aircraft’s nose.

Investigators haven’t determined the cause of the Lion Air crash, and safety experts cautioned it was too early to tell precisely how large a role the new flight-control system played in the tragedy. But as more clues emerge and crash investigators delve deeper into design issues and the interplay of various computerised systems and cockpit displays, more of the focus is shifting to the assumptions of those initial Boeing safety assessments.

More than 200 737 MAX planes have been delivered to airlines worldwide, including US carriers Southwest Airlines, American Airlines and United Airlines. That represents a fraction of the thousands of 737s in use.

Indonesian investigators are still searching for the plane’s cockpit-voice recorder, which could contain vital information about what the pilots saw and did as they wrestled with a suspected flurry of sometimes conflicting electronic warnings, unreliable airspeed displays and a seemingly uncontrollable aircraft gaining speed as it hurtled toward the water. Investigators and safety experts have said that after a certain point, the crew may have had only seconds to react appropriately.

A November 10 memo from Southwest management to its pilots, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, indicated Boeing omitted information from flight manuals about the stall-prevention system because pilots weren’t likely to find themselves in situations involving its features.

Shortcomings in Boeing’s risk-analysis procedures previously prompted major regulatory, financial and public relations headaches for the company. It initially failed to recognise or counteract potentially fire-prone rechargeable lithium batteries installed on Boeing’s flagship 787 aircraft. All of the jets were temporarily grounded until Boeing and the FAA agreed on a foolproof fix.

---

---

Boeing left pilots flying blind
ROBYN IRONSIDE
Pilots were not told about an automatic nose-down feature in the 737 Max that may have contributed to the fatal Lion Air crash.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines...c596b5ebdd

---

Boeing’s silence on 737 system left pilots flying blind

The US aviation regulator will examine information Boeing provided airlines about its 737 Max following revelations the manufacturer did not tell pilots about a new system on the aeroplane.

Pilot unions in the US this week raised concerns about the MCAS, or manoeuvring characteristics augmentation system, which in certain unusual conditions issues nose-down commands to the aircraft, potentially causing it to dive or even crash.

The anomaly came to light as a possible cause of last month’s Lion Air crash involving a near- new 737 Max 8.

Information issued by Boeing and the US Federal Aviation ­Administration in the wake of the crash raised awareness of the system and its potential to render an aircraft difficult to control.

That prompted two pilots’ ­associations in the US to speak out, and question why they were not made aware of the feature before the 737 Max went into service. There are 219 737 Max 8s in service globally, operated by dozens of carriers, including American and Southwest Airlines.

The FAA is believed to be reviewing information provided by Boeing to airlines about the aircraft as part of the agency’s involvement in the Lion Air crash investigation.

A preliminary report is due to be released by Indonesia’s National Transportation Safety Committee at the end of the month. A statement from the FAA yesterday said it “continued to evaluate the need for software and/or other design changes to the aircraft including operating procedures and training”.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Greg Hood said it was good that no Australian carriers were operating the 737 Max as yet.

“It was certainly a sternly worded emergency airworthiness directive (from the FAA),” Mr Hood said.

“But we have a great deal of confidence with the two main investigation agencies, in Indonesia and the US.”

Virgin Australia group executive Rob Sharp said by the time the airline took delivery of their first 737 Max 8, in a year’s time, any “fixes” would have been sorted.

“I’d rather the actual equipment work on the day, and I fully expect to get full visibility on that from Boeing because that’s what they’ve done in the past,” Mr Sharp said.

“Ours haven’t even started (being manufactured) yet. We are just locking in our specifications.”

He said he held no concerns about the aircraft’s safety, with 40 on order from Boeing.

But Australian Federation of Air Pilots technical and safety director Marcus Diamond said Boeing had some questions to answer.

“You can’t predict what conditions humans are going to put them into, and if you put in an overriding system, you can’t predict all the situations that might trigger that system.”

Mr Diamond pointed to an Airbus A320 demonstration flight at the Habsheim Air Show in France in 1988, in which the pilots did a low pass over an airfield.

“Because they passed so low, the aircraft’s automated system thought it was landing and overruled the pilot’s attempts to climb. It landed in trees and several passengers died,’’ he said.

And from leehamnews.com: https://leehamnews.com/2018/11/14/boeing...he-pilots/

Boeing’s automatic trim for the 737 MAX was not disclosed to the Pilots
leehamnews.com/2018/11/14/boeings-automatic-trim-for-the-737-max-was-not-disclosed-to-the-pilots/

November 14, 2018

By Bjorn Fehrm
November 14, 2018, © Leeham News.: The automatic trim Boeing introduced on the 737 MAX, called MCAS, was news to us last week. Graver, it was news to the Pilots flying the MAX since 18 months as well.

Boeing and its oversight, the FAA, decided the Airlines and their Pilots had no need to know. The Lion Air accident can prove otherwise. 



The background to Boeing’s 737 MAX automatic trim

The automatic trim we described last week has a name, MCAS, or Maneuvering Characteristics Automation System.

It’s unique to the MAX because the 737 MAX no longer has the docile pitch characteristics of the 737NG at high Angles Of Attack (AOA). This is caused by the larger engine nacelles covering the higher bypass LEAP-1B engines.

The nacelles for the MAX are larger and placed higher and further forward of the wing, Figure 1.

Figure 1. Boeing 737NG (left) and MAX (right) nacelles compared. Source: Boeing 737 MAX brochure.

By placing the nacelle further forward of the wing, it could be placed higher. Combined with a higher nose landing gear, which raises the nacelle further, the same ground clearance could be achieved for the nacelle as for the 737NG.
The drawback of a larger nacelle, placed further forward, is it destabilizes the aircraft in pitch. All objects on an aircraft placed ahead of the Center of Gravity (the line in Figure 2, around which the aircraft moves in pitch) will contribute to destabilize the aircraft in pitch.

Figure 2. The 737-800 (yellow) overlaid on the 737 MAX 8 (purple), with the line denoting the CG in pitch. Source: Leeham Co. and 737 ACAP.

The 737 is a classical flight control aircraft. It relies on a naturally stable base aircraft for its flight control design, augmented in selected areas. Once such area is the artificial yaw damping, present on virtually all larger aircraft (to stop passengers getting sick from the aircraft’s natural tendency to Dutch Roll = Wagging its tail).

Until the MAX, there was no need for artificial aids in pitch. Once the aircraft entered a stall, there were several actions described last week which assisted the pilot to exit the stall. But not in normal flight.

The larger nacelles, called for by the higher bypass LEAP-1B engines, changed this. When flying at normal angles of attack (3° at cruise and say 5-8° in a turn) the destabilizing effect of the larger engines are not felt.

The nacelles are designed to not generate lift in normal flight. It would generate unnecessary drag as the aspect ratio of an engine nacelle is lousy.

The aircraft designer focuses the lift to the high aspect ratio wings.

But if the pilot for whatever reason manoeuvres the aircraft hard, generating an angle of attack close to the stall angle of around 14°, the previously neutral engine nacelle generates lift. A lift which is felt by the aircraft as a pitch up moment (as its ahead of the CG line), now stronger than on the 737NG. This destabilizes the MAX in pitch at higher Angles Of Attack (AOA). The most difficult situation is when the manoeuvre has a high pitch ratio. The aircraft’s inertia can then provoke an over-swing into stall AOA.

To counter the MAX’s lower stability margins at high AOA, Boeing introduced MCAS. Dependent on AOA value and rate, altitude (air density) and Mach (changed flow conditions) the MCAS, which is a software loop in the Flight Control computer, initiates a nose down trim above a threshold AOA.

It can be stopped by the Pilot counter-trimming on the Yoke or by him hitting the CUTOUT switches on the center pedestal. It’s not stopped by the Pilot pulling the Yoke, which for normal trim from the autopilot or runaway manual trim triggers trim hold sensors. This would negate why MCAS was implemented, the Pilot pulling so hard on the Yoke that the aircraft is flying close to stall.

It’s probably this counterintuitive characteristic, which goes against what has been trained many times in the simulator for unwanted autopilot trim or manual trim runaway, which has confused the pilots of JT610. They learned that holding against the trim stopped the nose down, and then they could take action, like counter-trimming or outright CUTOUT the trim servo. But it didn’t. After a 10 second trim to a 2.5° nose down stabilizer position, the trimming started again despite the Pilots pulling against it. The faulty high AOA signal was still present.

How should they know that pulling on the Yoke didn’t stop the trim? It was described nowhere; neither in the aircraft’s manual, the AFM, nor in the Pilot’s manual, the FCOM. This has created strong reactions from airlines with the 737 MAX on the flight line and their Pilots. They have learned the NG and the MAX flies the same. They fly them interchangeably during the week.

They do fly the same as long as no fault appears. Then there are differences, and the Pilots should have been informed about the differences.

MTF...P2 

[Gobbledock]

Tick Tock Boeing??

APA safety committee chairman Mike Michaelis said it was “pretty asinine for (Boeing) to put a system on an aeroplane and not tell the pilots operating that aeroplane, especially when it deals with flight controls”.

The accident investigation certainly has morphed in the past 2 weeks. Started out looking like a potential deliberate destruction of the aircraft to Boeing issuing an emergency AD. The CVR should reveal the final pieces when it’s found. Still too early to say what the cause might be but I reckon Boeing has its legal eagles on short finals.

“Aviation regulations are written in blood”

[Peetwo]

Tick Tock Boeing??

APA safety committee chairman Mike Michaelis said it was “pretty asinine for (Boeing) to put a system on an aeroplane and not tell the pilots operating that aeroplane, especially when it deals with flight controls”.

The accident investigation certainly has morphed in the past 2 weeks. Started out looking like a potential deliberate destruction of the aircraft to Boeing issuing an emergency AD. The CVR should reveal the final pieces when it’s found. Still too early to say what the cause might be but I reckon Boeing has its legal eagles on short finals.

“Aviation regulations are written in blood”

Flight JT610 - 21 Nov 2018: Boeing goes on the defence on JT610. 

Via the Oz yesterday:

Boeing takes aim at 737 flak

ROBYN IRONSIDE

Boeing’s CEO says suggestions it intentionally withheld info about a new system on the 737 Max aircraft were “simply untrue”.


Boeing’s CEO has described as “simply untrue” any suggestion the aircraft manufacturer “intentionally withheld” information about a new automated system on the 737 Max.

In a message to employees, Dennis Muilenburg said the manoeuvring characteristics augmentation system (MCAS) was described in the flight crew operations manual.

Information about the possible role of MCAS in the crash of a Lion Air 737 Max 8 on October 29, sparked a concerned reaction from Indonesia, as well as Southwest and American Airlines’ pilots that they had been unaware of the system.

In an email to members after an emergency airworthiness directive was issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Allied Pilots Association said “this was the first description, you as 737 pilots, have seen (about the MCAS)”.

“It is not in the American Airlines 737 Flight Manual Part 2, nor is there a description in the Boeing manual. It will be soon.”

APA safety committee chairman Mike Michaelis went further, suggesting it was “pretty asinine for (Boeing) to put a system on an aeroplane and not tell the pilots operating that aeroplane, especially when it deals with flight controls”.

But Mr Muilenburg said the relevant function of MCAS was described in the flight training manual.

“We routinely engage with customers about how to operate our aircraft safely,” said the message to employees.

He said Boeing continued to co-operate with the Lion Air investigation, ahead of the release of a preliminary report due next week.

“Regardless of the outcome, we’re going to learn from this accident and continue to improve our safety record,” Mr Muilenburg said.

“However, we will not share or debate details in the media. It’s not appropriate and would violate the integrity of the investigation.”

The MCAS has been described as an automated stall prevention system, that issues nose down commands in response to high angle of attack readings.

The FAA directive warned that if the proper procedures were not followed, the commands could send the aircraft into a steep dive and result in a crash.

The cause of the Lion Air crash that killed all 189 people on board, is unknown.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Flight JT610 27/11/18: Update.

I've been a little bit slow on this one - 

Via the Oz 4 days ago: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo...9e65875504

Lion Air pilot fought airliner to the end

• ROBYN IRONSIDE
  AVIATION WRITER
  @ironsider
  
  
• [size=small]11:00PM NOVEMBER 23, 2018
  

[color=#666666]Investigators examine the landing gear of Lion Air flight JT610. Picture: AFP

A presentation to the Indonesian parliament on the Lion Air crash, has revealed the pilot basically fought with the aeroplane to the end of the flight.

Appearing before the House of Representatives in Jakarta on Thursday, National Transportation Safety Committee aviation head Nurcahyo Utomo explained the data retrieved from the flight recorder.

He said the graphs showed that when the Boeing 737 Max began to move, there was a difference in the designation of speed between the captain and co-pilot.

The parliament heard the aircraft continued to go up and down to a height of 5000 feet, until a “stall condition” was triggered as a result of misleading data coming from one of the angle of attack sensors.

“When it is 5000 feet high, here it is noted that the purple line is automatic trim down, or what is called MCAS. This is a tool to lower the nose of the plane because the plane will stall,” Mr Nurcahyo explained.

“This movement is opposed by the pilot with the blue parameter. So after the trim down, the pilot commanding electric trim continued to fight until the end of the flight.”

He explained that the MCAS trimmed at a faster rate than the pilot-commanded trim, making it increasingly difficult to control the aeroplane.

“It was noted at the end of the flight, the automatic trim increased, but the trim of the pilot was shorter,” Mr Nurcahyo said.

“Finally, the number of trims gets smaller and the load on the steering wheel becomes heavy, then the plane drops.”

Analysis of the flight data recorder showed the 737 Max had no engine problems.

Mr Nurcahyo confirmed that the aircraft experienced the “same obstacles” on the previous flight from Denpasar to Jakarta but said in that instance the pilot was able to control the plane.

It is believed the pilots on Flight JT610 had prepared for an unreliable airspeed event prior to takeoff, and believed that was the issue when they requested to return to Jakarta.

The subsequent high-speed crash into the Java Sea on Oct­ober 29 claimed the lives of all 189 people on board.

Although the flight data recorder has been retrieved and ­analysed, investigators are still looking for the cockpit voice recorder, which will shed more light on the tragedy. A preliminary report by Indonesia’s NTSC is expected to be released next week.

Boeing has denied it “intentionally withheld” information about MCAS from the 737 Max flight operations manual, but an emergency airworthiness directive issued by the Federal Aviation Administration weeks after the crash made it appear something was amiss.

Both Boeing and the US Federal Aviation Administration pointed to existing procedures to deal with the MCAS issue but US pilots claimed they were unaware of how MCAS worked.

There are 218 737 Max 8s in operation worldwide, and Virgin Australia will take delivery of the model late next year.

  
MTF...P2