https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/boeing-nearing-737-max-fleet-bulletin-on-aoa-warning-after-lion-air-crash/

Interesting. Perhaps Lion Air DID take up the option of AONS with commsat. After all, it's a pretty quick reaction from Boeing supposedly without the FDR from the accident aeroplane.

We should, however, refrain from attributing cause for the moment.

That's why I was careful to mention "possible cause".

In-depth discussion here.

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/614857-indonesian-aircraft-missing-off-jakarta-36.html

 

Edited November 7, 20187 yr by Jude Bradley

Thanks for posting, Jude! Interesting and shocking at the same time.

If - and I do stress if - this is the case with the 737 MAX, it would be quite an alarming issue. Of course even if this is a thing which can occur on the 737 MAX, it still does not mean that this was actually the cause of the Lion Air accident, although one has to say that it would seem to fit the profile of the incident quite well as a potential factor.

Edited November 7, 20187 yr by Chock

9 minutes ago, Jude Bradley said:

That's why I was careful to mention "possible cause".

Indeed.

It serves to potentially highlight the importance of being able to hand fly; what with STS going haywire with incorrect AoA indications, and in VFR daylight, the pilots role is to trim against the aircraft to produce correct pitch to maintain sufficient air speed. Which appears not to have happened in this case.

Edited November 7, 20187 yr by Guest

The interesting question for me, is why the crew on the previous flight managed to deal with what was apparently the exact same problem, and get the plane on the ground safely. What was different about the flight that crashed?

One suggestion over at pprune is that it might be the presence of a company engineer on board, apparently there to help debug the problems the plane was having. And that might have led to more cockpit confusion. Just pure speculation though. They need to find the CVR.

Of course another question is why the aircraft was signed-off for revenue flight after having that much trouble on the previous leg. Placing an engineer on board the next leg to debug would be a test flight, not something paying passengers should ever have been exposed to.

1 hour ago, Paraffin said:

Of course another question is why the aircraft was signed-off for revenue flight after having that much trouble on the previous leg. Placing an engineer on board the next leg to debug would be a test flight, not something paying passengers should ever have been exposed to.

+1, dear lord.. is like a paid test fly..

It is starting to sound like a potential issue that really should ground the 737 MAX fleet until it has been corrected. Workarounds for potentially serious problems during passenger flights are really not acceptable.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-withheld-information-on-737-model-according-to-safety-experts-and-others-1542082575

The following quote from the above article in the Wall Street Journal, if true, shows a frightening disregard by Boeing for the safety of aircrew and passengers using their aircraft:

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

The decision not to disclose these details seems to have been taken mainly with a view to minimising any additional training requirements for the new version - a truly arrogant and condescending  approach by Boeing to pilot’s flying these airliners. 

Edited November 17, 20187 yr by scianoir

This is a simulation of a runaway stabilizer on non MAX but still a B737. Also, this is knowing what's happening and why as compare with "what is it doing that" during a take off.

The workload increase is significantly higher. The perspective of what truly happened to Lion-Air 737-Max and its possible causes, changes a lot after watching this.

Cheers,

21 hours ago, mabe54 said:

This is a simulation of a runaway stabilizer on non MAX but still a B737. Also, this is knowing what's happening and why as compare with "what is it doing that" during a take off.

The workload increase is significantly higher. The perspective of what truly happened to Lion-Air 737-Max and its possible causes, changes a lot after watching this.

Cheers,

Interesting, did not quite nail the centerline though, lol.....  Trim was my friend taking flight lessons, flying trikes was different, you trim with your arms and throttle.

John

 

There is a channel on YouTube, where the pilot tells his opinion about what happened.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Accidents_and_incidents

An analysis by Boeing on commercial jet airplane accidents in the period 1959–2013 showed that the original series had a hull loss rate of 1.75 per million departures versus 0.54 for the classic series and 0.27 for the Next Generation series - Wiki

Perhaps this incident is an exception to the rule. Because every year airplanes are becoming safer and safer.

Information about the aircraft in the picture from Wikipedia. Found it in the form of a picture.

Source of image: http://jetz.icu/boeing-737/

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 20187 yr by Dannybarnett