Lionair 610 crash

[jb747]

Is this a normal part of pre-departure routine (do all 737 pilots around the world prepare for this every time they fly)? Or was it specific to this particular flight, based on previous reports from earlier flights with this aircraft?

No...this is something that’s happened because they were aware of the previous history. Whether it indicates that they doubted that it had been fixed is a question that we can’t answer...but you wonder.

It can be a trap too. Sim exercises generally have a number of different scenarios that can be used, and there’s often feedback on the line about what a sim exercise contains. I’m told that more than one pilot has reacted to an issue he was told about, instead of the one he actually has.

If it is the latter, would pilots, faced with a similar situation, normally refuse to fly the aircraft? Or would they be satisfied that preparing for the event is enough to off-set the risk and they'd fly anyway? (Do different airlines handle this sort of thing differently - for example Airline A tells its pilots to proceed but Airline B would tell them to suspend the flight?)

I take an aircraft flying when I think it’s ready to go. I’ve never had any pressure placed on me to accept anything by the company. But, I doubt that this is the case in all places in the world.

That bit where all airlines say that ‘safety is our first priority’....that’s marketing.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

No...this is something that’s happened because they were aware of the previous history. Whether it indicates that they doubted that it had been fixed is a question that we can’t answer...but you wonder.

It can be a trap too. Sim exercises generally have a number of different scenarios that can be used, and there’s often feedback on the line about what a sim exercise contains. I’m told that more than one pilot has reacted to an issue he was told about, instead of the one he actually has.



I take an aircraft flying when I think it’s ready to go. I’ve never had any pressure placed on me to accept anything by the company. But, I doubt that this is the case in all places in the world.

That bit where all airlines say that ‘safety is our first priority’....that’s marketing.

I'm afraid that confirms my suspicions. I don't know Indonesian law on negligence. As a domestic flight this wouldn't be covered by the Montreal Convention. If it had been, the sky's the limit on claims here. The pilots have as much admitted they knew there was a problem. Not unforseeable that something could happen as a result of that problem.

I'm sure their intentions were good. I think as passengers we have to believe any pilot, however bad the safety reputation of thier company, would not deliberately put themselves in danger. They too want to get home to their families at the end of their shift.

 

[jb747]

It doesn’t mean they knew there was a problem. It means that they knew this problem occurred on a previous flight. Engineering have supposedly fixed it, but they considered it prudent to look at the procedure.

You could take that as simply being cautious.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Astounding and sad.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It doesn’t mean they knew there was a problem. It means that they knew this problem occurred on a previous flight. Engineering have supposedly fixed it, but they considered it prudent to look at the procedure.

You could take that as simply being cautious.

That's true. And I again point out - at least at this stage - that I think the pilots had good intentions.

At an airline level... is 'we think we have fixed it' enough? Or for something potentially this serious do you take the plane on a test flight before releasing it back to commercial operations.

 

[drron]

But if Lionair had had the recent Boeing notification before 610 took off this may not have happened.
I would not be surprised if some gung ho US lawyer launches a class action against Boeing if they are found to have any blame.

 

[RooFlyer]

But if Lionair had had the recent Boeing notification before 610 took off this may not have happened.
I would not be surprised if some gung ho US lawyer launches a class action against Boeing if they are found to have any blame.

Only one?

 

[OZDUCK]

But if Lionair had had the recent Boeing notification before 610 took off this may not have happened.
I would not be surprised if some gung ho US lawyer launches a class action against Boeing if they are found to have any blame.

It has already happened. Lion Air victim's family sues Boeing

And there are several other reports of different lawsuits being started.

 

[jb747]

But if Lionair had had the recent Boeing notification before 610 took off this may not have happened.
I would not be surprised if some gung ho US lawyer launches a class action against Boeing if they are found to have any blame.

Lawyers will be queuing up. But I wonder if it’s not just Boeing who will be in the firing line. I suspect the FAA is ultimately behind the MCAS being there at all.

At an airline level... is 'we think we have fixed it' enough? Or for something potentially this serious do you take the plane on a test flight before releasing it back to commercial operations.

Test flights are quite rare. There’s a Boeing procedure to fix pretty well everything, so as long as that was followed, and the appropriate test results gained, then a test flight isn’t likely to prove all that much.

With modern aircraft it’s quite common for glitches to be fixed by little more than reracking equipment. Things that are physically broken aren’t all that common...

The bigger problem, as I see it, is that we have a supposedly modern aircraft flying around with dual, and not triplicated, systems. I think Boeing has rested on the 737 laurels for far too long.

 

[Quickstatus]

The bigger problem, as I see it, is that we have a supposedly modern aircraft flying around with dual, and not triplicated, systems.

With a dual system there is no way of knowing which one is correct??

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Test flights are quite rare. There’s a Boeing procedure to fix pretty well everything, so as long as that was followed, and the appropriate test results gained, then a test flight isn’t likely to prove all that much.

Except in this case it might have. Perhaps the 'let's hope we've fixed something' will no longer be an acceptable sign-off for some potentially more serious problems. When we fix a car we take it for a test drive. Yet for a plane with 189 passengers we take the risk?

 

[jb747]

With a dual system there is no way of knowing which one is correct??

Well, you can work it out. It sounds like pretty dumb software. With a triple system, it's easy to drop out a dissenting vote.

 

[jb747]

Except in this case it might have. Perhaps the 'let's hope we've fixed something' will no longer be an acceptable sign-off for some potentially more serious problems. When we fix a car we take it for a test drive. Yet for a plane with 189 passengers we take the risk?

I doubt that the average thrash around the block really achieves anything.

Realistically test flights simply can't happen for each and every fault. Where do you draw the line. You'd never get any actual flights done.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Realistically test flights simply can't happen for each and every fault. Where do you draw the line. You'd never get any actual flights done.

Of course not. But between insurers, lawyers, manufacturers, airlines and pilots... I'd like to think there is some point where it might be considered prudent to 'test' a supposed fix rather than relying on hope - no matter how educated the guess at the fix was.

 

[jb747]

Of course not. But between insurers, lawyers, manufacturers, airlines and pilots... I'd like to think there is some point where it might be considered prudent to 'test' a supposed fix rather than relying on hope - no matter how educated the guess at the fix was.

Well, hopefully, there's a bit more than hope involved. Most fixes will have some form of test attached to them, but in this digital age, that's often a software test.

But, I think we're looking at the wrong thing. I don't see test flights as necessary. But, I do see decent design as being something that does not come from 50 year old, grandfathered engineering. Boeing had the opportunity to replace the 737 when they were building the 757. That aircraft could have morphed into a decent replacement. It already had the bigger, long range aspects covered, but they needed to develop a smaller version. Bending to Southwest, and introducing a butchered coughpit design, when they could have been using common 767/777/787 designs (pick one, or more) was another retrograde step.

 

[Quickstatus]

So two consecutive flights on this aircraft experienced similar stabiliser trim problems. Pilots used stabiliser trim cutoff switches killing the electric stabiliser trim on one. But not on the one that crashed?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But, I think we're looking at the wrong thing. I don't see test flights as necessary. But, I do see decent design as being something that does not come from 50 year old, grandfathered engineering. Boeing had the opportunity to replace the 737 when they were building the 757. That aircraft could have morphed into a decent replacement. It already had the bigger, long range aspects covered, but they needed to develop a smaller version. Bending to Southwest, and introducing a butchered coughpit design, when they could have been using common 767/777/787 designs (pick one, or more) was another retrograde step.

Unofrtunately this may be little comfort to the victims and their families, who will be looking for answers as to how this specific incident happened.

Sure they may not need to be more rigourous testing for well known or routine problems. But here we had an aircraft that suffered problems on at least two flights. A fix was made and the plane allowed to fly withouth actually knowing whether the fault was fixed. Did the engineers turn their mind to consider whether a test flight might be necessary? Perhaps in future for new and unknown errors this might become a practice. And perhaps that's a good, meaningful and lasting legacy?

 

[moa999]

But, I think we're looking at the wrong thing. I don't see test flights as necessary. But, I do see decent design as being something that does not come from 50 year old, grandfathered engineering. Boeing had the opportunity to replace the 737 when they were building the 757. That aircraft could have morphed into a decent replacement. It already had the bigger, long range aspects covered, but they needed to develop a smaller version. .

But equally in this case it appears that Boeing has introduced a very ugly unintended consequence from making a minor tweak to reflect a perceivrd issue from slightly larger engines.

I've got no confidence that an all new design wouldn't introduce even more issues.

 

[juddles]

I think a far bigger issue here (than fault-rectifying, the notion of "test flights", etc) is a more fundamental one. It is the philosophy that allowed installation of software that was trying to "help" the pilot which he did not want nor need, nor even knew of the existence of.

I think this shows why human pilots will be needed far into the foreseeable future, and the notion of pilot-less aircraft is nowhere near a reality. In this case the software was successful in overcoming the actual real pilot's best efforts, managing to crash and kill everyone on board also. An aircraft that other than a faulty sensor or two, was in perfect flying condition, in perfect weather.....

 

[juddles]

But if Lionair had had the recent Boeing notification before 610 took off this may not have happened.
I would not be surprised if some gung ho US lawyer launches a class action against Boeing if they are found to have any blame.

It won't be "gung ho" lawyers - it will be very serious ones. We all know it is very early days in the investigation of this crash, but I suspect Boeing is going to cop an absolute hiding out of this.

Much of the success in achieving the huge advances in aviation safety to date has been due to the comprehensive investigation of actual incidents. It is in some ways the sad fact that the deaths of all these people will save the lives of many more in the years ahead. Already I suspect that 737 pilots (and others) around the globe have far greater knowledge and preparedness for similar situations. I am sure the specific software issues in 737-MAX aircraft will be extremely well overhauled/rectified/etc. But I also think, more importantly, that this crash will change the way the entire aviation industry considers how to utilize systems that should "help" pilots, but now shown to also be able to crash aircraft.

And there is nothing like massive legal repercussions ($$$$) to help this whole improvement process along.