# Lion Air JT610



## GBNorman (Nov 2, 2018)

Just my less than educated thoughts:

The crash of Lion Air JT610 shortly after  takeoff from Jakarta resulted from two unrelated events.

The inbound Flight Crew reported malfunction with airspeed and altitude controls known as pitot tubes, that have been around since the "Spirit of St. Louis", if not before.

The maintenance facility "signed off", but did little else.

The JT610 crew just plain "forgot" how to manually fly an aircraft. Great to have controls so sophisticated that that the Flight Plan is simply "loaded in" and automation "takes it from there", but the guys up front failed in their responsibility to know something wasn't right....and SPLASH.


----------



## PVD (Nov 2, 2018)

Certainly not an unrealistic scenario, but I get the impression that they were well aware something wasn't right, it was reported that they requested return to origin airport because of trouble.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Nov 3, 2018)

The icing of the pitot tubes contributed to the crash of Air France A332 in 2009.  The icing  occurred at a high altitude.  Could the pitot tubes be a contributing cause in this tragedy given the altitude that the plane reached and the climate of the region where the accident took place?


----------



## PVD (Nov 3, 2018)

I believe that it was AF 447 that you are referencing, but the aircraft was an A330-200 series, so it would be abbreviated as an A332.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 3, 2018)

A pitot tube is an extremely useful device but it is not a fundamental necessity for a sufficiently trained human pilot to successfully operate and land a modern commercial aircraft.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Nov 3, 2018)

PVD said:


> I believe that it was AF 447 that you are referencing, but the aircraft was an A330-200 series, so it would be abbreviated as an A332.




The flight that I referenced was the one that departed Rio de Janerio  to Paris.  The plane was a A330.  I was not aware of the flight number AF 447.

It is a sad reading for anyone reading the accident report for this AF flight.  When this Lion Air flight's accident report is finalized, I don't doubt that it will reveal sadness for those families who lost loved ones.


----------



## saxman (Nov 3, 2018)

Devil said:


> A pitot tube is an extremely useful device but it is not a fundamental necessity for a sufficiently trained human pilot to successfully operate and land a modern commercial aircraft.


It is probably the most fundamental device on the aircraft. More so than anything.


----------



## GBNorman (Nov 3, 2018)

It appears that the Flight Deck knew something was wrong in that they requested permission to return.  It further appears that the aircraft stalled. Reportedly they were at FL5 (5000ft) when the event occurred, which one would think is sufficient to disable the playthings and fly out of the stall (don't know first hand, but don't they teach that stuff in flight school?).

Sounds like a rerun of AF447.


----------



## PVD (Nov 3, 2018)

AF447 was cruising at FL35 at the start of the incident, quite a ways into the flight, rather than at a relatively low altitude at the beginning of a flight.  Anything any of us do now is just guessing, and we should probably wait for solid info, like radar track, radio transcripts and FDR/CVR readouts.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 3, 2018)

saxman said:


> It is probably the most fundamental device on the aircraft. More so than anything.


A functioning pitot tube is necessary for automated analysis and programmed flight management.  That being said, a sufficiently trained and tested human pilot should not _require_ an active pitot tube in order to successfully operate and land an otherwise properly functioning aircraft.  When pitot tubes fail a human pilot can work around the loss of instrumentation and automated systems which rely upon those measurements.  Malfunctioning pitot tubes are listed as contributing factors in the loss of several commercial passenger aircraft, not because they are absolutely necessary to safely operate the aircraft in question, but because conventional pilot training and routine aircraft operation can leave human pilots insufficiently prepared to recognize and mitigate such failures in a timely fashion.  If losing a pitot tube is tantamount to losing the entire aircraft we may as well hand everything over to a computer at this point.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 4, 2018)

GBNorman said:


> Reportedly they were at FL5 (5000ft) when the event occurred,


Not a big deal, but FL5 would be 500 feet.


----------



## jis (Nov 4, 2018)

Gotta sound like an industry insider ya know? :lol:

Incidentally, I am often guilty of it myself, so this is partly self-criticism. The industry that I professionally belong to is too exotic in most cases for much public interest. So I masquerade around as insider of other industries from time to time :hi:


----------



## PVD (Nov 5, 2018)

I think the error string was added onto with my "fat finger" AF447 was at FL 350


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 6, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Not a big deal, but FL5 would be 500 feet.


The flight levels don't officially start until above 18,000 feet...and sometimes higher, depending on the actual barometric pressure.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 6, 2018)

In the US, where this flight wasn't, that's correct.  It varies worldwide.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 6, 2018)

Ryan said:


> In the US, where this flight wasn't, that's correct.  It varies worldwide.


You responding to Eric or me?


----------



## GBNorman (Nov 6, 2018)

A first-time for me since 9/11; flying EDDM/MUC to KORD/ORD this past August, the United Captain enabled "Channel 9" for departure. "I'd swear" I heard Flight Levels referenced with two digits, i.e. FL35 = 35000ft.

An interesting note; while English is the worldwide language for Air Traffic, some of the "English" spoken overseas is "not exactly" that of the King. Those here who regularly travel to Asia will likely agree.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 6, 2018)

GBNorman said:


> A first-time for me since 9/11; flying EDDM/MUC to KORD/ORD this past August, the United Captain enabled "Channel 9" for departure. *"I'd swear" I heard Flight Levels referenced with two digits, i.e. FL35 = 35000ft.*


You sure you were at cruising altitude at that point? And that you didn't miss a zero?


----------



## GBNorman (Nov 6, 2018)

Quote: cpotisch

You sure you were at cruising altitude at that point? And that you didn't miss a zero?

 "I'd swear" I heard Flight Levels referenced with two digits, i.e. FL35 = 35000ft.

But be it noted "I'd swear" is within quotations.

However,  let me note that I don't fly that much - only three trips (six flights) this year - and all on United. I have no idea if other airlines offer their passengers air traffic monitoring.


----------



## jis (Nov 6, 2018)

GBNorman said:


> An interesting note; while English is the worldwide language for Air Traffic, some of the "English" spoken overseas is "not exactly" that of the King. Those here who regularly travel to Asia will likely agree.


The quality of English use by ATC controllers varies widely across Asia. I have flown on the UA nonstop from EWR to DEL and BOM where Channel 9 was on, and one time we even overflew Iran. In general the ATC over most of the Stans used passable English. The Iranian controller was professional using crisp clear English. The American controller in Afghanistan did not even bother responding until we were half way across Afghanistan. In Pakistan we were greeted  with a "Salaam Aleikum", after that it was reasonable English, until departure with a "Khuda Haafiz". Indian controllers were professional but interestingly using standard greeting with non-Indian aircraft, and an Indian greeting with some Indian aircraft. If you want to witness/hear what apparently sounded like controlled chaos you have to spend some time listening in on Mumbai TCA. If you think New York or SOCAL is bad you haven't heard anything yet.

Later on I was looking at general traffic density in the areas we passed, and what struck me is the general lack of traffic density on the corridors through the Stans, including Pakistan with some additional domestic traffic. But once you enter India, whewh! It sure has a very robust domestic market with a huge collection of international O/D and overflights, what with almost every flight from Europe to Southeast Asia overflying some part or the other of India as it seemed.


----------



## GBNorman (Nov 6, 2018)

"I once heard" that internally within Russia, the Controllers speak in Russian. If any foundation to this, it is likely in areas in which there is no international traffic.

Lest we forget, Russia is a "mighty big place".


----------



## jis (Nov 6, 2018)

GBNorman said:


> "I once heard" that internally within Russia, the Controllers speak in Russian. If any foundation to this, it is likely in areas in which there is no international traffic.
> 
> Lest we forget, Russia is a "mighty big place".


The Russian controllers spoke widely varying quality of English with the UA flight. At least on the channel that was managing what I presume is the en route function of an international corridor, there was no Russian spoken.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 6, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> You responding to Eric or me?


Given that his post is directly preceding mine, and I didn't quote you, it's a safe bet I wasn't talking to you.


----------



## saxman (Nov 7, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> A functioning pitot tube is necessary for automated analysis and programmed flight management.  That being said, a sufficiently trained and tested human pilot should not _require_ an active pitot tube in order to successfully operate and land an otherwise properly functioning aircraft.  When pitot tubes fail a human pilot can work around the loss of instrumentation and automated systems which rely upon those measurements.  Malfunctioning pitot tubes are listed as contributing factors in the loss of several commercial passenger aircraft, not because they are absolutely necessary to safely operate the aircraft in question, but because conventional pilot training and routine aircraft operation can leave human pilots insufficiently prepared to recognize and mitigate such failures in a timely fashion.  If losing a pitot tube is tantamount to losing the entire aircraft we may as well hand everything over to a computer at this point.


Not sure what you're trying to say, but pitot tubes are absolutely essential to be operational, at least one of them at least. It has less to do with automated flight, and more to do with that they tell the airspeed of the aircraft to the pilots. In small pistons, they are directly linked to the airspeed indicator. In larger aircraft it goes to an air data computer and then directly to the airspeed indicator. Whether hand flying or in auto-pilot, the pilots need to know how fast the aircraft is going through the air. It is probably THE most important piece of information to have, and you can't have that without working pitot tubes. Luckily there are three on most commercial aircraft. The likelihood of loosing all three are slim to none. I'll give you that it does take proper monitoring and crosschecking to find the bad pitot tube, if it were to happen. The plane usually tells you if there starts to be a discrepancy. I suppose if all three tubes went bad, there are charts in the Quick Reference Handbook that we can dig through to look up weight and thrust settings to fly in case things really get. It's probably the last thing I want to do. Also, automated flight is a tool to transfer workload between the computer and the human. Even when it's on, pilots constantly have to monitor and always have to tell it what to do. Many times, it's actually a higher work load on the pilot to have it on, so we turn it off. It's all about workload management. In the end, pitot tubes are essential.


----------



## GBNorman (Nov 22, 2018)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/world/asia/lion-air-crash-safety-failures.html

Gobble Gobble

The Times has quite an article today reporting on Lion Air safety deficiencies.  Of interest is the report how it is their practice simply to "cannibalize" one aircraft for a part to repair another (guarantee you the Air Force is known for that, anyone else around here who has been in Service knows their branch does same). However, rather than grounding the canibalized aircraft, they will simply replaced that part with the defective one from the other aircraft

Oh well, X your fingers.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 22, 2018)

GBNorman said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/world/asia/lion-air-crash-safety-failures.html
> 
> Gobble Gobble
> 
> ...


What's the point in swapping parts like that at all? Unless I'm misunderstanding, that's literally just as bad as not doing anything about it. Either way they've got a plane flying with that defective part...


----------



## GBNorman (Nov 22, 2018)

You can be sure that any airline under FAA jurisdiction, or any branch of the service, would ground an aircraft with cannibalized parts. Likely that is what occurred with the aircraft that were left behind at Eglin when Michael came a calling.


----------



## GBNorman (Nov 28, 2018)

Possibly a "knothole in the Paywall:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/world/asia/indonesia-lion-air-crash-.html

Feedback, anyone, if such be the case.

Fair Use:



> ....
> 
> Data from the jetliner that crashed into the Java Sea last month shows the pilots fought to save the plane almost from the moment it took off, as the Boeing 737’s nose was repeatedly forced down, apparently by an automatic system receiving incorrect sensor readings.
> 
> The information from the flight data recorder, contained in a preliminary report prepared by Indonesian crash investigators and released on Wednesday, documents a fatal tug of war between man and machine, with the plane’s nose forced dangerously downward over two dozen times during the 11-minute flight.


If they were able to recover the Data Recorder, why not the Voice?

Corner bet: they recovered the Voice as well, but are keeping that under wraps.  In these days of media frenzy, fake news, and hackers going to the lengths they do, some personal and sensitive conversations could leak out.


----------



## jis (Nov 28, 2018)

From what I have read, the data recorder was recovered from its deeply buried in mud location. They did hear the pings from the voice recorder for a period, but could not find it before the pinger battery ran out. They might yet find it fortuitously some day.


----------



## caravanman (Nov 28, 2018)

I don't have much knowledge about this incident, but wasn't it an almost brand new plane, and didn't Boeing issue some notice to check similar planes?

I doubt that it can be down to taking parts off another plane?

Ed.


----------



## jis (Nov 28, 2018)

caravanman said:


> I don't have much knowledge about this incident, but wasn't it an almost brand new plane, and didn't Boeing issue some notice to check similar planes?
> 
> I doubt that it can be down to taking parts off another plane?
> 
> Ed.


As far as is known from reliable reputable sources, it has little to do with taking parts off another plane. It is slowly appearing to be poor maintenance combined with faulty design that crashed the plane in spite of the pilot's best efforts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/report-on-airline-crash-that-killed-189-people-draws-few-conclusions/2018/11/27/a07b833c-f274-11e8-80d0-f7e1948d55f4_story.html?utm_term=.bf506f584609

It appears that Boeing may be in for a bit of a deep doo doo on this one. Even pilots in the US are not happy with how Boeing rolled out this new technology essentially not adequately telling or training anyone, apparently.


----------



## B757Guy (Nov 29, 2018)

I can say this, both my airline, and the airline my wife flies for has it's pilots union in an uproar with Boeing over the MCAS system, and the lack of awareness they provided to the pilots. I've flown various Boeing aircraft almost my entire career in the military and now with my airline, and I'm very disappointed with them at the moment, for how they have handled the MCAS feature.


----------



## GBNorman (Nov 29, 2018)

The immediate is difficult to learn for anyone having occasion to fly on a later Boeing aircraft. Difficult for me in that the entire fleet of my "go to" airline flown on overseas routes is Boeing.

While I no longer hold a position in BA (at my age, you "lighten up" your equity portfolio), I still think of it as "my company" and it appears they will be "on tap" for claims arising from the incident.

Passengers can only hope that pilots have, or will have, this MCAS condition included in their SIM training.


----------



## PVD (Nov 29, 2018)

Swapping parts and cannibalizing is way more common than most people would be comfortable with. Sale of parts from retired aircraft before they are cut up is a robust business, and if properly tested and certified and pedigree tracked happens every day. There are reasons for taking a good part from a plane and putting it in another. If a plane isn't going to fly for any one of many reasons, taking a working part might not be unreasonable if you think the defective can be repaired or replaced before the donor is going back in service. Also, depending on levels of redundancy, a part "loan"  may result in an airplane complying with a minimum equipment list while not grounding the other. Any of this stuff requires an operator or maintenance organization to maintain strict tracking and oversight standards, that is often a failing point.


----------



## B757Guy (Nov 29, 2018)

GBNorman said:


> The immediate is difficult to learn for anyone having occasion to fly on a later Boeing aircraft. Difficult for me in that the entire fleet of my "go to" airline flown on overseas routes is Boeing.
> 
> While I no longer hold a position in BA (at my age, you "lighten up" your equity portfolio), I still think of it as "my company" and it appears they will be "on tap" for claims arising from the incident.
> 
> Passengers can only hope that pilots have, or will have, this MCAS condition included in their SIM training.




My understanding is that they will. However, the risk taker in me thinks shorting Boeing stock may potentially be a lucrative thing, as they have a huge mess on their hands with this. If this accident had happened to a US based airline, in US airspace, it would be a non-stop news cycle, and Boeing would be in far worse shape.


----------



## B757Guy (Nov 29, 2018)

PVD said:


> Swapping parts and cannibalizing is way more common than most people would be comfortable with. Sale of parts from retired aircraft before they are cut up is a robust business, and if properly tested and certified and pedigree tracked happens every day. There are reasons for taking a good part from a plane and putting it in another. If a plane isn't going to fly for any one of many reasons, taking a working part might not be unreasonable if you think the defective can be repaired or replaced before the donor is going back in service. Also, depending on levels of redundancy, a part "loan"  may result in an airplane complying with a minimum equipment list while not grounding the other. Any of this stuff requires an operator or maintenance organization to maintain strict tracking and oversight standards, that is often a failing point. ﻿




Excellent point, but this issue is far greater than just an MX issue....


----------



## PVD (Nov 29, 2018)

Absolutely no argument with that. I was just responding to the earlier post indicating that the FAA would not accept cannibalized parts, which obviously is not the case.


----------



## BCL (Nov 29, 2018)

PVD said:


> Absolutely no argument with that. I was just responding to the earlier post indicating that the FAA would not accept cannibalized parts, which obviously is not the case.


I've heard one of the big issues is counterfeit parts.  Maybe 30 years ago I was reading Time Magazine, and they had an article on counterfeit aircraft parts, including a photo showing fake boxes with the United Technologies logo that were pretty close to the real thing.  The parts themselves were machined and I'm sure that it's easy to tell the difference, but of course the counterfeit likely doesn't have the strength of the genuine part.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 30, 2018)

saxman said:


> The likelihood of loosing all three [pitot tubes] [is] slim to none.


The likelihood of losing all pitot tubes is indeed quite slim, but still a fair distance from none.  Although rare, hundreds of passengers have lost their lives because human pilots were unable to work around the loss of pitot tubes.  Which is surprising to me because a modern commercial aircraft does not become uncontrollable simply because the pitot tubes have failed.  

All of the primary flight controls, engine thrust, and fundamental aerodynamic properties remain fully intact and operational.  Today pitot tubes are extremely robust and plentiful, but that does not mean they cannot fail.  If discovered and addressed in a timely fashion even severe pitot tube failures should be resolvable by maintaining level flight and steady engine thrust until the failure clears or visual flight control becomes possible.

Several recent crashes seem to involve misunderstandings and/or conflicting commands between the computer control and human pilot.  There are so many systems and sensors that can be impacted by a single major failure that we may be reaching the point where a human being can no longer respond to all of them in a timely and effective manner.  Which could mean the days of manual flight control may be coming to an end.  Probably not during your career but starting with the introduction of more advanced automation over the next decade or two.

The most obvious gaps in aircraft automation are currently found in severely adverse conditions and the areas between the runway and gate.  Gaps that are likely to receive renewed interest as knowledge and experience is gained from bringing fully automated commercial vehicles to market.  With command conflicts and confusion playing a larger role in recent aircraft disasters we're probably nearing the point where the dividing line between human and computer control needs to be reevaluated.


----------



## jis (Nov 30, 2018)

At this point we should also take cognizance of the fact that the Pitot Tube failure was causing a secret elixir new automation feature that was trying to crash the plane actively too, apparently, from what I gather reading the material available on the subject, as interpreted within the context of my admittedly limited knowledge in this area. Apparently it finally succeeded in its mission.


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 30, 2018)

jis said:


> At this point we should also take cognizance of the fact that the Pitot Tube failure was causing a secret elixir new automation feature that was trying to crash the plane actively too, apparently, from what I gather reading the material available on the subject, as interpreted within the context of my admittedly limited knowledge in this area. Apparently it finally succeeded in its mission.


If we’re referring to the LionAir crash, it seems like the pitot tubes really didn’t cause the crash, but rather the angle-of-attack sensor that was causing the plane’s automation to do things contrary to the pilots’ desires, and an undocumented change in design between the NG and MAX meant that a procedure to disable said automation on the NG no longer works on the MAX.


----------



## jis (Nov 30, 2018)

You’re right. It is the angle of attack sensor.


----------



## railiner (Dec 1, 2018)

Trogdor said:


> meant that a procedure to disable said automation on the NG no longer works on the MAX.


I know very little about airliner controls, but it seems that at one time the "universal fix" for such situations, was to simply reach up and pull the circuit breaker supplying power to the automated control's....guess that's no longer the case? :unsure:


----------

