Lion Air flight

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › Lion Air flight

1 | 2 | 3

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306
Inactive user

#2128115 16-Nov-2018 18:12

sbiddle:

It would seem based on what we know so far that as a result of incorrect data the plane has entered a dive to prevent a stall and the pilots have potentially not taken the appropriate action which would have prevented the crash.

What is very clear from past incidents in that part of the world is that the pilots are not up to the same standard of training that many Western airlines would have. It doesn't take a lot of skill to get a plane from A to B these days, but that doesn't mean you really know how to fly the plane or deal with an emergency.

Spoken like someone that has been to Everett, Washington more than once...

(and still refers to Airbus as "scarebus")

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2128132 16-Nov-2018 18:51

alasta:

networkn:

I would not willingly board a autonomous aircraft.

I do wonder however, if in this situation, it would have prevented this particular tragedy?

I doubt it. The sensors that the autonomy would have relied upon were feeding anomalous readings. Therefore the situation required the pilots to react based on factors that were probably outside of the awareness of the aircraft's electronic systems.

Thats right. Many times systems have failed. The main areas are takeoff and landing, and often, there is little time to react. They need to assess which reading is wrong, is it your gauge or mine. At night they don't have the horizon as a baseline to work from if they cannot trust the artificial horizon. Airspeed is low so lift is low as is response time from elevators or ailerons.

Too much too soon

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2128133 16-Nov-2018 18:55

Batman:
Dingbatt: Bring on fully automated transport! Umm, maybe not just yet.

I will never get on one that leaves the ground.

Me neither. Ive been on flights where I think how do the wings take this, while everyone is screaming. That particular one was St Louis to LAX. Pilots manage that. Systems can and do fail, mechanics get it wrong. I want a pilot as my last line of defense

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2128281 17-Nov-2018 07:42

tdgeek:

alasta:

networkn:

I would not willingly board a autonomous aircraft.

I do wonder however, if in this situation, it would have prevented this particular tragedy?

I doubt it. The sensors that the autonomy would have relied upon were feeding anomalous readings. Therefore the situation required the pilots to react based on factors that were probably outside of the awareness of the aircraft's electronic systems.

Thats right. Many times systems have failed. The main areas are takeoff and landing, and often, there is little time to react. They need to assess which reading is wrong, is it your gauge or mine. At night they don't have the horizon as a baseline to work from if they cannot trust the artificial horizon. Airspeed is low so lift is low as is response time from elevators or ailerons.

Too much too soon

Lionair was in daylight, with good visibility, nor is there any suggestion that an artificial horizon was wrong. And lift isn't due to airspeed alone; it's due to airspeed and angle of attack. At low airspeed, response time from elevators, ailerons, and rudder is longer, not shorter.

There have been suggestions that the problem may have been with the angle-of-attack sensor(s), or with the static port(s). Angle of attack is the angle between the wing and the airstream, not the horizon. The static port gives the outside air pressure, and therefore altitude. The difference between static and pitot air pressures gives airspeed.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2128287 17-Nov-2018 07:52

frankv:

Lionair was in daylight, with good visibility, nor is there any suggestion that an artificial horizon was wrong. And lift isn't due to airspeed alone; it's due to airspeed and angle of attack. At low airspeed, response time from elevators, ailerons, and rudder is longer, not shorter.

There have been suggestions that the problem may have been with the angle-of-attack sensor(s), or with the static port(s). Angle of attack is the angle between the wing and the airstream, not the horizon. The static port gives the outside air pressure, and therefore altitude. The difference between static and pitot air pressures gives airspeed.

I was referring to the autonomous comments, not Lion Air. Whether people would trust an autonomous aircraft or whether that may have helped avoid this or any other disaster.

gehenna

8667 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3883

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2128574 17-Nov-2018 17:38

Be more frugal with your quoting.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2136281 28-Nov-2018 21:49

The pilots of Lion Air Flight 610 were engaged in a futile tug-of-war with the plane's automatic systems in the minutes before it plunged into the ocean, killing all 189 people on board. But investigators say they are at a loss to explain why the pilots didn't follow the same procedure performed by another flight crew the previous day when they encountered a similar issue.

A different flight crew had experienced the same issue on a flight from Denpasar to Jakarta the previous day, but had turned off the automatic safety feature, known as the maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (MCAS) and took manual control of the plane.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/28/asia/lion-air-preliminary-report-intl/index.html

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2136284 28-Nov-2018 21:53

Lesson: when computer wants to kill you, turn it off.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2136334 28-Nov-2018 23:19

Batman:

A different flight crew had experienced the same issue on a flight from Denpasar to Jakarta the previous day, but had turned off the automatic safety feature, known as the maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (MCAS) and took manual control of the plane.

Add to that the the preliminary news reports stated that the by then known to be faulty angle of attack sensor had been repaired/replaced - but apparently it hadn't been.

Of course it's speculation until a final report, but WTF? Lion Air had a plane with a serious fault notified by pilots, they overcame the issue by disabling a system which I presume they did based on experience/skill/luck - but not using a procedure in the flight manual - because it wasn't there. Lion not only doesn't fix the problem, but sends the same plane with the fault up with a crew not trained to resolve the issue because it wasn't in the flight manual (and as such the pilots hadn't been trained to deal with it). My guess is Lion will try to blame the pilots (and Boeing for their oversight). It seems very dodgy to me.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2136345 29-Nov-2018 00:08

Speaking of autonomous craft, another one just did another perfect job of landing on Mars with no pilot intervention whatsoever. There is a lot to be said automated systems.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 422
Inactive user

#2136387 29-Nov-2018 07:40

There are some interesting articles on the net where actual pilots of Boeing and Airbus compare the planes and control systems. One pilot commented that he would like to have the airframe of a B737 but the flight deck of an Airbus A320. Some of these pilots said the Airbus was overall an easier plane to fly.

There's a lot to be said for booking your flights on a good airline but not on a brand new type of plane. Think De Havilland Comet, B787 and the batteries issue, etc etc.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2136404 29-Nov-2018 08:44

amiga500:

There are some interesting articles on the net where actual pilots of Boeing and Airbus compare the planes and control systems. One pilot commented that he would like to have the airframe of a B737 but the flight deck of an Airbus A320. Some of these pilots said the Airbus was overall an easier plane to fly.

There's a lot to be said for booking your flights on a good airline but not on a brand new type of plane. Think De Havilland Comet, B787 and the batteries issue, etc etc.

It's probably like Apple & Android? Both different but not necessarily better or worse? But I can't believe that Boeing installed a new software, provide no training on what to do when that software plays up, and does not bother telling any pilots that the software even exists, and if I'm not mistaken provide no training for the new plane.

1 | 2 | 3