Stuart Galbraith Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 When an airliner is grounded, its usually pretty safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 Not exactly Aviation safety in the usual sense, but it seems the BAe 125 is much in vogue in the drug trafficking world, from the ASN DB for 2020: https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20200322-0 https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20200419-0 https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20200528-0 https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20200705-0 https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20200925-1 etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 Supposedly there is a registration number that has appeared on half a dozen of them. Someone really enjoys playing shell games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Peter Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 https://airlinegeeks.com/2021/01/09/sriwijaya-air-flight-sj182-radar-contact-lost-after-departure-from-jakarta/ Was a bit old plane, I think. Quote According to Simon Hradecky of The Aviation Herald, residents of the islands nearby (Thousand Islands) were out on the sea in two boats when they heard two explosions, then found debris afloat at the sea. It was raining at that time. The residents returned to their islands about 2 hours later and reported to police. 62 people that have been reported to be on board include two pilots, four cabin crew, 46 adults, 7 children and 3 infants. The aircraft involved was built in 1994 and first operated for Continental Air Lines as N27610. In 2010 following the United-Continental merger, it transferred to United Airlines keeping its registration. Sriwijaya Air then took ownership in 2012 as United looked to offload older aircraft to make way for new deliveries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 737-500 I think the news said. Probably poor maintainance. The region has lost 737's before for that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonJ Posted January 10, 2021 Author Share Posted January 10, 2021 Went off the radar after just 4 mins after take off and into the sea. Is said that it was delayed by an hour but not due to maintenance but due to bad weather. Not to entirely rule out some bad parts but maybe birds in the engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 (edited) 5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: 737-500 I think the news said. Probably poor maintainance. The region has lost 737's before for that reason. Like it was said for Ethiopian 737 but then turned out to be something else? Don't ass-u-me about air disasters for at least couple of days please. Edited January 10, 2021 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 Yes, but that aircraft was a Max, a nearly new aircraft. Its fairly challenging to break a new aircraft through poor maintainance, and so it proved. This aircraft is significantly older. As this article points out, the region is replete with accidents. https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/jet-crash-adds-to-long-list-of-aviation-disasters-in-indonesia Bad weather is interesting, but that rarely brings an aircraft down by itself. Could be poor training, that has happened before in the region too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yama Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 According to Flightradar, the plane had a sink rate of 100m/s. That is very extreme even for a stall, so if it's correct, this was something very major, well beyond any normal engine hiccup: something akin to catastrophic structural failure, deliberate dive or explosion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Catastrophic structural failure would do that. The empennage leaving, for example. But it's going to be tricky to literally piece together something like that given how fast it must have hit the water. They may need to put all the bits they can find together and see what's gone missing. At least it's shallow waters, so somewhat less challenging than it might have been. FR has been recovered, but not the CVR. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-55628294 Early 90s jet, won't have as much information as newer ones but it may provide an answer anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 You know, I wonder if this was a belated rudder hardover incident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickard N Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 On 8/2/2020 at 1:53 PM, DB said: An interesting thought - if you were a passenger who was aware of the circumstances (say a pilot who knew that the engine had failed), what would you do to influence the decision of the pilot to continue. There was a pilot on the SAS flight that crashed shortly after takeoff in Gottröra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_751 He helped the flight crew, recognized the sound of the engine error from being a fighter pilot (the JA37 has the same engine) and said afterwards that if that happened again he would just sit in his seat. Probably took a bit of heat from "disturbing" the flight crew /R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssnake Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 On 8/2/2020 at 1:53 PM, DB said: An interesting thought - if you were a passenger who was aware of the circumstances (say a pilot who knew that the engine had failed), what would you do to influence the decision of the pilot to continue. Well, what can you do in the age of armored bulkheads separating the cockpit from the passenger deck. In any case, I suppose the answer will depend entirely on the severity of the issue, one's competence, and psychological disposition in the moment. As a minimum, inform a flight attendant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 19 minutes ago, Ssnake said: Well, what can you do in the age of armored bulkheads separating the cockpit from the passenger deck. In any case, I suppose the answer will depend entirely on the severity of the issue, one's competence, and psychological disposition in the moment. As a minimum, inform a flight attendant. Indeed, you need to inform the crew asap! it wouldn't be the first time passengers saw an issue while pilots were puzzling over the instruments.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glappkaeft Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 There where two pilots flying as passagers. The first one was in civilian clothes and informed a stewardess and the purser of the surging problem who then communicated with the pilots. The second pilot was in uniform (same airline) and was the one who assisted in the cockpit. I know he got some flak for it but not from the accident report investigators. They said, "The assisting captain's action, which may be questionable on grounds of purely of principle, turned out to have several positive effects." https://www.havkom.se/assets/reports/English/C1993_57e_Gottrora.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Looks like the captain got overloaded and stopped partially froze. The assisting pilot (third guy) made a decision (flaps down) and gave several prompts which helped things along, but the captain was too slow to recognise the problems and didn't really know what to try to do next. An unfortunate combination of design elements and operating procedures are the underlying causes, though - creating design changes that put a n ice formation point in the direct path of the engines is one thing, but not following the procedures developed to mitigate the icing risk is a bit on the naughty side, especially for a Nordic country where icing is inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 31 minutes ago, DB said: ... especially for a Nordic country where icing is inevitable. Familiarity breeds lack of respect for a problem. IDK what study it was, but for some high risk things well trained rookies had less problems than experienced teams, since they followed SOP to a fault. Experienced teams were better at handling unexpected problems, but rookies were actually less likely to cause problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 11 hours ago, bojan said: Familiarity breeds lack of respect for a problem. IDK what study it was, but for some high risk things well trained rookies had less problems than experienced teams, since they followed SOP to a fault. Experienced teams were better at handling unexpected problems, but rookies were actually less likely to cause problems. Sometimes experienced teams are too clever: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/falling-from-the-sky-the-near-crash-of-china-airlines-flight-006-e8bbc6683018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BansheeOne Posted January 29, 2021 Share Posted January 29, 2021 Quote Date 27.01.2021 Author Andreas Spaeth Europe brings back Boeing 737 MAX Airlines operating in Europe, such as TUIfly or Ryanair, can fly the 737 MAX again after its grounding. But is it really needed — and will passengers be willing to board? Andreas Spaeth is looking for answers. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) said Wednesday that it had cleared the Boeing 737 MAX to fly again in European skies, paving the way for a comeback of the controversial airplane, at least in theory. In practice, though, no airline seems overly keen to redeploy the former Boeing bestseller in a hurry. No carrier needs extra capacity right now. Rather, aircraft parking, deferral of deliveries or even cancellations of aircraft orders are the new normal as the pandemic hits passenger aviation hard. A total of 641 orders for the 737 MAX were canceled in 2020 alone, and Boeing removed from its order books another 523 seen as unlikely to be fulfilled, currently leaving 3,333 planes of the model to be delivered over the next few years. The US, Canada and Brazil paved the way for the return of the aircraft. Since late 2020, their respective aviation safety authorities have allowed the Boeing 737 MAX back into the skies with passengers for the first time since the global grounding of the aircraft back in March 2019. It took that long for Boeing to redesign a software blamed to have contributed to two crashes in 2018 and 2019, in which a total of 346 passengers were killed. The authorities needed time to thoroughly test the modified software. No unified global approach While other important markets like China and India are still keeping the 737 MAX on the ground for the time being, the EASA had been busy in recent days touting its plan to recertify the aircraft. "The MAX will be cleared to fly again this week in Europe," said EASA Executive Director Patrick Ky on Monday at a hearing of the Transport Committee of the European Parliament. A team of 20 EASA experts had worked for two years to recertify the aircraft. [...] The 737 MAX crisis has been causing a major shake-up in procedures established for decades, with almost all other certification authorities around the world used to almost automatically rubber-stamping FAA decisions and certifications. These procedures couldn't be continued anymore after what happened. "We need to work more on how we work together with the FAA and how we complement each other, as it obviously didn't work well for the MAX," the head of EASA stressed in a recent press briefing, while acknowledging: "For the recertification of the MAX we had full transparency from Boeing and the FAA." "This doesn't mean we were aligned and agreed every time, but we worked very well together," he added. The EASA is now satisfied that the 737 MAX is a 100% safe aircraft after the required modifications have been done. "We have tested the 737 MAX even without MCAS, and it would be safe to fly not using the system at all," Ky pointed out. EASA's director had good news for low-cost carrier Ryanair, still awaiting delivery of the first of a total of 210 737 MAX-200s. In December, Ryanair topped up an earlier order, wanting an additional 75 planes. [...] https://www.dw.com/en/europe-brings-back-boeing-737-max/a-56347854 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted February 15, 2021 Share Posted February 15, 2021 Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 Learjet to end production. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39229/the-iconic-learjet-will-come-to-an-end-after-six-decades-of-defining-private-air-travel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BansheeOne Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 Clear skies, with a chance of aircraft debris. Quote Date 21.02.2021 Boeing: United Airlines jet debris rains on US suburb The passenger plane's engine had suffered a catastrophic failure, causing parts of the engine casing to break off. A similar incident has also taken place in the Netherlands, injuring two people. Debris from a United Airlines passenger plane fell onto a suburb of US city Denver, during an emergency landing Saturday. The Boeing 777-200 was carrying 231 passengers and 10 crew when its right engine experienced failure shortly after takeoff, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said. The plane made it back to Denver International Airport while scattering debris across Broomfield, a residential neighborhood about 40 kilometers (25 miles) north of the city. Where the debris fell The Broomfield Police Department posted photos on Twitter showing large, circular pieces of debris leaning against a house in the suburb. The images also showed debris scattered across sports field Commons Park. [...] Not a freak accident Meanwhile, a similar incident, also involving a Boeing plane, took place on Saturday in the Netherlands. Shortly after take-off from Maastricht Aachen Airport, a fire broke out in one of the plane's four engines, again causing debris to fall from the sky. Several pieces of metal fell to the ground over Meerssen, a district in the north of Dutch city Maastricht. Two people were injured: An elderly woman was hit in the head and had to be treated in hospital, police said. A child was also reportedly slightly injured and suffered burns when trying to pick up pieces of debris from the ground. The plane later landed in Liege, Belgium. Authorities are investigating the incident. https://www.dw.com/en/boeing-united-airlines-jet-debris-rains-on-us-suburb/a-56638669 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Peter Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 That house owner is quite lucky, more so if the car is theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonJ Posted February 21, 2021 Author Share Posted February 21, 2021 Might be more of a engine maker problem than Boeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now