Lion Air crash: Indonesia finds faults in two other Boeing 737-MAX jets after crash
AUTHORITIES have made a chilling find in the Lion Air investigation - and it could have implications for flyers around the world.

News Corp Australia NetworkNOVEMBER 3, 20182:04PM

INDONESIA’S transport ministry has found faults in two other Boeing 737-MAX 8 jets, including a cockpit indicator display problem which an analyst warned may be similar to one reported in the crashed Lion Air Jet.

The ministry said it is inspecting 10 of the newly released jets owned by Lion and flagship carrier Garuda, as authorities analyse data from a recovered black box that may help explain why flight JT610 plummeted into the Java Sea, killing 189 people on Monday.

Few details have been released, but the ministry said it had looked over half a dozen jets so far and discovered that one had a problem linked to its cockpit display while another had a glitch in a jet stabilisation system.

Both Lion-owned planes required new components, it said.

Indonesian President Joko Widodo visits the search mission after new details about the jet’s previous flight cast more doubt on Lion Air’s claim to have fixed technical problems. Picture: AP
Indonesian President Joko Widodo visits the search mission after new details about the jet’s previous flight cast more doubt on Lion Air’s claim to have fixed technical problems. Picture: APSource:AP

Aviation analyst Dudi Sudibyo said the cockpit display issue could include a speed-and-altitude glitch reported in the doomed jet.

Indonesia’s Tempo news website published a minute-by-minute summary of what it said were the conversations between air traffic control and the pilots of Monday’s fatal flight, who reported a “flight control problem” and were unsure of their altitude.

Asked about the accuracy of the report, National Transportation Safety Committee deputy head Haryo Satmiko said it had “similarities” with the information received “legally” by investigators.

Mr Sudibyo stressed that with aeroplanes, “even if there is a single, tiny fault it should not fly.”

If there is a problem with the new Boeing 737-MAX 8 jets, that will have implications for flyers around the world including Australia.


It’s understood Virgin Australia has 30 Boeing 737 MAX 8 planes on order, with the first of them due to arrive in November next year.

An investigator inspects debris hauled from the seabed after Lion Air flight JT610 crashed into the Java Sea on Monday. Picture: AP
An investigator inspects debris hauled from the seabed after Lion Air flight JT610 crashed into the Java Sea on Monday. Picture: APSource:AP

Stephen Wright, an aviation expert at the University of Leeds, told AFP that the faults identified by the transport ministry in the two other Boeing jets were “very minor.”

He added that any problems with the new jet’s pitot-static system — which determines speed and altitude among other measurements — will be key to the probe.

The inspection comes as questions swirl about why a plane that had gone into service just months ago crashed into the sea minutes after takeoff.

The single-aisle jet, en route from Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang city, is one of the world’s newest and most advanced commercial passenger planes.

Budget carrier Lion Air’s admission that the doomed jet had a technical issue on a previous flight — as well its abrupt fatal dive — have raised questions about whether it had mechanical faults specific to the new model.

It has since come to light that the pilot on the plane’s previous flight on Sunday from Bali requested to return to the airport not long after takeoff but then reported the problem had been resolved and continued onto Jakarta.

Indonesia’s National Transportation Safety Committee said it was interviewing people who flew on the plane the day before the fatal crash.

Some have reported a frightening, erratic trip, an assertion that appears to be backed up by flight tracking data. ...

Boeing, FAA update airlines on 737 Max sensor issue
Ben Mutzabaugh, USA TODAY Published 11:54 a.m. ET Nov. 7, 2018 | Updated 4:14 p.m. ET Nov. 7, 2018

Boeing has issued a safety bulletin to all airlines that operate the Boeing 737 Max aircraft, and the Federal Aviation Administration is expected to follow with an Airworthiness Directive mandating safety protocols for U.S. carriers.

The moves by Boeing and the FAA follow the Oct. 29 crash of a 2-month-old Lion Air Boeing 737 Max jet that killed all 189 onboard when the plane plunged into the sea shortly after taking off from Jakarta, Indonesia.

Safety regulators of other nations typically follow directives issued by the FAA.

The focus in the crash investigation appears to have turned to the flight data sensor and the possibility it returned erroneous readings.

Two U.S. airlines fly the Boeing 737 Max 8. Southwest has 26 while American Airlines has 16. Combined, the airlines have hundreds more on order.

United Airlines flies another variant, the 737 Max 9, which also is covered by Boeing's bulletin. None of those U.S. airlines have reported the issue covered by Boeing’s bulletin regarding its 737 Max aircraft.


Bloomberg News was the first to report that the FAA planned to issue an airworthiness directive for the 737 Max. Bloomberg wrote that “under some circumstances, such as when pilots are flying manually, the Max jets will automatically try to push down the nose if they detect that an aerodynamic stall is possible.”

It's the sensor readings that are thought to incorrectly show that such a stall is possible.

A Boeing statement said that its safety bulletin, sent to airlines on Tuesday, directs flight crews to “existing flight crew procedure” on how they should respond to erroneous data for the sensor which monitors an aircraft’s "angle of attack," a vital measurement in determining lift after takeoff.

Aerospace industry expert Jon Ostrower writes via his blog The Air Current that “the erroneous (angle of attack) input can pitch the aircraft’s stabilizer trim down for up to 10 seconds at a time.”

Boeing’s bulletin is said to include instructions to pilots on how to compensate for automated controls that may be triggered by incorrect sensor readings.

After Boeing’s update, the FAA followed on Wednesday with a statement that, according to Bloomberg, it plans to issue an airworthiness directive on the issue and “will take further appropriate actions depending on the results of the investigation.”

The Wall Street Journal, also citing unnamed “people familiar with the matter,” writes “the moves are the first public indication that investigators suspect a possible software glitch or misinterpretation by pilots – related to an essential system that measures how high or low a plane’s nose is pointed – may have played an important part in the sequence of events that caused the Boeing 737 Max 8 to plunge into the Java Sea.”

“Boeing and the FAA are providing operators with information and a reminder of how to address a stabilizer trim nose down condition,” says John Cox, aviation expert and USA TODAY’s Ask the Captain author. “There are several steps a crew can take, but in the end they switch the electric stabilizer trim off and revert to manual trim."

“Stabilizer trim” refers to flight controls addressing the pitch of the airplane, according to Cox.

It wasn't immediately clear if Boeing planned an further update to its Tuesday bulletin, but comments made to The Associated Press indicated they expected one.

For now, that leaves airlines to ensure that they’re following the latest updates.

Boeing has delivered more than 200 models of the aircraft and has received orders for more than 4,500 of its 737 Max models.

More: Lion Air crash: Southwest, American use the same new Boeing plane in Indonesia crash

For now, though, industry analysts played down the possible impact on U.S. airlines and travelers. 

"No impact at all so far," Richard Aboulafia, a vice president at Teal Group who analyzes commercial aviation, told USA TODAY. "There's a working hypothesis, and a caution to watch crew procedure in the event that this problem repeats. If the hypothesis is correct, there could, conceivably, be minor equipment modifications and a renewed emphasis on crew procedure."

He added, "there is nothing, so far, that indicates a serious problem for airlines and nothing that would impact the safest form of transportation ever created."

Another industry Henry Harteveldt, co-founder of the Atmosphere Research Group travel consultancy, echoed those sentiments.

He said it’s too early make conclusions until the FAA actually issues its directive on the subject.

He points out the agency regularly issues directives. While some are for serious items, many address relatively minor issues.

“Right now, based on what information is available, it appears this will be a fairly unobtrusive type of directive in terms of affecting airline operations,” Harteveldt said. “I’m not expecting aircraft to be grounded. I’m not expecting airlines to take the airplanes out of service.”

Boeing 737 Crash Caused By New Safety System Pilots Weren’t Told Existed
By Joel Hruska on November 13, 2018 at 4:01 pm 14 Comments

Modern aircraft are staggeringly complex. There’s a complex interconnected web of systems controlled by both the pilot and co-pilot and the onboard computers dedicated to keeping the airborne meat-filled-tube-with-wings-attached firmly in the air. When an aircraft is lost, it’s an international tragedy. Modern aircraft typically don’t fall out of the sky without warning, which is why the Lion Air 610 crash on October 29 that killed 189 people was such an unusual event. New information suggests the blame for that event in Indonesia rests squarely on Boeing’s shoulders.

FAA officials and airline pilots are zeroing in on a new anti-stall system as being responsible for the crash, The Wall Street Journal reports. Workers on an oil platform near where the airline slammed into the water report that it struck at a steep, nose-down angle. That’s significant, because a week after the crash, Boeing distributed a warning to airlines worldwide that a new anti-stall system on the 737 MAX 8 and 737 MAX 9 could cause the aircraft’s nose to suddenly drop, resulting in a steep dive. This can occur even when the aircraft is under manual control and when pilots don’t expect the flight computer to override their actions.


A stall can occur when the nose of the plane is elevated, so a new system that pushes the nose down could make sense, but pilots weren’t trained on how to recover the Boeing 737 MAX from this event. Previous 737s lacked this feature. Illustration by Wikipedia.

It gets worse. According to Indonesian investigators and multiple pilot organizations, this scenario isn’t covered in the 737 MAX 8 or MAX 9 flight manual and was not taught to pilots. Bloomberg reports that none of the documentation for the aircraft explained the existence or function of the system. Boeing has stated that the Lion Air 610 received “erroneous input” from one of its AOA (angle-of-attack) sensors, which was presumably at least partly responsible for the flight computer’s decision to drop the aircraft’s nose and engage the stall prevention system. But without proper training, the flight crew on the aircraft would not have known how to recover the plane. Previous 737s did not push the nose of the aircraft down as part of stall prevention.

Bloomberg notes that “A long-standing procedure taught to pilots could have halted the dive, according to the regulator and the manufacturer. The FAA ordered airlines to add an explanation into flight manuals,” but does not state what the procedure was. In a situation like this, knowing the aircraft inside and out is critical. Lion Air 610 had only been in the air for 13 minutes and had already requested permission to return to Jakarta and land. We can assume, therefore, that the aircraft was well below its target altitude when the steep descent began. An aircraft in emergency descent can drop quickly; this Quora link suggests 6,000 – 7,000 feet per minute is not uncommon. While we don’t know what nose angle the anti-stall system set or the altitude of the aircraft, a little envelope math suggests the pilots had very little time to pull the aircraft out of the dive.

In that kind of scenario, there may only be time to try a single method of recovering the plane, and the Lion Air pilots obviously guessed incorrectly. They shouldn’t have been guessing at all.

The WSJ also states that one of the selling points of the 737 MAX, according to Boeing, was that pilots wouldn’t need any additional simulator time to learn the aircraft, and that the company opted not to disclose additional technical information in the belief that doing so would “inundate” pilots with technical details they neither needed nor could grasp.

4 times it was reported that plane should not have been in the air....simple as that.....it was only 6 weeks old..