Boeing 737 With 56 Aboard Missing After Takeoff From Jakarta

GypsyPilot

Well-Known Member
Three of our PSI's were instructors at two of those airlines. A lot more than a handful of my FO's taught students who went off to some of those airlines. Based on my personal experiences with those people, I ain't getting on most of those.
I’m going out on a limb here and assuming you’ve never even been to Asia. So I doubt you’d be flying on any of these carriers either way.

Just as an aside, I’ve had FOs at my old regional that I was hesitant (and in some cases wouldn’t) trust to be at the controls alone while I went to the lav. They’re at places like Frontier, United, and Delta... Doesn’t mean I won’t fly in those carriers.
 

jynxyjoe

The Kickin' Chicken!
The irony, of course, is that the past 40 years of "Laissez-faire, every-man-for-himself, I've got mine, F-you" combined with the current hyper connectedness is leading to a zeitgeist in which people believe that no one needs anyone. The past four years have taught us we no longer even need to pretend to.

Lads, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the big arc picture you're positing, but I think, in the near/mid future, during the, uh, "transition years", you're going to see precisely the opposite of "centralization". You're going to see continued fracturing of community. Fracturing of common cause, Fracturing of intellectual honesty. It's all ME now. It's all narcissism. It's all vanity and invidious distinction now.

America will fail as the protector of and sustaining force for individual freedom precisely because its people have become too damned selfish, self-absorbed and narcissistic.

The insurrectionist Twats and FacePalmBookers are already migrating to decentralized, encrypted messaging. And yes, that is a challenge to stability and to law and to order. That challenge will likely end in a charlie fox.

Small towns don't work because the gossiping neighbors know to much. Big cities don't work because no one even knows their neighbors.
So the question I have for you is, What is the "Baby Bear" condition? What's the "just right" state?
Well as I stated, the centralization may not happen, because it may not need to. Like the streets filled with horse poop that never happened you can't predict what engineering or sociological changes will occur. You can’t predict the just right condition we will need in a free wealthy country because the next generation will want the exact opposite. Rebels without a cause have a way of destroying plans.

My answer is the one you’ll like least, the market will decide. Cities will always be expensive and promising. Rural will always have benefits for the established. How many go where? Who knows. More importantly who cares. We aren't in the "Ministry of Central Planning" and there never will be one. You know what the dumbf k commies got wrong? There's no crystal ball, never was, never will be. Worrying about the future is like stringing beads with dryer lint.

You know what sucks about small towns? Bar Harbor is a good example, the same 12-16 people fornicate and swap with members of the same 12-16 people. The weird one bangs some kid way too young for her or a dad way too old for her, while the guy explores his secret gay side and they both get "punished" for it through shame- self imposed or otherwise. You know what sucks about big cities? No privacy, it stinks like garbage, and you're always broke. There's actually piles of good in both, like giant life satisfyingly great stuff in both big and small cities, but you gotta decide what you want at the time.

But my last point was about mammals and their need for "stuff". There's a good book you might enjoy trying to explain what the future will be like when wealth and resources double every couple years... *sigh* Accelerando, (TY @killbilly ) which I still haven't finished because it's too damn dense and I want to read the Dune books again. Wealth will continue to increase, probably at an increasing rate, and in times like these, the beginning of a revolution (tech instead of industrial this time) a lot of people are going to get left behind at first.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
Um, remember when a plane crashed in Indonesia?




They're saying the CAs recent experience was all in simulators for bounces and the airplane itself had just entered service late December after sitting for 6+ months due to Covid. Curious if either of these two may have played a role in the accident sequence.
 

BigZ

Well-Known Member
Um, remember when a plane crashed in Indonesia?




They're saying the CAs recent experience was all in simulators for bounces and the airplane itself had just entered service late December after sitting for 6+ months due to Covid. Curious if either of these two may have played a role in the accident sequence.
Both probably did.
Even newer planes sitting stateside managed to develop most interesting ailments from what I hear.
 

ChasenSFO

hen teaser
There are some very good foreign carriers in Asia that I fly on frequently and have zero qualms about doing so.

Cathay
Hong Kong Airlines
HK Express
JAL
ANA (any airline in Japan is good IMO)
Singapore
SilkAir
Malaysian
Eva
China Airlines (a Taiwan airline, not mainland China)
Emirates
KAL

There are probably a few others on here that I’ve missed that are good. The only carriers I’m hesitant to fly on are pretty much any carrier in mainland China and Indonesia.
Exactly.

I have no problem with any major carrier except Asiana(they have had several serious incidents and near misses since the SFO debacle, but what's more concerning is the Korean authority does nothing except make them pay fines and suspend routes which only hurts the customers). The problem isn't ASIA, the problem is a few specific places. India, Taiwan and Indonesia have always had terrible safety records. If you look at Malaysia right next to Indonesia with a very similar culture, they've had very, very few major accidents prior to the 2 MAS 777s going down, which for all we know they both may not have even been the carriers fault, the shot down one surely was not. Other countries in Southeast Asia like Cambodia and Laos with way less resources have managed decades of safe operations. Something is just culturally wrong with the industry in a few of those countries. Sometimes, it is even just a carrier and not the country itself. Myanmar's national airline has lost close to 30 planes as a tiny airline that never has more than 15-20 in the fleet, yet the privatized airlines with ATRs have been flying since the 90s with no accidents.

Look at Japan. They have a better safety record than the USA, they haven't lost an airliner since the 80s and they were flying mostly large aircraft like 767s, 777s, A300s, and 747s on 6-8 flights per day through violent weather with routes that have some of the highest flight frequencies on earth and still managed not to ball anything up while their tech guys keep the planes meticulous. Every new employee at ANA has to go to a museum where parts of aircraft from the few crashes they've had in their history are housed, to learn what happened and how serious loss of life from an accident is to reiterate how important safety is. Singapore Airlines is one of the safest carriers on earth, and is huge relative to the size of the country. It isn't "Asia" or "Asian airlines" as a whole.

But as for China, most of the Chinese airlines have not had any crashes since the 80s or early 90s, if at all. I doubt some of the pop-up quickly expanding ULCCs like Spring Air or Lucky Air are the safest in the world, but all the major carriers like Air China, China Eastern\Southern, Hainan, Xiamen Air, ect I wouldn't mind flying on at all for safety reasons. I just wouldn't want to fly them because the service sucks and the pax tend to not have Western etiquette when traveling with lots of spitting, loud talking, taking off shoes\socks in crowded rows, ect. But that is cultural, not safety.
 
Last edited:

Lawman

Well-Known Member
Exactly.

I have no problem with any major carrier except Asiana(they have had several serious incidents and near misses since the SFO debacle, but what's more concerning is the Korean authority does nothing except make them pay fines and suspend routes which only hurts the customers). The problem isn't ASIA, the problem is a few specific places. India, Taiwan and Indonesia have always had terrible safety records. If you look at Malaysia right next to Indonesia with a very similar culture, they've had very, very few major accidents prior to the 2 MAS 777s going down, which for all we know they both may not have even been the carriers fault, the shot down one surely was not. Other countries in Southeast Asia like Cambodia and Laos with way less resources have managed decades of safe operations. Something is just culturally wrong with the industry in a few of those countries. Sometimes, it is even just a carrier and not the country itself. Myanmar's national airline has lost close to 30 planes as a tiny airline that never has more than 15-20 in the fleet, yet the privatized airlines with ATRs have been flying since the 90s with no accidents.

Look at Japan. They have a better safety record than the USA, they haven't lost an airliner since the 80s and they were flying mostly large aircraft like 767s, 777s, A300s, and 747s on 6-8 flights per day through violent weather with routes that have some of the highest flight frequencies on earth and still managed not to ball anything up while their tech guys keep the planes meticulous. Every new employee at ANA has to go to a museum where parts of aircraft from the few crashes they've had in their history are housed, to learn what happened and how serious loss of life from an accident is to reiterate how important safety is. Singapore Airlines is one of the safest carriers on earth, and is huge relative to the size of the country. It isn't "Asia" or "Asian airlines" as a whole.

But as for China, most of the Chinese airlines have not had any crashes since the 80s or early 90s, if at all. I doubt some of the pop-up quickly expanding ULCCs like Spring Air or Lucky Air are the safest in the world, but all the major carriers like Air China, China Eastern\Southern, Hainan, Xiamen Air, ect I wouldn't mind flying on at all for safety reasons. I just wouldn't want to fly them because the service sucks and the pax tend to not have Western etiquette when traveling with lots of spitting, loud talking, taking off shoes\socks in crowded rows, ect. But that is cultural, not safety.
Yeah dude I think that was exactly his point that some of you seem to be wholeheartedly dismissing as some kind of ignorable “racism.”

You have countries in the regions with what can only be described as culturally rooted issues preventing safe operation by the standard anybody else would be expected to have. If you think their isn’t a country to country difference in effective aircrew coordination and normalization of adhered to established safe protocols which ebbs and flows country to country basis you are lying to yourself to appear woke or something. Same is true of the Middle East, or for that matter Europe, and the Americas though the extremes of differences seem to be more visible dependent on region.

I love some of the guys I’ve worked with in my partner nation military forces, but I’d have to be naive or just F’ing stupid to ignores the vast cultural differences and the resultant differences in safety/training/capabilities that are holding some nations back while others in the same region excel. There is a reason certain groups require higher levels of approval for risk by our chain of approval to carry US personnel.

You seem to think civilian aviation is somehow immune to the same culturally rooted issues? Yeah there’s a whole bunch of airlines listed it the “trusted column” so how about Cebu Airlines or any of a dozen other locally sourced nationally recognized airlines. Inshallah (or whatever language equivalent) I guess.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

ChasenSFO

hen teaser
so how about Cebu Airlines or any of a dozen other locally sourced nationally recognized airlines. Inshallah (or whatever language equivalent) I guess.
I'd fly Cebu Pacific, they were planning LAX at one point, not sure if they still are. They're a reputable carrier, their only fatal accident was a DC-9 CFIT in the late 90s, and everything else was runway excursions at secondary airports which all airlines in that region have every few years. They are very big like a medium haul version of Philippine Airlines itself and have newer aircraft and lots of expat pilots from Australia and what not. Really, most Asian airlines are fine as far as your risk of a serious incident goes. The Filipino carriers are more likely to have a minor incident than other places, but I wouldn't fear death on any of them in modern times. India, Indonesia, Taiwan, Russia\Ukraine and several of the former USSR areas, and Pakistan are probably the countries with the most fatal accidents since the 2000s. Only 2 of those countries I'd consider Asian. But I agree that the issue within all of them is probably cultural, be it in training, procedures, or corruption. Africa is very corrupt in Aviation, and the airports are often in very bad shape, but the countries I listed seem to be worse off these days. Though Africa is the only place where shoot downs still occur with any regularity.
 

Polymox

Well-Known Member
If you look at Malaysia right next to Indonesia with a very similar culture, they've had very, very few major accidents prior to the 2 MAS 777s going down, which for all we know they both may not have even been the carriers fault, the shot down one surely was not.
If I remember correctly, most other airlines had chosen to avoid overflying eastern Ukraine at that time. If their competition had chosen to mitigate that risk with longer routes while MH had not, that makes the crash at least partially the carrier's fault.
 

NovemberEcho

Dergs favorite member
If I remember correctly, most other airlines had chosen to avoid overflying eastern Ukraine at that time. If their competition had chosen to mitigate that risk with longer routes while MH had not, that makes the crash at least partially the carrier's fault.
I think there were several other airliners in the area. The restricted airspace went to something like FL320 and they were at 330 or around there
 

ChasenSFO

hen teaser
If I remember correctly, most other airlines had chosen to avoid overflying eastern Ukraine at that time. If their competition had chosen to mitigate that risk with longer routes while MH had not, that makes the crash at least partially the carrier's fault.
Not most, just a few carriers had actually stopped flying over Ukraine. There were over a dozen airlines that had flown over the warzone that day, and a Singapore Airlines A380 was cruising very close to the MAS 777. It was far from the norm at the time to avoid Ukraine. I don't blame MAS for it, that's what aviation authorities are for.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
Looks like they are focusing on the throttles.................



Autothrottle was producing more thrust in one engine than the other?


Boeing Jet’s Throttle Becomes a Focus in Indonesia Crash Probe
By
Alan Levin
and
Harry Suhartono

January 20, 2021, 10:16 AM PST
 
Last edited:

Minuteman

“Dongola”
The 1995 Romania accident referenced in the article was a Tarom A310 where a thrust asymmetry developed over the course of 45 seconds during initial climb out and clean-up. Or it could have been multiple failures that included pilot incapacitation.


Being a former Continental plane, the FDR should have N1s, TLAs (albeit truncated), which thrust limit mode is active, A/T engagement, and maybe(?) the FMS N1 target. This aircraft has Non-EIS steam gauges, so there are no individual bug or cmd values available.
 
Last edited:

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
Yep, that'll do it. Autothrottles not working quite right=instant death for everyone aboard.

I was really hoping you'd weigh in on this one. Just sorry we had to wait so long.
I simply pasted a Bloomsberg article that had a quote of a guy close to the investigation but cannot be named due to sensitive nature of ongoing investigation (the usual disclaimer). Obviously it should have been a survivable event if an Autothrottle malfunctioned. But to answer your assertion, YES, in many parts of the world, a malfunctioning automation is pretty much guaranteed death for everyone onboard. Indonesia falls squarely in that category.

Jeez. I don’t know what you want in this thread. Sorry if my post above somehow offended you. Maybe I should have joined the previous 4 pages of this thread arguing about songs, coal, journalism, and some jynx monkey.
 

ChasenSFO

hen teaser
The 1995 Romania accident referenced in the article was a Tarom A310 where a thrust asymmetry developed over the course of 45 seconds during initial climb out and clean-up. Or it could have been multiple failures that included pilot incapacitation.


Being a former Continental plane, the FDR should have N1s, TLAs (albeit truncated), which thrust limit mode is active, A/T engagement, and maybe(?) the FMS N1 target. This aircraft has Non-EIS steam gauges, so there are no individual bug or cmd values available.
Yeah...that one. That was one of the most "...wtf...seriously?" reports I've ever read. "Maybe the throttles were knocked out of symmetry by accident. Or maybe the Captain collapsed and died and the F/O was too freaked out to fly. Or hell, maybe the Captain got up and left the cockpit and caused a commotion. Who knows. Case closed".

What a weird "conclusion".
 

Autothrust Blue

Commander Air Group, BSG-75
Yeah...that one. That was one of the most "...wtf...seriously?" reports I've ever read. "Maybe the throttles were knocked out of symmetry by accident. Or maybe the Captain collapsed and died and the F/O was too freaked out to fly. Or hell, maybe the Captain got up and left the cockpit and caused a commotion. Who knows. Case closed".

What a weird "conclusion".
Some of it may well have been the PF diverting their attention owing to the Captain’s non-responsiveness, but at the end of the day, and we keep saying it, “please make sure someone is flying the airplane.”

One of the difficulties, of course, is that the guys that would know the answers are not around to tell us.
 

BigZ

Well-Known Member
I think there were several other airliners in the area. The restricted airspace went to something like FL320 and they were at 330 or around there
The "official" list is Su-24, six Su-25s, two MiG-29s, An-26, An-30 and Il-76 were shot down in the area. Il, 2/3 of 25th and I think one of the MiGs was low level stuff (<5km) but rest should have been a good enough of a reason to NOTAM the crap out of that airspace. Separatists had antiaircraft capability, and Ukrainians were getting very twitchy with the same due to second MiG allegedly being brought down by a Russian MiG.
 
Top