Remember the 737 MAX-8 crash in Indonesia last October?

One day before the Indonesia crash, another incident happened, and a "off-duty" pilot, who was in the cockpit with the pilots, managed to save the plane from crashing... Yup, weird, huh?

As the Lion Air crew fought to control their diving Boeing 737 Max 8 jet, they got help from an unexpected source: an off-duty pilot who happened to be riding in the cockpit.

That extra pilot, who was seated in the cockpit jumpseat, correctly diagnosed the problem and told the crew how to disable a malfunctioning flight-control system and save the plane, according to two people familiar with Indonesia's investigation.

The next day, under command of a different crew facing what investigators said was an identical malfunction, the jetliner crashed into the Java Sea killing all 189 aboard.

The presence of a third pilot in the cockpit wasn't contained in Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee's report on the crash published on November 28, and hasn't previously been reported.

The so-called dead-head pilot on the earlier flight from Bali to Jakarta told the crew to cut power to the motor driving the nose down, according to the people familiar, part of a checklist that all pilots are required to memorise.

There's more details on the article, I just wanted to bring the attention on WHY this wasn't reported until now?

Looking forward to hear what ATS has to say about this... Could these planes be remotely hacked?

How were they approved by the Aviation Agencies?

Why didn't they grounded the planes?

Source

a reply to: vinifalou

Why didn't they grounded the planes?

apparently because they need a good number of people to die in order to ground them

a reply to: Dr UAE

Yea... I'm being more conspiracionist on this one and thinking this incident was intentional.

No one, especially one of the biggest companies in the world, would leave his product in the market knowing it could cause an disaster like this.

Especially when the incident already happened two times.

a reply to: vinifalou

read the thread "Another 737 MAX down" from a week(ish) ago. The aviation experts at ATS discuss this and other pertinent details.

a reply to: KansasGirl

It wasn't mentioned in the earlier threads that there was an different incident on the day before the Indonesia crash, since this information just came to light today as far as I know.

Do you happen to have a link of this thread?

a reply to: vinifalou

in the aviation section.

And this was discussed.

This incident sound a lot like what happened to that Alaskan Airlines plane that flipped upside down & flew that way for a long time before it nosedived into the Pacific between LA and San Fran. IIRC this happened mid 2000 and it was caused by the rear elevator getting stuck in a nose down position b/c the screw jack stripped or the sleeve that lifted/lowered the elevator stripped off the screw.

I wonder if this is similar? I know it isn't the same plane though.

a reply to: vinifalou

It's not a remote hack, it's actually far more complicated. The 737 Max is the latest version of the 737, which has been flying since the 1960s. It was designed to be very similar to the 737NG family, so they didn't have to fly a complete test program, or totally retrain pilots from the NG to the Max.

The engines are larger, which means they had to be moved forward, and angled slightly as they hang. In a stall situation, the engines will push the nose up, causing the situation to worsen. To compensate for that tendency, Boeing developed the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS.

When the pilot is flying the aircraft by hand (autopilot off), and the flaps are retracted, MCAS is engaged. The problem is that MCAS currently only reads data from the left side Angle of Attack sensor. When that sensor shows a stall approaching, MCAS activates and deflects the elevators to push the nose down, and prevent the stall.

But, Boeing didn't train the pilots on MCAS, or even include it in the manuals for the aircraft. Apparently the belief was that the crew would react to the nose pitching down repeatedly like a runaway stabilizer, take the necessary steps to deal with that, and manually trim the aircraft.

The other major problem is that the software changed during the development process, and that change wasn't passed on to the safety certification team. In the original design, the elevators would deflect 0.6 degrees, which translates to 5 degrees nose down. The final version, that's on production aircraft actually deflects the elevators 2.5 degrees.

The aircraft that crashed in October had multiple writeups for left side AoA sensor problems. At the time JT610 took off, that sensor showed them 20 degrees nose up. This caused MCAS to activate to prevent a stall, and led to the fight against the aircraft that ended in them crashing.

The crew the night before should have passed on that they had a runaway stabilizer, not just an AoA sensor problem. The overnight maintenance changed the sensor and signed it off after a ground test.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Different jackscrew. That screw was at the end of its life and past due for inspection and replacement.

Nothing in this world is completed without sacrifices. It happens and will happen again and again, that is the price we all have to pay.


Imagine the road accidents, every day, round the world, each year….!

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: KansasGirl

It wasn't mentioned in the earlier threads that there was an different incident on the day before the Indonesia crash, since this information just came to light today as far as I know.

Do you happen to have a link of this thread?

They discussed it yesterday. It may even have been brought up over there before yesterday. But either way, they definitely have discussed it now.

The thread is in the Aviation forum and it's titled "Another MAX 737 Down"