Boeing 737 With 62 Aboard Crashed After Takeoff From Jakarta, Say Authorities (bloomberg.com) 123
A Sriwijaya Air flight with 62 aboard is missing after losing contact with Indonesia's aviation authorities shortly after takeoff from Jakarta. From a report: Flight SJ182, a 26-year-old Boeing 737-500, was scheduled to depart from the nation's capital to Pontianak on the island of Borneo at 1:40 p.m. local time, according to FlightRadar24 data. It had 56 passengers on board, along with two pilots and four cabin crew, MetroTV reported. Indonesian authorities said they have sent a search vessel from Jakarta to plane's last known location in the Java Sea. First responders were also deployed to the site to aid potential survivors, local TV reported. Sriwijaya Air said it's working to obtain more detailed information about the flight, and will release an official statement later. Updated at 14:53 GMT: The plane crashed, the Indonesian authorities said moments ago.
Condolences (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I kinda feel they all dead, plane crash in water have good survival rate?
A controlled landing? Maybe.
A "crash"? No.
(and this was probably a crash).
Re: (Score:2)
Better than in concrete.
Well executed ditching is rare. The alternative is pretty much like hitting concrete.
Re: (Score:2)
They're dead. (Score:3)
An aircraft DITCHING can have survivors, but crashing into the sea (water doesn't compress well) is not ditching.
They're compressed. (Score:2)
Well the ground doesn't either so that leaves....?
Re: (Score:2)
Ground is actually considerably more compressible than water. Not that that's going to help you above a certain speed.
Re: (Score:2)
plane crash in water have good survival rate?
Better than in concrete.
Wrong. At 300 MPH water acts just like concrete. There won't be many large pieces left at all, plane or people.
It probably lost power and dove into the ocean. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not looking good.
Not looking good for Boeing's stock either... it was a 737.
Regards to the possible victims and their families and friends.
Re: It probably lost power and dove into the ocean (Score:5, Informative)
-500s are 20-30 years old at this point, so it's unlikely to impact Boeing stock.
Re: It probably lost power and dove into the ocean (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people won't understand the distinction, and will still have less confidence in Boeing as a result. Traders might be smarter than that, but may still react to a loss of public confidence.
Re: It probably lost power and dove into the ocea (Score:1)
Most people won't understand the distinction
They are also not playing the market.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not playing the market, but they are booking flights, and they're saying "What plane is that flight using? A Boeing? Maybe I'll book another one," or "What plane is that flight using? A 737? Aw, hell no!"
Re: (Score:2)
Most people won't understand the distinction
Most people have precisely zero impact on a stock price. Even more the number of people in the world who choose the plane they fly on rather than the destination or airline are such an infinitesimal portion of the population to be completely irrelevant.
The only thing that moves stock from a plane crash is the possibility of government intervention in a business, and there's zero possibility of that here. At best they may put to question the specific airline and it's maintenance / training practices. Boeing
Re: (Score:2)
Most people have precisely zero impact on a stock price.
You think public confidence is worth nothing? People just like you must be running most major corporations.
The only thing that moves stock from a plane crash is the possibility of government intervention in a business, and there's zero possibility of that here.
Zero? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
You think public confidence is worth nothing?
In business to business transactions, absolutely. The public has fuck all choice on their plane. Often you don't even get to find out what plane you're on until check in is open. So yes, public confidence is worth nothing in a business where the public has no involvement.
Zero? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I absolutely know what that word means. It means zero. None. Nada. I don't use that word a lot, *that* is how confident I am with my claim.
Planes crash all the time and it's rare that the stock market even blips for the manufacturer. The ex
Re: (Score:3)
"Most people have precisely zero impact on a stock price"
Most people, individually, have an impact on a stock price too small to be detectable. When a large section of your customer base decides they don't want to do business with you, that's another matter...
"Even more the number of people in the world who choose the plane they fly on rather than the destination or airline are such an infinitesimal portion of the population to be completely irrelevant."
Normally people have no interest in brand of the plan
Re: (Score:2)
When a large section of your customer base decides they don't want to do business with you, that's another matter...
What customer base? You can count the total customers of Boeing, it's less than 100 and most of them are not shareholders.
People are going to be asking what plane their flight is using, and they're going to be doing it in large numbers.
No they aren't. They never have, even with previous crashes. People don't care, and best of all they don't even need to because regulatory agencies are responsible for their safety. The only people who would check and care about this are irrational people who don't understand safety statistics, incidentally they are mostly made up of people afraid to fly in the first place.
Even with the
Re: (Score:2)
I could imagine it influencing an airline's purchase of different brands or models of airplanes, so it certainy can influence the stock price.
Re: (Score:2)
"-500s are 20-30 years old at this point, so it's unlikely to impact Boeing stock."
You say that as if reality had anything to do with the stock price.
Re:It probably lost power and dove into the ocean. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not looking good for Boeing's stock either... it was a 737.
It was a plain 737, not a Max, operating in a part of the world where maintenance is an issue.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: It probably lost power and dove into the ocean (Score:3)
Sriwijaya leases their -500s. Leases are not usually done through the manufacturers, but through 3rd party lessor groups. It also looks like at this time that they outsource most, if not all, of their MTC operations. Looks like a standard flight path until right at the end. I'm leaning towards power loss as opposed to loss of control surfaces or single engine failure (although losing both engines would lead to power loss if im not mistaken). In any case, something fairly catastrophic.
Re: (Score:2)
It had to be a lot worse than that to explain dropping out of the sky without a mayday. At a minimum they would have had to lose the entire electrical system AND the entire hydraulic system. Perhaps an explosion on-board??
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing should be careful who they sell planes to
Why? Are gun supplier's stocks down because their products get used by people in murders?
it's also bad for Boeing.
No it's not. Companies who purchase aircraft do not factor in the poor maintenance practices of a 3rd world country. Consumers who fly on planes pick a destination and airline, rarely if ever do they actually have a choice on which plane is used.
This is irrelevant for boeing unless an investigative body identifies that boeing was culpable.
Re: (Score:2)
Are gun supplier's stocks down because their products get used by people in murders?
Guns are made to kill. Not sure this is also the case for airplanes.
Re: (Score:2)
While Boeing can certainly control to whom they sell aircraft, Boeing does not control the second hand market. The 737-500 was last made in 2000 while Sriwijaya Air was founded in 2003. The plane was most likely purchased from another airline and not directly from Boeing.
It probably lost parts and dove into the ocean. (Score:2)
That raises another big issue. Counterfeit parts.
Re: (Score:2)
The 737 and 737 Max are as different as a 1980 Ford Escort and a modern Escape.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who are going to drive the reaction to this do not know that, nor do they care.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually as a 1980 Ford Escort and a 1980 custom Ford Escort with an ill fitting engine from a modern car, an aftermarket digital tachometer, Chinese Xenon lightbulbs, rallye stripes and a lowrider mod.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a 737 max in any case. The Max was a recent reiteration of the plane. The older planes have a long record and a new incident should not affect the company much.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: It probably lost power and dove into the ocean (Score:4, Interesting)
Its not fly by wire, so even double engine loss and subsequent power loss should still have allowed for operation of control surfaces, right? Unless both failures were catastrophic and cut the control cables in both wings, but that would be virtually impossible to happen normally.
Re: It probably lost power and dove into the ocea (Score:1)
...and cut the control cables
Surely they are hydraulic.
Re: It probably lost power and dove into the oce (Score:3)
Hydro-mechanical according to Wikipedia. Thats for the classic 737 though, not sure about later models.
The 737 is unusual in that it still uses a hydro-mechanical flight control system, similar to the Boeing 707 and typical of the period, that transmits pilot commands to control surfaces by steel cables run through the fuselage and wings rather than by an electrical fly-by-wire system as used in all of the Airbus fleet and all later Boeing models.[121]
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC if you completely lose power in a 737, you still have elevator and aileron control, but you lose rudder control, because the rudder is actuated by a worm gear servo. You still have manual trim control as well, but as we've seen, aerodynamic loads can make that impossible to use.
Re: (Score:3)
My understanding is that airliners are designed so that they can be controlled if both engines flame out. Other types of damage can contribute to loss of control but if the engines simply do not run, the pilots should be able to control the aircraft. This 737-500 did not use fly by wire.
In newer fly by wire there is an APU that the pilots should start to maintain control. In the US Air 1549 accident, the pilots started the APU within 10 seconds of birdstrike. Flight 1549 was an Airbus 320 that was fly by wi
Re: (Score:2)
Suggests the wings fell off.
Re:It probably lost power and dove into the ocean. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not looking good. Flight tracking shows it took off, went up to almost 11,000 ft, then dove over less than a minute, peaking at almost 12K ft/sec dive rate.
That should be "almost 12K ft/minute". Few airliners can manage 9,000 mph - even straight down.
Re: (Score:2)
Not looking good. Flight tracking shows it took off, went up to almost 11,000 ft, then dove over less than a minute, peaking at almost 12K ft/sec dive rate. Last tracking showed it at 7K feet, diving, and traveling at 149 kts, which is close to stall speed.
No word on any emergency transmissions either; if there were none it was something fast and catastrophic. For those speculating the loss of both engines, that would be very rare, and even then the plane could glide and the cockpit crew radio they are declaring an emergency.
Re: (Score:2)
Or on purpose. Pilots have been known to fly airplanes into the ground because they want to end it all.
90 degrees absolute (Score:4, Interesting)
Suddenly coming around to a 90 degrees absolute compass heading is rather noteworthy.
Re: It probably lost power and dove into the ocean (Score:2)
12K ft/sec dive rate.
12,000 feet per second is roughly 10 times the speed of sound. Might want to check your numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
12K fps??? That's about mach 11. 4x as fast as a rifle bullet. It wouldn't have made orbit if it were heading up at that speed. Quite.
I am thinking there's a typo in wherever that info came from....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My friend, that is feet per minute, not feet per second. That's about 136MPH (as opposed to your claimed 8,000+MPH :P).
We don't know what attitude they were in or if the plane was still intact. If they were stalled then they were certainly not "diving." It appears they were descending uncontrolled with slightly more airspeed indicated by the pitot tube than the VSI. That could be consistent with holding a stall all the way to the ground, but not with intentionally diving. Their trouble began at about 1
Re: (Score:2)
12K ft/sec dive rate.
Eight thousand miles per hour? I don't think so. Check your units. Minutes maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
737 rudder is controlled with a hydraulically-actuated worm gear servo. Thereâ(TM)s no way to for it to move if you completely lose hydraulic pressure. Can a 737-500 operate if it loses both engines as well as the APU? IIRC it doesnâ(TM)t have a ram air turbine for auxiliary power when engines fail, that was only added on later models.
Indonesian Triangle (Score:2)
Re:Indonesian Triangle (Score:5, Insightful)
If you'd ever lived in Indonesia you wouldn't find it so unbelievable.
Re: (Score:2)
If you'd ever lived in Indonesia you'd find it unbelievable how few plane crashes have occurred.
Fixed that for ya.
Re: (Score:3)
Filghtradar (Score:5, Informative)
Lost 10,000 feet in less than a minute (Score:3)
Re: Lost 10,000 feet in less than a minute (Score:2)
Or lost power and stalled.
That being said, that minute would have to be one of the most terrifying things imaginable. Long enough to realize you're going to die and long enough to know theres nothing you can do about it. Only consolation is, at that speed, the final moment is instantaneous. Probably not much to recover though.
Re: (Score:2)
Or lost power and stalled.
In that case, an airplane follows a more parabolic curve, and would need more than ~45 seconds to fall 10,000 feet. Anyway, let's hope it's not been shot down ; it's never a good time, but now would be the worse...
Re: Lost 10,000 feet in less than a minute (Score:2)
Isn't Indonesia dealing with a low grade insurgency? Could have been a bomb. That would make more sense than it getting shot down, considering the location.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't Indonesia dealing with a low-grade insurgency? Could have been a bomb. That would make more sense than it getting shot down, considering the location.
There was an insurgency in Aceh [wikipedia.org], on the northwest tip of Sumatra, But there was a political settlement in 2005.
There is a low level insurgency in New Guinea [wikipedia.org], but there is no history of the conflict leading to terrorism in other areas of Indonesia.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like free fall. Usually, when an aircraft free falls, it's been shot down...
Shot down. Right off the coast of a plane in the country's own borders and right next to the airport... The leap of logic that brought you to this conclusion is incredible. Outside of wars the number 1 reason a plane free falls is aerodynamic stall or weather such as wind shear which before the mandate for onboard radars on planes contributed to on average about 1.5 planes falling out of the sky each year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Planes drop out of the sky because of structural failure, or being flown into the ground.
Or pilot error as in Air France 447 by holding the plane too steep losing lift (ie angle of attack way too high to basically make the plane drop like a stone). Structural failures like rudder flying off also leads to immediate loss of all lift. Engine loss gives you many seconds/minutes of gliding with the current momentum and correct spatial orientation of the craft/wings.
Re: (Score:2)
Air France 447 didn't drop like a stone. It's a good example. The pilots appear to have stalled the aircraft, then held it in a stall or near stall for several minutes as it porpoised around until it eventually hit the ocean.
A 737 has a glide ratio somewhere in the neighbourhood of 17:1. From 3000 m (10k feet) that would give you a glide of ~ 50 km (30 statue miles) or so.
IIRC there was an Austrian 767 in the early nineties that had a thrust reverser deploy in flight. That did end up making it fall out of t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It may come as a surprise to you, but most aircraft, especially the ones you put passengers on, are designed so they don't become "odd shaped metal box[es] not unlike a stone" if someone screws up a bit.
Here's a video of a stall and recovery on the same type of aircraft as in the story:
https://youtu.be/TlinocVHpzk?t... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
A
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, sure. You might want to learn a bit about actual flying, maybe talk to some pilots. With a bit of humility.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like free fall. Usually, when an aircraft free falls, it's been shot down...
Or came apart through other means.
Corruption (Score:4, Interesting)
Indonesia is incredibly corrupt. It wouldn't surprise me if corners wers cut and bribes were taken. https://www.transparency.org/e... [transparency.org]
Re: (Score:2)
it's also poor and broke, with $180 monthly income. So a poor third world shithole can't maintain a jumbo jet, color me surprised.
Nicely 'spum' header ... well done (Score:4, Insightful)
'Boeing 737' but NOT 'Boeing 737 Max' which would have been a stunning story.
But the header certainly got me to read the story.
Explosion? (Score:5, Interesting)
It looks like either an uncontained engine failure that severed all three hydraulic lines or a bomb on board. I don't know any other reason for such a dramatic plunge from this altitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Some kind of (tail) stabilizer wiring failure, maybe? Also, I wouldn't discount the possibility of gross negligence during maintenance, either some assembly mistake resulting in loss of hydraulics or undetected metal fatigue. From what I've read, that airline has apparently had pretty significant maintenance issues in the relatively recent past.
Re: (Score:2)
Three hydraulic lines is the A320. The 737 has only two.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know any other reason for such a dramatic plunge from this altitude.
Or it was done intentionally.
Re: (Score:2)
or third world toilets can't properly maintain a plane, which is the most likely explanation
Re: (Score:2)
Aerodynamic stall, and wind shear both present as dramatic plunges from altitude.
Re: (Score:2)
The airplane went through a normal climb and all parameters looked normal, so I don't think it was a stall. As to wind shear, it can be very dangerous when you close to the ground, but it was about 13,000 feet already. So I don't think it is wind shear.
Don't omit structural failure. (Score:2)
If the pressure hull failed catastrophically that's as good as a bomb or missile.
Re: (Score:2)
The aircraft was still at the altitude where there was not enough pressure differential to cause much problems.
Airlines in the US keep buying the 737 Max (Score:2)
For example, Alaska Air just bought several more:
https://simpleflying.com/alask... [simpleflying.com]
Boeing has manufactured 450+ of the 737 Max since the US government blocked it from flight in 2019. No fundamental changes to its flawed aerodynamics were made. The "Max" has been proven by engineers to be more dangerous than the 737-500 that just crashed in Indonesia.
Good Business (Score:2)
The era of click bait headlines sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
The 737 is the best selling commercial airliner in history. If a plane has a problem, the odds are almost certain it will be a Boing or Airbus and likely a 737.
This is another clickbait headline that detracts from the true news of a tragedy.
Re: (Score:2)
If a plane has a problem, the odds are almost certain it will be...
in Indonesia.
Re: (Score:2)
A 737 again? (Score:2)
Re:Another one (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the inherent flaw in the airframe over 53 years, 5 generations and 19 model series of the plane? Do you know and willing to share or are you just mouthing off pithy replies?
Re: (Score:3)
Every single plane manufacturers since they have been using metal has this "flaw" then, that would be like saying Intel has an inherent flaw because of "silicon fatigue".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the same generation Southwest 737-300 about a decade ago?
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying this 737 put in service 25 years ago has an inherent engine control software flaw across the some odd 2000 airframes of this generation? And you are basing that on... what exactly?
I get the desire to dunk on Intel to feel good about oneself but there are plenty of other threads where it's appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I can read Einstein.
I’m glad you can read Einstein’s papers, but I don’t see what that has to do with you failing to gather from the summary that this was a 737, not a 737 MAX. It’s a decades-old model that’s flown hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of flights, so when issues like these occur we generally don’t jump to extraordinary conclusions or comparisons. When it looks like a horse, acts like a horse, and sounds like a horse, it’s almost always a horse—poor maintenance,
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that being a much older aircraft there are a lot more factors like how the aircraft has been maintained (possibly by multiple owners) over the decades in service right? The problem with the 737 MAX is that they were relatively new aircraft crashing which revealed a major design flaw. With decades of service, the chance of it being a design flaw in the 737-500 is less likely.
Good points! (Score:3)
Jet mech here agrees.
Shit happens when aircraft sit on the ground which is why the Air Force requires periodic engine runs and system ops checks, and in some cases functional check flights before returning to service.
Re: time to short boeing stock? (Score:2)