Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Boeing 737 With 62 Aboard Crashed After Takeoff From Jakarta, Say Authorities

Comments Filter:
  • I kinda feel they all dead, plane crash in water have good survival rate?
    • 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).

  • by Jjeff1 ( 636051 ) on Saturday January 09, 2021 @06:56AM (#60915120)
    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. https://flightaware.com/live/f... [flightaware.com]
    • 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.

      • by Fembot ( 442827 ) on Saturday January 09, 2021 @07:19AM (#60915166)

        -500s are 20-30 years old at this point, so it's unlikely to impact Boeing stock.

        • 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.

          • Most people won't understand the distinction

            They are also not playing the market.

            • 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!"

          • 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

            • 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.

              • 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

            • "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

              • 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

            • by spitzak ( 4019 )

              I could imagine it influencing an airline's purchase of different brands or models of airplanes, so it certainy can influence the stock price.

        • "-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.

      • by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Saturday January 09, 2021 @07:56AM (#60915240)

        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.

        • Boeing should be careful who they sell planes to, and, knowing the risks, should provide more assistance. A crash like this one not only damages Indonesian airlines reputation, it's also bad for Boeing.
          • 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.

            • by sjames ( 1099 )

              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??

          • 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.

            • 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.

          • 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.

        • That raises another big issue. Counterfeit parts.

      • by Duds ( 100634 )

        The 737 and 737 Max are as different as a 1980 Ford Escort and a modern Escape.

        • The people who are going to drive the reaction to this do not know that, nor do they care.

        • 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.

      • 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.

    • That flight path suggests loss of power of both engines. But it also suggests a stall meaning something else happened. With loss of both engines at that height, a plane can glide to a controlled landing albeit on water in this case.
      • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Saturday January 09, 2021 @08:51AM (#60915338)

        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.

        • ...and cut the control cables

          Surely they are hydraulic.

          • 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]

        • by _merlin ( 160982 )

          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.

        • 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

      • Suggests the wings fell off.

    • by Archtech ( 159117 ) on Saturday January 09, 2021 @10:19AM (#60915562)

      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.

    • 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.

      • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Or on purpose. Pilots have been known to fly airplanes into the ground because they want to end it all.

    • by Martin S. ( 98249 ) on Saturday January 09, 2021 @01:20PM (#60916314) Journal

      Suddenly coming around to a 90 degrees absolute compass heading is rather noteworthy.

    • 12K ft/sec dive rate.

      12,000 feet per second is roughly 10 times the speed of sound. Might want to check your numbers.

    • peaking at almost 12K ft/sec dive rate.

      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....

      • Addendum: 12k fps represents a 680+ km free fall. With the engines on that airplane, it couldn't reach that speed without being grabbed by a UFO and dropped off somewhere above the ISS.
    • by Shaiku ( 1045292 )

      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

    • 12K ft/sec dive rate.

      Eight thousand miles per hour? I don't think so. Check your units. Minutes maybe?

  • Unbelievable how many plane crashes have occurred in the country.
  • Filghtradar (Score:5, Informative)

    by sTERNKERN ( 1290626 ) on Saturday January 09, 2021 @07:45AM (#60915218)
  • by hcs_$reboot ( 1536101 ) on Saturday January 09, 2021 @08:01AM (#60915256)
    Looks like free fall. Usually, when an aircraft free falls, it's been shot down...
    • 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.

      • 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...

        • 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.

          • 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.

    • 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.

      • Usually when the 'shot down' theory is thrown out there it turns out to be human error or maintenance. Not always [wikipedia.org], but usually.
      • by ghoul ( 157158 )
        Maybe the virus used to make Iran shoot down its own airliner got loose and infected Indonesian systems. computer viruses are unpredictable. The virus used to break Iran's centrifuges got loose and broke centrifuges at German pharma companies which is why Israel had to acknowledge the virus and provide a cure.
    • 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)

    by xavdeman ( 946931 ) on Saturday January 09, 2021 @08:13AM (#60915286)

    Indonesia is incredibly corrupt. It wouldn't surprise me if corners wers cut and bribes were taken. https://www.transparency.org/e... [transparency.org]

    • 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.

  • by fygment ( 444210 ) on Saturday January 09, 2021 @09:27AM (#60915424)

    '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)

    by dmpot ( 1708950 ) on Saturday January 09, 2021 @10:18AM (#60915558)

    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.

    • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      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.

    • Three hydraulic lines is the A320. The 737 has only two.

    • I don't know any other reason for such a dramatic plunge from this altitude.

      Or it was done intentionally.

    • Aerodynamic stall, and wind shear both present as dramatic plunges from altitude.

      • by dmpot ( 1708950 )

        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.

    • If the pressure hull failed catastrophically that's as good as a bomb or missile.

      • by dmpot ( 1708950 )

        The aircraft was still at the altitude where there was not enough pressure differential to cause much problems.

  • 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.

    • Boeing just agreed to a 2.5 Billion dollar payout. Airlines buying Boeing cant lose - either they make money flying planes or they make money suing Boeing when the planes crash.
  • by TomGreenhaw ( 929233 ) on Saturday January 09, 2021 @03:37PM (#60917024)
    10 years ago, this headline would have been "Airliner With 62 Aboard Crashed After Takeoff From Jakarta, Say Authorities "

    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.
  • At Boeing they must be praying that it was just an accident unrelated to the actual type of plane.

Repel them. Repel them. Induce them to relinquish the spheroid. - Indiana University fans' chant for their perennially bad football team

Working...