Lion Air Crash: Investigators Say 737 Was Airworthy

Gemini Sparkle

Key Takeaways:

  • Indonesian investigators clarified that their previous statement about the Lion Air 737 MAX 8 being "unairworthy" referred to its flight the day before the accident, not the crash flight itself.
  • The previous flight was deemed unairworthy due to a persistent stick shaker activation caused by a sensor failure, an issue that should have prevented further flight.
  • Investigators confirmed that technicians reportedly made necessary repairs and ran tests to correct the faults experienced on the previous flight, according to maintenance records.
  • The investigation team emphasized they never stated that the specific accident aircraft (PK-LQP) was unairworthy at the time it departed on its fatal journey.
See a mistake? Contact us.

At a follow-up press conference in Indonesia Thursday, accident investigators said they did not claim that a Lion Air 737 MAX 8 was unairworthy before it crashed into the Java Sea on Oct. 29. The investigators said the unairworthy comment applied to the aircraft’s previous flight, during which the 737’s stick shaker activated constantly because of a sensor failure.

“This condition is considered as an unairworthy condition and the flight shall not be continued,” the report said of that flight, which occurred the day before the accident flight. At the second press conference, investigator Nurcahyo Utomo said that based on maintenance records, technicians had made repairs and run tests as required and corrected the faults the previous crew experienced the day before the accident flight. “The NTSC and the head of aviation communication never stated that Lion Air, Boeing 737-8 MAX aircraft registered PK-LQP, was not airworthy,” said Utomo.

The 737 MAX 8 crashed about 11 minutes after takeoff, killing all 189 people aboard. Investigators have recovered the airplane’s flight data recorder, but are still searching the sea floor the cockpit voice recorder. The Wednesday press conference summarized a preliminary report issued a month after the accident. It explained that the previous crew experienced unreliable airspeed indications and evidence of an angle-of-attack sensor failure. Because this apparently caused the aircraft autotrim system—called MCAS—to begin uncommanded nose-down stabilizer trimming, the pilots used the aircraft’s stabilizer trim cutout switches to retain manual trim control.

Sign-up for newsletters & special offers!

Get the latest stories & special offers delivered directly to your inbox

SUBSCRIBE

Please support AVweb.

It looks like you’re using an ad blocker. Ads keep AVweb free and fund our reporting.
Please whitelist AVweb or continue with ads enabled.