Boeing reveals it disconnected crucial Sensor failure alarm on MAX8

Boeing is bracing for another bit of bad news after it was revealed that Southwest Airlines first learned about the crash of a Lion Air MAX 8 that a special alert warning of malfunctioning sensors was no longer a standard feature on the latest 737s.S

According to Federal Aviation Administration officials, they were not aware of this change either.

Boeing 737 MAX8 aircraft have two “Angle-of-Attack” or AOA sensors on the left and right of the plane’s nose. Initial reports on the two MAX8 crashes indicate that in both the right sensor appeared to have been mis-reading the flow of air by up to 60 percent.

Boeing said initially that airlines would have to pay more for the sensor alarm, but what it did not say was that the sensor-failure alarm had been disconnected entirely. But there’s more folks.

Both the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines Boeing’s that crashed killing 346 people did not have the alarm failure system which is known as AOA disagree alerts. The big problem is that Boeing and the FAA certified a plane that had no redundant fail-safe.

That is like reading about aviation in 1956. Just after the war, when men were men and pilots were gods of the air, afraid of nothing.

Passengers are much more discerning these days than the early pax – they now have social media to keep them abreast of the latest machine faux pax.

That hasn’t stopped Boeing from acting like it is the middle of 20th Century when it comes to crisis management. What is making things worse for Boeing is the publication of its Emergency Airworthiness Directive in November 2018 after the Lion Air Crash that for some reason, was not escalated properly through the industry.

All Boeing MAX jets, both the 8 and 9, are grounded pending a software fix followed by pilot retraining. Or maybe no pilot retraining, because already Boeing has mobilised its useful twit brigade of aviation bravados to suggest possibly that this is not required.

Yes, dear reader, even in 2019 a large international company based in the U.S.A. is trying to convince reasonable people that there’s no danger in cutting another corner.

Boeing has not indicated why it made the decision to remove the sensor failure alarm. However, the manufacturer was aware of error reading problems.

IN November 2018 it released an airworthiness directive indicating that:

“This emergency AD was prompted by analysis performed by the manufacturer showing that if an erroneously high single angle of attack (AOA) sensor input is received by the flight control system, there is a potential for repeated nose-down trim commands of the horizontal stabilizer. This condition, if not addressed, could cause the flight crew to have difficulty controlling the airplane, and lead to excessive nose-down attitude, significant altitude loss, and possible impact with terrain.”

The airworthiness directive called for aircrews to be provided with runaway horizontal stabiliser trim procedures under certain conditions. But the Ethiopian crew flying the plane in the March crash were not provided with these new procedures.

The Directive also advised that:

“In the event of an uncommanded horizontal stabilizer trim movement,
combined with any of the following potential effects or indications
resulting from an erroneous Angle of Attack (AOA) input, the flight crew
must comply with the Runaway Stabilizer procedure in the Operating
Procedures outlined the following would happen:

Continuous or intermittent stick shaker on the affected side only.
• Minimum speed bar (red and black) on the affected side only.
• Increasing nose down control forces.
• AOA DISAGREE alert (if the option is installed).
• Autopilot may disengage.
• Inability to engage autopilot.

If any aircrew experienced these conditions, then Boeing issued the following procedure to recover :

Disengage autopilot and control airplane pitch attitude with control column and main electric trim as required. If relaxing the column causes the trim to move, set stabilizer trim switches to CUTOUT.

If runaway continues, hold the stabilizer trim wheel against rotation and trim the airplane manually.
Note: The 737-8/-9 uses a Flight Control Computer command of pitch
trim to improve longitudinal handling characteristics. In the event of
erroneous Angle of Attack (AOA) input, the pitch trim system can trim
the stabilizer nose down in increments lasting up to 10 seconds.

In the event an uncommanded nose down stabilizer trim is experienced
on the 737-8/-9, in conjunction with one or more of the indications or
effects listed below, do the existing AFM Runaway Stabilizer
procedure above, ensuring that the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches
are set to CUTOUT and stay in the CUTOUT position for the
remainder of the flight.

An erroneous AOA input can cause some or all of the following
indications and effects:
• Continuous or intermittent stick shaker on the affected side only.
• Minimum speed bar (red and black) on the affected side only.
• Increasing nose down control forces.
• AOA DISAGREE alert (if the option is installed).
• Autopilot may disengage.
• Inability to engage autopilot.

Initially, higher control forces may be needed to overcome any
stabilizer nose down trim already applied
. Electric stabilizer trim can be used to neutralize control column pitch forces before moving the STAB
TRIM CUTOUT switches to CUTOUT. Manual stabilizer trim can be
used before and after the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches are moved

The higher control forces part of this directive are very important, as in both accidents it appears the pilots could not overcome the stabiliser because of air speed.

That is an incredible directive, pointing to the probable causes of both accidents according to both Boeing itself, and initial accident reports.

What we have to ask is this:

Why did the Ethiopian Airline officials not institute this Directive as per the Emergency documentation as soon as possible after the November release?

When both accidents end up in court, which they will, this is going to be difficult for aviation officials to explain. The manufacturer may be to blame for releasing an aircraft to service with a single fail-safe which as we all know is probably criminal.

Using the phrase “hazardous” instead of “catastrophic” to describe the effect of a failure of the system is also going to be quite hard to explain to judges and juries.

Trump’s neutered FAA partly to blame for Boeing MAX8 catastrophe

The FAA System Handbook principles of safety effort graphic that compares cost to effort in order to save the most lives in the most cost effective manner.
The FAA Cost vs Safety graph – was it used properly when assessing Boeing MAX 8 sensor failure?

The twin crashes of Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft have pointed a very bright spotlight directly on the Federal Aviation Authority along with the world’s biggest aviation company.

And rightly so. While 2017 was free of commercial airliner crashes, only two major accidents have occurred since that year – and both involved Boeing MAX 8s.

In October 2018 the Lion Air crash that claimed 189 lives near Jakarta Indonesia and on March 10 an Ethiopian Airlines crash ET302 that killed 157 just outside Addis Ababa.

Just to put this in perspective, no other commercial aircraft has been implicated in as many deaths so rapidly since 1966.

Since the second accident which appears to have been waiting to happen, all Boeing MAX 8 and 9 aircraft have been grounded, and some airlines have begun to cancel orders. That is a real problem for Boeing. Over 360 are now being used by Airlines across the world, including almost 100 in China alone.

In the days of yore, we would hear about a Russian disaster every few months, now, nada. Nothing. Just two American-built planes gyrating shortly after takeoff, their pilots grappling with an automated system they weren’t told about. What a singularly terrifying experience for the few minutes they had left in life, trying to problem solve clinging onto a bucking bronco.

There is a flood of speculation about the cause, the horizontal stabiliser trim going rogue courtesy of a misreading sensor, about the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), pilot training and 737 MAX 8 certification.


Perhaps we should fixate on the issue which is directly before us: A lack of FAA Director. And because there’s only an Acting Director, there is only an Acting Administrator. This is damaging to flight safety despite what the FAA will say, and the fault lies directly at Donald Trump’s door.

He has failed to install a full-time Director at the FAA preferring instead to hesitate by announcing an Acting Director. Now Dan Elwell may be a superb Airline lobbyist, and a former captain at American Airlines, but he is not the full-time leader of that Agency or else he would have been installed as such. Ditto Carl Burleson who’s technically the second in command. Also acting.

Both are symbols in a cypher-filled world.

Like other agencies, Trump has played politics with people’s lives and in this case, it’s no different. Instead of understanding that leaders are crucial to a proper functioning independent system, he prefers the logic of Mussolini – install a man (probably) who will nod in unison to his demands of loyalty before sanity. Keep ’em guessing. Hahahahaha. “I’ll get around to nominating my puppet when I feel like it…”

Aviation is the one sector where game playing is tantamount to playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded AK47. Trump has been doing just that.

This is not speculation. The FAA last had a full-time director in January 2018. We aviators awaited the new leader of one of the most respected international agencies, which has built its name on a value system around safety that virtually no other can emulate. But in vain. And since then it has committed a gross act of administrative amateurism and been eclipsed in decision-making by the Chinese, the EU and even South Africa’s Comair which pulled its Boeing Max8s before the FAA eventually and begrudgingly agreed to do so.

Ironically because Boeing said so, following a Trump Tweet.


The result is the FAA failed to process Boeing’s request for an urgent certification of new software in January 2019 following the Lion Air Crash in Indonesia that killed 139 people in October 2018. That’s because the Agency was hamstrung by the government shutdown, caused by a president who ignored his own advisors and refused to sign an extension of spending deal because he didn’t get money for a wall.

That is a bit like a baby throwing its toys out of a moving aircraft directly at the people walking across a tightrope at 37 000 feet.

I don’t care for American politics much, it’s a place that appears to be a step away from full-blooded violence. In its place is a media civil war between the Democrats led by people like CNN, and Republicans led by people like Fox. Attend any dinner in America these days and you’ll hear both sides quote their favourite “facts” about why the other side is conspiring in some way or other. Both are dripping in diatribe and distastefully biased, dumbed down, feckle-minded and draped in self-indulgence. It’s like watching dogs with down syndrome.

But what really has happened is that authority has been destroyed as Trump allowed the FAA to wallow in a kind of blind holding pattern.

While the speculation around airlines not purchasing redundancy, their MAX 8 simulators missing the crucial MCAS training software (upgrade to follow FAA/Boeing getting a wriggle on), the fact that in both crashes the First Officers were far less experienced than is usually the case (a few hundred hours total flying time), and a failure to laterally think, it really is about how the hell did the FAA pass Boeing’s new plane as good to go for pilots just to read a few pages on an iPad?

I find this shocking, and there is no way around this moment, folks.

Why did the FAA basically allow Boeing in 2016/17 to conduct its own safety audit of the new system? Why did Boeing cycle through a few senior staff who warned that the MCAS could lead to a Catastrophic result if redundancy was not ensured by duplicating sensors? Eventually they found senior staff who were willing sign their names alongside the phrase “Hazardous” when the safety handbook outlined the threat as “Catastrophic”?

The FAA published a handbook in 2000 outlining what is the cost of safety versus a hazard analysis. Here is the safety section.

Table 3.2.2 of the Severity Definitions for FAA AMS Process. Someone really screwed up here by citing the Boeing 737 MAX8 sensor failure as “hazardous” when it was actually “Catastrophic”.

Why was this not used by the FAA? It preferred to take Boeing at its word?


Let me expound. As a pilot of Cirrus SR20 and SR22 aircraft, I am not in the world of Commercial Aviation, I’m a General Aviation pilot. What professionals call the pilot of a “piss cat”. These cats that wee, however, can surprise even the best of ATPL trained 10 000 hour wonk. That’s why some of my friends who fly airlines, also fly .. piss cats.

It keeps you alert, makes you think, gives you real stick feel for how an aircraft is responding. Makes you lateral when all about you are literal. And the more computers you get, the more literal you get.

Recently a new Garmin 1000 SR22 was introduced to the bunch of planes for rent at a hangar I fly from, and I dutifully signed up for a conversion. This was a 2 hour minimum conversion because of two main reasons.

  1. The Garmin 1000 is a tricky beast when you’ve used Avidyne Avionics and Garmin 430s.
  2. The new Cirrus has an automated roll recovery installed.

It’s point 2 that I want to explain. And it’s one of the reasons why the FAA and Boeing are now in a spot of bother. Cirrus is safety obsessed as their airplanes are slippery beasts when everything is high and hot. IF you get the numbers wrong, you’ll incipient spin into the deck at low altitude.

So I had to take off and fly the Cirrus with Garmin 1000, and do a beyond steep turn passed 60 degrees, to feel the crazy sensation of a plane pulling you back to safe and level EVEN THOUGH THE AUTOPILOT WAS DISCONNECTED.

I was truly shocked and amazed. I asked the instructor where I could switch off this automation and he said proudly

“You can’t”

“What happens” I said “If I’m flying straight and level and because of a sensor misread or software malfunction, it suddenly decides to turn me to the right or left believing I’m in a turn too steep?”

“It won’t happen” he said.

I made a mental note to approach other instructors in future when conducting further training.

Since that conversation I look askance at the aforementioned Cirrus, while flying it I’m always aware that the plane may decide to take over my flying duties without my permission.

The reason why I do so is because it has a CAPS system – a rocket that fires a parachute out of the top of empennage that will save my life if the plane decides to be stupid. I have a redundancy to cover the eventuality that the computer on board goes rogue, thus I will continue to fly the Cirrus with Garmin1000 and automatic roll recovery and deploy ‘chute where necessary.

Unfortunately for the pilots on board both Boeing MAX 8s – no-one had a parachute.

Drones And Hurricanes

frayintermedia’s fraybird1.  Love at first flight.

Our DJI Mavic drone is a lovely little thing.  It flits about at 60kph taking pictures and video.  I can setup a computerised track for the multirotor beauty to follow,  or fly it manually.  It has sensors,  flashing lights (green on the right, red on the left, like a proper aeroplane) and its dark grey exterior belies its sensitivity.

To water.

The LiPo or Lithium Polymer battery hates the stuff.  If there’s too much mist or the humidity is above 100% the battery gives notice by swelling like a puffer fish.  Not that I’ve seen that yet as I’m keeping it well away from H2O,  but that’s the warning on its operators manual.   Yet drones have been used heavily in very wet areas,  such as Houston for example, and if protected, can provide an incredibly important service.

DJI Mavic Battery – R1,694 each, very slippery when wet.

In East Africa,  drones are now carting lightweight emergency medicines across miles of wilderness.  The Mavic I fly can operate up to 1500m away from the base station,  although the law says you have to have visual line of sight or VLOS at all times to the vehicle.  The radio signal from the remote handset won’t allow for that distance anyway.   In Houston,   there are a couple of thousand drone operators.   There aren’t that many in the whole of South Africa,  although licences are being scooped up at record speed.

Humanitarian missions around Houston after Hurricane Harvey have seen drones used to spot people on rooftops,  to carry small medical kits,  and to assess areas for water damage.   Boats are heavy and cumbersome,  and with water receding, drones have come into their own as people return to their dwellings.   The FAA reports that there are now dozens of special licenses for those operators who’re helping the rescue and recovery efforts,  where helicopters can be very expensive,  drones can be very cheap.  Flying at 400 feet above ground level (AGL) or lower it means these devices are also not endangering aviation as long as you follow the rules.   So police helicopters continue to fly overhead while in the intermediate area,  or drone zone,  services are being rendered.

But they don’t like water,  as I said.  I have tested the frayintermedia Mavic over the ocean and I became very nervous as the craft drifted away in the wind,  fearing that the device may be lost if there was a technical hitch.  The other fear was about seabirds who really didn’t like the device at all.  And by the way,  the Mavic was in far more danger of being attacked by a large bird than vice versa.   The Mavic is the size of your hand,  a seagull would easily smack it into the Indian Ocean.

Just a thing of beauty.   frayintermedia’s fraybird1.

So I respect these American drone operators taking their hugely expensive drones to Houston in order to save lives.  They’re not being paid to do this,  most are operating as volunteers and from all accounts,  have been involved in numerous incidents where people were trapped and saved.   There is, however, a dark side to droneism.

Apparently insurance companies are hiring these drone operators as the water recedes – turning them into assessors as they scan mile after mile of housing destroyed by one of the most destructive hurricanes to ever strike the US mainland.  So first they’re free,  then they’re paid.  I guess you have to make a living.   One of those insurance companies is second biggest in Texas, Allstate, and its just a matter of days before the biggest company,  State Farm,  orders a fleet into the air as well.


Speaking of insurance,  I discovered while registering drones that you need insurance coverage to the tune of R500 000 per drone.   That is the same as a small plane or a glider.  Which is madness,  but that’s bureaucracy for you. And speaking of gliders,  I am now the proud member of the Aero Club of South Africa and begin my glider training this week.     More follows gentle folks.  But later as right now I have to pack up the drone to go shoot a video.







Forget Drones Watch For Dronkgats

Sven Tailback, Unsplash. 


There we were, minding our own beeswax when suddenly the story dropped.  Two pilots arrested at Glasgow airport.  The charge?  Suspicion of being drunk on duty.  So let that sink in, folks.  Two pilots,  United Airlines, Drunk.  Passengers.  Busy flight.  Slurred reporting.  Blurred vision.  An intimate experience with the granite cloud awaits.

United Airlines confirmed the two unnamed pilots aged 35 and 45 were taken away by Scottish police on Sunday August 28th who reported the two were “carrying out pilot function or activity while exceeding the prescribed limit of alcohol”.

Now that is a scary story.  I know my commercial pilot friends will titter and the more gung ho amongst them will defend the pilots with something along the lines of “It’s a stressful job” or “they weren’t actually drunk,  just had babelas”.


The law is pretty strict when it comes to driving an aeroplane filled with passengers.  Alcohol stays in your system for 8 hours and even longer if its a binge.  That’s why Aviation Law (yes I recently failed my Comm exam but know enough to knew this) says all pilots should refrain from imbibing alcohol at least 12 hours before flying.

Staying upright. 

Alcoholics have an even bigger problem.  When you’re stressed,  the poison seeps back into your blood stream so that you may be sober when the incident starts,  but by the time its progressed to an emergency your bloodstream is drenched in various chemicals.  Some of these help, like adrenalin.  Some don’t.  Like alcohol.

The two pilots here were held in the cockpit by police.  The question has to be asked “who figured out how dronk these two were?” if indeed they were dronk.  But given United Airlines comment,  there’s no doubt whatever happens they’re in REAL trouble.

It means goodbye license.

There’ve been many cases of accidents directly related to pilot incapacitation caused by many things.  Mainly alcohol.  So let’s take a look at a few.

  1. McDonnell Douglas operated by Japan Airlines in 1977 crashed after take-off from Anchorage airport in Alaska.  Cause? From the report “The initial blood alcohol level of the captain was 298 mugs percent. A blood alcohol level of 100 mgs percent was considered to be legally intoxicating for drivers in the State of Alaska”.
  2. De Havilland DHC Twin Otter operated by the Royal Norwegian Air Force in 1972 crashed into a mountain near near Harstad, Norway.  All 17 aboard were killed. Cause? Pilot’s high blood alcohol level and lack of sleep.
  3. Douglas C-47A crashed on final approach at Vaasa Airport in Finland in 1961.  All 25 aboard were killed and the cause was officially ascribed to the pilot and first officer both having been .. well .. drunk. 

There are at least 39 other examples of air accidents directly related to flying drunk.  The full list can be found at the Aviation Safety Website.  The majority of these include the words “Antonov” and at least 8 are linked to Aeroflot.

Things have improved in Russia since the plethora of incidents in the ’70s but the macho male culture in the region has not.

Let’s read what Captain Wendy Morse Chairman, United MEC has to say to her fellow pilots this week.

“As I read the articles, I began to understand how long it could take, worst case, to return to a zero blood alcohol level after having maybe one too many drinks in a fatigued state.  In one of my calculations I doubled the time as one article indicates metabolism can vary by as much as 50 percent, and I start below the average weight to begin with.  I came up with 20 hours – too long to be over the legal alcohol limit and recover.  I also was reminded from the articles about serving size, and therefore how to count what I have consumed properly.”

Twenty hours?  A whole day before flying.  Aviation Law states the following:

FAR 91.17 states that we may not operate or attempt to operate an aircraft:

  • Within 8 hours of having consumed alcohol
  • While under the influence of alcohol
  • With a blood alcohol content of 0.04% or greater

But the wise pilot will abstain completely at least 24 hours before taking off.  The punishment is harsh.  All certification will be revoked and the pilots will not be able to regain them for a minimum of a year.  Twelve months no income.  Disaster just because you decided to have a few shots of tequila within the window period.

Makes no sense after decades of hard work to write everything off in a haze of mestizo.



Rubbish Air – Must Be Indonesian?

Erm.. no thanks.
Erm.. no thanks.

There are two places in the world I wouldn’t be right now.  One is ISIS territory, clean shaven and sporting a crucifix, Shi’ite robe, or yarmulka.  The other is on board an Indonesian registered plane.  The Indonesians are officially one of the world’s worst when it comes to managing aviation.  Don’t ask me.  Just ask the family of the people killed in air crashes there in the last decade.

Sorry to be so blunt,  and for those in Jakarta like my friend Sima the journalist who may stumble across this blog and feel the flood of nationalism welling up in their veins,  let me elucidate.

The majority of Indonesian airliners are banned from operating in the EU because in safety terms,  they are rubbish.

Of the 16 large airlines operating in Indonesia – only four have permission to enter the EU’s airspace.    Garuda Indonesia, Airfast Indonesia, Ekspres Transportasi Antarbenua and Indonesia Air Asia have the green light.  Many, many, many others are on a blacklist.  (*See the full list at the end of this blog post)

Trigana Air which operated flight IL257 that crashed in the Ok Bape district of eastern Papua at the weekend was on the banned list.    The airline has seen at least 15 – and some say 19 – accidents in 23 years.  That some is  A respected aviation monitoring agency.   Ten of these saw the aircraft being written off.  That’s known as a hull loss.  This is when something flies into a mountain or disappears into an ocean.

If this livery is where you're headed - make a run for it!
If this livery is where you’re headed – make a run for it!

If there was a league for airliners with an accident record, Trigana would be in the Premier League.  Trigana aircraft types that have been lost or badly damaged in accidents since 1992 include one Antonov An-72, one ATR 42-300 (prior to the 16 August disappearance of PK-YRN), 13 Twin Otters, and three Fokker F27s.

The Daily Telegraph has investigated Indonesia and quote Arnold Barnett, an MIT statistician who specialises in airline safety.  His stats show the death rate in plane crashes in Indonesia was one per million passengers – 25 times the rate in the United States.   That’s not bad luck.  It’s suicidal.

In the latest Trigana disaster,  a French (and Italian) built ATR 42-300 with 54 people on board crashed – there were no survivors.  The ATR-300 variant saw production until 1996.  That would make this plane around 23 years old.  No problem,  far older aircraft are flitting across the globe as we speak.  There are Dakota’s flying about for goodness sake!  Some hail back to the Second World War.  As long as they’re maintained and upgraded, things go well.  That’s where we have to poke a stick at the Indonesian Civil Aviation folks I’m afraid. Not working. Like its safety record. Not working. Like its safety record.

Let’s start with the geography of the place.  Indonesia is composed of at least 17,000 islands scattered about a tropical sea – and these islands are volcanic.  That means they have steep mountain sides and this creates deviations in weather that would make many pilots wince.

Look, its not me saying this.  It’s the FAA.  And the EU.  And the USA.  Don’t give me that “oh, they just don’t like South East Asians” bilge.  It’s because the Indonesian aviation business is full of corruption, nepotism and fraud and you wouldn’t put your mother on one of these flights if you understand just how poorly managed aviation is in that part of the world.

What’s made this place even more dangerous is economic growth.  The number of passengers flying from island to island grew over 80% between 2006 and 2013.  Merchants flogging textiles suddenly wanted in on the action and “bought” licenses or bribed officials to turn a blind eye to a league of lies.  Like using non-standard parts, failing to maintain aircraft,  breaking basic commercial airline rules.

You don’t believe me?  When the now defunct Adam Air of, you guessed it, Indonesia, crashed in 2007,  102 people died.  Later it emerged that the low-cost carrier which had been number 1 in that country,  bribed officials, told pilots to breach safety rules (which is just plain suicide from the pilots point of view) and used recycled spare parts.

That my blog pals, is a disaster waiting to happen, and did in December 2014 when Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 dived into the Java Sea, killing 162 people.

The FAA says Indonesia is particularly weak in pilot training, inspection procedures, technical expertise or record keeping.  That’s basically everything that really matters.

In this latest incident,  the flight was en route to an airfield at 4500 feet,  only slightly higher than Lanseria or FALA from which I fly.   A plane’s performance is seriously hampered by the altitude and the temperature.   Throw in heavy turbulence and a crowded flight, replete with baggage pressing the limits – you get the picture.  What is even more thrombotic is the peaks around the airfield PK-YRN was trying to overpass.  9000 feet.  The ATR 42-300 has a service ceiling of 25,000 feet, but the peaks are apparently around 10 nautical miles from the airfield.

Yegads!  That makes for a scary landing and approach, particularly in bad weather and being vectored in by radar.

One mistake from the pilot or radar and there’s not much hope of recovery.   What’s worse is the culture of getthereitis which prevails when you’re pushing the envelope.   We’re not sure at this stage what actually brought down the aircraft.

Was the airframe overstressed in the turbulence? Did the crew input the incorrect information in the flight director/autopilot?  Did someone working the radar misread the ATR’s transponder and put the aircraft in a collision course with the granite cloud?

Let’s wait for the official Indonesian traditional aviation whitewash.

Here’s a list of the airlines you don’t want to touch if ever you find yourself on an island in the Indonesian sea.

*Indonesian airlines banned by the EU

  27. KAL STAR 
  37. NAM AIR 
  48. SMAC 
  58. UNINDO