What does it take to ground Aerosucre?

[Gabriel]

An Aerosucre Boeing 727 (possibly overloaded) overrun the end of the runway on take-off, eventually lifted off but struggled to climb quickly enough and hit obstacles near the end of the runway.

No, that's not news from a couple of years back. That's new news.

Aerosucre is a shame that has a total disregard for safety. That IS old news, and new news, and forever news.

Normally we tend to say "authorities will not do anything until there is a fatal accident", but even that didn't make it in this case.

https://avherald.com/h?article=5202f093&opt=0

[FBI_Agent]

I think AeroSucre provides essential services, especially in remote areas, so they might be an important airline to the country. Or they might not have enough resources to ground them yet. I wouldn't know either way.

[flashcrash]

No, that's not news from a couple of years back. That's new news.

Deja vu indeed! Very concerning.

[ATLcrew]

An Aerosucre Boeing 727 (possibly overloaded) overrun the end of the runway on take-off, eventually lifted off but struggled to climb quickly enough and hit obstacles near the end of the runway.

No, that's not news from a couple of years back. That's new news.

Aerosucre is a shame that has a total disregard for safety. That IS old news, and new news, and forever news.

Normally we tend to say "authorities will not do anything until there is a fatal accident", but even that didn't make it in this case.

https://avherald.com/h?article=5202f093&opt=0

I mean...once they damage enough 727s, that should take care of it.

[Evan]

Seems like they’re grounding themselves. What can be done do get them to fly?

[Gabriel]

I mean...once they damage enough 727s, that should take care of it.

I don’t think so. They have a bunch of 737s too, one of which the already tested against a tree on a too long too low too heavy take off causing an engine failure which didn’t led to a crash by miracle

[3WE]

…didn’t led to a crash by miracle

So we infer that it lead to a crash from a cause other than a miracle.

[flashcrash]

Preliminary report published today, in Spanish. I don't trust Google Translate, so it might be best for one of our Spanish speaking members to comment (Gabriel - ?). So far as I can figure out, the accident sequence began by attempting a takeoff with a 15-knot tailwind, but as I say, I don't trust Google Translate so I probably misunderstood.

https://www.aerocivil.gov.co/autoridad-de-la-aviacion-civil/investigacion/Incidentes%20Historicos/COL-24-72-DIACC%20Inf%20Prelim%20Inc%20Gr%20HK5216%20Bogot%C3%A1%20D.C.%2010-nov-24.pdf

[Gabriel]

Preliminary report published today, in Spanish. I don't trust Google Translate, so it might be best for one of our Spanish speaking members to comment (Gabriel - ?). So far as I can figure out, the accident sequence began by attempting a takeoff with a 15-knot tailwind, but as I say, I don't trust Google Translate so I probably misunderstood.

https://www.aerocivil.gov.co/autoridad-de-la-aviacion-civil/investigacion/Incidentes%20Historicos/COL-24-72-DIACC%20Inf%20Prelim%20Inc%20Gr%20HK5216%20Bogot%C3%A1%20D.C.%2010-nov-24.pdf

Report says tower cleared from for take-off, wind 280, 9 knots
so less than 15 knots and not fully tailwind either (runway was 16L, so some 40 degrees left-quartering tailwind)

This would give a tailwind component of some 7 knots.

Taking into account that the plane was supposed to have achieved V2 and 35 ft over the runway threshold after losing the critical engine at V1, I call BS that these 7 knots were the cause why they hit the ILS antenna 1000 ft past the runway threshold and a lamp post another 500 ft after that with all 3 engines operating.

The investigators are focusing on the improved-climb take off procedure they used. They explain that this procedure uses higher Vr and V2 speeds to have a climb-out speed that provides for an increased climb gradient, but that it consumes more runway. This procedure is to be used when there is terrain or obstacles in the vicinity of the airport or when the climb performance is challenged by high density altitude. They already issued a recommendation to forbid this procedure when operating with a tailwind since the tailwind also increases the required runway length. I call that BS too. Not that this take-off procedure, and the tailwind, don't consume more runway. They do. But that is all factored in the procedures and the take off will have the same margins. Next time they will use the normal take-off procedure and then increase the payload or used a more reduced take-off thrust.

The load manifesto shows that the airplane was within max weight for this take-off, I call that BS too.

Somehow I am not surprised. And I was wondering what it takes to ground this airline...

[flashcrash]

Thanks Gabriel! Very helpful. Here's a summary and commentary in English from FlightGlobal:

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/investigators-raise-tailwind-take-off-concerns-after-aerosucre-727-antenna-collision/161094.article

As for your question, maybe Colombia should implement a three-(antenna)-strikes-and-you're-out rule?

[Evan]

The investigators are focusing on the improved-climb take off procedure they used.

I'm missing the part where it climbed in an improved manner.

[bstolle]

I'm missing the part where it climbed in an improved manner.

I didn't miss is. Try to figure this one out...

[3WE]

Soooo, I’m sure I could dig deeper, but I’d think the runway length and runway-needed book values might appear in “the wonderful journalism”.