Bolivian plane makes emergency landing in Amazon

[juan23]

The only picture I've seen is on the BBC link below.

Remember this site?

Discuss this story in our forum!	Posted: February 2, 2008 at 10:30 U.S. Central Time
Bolivian 727 crashes in Amazon; all survive. Wire Reports
- ACCIDENT DETAILS - AirDisaster.Com Accident Database - ACCIDENT SCENE PHOTOS - AirDisaster.Com Photo Gallery - BOEING 727-259 CP-2429 SPECS & INFO - JetPhotos.Net Airliner Census A Lloyd Aereo Boliviano is seen crashed in the Amazon jungle on February 2, 2008. (File) A charter Boeing 727 flown by beleaguered airline Lloyd Aereo Boliviano crashed in a scrubby bog short of an airport near the eastern lowland city of Trinidad on Friday. Several injuries, but no deaths, were reported. Passengers interviewed by local radio stations said the plane first lost power and then suffered serious damage when it landed. Photographs showed the mud-spattered blue-and-orange LAB jet stripped of at least one wing and lying in a flooded clearing. A set of landing gear was in the water nearby. The airline's regional manager in Trinidad, Patricia Aruz, said no one was killed, but several passengers were taken to a nearby hospital for injuries, according to Juan Carlos Zambrano, a reporter on the scene for Radio Patuju. Turned away Friday morning by fierce storms at its destination - the airport northern city of Cobija - the plane headed south to Trinidad, some 370 miles away - only to lose power a few miles short of the runway, passengers said. "We noticed the engines went out, and there was this calm," said Paolo Bravo, a Bolivian senator who survived the crash, in an interview with the radio network Erbol. "Then they told us, 'Crash positions! crash positions!' and it was just another two or three seconds before we hit. "I think you could call it a belly flop," Bravo continued. "The plane fell, the wings broke off, but the fuselage was OK." LAB, Bolivia's former state airline was privatized in 1996 but has been in and out of bankruptcy in recent years. The company now runs a skeleton fleet of only a handful of planes on a charter basis only. LAB was operating the Boeing 727 as a charter for Transporte Aereo Militar, another small Bolivian airline. In recent months TAM has chartered LAB flights to carry overflow passengers during a heavy Bolivian rainy season that has washed out roads throughout the country. In interviews with Bolivian media, LAB spokesman Gustavo Viscarra said the plane was carrying 155 passengers. He declined to confirm passengers' suggestions the plane had run out of gas. "It was the decision of the pilot to make a forced landing," Viscarra said.

[ATFS_Crash]

That was a bit quick of him to say that, what exactly did he know then, not enough fuel do you think???

I don't necessarily think it is quick for him to say that. Say for instance, they still had plenty of fuel in the tanks, but no fuel pressure. Perhaps it's something besides a fuel issue.


A mechanical problem, would suggest it wasn't as simple as running out of fuel. Perhaps it in effect ran out of fuel because of a delivery system/metering/control problem. Anyway it pretty much (contradicts) throws into question the claims that it was a weather or fuel exhaustion issue.


The As usual, an expert said something very interesting. The media was very nice to report this little tidbit. Unfortunately there wasn't any elaboration, so it's tantalizing. Perhaps the engineer wasn’t allowed or thought it would be best not to elaborate. However I also suspect as usual that the media probably missed some of the detail and didn't bother to ask the right questions.



It would be nice if the media would give full quotes of what is said to the press at the press releases, instead of paraphrasing and interpreting it. It makes me wish that some aviation experts could consult with the media and help them ask questions and help with interpretation.


The media is real bad about misinterpreting things and running off on wild tangents and muddying up the water.

---
In this case they may be literally muddying up the water.

There's some new photos, that suggest the terrain would be better classified as a swamp then a field. Though that could be deceiving because of the local flooding.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2...nt_6437532.htm

[Crash-proof]

Swamp, field, bog...call it what you may but any forced landing with no casualties in such a harsh environment is extraordinary! (imho)

[Alessandro]

More pics here, http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=311462

[flyboy2548m]

Yes, I answered ONE of the THREE questions.
Would you help with the other two?

I'm sorry, Gabriel, I thought the first answer basically covered the other two. Are you asking if there is a QRH procedure titled "What to do if you dispatch to an airport below minimums with all possible alternates also below minimums in direct violation of 14 CFR 121.613 .617 and .619?"

Please advise.

[Dmmoore]

I beleive the investigation into the cause for this accident will be very short. The investigation into the reasons for the crash may take a while.

[Gabriel]

I'm sorry, Gabriel, I thought the first answer basically covered the other two. Are you asking if there is a QRH procedure titled "What to do if you dispatch to an airport below minimums with all possible alternates also below minimums in direct violation of 14 CFR 121.613 .617 and .619?"

Please advise.

No. Say that the flight was legally dispatched but, for whatever reason (and there can be a few), when you GET THERE you find that you have to choose between busting minimums or landing off-airport.

(you know, from the time of dispatch to the time of arrival things not forecasted can happen)

[Flying Bear]

when you GET THERE you find that you have to choose between busting minimums or landing off-airport.

I can not imagine that anyone might possibly choose to land off-airport in that scenario.

[Uncle Jay]

Except when...

You'd land off-airport when
- Settlements on apporach path
- Hills or other obstructions either end of approach path
- Navaids inop
- Low on fuel enough that first engine shuts off and near settlements
- Very short runway
- Fire
- Uncontrolled flight

Thats a lot of reasons, probably a few more

[flyboy2548m]

No. Say that the flight was legally dispatched but, for whatever reason (and there can be a few), when you GET THERE you find that you have to choose between busting minimums or landing off-airport.

(you know, from the time of dispatch to the time of arrival things not forecasted can happen)

So, in other words, you're asking if I'd rather crash where the fire trucks are or where they are not. Boy, I sure hope I don't need a QRH to give me the answer to that question.

[screaming_emu]

So, in other words, you're asking if I'd rather crash where the fire trucks are or where they are not. Boy, I sure hope I don't need a QRH to give me the answer to that question.

Hmmm...fire trucks and proper facilities vs. middle of nowhere with animals that can and will eat you...that is a toughie.

[Gabriel]

So, in other words, you're asking if I'd rather crash where the fire trucks are or where they are not. Boy, I sure hope I don't need a QRH to give me the answer to that question.

Thanks, that's very much in line with what I thought.

Note (again) that in a small plane the answer could be different. In the Tomahawk I would probably choose a good VFR farm over an NDB approach way below minimums.

(PS: I guess you don't need a QRH either to tell you to switch the window heat off if you have an electrical fire there, but who knows... A lot of things are plain common sense but are written somewhere)

[Flying Bear]

(PS: I guess you don't need a QRH either to tell you to switch the window heat off if you have an electrical fire there, but who knows... A lot of things are plain common sense but are written somewhere)

I bet the QRH for smoke/fumes doesn't even mention switching off window heat...

[Dmmoore]

I bet the QRH for smoke/fumes doesn't even mention switching off window heat...

I think you will find right after fly the aircraft comes an attempt to identify the source of the smoke and isolate it.

Having been in a cockpit full of smoke from first hand experience I state, you aren't going to fly the aircraft when you can't see the instrument panel.

[flyboy2548m]

I bet the QRH for smoke/fumes doesn't even mention switching off window heat...

No, but the QRH for window overheat does.