Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Plane ‘carrying football team from Brazil’ crashes in Colombia.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    UK newspapers are quoting a cabincrew member who survived and stated that quite a few people failed to follow the Brace....Brace....Brace instructions, undid their setbelts and started running around in a blind panic. He is convinced that this led to their deaths.
    They also say that the pilot was the airline owner.
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

    Comment


    • #32
      I get the feeling they did this route before and got away with it. Some people consider anything they get away with once to be a safe bet. Such people are not found in functional safety cultures...

      Do we have to start requiring fuel audits upon arrival?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
        UK newspapers are quoting a cabincrew member who survived and stated that quite a few people failed to follow the Brace....Brace....Brace instructions, undid their setbelts and started running around in a blind panic. He is convinced that this led to their deaths.
        They also say that the pilot was the airline owner.
        According to Colombian newspapers, rescuers inform that most of bodies were attached to their seats. I doubt passengers had time to realized the seriousness of the situation and jump into the aisle

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          ...I mean, seriously, how many times does a flight take 5 minutes more than scheduled...
          Yes.

          It is my hope and belief that something 'told them' 'at some point during the flight' that they had a good amount of extra fuel. It violates much procedure and much common sense to make/continue a flight with a 5 min reserve.

          Yes.

          I previously have maintained hopes and beliefs that something that's basically a procedure to deliberately stall a plane was not_done with intent. That too violates much procedure and common sense.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            Yes.

            It is my hope and belief that something 'told them' 'at some point during the flight' that they had a good amount of extra fuel. It violates much procedure and much common sense to make/continue a flight with a 5 min reserve.

            Yes.

            I previously have maintained hopes and beliefs that something that's basically a procedure to deliberately stall a plane was not_done with intent. That too violates much procedure and common sense.
            The Bolivian Aviation Administration objected the flight plane because, as presented, the endurance was the same than the flight time.

            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Gabriel but with 3BS edits
              The Bolivian Aviation Administration rejected an initial 'direct' the flight plan because, as presented, the endurance was the same than the flight time, and then later approved a flight plan that listed a fuel stop, but the pilots apparently amended their route while in flight...
              Is this "fixed" as we like to say?

              I look forward to some CVR analysis of 1) In-route fuel and range discussions and if there are errors and 2) The CRM environment for agreements / disagreements and intangible 'power gradient' problems.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                Pretty interesting that the FO 'allowed' this to happen when there's supposedly a 'no-penalty, trump-card' that junior officers have to call BS on an unsafe situation and that the senior officer must duly consider and properly respond to. What happened there?
                NZ Herald reporting it was the FO's first civilian flight as such, which would probably explain the reluctance to question an Owner-Captain sitting next to her. She had really horrible luck on that day.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  The Bolivian Aviation Administration objected the flight plane because, as presented, the endurance was the same than the flight time.
                  Is it possible that they filed a re-clearance-in-flight plan and then opted to skip the technical stop? AFAIK that would be a legal situation at take-off (becoming illegal when they skipped the stopover).

                  Originally posted by 3WE
                  It is my hope and belief that something 'told them' 'at some point during the flight' that they had a good amount of extra fuel.
                  Even if this were somehow possible, it's no excuse for not declaring fuel emergency when they first realized they didn't have the reserves, which should have been obvious well before getting placed into a holding pattern.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    Even if this were somehow possible, it's no excuse for not declaring fuel emergency when they first realized they didn't have the reserves, which should have been obvious well before getting placed into a holding pattern.
                    Correct.

                    The difference is that, in some instances humans have had decent, safe plans crumble away and then made human mistakes addressing it- which is sad, but believable, whereas Gabriel was almost saying that in this instance they took off with a genuine intent to arrive with 5 min of fuel remaining, which seems unbelievably stupid. I continue to hope for some semblance of the first situation.

                    And, sadly, it's also no excuse that it was the gal's first ever commercial fight being a reason for her not to speak up OR be ignored (if either of those happened).

                    I think CRM pounds pretty hard that information that has any shred of being valid shall not be ignored...but conversely, yep, that's sorta the situation where the power gradient / shyness kicks in as it has many times before.At least in the US, I'm aware of several instances of 'open-cockpit' turboprop crews telling on-board private pilots in the passenger section to inform them if they see something wrong...pretty extreme, but I guess the CRM rule is that if there's a valid problem, it's good to inform the pilots.
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      According to avherald, the company's air operator's certificate has been revoked with immediate effect.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        Correct.

                        The difference is that, in some instances humans have had decent, safe plans crumble away...
                        Unless this was a multi-leg or RIF flight plan, I don't see how it could possible fit that description (actually RIF isn't even a safe consideration here since it only involves the reserve fuel).

                        Originally posted by 3WE
                        And, sadly, it's also no excuse that it was the gal's first ever commercial fight being a reason for her not to speak up OR be ignored (if either of those happened).
                        The CVR transcript will be interesting. Maybe she didn't even notice.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          BTW, this is what I got on fuelplanner.com:
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            Is this "fixed" as we like to say?
                            The details are not clear yet. Apparently the dispatcher and captain insisted and it was finally accepted as presented.

                            I look forward to some CVR analysis of 1) In-route fuel and range discussions and if there are errors and 2) The CRM environment for agreements / disagreements and intangible 'power gradient' problems.
                            Unfortunately the CVR holds only the last 30 minutes (I don't think that this plane will have the new 2-hours ones), which would cover perhaps just 15 minutes before starting the hold.

                            A lot of valuable information will be found there for sure, but I am very curious (and remain so) about the conversations in the middle of the flight. They must have noticed and discussed fuel long before arrivel, since it was so evident that they were super (and illegally) tight.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              Is it possible that they filed a re-clearance-in-flight plan and then opted to skip the technical stop? AFAIK that would be a legal situation at take-off (becoming illegal when they skipped the stopover).
                              From what I read, it doesn't look like it was a RIF plan, but the information is not clear yet.

                              I don't know the rules of the RIF. It sounds reasonable in a case like Air France, where they they were counting on not using all of the 10% trip fuel reserve (which was a lot of fuel since it was a long flight) what would leave them with enough fuel for their final destination + fly to alternate + 30 minutes final reserve.

                              In this case the 10% would not have been that much, just less than 30 minutes (the planned flight time was 4:20), so even if they had that 20% in the tanks (that they didn't) and they used zero of it, that would be not enough to make up for the 30 minutes final reserve, and we didn't even mention the fuel needed to divert to the alternate yet.

                              So, I don't know if a RIF would have been legal or not, but it would have made no sense in this case since the sure ending (if complying with it) would have been landing in the panned fuel stop.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by sjwk View Post
                                According to avherald, the company's air operator's certificate has been revoked with immediate effect.
                                They should have done it one day before the crash, not one day after.

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X