Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Gabriel
    replied
    Results of the preliminary investigation:
    - The pilots were aware that they didn't have an adequate quantity of fuel on board.
    - The airplane was overweight by some 500kg [This was not determinant for the accident but tells you about a willingness to break an bend rules]
    - By when they requester priority, they had already lost 2 engines but didn't explain the severity of their situation.

    Leave a comment:


  • LH-B744
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    The plane did not fly directly from Guarulhos to Medellin. The final flight was Santa Cruz (Bolivia) - Medellin. 1600 nautical miles.
    Yes. But... we both know interesting 747 destinations. As ... don't let us mention licenses or knowledge about a special aircraft... as a responsible person for a young soccer team, would you've called the cheapest of the cheapest pilot with an inappropriate a/c in a radius of....
    how far is it from Guarulhos to Viru Viru, - 900 nautical miles?

    I don't think so. And there are not only 19 young dead sports men. 71 is the number that I've read. That's a degree of irresponsibility that makes me believe that I don't have to read about that "airline" again in my life. Established in 2015? And since then the founder (in jail?) did not learn how much fuel he needs between Guarulhos, Viru Viru and Medellín?!

    Damn!

    PS: Originally, this is a nice day for LH. So I should make the Sully: calm down a bit, which I will.
    Last edited by LH-B744; 2016-12-16, 02:50. Reason: A nice day...

    Leave a comment:


  • LH-B744
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    By all means please do. You have done so well in the past.
    Oh, have I? I don't know if I should feel honored now. There are jetphotos members that give me that feeling. Probably we are not yet as warm as the Donald and Russia. The future will tell.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
    Probably I should also try to explain what shouldn't be misunderstood.

    By all means please do. You have done so well in the past.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    The plane did not fly directly from Guarulhos to Medellin. The final flight was Santa Cruz (Bolivia) - Medellin. 1600 nautical miles.

    Leave a comment:


  • LH-B744
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    What I mean is that what once was the exception seems to have now become the rule.
    Probably I should also try to explain what shouldn't be misunderstood. Most quoted man is a title that doesn't give you a cent, as I assume. That's why I am here since almost eight years. Discussions which clearly avoid areas where men are paid to say something.

    If I were responsible for 19 young men of a Brazilian soccer team, which btw rather seems like a rare case for a passenger jet pilot, only 19 pax? ,- then I'd try to guarantee that every human on board arrives at the destination, also due to respect of my own life. That's the (fictional) point of view for a pilot.

    I can't say in how far these 71 dead bodies are related to capitalism. Who was not on board and tried to earn a dime which he better invested in ...fuel?!

    TeeVee said that he liked to say one or two words to the responsible pilot of this flight, if this man hadn't killed himself. Right. But it is still a mystery for me. A Bolivian short haul a/c, I don't dare to speak of an airline, was ordered to Guarulhos (Brazil), for a 2,500 nmi flight to Colombia.

    Well, even I knew, before I asked the internet, that 2500 nautical miles are classified as medium haul. Either the responsible pilot or "the airline" should've guaranteed, that even with an inappropriate aircraft, not only the young soccer team, the youngest was only 21, survive the year 2016.

    Was the responsible pilot of the Jumbolino really unable to see that the a/c which he sat in was completely technically unable to fly 1,600 nmi nonstop? Or who forced him to try such an evil game, his own stupidity/false heroism?

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Was that after or before the Ford Pinto?

    Don't take me wrong. I mostly agree with what you say, but I believe that this issue exists since forever. Think how many operators were injured or killed in the old factories.
    What I mean is that what once was the exception seems to have now become the rule.

    Leave a comment:


  • Schwartz
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    The eternal search for short-term 'efficiency' is a big part of it, but more apropos to this crash is the ever-widening gap of management-customer disconnection. Management once would have felt a repulsive sense of shame in cutting certain corners or pressuring employees to take certain calculated risks—because they felt a sense of civic connection and responsibility. That compunction began to die off after Reagan got hold of things and has since become a rare phenomena in global business ethics. Legions of lawyers formed an absolving wall between management and customers. Moraility shifted from civic decency to capitalist priority. If you can get away with it and you don't take that opportunity to increase profit, you are acting immoral. Not maximizing profit up to the very edge of legality is like not 'cleaning your plate', like wasting food. This is why regulations—and diligent enforcement—are so beneficial for everybody. If we didn't have it, the operators know they would be crashing planes everywhere. They need a leash and we need a watchdog.
    Evan, there is a long history of corporate malfeasance resulting in death and disease of many people long before Reagan. Think Tobacco, Asbestos, Mining etc. Think about the banking crisis triggering the great depression. No, ethics have been a problem as long as civilization has been around.

    Leave a comment:


  • LH-B744
    replied
    Is Evan the most quoted jetphotos member? If even 3WE agrees, then I certainly don't have to use again a full quotation.

    'Certain calculated risks' - I remember April 10th, 2010. A Polish Tu-154M crashed in an accident that was not survivable, due to CFIT. And I remember what I wrote in 2010. If the Donald and the President of Poland both sat behind me, and they as - only an assumption - men who don't have even heard of one aviation license
    tried to tell me what to do,
    I still tried to land safely. Which, in the 2010 case, clearly included a diversion.

    Aviation was not safer when Bush Jr. ruled the USA. That's a widely spread assumption, but it is wrong.

    'Capitalist priority' - Well, this is what the USA get, starting January 20th. The domestic hotelier (ie Non politician) attacked Boeing and Lockheed Martin, a fact that can only be explained with 'he wants to buy'. I still hope that in Germany, as long as I live here, no billionaire becomes chancellor. But back on topic.

    Since my last entry here in this topic, I hoped I could've stayed as calm as Sully. 'You measure a heart beat of 110 directly after the Sully landing? That's bad. Normally it is 50.'

    Why hadn't the Chapecoense not trusted an experienced commercial airline? Saving lives is not cheap, and I could guarantee that Sullenberger was never a bargain, as long as he was an active A320 captain.

    Capitalism. Non pilots or capitalists sometimes don't know that if you fly very very very cheap (with an airline that has NO experience, neither at Guarulhos nor at Medellin),
    you'll pay with your life.

    It still does not fit into my head, a four engined jet with a lack of fuel. The oldest Chapecoense player was 35, three years younger than me. Now dead.

    If it was not possible for Chapecoense to pay an experienced airline (there is one, est 1919!) for a regular 1 stop commercial flight, I'd said, we cancel the journey.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    ... more apropos to this crash is the ever-widening gap of management-customer disconnection. Management once would have felt a repulsive sense of shame in cutting certain corners or pressuring employees to take certain calculated risks—because they felt a sense of civic connection and responsibility...
    Was that after or before the Ford Pinto?

    Don't take me wrong. I mostly agree with what you say, but I believe that this issue exists since forever. Think how many operators were injured or killed in the old factories.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    It's a subtle, gray-area thing. MBAs and engineers and marketing people and engineers have a new way of 'a continual search for effeciancy' along with rah rah consensus, and hiding behind the idea that 'diversity' (i.e. Non pilots) is much more open minded and creative with regard to 'novel ideas' like savings from fewer fuel stops and that excess fuel = wasted fuel to generate extra lift.

    You and Evan are both right.
    The eternal search for short-term 'efficiency' is a big part of it, but more apropos to this crash is the ever-widening gap of management-customer disconnection. Management once would have felt a repulsive sense of shame in cutting certain corners or pressuring employees to take certain calculated risks—because they felt a sense of civic connection and responsibility. That compunction began to die off after Reagan got hold of things and has since become a rare phenomena in global business ethics. Legions of lawyers formed an absolving wall between management and customers. Moraility shifted from civic decency to capitalist priority. If you can get away with it and you don't take that opportunity to increase profit, you are acting immoral. Not maximizing profit up to the very edge of legality is like not 'cleaning your plate', like wasting food. This is why regulations—and diligent enforcement—are so beneficial for everybody. If we didn't have it, the operators know they would be crashing planes everywhere. They need a leash and we need a watchdog.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    New?
    It's a subtle, gray-area thing. MBAs managers and marketing people and engineers have a new way of 'a continual search for effeciancy' along with rah rah consensus, and hiding behind the idea that 'diversity' (i.e. Non pilots) is much more open minded and creative with regard to 'novel ideas' like savings from fewer fuel stops and that excess fuel = wasted fuel to generate extra lift.

    You and Evan are both right.

    Leave a comment:


  • sjwk
    replied
    BBC are quoting one of the survivors as saying the crew gave them no warning, not even told to put on seatbelts.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38293253

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
    The AP adds that, according to Ferreira, the “aviation officials who signed off on” the LaMia jet’s “irregular flight plan would be prosecuted.”
    From the BCC:

    The Bolivian authorities have issued an arrest warrant for Celia Castedo, who also worked for the country's civil aviation authorities.

    She had seen the plane's flight plan before it took off from Santa Cruz's airport in southern Bolivia and had warned that it barely had enough fuel to reach its destination in Colombia.
    She has said she was pressured by her bosses into changing a flight report she made at the time and has fled the country, saying she fears she would not get a fair hearing by the judicial authorities.
    Ms Castedo is in Brazil where she is seeking asylum.
    She should have warned that it didn't have enough fuel to reach it's destination.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    the new norm
    New?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X