Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Dispatch Dog View Post
    We're on the same page.

    To nitpik: in reality all companies stretch the rules as an exercise of efficiency. Complete technical legality is often unattainable and I accept that with professional integrity it can be sufficiently safe to do so, but there are some inherently dangerous and obviously deadly corners being cut by some. It can often be a fine line and I just don't trust every operator to draw their own line.
    I think in reality it would work the way the 55mph speed limit worked. You don't pull them over for going 60 or even 65, but it keeps them from going 70. LAMIA was going 120. Such a system would be certain to come down on theses kinds of offences. Where you draw the line would be determined by your resources and how many violations you are getting.

    Comment


    • #62
      I do not have any knowledge of aviation. But I´ve read that when pilots turn transponder to 7700, this means fuel emergency (I don´t know if this is true). Is it possible that when an aircraft reachs its fuel limits (30 minutes of flight for instance) the trasnponder automatically turns to 7700 ? And not leaving this message for crew´s discretion ?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Observer View Post
        I do not have any knowledge of aviation. But I´ve read that when pilots turn transponder to 7700, this means fuel emergency (I don´t know if this is true). Is it possible that when an aircraft reachs its fuel limits (30 minutes of flight for instance) the trasnponder automatically turns to 7700 ? And not leaving this message for crew´s discretion ?
        7500 Hijack
        7600 Communications failure
        7700 Emergency (equivalent to mayday, any emergency, not just fuel)

        But if you are in contact with ATC and they are already tracking you with a code, sometimes is better to leave the code as is. In the same way that you would not tune 125.0 (the emergency frequency).

        --- 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


        • #64
          A million years ago I learned the mnemonic ICE for the emergency codes : interference, communication, emergency, for 5 6 and 7 respectively.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            7500 Hijack
            7600 Communications failure
            7700 Emergency (equivalent to mayday, any emergency, not just fuel)

            But if you are in contact with ATC and they are already tracking you with a code, sometimes is better to leave the code as is. In the same way that you would not tune 125.0 (the emergency frequency).
            I know you meant 121.5 for Emergency VHF.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
              I know you meant 121.5 for Emergency VHF.
              Hi Bobby...thanks for joining the conversation. We are well underway at designing new procedures to help you manage your fuel status...you're welcome.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #67
                Here's the ATC comms regarding this crash....

                https://youtu.be/6Ab5x_C-CFg
                If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                  I know you meant 121.5 for Emergency VHF.
                  Yes you do, and yes I did!!!

                  --- 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


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                    Here's the ATC comms regarding this crash....

                    https://youtu.be/6Ab5x_C-CFg
                    The last reported altitude was 9000'. The VOR (where they crashed) is 8669'. They impacted a hill beside the VOR. No chance.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                      Hi Bobby...thanks for joining the conversation. We are well underway at designing new procedures to help you manage your fuel status...you're welcome.
                      Think I will go with what I have used over the last 45+ years. Only time you have to much fuel on-board is when you are on fire!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                        Think I will go with what I have used over the last 45+ years.
                        What I guess is basically "do not run out of fuel", I suppose.

                        Only time you have to much fuel on-board is when you are on fire!
                        Or when you miscalculated your take-off weight (lower than real), hence set a too low TO thrust, and you don't have a TOPMS.

                        On a more serious note, there are other instances where you may have too much fuel like a double engine failure in a 3 or 4 engines plane. This is more a weight than a fuel issue, but fuel is easier to dump than pax or cargo!

                        --- 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


                        • #72
                          *Procedures to report fuel remaining at the end of a flight.
                          -Human reporting
                          -Automated reporting
                          -Existing systems?

                          *Aircraft automatically reports low fuel status to ATC via Transponder (or some other system)

                          I'm a bit surprised that the ole topics of Pilot Screening and Safety Culture have not_had their usual rants...

                          Yeah, they've been mentioned, but really, isn't this just a gross failure of the pilots using super basic fundamentals AND (or for Evan) EVEN EXISTING, GOOD, HARD PROCEDURES to plan for fuel, monitor for fuel in flight and act accordingly.

                          (Yeah, I'm guilty of wanting them to have the excuse of winds throwing them a curve ball, but monitor, bail and declare-an-emergency-if-needed can't really be dismissed...Still do not want to accept them departing with the plan being to arrive with less than 15 min of fuel left.)
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            There was an opportunity to catch this before it happened. The flight plan was absurd. EET=Duration??!! Nobody minding that store. There was an opportunity to catch this in flight. Feed tanks low=a master warning, well before full exhaustion, with ample fuel for diversion AND go-around. No one minded that. There is an opportunity to catch these types of violations after they land. Nobody minding that store either. Why aren't revenue flight plans being scrutinized and approved by an aviation authority? Why isn't remaining fuel logged and checked by an aviation authority? Why do we place our faith in pilots who may be under pressure from careless operators? Somewhere, someone has to keep everyone honest, that's part of the social contract, because, without that, we will live in "continual fear, and danger of violent death", and human life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                              Only time you have to much fuel on-board is when you are on fire!
                              Or when the fuel exceeds the fuel capacity, as it would have here.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                Or when the fuel exceeds the fuel capacity, as it would have here.
                                That is not having too much. That is having NOT enough!

                                And Gabriel, More often than not in the 747 we take off with more fuel than we can land with. That is what fuel dump systems and overweight landings are for.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X