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

[Evan]

The dispatcher is supposed to be the 'independent' authority. Used to be in my early days, but even with SQ, there was a pressure to avoid the optional fuel stop on marginal flights without offloading cargo or pax.
About 15% of SQ flights LHR-SIN were marginal and every kg of under-load was used to top the tanks before push back.

What I never did in 5000 dispatched flights was sign a loadsheet over to the pilots with anything like Evan posted on his fuel planner. We obviously had to operate at the margins but we did not bite into the safety margins. Even if the pilot requested that we increase the taxi fuel to overcome 100kgs overload, we opted to offload some cargo and re-trim, much to the disgust of the station manager.

I left LHR just as centralised load planning was becoming the norm and management attitudes were tending towards the " aircraft are so safe that we don't really need to trim and check" phase.

I have no idea what the operational organisation of this company was or any of the specifics of this flight, but I would wager that there are a lot of companies, large and small, that regularly operate outside of the limits of legal dispatch relying on the superior design of aircraft and the talents of pilots to get home.

Speak to any BA engineer at T3 LHR in the 90s and he would tell you scary stories of Asian 744s arriving on stand with less than 5 minutes fuel remaining. I think it hit the fan on a Malaysian flight once, but they were largely unreported.

I can almost picture the scene: Pilots ready to push and waiting for the loadsheet... dispatcher says that range, payload and fuel are marginal... pilots/dispatcher agree a 'fudge' to produce loadsheet (because the dispatcher wants to get home or has another flight scheduled)... pilots (or in this case THE pilot and poor inexperienced spectator) convince themselves that they'll make it as long as it all goes well... ground delays push the margins and they still convince themselves its ok, probably because they've done it before... anyway, these aircraft have huge safety margins... fuel gauges are notoriously inaccurate so there's probably loads more fuel than they are showing... we're so close, we will surley make it, but don't let anyone know how far over the limits we are...

I kinda know about this crap having landed a C152 at Stevenson Al after a 300m x-country having used most of my 'unusable' fuel (by side slipping left and right for the final 40 miles). The list of errors, inexperience, bad judgement and over-confidence is familiar to the 19 year old fresh PPL I was in those days (1981).

I learned the lesson then, but have dispatched more than a few flights with serious concerns over the judgment and over confidence of some pilots along with the company culture of "we can't afford to follow all the regulations all the time... the authorities are well aware of this... just do it".

The consequence of killing so many people is obviously not enough of a threat to many people in the industry and regulation oversight is getting more relevant today. I'm waiting for an Easyjet or Ryanair flight to come down one day, based on an ATC friend's accounts of the number of times they refuse an instruction due to fuel constraints.

These are avoidable accidents, but I would really like to know how often companies and individuals are taking avoidable risks.

It seems that we need a more inevitable deterrent than "maybe we won't make it". Why aren't ground crews required to log fuel-remaining after each flight?

[Dispatch Dog]

the route was almost exactly the same as the published range for the ac. i dont care what kind of winds you expect. if the pilot hadn't killed himself, i'd be advocating for his slow and painful execution.

on another note, how is it that flight plans aren't checked by independent authorities?

The dispatcher is supposed to be the 'independent' authority. Used to be in my early days, but even with SQ, there was a pressure to avoid the optional fuel stop on marginal flights without offloading cargo or pax.
About 15% of SQ flights LHR-SIN were marginal and every kg of under-load was used to top the tanks before push back.

What I never did in 5000 dispatched flights was sign a loadsheet over to the pilots with anything like Evan posted on his fuel planner. We obviously had to operate at the margins but we did not bite into the safety margins. Even if the pilot requested that we increase the taxi fuel to overcome 100kgs overload, we opted to offload some cargo and re-trim, much to the disgust of the station manager.

I left LHR just as centralised load planning was becoming the norm and management attitudes were tending towards the " aircraft are so safe that we don't really need to trim and check" phase.

I have no idea what the operational organisation of this company was or any of the specifics of this flight, but I would wager that there are a lot of companies, large and small, that regularly operate outside of the limits of legal dispatch relying on the superior design of aircraft and the talents of pilots to get home.

Speak to any BA engineer at T3 LHR in the 90s and he would tell you scary stories of Asian 744s arriving on stand with less than 5 minutes fuel remaining. I think it hit the fan on a Malaysian flight once, but they were largely unreported.

I can almost picture the scene: Pilots ready to push and waiting for the loadsheet... dispatcher says that range, payload and fuel are marginal... pilots/dispatcher agree a 'fudge' to produce loadsheet (because the dispatcher wants to get home or has another flight scheduled)... pilots (or in this case THE pilot and poor inexperienced spectator) convince themselves that they'll make it as long as it all goes well... ground delays push the margins and they still convince themselves its ok, probably because they've done it before... anyway, these aircraft have huge safety margins... fuel gauges are notoriously inaccurate so there's probably loads more fuel than they are showing... we're so close, we will surley make it, but don't let anyone know how far over the limits we are...

I kinda know about this crap having landed a C152 at Stevenson Al after a 300m x-country having used most of my 'unusable' fuel (by side slipping left and right for the final 40 miles). The list of errors, inexperience, bad judgement and over-confidence is familiar to the 19 year old fresh PPL I was in those days (1981).

I learned the lesson then, but have dispatched more than a few flights with serious concerns over the judgment and over confidence of some pilots along with the company culture of "we can't afford to follow all the regulations all the time... the authorities are well aware of this... just do it".

The consequence of killing so many people is obviously not enough of a threat to many people in the industry and regulation oversight is getting more relevant today. I'm waiting for an Easyjet or Ryanair flight to come down one day, based on an ATC friend's accounts of the number of times they refuse an instruction due to fuel constraints.

These are avoidable accidents, but I would really like to know how often companies and individuals are taking avoidable risks.

[TeeVee]

the route was almost exactly the same as the published range for the ac. i dont care what kind of winds you expect. if the pilot hadn't killed himself, i'd be advocating for his slow and painful execution.

on another note, how is it that flight plans aren't checked by independent authorities?

[Evan]

Plot thickens...

Brazil's O Globo reported that because of a delayed departure, a refuelling stop in Cobija - on the border between Brazil and Bolivia - was abandoned because the airport did not operate at night.

Was that 'delayed gate departure' or 'delayed in the queue with engines burning off taxi fuel'? And why are we talking about refuelling stops when there was nothing about that in the flight plan?

[3WE]

1. 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)....2. Maybe she didn't even notice.

1. Maybe (I want to keep stressing Maybe) the forecast winds aloft were favorable. 100 extra knots happens and would certainly help give them a decent reserve.

2. I also hope you are wrong there, but recognize I could lose a beer and eat crow. I don't care how green you are, if you have a pilot's license, awareness of the fuel status is one of those fundamental basics that's applicable to J-3 Cubs to 787's and Airbii inbetween.

[Evan]

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.

Can't confirm that this is authentic but...

This is apparently the flight plan. EET is exactly the same as endurance (?!!). No RIF.

What is also puzzling is that endurance is 4hr 22mins but by my calculations (if they left the runway at 18:18L) the actual endurance was something around 3hrs 38mins. Wish I could find the fuel order. I wonder if there was a significant taxi delay at departure.

[Gabriel]

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.

[Gabriel]

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.

[Gabriel]

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.

[Evan]

BTW, this is what I got on fuelplanner.com:

[Evan]

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).

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.

[sjwk]

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

[3WE]

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.

[Evan]

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).

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.

[Hasselhoffia]

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.