Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • 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?
    That's what airlines are good for, amongst others,
    The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
    And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
    Aviation enthusiast, since more than 35 years with home airport EDDL.

    Comment


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

      --- 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


      • 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.

        Comment


        • 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.
          That's what airlines are good for, amongst others,
          The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
          And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
          Aviation enthusiast, since more than 35 years with home airport EDDL.

          Comment


          • 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...
            That's what airlines are good for, amongst others,
            The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
            And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
            Aviation enthusiast, since more than 35 years with home airport EDDL.

            Comment


            • 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.

              --- 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


              • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                ...The pilots were aware that they didn't have an adequate quantity of fuel on board...
                This snip does not say WHEN they were aware nor IF there was some contingency or if there was some "carrot on a stick factor"

                I am still refusing to believe that they took off with full intentions of landing with 5 min of spare fuel.
                Les rčgles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                  This snip does not say WHEN they were aware nor IF there was some contingency or if there was some "carrot on a stick factor"

                  I am still refusing to believe that they took off with full intentions of landing with 5 min of spare fuel.
                  Then you haven't looked at the flight plan. They knew they had no fuel contingency when they filed it.

                  Comment


                  • The flight plan is a 'piece of paper'.

                    It does not represent the pilot's actual thoughts.

                    Right or wrong, we routinely address the question of 'being legal on paper' with knowledge that reality may differ. (Shall we discuss the often-faulted 'average weight per passenger' figure that 'assures' that aircraft weight is accurate and assures the safety of the flight...on paper...)

                    The CVR may (or may not) lend some additional insight.

                    I acknowledge that it could contain the words "ok, we should arrive with 5 min of fuel to spare"...but also think that playing Russian Roulette has a rather similar high (83%) chance off success too...not quite high enough for 'most sane people'.

                    Until it's confirmed otherwise, I'm hoping the CVR wording might say, "We can stop here if we need to" and/or "Hey, by my updated calculations, it looks like we'll arrive with 15 min to spare."

                    I folks really are deliberately intending to arrive with 5 min of fuel to spare, I say that goat sacrifices should be part of the before engine start checklist on a wide variety of BAe-146 sub types and perhaps maybe even other models of aircraft.
                    Les rčgles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      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.
                      Some pilots don't like to report "low in fuel" or "ran out of fuel", they don't want their licenses revoked.
                      Anyone remember the Avianca 707 which ran out of fuel near New York and crashed?
                      A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        The flight plan is a 'piece of paper'.

                        It does not represent the pilot's actual thoughts.
                        It certainly does when the total EET entry is the same as the endurance entry. Those entries were the result of actual thoughts.

                        The latest report says they were considering a fuel diversion but decided against it because they didn't know if the airport was open. Another genius bit of preflight planning, eh? And don't airports have radios in this part of the world?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          Those entries were the result of actual thoughts.
                          All words matter, Evan, as do all thoughts.

                          Those entries were the result of some actual thoughts.

                          The thought, that "This will make us legal on paper, while I think winds aloft will make me arrive with 15 min of fuel to spare" is different than the thought "I intend to take off, fly 'direct' and land with 5 min of fuel to spare".

                          I know I'm SOL on them recovering the CTR data...but am still thinking there might be something insidious in the CVR...might not be, but my mindset does not instantly make all pilots involved in crashes idiots...though there are some...
                          Les rčgles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            All words matter, Evan, as do all thoughts.

                            Those entries were the result of some actual thoughts.

                            The thought, that "This will make us legal on paper...
                            Oh no no no no...

                            That was never a thought. The flight plan was not legal. The person who approved the flight plan was arrested. The person who filed it is resting in pieces.

                            This wasn't simple miscalculation about trip fuel. It was a deliberate decision to fly without reserves.

                            Comment


                            • Most interestingly however, the report states that the LO LEVEL feed tank warnings did not activate. If they had, I can't imagine that they would have agreed to a holding pattern. So we need to know why they didn't. And if it turns out they they were intentionally inhibited for being a nuisance to an airline that likes to fly to the edge of endurance, we will have to try and act surprised.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                The flight plan was not legal. The person who approved the flight plan was arrested.
                                Was she? The latest I heard she fled to Brazil and requested asylum there. Anyway, she shouldn't be arrested IMHO. ATC is responsible to keep the air traffic organized. Not of checking if planes have enough fuel. Actually, she told the flight dispatched that that looked odd and he replied that it was ok and the Captain had approved it.

                                --- 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