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 Gabriel View Post
    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.
    IIRC an arrest warrant was issued. There were allegations that she approved the flight plan due to bribery or some form of coercion. As a line of defense with human lives involved, I think that is arrestable.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Evan View Post
      IIRC an arrest warrant was issued. There were allegations that she approved the flight plan due to bribery or some form of coercion. As a line of defense with human lives involved, I think that is arrestable.
      She did object the flight plan. She argued with the dispatcher. I don't know how far she can go. If she rejected to approve a flight plan behind her authority, she might have faced other consequences. She was between a rock and a hard place. If she lacked the authority to reject a flight plan based on airplane performance (which I don't believe she has the authority to do since she doesn't need to know what the performance of each airplane is) and commenting and giving advise about it is not in her R&R, I believe she already did more than she was requested to do. I don't believe that's arrestable in a reasonable country. Now in South America....

      --- 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


      • Evan, this is in the interim report:

        With respect to the filed flight plan the GRIAA wrote:

        The dispatcher accompanying the flight submitted a flight plan on 28 November 2016 at about 20:10hrs at the flight plan office at Santa Cruz Airport. The submitted flight plan gave a departure time of 22:00hrs and a cruising flight level of FL280. The flight time and endurance were both recorded on the plan as 4 hrs 22 minutes.

        The flight plan office requested that the flight plan was changed and re-submitted due to the following issues with the plan:

        - The route did not include a standard instrument departure (SID) from Santa Cruz

        - There was no second alternate airport included in the plan

        - The estimated enroute time (EET) was the same as the endurance

        - The dispatcher had only signed the plan but had not printed his name

        The dispatcher apparently had refused to change any of the details and explained that, regarding the EET and endurance being the same, the actual flight time would be less than that on the plan. The flight plan office filed the flight plan at about 20:30hrs but sent a report to the DGAC regional office giving details of the incident, stating that under the regulations the office was not empowered to reject the submission.

        --- 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


        • Did they pull the CB of the CVR???

          The cockpit voice recorder ceased recording at 01:15:03Z, 1:40:45 hours prior to the end of FDR recording.

          --- 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



          • 1. The dispatcher...regarding the EET and endurance being the same, the actual flight time would be less than that on the plan.

            2. The cockpit voice recorder ceased recording at 01:15:03Z, 1:40:45 hours prior to the end of FDR recording.
            1. That's almost my nugget...The dispatcher could be a totally lying (Evan's proof-lacking conclusion) or there could have been some real reason where they thought they would pick up 15 min in-route or save some gas, and that little snip doesn't give us the 'why' or the 'reason' the flight time would be shorter. (3BS's proof-lacking speculative thought).

            2. And there goes my hope for some meaningful hints in the cockpit regarding fuel consumption. Hopefully, the final report will contain a bit more information about what the dispatcher said.
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              Did they pull the CB of the CVR???
              What other CB's did they pull? The report states that the fuel lo warning did not activate. If the CVR wasn't working, I assume they drew that conclusion from the FDR. Essentially, what we know is that things weren't working on this aircraft.

              Re: the flight plan office, they saw an issue. If the dispatcher had told them the EET was wrong, than have them make that correction and resubmit it (and check it against the route!). Again, as a line of defense, they have a moral (and hopefully legal) obligation. The consequences are the loss of many lives vs whatever personal career loss they are facing. I'm sure in these banana republics things are not so well regulated and a lot of corruption persists, but it is still important in the aftermath to punish those who allowed this flight to proceed despite the obvious warning signs. The flight plan office must demand a valid flight plan without exception, or face the consequences of that. If you don't enforce this, then consequences only exist for refusing corruption, with no consequences for abiding it.

              Also, when I say 'arrestable', I mean to make formal charges against someone. They still have their day in court. If they have a valid exculpatory argument, they avoid any consequences. But due process must determine that.

              Comment


              • 3WE, for the last time, you are talking about trip fuel. It is not legal to fly with trip fuel alone. For this reason. When legitimate carriers want to fly a 'hopeful' flight plan, they must include an RIF contingency.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  What other CB's did they pull? The report states that the fuel lo warning did not activate. If the CVR wasn't working, I assume they drew that conclusion from the FDR. Essentially, what we know is that things weren't working on this aircraft.

                  Re: the flight plan office, they saw an issue. If the dispatcher had told them the EET was wrong, than have them make that correction and resubmit it (and check it against the route!). Again, as a line of defense, they have a moral (and hopefully legal) obligation. The consequences are the loss of many lives vs whatever personal career loss they are facing. I'm sure in these banana republics things are not so well regulated and a lot of corruption persists, but it is still important in the aftermath to punish those who allowed this flight to proceed despite the obvious warning signs. The flight plan office must demand a valid flight plan without exception, or face the consequences of that. If you don't enforce this, then consequences only exist for refusing corruption, with no consequences for abiding it.

                  Also, when I say 'arrestable', I mean to make formal charges against someone. They still have their day in court. If they have a valid exculpatory argument, they avoid any consequences. But due process must determine that.
                  She objected the flight plan on 4 points (3 of which are directly related with the fuel issue) and request it to be corrected, what the dispatched refused to do.
                  She had to accept it because she had no authority to reject it on those grounds.
                  Yet, not happy with the situation, she went one step beyond that and, immediately after filing the plan, sent a report to the regional office of the DGAC (Bolivia's FAA). That was still before the take-off.

                  What else would you expect? That she stands in front of the plane shouting "over my dead body"?
                  And while there may be a lot of corruption in Bolivia, there is no reason to think that she accepted anything for filing the plan "as is". Especially since she immediately reported it to the aeronautical enforcement authority.

                  --- 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 Evan View Post
                    3WE, for the last time, you are talking about trip fuel. It is not legal to fly with trip fuel alone. For this reason. When legitimate carriers want to fly a 'hopeful' flight plan, they must include an RIF contingency.
                    3WE is not talking about legality, but sanity. He refuses to believe that the pilot took off with the intentional plan to land with only 5 minutes of fuel remaining. 20 minutes seem more understandable to him.

                    --- 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
                      3WE is not talking about legality, but sanity. He wants to believe that there was something more than an intentional plan to land with only 5 minutes of fuel remaining. 20 minutes seem more understandable to him.
                      Fixed.

                      Evan's black and white thinking... it's on paper, therefore, there can be no ulterior thoughts or contingencies that are not written down.

                      5 vs 20 has zero legal bearing, but does get you past gauge errors and minor weather errors and brief takeoff delays, and yes, crosses the line between slightly-dangerous cheating and grossly-stupid-near-suicidal behavior... Russian Roulette... where sooner (not later) your luck will run out.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        Fixed.

                        Evan's black and white thinking... it's on paper, therefore, there can be no ulterior thoughts or contingencies that are not written down.

                        5 vs 20 has zero legal bearing, but does get you past gauge errors and minor weather errors and brief takeoff delays, and yes, crosses the line between slightly-dangerous cheating and grossly-stupid-near-suicidal behavior... Russian Roulette... where sooner (not later) your luck will run out.
                        Have you lost your mind? Of course it's black and white, just like design stress load margins or pilot certification standards. You MUST have fuel for unexpected fuel burn, route diversions, a hold, an alternate, a go-around and a reserve after landing. Who gives a flying fuck what this pilot was hoping for, he has to provide for the possibility that everything will not come up roses. That is the law, in black and white. It's what keeps planes from crashing all around us. Any pilot who files THAT flight plan and flies THAT route with THAT aircraft is a criminal and a potential mass murderer. There's no grey area here.

                        Comment


                        • Um... I'm pretty sure that what keeps planes from crashing all around us is the lift force exceeding gravitational force.

                          Laws/rules/procedures can HELP keep airplanes from crashing but having them does not provide a 100% guarantee of no crash any more than not having or ignoring them provides a 100% guarantee of a crash.
                          Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                          Eric Law

                          Comment


                          • well according to the report there is some electrical problem but pilot said the jet is ran out of fuel.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by cody View Post
                              well according to the report there is some electrical problem but pilot said the jet is ran out of fuel.
                              Yes, the electrical problem caused by all 3 generators on board (2 moved by 2 of the engines and one by the APU) fail due to running out of fuel.

                              It is like a scuba diver that runs out of air and you say that he had a respiratory problem. Duh!

                              --- 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 Evan View Post
                                There's no grey area here.
                                Sometimes pilots carry even MORE fuel that is required...I guess they are crazy since that does not align with the legally-required extra fuel...

                                ...and I think Elaw may be saying that there's even been cases of planes that took off with legal fuel loads that ran out of fuel...

                                And then, I guess there's no examples of cheating by 5 or 10 min and successfully completing lots and lots of flights.

                                But hey, no gray area here.
                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X