Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    Although all current evidences show that the plane that crashed was flying beyond its limits in terms of fuel, the pilot never communicated to ATC the real dangerous situation in terms of fuel levels. So far, there is no evidence of any clear communication of fuel-related emergency from the crashed plane. If that is correct, either the crew was not aware of the situation or was avoiding any kind of penalties in case they landed.
    I don't agree. Did you read my post?
    - A fuel stop was scheduled and skipped.
    - The pilot called anxiously a few times asking how long were they be kept in the hold.
    - The pilot informed the ATC about "fuel problems".
    - The pilot left the hold and started the approach without clearance.

    I am fairly convinced that the pilot knew that he had a fuel problem (hey, he even said so in the radio), maybe he thought he had just a few minutes more of fuel, but he knew it was very serious, and he knew it was his fault, and waned to hide all this by not declaring fuel emergency.

    --- 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


    • #17
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      Believe it or not, black and white is the right way to do fuel management: Either you have enough fuel to make the flight + reserves OR you plan for a fuel stop.

      You monitor fuel during the flight and either you have enough fuel to continue the flight OR you make a fuel stop.

      Winds can vary and you can 'use your brain and common sense', but solid pilot skills make for very few 'good' off-airport airliner landings.
      Or, as the saying goes, superior pilots use their superior judgement to avoid using their superior flying skills.

      --- 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


      • #18
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        I don't agree. Did you read my post?
        - A fuel stop was scheduled and skipped.
        - The pilot called anxiously a few times asking how long were they be kept in the hold.
        - The pilot informed the ATC about "fuel problems".
        - The pilot left the hold and started the approach without clearance.

        I am fairly convinced that the pilot knew that he had a fuel problem (hey, he even said so in the radio), maybe he thought he had just a few minutes more of fuel, but he knew it was very serious, and he knew it was his fault, and waned to hide all this by not declaring fuel emergency.
        Fuel stop skipped is not confirmed at the moment.

        Well, anxiety doesn't mean fuel emergency. Otherwise, from now on controllers will have to add some kind of feelings' interpretation in their professional skills.

        The pilot told ATC he had no fuel only in the last 2 minutes of the flight.

        The ac was on hold for about 9 minutes.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Observer View Post
          Fuel stop skipped is not confirmed at the moment.
          Well, one way or another it was skipped if they run out of fuel after just a mundane hold.

          Well, anxiety doesn't mean fuel emergency.
          Agreed.

          Otherwise, from now on controllers will have to add some kind of feelings' interpretation in their professional skills.
          No. The pilots need to declare emergency promptly. The pilot was legally required to declare emergency the moment that he assessed that he would end up landing with less fuel than the final reserves. That should have been at least 1 hour before running out of fuel. Except that (I am quite convinced) that would had led to a fuel stop and he intentionally decided to keep pushing and then he didn't want his intentionally illegal decision exposed by declaring an emergency, so he waited until the last moment.

          My point is that the pilot knew that he was runnign low on fuel long before the end.

          --- 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


          • #20
            My point is that the pilot knew that he was runnign low on fuel long before the end.[/QUOTE]

            Agreed

            Comment


            • #21
              ATC recording (subtitles in English):
              (and a bunch of too)


              --- 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


              • #22
                Let's take T=0 when the LaMia crew first reported priority.

                00:00 Crew first requested priority with "fuel problems"
                02:00 They declare fuel emergency
                04:30 They reported "total failure, electrical and fuel". So just 4 1/2 minutes after first giving a hint of an issue, they were completely out of fuel, the engines stopped and gliding. They had been burning final fuel reserves (whay you are required to still have after missing the approach at your destination and landing in the alternate) for half an hour.
                06:00 They crashed.

                I am really sorry for the family of the pilot. They may be reading this and what I have to say is not nice at all:
                Had the pilot survived the crash, he should have been charged and sentenced for manslaughter with criminal negligence. Of course that killing 69 persons (including himself) was not his intention, but he didn't proceed with the minimum due care for the job that he was doing, and worse, he intentionally took decisions that he knew were illegal and he didn't have the authority to take.

                The captain of a flight is the ultimate responsible for the safety of the flight, and while he has other responsibilities, none come close to that one.
                He failed at that, and not because he was not skilled, not well trained, or did a reasonable human mistake. He intentionally and illegally took a conscious decision that put the lives of all on board at risk, God knows for the sake of what, hoping that he would get rid of that. He failed in so many ways.

                Next question is, why is a pilot like that being allowed to fly in this airline.

                And next question is, why is an airline like that being allowed to operate by the authorities.

                Unlike other cases where the airlines let pilot without the proper skills fly their planes, in this case lack of skill doesn't seem to be the factor, rather it was an intentionally dishonest decision. So the pilot is 100% responsible. But still, airlines that are willing to operate poorly will find plenty of pilots willing to follow suit (even if most pilots would not do it). So the airline is still 100% responsible too.

                Responsibility, together with knowledge and love, is one of the few things that you don't have any less when you share 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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  Let's take T=0 when the LaMia crew first reported priority.
                  The captain of a flight is the ultimate responsible for the safety of the flight, and while he has other responsibilities, none come close to that one.
                  He failed at that, and not because he was not skilled, not well trained, or did a reasonable human mistake. He intentionally and illegally took a conscious decision that put the lives of all on board at risk, God knows for the sake of what, hoping that he would get rid of that. He failed in so many ways.

                  Next question is, why is a pilot like that being allowed to fly in this airline.

                  And next question is, why is an airline like that being allowed to operate by the authorities.
                  I'd read in several places (but none of them what I'd call proper sources) that one of the pilots was the owner (or maybe on the board and shareholder) of the airline which, if true, would answer your first question.

                  I also see that the UK's Mirror are hailing the pilot a hero for dumping every drop of fuel by 'opening a fuel door' seconds before it crashed for a non-fuel related reason, thus preventing an explosion that would have also killed the 6 who survived...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I've read that this aircraft does not have a fuel dumping system.
                    To be confirmed

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Observer View Post
                      I've read that this aircraft does not have a fuel dumping system.
                      To be confirmed
                      I guess that's why the pilot had to go and 'open the fuel door' to let it all out!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        Swiss cheese chain of events and thick, sad irony.
                        I have to say IMHO the Swiss cheese thing doesn't really fit here.

                        The classic "Swiss cheese" accident is when a number of very unlikely things happen, and the effect of all those things happening is an accident.

                        This accident (apparently) wasn't caused "a number of very unlikely things" happening all at once, it was caused by one thing: the pilot's bad judgement. Well that and failure to follow prescribed procedures, but to me the failure to follow procedures is just a manifestation of bad judgement.
                        Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                        Eric Law

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          ...why is a pilot like that being allowed to fly in this airline...why is an airline like that being allowed to operate by the authorities...
                          A little bit too simple. The "we can make it" carrot on a string in front of a donkey is very old phenomenon...and the phrase "it has happened before, appears to have happened here and will probably happen again" applies. And probably not as simple as "this guy and this airline are flawed".

                          I and betting (and it's a pure guess) that there's a few more subtle, but powerful Swiss cheese aspects here...There's the charts saying that the trip was impossible due to fuel range, yet, today we are saying they could have made except for the bad luck of the other emergency. So, there had to be some good tailwinds. Was there some points during the trip where the winds were extra good and the trip legally doable...and then that slowly faded away...and then there were no more good alternates?

                          One other question is good ole power-gradient CRM issues. First Officer ITS (Boeing Bobby, ATLCrew) would have brilliantly (or forcibly) taken control much earlier, landed the plane and then been fired by the owner-captain. 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? (Yeah, sure, could be the whole airline's safety culture and that the economics of running multi-million-dollar machines that haul folks for relatively cheap fares results in cost management and...)
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by elaw View Post
                            I have to say IMHO the Swiss cheese thing doesn't really fit here.
                            Ummm yeahhhh, I understand, but conversely, the concept only requires two layers...

                            1) Push the flight to low levels of fuel- but they can still make it (opens a hole in the cheese)
                            2) Another plane declares emergency (that opens a second hole- which sadly aligned in this case).

                            And, if you see my post above, as we learn more I'm betting my proverbial beer that a few more layers emerge...I do genuinely want to know if at one point during the fight, the winds were great and they could make it. [another layer]

                            OR did someone make a math error during an in-route calculation [another layer]

                            And what about the CRM cited above...that the FO didn't call BS or something [another layer].

                            We should consult Wikipedia to determine how many layers must be identified to claim a Swiss Cheese Argument... Respectfully
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Observer View Post
                              I've read that this aircraft does not have a fuel dumping system.
                              To be confirmed
                              It doesn't.

                              --- 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


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                                Ummm yeahhhh, I understand, but conversely, the concept only requires two layers...

                                1) Push the flight to low levels of fuel- but they can still make it (opens a hole in the cheese)
                                2) Another plane declares emergency (that opens a second hole- which sadly aligned in this case).
                                I don't agree with 2. They were holding only for 10 minutes, and they still had to make the approach by when they run out of fuel. Had they gone straight for the landing, they would have landed with maybe 5 minutes of fuel on board, burning almost all of the 30 minutes required to have at landing, and we are not counting rhe 10% of the trip reserve and the fuel to fly for the alternate. These 5 minutes could have been consumed by a number of factors that are normal and not ulikely, especially if you put an "any of the following" in the beginning:
                                - Landing delayed for any reason (plane disabled, runway inspection, weather, traffic...)
                                - In flight detours to dodge weather.
                                - In flight detours due ATC.
                                - ATC holding you at a lower altitude for some time.
                                - Not as strong tailwind or stronger headwind.
                                - A very minor fuel leak.
                                - An engine failure making you fly lower.
                                - A pressurization problem making you fly much lower.

                                I mean, seriously, how many times does a flight take 5 minutes more than scheduled for any reason? Calling that a hole in a layer of swiss cheese is like doing the same for the presence of the ground into which they crashed.

                                --- 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