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

[Gabriel]

Not such an uncommon mentality among airmen outside of the safety culture...

How it overrides the survival instinct I'll just never understand.

I think it's called... stupidity?

No, it is called sense of superiority and wishful thinking: "It won't happen to me, I have done this before, I am a damn good pilot and I can manage it".

[Evan]

Can we get away with this and not get in really big trouble?

Not such an uncommon mentality among airmen outside of the safety culture...

How it overrides the survival instinct I'll just never understand.

I think it's called... stupidity?

[3WE]

***what's on their mind?****

Can we get away with this and not get in really big trouble?

Not the most pure thought and seemingly illogical, but...

[thor]

the pilots accepted the atc's advice to a holding pattern during the final approach even they were well aware of the fuel shortage problem.
what's on their mind? rather going down than to declare fuel emergency and request to land immediately?

[Evan]

PS: I never had to observe the fuel in a 1978 Beetle, that was the task for my father, but now I have the facts. It needs 9.7l for 100 km, and on board is a cute little fuel tank: 40 liters.
Thus we have the max nonstop range for a 1978 Volkswagen Beetle, with indeed not more than 34 hp (!): 412 kilometers, if you are a driver who likes to search the next gas station with the last drop...

9.7l/100km is the AVERAGE fuel burn. If you HAD to make the trip (or die) you would have to also consider the route and the terrain, and then guess the winds, the amount of speed variation, the condition of the engine, the condition of the tires, the road surfaces and even how many bugs you might mash on the windshield. That is called 'contigency fuel'. Then you need to consider how long it might take you to find a parking place once you get there. That is called 'reserves'. Then you need to consider that you might not be able to park at your intended destination and have to drive to a nearby town to park. That is called 'diversion fuel'. Now your analogy is more legitimate.

You can't say, "Oh, I've driven from Lohausen to Fontanarossa before in a 1978 Volkswagen Beetle so therefore it will always make it there." But it seems that is what these pilots were thinking.

[LH-B744]

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.

Oh, man. I'm still convinced that with the three of us, there is something like an aviation triumvirate, which should not be dissolved.

Fatal Aviation accidents anno 2016? - In my eyes this one sticks out. I mean, 3WE, you wrote entry #135 here in this topic, but I know that this wasn't your first one

concerning 'LaMia Flight 2933', as the English wikipedia calls it.

Sometimes pilots carry even MORE fuel that is required

Yes. Better than nada. Imho that are the first things which a jet pilot must learn: the maximum range of his jet, and, even more important,

Do I sit in a cockpit which is able to bring my passengers and me nonstop from my departure to the final arrival?! - If I remember the things correctly, the unexperienced airline

- founded 2015, for a flight in 2016... ! -

tried to use an Avro RJ85, for a route which never on this planet is short enough for a RJ85, if you do not perform at least 1 fuel stop!

The route? - You can correct me, but wasn't it
almost a 3,000 nautical miles route,
and they tried to fly it nonstop in a RJ85,
which you definitely MUST land after not more than 1,900 nautical miles, for a fuel stop?!

I don't know much about RJ85s. But I know one or two things about cars. You can't go from Lohausen to Fontanarossa nonstop in a 1978 Volkswagen Beetle with 34 hp. There inbetween is
at least
1 fuel stop.

Sad story, the Chapecoense story. And so very senseless, because very very very avoidable!

PS: I never had to observe the fuel in a 1978 Beetle, that was the task for my father, but now I have the facts. It needs 9.7l for 100 km, and on board is a cute little fuel tank: 40 liters.
Thus we have the max nonstop range for a 1978 Volkswagen Beetle, with indeed not more than 34 hp (!): 412 kilometers, if you are a driver who likes to search the next gas station with the last drop...

[3WE]

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.

[Gabriel]

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!

[cody]

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

[elaw]

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.

[Evan]

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.

[3WE]

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.

[Gabriel]

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.

[Gabriel]

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.

[Evan]

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.