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

[Evan]

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.

[3WE]

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.

[Gabriel]

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.

[Gabriel]

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.

[Gabriel]

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....

[Evan]

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.

[Gabriel]

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.

[Evan]

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.

[Evan]

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.

[3WE]

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...

[Evan]

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?

[AVION1]

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?

[3WE]

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.

[Evan]

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.

[3WE]

...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.