Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Gabriel
    replied
    ATC recording (subtitles in English):
    (and a bunch of too)

    Leave a comment:


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

    Agreed

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    It's not just about cowboymanship, it's about concealment I think. They probably thought they could get away with this without declaring fuel emergency but after a couple orbits they went cowboy and proceded the approach without clearance. Somewhere very close to the ground they realized that black and white procedures are not just for other, less gifted pilots...
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Swiss cheese chain of events and thick, sad irony. Also while we grossly violated procedures with respect to fuel management, we were too strict to follow them with respect to holding and listening to ATC instructions.

    Is there not something to be said for cowboy improvisation of 1) saying no, we won't hold and 2) getting on the 2-way radio, and talking to the other fuel starved plane about your whereabouts and intentions and going ahead and landing...

    ...or is there a fundamental airmanship-procedural gray area called CRM where you make sure all of this is kept in balance.
    It's not just about cowboymanship, it's about concealment I think. They probably thought they could get away with this without declaring fuel emergency but after a couple orbits they went cowboy and proceded the approach without clearance. Somewhere very close to the ground they realized that black and white procedures are not just for other, less gifted pilots...

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by elaw View Post
    So to summarize: a plane that wasn't carrying sufficient fuel crashed due to fuel exhaustion and killed a bunch of people because it was delayed so another flight which also didn't have sufficient fuel could have an expedited landing?

    Wow.
    Swiss cheese chain of events and thick, sad irony. Also while we grossly violated procedures with respect to fuel management, we were too strict to follow them with respect to holding and listening to ATC instructions.

    Is there not something to be said for cowboy improvisation of 1) saying no, we won't hold and 2) getting on the 2-way radio, and talking to the other fuel starved plane about your whereabouts and intentions and going ahead and landing...

    ...or is there a fundamental airmanship-procedural gray area called CRM where you make sure all of this is kept in balance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by elaw View Post
    So to summarize: a plane that wasn't carrying sufficient fuel crashed due to fuel exhaustion and killed a bunch of people because it was delayed so another flight which also didn't have sufficient fuel could have an expedited landing?

    Wow.
    Not really. Apparently the plane that successfuly landed was flying from Bogota to San Andrez, had a mid-flight fuel leak, diverted to Medellin and requested priority to land because of fuel emergency. With no major problems in terms of procedures with tha facts that are available at the moment. The plane that crashed was then put on hold. 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    I think that at this point we can almost close the technical investigation on the direct cause of the crash and start working on human factors, management issues, and oversight.
    For example:

    PIC AND SHAREHOLDER: Hey, I bet you 77 souls we can make it there without the fuel stop.

    F/O: __________________.

    Leave a comment:


  • elaw
    replied
    So to summarize: a plane that wasn't carrying sufficient fuel crashed due to fuel exhaustion and killed a bunch of people because it was delayed so another flight which also didn't have sufficient fuel could have an expedited landing?

    Wow.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Very concerning information is surfacing.

    There was a Viva plane that declared fuel emergency, so the other traffic in the zone (including the LaMia plane) were put in a holding pattern to give priority to the emergency plane.

    The LaMia was number 3 in the line in the hold, at 21000ft. There was another plane #2 at 19000ft and another one at 14000ft.

    The pilot at 19000ft reported that the LaMia pilot asked a few times, with anxiety, how much would they be holding, then informed to the ATC about "fuel problems", then advised that he was leaving the hold and initiating the approach (without clearance), point at which ATC directed the other planes in the hold to move away to avoid conflicts, then the pilot informed total electrical failure and that was the final contact. The pilot never ever declared emergency.

    Authorities of the airline informed that the pilot was a shareholder of the airline, and that there was a fuel stop scheduled, and that they didn't know why the plane skipped the fuel stop but that the pilot, short of that stop, must have assessed that the fuel on board was enough to reach the final destination.

    The fuel would have been more than enough had the Viva plane not declared emergency, which led ATC to detour the LaMia plane and keep it in hold.
    However, it doesn't look that they had enough fuel to make an approach to Rionegro, abort at the minimumums, fly to the alternate and land there with 30 minutes of fuel remaining. The fact that the pilot never declared emergency and even was not clear about the problem (just "fuel problem", not "low fuel" or "minimum fuel" or evnr request priority which in fact has not "legal" effect like declaring emergency does) makes me believe that the pilot fully knew that he was at fault and that the decision to go to the final destination without a fuel stop was not legal.

    I think that at this point we can almost close the technical investigation on the direct cause of the crash and start working on human factors, management issues, and oversight.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    This engine doesn't seem to have been turning at high speed (or any normal operating speed), if at all, at the time of impact.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	lamia_rj85_cp-2933_medellin_161128_6.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	247.3 KB
ID:	1015218

    Leave a comment:


  • TeeVee
    replied
    may be interesting to find out if and why the viva colombia plane diverted causing a 6 minute hold to the incident plane. not to mention how bloody stupid these pilots were if they agreed to hold with low fuel, which i suppose must have been hyper-critical fuel if they crashed 8 minutes later because of running out...

    either way, damn shame 76 innocents are no longer with us...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X