PPRuNe Forums


Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29th Nov 2016, 09:45   #21 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 54
Posts: 507
JACDEC reporting that the flight distance exceeded the range of the RJ85. Are we looking at an out of fuel cause here?

2016-11-28 LAMIA Avro RJ-85 crashed near Medellin with 81 on board » JACDEC
Super VC-10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 10:12   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: EC
Posts: 55
....... no fire ......
babybaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 10:54   #23 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 147
tu 114, think you will find thats 1839 statute miles = 1600 nm.
portmanteau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 11:12   #24 (permalink)
Leg
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 136
An enroute fuel stop might have been planned, though has to be said chartering this type of aircraft for a flight distance of around 1600Nm seems odd.

Last edited by Leg; 29th Nov 2016 at 11:13. Reason: Wrong distance
Leg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 11:32   #25 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 901
Fuel range may not be a problem, the RJ has a range of up to 2500nm if fitted with the optional aux tanks in which case the range will be MTOW limited.
The Ancient Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 11:32   #26 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Austria
Posts: 657
Portmanteau, You are right, thank You for the correction.

Indeed, if this leg stretches the performance of the Avro, it begs the question why it was planned that way. Certainly, there are airports between Santa Cruz and Medellin where they sell fuel?
Tu.114 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 11:36   #27 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 195
RJ85 Range

It is certainly at the top end for an 85 although it is possible to equip them with up to three auxiliary tanks (although don't know if this one had them) Could also have been weight restricted but with a full load of largely male pax would limit scope for that However even if planned with correct minimum diversion fuel it is a tricky airport to fly into from a terrain point of view and if you had a technical challenge at night with minimum reserves it would make life very difficult
birmingham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 11:42   #28 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: England
Posts: 198
I realise that aircraft have run out of fuel in the past but surely a crew can not run the tanks dry without saying a word about their situation.
Capt Scribble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 11:57   #29 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 2
I don't recall this aircraft having pannier tanks when it was delivered new to Mesaba and unlikely that Cityjet would have added them for their operations. Possible of course that they were subsequently retrofitted for the South American customer.
Saraband is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 12:00   #30 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 901
Yea right - the usual idiot speculation.
All will become clearer when we have some real facts. There are always a chain of contributing causes and the full story will not be known until the official report is published.
The Ancient Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 12:11   #31 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Warwickshire
Posts: 310
BBC News reporting it was a chartered flight


from same BBC page story:-

"What we know about the crash so far
◾Plane operated by Bolivian charter airline Lamia
◾Carrying 72 passengers and nine crew, among them members of the Chapecoense football team
◾Flying from Brazil, bound for Medellin after a stopover in Santa Cruz, Bolivia
◾Plane crashed at 10:15 local time (03:15 GMT) after pilot reported an electrical fault
◾Five people survived the crash, including three footballers"
warkman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 12:37   #32 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dublin
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ancient Geek View Post
Fuel range may not be a problem, the RJ has a range of up to 2500nm if fitted with the optional aux tanks in which case the range will be MTOW limited.
care to share the source of this information? I just looked up EASA type certificate for RJ85, it says you can fit pannier tanks (that are visible from outside and cause drag) for each wing giving you only about 1000lbs each.. I can't see how 2000lbs of fuel would increase the range by nearly 1000NM? Perhaps it's the military types that can carry that much more?
Martin_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 12:52   #33 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 48
Posts: 1,526
You cannot see the AUX tanks when fitted. They do not add any drag.
Without them you can load about 9400kg. That will give you around 1600nm without reserves.
FE Hoppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 12:56   #34 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Off the map
Posts: 869
A few pictures of the crash and rescue ops, with others as well.
They're ugly. My condolences to all involved.

Fotos: El accidente de avión del Chapecoense en Colombia, en imágenes | Internacional | EL PAÍS
DirtyProp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 13:14   #35 (permalink)
IHF
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Apologies if this is the dumbest question so far - but is nine crew (as per BBC story) a plausible configuration for RJ85 ops?
IHF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 13:25   #36 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 659
Pictures of the accident site suggest that what appears to be the rear fuselage was reasonably upright and intact, but of interest the centre section and both wings appear inverted, and remain joined together.
PEI_3721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 14:23   #37 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 2,728
Someone mentioned holding. This is the ILS approach for SKRG:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg SKRG ILS Z Rwy 01.jpg (297.1 KB, 576 views)
aterpster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 14:39   #38 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: The Gulf Coast
Posts: 292
PPRuNe Standards Adhered To ...

METARs, per PPRuNe Standards ... (Flightaware's popularity seems to have overtaken METAR's standard appearance on page one of such threads. Times change).

(For SKRG/Rio Negro Airport):
SKRG 290600Z 02003KT 9999 BKN015 BKN080 15/15 A3022 REDZ
SKRG 290500Z 04003KT 8000 -DZ BKN015 BKN080 16/15 A3024
SKRG 290400Z 00000KT 8000 DZ BKN015TCU SCT080 16/15 A3024 RMK RERA
SKRG 290300Z VRB02KT 9999 -DZ BKN015 SCT080 17/16 A3025
SKRG 290200Z 00000KT 9999 BKN015 SCT200 17/16 A3023
SKRG 290100Z 01003KT 9999 SCT017 SCT200 17/16 A3020
SKRG 290000Z 06003KT 9999 SCT017 SCT200 17/16 A3019
SKRG 282300Z 08005KT 9999 VCSH SCT017TCU SCT200 18/16 A3017 RMK TCU VCSH/SW/W
T28B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 14:48   #39 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Cambridge, UK
Age: 41
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHF View Post
Apologies if this is the dumbest question so far - but is nine crew (as per BBC story) a plausible configuration for RJ85 ops?
As a frequent SLF on a chartered luxury RJ85, nine seems steep but not impossible. I usually see 5 or 6 for a passenger count of maybe 20 people.
FrontSeatPhil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th Nov 2016, 14:50   #40 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: LPFL
Age: 54
Posts: 52
Could it be a CFIT?
Midland63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 07:49.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1