Jet goes down on its way to Medellin, Colombia
portmanteau,
With respect, I have to correct your correction of ATCwatcher...
In most cases (internationally speaking) the full FP is not seen by the ATC unit at departure -- unless the FP was filed directly with that unit. If the FP was filed through AIS or a Flight Plan office, then the ATC at the departure aerodrome do not routinely get sent the entire FP. They of course might see it, if they had reason to ask for it.
With respect, I have to correct your correction of ATCwatcher...
In most cases (internationally speaking) the full FP is not seen by the ATC unit at departure -- unless the FP was filed directly with that unit. If the FP was filed through AIS or a Flight Plan office, then the ATC at the departure aerodrome do not routinely get sent the entire FP. They of course might see it, if they had reason to ask for it.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...-2933/#bbef1b9
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Age: 92
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, looks to me like the flight was level at FL300 for a while when it came back into receiver coverage approaching MDE, about 0217Z to 0233Z, before starting down in this FR24 data:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...-2933/#bbef1b9
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...-2933/#bbef1b9
1.807 (1.841) mi.
Great circle distance 2975 km !!! The specs show they're, in theory, 12 km short and that looks like about what happened !
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I've only reported what's been in the press, it's just scraps of info. eg. Lamia's total of $16K was reported by Minister Claros, in a previously posted link.
The reported US$35k per month for the LaMia CP2933 is from here:
Albacete cobraba un alquiler de $us 35 mil por la única aeronave con licencia de LaMia | ANF - Agencia de Noticias Fides
Then I compared it to 2016 leasing prices for Avro RJ85, for example:
New RJs Cause Incumbent Types to Fall - Aircraft Value News
but I'm not qualified to make any inferences from that, that's for some of your members to make. Is 35K a month a significantly cheaper deal in S. American context?
don't have any real financial info - just more scraps:
""A flight in other airlines costs between $ 150,000 and $ 200,000," he said. "LaMia's ranged between $ 80,000 and $ 100,000," he added"
Procurador diz que 25 times usaram Lamia desde agosto e cita 7 brasileiros - Futebol - UOL Esporte
on the alleged plan to lease the five 757 - source is either fibbing or maybe they really did have a wealthy backer? ( Paraguayan CP Encina's wife said previously, he was there as there was plan to make him a future LaMia rep in Paraguay so perhaps they had big plans.)
Pinto defiende la legalidad de línea aérea que se accidentó
What FAB say that they are owed by Lamia - US$ 48k
Dois aviões da LaMia são confiscados pela Bolívia, diz jornal | Mundo | G1
confirmation of LaMia's insurance, apparently:
Gobierno dice que el seguro es suficiente | Noticias de Bolivia y el Mundo - EL DEBER
and here, Vargas Snr (now in "preventative custody",) seems to say it would have cost them $6k to re-fuel.
Accidente del Chapecoense: el dueño de la compañía cuestionó el accionar de su socio fallecido
Bigger news was that another journalist is asking how LaMia could operate the 11th Nov flight with the Argentine team. Belo Horizonte, Brazil to Buenos Aries ( it's on the chart on previous page) when they do not have the bilateral agreements either, Brazil's ANAC now under fire for corruption too:
El vuelo de la selección argentina a Brasil está bajo sospecha de corrupción - Huarpe
ANAC's response to journalist's query is in Portugese, maybe there's a Brazilian FM who can translate it?
Anyway link^ explains the connection between the company "Star" and how Lamia tendered for the flights (2 simultaneous bids) and the trail that leads to the Football. Asscn. and on and up, presumably.
The reported US$35k per month for the LaMia CP2933 is from here:
Albacete cobraba un alquiler de $us 35 mil por la única aeronave con licencia de LaMia | ANF - Agencia de Noticias Fides
Then I compared it to 2016 leasing prices for Avro RJ85, for example:
New RJs Cause Incumbent Types to Fall - Aircraft Value News
but I'm not qualified to make any inferences from that, that's for some of your members to make. Is 35K a month a significantly cheaper deal in S. American context?
don't have any real financial info - just more scraps:
""A flight in other airlines costs between $ 150,000 and $ 200,000," he said. "LaMia's ranged between $ 80,000 and $ 100,000," he added"
Procurador diz que 25 times usaram Lamia desde agosto e cita 7 brasileiros - Futebol - UOL Esporte
on the alleged plan to lease the five 757 - source is either fibbing or maybe they really did have a wealthy backer? ( Paraguayan CP Encina's wife said previously, he was there as there was plan to make him a future LaMia rep in Paraguay so perhaps they had big plans.)
Pinto defiende la legalidad de línea aérea que se accidentó
What FAB say that they are owed by Lamia - US$ 48k
Dois aviões da LaMia são confiscados pela Bolívia, diz jornal | Mundo | G1
confirmation of LaMia's insurance, apparently:
Gobierno dice que el seguro es suficiente | Noticias de Bolivia y el Mundo - EL DEBER
and here, Vargas Snr (now in "preventative custody",) seems to say it would have cost them $6k to re-fuel.
Accidente del Chapecoense: el dueño de la compañía cuestionó el accionar de su socio fallecido
Bigger news was that another journalist is asking how LaMia could operate the 11th Nov flight with the Argentine team. Belo Horizonte, Brazil to Buenos Aries ( it's on the chart on previous page) when they do not have the bilateral agreements either, Brazil's ANAC now under fire for corruption too:
"This company should not be allowed to fly from Argentina to Brazil. Not part of what is known as the "Seventh Freedom" Chicago Convention …...there should be bilateral agreements, which in this case do not exist. As researched, at the time of application for authorization for this flight plan, the official who was in charge ANAC in Ezeiza is called Gregorio Borda and his boss is the General Manager of the ANAC, Juan Pedro Iirigoin. ANAC under the Ministry of Transport of the Nation, headed by William Dietrich. The pilot in that journey was the M Quiroga....."
ANAC's response to journalist's query is in Portugese, maybe there's a Brazilian FM who can translate it?
Anyway link^ explains the connection between the company "Star" and how Lamia tendered for the flights (2 simultaneous bids) and the trail that leads to the Football. Asscn. and on and up, presumably.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLIGHT PLAN distribution
Portmanteau :
No, grizzled already replied , but let me explain , also for others here, how a flight plan is distributed .
First Every State has its own variation of the form itself .Only the fields 1 to 19 are ICAO standard, the rest is not. The box " accepted by" we see on the Bolivian photocopy of this flight is a local Bolivian addition.
If you take a European one ( I have the German DFS form in front of me ) it just says " Signature of pilot or representative , and another box beside it : Signature AIS ( who has received it ) period,
Second : the boxes Endurance, POB, RMK, Emergency radios and dinghies, color a/c name PIC etc, are all part of the Field 19 labelled : Additional information " this box is only for SAR purposes and is not transmitted to ATC .
Now that said , transmission to the first ATC unit ( generally the TWR or the departure airport if departing from a Controlled aerodrome, otherwise the ACC above it ) is as follow :. They will only receive fields 7 to 16 ( ending with Destination aerodrome) .
Field 17 ( Total EET and Alternate aerodromes )are of no interest to the Departing unit and Field 18 (Other info) is normally not processed unless it contains pertinent info for ATC ( example > if ZZZZ set as destination if going to a airport which does not have an ICAO designator , then it will say : DEST/ and name in plain language , that may be transmitted , but not always .
This is the reason why in case of problems the first things a controller will ask you is how many souls on board , eventual endurance, or alternate A/D.
because he/she does not have the info ( he could get it of course by making a phone call but it will take time )
So in short : Unless Bolivia as a State has a specific procedure elevating the responsibilities of an ARO to refuse a PLN , and therefore a flight to depart , under normal ICAO standards, there is no way miss Celia had the authority to do so, not did the first TWR controllers since they did not have the " wrong fuel" info ( only the lack of SID would/may have been queered.)
Finally a Flight plan, by definition is only is only that : a plan , it is not a set in Stone Document once airborne. It can be modified in Flight no problem . Change destination , route, land in between , whatever. Even by ATC : think for instance a Military exercise area being prolonged forcing a change in routing, Capping flight to a lower altitude affecting range and therefore destination , etc...I have done this many times , and you've seen it too especially in your days
So using a Flight plan to explain this accident or worse we see blame people for it is for me absolutely ludicrous.
Sorry for long post , raining and cold outside..
the ATC FPL is seen in its entirety by the departure aerodrome ATC
First Every State has its own variation of the form itself .Only the fields 1 to 19 are ICAO standard, the rest is not. The box " accepted by" we see on the Bolivian photocopy of this flight is a local Bolivian addition.
If you take a European one ( I have the German DFS form in front of me ) it just says " Signature of pilot or representative , and another box beside it : Signature AIS ( who has received it ) period,
Second : the boxes Endurance, POB, RMK, Emergency radios and dinghies, color a/c name PIC etc, are all part of the Field 19 labelled : Additional information " this box is only for SAR purposes and is not transmitted to ATC .
Now that said , transmission to the first ATC unit ( generally the TWR or the departure airport if departing from a Controlled aerodrome, otherwise the ACC above it ) is as follow :. They will only receive fields 7 to 16 ( ending with Destination aerodrome) .
Field 17 ( Total EET and Alternate aerodromes )are of no interest to the Departing unit and Field 18 (Other info) is normally not processed unless it contains pertinent info for ATC ( example > if ZZZZ set as destination if going to a airport which does not have an ICAO designator , then it will say : DEST/ and name in plain language , that may be transmitted , but not always .
This is the reason why in case of problems the first things a controller will ask you is how many souls on board , eventual endurance, or alternate A/D.
because he/she does not have the info ( he could get it of course by making a phone call but it will take time )
So in short : Unless Bolivia as a State has a specific procedure elevating the responsibilities of an ARO to refuse a PLN , and therefore a flight to depart , under normal ICAO standards, there is no way miss Celia had the authority to do so, not did the first TWR controllers since they did not have the " wrong fuel" info ( only the lack of SID would/may have been queered.)
Finally a Flight plan, by definition is only is only that : a plan , it is not a set in Stone Document once airborne. It can be modified in Flight no problem . Change destination , route, land in between , whatever. Even by ATC : think for instance a Military exercise area being prolonged forcing a change in routing, Capping flight to a lower altitude affecting range and therefore destination , etc...I have done this many times , and you've seen it too especially in your days
So using a Flight plan to explain this accident or worse we see blame people for it is for me absolutely ludicrous.
Sorry for long post , raining and cold outside..
Originally Posted by jess15
Is 35K a month a significantly cheaper deal in S. American context?
A lessor tried really hard 10 years ago to lease to us three good condition sister ship RJ85s for $60k per month. Did the math, with the maintenance overheads on the four hairdryers we reckoned that they would need to go down to $25k a month to match the econmics of a comparable twin for $80k a month (they stopped at $40k which says a lot...). I don't think the RJ economics would have improved much with all the third gen twins coming to the secondhand market, $35k / month does sound like a negotiated if a tad expensive market rate.
The question was regarding max range, so I looked at LRC.
Wind velocity also clearly plays a part.
If you really do want to achieve maximum range you have to fly at an IAS that corresponds to minimising: (Fuel Flow)/GS
LRC parameters are usually, by definition, not the best way to get maximum range. The LRC data invariably has a bias to slightly increase IAS by a corresponding small reduction in range. ie, you save a bit of time at the expense of a slightly higher fuel burn.
Wind velocity also clearly plays a part.
If you really do want to achieve maximum range you have to fly at an IAS that corresponds to minimising: (Fuel Flow)/GS
Wind velocity also clearly plays a part.
If you really do want to achieve maximum range you have to fly at an IAS that corresponds to minimising: (Fuel Flow)/GS
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the time the PIC was desperately pleading for radar vectors the airplane was well below the lowest possible MVA of 11,000 feet. In the U.S. many mountainous area TRACONS have an emergency video chart with more contours and only 300 feet of obstacle clearance. This is known as the EOVM or emergency obstacle video map. Colombia may not even have EOVM video maps.
They aren't of much value in any case, especially with a transport airplane in the dead-stick mode.
They aren't of much value in any case, especially with a transport airplane in the dead-stick mode.
AerocatS2A, I'm not criticising your use of LRC data, but simply highlighting that, if you really do want to achieve maximum range, LRC is invariably not going to be the speed to fly at.
LMI2933 operates with Enhanced Mode S (not technically ADS-B).
Mode S Enhanced Surveillance (EHS) and ADS-B aren't mutually exclusive - most aircraft nowadays have both - and the LAMIA RJ85 was no exception.
The data that FlightRadar24 captured appears to be exclusively from ADS-B squitters (albeit subject to the positional errors previously discussed).
It would have been interesting had FR24 also captured the additional EHS data that the flight would have been sending, such as TAS, IAS, heading, selected altitude, etc (although decoding those is a bit more challenging).
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Kirkland, WA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi DaveReidUK,
Thanks for your advice, I got twisted around by squawk and squit. I will redraft those words to better explain the differences between responding to an SSR (squawk) with elementary or enhanced surveillance and ADS-B 1090 Extended squitter.
I share you desire for more information, and I have appealed to flightradar24.com for as much.
Thanks for your advice, I got twisted around by squawk and squit. I will redraft those words to better explain the differences between responding to an SSR (squawk) with elementary or enhanced surveillance and ADS-B 1090 Extended squitter.
I share you desire for more information, and I have appealed to flightradar24.com for as much.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The data that FlightRadar24 captured appears to be exclusively from ADS-B squitters (albeit subject to the positional errors previously discussed).
It would have been interesting had FR24 also captured the additional EHS data that the flight would have been sending, such as TAS, IAS, heading, selected altitude, etc (although decoding those is a bit more challenging).
It would have been interesting had FR24 also captured the additional EHS data that the flight would have been sending, such as TAS, IAS, heading, selected altitude, etc (although decoding those is a bit more challenging).
I think FR24 will default to displaying ADS-B data when it's available. I'm wondering if MLAT data for LMI2933 is available somewhere in the FR24 database for comparison to the transmitted ADS-B track.
Were the pilots of the RJ85 seeing a map display updated by radio navaids while the ADS-B was sending inertial only data?
Or, was the cockpit nav display also showing the wrong shifted position for some reason? The fact that the plane crashed so close to the VOR instead of the runway threshold makes me wonder.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This ATC translation covers the last 6 minutes prior to crash. It comes off the screen of Youtube ATC recording posted by VAS Aviation and there seems no reason to doubt its authenticity. It illustrates the complexity of the situation facing the Medellin Approach Controller LMI 2933 and other aircraft in the vicinity. The Approach and Aircraft R/T continues without a break for all of the 6 minutes. To say the Approach Controller is to be commended is an understatement.
00:00 LMI 2933: FL210 inbound and we request priority for the approach. right now we have a fuel problem
Approach: LMI 2933 understand you request priority to land with fuel problems as well? correct?
2933: Affirmative
Approach: OK be advised I'll give you vectors for the localizer and for the approach. It'll be in approximately 7 minutes
2933: for vectors LMI 2933
Approach: Lan Colombia 3020 cleared for ILS Z approach runway 01 QNH 30.27 report established on localizer
3020: Cleared for the approach Lan Colombia 3020 we'll call established
Approach: LMI 2933 say heading
2933: 1...179 outbound leg
Approach: maintain present heading and wait to start - continue descent
2933: maintain present heading and we're visual with the ground
AV 9771: Medellin Approach, Avianca 9771, is it possible to continue our outbound leg for 5 more miles until 15 DME?
Approach: Negative Captain I need you to do the inbound leg. The aircraft ahead is 1 mile. I need to start the descent for that traffic. He requested priority to land
9771: Roger we start the inbound leg, Avianca 9771
Approach: Yes please, thanks
2933: Requesting vectors for inbound leg ma'am
Approach: Standby I have a traffic just below doing the approach and also they are doing a runway inspection. How much time do you have for a landing LMI?
2933: We are with emergency fuel ma'am. We're established on final approach course. request immediate descent, LMI 2933
Approach: Lan Colombia 3020, cancel approach clearance. Turn left heading 100 now
3020: left turn heading 010 (?)and what altitude?
Approach: Maintain 13000 feet
3020: 13000 Lan Colombia 3020
Approach: LMI 2933 you can just turn right now to start your descent. You have traffic 1 mile and below
2933: Traffic in sight, no factor(?) and we request to join the localizer for once (?)
( another voice in cockpit: Gear Down)
Approach: Captain you are at FL 210. I need you to descend. You'd have to turn right to start your descent
2933: Negative ma'am we've started the descent and we're going to the localizer
Approach: Avianca 9771 turn immediately left heading 270
9771: Turning left heading 270. Avianca 9771, confirm the other traffic has already declared?
Approach: Lan Colombia 3020 maintain heading 090
3020: 090 Lan Colombia 3020
Approach: Avianca 9356, immediately turn left 290
9356: left turn 290 Avianca 9356
Approach: LMI 2933 you have traffic ahead, 18000 feet, A320
LMI 2933: We have it on TCAS and just above. ma'am we're on final course
Approach: That aircraft is at 18000 feet Captain. it is leaving just off to your left and another traffic - alright,(?) left 18500 feet
2933: In sight and we're at 18000 feet, 2933
Lan 3020: Lan Colombia 3020, how longer should we keep this heading?
Approach: Stand By , LMI 2933, 17700 feet, continue the approach, wet runway, let us know if you require any assistance
2933: we will for the assistance and we're through 16000 feet for the localizer
Approach: Set QNH 30.27
2933: 30.27
Lan 3020: Request right turn Lan Colombia 3020 due to bad weather
Approach: You're cleared Lan Colombia 3020, right turn... heading 200 is OK?
3020: Heading 200, we start the turn and let you know
LMI 2933 Ma'am LMI 2933 is with total failure, total electric and fuel
Approach: Runway is clear, LMI 2933 and fire services are rolled
2933: Copied, LMI 2933... vectors vectors ma'am vectors to the runway
Approach: We lost radar signal. I can't see you. say heading now
2933: We're heading 360
Approach: With heading(?), turn left 010 to the localizer, Rionegro VOR- a mile ahead the VOR. Right now you are- correct, I confirm- left turn 350
2933: Left 350
Approach: Yes correct, you're 0.1 miles from Rionegro VOR
Approach: I can't see your altitude, LMI
2933: 9000 feet ma'am
2933: vectors vectors
Approach: You're 8.2 miles from the runway
Approach: What's your altitude now?
06:15 Approach: LMI 2933, say your position
No reply.
00:00 LMI 2933: FL210 inbound and we request priority for the approach. right now we have a fuel problem
Approach: LMI 2933 understand you request priority to land with fuel problems as well? correct?
2933: Affirmative
Approach: OK be advised I'll give you vectors for the localizer and for the approach. It'll be in approximately 7 minutes
2933: for vectors LMI 2933
Approach: Lan Colombia 3020 cleared for ILS Z approach runway 01 QNH 30.27 report established on localizer
3020: Cleared for the approach Lan Colombia 3020 we'll call established
Approach: LMI 2933 say heading
2933: 1...179 outbound leg
Approach: maintain present heading and wait to start - continue descent
2933: maintain present heading and we're visual with the ground
AV 9771: Medellin Approach, Avianca 9771, is it possible to continue our outbound leg for 5 more miles until 15 DME?
Approach: Negative Captain I need you to do the inbound leg. The aircraft ahead is 1 mile. I need to start the descent for that traffic. He requested priority to land
9771: Roger we start the inbound leg, Avianca 9771
Approach: Yes please, thanks
2933: Requesting vectors for inbound leg ma'am
Approach: Standby I have a traffic just below doing the approach and also they are doing a runway inspection. How much time do you have for a landing LMI?
2933: We are with emergency fuel ma'am. We're established on final approach course. request immediate descent, LMI 2933
Approach: Lan Colombia 3020, cancel approach clearance. Turn left heading 100 now
3020: left turn heading 010 (?)and what altitude?
Approach: Maintain 13000 feet
3020: 13000 Lan Colombia 3020
Approach: LMI 2933 you can just turn right now to start your descent. You have traffic 1 mile and below
2933: Traffic in sight, no factor(?) and we request to join the localizer for once (?)
( another voice in cockpit: Gear Down)
Approach: Captain you are at FL 210. I need you to descend. You'd have to turn right to start your descent
2933: Negative ma'am we've started the descent and we're going to the localizer
Approach: Avianca 9771 turn immediately left heading 270
9771: Turning left heading 270. Avianca 9771, confirm the other traffic has already declared?
Approach: Lan Colombia 3020 maintain heading 090
3020: 090 Lan Colombia 3020
Approach: Avianca 9356, immediately turn left 290
9356: left turn 290 Avianca 9356
Approach: LMI 2933 you have traffic ahead, 18000 feet, A320
LMI 2933: We have it on TCAS and just above. ma'am we're on final course
Approach: That aircraft is at 18000 feet Captain. it is leaving just off to your left and another traffic - alright,(?) left 18500 feet
2933: In sight and we're at 18000 feet, 2933
Lan 3020: Lan Colombia 3020, how longer should we keep this heading?
Approach: Stand By , LMI 2933, 17700 feet, continue the approach, wet runway, let us know if you require any assistance
2933: we will for the assistance and we're through 16000 feet for the localizer
Approach: Set QNH 30.27
2933: 30.27
Lan 3020: Request right turn Lan Colombia 3020 due to bad weather
Approach: You're cleared Lan Colombia 3020, right turn... heading 200 is OK?
3020: Heading 200, we start the turn and let you know
LMI 2933 Ma'am LMI 2933 is with total failure, total electric and fuel
Approach: Runway is clear, LMI 2933 and fire services are rolled
2933: Copied, LMI 2933... vectors vectors ma'am vectors to the runway
Approach: We lost radar signal. I can't see you. say heading now
2933: We're heading 360
Approach: With heading(?), turn left 010 to the localizer, Rionegro VOR- a mile ahead the VOR. Right now you are- correct, I confirm- left turn 350
2933: Left 350
Approach: Yes correct, you're 0.1 miles from Rionegro VOR
Approach: I can't see your altitude, LMI
2933: 9000 feet ma'am
2933: vectors vectors
Approach: You're 8.2 miles from the runway
Approach: What's your altitude now?
06:15 Approach: LMI 2933, say your position
No reply.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting article on Av herald, about a dispatcher who used the details of this flight and created a plog, the fuel requirements make interesting reading, bottom line was around 11800KG of Fuel
Last edited by Livesinafield; 12th Dec 2016 at 22:03. Reason: factual info updated