In any event, that ATC transcript, conversion, audio, etc is damning.
Critical is the mention of "emergency fuel" which was NOT mentioned in the Avianca interview via the coms. Previously it was a "fuel problem" and "electrical problem" - the com mention of "emergency fuel" pretty much sums it up.
I'd also like to mention that (as others have said) I feel for the ATC controller BIG TIME. I'm not sure what her experience was, but she handled the situation adamantly from start to finish, dealing with MULTIPLE "emergency" or at least "priority" aircraft, at night, in difficult terrain, etc, plus getting aircraft in a hold back into the field. It probably went from a rather benign evening to complete chaos in no time, and she kept her cool - knowing that many lives were at stake (at least re: the LaMia a/c).
I just can't help but become even more frustrated about this however.
The mention of multiple fuel warnings (obviously, just flight management alone, right? Probably 30 min out as others have mentioned?) plus the ACTUAL hardware warnings of low feed pressure, plus many various errors etc relating to cavitation and the engines complaining once feed fuel / pressure is reduced or lost..
THEY KNEW about this even before they approached the field, before the Avianca flight requested priority, and before they entered the hold - they had already received fuel warnings and knew the risks. I mean technically they knew the risks when they did their paperwork on the ground. Just sitting up there in the cockpit with so many passengers in their hands, saying to themselves "well, we'll probably make it - like last time, right?" is inconceivable.
I'm sure factors which will be investigated include the fact that they had received the same fuel warnings before, probably 20 minutes out from Madellin in each case. They just learned to ignore it.
It's sad how long they attempted to hide things on approach, hold, etc.
From an investigation point of view - is anyone concerned about the maintenance of the batteries here? Was loss of transponder and some unaccounted for time perhaps an issue of terrain? Or does it appear that they may have lost batt power early? Considering the number of regs that have been ignored, that's not out of the question - the batteries aren't cheap and from what I understand, they were in the process of securing funding AND running their other RJ85s through hefty maintenance procedures.