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 30th Nov 2016, 20:28   #201 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 501
The radio was working, ergo the battery was working.
Failure sequence (excluding the feed tanks LO and numerous shutdown warnings) would quite possibly be AC1/2 and no APU start available, possible loss of SBYGEN resulting EMDC/AC with all of those implications. Not a good place to be.
Teddy Robinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 20:30   #202 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 70
Posts: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by patowalker View Post
What he said was "Señorita Lamia 933 está en falla total, falla eléctrica total, sin combustible."

"Miss, Lamia 933 is in total failure, total electrical failure, without fuel"
The fact that this is being transmitted from the stricken plane means that some electrical systems were still available, running on battery power with the aircraft in the descent, in the glide. On this occasion the glide did not work out for these most unfortunate people.
I do though wonder what the theoretical glide performance of this particular aircraft, in the given circumstances would have been.
Chronus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 20:31   #203 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 15
battery maintenance

twincommander, I can only concur with your comments. Earlier in the thread someone posted a list of instruments that would still be available after generator loss. I'm unclear if that was for a 146 or an RJ now. Losing all your EFIS in an RJ would be a scary event, especially at night.

Last edited by Design Engineer; 30th Nov 2016 at 20:50. Reason: addition of night conditions
Design Engineer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 20:50   #204 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: France
Age: 57
Posts: 28
BBC is now reporting that the plane ran out of fuel: Chapecoense air crash: Leaked tape shows plane 'ran out of fuel' - BBC News
sTeamTraen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 21:16   #205 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dubai
Posts: 2
The British press are still reporting that the flight was from São Paulo to Medellin via Santa Cruz with Lamia but other agencies are saying the leg to Bolivia was a commercial flight. Lamia had been refused by the Brazilian aviation authorities as it was not registered. Somebody in Brazil was keen that the team used Lamia come what may. This stinks of backhanders and commissions . What a tragedy for those innocent people
alanraymond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 21:24   #206 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 73
Will the black boxes CVR reveal a low fuel enunciation?
Smott999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 21:25   #207 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 46
Hi profile flight.
If you declare an emergency with such valued customers you might lose your job.
rideforever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 21:27   #208 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Some simple maths:

Total fuel 9360kg
Minus fixed reserve of 900kg gives
8460kg
Taxi/takeoff/climb first hour 3000kg gives
5460kg
5460kg/2200 per hour burn gives 2.48 hours.
1+2.48 = 3.48 hrs @ 380ktas equals
1322nm range nil wind with no variable reserve.

This is somewhat less than the reported 1600nm sector.

I rest my case.
illusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 21:29   #209 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 58
Posts: 4,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by rideforever View Post
Hi profile flight.
If you declare an emergency with such valued customers you might lose your job.
And if you don't, maybe you and your pax lose your life. Not that hard of a choice, is it? (Hmm, I say that full well admitting that there is a certain idea among certain pilots that "it is better to die than to look bad" but I never considered that a PoV among transport/passenger carrying pilots).
Afterthought, having now read the BBC article:
Quote:
Moments before the flight took off, Mauro Stumpf from the team's coaching staff said he hoped the airline brought them "good luck" - as when the team flew with the same company for the quarter-finals.
That one hurts right in the heart strings. He may not have realized that someone in that company was relying on good luck for this flight to get them there ...
Lonewolf_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 21:29   #210 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 15
sTeamTraen, the BBC are still incorrectly calling the plane a BAe 146 though instead of an RJ85 along with many other media sources. Why don't they check ?
Design Engineer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 21:32   #211 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Easter Island
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by twincommander View Post
The investigation will no doubt reveal when the batteries were last serviced or replaced for this aircraft. You would expect essential or emergency buss power to be maintained for a decent interval after all-engine flameout... and not for the transponder, navaids to 'go dark' so quickly.
Once the engines flame out it is almost certainly all over in this scenario.....
Alas para Volar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 21:33   #212 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brazil
Posts: 64
"From what I understand, there was going to be a stop in Cobija. But the plane that was bringing the players from Chapecoense to Bolivia was delayed. As a result, they couldn't land in Cobija, there are no night operations at Cobija, in fact there are no lights on the runway. So they decided to fill the tank completely, with fuel. In addition to that, the players had to train. It would have been enough to get there, but they were forced to wait which used up all the fuel.
They took the decision to fill the tank completely, which isn't something they usually do but it would have been possible to land, considering they were only 17 miles from the airport, about 3 to 5 minutes. Being in holding traffic is what ended up using all the fuel that was left. However, we have to await the analysis of the black boxes to find out, for certain, what really happened."

Said the son of the co-pilot, who is in his last year of training to be a pilot.
dmba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 21:33   #213 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidestick n Rudder
Yup, been shown this 'clever trick' by some morons early in my career, when flying for a somewhat shady charter operator. However, it's not clever and, in fact, not legal. If you re-dispatch in the air (which the above in-fact is), you are still supposed to have alternate, final reserve AND contingency fuel for the remainder of the flight.

Properly done, re-dispatch can save a couple of kg's and possibly prevent a fuel stop on the way, but it is not a license to operate without adequate reserves...
@Sidestick... You don't appear to understand the concept of using an en-route alternate to reduce contingency (or statistical contingency) fuel.

It is not a shady practice and is written into most EASA Ops Manuals. The entire amount of Contingency fuel may be used at the Captain's discretion any time after dispatch.
Magplug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 21:35   #214 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 73
With English translation
Apologies if already posted

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=6Ab5x_C-CFg
Smott999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 21:35   #215 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Easter Island
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronus View Post

Nevertheless it is almost inconceivable that the aircraft could have been dispatched without sufficient fuel reserves.
Really? Do you have any experience of operations in this locale? "Dios es un piloto Boliviano"

Last edited by Alas para Volar; 30th Nov 2016 at 21:49.
Alas para Volar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 21:38   #216 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Easter Island
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronus View Post
The fact that this is being transmitted from the stricken plane means that some electrical systems were still available, running on battery power with the aircraft in the descent, in the glide. On this occasion the glide did not work out for these most unfortunate people.
I do though wonder what the theoretical glide performance of this particular aircraft, in the given circumstances would have been.
The 146 has been proven to glide rather well. But not recommended in the vicinity of high terrain.
Alas para Volar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 21:47   #217 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 73
I am now truly wondering if he mistakenly aimed for the VOR.
"gear down" was clearly heard. And the holding/witness aircraft reported steep descent.
Smott999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 21:50   #218 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 58
Posts: 4,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by illusion View Post
Total fuel 9360kg
Minus fixed reserve of 900kg gives
8460kg
Taxi/takeoff/climb first hour 3000kg gives
5460kg
5460kg/2200 per hour burn gives 2.48 hours.
1+2.48 = 3.48 hrs @ 380ktas equals
1322nm range nil wind with no variable reserve.

This is somewhat less than the reported 1600nm sector.
First off, nice illustration of a fuel planning approach. Now just to play devil's advocate: if forecast winds aloft are 70-90 knots tail wind component at planned FL, you can see how someone might talk themselves into figuring that they can make it.
I prefer your approach, however.
Later Edit: I did a little poking about at some met sites, and from what I found, a tail wind approaching that value was not available for that night's flight. Maybe that was a bad example of how one might talk one's self into making this a one leg flight.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 30th Nov 2016 at 22:09.
Lonewolf_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 21:51   #219 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 15
Quote:
They took the decision to fill the tank completely, which isn't something they usually do but it would have been possible to land, considering they were only 17 miles from the airport, about 3 to 5 minutes. Being in holding traffic is what ended up using all the fuel that was left. However, we have to await the analysis of the black boxes to find out, for certain, what really happened."

Said the son of the co-pilot, who is in his last year of training to be a pilot.
I hope he learns about fuel reserves !
Design Engineer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th Nov 2016, 21:53   #220 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 120
With poor airspeed control and a conservative glide/ratio they would have had a good 30 miles of glide from FL210.
cappt 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 07:15.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1