Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Jet goes down on its way to Medellin, Colombia

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

Jet goes down on its way to Medellin, Colombia

Old 30th Nov 2016, 21:55
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,123
Originally Posted by Design Engineer View Post
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 ?
If we're going to be picky, the downed aircraft is certificated as a British Aerospace-built Avro 146 Series RJ85.

So referring to it as a BAe 146 is not unreasonable.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 22:02
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Austria
Posts: 675
Originally Posted by Design Engineer
They took the decision to fill the tank completely (...)
On the very few types I know, trying to fill the tanks to the brim gives varying results, mostly depending on the slope of the parking position, even if the selector panel is set to slightly above maximum capacity. At some point, the system will consider the tanks full, even if there may be a few 100kg missing from their nominal capacity. So planning a flight under the assumption of having the tanks filled to their maximum capacity is not always the smartest of ideas and might lead to scratching of heads when the fueller brings the receipt.

So: how about the RJ85, will it always accept fuel until the tanks are physically full, or does it show the same effect?
Tu.114 is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 22:04
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by Design Engineer View Post
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 ?
Probably because to most readers it makes no difference at all... It looks the same, and basic characteristics are the same.
Rainydays is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 22:07
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Easter Island
Posts: 15
Originally Posted by Tu.114 View Post
On the very few types I know, trying to fill the tanks to the brim gives varying results, mostly depending on the slope of the parking position, even if the selector panel is set to slightly above maximum capacity. At some point, the system will consider the tanks full, even if there may be a few 100kg missing from their nominal capacity.

So: how about the RJ85, will it always accept fuel until the tanks are physically full, or does it show the same effect?
Not to mention the specific gravity of the fuel. Perhaps the authorities should mandate additional fuel reserves to cover this kind of contingency. Just a thought.
Alas para Volar is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 22:10
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 61
Posts: 257
Originally Posted by Smott999 View Post
With English translation
Apologies if already posted

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=6Ab5x_C-CFg
Translation sounds accurate to me.

At the end he still has Comm and is begging the controller for vectors, so one way or another it seems he had no NAV or at least was disoriented.

Last edited by thcrozier; 30th Nov 2016 at 22:49.
thcrozier is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 22:19
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 250
Originally Posted by Smott999 View Post
I am now truly wondering if he mistakenly aimed for the VOR.
Unlikely with most (all) nav instruments failed, and they wouldn't be begging for vectors if VOR and DME (for the diving aspect) would be operational
Originally Posted by cappt View Post
With poor airspeed control and a conservative glide/ratio they would have had a good 30 miles of glide from FL210.
a tad less if you subtract airfield elevation of 7000ft, but still with only 17 miles to cover....could come close
DIBO is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 22:24
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,164
I feel for the controller-poor woman. What a nightmare-two fuel emergencies a tricky approach and bad weather -sounds like she does very well and still the 146 goes down , scar her mentally for life I would think and I hope she gets over what has to have been a harrowing experience.
pax britanica is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 22:29
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Airport
Posts: 10
Alas para Volar

Your assertion is not true. Many of us routinely practice this is the simulator, now referred to as the Sullenburger Maneuver. In our aircraft, all engine flameout leads to 45 minutes of battery life with basic instruments and lighting - not an instantly-black aircraft. The question whether you have altitude and energy to get to the nearest airport is a different one.
twincommander is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 22:34
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Helsinki
Age: 43
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by cappt View Post
With poor airspeed control and a conservative glide/ratio they would have had a good 30 miles of glide from FL210.
They almost hit the VOR RNG which is at 8700 ft MSL, 10 nm out of the threshold. If the information is correct that they started descent at 17 nm out, that gives you a glide ratio of 1:3.5 which is probably about 1/3 of what is achievable.

I think the theory that they were mistakenly attempting to descend to the VOR seems quite plausible. If the last range they had read was to the VOR and when EFIS quit, they might have though they were too high and configured for a steeper gliding descent than necessary.
EFHF is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 22:38
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Manchester
Age: 43
Posts: 105
I have flown and been trained by prob one of the only Capts to have a four engine failure on an BAE146. It then became a fave of his as a sim instructor. The AC will glide quite well and you'll achieve at least 2nm per 1000ft in still wind. So yes it's possible, even with high terrain to glide to the airfield. What you're failing to understand is, the aircraft could not see the airfield visually, it was on emergency AC and DC power, the power situation leaves the captain on sby instruments and no navigational indications. This is why the Capt was desperate for vectors to the runway. With vectors he could still fly a heading and speed. Obv without secondary or primary radar available the controller had no idea where the AC was.
Guy of Gisborne is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 22:42
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 78
Posts: 4,580
A320ECAM
...I would maintain (or even climb to a higher) altitude and await further instructions.
You have two energy sources; #1 fuel in tanks, and #2 (a portion of) fuel already burned. You need to take the airplane to the highest possible energy state so when #1 is gone, you have the best possible remaining energy.

And in a critical state, I would remind ATC that they do NOT fly the airplane, and would announce that I am landing ETA...
barit1 is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 22:43
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 99
on 30th Nov 2016, 21:24, Smott999 posted:

Will the black boxes CVR reveal a low fuel enunciation?

That presumes CVR and FDR properly hooked up, maintained, powered, operating.

Not something I automatically presume in this instance, given some apparent corner-cutting, questions whether batteries were adequately serviced, etc.

Where's the profit (for LAMIA) in properly inspecting, maintaining CVR and FDR?

Perhaps more of a risk (if had to make emerg landing, and a regulator then checked FDR-CVR and found they knowingly made trip without adequate reserves, and perhaps had done so before - the FDR might show that, if it contained record of past flights).
Passenger 389 is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 22:44
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Austria
Posts: 675
I do not know how things are done in Colombia, but here, we have to declare "Minimum Fuel" when it is to be foreseen that, following the present cleared route, fuel on landing will be less than Alternate Fuel plus required final reserve (30 minutes in most cases), and a "Fuel Emergency" ("Mayday, mayday, mayday FUEL") will be declared when fuel on landing is anticipated to be below final reserve.

This declaration is to be made well before the fuel state is reached, not when already flying around on the last fumes.

The rules are good as they are, they just need to be followed.
Tu.114 is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 22:46
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 15
DaveReidUK,

Originally Posted by Design Engineer
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 ?

If we're going to be picky, the downed aircraft is certificated as a British Aerospace-built Avro 146 Series RJ85.

So referring to it as a BAe 146 is not unreasonable.
Being very picky, a 146-200 is the closest match.
Design Engineer is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 22:49
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 64N, 020E
Age: 52
Posts: 35
EFHF: Re configure for steep dive I'm told by a few active RJ100 crew that the bird has plenty of that to offer. 10.000+ ft/min if I remember them correctly. I guess it would be similar on the RJ85.
NiclasB is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 22:51
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Europe
Age: 41
Posts: 39
Looking at the pictures of B-boxes...
FDR is Allied Signal with 25 hours of flight data.
And CVR is probably BASE SCR500
But they were in 2 versions: SCR500-030 and SCR500-120
First is recording last 30 minutes, and the second is recording last 120 minutes.
It would be better to hear more then 30 minutes I think.
klintE is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 23:03
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 105
While I understand that the pilot faced legal repercussions for stating a fuel emergency, what prevented him from stating some other type of emergency: for example a medical emergency--the pilot was having a heart attack.
PastTense is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 23:08
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,435
@PastTense: if he were that clever to start with, he might have been clever enough not to get into that bind in the first place.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 23:17
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 64N, 020E
Age: 52
Posts: 35
I'm with 'wolf here. That kind of thinking would require that he was mentally prepared for a 'low fuel' situation, which seems unlikely IMHO.
NiclasB is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 23:32
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by Design Engineer View Post
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.
That list was for the RJ. No EFIS with battery only.

All ya got is Standby Attitude Indicator with bars for glideslope and localizer from #1 Nav.

Standby combined altimeter and air speed indicator driven only be pitot static pressure, and a little DC driven panel vibrator to make the thing run smooth.

#1 Com works.

Also, #1 XPNDR, although you lose mode C data. (EDIT: I'm incorrect - No Xpndr w/o Ess AC from either Standby Hyd. Gen or AC source)

You loose pretty much all your instrument backlighting, and flood. It's mighty dark. You'd need a torch.

Also get brake pressure indication as well.

Draw just on battery is about 30ish amps.

The rush to bring the gear down near the end may have been precipitated by the battery power situation. The Emergency Main Gear Assister Jack uses the yellow DC pump pressure, and draws a significant amount of power, up to 60 amps initially. Not something you want to be trying 20 minutes into your 45/30 minute battery reserve.

There is a 'trick' to get essential (EDIT: Essential DC) (you are already at emergency) power off the battery - that is to turn on the Start Master, but in increases draw significantly to 45-60ish amps. Won't get much more than 15-20 minutes with that.

All of this is moot when none if your engines/apu is functioning though to be frank.

Last edited by plhought; 1st Dec 2016 at 02:33.
plhought is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.