Jet goes down on its way to Medellin, Colombia
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4468; I agree entirely, but we are looking at a third world operator with the airline owner/pilot/captain at the controls. Possibly he was flying that day because of the media attention, you get the picture.
I suspect he spent more time in the office than the cockpit. On a good day he could handle a normal flight. On this day he himself might have thrown the poo at the fan and perhaps had not enough familiarity with the a/c and its quirks to escape from the worst most critical situation. Plus, realising that you had seriously screwed up can cause uncontrollable panic.
I'd hate to have been the F/O, who might not have been able to overcome the ego of LHS, and who might have been saying, as it all went dark & quiet, "told you so. We should have landed at XYZ."
I suspect he spent more time in the office than the cockpit. On a good day he could handle a normal flight. On this day he himself might have thrown the poo at the fan and perhaps had not enough familiarity with the a/c and its quirks to escape from the worst most critical situation. Plus, realising that you had seriously screwed up can cause uncontrollable panic.
I'd hate to have been the F/O, who might not have been able to overcome the ego of LHS, and who might have been saying, as it all went dark & quiet, "told you so. We should have landed at XYZ."
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PANS and MAYDAYs
This cause of this accident should be explained extremely clearly in due course once the analysis has been carried out professionally. There is no shortage of data and recordings etc.
However......
In my P46T single engine turbine, I had a simple Shadin Fuel Computer ($20,000 bit of kit) which was extremely accurate and throughout my flights the system monitored fuel consumption, remaining fuel on arrival, range and endurance. It was integrated with the Garmin 530s and flight plan, and minute by minute updated me estimated remaining fuel at destination. It was extremely accurate provided that the correct fuel reading was were entered prior to startup. Its accuracy could be checked every time I topped up the tanks. Throughout the flight I would check the data to ensure that the situation had not changed due to headwinds etc. My pilot management role was to switch on a regular basis from one wing to the other wing tank, as the fuel was only drawn from one wing at a time. So I could still run dry if I mismanaged the fuel by running one tank dry. But the SHADIN was extremely reassuring and when i flew the Northern Polar crossing West to East was a godsend on the long legs in terms of determining safety margins and power settings. The point is making is that if this type of gear is available in a single, there must be much better equipment in a 146.
On this route the consensus is that the aircraft was at best pushing its limits in terms of range. In this situation one would have thought that a good hour or even two hours out from destination, the crew would have been monitoring the fuel situation perhaps even more closely than usual. The CVR in due course might reveal if there was any discussion between the crew about endurance and safety margin. Hopefully the CVR will show whether this crew was even aware that the margin of safety of arrival was, it seems, at best becoming marginal ?
One assumes that if the crew was fully aware of the fuel situation they might have had ample time to issue either PAN or MAYDAY thereby escalating the situation with ATC. Or did some psychology prevent the crew from a declaration ? Or were the gauges not working ?
However it appears that the flight progressed without any communication with ATC re fuel and also that the crew allowed the aircraft to be put into the hold without escalation with ATC. Indeed rather than referring to a fuel issue, they referred initially, I believe, to an electrical problem - for reasons already covered in various posts . So even this did not alert ATC to a fuel problem.
Had a PAN or MAYDAY been declared, even one hour out, from then on one would expect that ATC would have expedited the descent and arrival. So it will be interesting to know in due course if the issue was raised earlier than we hear on the tape. The controller seemed to be pretty busy on other aircraft issues and cannot be psychic. The tape suggests that the real seriousness of the situation only became fully apparent when the aircraft (I understand unauthorised) left its given holding level because, (maybe ?) at that moment with no fuel the engines had failed and there was no alternative but to descend. Even then the captain's voice remained remarkably calm when his aircraft turned into a large glider and he informed ATC (finally) of his woes. (electrical failure and fuel starvation).
The polite "senorita" transmissions from the Lamia aircraft in the hold and in descent, at least in transcript, don't really give any sense of urgency until the the cry for vectors only a few miles out.
All will become clear in due course and it is easy to be a comfortable armchair observer trying, perhaps riskily, to read between the lines of a translated YOU TUBE transcript. But I feel very inclined to defend ATC lady in this situation. The media at present in some quarters are suggesting that the crash would not have happened had the plane not been put in the hold. This is a travesty as when the aircraft was asked to hold the ATC had not been informed of a fuel starvation issue, and secondly because the ATC was dealing with what she had thought was a more urgent issue, She had other things on her plate and the tape suggests that until very late on there was apparently little sense of emergency. I am fairly sure that if in my single I was out of fuel, in the dark over mountainous terrain and with very limited instrumentation (via torch) for the ILS approach and had a windmilling prop, I would be omitting the "senorita" bit. As I say all easy with perfect hindsight and I apologise to those who may dispute my view. As so often happens, the media is reporting on an ill informed and ill educated basis.
However......
In my P46T single engine turbine, I had a simple Shadin Fuel Computer ($20,000 bit of kit) which was extremely accurate and throughout my flights the system monitored fuel consumption, remaining fuel on arrival, range and endurance. It was integrated with the Garmin 530s and flight plan, and minute by minute updated me estimated remaining fuel at destination. It was extremely accurate provided that the correct fuel reading was were entered prior to startup. Its accuracy could be checked every time I topped up the tanks. Throughout the flight I would check the data to ensure that the situation had not changed due to headwinds etc. My pilot management role was to switch on a regular basis from one wing to the other wing tank, as the fuel was only drawn from one wing at a time. So I could still run dry if I mismanaged the fuel by running one tank dry. But the SHADIN was extremely reassuring and when i flew the Northern Polar crossing West to East was a godsend on the long legs in terms of determining safety margins and power settings. The point is making is that if this type of gear is available in a single, there must be much better equipment in a 146.
On this route the consensus is that the aircraft was at best pushing its limits in terms of range. In this situation one would have thought that a good hour or even two hours out from destination, the crew would have been monitoring the fuel situation perhaps even more closely than usual. The CVR in due course might reveal if there was any discussion between the crew about endurance and safety margin. Hopefully the CVR will show whether this crew was even aware that the margin of safety of arrival was, it seems, at best becoming marginal ?
One assumes that if the crew was fully aware of the fuel situation they might have had ample time to issue either PAN or MAYDAY thereby escalating the situation with ATC. Or did some psychology prevent the crew from a declaration ? Or were the gauges not working ?
However it appears that the flight progressed without any communication with ATC re fuel and also that the crew allowed the aircraft to be put into the hold without escalation with ATC. Indeed rather than referring to a fuel issue, they referred initially, I believe, to an electrical problem - for reasons already covered in various posts . So even this did not alert ATC to a fuel problem.
Had a PAN or MAYDAY been declared, even one hour out, from then on one would expect that ATC would have expedited the descent and arrival. So it will be interesting to know in due course if the issue was raised earlier than we hear on the tape. The controller seemed to be pretty busy on other aircraft issues and cannot be psychic. The tape suggests that the real seriousness of the situation only became fully apparent when the aircraft (I understand unauthorised) left its given holding level because, (maybe ?) at that moment with no fuel the engines had failed and there was no alternative but to descend. Even then the captain's voice remained remarkably calm when his aircraft turned into a large glider and he informed ATC (finally) of his woes. (electrical failure and fuel starvation).
The polite "senorita" transmissions from the Lamia aircraft in the hold and in descent, at least in transcript, don't really give any sense of urgency until the the cry for vectors only a few miles out.
All will become clear in due course and it is easy to be a comfortable armchair observer trying, perhaps riskily, to read between the lines of a translated YOU TUBE transcript. But I feel very inclined to defend ATC lady in this situation. The media at present in some quarters are suggesting that the crash would not have happened had the plane not been put in the hold. This is a travesty as when the aircraft was asked to hold the ATC had not been informed of a fuel starvation issue, and secondly because the ATC was dealing with what she had thought was a more urgent issue, She had other things on her plate and the tape suggests that until very late on there was apparently little sense of emergency. I am fairly sure that if in my single I was out of fuel, in the dark over mountainous terrain and with very limited instrumentation (via torch) for the ILS approach and had a windmilling prop, I would be omitting the "senorita" bit. As I say all easy with perfect hindsight and I apologise to those who may dispute my view. As so often happens, the media is reporting on an ill informed and ill educated basis.
Last edited by RV8GGRVy; 1st Dec 2016 at 15:07.
Or perhaps he flies all the time (they only had one airworthy jet) and was in the habit of running into final reserve, had never been bitten before and had become complacent. Feed tank low warnings come on, that's normal to him. Maybe he doesn't bother with the checklist at that point because he knows it's a F24 landing, pumps on and fuel feeds open etc. All very speculative of course, but the events could just as easily be the result of a complacent current pilot becoming habituated to very poor fuel management as it could be an un-current pilot being out of their depth.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Above the Clouds #284
We are not talking about an ordinary passenger flight. From a footballing culture point of view it transcends ordinary media attention. This team was and could have been writing football history. Wanting to deliver a 'perfect' flight without any additional transfers or delays would have been a verrry strong driver. A driver you imagine far stronger than ordinary commercial considerations. If the human factors discussion will be as in depth as one would expect, then the "football factor" will be discussed.
If so, then it would not be the first time that it was a factor. Earlier other cases mentioned pilots listening to football matches on their radio (Brazil) and traffic controllers watching matches on tv while behind their screen (Tenerife and others). This might be the first time though that this factor would be discussed in depth.
the airline owner/pilot/captain at the controls. Possibly he was flying that day because of the media attention, you get the picture.
If so, then it would not be the first time that it was a factor. Earlier other cases mentioned pilots listening to football matches on their radio (Brazil) and traffic controllers watching matches on tv while behind their screen (Tenerife and others). This might be the first time though that this factor would be discussed in depth.
fuel would tip from the higher to the lower wing tanks due to an always open high level weir, the type's anherdral added to the imbalance which had to be managed via cross feeding.
QUOTE:
what is the difference in that and arriving at a 2 runway airport with final reserve plus a bit in hand (providing the weather at destination is well above limits as stated in my previous post)?
You don't need to be an ex-forecaster [as I am] to know how quickly good weather and a forecast of good weather can go badly wrong.
This is especially so with the very poor standards of forecasting and observing to be found in more than a few countries.
I find the concept of using a second runway as a diversion hair-raising beyond belief.
what is the difference in that and arriving at a 2 runway airport with final reserve plus a bit in hand (providing the weather at destination is well above limits as stated in my previous post)?
You don't need to be an ex-forecaster [as I am] to know how quickly good weather and a forecast of good weather can go badly wrong.
This is especially so with the very poor standards of forecasting and observing to be found in more than a few countries.
I find the concept of using a second runway as a diversion hair-raising beyond belief.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Berks
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another lurker here, I hardly ever post.
I agree with those saying what a good job the ATC did, she'll be distraught I imagine.
Am I the only person getting increasingly agitated by the media, including BBC radio, consistently still misreporting this.
A direct quote from the Guardian, but similar on the Beeb:
Just before going silent the pilot made a final plea to land: “Vectors, señorita. Landing vectors.”
The implication from all these media outlets being that ATC was somehow preventing them from landing, or that they unreasonably asked them to hold, when clearly by that stage the Pilot had no idea even where the runway was. There's no mention of the fact that as soon as the ATC realized the emergency, without the flight crew properly notifying, she got 2 other aircraft out of the way.
It feels like the tone is of a Pilot who made the sort of fuel slip-up that any pilot could have made, being killed with most of the passengers by an unsympathetic ATC. Completely the reverse.
I agree with those saying what a good job the ATC did, she'll be distraught I imagine.
Am I the only person getting increasingly agitated by the media, including BBC radio, consistently still misreporting this.
A direct quote from the Guardian, but similar on the Beeb:
Just before going silent the pilot made a final plea to land: “Vectors, señorita. Landing vectors.”
The implication from all these media outlets being that ATC was somehow preventing them from landing, or that they unreasonably asked them to hold, when clearly by that stage the Pilot had no idea even where the runway was. There's no mention of the fact that as soon as the ATC realized the emergency, without the flight crew properly notifying, she got 2 other aircraft out of the way.
It feels like the tone is of a Pilot who made the sort of fuel slip-up that any pilot could have made, being killed with most of the passengers by an unsympathetic ATC. Completely the reverse.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVR recording duration
originally posted by klintE
I totally agree. 30 mins with recording over the previous section is of potentially ZERO use when looking at 'in flight upsets' that are recovered and the flight completed or diverted. A couple of Qantas incidents come to mind for example.
Modern solid state recorders have the capability to record staggering amounts of audio data.
A quick sum shows that a COTS 100GB solid state hard drive could retain over 10,000 hours of TEN channels of audio, allowing for seperate Comms channels as well as CAMs plus more, all in hi-fi quality in a package 2.5" by 3.5?" by about 3/8", so easily protected and that is a SMALL capacity drive by modern standards !
I have quite a big issue with this. Technology has way overtaken outdated standards in certain areas. It's something I'd like to raise in another thread perhaps. Much the same is true for FDRs.
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.
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.
Modern solid state recorders have the capability to record staggering amounts of audio data.
A quick sum shows that a COTS 100GB solid state hard drive could retain over 10,000 hours of TEN channels of audio, allowing for seperate Comms channels as well as CAMs plus more, all in hi-fi quality in a package 2.5" by 3.5?" by about 3/8", so easily protected and that is a SMALL capacity drive by modern standards !
I have quite a big issue with this. Technology has way overtaken outdated standards in certain areas. It's something I'd like to raise in another thread perhaps. Much the same is true for FDRs.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have quite a big issue with this.
It is like video recording of the cockpit, nobody denies that this is technically possible and can be incredibly useful. But nobody dares to mandate it for obvious reasons.
If data exists, it will be (mis)used.
Probably this will be just another case, where all the interesting details are not recorded. And that may well save some from very expensive lawsuits...
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Smott999
I'd hazard a guess at #1 or #4 engine spooling down along with its generator.
Barometric only presumably and unlit.
The FA reported gradual loss of light in the cabin.
Does that sound like battery power running down?
Does that sound like battery power running down?
And if they got to nil battery power would they have any instruments at all?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They must have had hydraulics and some electrical power as they lowered the gear and were able to use the radio.
Would they be able to lower the gear (apparently normally as can be heard on the ATC recording ["gear down"], not by use of an emergency procedure) with no engines running to provide hydraulic power?
Would they be able to lower the gear (apparently normally as can be heard on the ATC recording ["gear down"], not by use of an emergency procedure) with no engines running to provide hydraulic power?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm having trouble visualising the crash sequence. The aerial shots show the tail section on the other side of the ridge, with a channel carved out of the trees going from narrow to wide downhill to where the main body of wreckage sits. The wings are upside down, but facing down hill. Looks like the plane hit with a considerable wing down angle and "landed" on it's back. Perhaps a stall or in the middle of a tight turn when they ran out of altitude?
They must have had hydraulics and some electrical power as they lowered the gear and were able to use the radio.
Would they be able to lower the gear (apparently normally as can be heard on the ATC recording ["gear down"], not by use of an emergency procedure) with no engines running to provide hydraulic power?
Would they be able to lower the gear (apparently normally as can be heard on the ATC recording ["gear down"], not by use of an emergency procedure) with no engines running to provide hydraulic power?
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: IAD
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@LiveryMan
While going through a number of video's one shows interviews apparently just before and during the flight. The 4-striper male captain/owner had been identified before. The 3-striper female FO (in the left seat during that interview - plane still on the ground). And a 2-striper male interviewed standing in the passenger cabin.
In another video or post there was a remark about a 'technical guy' (I think they later referred to him as one of the 6 survivors). The right role name probably lost in translation. Don't know if they meant flight engineer or a maintenance engineer taking the same flight.
POB/Passenger lists have already been published. Perhaps someone has checked those on the number of crew members and their roles.
A company with apparently only 1 plane flying taking a company maintenance engineer with it would not be a big surprise.
If the Co-Pilot was female, there must have been a third person in the cockpit.
In another video or post there was a remark about a 'technical guy' (I think they later referred to him as one of the 6 survivors). The right role name probably lost in translation. Don't know if they meant flight engineer or a maintenance engineer taking the same flight.
POB/Passenger lists have already been published. Perhaps someone has checked those on the number of crew members and their roles.
A company with apparently only 1 plane flying taking a company maintenance engineer with it would not be a big surprise.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@LiveryMan
Only part of the accident site is covered by photos. There are at least 5 areas and only 1 is really covered by photos at this stage.
The first (area1) is the most photographed area of the aft fuselage and whole or half wing, To its right is a low ridge where the UH60(s) land(s). There are no images from the right side (area2) of that low ridge as far as i have seen. On the left is a hollow (area3) with thinly spread debris of the plane. And on that left of that hollow a rise with spectators on it. Back up the high ridge there indeed appears to be a wide scar (area4) going all up to the crest of the high ridge. And on the other side and top of that high ridge (area5) lies what appears to be the tail and or maybe a piece of wing. These last two areas are only covered by videos as far as i know (of low quality). I have not seen any photo that would conclusively tell me where the cockpit and forward section landed.
Looking at that the plane most likely came from behind the high ridge. Hit the crest of that high ridge. Unknown at this stage what was left there. Substantial sections and components probably sliding down the ridge (zero photos of that). And the fuselage wing part somehow landing in its location and partially sliding up the side of the other side. And somehow part of loose debris thrown out and landing to the left of that. Still not clear to me if the scars on the heli ridge are from the crash or natural or made by the rescuers.
The position of the inverted wing (ref flaptrack fairings) and part of the aft fuselage (ref registration number) could be explained in at least two different ways. The first is that it flipped forward and over. But another might be that the combination slid forward with the 4 engine mounts keeping it in straight direction until the mounts dug into the upslope. The fuselage then breaking loose from the wing and sliding forward. And the wing flipping over. So the fuselage rolling over the wing. My impression at this time is that the last thing happend, reason for that is the aft fuselage being on top.
So at this stage we have a large number of photos but many many more would be required to understand how the plane came in and broke apart. Which is no surprise.
It is surprising though that anyone survived. Reasons for that might be low initial impact speed as well as luck during the break up sequence.
I'm having trouble visualising the crash sequence.
The first (area1) is the most photographed area of the aft fuselage and whole or half wing, To its right is a low ridge where the UH60(s) land(s). There are no images from the right side (area2) of that low ridge as far as i have seen. On the left is a hollow (area3) with thinly spread debris of the plane. And on that left of that hollow a rise with spectators on it. Back up the high ridge there indeed appears to be a wide scar (area4) going all up to the crest of the high ridge. And on the other side and top of that high ridge (area5) lies what appears to be the tail and or maybe a piece of wing. These last two areas are only covered by videos as far as i know (of low quality). I have not seen any photo that would conclusively tell me where the cockpit and forward section landed.
Looking at that the plane most likely came from behind the high ridge. Hit the crest of that high ridge. Unknown at this stage what was left there. Substantial sections and components probably sliding down the ridge (zero photos of that). And the fuselage wing part somehow landing in its location and partially sliding up the side of the other side. And somehow part of loose debris thrown out and landing to the left of that. Still not clear to me if the scars on the heli ridge are from the crash or natural or made by the rescuers.
The position of the inverted wing (ref flaptrack fairings) and part of the aft fuselage (ref registration number) could be explained in at least two different ways. The first is that it flipped forward and over. But another might be that the combination slid forward with the 4 engine mounts keeping it in straight direction until the mounts dug into the upslope. The fuselage then breaking loose from the wing and sliding forward. And the wing flipping over. So the fuselage rolling over the wing. My impression at this time is that the last thing happend, reason for that is the aft fuselage being on top.
So at this stage we have a large number of photos but many many more would be required to understand how the plane came in and broke apart. Which is no surprise.
It is surprising though that anyone survived. Reasons for that might be low initial impact speed as well as luck during the break up sequence.
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello there,
I am wondering if they would be able to glide until the Rionegro airport from FL210 where the lack of fuel begin.
The airport is at 8 thousand feet. I dont know in which part of the holding the lack of fuel started, but they holding between 17 to 26 nm from the airport
My questions:
- why did the deployed the landing gear? they were 10 minutes away from the airport still. This would only elevate the drag
- why a descent so steep?
- they crashed only some meters away from the VOR, could they have mistaken it with the runway at night?
- If they really knew were the runway was, could they reach it with no fuel from FL210?
In the flight data you can see where the lack of fuel begins (its written "Pane Seca"). Velocity drops really fast but they maintain the altitude, then having to lower altitude to not stall.
and heres the fuselage near the VOR:
I am wondering if they would be able to glide until the Rionegro airport from FL210 where the lack of fuel begin.
The airport is at 8 thousand feet. I dont know in which part of the holding the lack of fuel started, but they holding between 17 to 26 nm from the airport
My questions:
- why did the deployed the landing gear? they were 10 minutes away from the airport still. This would only elevate the drag
- why a descent so steep?
- they crashed only some meters away from the VOR, could they have mistaken it with the runway at night?
- If they really knew were the runway was, could they reach it with no fuel from FL210?
In the flight data you can see where the lack of fuel begins (its written "Pane Seca"). Velocity drops really fast but they maintain the altitude, then having to lower altitude to not stall.
and heres the fuselage near the VOR:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ A0283
Interesting analysis.
I get the distinct impression the aircraft was flying in the direction that upside down wing is facing... ie from the photographic point of view: Down hill. Sounds like you think the opposite?
Looking at the photos again. Could that be the port wing on the other side of the hill then?
Interesting analysis.
I get the distinct impression the aircraft was flying in the direction that upside down wing is facing... ie from the photographic point of view: Down hill. Sounds like you think the opposite?
Looking at the photos again. Could that be the port wing on the other side of the hill then?
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: SCL sometimes
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the crew never declared an emergency of any kind. They only used de euphemistic non standard term "priority". Even more, when they ran out of fuel, instead of telling ATC that they had no fuel, they said that they had a "complete electric failure... and fuel". Clearly, they were, even in that critical moment, reluctant to admit that their tanks were empty.
Last edited by EcoFox; 1st Dec 2016 at 23:32.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@LiveryMan ... too early for an analysis, just impressions and a lot of factual questions.
My first impression. With the heli ridge on your right the fuselage wing moving forward. With part of that being projected upward in the direction of the VOR (there is a significant scar going up). So the plane flying in the direction of the VOR as some suggested earlier.
Could be a wing yes. But the quality of the video that i saw was not good enough to say and i have not had the time to measure it. But looked larger than a control surface.
The fact that we have to discuss this shows how little information we have.
If the plane came from the other direction, the VOR side, that would imply that big parts of the plane whould have been thrown up and over the high ridge (if i understand you correctly). That might explain the multiple scars on the low ridge but the long scar going op the high ridge does not line up with that. Neither does the light debris spread over the hollow.
To summarize - at this stage we only have seen 1 of the 4 corners in the photos.
My first impression. With the heli ridge on your right the fuselage wing moving forward. With part of that being projected upward in the direction of the VOR (there is a significant scar going up). So the plane flying in the direction of the VOR as some suggested earlier.
Could be a wing yes. But the quality of the video that i saw was not good enough to say and i have not had the time to measure it. But looked larger than a control surface.
The fact that we have to discuss this shows how little information we have.
If the plane came from the other direction, the VOR side, that would imply that big parts of the plane whould have been thrown up and over the high ridge (if i understand you correctly). That might explain the multiple scars on the low ridge but the long scar going op the high ridge does not line up with that. Neither does the light debris spread over the hollow.
To summarize - at this stage we only have seen 1 of the 4 corners in the photos.
Last edited by A0283; 1st Dec 2016 at 14:38. Reason: To summarize