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 1st Dec 2016, 23:50
  #381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Posts: 6
repeated text

Last edited by taquechel; 2nd Dec 2016 at 03:53. Reason: posting delay
taquechel is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 00:02
  #382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Angular - apparently!
Posts: 625
FIRESYSOK:



One of the most sensible posts I have seen on this tragedy. Most contributors to this thread would simply not believe what goes on in the name of aviation in these countries.
barry lloyd is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 00:06
  #383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 61
Posts: 256
Originally Posted by FIRESYSOK View Post
The most surprising thing about this thread is the lack of understanding of Latin culture. Larger operators, sure, they're mostly legit...but this one-horse show with a pretty private-pilot girl filmed in the left seat prior to departure wearing three stripes; pilot/owner selfies all over social media throwing up gang signs, etc.....this disaster should come as no surprise whatsoever. And I mean it was probably long overdue.
Thanks for saying it. I've been holding back because I live in California.
thcrozier is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 00:09
  #384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bermuda Triangle
Posts: 63
I flew for several months in Colombia. There are always c/b's around that cause delays and it never entered my mind to depart with minimum fuel only. ATC in Colombia is excellent, as can be heard on the tape.
svhar is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 00:10
  #385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,788
42.2 is probably fine as well.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 00:10
  #386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: North west
Posts: 2
Cost Cutting Company.
The RJs that they operated where stored at Norwich for a considerable time. I was contacted re Ferrying the aircraft to Venezuela.
They would not allow the aircraft to have a shake down flight before the ferry, as they deemed it not necessary. After many weeks they shipped in their own crew to take the aircraft. They could not operate the GNS nav computer, they dispatched with a fuel stop in Glasgow.
After refuelling in Glasgow and putting in copious amounts of oil in to one of the engines they dispatched for Iceland, surprise surprise loss of oil in the engine required a shutdown and return to the UK.

Following flight had dangerous goods on board, MOR I believe was submitted by the maintainance company, plus fines from Canada and the USA for transiting their airspace with dangerous goods on board.
The company representatives who came over to the U.K. Where very pushy and would not listen to any one.
A very tragic preventable accident.
Boxter is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 00:25
  #387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 17
It seems like declaring an emergency could have saved the day. I'm looking into exactly this topic for quite a while now and it seems there is very little knowledge
As mentioned earlier, the cultural issues are probably very relevant. However, whilst not agreeing with it, I can see why some aircrew may be tempted not to push out a Mayday when they see their FMS-generated landing fuel fractionally lower than their calculated final reserve figure. What I can't understand is how a crew could accept any instruction to 'hold' when they have less than half of the stipulated final reserve figure remaining in the tanks!

That said, if they had regularly landed on fuel minimums, did they perhaps think the fuel remaining was a tad more than it actually was!
FixClrEnt is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 00:49
  #388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 4
From The Sun. OMG. Journalists !!!!!

‘IT’S YOUR FAULT THEY DIED!’ Colombia plane crash: Airport employee accused of blaming passengers on following plane for Chapecoense jet crashing and killing 71

The doomed flight was denied an emergency landing due to a second emergency at the same time

AN AIRPORT employee allegedly told passengers on board another plane which landed before the tragic Chapecoense jet that the crash was their fault.

The pilot of the doomed flight requested an emergency landing – but it was denied due to a second emergency at the same time.


In a leaked audio recording a pilot can be heard repeatedly requesting permission to land due to an electric failure and lack of fuel."

My blood pressure is up many notches.
RV8GGRVy is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 01:01
  #389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 224
It is incredible that people claiming such high experience - as a captain! - can totally misunderstand the physics of flight so badly.
Of course you're right, but just for nerdly kicks I went to my calculator to answer an old question: If the centerline of the fuselage is in a perfectly coordinated turn, what's going on at the wingtips? The outer wingtip is travelling further in the same amount of time, and seeing higher airspeed. But it's in a slightly wider turn, too. Do the two cancel out? Is the outer wingtip overbanked or underbanked?

Could it possibly be that while Bob Hoover's coffee in the cockpit pours straight down into his cup, the fuel in his tip tanks is sloshed towards the outside or the inside of the turn? (Answer: Yes, but by such a silly small amount that you'd have a hard time measuring it)

Figure a 30 degree banked turn at 200 knots, which ought to give a turn of radius 6153 feet, a little more than a mile. ((I used v squared / 11.26 * tan(bank angle). Figure a 100 foot wingspan, and accounting for the bank, the outside wingtip travels in a circle of r= 6196 feet, covering more distance in the same time as the fuselage, and the inside travels in a circle of r= 6110 feet. The inside wingtip is seeing airspeed only 99% of what the fuselage is seeing, and the outer wingtip is seeing airspeed of 101% of what the fuselage is seeing. The perfectly coordinated bank angle for the outer wingtip would be 30.2 degrees, and the perfectly coordinated bank angle for the inner wingtip would be 29.8. Nobody can tell the difference of 0.4 degrees, and it's certainly not going to slosh any fuel around.

Run the same numbers in a 60 foot wingspan glider circling in a 45 degree bank at 50 knots, and you get almost a 10 degree difference between the apparent gravitational "down" at the inner wingtip vs the outer. Not enough to spill Bob Hoover's coffee, but measurable.
Gauges and Dials is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 01:03
  #390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 179
According to the tape the crew knew their heading and altitude. Request for vectors suggests they did not have nav capability to track over the VOR. They were really in a no-win situation by then with a need to stay at or above 10000ft until the VOR seemingly outweighed by the urgency to get it on the ground, hence the descent to 9000 ft too early which did for them.
portmanteau is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 01:09
  #391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bermuda Triangle
Posts: 63
This is what happens when everyone flies with minimum fuel. I recall an incident a few years ago when some RYR aircraft had to divert from Madrid to Valencia and Alicante, declaring emergency because of low fuel.
svhar is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 01:09
  #392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Posts: 6
Looking at the flight data, the hold pattern kept the airplane between 18 to 26 nm from the beginning of the runway.

The lack of fuel started while they were turning 26 nm from the runway, They entered the curve at 280 knots and FL210 and ended at 200 knots and FL 210. After that they start descending declaring they need to land.

So they were 26 nm away from airstrip and 2 nm above it. Gives a glide ratio of 13:1. Do you guys know what is the glide ratio for this plane full of passengers?

With a need of 13:1 I assume its tight but in a good scenario (not theirs) might be achievable.

nevertheles, he crashed 8nm away from it, so he did a glide ratio of only 9:1.

That seems very strange, right?
taquechel is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 01:20
  #393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 105
How accurate is the fuel gauge on this plane? The behavior of the crew suggests there was less fuel than the crew thought there was. How likely is a faulty fuel gauge?
PastTense is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 01:31
  #394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 36
Posts: 100
Originally Posted by taquechel View Post
Looking at the flight data, the hold pattern kept the airplane between 18 to 26 nm from the beginning of the runway.

The lack of fuel started while they were turning 26 nm from the runway, They entered the curve at 280 knots and FL210 and ended at 200 knots and FL 210. After that they start descending declaring they need to land.

So they were 26 nm away from airstrip and 2 nm above it. Gives a glide ratio of 13:1. Do you guys know what is the glide ratio for this plane full of passengers?

With a need of 13:1 I assume its tight but in a good scenario (not theirs) might be achievable.

nevertheles, he crashed 8nm away from it, so he did a glide ratio of only 9:1.

That seems very strange, right?
It is odd, for some reason they suddenly entered a very steep descent. Even having lost all instruments they should have had a good idea where they were prior to losing them and known that they weren't that close, and also that there is a lot of terrain around these parts.

My only guesses are either an irrestistable urge to get below a cloud layer and get visual, or blind panic took over.
neila83 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 01:32
  #395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 232
So they were 26 nm away from airstrip and 2 nm above it
Probably more like 2.6 or 14000'
MDE is 7000'
It's moot, they dove it in.
cappt is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 01:50
  #396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 141
Originally Posted by taquechel View Post
.....The lack of fuel started while they were turning 26 nm from the runway, ....
Actually, the lack of fuel started when the flight plan was filed.

Ok, more accurately, it started when they flew out of range of a suitable airport enroute where they could land, with some reserves (!), then gas-and-go.

The rest of the musings really are irrelevant.
Ushuaia is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 01:51
  #397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,249
syhar:
I flew for several months in Colombia. There are always c/b's around that cause delays and it never entered my mind to depart with minimum fuel only. ATC in Colombia is excellent, as can be heard on the tape.
Indeed, an excellent controller, as the Colombian controller at Cali in 1995,
aterpster is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 02:02
  #398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SF Bay area, CA USA
Posts: 254
Confirmation bais.

The main-stream media is showing great resistance to accepting an airliner can run dry of fuel.


The BBC World Service, for instance, has gone between electrical failure and fuel exhaustion. Recently, they seem to have settled on run dry.
jack11111 is online now  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 02:12
  #399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 155
Looking at the flight data, the hold pattern kept the airplane between 18 to 26 nm from the beginning of the runway.

The lack of fuel started while they were turning 26 nm from the runway, They entered the curve at 280 knots and FL210 and ended at 200 knots and FL 210. After that they start descending declaring they need to land.

So they were 26 nm away from airstrip and 2 nm above it. Gives a glide ratio of 13:1. Do you guys know what is the glide ratio for this plane full of passengers?

With a need of 13:1 I assume its tight but in a good scenario (not theirs) might be achievable.

nevertheles, he crashed 8nm away from it, so he did a glide ratio of only 9:1.

That seems very strange, right?
Which part? The whole thing seems strange.

But as far as glide ratio is concerned, and without knowing the best speed for gliding distance on an RJ85, I suspect it's much lower than the 200kt at which they exited the hold.
Pearly White is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 02:22
  #400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Up Front
Age: 57
Posts: 2
That was a very ignorant comment SV. Are you claiming that RYR dispatches flights illegally and without proper safe amounts of fuel?
OscarRomeoDelta 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.