Jet goes down on its way to Medellin, Colombia
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bermuda Triangle
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: North west
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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!
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is incredible that people claiming such high experience - as a captain! - can totally misunderstand the physics of flight so badly.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bermuda Triangle
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 41
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
My only guesses are either an irrestistable urge to get below a cloud layer and get visual, or blind panic took over.
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.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
syhar:
Indeed, an excellent controller, as the Colombian controller at Cali in 1995,
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.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SF Bay area, CA USA
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The BBC World Service, for instance, has gone between electrical failure and fuel exhaustion. Recently, they seem to have settled on run dry.
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?
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?
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: here and there
Age: 69
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fcom-3 all engines inop
The FCOM Volume 3 gives advice on what to do if all engine start attempts are unsuccessful. The
following advice is extracted from the 146-FCOM Volume 3.
If the engines start attempts are unsuccessful, fly at VFTO + 30 to maximize range.
Glide performance at VFTO + 30 with zero flap and gear up is approximately 2.5 nm/1,000 feet; a 360 o
turn using 25 to 30 o of bank will result in a 5,000 feet height loss. Reduce to VER before starting the
approach.
The FCOM Volume 3 gives advice on what to do if all engine start attempts are unsuccessful. The
following advice is extracted from the 146-FCOM Volume 3.
If the engines start attempts are unsuccessful, fly at VFTO + 30 to maximize range.
Glide performance at VFTO + 30 with zero flap and gear up is approximately 2.5 nm/1,000 feet; a 360 o
turn using 25 to 30 o of bank will result in a 5,000 feet height loss. Reduce to VER before starting the
approach.
Last edited by vmandr; 2nd Dec 2016 at 01:42.
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the height available to MDE was 2.6 nm, and not 2 nm
So he he needed a 10:1 ratio do get to the airfield.
And crashed at 7:1.
Thats really sad. He might have made it. More lives could be spared.
I guess that with the audio FDR we will find out if the thought the VOR was the runway.
IF there is any audio available. In Brazil 2 years ago a governor running for president died in a Cessna jet that had the audio FR was not working. It had audio from like 1 week before the accident.
Yes, this is south america