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 2nd Dec 2016, 11:51
  #441 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by deniasol View Post
I understand that the PICwas ex-military. Isn't it possible that pilots with such a background, due to the nature of their flight training which involves risky manoevers and missions may be willing to take higher risks than their civilian counterparts? Are there any statistical figures regarding accidents involving retired military pilots?
Sully was ex military and it was this training and background that probably saved the Hudson River passengers. There's military and there's South American military.
ciderman is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 11:55
  #442 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: MSP
Posts: 4
Used the sim & LaMia 2933 was totally survivable

Maybe if the crew had trained for total electrical failure everyone would have lived. Some of my best training was at 4 am, in the sim at FlightSafety, when we had time to experiment.

Human factors: Based on their ATC calls, it sounds like they did not realize a flameout caused a total electrical failure. This blacked out the flight deck, where the captain overreacted and dove for the runway. Then the cabin went pitch black and people jumped up out of their seats screaming, which the pilots heard. It appears they totally lost situational awareness, thinking the radio beacon was the airport. Look at the crash site picture (Crash: LAMIA Bolivia RJ85 near Medellin on Nov 28th 2016, electrical problems, no fuel, impact with terrain).

Why would they nose dive for a spot 9.5 miles from the runway where there are no lights? The ridge they hit is 300 meters from the station (RNG VOR). My hunch is that they completely disregarded their fuel state, partly due to the distracting nature of the charter. How often was the captain leaving the flight deck to socialize in the back? Whatever he had been wrapped up in, he was not calm or setup for the approach. Instead of pitching for best glide, they dove for the deck. They could have squeezed out 10 minutes from FL210 when the lights went out. That's a ton of time to make life saving decisions.

Sim test: I tried the scenario w/ an ERJ-190 gear down at FL210 heading away from SKRG 15 miles to the south--made the runway, no problem. LaMia could have easily glided that distance and seen the runway. Even if they only made it halfway to the airport, there are flat open fields to ditch. People could have walked off that plane, at least the smart ones belted into their seats.

I'm left wondering if the pilots had clue one that they were in trouble. If I was in the right seat (or the jumpseat) I'd of been worrying about the fuel situation an hour prior. I would have been vocal about it. With 30 mins. left I'd of been pushing hard to land, and at 15 mins. I would have been freaked out and declaring an emergency. The closest I came to this scenario was a nasty winter storm at SFO. I was pressing ATC to let us land after being stuck in a +1 hour hold over Santa Cruz. The FO and I were discussing contingencies the entire time. When we approached 30 mins. of fuel left, I demanded immediate routing to San Jose. This got us clearance to SFO, but it still took 20 mins. to land and 10 mins. to taxi. I was worried that one of the engines might quit on the way to the gate, and how I'd explain myself. Anyway, the LaMia accident was totally survivable, even with fuel mismanagement and a dead stick landing.
fatespilot is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 12:00
  #443 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 54
Just goes to show that no matter what regulations are in place, if you want to fly responsibily it is up to your own individual will and preparation.

You can expect those you work with to be beset by the usual fear, arrogance, and lack of awareness that are quite normal even for highly trained people.

And if you want to feel comfortable declaring or surviving emergencies, you have to practice them again and again. Overtrain yourself and prepare for the worst. Then you can say you have done your job.
rideforever is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 12:21
  #444 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,546

Quote:
As one who has spent half their professional life working in South America, speaks fluent Spanish and Portuguese and had dealings with the civil aviation authorities in most of those countries, I will say only this:

1) Not all of the accidents which take place are investigated or reported officially. Example - the 'meat run' from Trinidad (Bolivia) to La Paz when there were many accidents, one of which I saw myself, but it was never formally reported.
2) Why were DC-3s allowed to take off from Villavicencio (Colombia) with their doors removed so that they could carry petrol drums? This happened in plain sight during the day - I saw it with my own eyes - and not just once.

I fully understand that breaches of the rules take place in other parts of the world too, but I speak only of what I know.
So lack of regulation then?
There is a great deal of naivete displayed in many postings in this thread.

Anybody who has lived or worked in South America will know that the culture is very different regarding rules and authority. In Europe, USA, etc. there is a (broad) adherence to rules and regulations, not so in much of the rest of the world.

From the facts known so far none of them are that surprising to anybody with experience of working in South America.
M.Mouse is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 12:27
  #445 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Italy
Age: 51
Posts: 35
There were 9 crew members, the two pilots, the lady pilot probably in the jumseat, the flight attendant who survived, the technician who survived but who were the other four? 5 flight attendants for a such flight? The news don't say a word about the other crew members... Just curious..
butterfly68 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 12:28
  #446 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by M.Mouse View Post
There is a great deal of naivete displayed in many postings in this thread.

Anybody who has lived or worked in South America will know that the culture is very different regarding rules and authority. In Europe, USA, etc. there is a (broad) adherence to rules and regulations, not so in much of the rest of the world.

From the facts known so far none of them are that surprising to anybody with experience of working in South America.
That was what I was alluding to in my earlier post Mickey.
ciderman is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 12:35
  #447 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,336
A friend of mine flew long haul for a major carrier. The chief pilot sent a note to all long haul captains that some were carrying excess fuel, and please to keep it down to no more than company recommendations. All but one did. The chief pilot had a quiet word with the chap who didn't, and thereafter he too followed the company line.

One day he arrived in the Heathrow vicinity from the US and was held. And held, to the point where he considered it wise to divert. He took his 747 to Birmingham.

On the ground he rang the chief pilot:

"Blogs here. I decided to take your advice regarding fuel and save the company the cost of tanking it around".

"Jolly good, very glad to hear it".

"Only problem is, as a result I'm at Birmingham instead of Heathrow. So we have several hundred pax to transport to Heathrow, and the aeroplane is out of position".

My friend wonders how much 'tanking' one would have to do to equal the cost to the airline of just that one diversion.
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 12:36
  #448 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Austria
Posts: 674
So how many slices of Emmenthal do we have here?
- Forcing an aircraft on a route not suitable for it instead of sensibly planning a fuel stop;
- planning a flight not only without any of the legal reserve but even intending to use every last drop of fuel in the tanks (END = EET) and hoping for the best;
- the dispatcher and ATC accepting this flight plan;
- the crew not keeping an eye on the fuel state enroute and not using the opportunity to refuel at some enroute alternate;
- not calling "minimum fuel" or fuel emergency at the appropriate point;
- even when being sent into the holding due to another priority traffic, not clearly communicating ones situation to the controller.

Any of these "holes", had it been plugged, would have caused this flight to land more or less normally without any newsworthy occurrence or even the loss of any life, albeit in breach of several volumes of aeronautical regulations. They would likely just have taken up a bit more than 1000 liters of fuel and departed at some point.

And finally:

- possibly becoming overwhelmed by the aircrafts logical and expectable reactions to the consecutive flameouts of all engines;

- losing situational awareness.

Without these two, the aircraft might or might not have cleared that ridge and ended up impacting a more survivable area.

The CVR transcript will likely be extremely enlightening to read; the CRM practiced in that flight deck may well be a case study on how not to run an airliner...
Tu.114 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 12:41
  #449 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: lisboa
Age: 44
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by barry lloyd View Post
maire paire:



As one who has spent half their professional life working in South America, speaks fluent Spanish and Portuguese and had dealings with the civil aviation authorities in most of those countries, I will say only this:

1) Not all of the accidents which take place are investigated or reported officially. Example - the 'meat run' from Trinidad (Bolivia) to La Paz when there were many accidents, one of which I saw myself, but it was never formally reported.
2) Why were DC-3s allowed to take off from Villavicencio (Colombia) with their doors removed so that they could carry petrol drums? This happened in plain sight during the day - I saw it with my own eyes - and not just once.

I fully understand that breaches of the rules take place in other parts of the world too, but I speak only of what I know.
Yes, but...
1. We are talking air transport operations only and
2. These accidents and incidents are all reported and investigated;
3. ICAO and IATA statistics show that the regional improvement in that aspect has been remarkable over the last few years. In line with, but better than, most of the world, I must add.

Last edited by marie paire; 2nd Dec 2016 at 12:44. Reason: Written twice ICAO iso ICAO & IATA
marie paire is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 12:49
  #450 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EGKH
Posts: 87
Doesn't change the outcome, or the issue of lack of go-juice, but regarding the loss of SA:

The plate posted at thread post #37 shows the hold with northern turn at D0.6 RNG QDM 006.

However the flightradar24 path (usual caveats about this data source) in post #62 shows the path occurring noticeably south of this point. Just visually comparing landmarks/towns on the maps, the position of the VOR shown in the link in post #193 and the flight path, it looks like the turn shown in the path was around 4.5nm south of the VOR.

The plate shows the glideslope intercept as being D4.5 RNG QDR 006.

Doesn't change anything, but could this be part of the mental mix-up that led to the dive to the VOR believing it to be the threshold.

PPL (non-ifr) only so apologies if terminology not quite right, but hopefully I've communicated the possible hic-up.

So something like this:
Attached Images
File Type: png
Medellin_Hold.png (351.2 KB, 170 views)

Last edited by Kolossi; 2nd Dec 2016 at 13:21. Reason: A picture paints a thousand words
Kolossi is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 12:53
  #451 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,510
we do get a regular personalised breakdown of how much "excess" fuel we decide to carry on each sector and whether it was actually used...

IMHO if any excess fuel was used it was because it was necessary and therefore not excess. I suspect you are referring to excess fuel above minimum FPL fuel. That calculation does not take into account non-ideal parameters such as weather, traffic flow, ATC/NAV facilities, etc. etc. I took 'extra' fuel as an insurance for some or all of these factors. I would not have been surprised to use some or all of it. It was for me the minimum required to do the job safely. There was none for Mum & the kids, it was all for me & the pax.
If it turned out to be an ideal day with no hiccups then my 'insurance' fuel stayed as an unpaid-out policy premium; but I landed relaxed and unstressed. There have been occasions where the policy paid out and it was still relaxed. That's what sensible insurance does for you.

Last edited by RAT 5; 2nd Dec 2016 at 13:35.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 12:56
  #452 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Easter Island
Posts: 15
Originally Posted by marie paire View Post
Yes, but...
1. We are talking air transport operations only and
2. These accidents and incidents are all reported and investigated;
3. ICAO and IATA statistics show that the regional improvement in that aspect has been remarkable over the last few years. In line with, but better than, most of the world, I must add.
Plenty of room for further improvement though........
Alas para Volar is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 12:58
  #453 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Southend-on-Sea
Posts: 7
The 9 consisted of Captain, 2 First Officers, 2 Cabin Crew, 2 Engineers and 2 company staff (a Pilot & Dispatcher).
ATL-98 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 13:06
  #454 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Italy
Age: 51
Posts: 35
Thank you ATL!
butterfly68 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 13:11
  #455 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,314
Originally Posted by neila83 View Post
No, I don't think planes crashing because they have run out of fuel is happening more often than the public thinks. As has already been pointed out this is in no way similar the the Virgin incident. Well except a plane was involved.

After the earlier post about Ryanair, where does all this nonsense come from? Ryanair were perfectly legal and as was even noted in the post diverted to 2 different airports and still landed safely. That's the difference between carrying enough fuel and not carrying enough fuel. This flight was actually planned - it's there on the plan - so that if a single nautical mile extra was required it couldn't make it. Consider that for a second.

I'd like to see the evidence for MH apparently routinely landing at LHR below legal minimums?
From PPRuNe http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...-fuel-lhr.html

Pilots forced to make emergency landings because of fuel shortages - Telegraph

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/ind...on-to-gatwick/

Considering the number of movements there are not a lot of landings on fumes - but it does happen. And as the original poster on this sub-subject said it may be more common than reported. In the spirit of ASRS these events should be anonymized and reported with reasons behind them so that the holes in the cheese can be closed.
Ian W is online now  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 13:23
  #456 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 439
Which countries military did he fly for , lots of talk of rules and regs from a cilvilian point of view . Does the military operate with 30 min fixed reserves ? Does military transports require an alt ? Would operating an A/C to its max endurance been seen as just operating to the edge of the envolope im his previous job ?
Toruk Macto is online now  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 13:24
  #457 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 69
Posts: 256
Avianca 52 was written off as pilot miscommunication and lack of assertiveness, but nobody said that calling a fuel emergency may be a career buster if you are a third world pilot flying into NY, because your airline will get blamed for not carrying enough fuel for unlimited holds and then headquarters gets on your case and your career goes xxx. Cultural issues cut both ways.

Edmund
edmundronald is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 13:27
  #458 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,974
It is becoming obvious that there was not nearly enough legal fuel on board for this flight. At least not legal to any known standards. What I am trying to understand though, is why the flight plan blatantly pointed this fact out: EET and Endurance both at 4h22m.

Was the PIC following some kind of accepted Bolivian charter procedure? 'Fill 'r up and good luck commandante, just annotate your endurance in both boxes so we know you are following your own on the spot fuel planning and we're off the hook'? Why else would you willingly tell ATC, CAA, the dispatchers, everyone that you do not have ANY legal reserves?
PENKO is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 13:29
  #459 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: lisboa
Age: 44
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by butterfly68 View Post
There were 9 crew members, the two pilots, the lady pilot probably in the jumseat, the flight attendant who survived, the technician who survived but who were the other four? 5 flight attendants for a such flight? The news don't say a word about the other crew members... Just curious..
A journalist and two football players. By the way, the dispatcher killed was the same person that insisted with the ARO lady that all was in order when she complained about the endurance. Also, most of those killed were members of the press.
marie paire is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 13:38
  #460 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,426
RAT5

I guess you're referring to my earlier post:

. I suspect you are referring to excess fuel above minimum FPL fuel. That calculation does not take into account non-ideal parameters such as weather, traffic flow, ATC/NAV facilities, etc. etc.
That's not what I meant, maybe it's semantics.

I think just like many operators my operators minimum FPL fuel includes a contingency amount (usually statistically based) amount to cater for exactly the sort of non-ideals you describe. If you go with our FPL fuel you already have contingency built in for the most common non-ideals. Any excess fuel loaded above our FPL fuel (e.g for really carp weather) is therefore contingency plus .....

In any event and to clarify another point I've never had a phone call, e-mail or conversation querying any excess I've ordered.

Last edited by wiggy; 2nd Dec 2016 at 14:00.
wiggy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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