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 27th Dec 2016, 16:06
  #1021 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Anyone who blames the recipient of the IFR flight plan, for this accident, is an idiot.
AtomKraft is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 16:06
  #1022 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,907
A clearer understanding of what happened does not mean that all of the safety lessons have been identified.
Consider:- "the first officer and observer repeatedly calculated the fuel and considered a fuel stop in Leticia but did not follow up"
What was discussed, decided, and why. What were the calculations based on, gauge, fuel used, GNS/FMS.
Distance remaining, ground speed, wind, fuel flow; consider the fuel display switching between contents and fuel used, hold-on button or cyclic selection, seven segment digital display format ...

and:- "an alarm if the fuel remaining was no longer sufficient for more than 20 minutes of flight, however, this system did not activate."
Why didn't the warning system activate (two or four feed tanks, two or more separate alerts?), system failure, or was there something in the tank, what ...

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9613312
safetypee is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 17:44
  #1023 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 179
ATC Watcher, perhaps you would advise how you know Celia and the atco did not have authority to prevent aircraft from departing. From Motomendes posts 1019 and1022 it is clear that both Colombia and Bolivia government officials believed that they did and I think they would know more about such matters than yourself.
portmanteau is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 18:17
  #1024 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,655
portmanteau :
I think they would know more about such matters than yourself.
To be honest with you I doubt they do. These statements look to me as just face saving exercises to hide their own regulatory shortcomings.
Unless Bolivia filed a difference with ICAO on Flight plan handling (mind you they might, I have no real wish to spend the time looking for it) under normal worldwide accepted standards, an ARO cannot refuse to transmit a PLN based on EET/Endurance figures.
Responsibility for filing those values and signing for it are the Pilot in Command and him alone.
As to the TWR Controller he would not know since those details are not part of ATC flight plan processing. End of story.

Explained already before .
Do not take for granted everything that "officials" are saying.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 20:09
  #1025 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mexico
Posts: 21
I'm pretty disappointed that in the "preliminary report" video of the Colombian Aerocivíl they were pointing at her direction as well.
Mora34 is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 21:21
  #1026 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 242
Another irregularity found is that the plane was allegedly not certified to fly above 29,000 feet, and in the flight plan submitted to Bolivia it was noted that it would fly at 30,000 feet. Approval of this flight plan, therefore, was not correct, Bonilla said.
I'm confused. In the FPL copy we've seen in the media such as here the cruising level is entered as F280. No mention of 30,000 feet.
snowfalcon2 is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 22:10
  #1027 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,026
Originally Posted by snowfalcon2 View Post
I'm confused. In the FPL copy we've seen in the media such as here the cruising level is entered as F280. No mention of 30,000 feet.
Correct. FL300 was the actual cruising level for at least part of the flight, whereas the flightplan showed FL280.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 22:18
  #1028 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,425
Not that the RFL (Requested Flight Level) has any bearing on this. Aircraft will fly at levels other than their original requested level for numerous reasons, such as weather avoidance, ATC initiated level changes due to conflicting traffic, avoiding areas of turbulence etc.
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 22:47
  #1029 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,026
Another irregularity found is that the plane was allegedly not certified to fly above 29,000 feet
What's the source for that assertion?

The Type Certificate makes no mention of a 29,000 ft limitation.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 22:54
  #1030 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: here and there
Age: 65
Posts: 72
FL300 is RVSM level for which they had no cert (in AOC OPS SPECS) according to Colombians.
vmandr is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 22:58
  #1031 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Oxford
Age: 45
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by safetypee View Post
A clearer understanding of what happened does not mean that all of the safety lessons have been identified.
Consider:- "the first officer and observer repeatedly calculated the fuel and considered a fuel stop in Leticia but did not follow up"
What was discussed, decided, and why. What were the calculations based on, gauge, fuel used, GNS/FMS.
Distance remaining, ground speed, wind, fuel flow; consider the fuel display switching between contents and fuel used, hold-on button or cyclic selection, seven segment digital display format ...

and:- "an alarm if the fuel remaining was no longer sufficient for more than 20 minutes of flight, however, this system did not activate."
Why didn't the warning system activate (two or four feed tanks, two or more separate alerts?), system failure, or was there something in the tank, what ...

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9613312
Don't know what were the calculations based on, but according to th preliminary report press
conference statement, the PIC concludes that they would need to make as fuel efficient approach as possible.

On the fuel alarm, that is a misreporting. It did go off according to the FDR.
The mis-report may come from the wording. What is said in the press conference is that the alarm had NOT gone off by the time Bogota control handed over the flight to Medellín control (21 minutes before the crash), but that it did go off 2 minutes after that, so 19 mins before the crash.
condorox is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 23:00
  #1032 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,425
Well, they would have been cleared to FL300 by ATC. Still has no real direct bearing on the accident itself though.
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 23:07
  #1033 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,026
Originally Posted by vmandr View Post
FL300 is RVSM level for which they had no cert (in AOC OPS SPECS) according to Colombians.
True, but that's a clearance issue, nothing to do with aircraft certification.

According to the TC, the aircraft would have been certificated for a maximum altitude of between 31,000 and 35,000 ft, depending on mod state. I can't find a 29,000 ft certification limit anywhere.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 23:13
  #1034 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: here and there
Age: 65
Posts: 72
Dave

what I meant is in the Ops Specs of an AOC it is defined whether they are MNPS, RNP, RVSM, ILS CAT II etc certificated, and apparently there was no RVSM authorization by the state issuing the AOC. so after FL280 next level is FL310 and after FL290 next is FL330 (semi-circ rule).

so by entering 'W' in item 10, of ICAO FPL they -falsely- declared to ATC they were RVSM certificated, so ATC granted the request for FL300.

Last edited by vmandr; 27th Dec 2016 at 23:29. Reason: typos, icao fpl
vmandr is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 23:37
  #1035 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Overweight, crew were aware of the fuel situation, discussed two refuelling stops, and didn't advise ATC even with two engines out.
As stated by many of us this "accident' was clearly a result of a macho, rule-averse crew working in an inadequately regulated and nepotistic environment who lacked the "professionalism" (lower case intended) or judgement to even declare their error when it must have been clear that it was of fatal proportions.

As the engines began to fail they clearly had the altitude to glide directly to the field yet declined to do so, preferring to pursue a fatal 3-dimensional flight pattern that saw them squander their glide range immediately in a max-drag descent that ate up no distance to home in order to capture an utterly inappropriate glideslope that was clearly only attainable to a powered aircraft, but not a glider.

With all the pre-flight showboating, big I AM pics, and load of high-level high-living pax could they have been partaking too much of the cabin fever that surrounds such prima-donnae - Peruvian Marching Powder perhaps? I can't think of anything else that would make sense in this most senseless of crashes.

How else can you rationalise deliberately flying beyond your available range, deliberately passing en route fuel stops, deliberately arriving at destination with a fraction of required fuel, deliberately going into a hold and saying nothing, losing engines due to fuel starvation and STILL saying nothing...

They clearly weren't in their right minds. Given the nature of the pax perhaps recreational pharmaceuticals played a part?

Last edited by noflynomore; 28th Dec 2016 at 13:23.
noflynomore is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 09:45
  #1036 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 179
noflynomore, but was it "the crew" or all down to just the captain? The description by Colombia Civav of the discussions around fuel do not indicate whether there was collusion or argument at any point. Yes we know that aviation accident reports are not concerned with apportioning blame so it is to be hoped that someone in the blame department will make clear one day who, if any, of the crew, can be exonerated from it. This is surely required out of respect for the dead and the comfort of their families.
portmanteau is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 11:13
  #1037 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Shisha bar near Deira clock tower
Posts: 9
Confirmation that Bolivia's airport administrator, AASANA, refused Colombian investigators access to the recordings of communications between tower and pilot during takeoff.

Caso LaMia: Colombia revela graves anomalías en Bolivia | Erbol Digital
MotoMendez is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 12:38
  #1038 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: directly below the zenith
Posts: 45
"They clearly weren't in their right minds."

You are of course correct. However, that is not necessarily the result of the mind-altering substances. The pattern of miscalculation and escalation throughout this tragedy also fits known sociopathic behavioural traits. The constant raising of the stakes when facing diminishing returns, ever greater risk taking in order to hide a dishonest act, is a common occurrence in certain personality profiles.

The total lack of regard for professional, moral and legal standards displayed by this skipper is a telltale sign, as is his de facto criminal attitude towards the safety of all those aboard.

I'm willing to bet that learning about his dealings with close associates will make for some very interesting reading indeed. But, for that reason, I think it unlikely we ever will.

IMHO
deadheader is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 14:04
  #1039 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 179
21 page preliminary report in english at aerocivil.gov.co/aeronautica civil/accidentes 2016 .Report has been added to the list someone mentioned earlier. some surprises in there, including cvr stopped 01hrs:45 mins before crash. No loadsheet located yet. etc

Last edited by portmanteau; 28th Dec 2016 at 14:11. Reason: address
portmanteau is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 14:28
  #1040 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 59
Direct working link to the report, in English

http://www.aerocivil.gov.co/autorida...SION.pdf?Web=1
Snyggapa 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.