Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Puerto Carreno cargo 722 crash

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Puerto Carreno cargo 722 crash

Old 22nd Dec 2016, 08:27
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Knowing they had a heavy load and that the weights on paper may be a work of fiction, I can't fault the pilot for using every last inch of the available runway to get as much speed as possible before pulling back on the stick..
- Especially with an 8-knot tailwind, as was posted earlier. Why didn't they backtrack? Wouldn't you, if you were full to the gunnels, suspected the load sheet may be 'optimistic', and knew you'd require every foot of tarmac available to you?
Iron Duck is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 08:44
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
- Especially with an 8-knot tailwind, as was posted earlier. Why didn't they backtrack? Wouldn't you, if you were full to the gunnels, suspected the load sheet may be 'optimistic', and knew you'd require every foot of tarmac available to you?
If you look at the airport layout, you'll see that they needed to backtrack anyway, even if they took off in the opposite direction. (i.e. With a headwind) So in principle, you have a valid point.
BUT.....
Taking off towards the northeast means that you will overfly the city, instead of flat rural terrain. And that would not be possible, as they would not have enough height to clear all the roofs.
They would have ploughed through Mainstreet.
From this set of circumstances I would conclude that this "operator" knew what they were doing, and that they were cutting corners in a big way.
Despite the tailwind, they departed toward the southwest. They needed the clear flyout space without obstacles, so that the ground effect would help them. They did this before several times and knew what was needed to get away with it.
fox niner is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 09:07
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Despite the tailwind, they departed toward the southwest. They needed the clear flyout space without obstacles, so that the ground effect would help them. They did this before several times and knew what was needed to get away with it.
I hadn't looked at the layout. I take your point. A pity the fence, building and tree were there, eh? Without them they'd have had a clear mile of flat for the ground effect to do its work.

So the modus operandi seemed to be all takeoffs to the south west, rotate at Vmu, hop over the fence and obstacle whilst whipping the gear up pronto, and then accelerate in ground effect before climbing away.

Yeah, that'll work.
Iron Duck is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 09:16
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Taking off towards the northeast means that you will overfly the city, instead of flat rural terrain. And that would not be possible, as they would not have enough height to clear all the roofs.
They would have ploughed through Mainstreet.
From this set of circumstances I would conclude that this "operator" knew what they were doing, and that they were cutting corners in a big way.
And, it occurs to me, so might have ATC. Was the downwind takeoff queried? Was the reciprocal runway offered and declined? If so, what reason was given? Has anyone found an ATC recording?
Iron Duck is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 09:25
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: AKL
Age: 50
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Must be an unattended airfield as any responsible ATC controller would have created paperwork the first time this 727 nearly took out their fence.
Homebrew1 is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 10:23
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From this set of circumstances I would conclude that this "operator" knew what they were doing, and that they were cutting corners in a big way.

Not pre-judging, but if true the trend is scary. There is the RJ85 crash by Lamia in Columbia. The crew seems to have taken a life threatening risk deliberately. Here too the same speculation. What has happened to our self-preservation? Where are these suicidal pressures coming from? How many others are there out there who are unheard of because they 'just got away with it?'

Last edited by RAT 5; 22nd Dec 2016 at 10:37.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 10:37
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Agree RAT 5 (see my post#43). I don't get it
22/04 is online now  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 10:58
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From the widely expressed amazement, disbelief, indignation and wild excuses posted here I get the impression that aviation in the western world, where most of out posters come from, has so long been so regulated and constrained that large numbers of those "associated" with it have lost sight of the fact that elsewhere, aviation may be largely unregulated to any meaningful degree and operates on a similar ethos to a local trucking company. In addition these regions are nowhere near so anal and fanatical about safety to the n'th degree, or of unquestioning adherence to rules to the n'th degree as we are.

S America is the focus for this at present but Africa is right up there too, as are parts of SE Asia - Indonesia for example where accident rates are so horrific that whole nations are banned from ops into Europe and N America.

These places often take detail like MAUW or min fuel as just that, a detail, a number in a manual. They know they can take 20, 30% more cargo or 10% less fuel and still fly so they do, secure in the knowledge that no Flt Ops Inspector is going to scrutinise every single loadsheet and fuel plan, or if one tried he could be induced not to.

This latest accident appears, from youtube postings , to have been part of a habitual behaviour by the operator and we know the previous accident at Medellin was too. Habitual gross abuse of limitations is rife in many parts of the world and is not entirely unknown in the West, it's just much rarer there.

Cries of "but surely no professional pilot would..." or that "ATC would have ..." are indicative of a narrow and on occasion surprisingly naiive perspective on a global industry and do not reflect the reality of aviation, particularly cargo aviation across much of the world.

Last edited by noflynomore; 22nd Dec 2016 at 13:08.
noflynomore is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 11:07
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Trucking companies are quite regulated here too- tachographs duty hours, being pulled over for weighbridge checks!!

But it is the risk of loss of life and lack of a sense of duty of care that shocks me. Maybe human nature is less considerate and kind than I thought.

Last edited by 22/04; 22nd Dec 2016 at 11:36.
22/04 is online now  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 12:07
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting take on operations in said part of the world & understanding. A while ago my company undertook a wet lease. On inspection of the airfield it was apparent that some rather tall trees at the end of the runway had to be loped to enable operations. So you say, well the company who wet leased us in also operated the same type wrote to Boeing and complained/questioned why we were taking obticals into our performance calculations.
IcePack is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 12:55
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: europe
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Completely agree with flynomore.

The guys flying the aircraft would have been greatful for the job, probably as posted above if it was there only one aircraft flying, there was more pressure as there would have other pilots wanting to work.

Try getting another job as 727 captain or flight engineer, virtual impossible! the FO may have just been hour building and grown up in this dangerous culture thinking this kind of departure was sort of ok.

I'm not in anyway trying to excuse the crews actions but I hope the owner of this company sees Christmas from the inside of a jail cell.

Aviation like the sea is incredibly unforgiving, take note and never disrespect it!!
Enos is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 13:23
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Try getting another job as 727 captain or flight engineer, virtually impossible! The FO may have just been hour building and grown up in this dangerous culture thinking this kind of departure was sort of ok.
Not having a dig at you at all Enos, but this line is a perfect example that illustrates the Western take on all this.
The line suggests that the crew were only doing this sort of thing unwillingly in order to hold down a precious job or pay back a loan, and that they realised they were doing serious wrong.

My take is that in these places they don't consider what they are doing as worthy of comment, this is just the way it has always been done and they may even revel in the idea of being somewhat contrary to the manuals written by those American pussies. 5% reserve fuel indeed! What a crazy waste of payload! Look at the posing and smug self-satisfaction on the steps by the Aerosucre Capt who had just done that extraordinary gear-down flyby on an earlier youtube link. The message seemed to be "Hey! Look at me! Good pilot eh? Well, I know I am!". Too much military and esp. fighter pilot style bravado altogether for my taste.
Many if not more of these guys operate this way because / it is the way it's done / they enjoy it / it's exciting / who says it's dangerous, it's worked for years / the boss likes me if I do / it shown I'm a Man etc. It's a cultural thing. The Western obsession for the sanctity of life is just that, a Western obsession and life is treated much differently in other places. As to duty of care, that is a comparatively modern and largely politically (in)correct construct and likely to be all but absent in less constrained parts of the world - ie simply not present for consideration. (See ATC objecting - leaving a stone hut in the overrun etc)

Assuming they do it unwillingly through coercion may sometimes be true but I suspect the above is more the norm. They'd probably be laughing uproariously if they could read this thread. Just like the US pilot I once had the misfortune to work with who publicly poured scorn on me for weighing cargo - "If you can shut the door it'll fly! If the tail scrapes take a bit off!" But then he regularly flew 30 -40% more payload than I did and that made me a real waste of space in his eyes. His attitude was,"They're just numbers in a book, are you a pussy or a pilot?". I told him which, and also what I thought he was but he wouldn't see he was doing anything "wrong", let alone to be called that!

That's what we're dealing with here, imho.

Last edited by noflynomore; 22nd Dec 2016 at 13:43.
noflynomore is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 13:30
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,872
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 22/04 View Post
Trucking companies are quite regulated here too- tachographs duty hours, being pulled over for weighbridge checks!!

But it is the risk of loss of life and lack of a sense of duty of care that shocks me. Maybe human nature is less considerate and kind than I thought.
Normalization of deviance perhaps, with a dose of risk desensitisation.

You do something with an increased risk associated with it and it works, nothing bad happens. So you do it again. And again it works and nothing bad happens. Over time the non-normal becomes normal and you lose sight of the increased risk. Eventually you get bitten.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 13:48
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
noflynomore is correct. It is a way of life in many of these countries. These companies and their staff survive on scraps and taking risks is part and parcel of the job.
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 14:15
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But then he regularly flew 30 -40% more payload than I did and that made me a real waste of space in his eyes. His attitude was,"They're just numbers in a book, are you a pussy or a pilot?"

I can see how this, in an unregulated environment, might be not uncommon. I suspect there are many companies whose CP is also a share holder. In EU we make takeoff calc's often based on an engine failure in a twin = 50% of energy gone. In some parts, the RTOW concept, based on many parameters, may not be the norm. I suspect, especially in the freight business, the loading is done with a finger in the wind and a look at the oleos; a sniff at the wind direction and a sniff at the pressure. Let's not even think about D.Alt. Then it's full blast. The thinking being when was the last time there was a 50% loss of thrust. Therefore the risk is minute and 'it'll be OK on the day.' The cost of leaving x000's kgs on the beach might be win or lose to some guys.
I guess it gets a bit like here in EU with LoCo's & nationals. Everyone now charges for baggage & credit cards. Why? because someone started it and to be competitive they all have to do it. That and all the other turd stuff that has crept into our world.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 14:53
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting how many are considering this to be a 3rd/ undeveloped world problem. Noflynomore is much closer to the mark - think Col. Bud Holland/ B52 and the " we've done it before and it was OK" attitude ... in the REGULATED environment of a 1st world MILITARY organisation, Cowboys exist everywhere in aviation. They shouldn't, but they surely do!!
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 15:02
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: South Alabama
Age: 72
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lots of unknowns

It is not known yet what the cargo or fuel loads really were.

There was an earlier post, which has disappeared, which said they had 19,000 kgs of fish onboard.

It was also mentioned that flight plan time was for about an hour.

A SWAG for fuel would be 9,000 kgs (or less) for a 1 hour flight with reserves.

Therefore, if the plane still weighed 94,237 lbs, and there was 62,000 lbs of freight and fuel, their TO weight might have been 156,237. (probably optimistic)

Does anyone now have runway requirements based on these weights and the known temps and winds?
Old Boeing Driver is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 15:39
  #78 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 72
Posts: 3,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What flynomore has explained is basically what I witnessed some years ago when I was jumseating around with similar cargo outfits. I do not expect the situation to have changed much , possibly even deteriorated due economic situation in some places , looking at Venezuela today.

Somethinge esle : aterpster : thanks for the map. I did not realize that the border with Venezuela was co close to the airport. That could ( emphases " could") perhaps explain why runway 24 was used even with tailwind, to avoid overflying Venezuela, (flight plan , possibly route charges, etc..) It was a domestic flight . I've seen this done in other places.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 16:01
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It seems because of the state border there was no option for using another course for takeoff.
Kulverstukas is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 16:39
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7SlMqH6MYc

Not sure this video has been posted before but it appears to show a "normal take off" in conditions similar to yesterday on runway 24.

Note the tailwind but also that there appears to be a downslope for much of the runway; a 07 take off would have been uphill towards rising ground - not a good option.

Note also the powerback as it lines up; is this because of insufficient room to line up or an attempt to use every inch of available runway.
22/04 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.