BBC is now reporting that local farmers said it was on fire before it crashed. The crash site shows that the aircraft was out of control before impact due to the destruction.

Its still confusing at best.

The third picture from the bottom of swh's post shows the forward crash path. The only thing that went up in flames in that picture was the hydraulic fluid and engine oil, I suspect.

Eyewitness accounts of planes being on fire before impact are notoriously unreliable.

"On fire before impact" is probably the most common eyewitness error.

The other unfortunate thing about the pictures provided by swh is the fact that these pilots were clearly trying to manage a controlled crash landing in the dark. The rate of descent was obviously just too high, although the stricken plane's attitude appears to have been correct for a controlled crash landing.

They must have tried hard, poor devils.

Are there any pictures of the engines? I don't see them or their remains in any of the pictures.

Maybe the pictures don't show the entire crash site, but if they do the debris pile is not very long for something that was probably moving between 160 and 200 kts. they hit very hard.

What terrible pictures. I'm wondering if there's more of the vertical stab and tail structure than can be seen there. It appears almost as if it's 'sunk'.

Seems to be some confusion as to what the crew actually declared, in terms of engine trouble or control difficulties. It's frustrating to think that we're in an era of the internet and 24hr news coverage, where information is available so rapidly, and in such quantities, yet it's harder than ever to verify.

hmmmm. No fire - no fuel ? Seems a bit strange, given how much they should have had in the tanks. According to reports it was raining heavily at the time of the crash - can that be enough to prevent/extinguish a fire of a few tons of kerosene ? Also, Der Spiegel Online reports that a DHL freighter uplifted <quote> the same fuel<unquote> (if same batch or same bowser isn't specified) and flew To MIA w/o incident.

The terrible suspicion is there (with this incident as well as the ATR in Sicily) that with the huge increases in fuel prices, some low-life might have attempted to cash in.

Could someone have stolen fuel from the ground stocks and replaced the missing fuel with water? It would take only one error - a failure to do a proper water check on the fuel - and disaster would be almost inevitable.

Apart from icing, (unlikely in both cases), I can't for the life of me think of a more probable reason for two engines to flame outin quick succession at altitude than contaminated fuel.

Looks like they were trying to divert into Campo Bernal / ARICUASIA (military?) R25/07 which is 7086 feet long judging from http://www.rescate.com/HK-4374X.html and http://www.fallingrain.com/apts/9845.html

impact point not far off.

punkalouver,
No, this statement is not true and the official accident report can confirm it.

Wiley, in the good old days of Flight Engineers, no fuel uplift receipt was ever signed without sighting the water detection capsule from the refuelling agent, although there is one documented accident involving a 707 in India that was refuelled with water, a long time ago. If the fuel on this aircraft was contaminated, they would have flamed out long before it happened.

Water in fuel. Now that be a bad one. Hard to detect if it is all water in the bowser, can't tell the difference during a night time stop.

AD

Pictures show lots of fire signs on the left, none on the right. Crossfeed problems? Fuel leak?

But surely even if the fuel was contaminated with water, it would be obviouse one a fuel check?

And if it was all water, the engines wouldnt have spooled in the first place. When checking fuel it is also wise to sniff, if it doesnt smell right, it cant really be right can it!

Tie this all together - there's not much new under the sun
 

BBC is now reporting that local farmers said it was on fire before it crashed. <<<"It was at 3 a.m., and the plane was coming in with fire coming off the right side," a farmer, Yoel González, told Globovisión television">>>

"It's not unusual to lose one engine. It is unusual to lose both," Goelz said. Peter Goelz is a former managing director of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board,

However, Applying Occam's Razor

There are distinct similarities to G-OBME at Kegworth (British Midland 737 crew were fooled by both the two engine vibration meters being offset to the right of the center console and mistakenly shut down the RH engine (left one having spat some hot end blades and its problems were obvious to pax and cabin crew). Unfortunately the back end said nothing - even after the crew announced that they'd shut down the RH engine.

The LH engine behaved itself at idle until they needed power after their idle power-off descent to Midland airport - and failed as they reapplied power during dirty-up for landing. They hit a 60 degree embankment alongside the A1 motorway, just short of the runway.

Re-apply power to an idled (but failed/failing) engine with problems and it will then fail with fireworks and give every indication to a ground observer of "being on fire"

UNC

Surely, you can't be serious?!

4SPOOLED, you'd be advised not to quote this if you ever apply for an airline flying job!:rolleyes:

punkalouver,

Sgt Pepper's correct. The basic error was having set the course to 270 instead of 027. The glide down, with some flap (don't recall how much) was at 170 knots and 1,000fpm and they hit the trees in the flare at 130knots and 800fpm.

Once again, can I ask that the enthusiasts limit their speculation to questions rather than making assumptions about things like water in the fuel. Testing for water in JetA is not the same as draining a bit off in a light aircraft and sniffing it. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't wanna fly under those guidelines !!! :eek: :confused:

sink rate
 

if engines flame out, final approach speed should be much higher than 130kt as sink rate would be too high??

Combination of heavy rain and high speed could have extinguished the fire??