Just one question with regards to flight planning on the Avro.

On many types, it is possible to plan a flight with different cost indices in order to minimize either flight time or fuel consumption. Would it be possible, practical or even required on the RJ85 to plan such a long flight at C/I 0 instead of possibly more typical higher values? If so, what would be the difference in fuel burn on such a route?

There aren't a lot of flight planning options for the 146 series.

In nil wind and ISA conditions, performance manual figures for 1620 NM at FL300 is:

8650 kg @ M0.70 and 8270 kg @ long range cruise (235 KIAS)

Start up / taxi and approach fuel has to be added, probably another 350 kg or so.

What were the enroute wind conditions? A good tailwind could make it doable depending on the reserve requirements.

I assume that 1620nm is total range before tanks empty? So for example In still air you could not fly a trip length of 1650 miles because of the need for reserve and alternate fuel ? Medelin doesn't satisfy the requirements to have no alternates so there must have been one... fuel has played some part In this for sure

1650 NM would leave a little in the tanks. Not enough for normal reserves though.

If the great circle distance was 1605nm they sure as **** flew more.

Joe, not trying to be funny, but.
There are two occasions when you absolutely know how much is in the tanks. One of those is when they are full. If you have fuel flow and fuel used indicators I'd say you are good to go. If the 146 MEL forbids that, that's one thing. Boeing says crack on.
I bet there were some tense exchanges of words among the engineers, either before or after you went...

Magplug: I just tried to buy a ticket online from Santa-Cruz (VVI) to Medellin (MDE). A couple of search sites tell me there are no direct flights, you can only go via Panama or Bogata with Copa/Avianca.
@Del Prado... As any aviation professional will tell you... A scheduled route must undergo a regulator's licensing process with a route proving flight to demonstrate the suitability of the aircraft, crew and all support facilities before the licence is granted. An ad-hoc charter will NOT have been subject to this oversight.

Magplug: Time to start arresting Lamia executives for questioning as to why this charter was planned.... Greed? Football cudos? The aircraft has a Bolivian registration... Which government Flight Ops inspector had oversight of this company... add him to the list for questioning!

@Del Prado... You clearly have never operated outside the comfort of the civilised world. Outside Western Europe and N.America it is usual practice to throw anyone left standing after a crash into jail.... and then start asking questions afterwards. Local officials are far more mindful of public opinion than they are respectful of due process.

I'd go with that 100%

Jeeez... More distractions... this just gets worse & worse.

If the LAMIA thought he could 'just make it with the fuel' this may well have sealed their fate. Anyone flying this close to fuel margins has no place in our business.

For what it is worth, a no explosion on impact, the 146, a relatively safe machine, ran out of fuel, or faulty fuel gauges (as with Alidair Viscount 700, in 1979) showing incorrect readings?? - witnesses saw it pass overhead with no engines turning ? maybe they cut it too fine circling around ? so sad. Having worked for VARIG, I know how this will affect Brazilian Football, and globally, so very sad R.I.P to all young and old lives lost in a preventable accident.

MEL only allows one u/s flight deck wing tank gauge. If both gauges were obviously over reading then I don't think you could apply the MEL. If it was just one, then MEL the affected gauge and you are good to go, technically.

Are you sure it didn't have pannier tanks which would have taken the capacity up to 10,298kgs?

All very tragic.

I understand the accident will be the lead item on today's Jeremy Vine show at noon on Radio 2. I wonder what 'experts' they'll wheel out to add their theories?

Just a thought, it has been mentioned that 4 people didn't travel hence the difference in quoted POB originally. Is it possible that these weren't allowed to board due to weight/endurance limitations? Hence they already knew they were flying close to limitations of the Aircrafts range?

One of them didn't travel as he had forgotten his passport:

Son of Chapecoense coach missed Colombia flight because he forgot his passport | The Independent

The airline is the airline of choice for South American football clubs.

I found this article rather interesting regarding the airlines misterious past.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/panampost.com/sabrina-martin/2016/11/29/chavismo-corruption-dark-past-lamia-airlines/amp/?client=ms-android-optus-au

Owner and PIC; LAMIA is a play on words in Spanish with several meanings some very naughty and yes, the 146 needs a lot of juice especially in low holding patterns and such.

This problem is not apparent on the LF507 with the heated supercharger inlet vanes and few other things. That incident was ages ago on pre-mod ALF502's

The Viva Colombia flight from Bogota to San Andres diverted to Medellin due to 'an indication in the cabin' (warning?) that caused the captain to decide to make a precautionary landing in Medellin. "It is important to clarify that the aircraft did not declare an emergency and followed all the procedures authorised, approved and indicated by the control tower"

I have not seen this mentioned above: The football club had chartered LAMIA to fly them directly from Brasil to Medellin, but the Brazilian CAA prohibited the flight, because the rules require that charter flights are done by companies registered in either the country of departure or arrival. So the team flew to Santa Cruz in Bolivia by scheduled airliner and boarded the Bolivian charter there.

Here is a link to the report from the Avianca pilot regarding the supposed ATC conversations. It is in Spanish so I'm unable to translate it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xomwSg4UCsc

Alas,

You bring up a very salient point. PIC may have indeed felt pressure to do the charter, and pride or hubris led to bad decisions. I believe similar pressures ultimately led to the crash of a plane-load of Polish VIPs on their way to a ceremony in Russia a few years back.

evansb - there is no RAT installed on the aircraft.

From what I understand, once the generators (engines #1 and #4) are lost, there is significant loss of electrical power in the aircraft.

It is equipped with hydraulic generators, but obviously that entails the operation of #2 & #3.

Didn't someone post a fuel diagram for the aircraft? I'm curious if the fuel / lifter pumps feed multiple engines, or if it's possible that they'd lose one engine first, then the others later.

If all were lost in the span of a minute or so, you'd revert straight to essential power (skip right over "emergency" power or whatever the backup hyd. generator level of power is called).

Battery = very few instruments. At night in IMC, AND in mountainous terrain, that is NOT an approach I'd want to fly blind.

The (apparent) series of events, with the crew calling out "we have a fuel PROBLEM" and requesting immediate vectors, followed almost immediately by the crew saying they have "an electrical failure" seems just... too much to ignore.

This is all speculation of course, for conversation sake - so I realize that, I'm just running through potential ideas that check all the boxes we see here.

The lack of rotational engine damage, lack of post-crash fire, ATC comm of "fuel problem" and the lack of any alternate / reserve fuel capacity based on the range and performance data for the flight/equipment, is a significant amount of information considering it only being a couple days post crash.


Just for the sake of argument here - if an aircraft were to run dry, with almost immediate loss of all but critical flight instruments (already a scenario for which a small charter company almost CERTAINLY doesn't train pilots for, considering it's almost unheard of at higher levels as well) what would be the odds of a crew being able to handle those failures, and maintain control (with almost dark cockpit) in IMC at night, then also continue to a successful approach in difficult terrain?
Just seems like once they lost the engines (in said hypothetical situation) it was all over - almost regardless of skill level.

Wasn't it mentioned above that ATC was unable to provide vectors as well, at the end / lower altitudes at least? With nothing but a compass and base instruments.. no thanks. :(

What's the deal with this crew running the charts and paperwork and skipping right over the reserves / alternate and just saying "ehh, 'f it" - how much pressure do you think the company had on these guys?

From wiki, it seems that was the ONLY active aircraft they operated - the other 3 RJ's are in storage / retired, and their only ATR is in operation with another company.

So does it seem the Pic as owner, flew knowingly right to the limits of fuel reserve (I presume this to be illegal) after cancelling a scheduled fuel stop?

Would he be motivated to do that to save money? For ex) if cost of fuel stop was built into the charter price?

Especially if he'd managed the trip successfully a couple of prior times?

What is clear and doesn't need the results of any investigation is if somebody applied for approval to operate that route as a scheduled airline using an RJ85 there would only be two potential outcomes ... 1. Turned down flat 2. Approved but with such onerous operational restrictions (or expensive mods to fit extra tanks etc) that it would be commercially unworkable.

Where does this 'cancelled fuel stop' story come from? I see no mention of it in the Colombian press.

You'd think the flight plan straight to Medellin might not be accepted by the AC flight computer? Perhaps RJ experts would know.
Though if he filed a plan through Bogota I suppose all would be ok?

Just a question, not an assertion at anything. I wonder what the flight currency was of the owner, both a/c & sim. I've flown for major EU airlines where the CP was so busy he didn't fly and even lost his LPC. He then renewed it and went to Seattle to collect the 1st of a new variant and ferry it back. In other airlines the office jocks would do a short out/back once a month to keep current and be in the office mid-morning. It would not be the the first time a prestigious charter popped up and someone hi-up pulled rank to operate it. If everything goes fine it's fine; if the a/c starts to play up technically, or if mother nature + ATC throws a spanner in the works, lack of familiarity can be a factor in decision making, or lack of.
Just a question to those who know.

Hi
Sorry my poor english, but there is a summarized translation for the copilot of AVA9256, that its on the same frecuency of the plane crashed.
-Look, the thing was...When we are on approach, the tower send us on hold pattern with fl210, because other plane has declared emergency (fuel leak), when we reach a fl, the tower send us for 190, at this time, the RJ 85 its above on us, on holding pattern to.
-Suddenly the crew of RJ tell to the flight controller (a lady): "...Flight **** requesting priority to land, we have fuel issues, requesting priority to localizer..."

- At this time my commander tell me: ".. if he was out of fuel, why no declare an emergency?.." At this moment the RJ pilot dont declare any emergency.

-The flight controller inform to RJ pilot, that was a other plane on emergency land on progress.

- The RJ Pilot tell again to flight controller "Fuel issues" and begin to descend almost immediately, whithout any clearance from the tower.

-We saw the other plane descend at our left at high speed, at this moment the flight controller gave us vectors to make distance for the RJ.

-While RJ descends the pilot declare an Emergency , because of fuel. Begin to scream " Mayday Mayday requesting vectors for localizer" The FC gave vectors and ask the RJ the type of emergency, the crew responds " Now we have full electrical failure, vectors to find the runaway" .

The the FC say: "No contact radar".

The RJ answer "Help us , vectors to runaway please... (desesperate voice of crew)",
At the same time we hear the commander Screaming ".. landing gear down ...", Help us , vectors to runaway please... (desesperate voice of crew)"

We are on silent, a few seconds later the FC tells to RJ : " You are on Radial 180 from the RNW with 9000´ and 8 miles" .
This is the place of VOR i remember ...pushing for then and say to myself GO Go Go...
And they are on VOR Whith 9000´... They are going to crash ...on radio still the RJ : "Help us , vectors to runaway please... (desesperate voice of crew)"...
After this.. Silent...
-* The FC continue to call the RJ whitout answer and we start to cry... and continue flight and land...

- All the time tower continue to call the RJ whitout answer and we heared the crash... on the radio com....



Soory again for my english.

The plane struck a mountain at no more than 200 mts for the VOR ...

If CP-2933 had originally filed for a Bogota fuel+go and then re-filed in flight for Medallin then we would have heard about it by now. He may have used Bogota as as an en-route alternate in order to reduce his contingency fuel on a single flight plan but it is so close to destination as to be of no saving.... In any case that presumes they adhered to some sort of fuel policy... which looks rather unlikely!

From elche's link above LaMia Airlines the Panama Post alleges that there is dirty money and shady political dealings behind this operation.

It seems strange therefore that they are apparently the airline of choice for several South American soccer teams. In my experience Soccer teams don't usually need to buy cheap... so one might assume the airline is either particularly well connected in the VIP market, or they are #1 choice for some other reason. We understand the crew complement was 9, that's 2 pilots and 7 cabin crew on an aircraft that normally operates with only 2 or 3 cabin crew. Why so many? You might say this is a VIP operation but 4 or 5 would be overdoing it for VIPs.... but 7 for a pax load of 85 ???

What sort of party bus is this exactly ?

Smott, re submitted flight plans: During my ATPL theory studies, our instructor (an MD-80 professional pilot) explained a "trick" to deal with marginal fuel/range: For a trip from A to B that passes C along the way, file A to C with B as alternate. When approaching C, if weather at B ok and fuel status good, i.e. contingency not consumed, declare "go to alternate". With this trick, he could use the alternate fuel to "extend" his legal range, of course at the expense of reduced options once at B...

Edit: Magplug beat me to it.

I've found the link that was posted by Flyguy2006 in message #145 very interesting. I'm not a native speaker, but after listening to it a couple of times I think I got most of it. Seems like this statement is made by an Avianca pilot supposedly av9771. He describes that they were instructed to enter a holding pattern due to the viva colombia flight carrying out an emergency landing due to a (suspected) fuel leak. They initially entered the holding at 21.000ft and then descended to 19.000ft in the pattern. The Lamia flight entered the holding just above them at 21.000ft. After some time he reports that the Lamia asked for priority due to a "fuel problem". I'm not sure if understood that correctly but it seemed like ATC asked them if they would declare emergency which they initially denied. The controller explained to them that there is currently an emergency landing in progress. They kept on asking for priority due to fuel and then stated that they would proceed for the approach. All of sudden they started a descent forcing the controller to vector the avianca flight away from the holding. He claims that they could see the lights of the flight descending next to them. The controller asked them again and they declared "mayday,mayday,mayday" stating that they experience a total electrical failure now. They panically asked for vectors towards the runway and the controller replied that she doesn't have them on the radar anymore. They continued asking for vectors and she explained that she suspects them at 180° 9000ft about 8 miles according to "D.O.R.". I don't know what that spanish term means but I guess it could be VDF. The avianca pilots states that they became extremly anxious when they learned about the suspected position of the Lamia flight. Then there was a last transmission asking for vector to the runway which ended abruptely. Thereafter, the controller and also the avianca crew tried to call them several times without success...
I don't know about the authenticity of the tape and maybe any native (or at least better) speaker can correct any mistakes I've made in my translation. Nonetheless, I would derive two interesting facts from that tape: First, they did not enter holding on their request but had to due to the VIVA colombia flight. Second, they announced the complete failure of the electrical system after they declared fuel emergency and started an unauthorized approach try.
So, to me it rather seems like they were on their last bit of fuel when entering the holding which came maybe unexpected to them and then ran out of fuel which also obviously leads to the loss of both generators leaving them on sby power. Pure speculation obviously....

Had he filed a flight plan with Rionegro as an alternate, could he have asked to deviate to Medellin, just 10nm away, as soon as he was put on hold, to avoid declaring the emergency (and avoid being caught)?

If, let's say one knew one would have less than required 30 mins of fuel in the tanks on landing, and knowing that the only way of getting in ahead of the other priority aircraft would be to declare an emergency, which would automatically draw the eye of the regulator and result in the tanks being dipped, and prison time for you IF you, as both owner and PIC had done the above....

All hypothetical of course.

IanWorthington:

If they were told to, due to an emergency aircraft diverting to Madellin - forcing a hold - which appears to be the case.

There's some confusion as to whether or not the other flight had declared an emergency or not, but timeline-wise (in the link to the avherald article I posted above) they were cleared and entered the pattern immediately after the Avianca flight successfully landed, so I'd assume they have to be related. If ATC asked them to hold, it probably doesn't matter if the Avianca flight was "emergency" or not, it appears to have still triggered the hold for the accident LaMia flight.

The en-route alternate / diversion idea is interesting, but this is a classic example of why it wouldn't work. That scenario seems purely based upon some sort of weather delay or diversion, and would never account for unforeseen issues like a temp. hold at final destination - by then you'd be unable to divert, right? (obviously in this case, but I meant in normal ops in more typical situations and locations as well?)

Still, going bingo fuel in a 6 minute (or whatever it was) hold (after a normal, direct flight) is obviously criminal, and some hugely important rules and regs had already been broken by then.

Captain WAS airline owner
 

@ Magplug, you posted ....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alas Para Volar
I hazard a prediction that the root cause is PIC is owner of the airline. Commercial / status / prestige imperative. Pushing the range envelope. Not enough fuel. No reserve / contingency. Entirely avoidable accident. RIP.

Magplug: I'd go with that 100%

According to local media, you are spot on.

From Director de la aerolínea LaMia habla sobre accidente de Chapecoense - Justicia - ELTIEMPO.COM (using Google Chrome's translate) in an interview with a company director of LAMIA ...

"The pilot, Miguel Alejandro Quiroga Murakami, was the owner of the company."

Regarding re-fuelling he seems a bit vague or confused.

"How are the protocols that you have on fuel? Is it possible to arrive with little fuel to somewhere where they will land or always have to have a sufficient reserve?

As you say, it must have sufficient reserve fuel to reach an alternative.

Had they already done this flight to Medellin?

Yes, but we did it twice from Medellin to Bolivia. It was a flight that was always perfect."

"Why the passengers had to change planes?

As Brazil did not authorize us, so we had to get them to Santa Cruz. We had one plane and that plane has been that has been flying around.

But at no time this flight had planned resupply reach to Bogota?

Santa Cruz had to go to Cobija, which is in Bolivia. Cobija had to go to Medellin. But they went straight to Bogota, and then had to see the possibility of continuing or landing in Bogota. It was night. And that denial of Brazil was complicated a bit. But apparently, if the pilot has continued it's just because he could. It has continued and has passed this catastrophe that makes us much harm.

When the plane arrived in Medellin no longer had enough fuel to land?

We're seeing that, waiting for research information. But if he felt he had no fuel, he had to go to Bogota to restock. Bogota airport, according to the flight plan, was the alternate for anything. Before going Bogota had to make the decision; if it was with good fuel I had to follow, but if something was wrong with the fuel, should enter."

Apologies for the limitations of Google Translate but from that, I infer that the Captain decided he could make his destination without re-fuelling for reserve fuel, presumably in the belief that there would no need for any, a gross violation of flight planning.

That page also has some other good relevant links. Well worth looking at.

Yup, been shown this 'clever trick' by some morons early in my career, when flying for a somewhat shady charter operator. However, it's not clever and, in fact, not legal. If you re-dispatch in the air (which the above in-fact is), you are still supposed to have alternate, final reserve AND contingency fuel for the remainder of the flight.

Properly done, re-dispatch can save a couple of kg's and possibly prevent a fuel stop on the way, but it is not a license to operate without adequate reserves...

Thanks 35hPA28. I missed that.

Apparently, the Argentine football team was not impressed with the aircraft when they travelled on it recently.

La selección de Messi se había quejado del avión de la desgracia - 30.11.2016 - LA NACION

According to Lamia's director (from the interview posted by Design Engineer above) the plan had Bogota as an alternate, and Rionegro as a destination, so that would rule out the trick

Could it have been a combination of fuel starvation and a ghost glidepath indication?
Cause he was quite high in that holding pattern...

I think that's thanks to Google Translate. It doesn't come across like that in the original at least not to me.

Translation (until a better one comes up):