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.