Back to Squawk list

Plane With Brazilian Soccer Team Crashes in Colombia

Submitted
An airplane with 72 people on board, including players from a Brazilian soccer team heading to Colombia for a regional tournament final, has crashed on its way to Medellin's international airport. (abcnews.go.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


fpk2
fernando kosop 13
the mistery is solved...the conversation between the tower and the LaMia plane has cleared that. fuel starvation!!!!! but the captain did not declared emergency until it was too late...and insisted on stating"electrical failure"..of course..no engines...no power. how could that "airman" plan a a4 hour flight (between A and B only) with a plane capable of flying only 3.9 hours???? what about fuel for the alternative (C) and the mandatory 30 minutes over it???? my God..that was, to say the least, gambling with death. But now it is too late...AS USUAL....
PLANES DO NOT FALL FROM THE SKIES..THEY ARE TAKEN DOWN BY UNFIT CREWS OR "MISSILES"..WICH WAS NOT THE CASE.
pilots must "wake up" and stop thinking about fulfilling schedules and stick to the rules!!!!
perryatmsu
perryatmsu 5
TOTALLY AGREE!!! This entire "situation" defies logic, preplanning, and good airmanship. What a waste of these fine young men's lives who were living a dream until some nut-cake of a pilot wannabe lost his ability to plan ahead!!!!!!!!!
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 1
Did I read correctly that the owner if the charter airline was the Captain?
boughbw
Brian Bough 2
Yes, it cross-conflicted the pilot by being the owner. As I understood it from Brazilian reports, the plane took off late because the incoming flight had arrived late. The pilot had previously scheduled a fueling stop, but opted against it because the airport would close by the time their plane would arrive. They would have to wait until it opened again the next day to refuel and take off.

The conflict is that charter airlines' models in South America are often tied to availability and price, but also on-time performance. It doesn't help the chartering passengers if you can't make it on-time. The pilot/owner stretched the plane in an attempt to make it and ensure that he would have future business. These people all died needlessly.
yr2012
matt jensen 1
Brazilian govt now calling it murder
ivelys22
Yes, he was
sparkie624
sparkie624 4
Very interesting...
jimmurray333
Jim MURRAY 8
In my day, no commercial aircraft in the US could take off without the approval of both the pilot in command and the flight dispatcher. Both were equally responsible by law. Was there no one else to certify the safety of this flight but the pilot? It takes two to tango. It's an awesome responsibility, and shouldn't be left just one. What happened?
aidannorman
aidannorman 4
My local medic helicopter service still does the "if one person feels the weather or safety of the aircraft is unsafe to operate in, no flight" policy. Except its 4 people who decide. The pilot, 2 flight nurses and the ground crew member (the guy who is in charge of keeping an eye on the weather and such). If any of 4 feel the flight is unsafe, they deny the flight request and have to send an ambulance.
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
It actually should have been 3 people, Capt, FO and the Dispatcher. If any one of the 3 disagree then the plane should not go until they settle the issue... PERIOD!
alfonsan
There was. A Bolivian female officer authority did say that the flight wasn't safe and she stated it in written, even though seems to be that the airline's people had influence in the authority and they fatally let the plane take off. Unbelievable! We are talking about year 2016, almost 17, and this just happened
treehouse4rent
Carlos Bea 6
sparkie624 Really?

146 banned here only because of its age? Boeing built the 757 from 1981 till 2004. Many of them are still flying & are older than the 146.
jkudlick
Jeremy Kudlick 3
Sad news. The club was on their way to participate in the first leg of the 2016 Copa Sudamericana finals, with the second leg scheduled on their home ground next week.
MooneyM20G
Barry McCollom 3
It is fuel exhaustion, not fuel starvation - there is a difference.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Very true and Good point. A lot of people would think Starvation, but that would mean that there is fuel available. In this case, they did not have the fuel on board to feed. They had a good means to get it there, but no product to move!
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
Very well stated, Barry, as to the issue of why and how it should have been stated...fuel starvation to the engines which cause them to shut down due to fuel exhaustion.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 3
Didn't take long for charges/detainment to take place
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/chapecoense-plane-crash-bolivia-arrests-lamia-airline-boss/ar-AAleXB7?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout
The airlines AOC was also revoked.....too little wayy too late
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Very sad...
thetrain
thetrain 3
Of course the age of the plane as a single data point is borderline irrelevant. A more relevant observation is that the BAE 146 is well suited for STOL and mountainous terrain airfields.
sparkie624
sparkie624 -4
"borderline irrelevant" - I disagree... They are so old that they can no longer fly in the US due to Safety Concerns.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 3
They're still flying in the US.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Once they pass either 80,000 Cycles or 80,000 hours and if they are near average flight times, then it will be soon. These are very old planes!
aidannorman
aidannorman 1
I don't think that they are banned because they're too old. We have "much" older planes flying around without issue here in the US.
You don't see many because all the airlines that fly planes in the US have retired their fleets of this aircraft type.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I am not talking about physical age, I am talking about Flight Cycles and Flight Hours.
aidannorman
aidannorman 1
@sparkie624 Sorry about that, I thought that you meant the aircraft type in general, not individual aircraft being banned.

Of course, an individual plane with a high amount of cycles and isn't well maintained is going to get some attention by the FAA and other parties while flying in the US.
mikehe
The last member of the 146 (latterly RJ) family was delivered in 2003. This airframe was apparently delivered in 1997 to its original customer.

As the radio transcripts emerge (Thursday), it looks increasingly likely that ATC kept the flight in the air and the driver didn't shout "low fuel" until he was one hill away from the runway.

ATC were also handling two incoming flights (AVIANCA and ??) which were in the final stages of landing.

Are Fedex/UPS still flying B727s?
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
actually 3..the VIVAColumbia, an emergency diversion heading to Bogata, which already had priority emergency landing sequence, AV9477 I believe and a Latam flight...yes he was kept in the air and instead of "emergency low fuel" on his part whilst waiting for the runway to be checked/cleaned from the VIVAColumbia flight, he circled a second time..Im 100% sure if he declared after his first circle, instead of waiting to run out and have the electrical issues, ATC would have hosed the runway down fast and had him come in
nahuelk
nahuelk 1
Yeap, a chain of negligent actions. I can't believe an experienced pilot would take such risks, and then mishandling that way, the situation.
rmchambers
rmchambers 2
Well Avianca know better to declare fuel emergencies these days after they scattered one of their planes on Long Island a couple of decades ago.
zuluzuluzulu
zuluzuluzulu 8
There was an old story about a lady bording a DC-9 in the 1990's. She saw the door jam data plate where it said the aircraft was built in 1969.

Whoa! she said to the captain standing by the door. 1969? That is OLD! is this aircraft safe?!?

The captain replied, Of course it is safe!! How do you think it became old?
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 1
Hey that is a great one! I will be sure to use it the next time someone questions the age of my '69 Skylane!
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
That is the way I feel about them... Look at how solid the 737-200 compares to the next Gens... The Older birds were so much more solid.
nahuelk
nahuelk 1
The other one was VIVA COLOMBIA's A320 in emergency due to a suspected fuel leak, and was granted priority in the approach sequence.
whip5209
Ken McIntyre 2
So sad. I read that they run out of fuel. A picture sort of confirms it. No sign of fire.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Keep in mind there was a discussion of Electrical Failure. May not have been a spark, but I do agree with you. They were circling for quite some time. Poor CRM could have resulted in less than minimum fuel to make a safe landing.
tbpera
Tom Pera 2
as an old controller I can tell you we would do everything we could when a pilot said "emergency"... but had many situations dealing with a pilot reluctant to use that word... sad situation here... pilot is totally in charge of airplane... our job to keep them safely separated...
ilikerio
ilikerio 2
I don't know much about the technical stuff.
If they had run out of fuel, I assume that means no electricity from the engines or APU right? Would flight controls still function?
aidannorman
aidannorman 2
There is a backup battery on planes like this it can't power much, just the basics.
This plane uses control cables, not motors so a pilot could still use the flight controls
WigzellRM
Ralph Wigzell 1
Yes and yes.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
They would loose a lot, but not everything. They would have minimal lighting in the cockpit, 1 nav radio, 1 com radio, stby horizon or ISIS. The FDR and CVR would continue to be powered by DC ONLY! They may have a "RAT" (Ram Air Turbine) that would furnish hydraulic power for Hydraulic pump for Flight Controls and Gear. Only exterior lights would be the NAV Lights (Wing tip and tail). there would be no Landing Lights, Strobes, or anything else. Other than that they are not much more than an over priced and over weight glider
WigzellRM
Ralph Wigzell 1
Hi, the RJ85 doesn't have a RAT.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Ok... I did not know for sure if it did or did not. Thanks for the clarification.
ah6oy
Jim DeTour 2
Other crash histories have pilots not declaring an emergency due to fuel shortage. Saw news that another plane holding had already declared an emergency and was cleared for landing when the football team requested the same and was turned down. Personally if they are both in danger are loosing all souls I'd be inclined to let them both out of the holding pattern and head in instead of leaving the team in the holding pattern. Both calling emergencies tells me weather was more than radical with possibly damaging lightening and or both flights lost too much fuel holding. Just not right if it was fuel starvation. Could help to know what the other declared emergency flight has to say (truthfully). Possibly like Avianca Flight 52 crashing after being routed into 3 different holding patterns.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 3
I remember Avianca and what's worth noting is that the Captain accepted these holds and the Flight engineer failed to impress upon him that they would be fuel critical at JFK. Still, you have to wonder what was going through the Ist officers head when they planned this route?
sparkie624
sparkie624 5
I was just going to use Avianca 52. The crew there advised ATC that they were concerned about fuel, but never declared anything and then they were transferred to different controllers and that message never followed.

I remember once we had a windshield issue with one of or planes that he was ok to continue to destination and the crew declared "Min Fuel" which is classified as an emergency action. As luck would have it he was flying over one of major hangar stations, so we diverted him in to there (CVG) instead of going to a non mx base and having to Road Trip (Diverted for Company Convenience) I still had to file the FAA report due to the fact that he declared min fuel, even though he retracted that after diverting. We had another plane hot and ready for him and he arrived at his destination only 45 minutes late... Not a bad turn around. the other a/c was back fully repaired the next morning. that is what a crew is supposed to do. There is nothing wrong with declaring a fuel emergency. Things happens and it is better to answer questions to the FAA or your company than to have them to sift through your remains.
rmchambers
rmchambers 1
^^^ THIS! that last paragraph is what all pilots need to understand and take to heart.
AlanBDahl
Alan Dahl 2
The captain needs to have the attitude that the controllers can’t “prevent” the pilot from doing what is needed to save his craft and the souls on board. While it was not an emergency situation my dad flying a DC-8 once told a controller “no” when ordered to descend into a particularly nasty thunderstorm. The controller was quite irate at being countermanded and my father’s response was “unless your arms are long enough to reach up and pull back the throttles, I’m staying up here”. While one can’t be flippant about it or abuse the authority it’s important to remember at times like this who’s flying the aircraft.
carlsonj
James Carlson 1
Another important problem is with communication. If it's an emergency, then say so and *DO* the right thing regardless of what you're told.

"Minimum Fuel," per the AIM and other sources, isn't an emergency. Not all ATC folks will take it as requiring immediate action. It only means you can't accept any undue delay. If you're in actual danger, you have to do the right thing, and that includes using the dreaded "e-word."
AlanBDahl
Alan Dahl 3
IMHO if the craft is in danger because of low fuel you declare an emergency anyways and take your medicine when you’re on the ground. Its better to have a suspended license than to crash.
carlsonj
James Carlson 1
Oh I agree. I was just pointing out that the words "minimum fuel" unfortunately don't mean what some pilots seem to think they mean. See AIM 5-5-15 (http://www.faraim.org/aim/aim-4-03-14-391.html) or JO 7110.65W 2-1-8.

It's just an advisory statement, it gives no priority for landing, and is *NOT* a declaration of an emergency.

I'm sure some ATC folks realize that pilots do make mistakes and they certainly have the authority to declare an emergency on our behalf (if we don't do it ourselves), but I was pointing out the communications issues involved.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
With that in mind, when I have to file an incident report and he tells me he said "Min Fuel" that in its self is an emergency action (Low degree). I therefore treat it as such and file the reports. The people getting the report can deal with it as they see fit. I would rather do that vs not file and ask why I didn't!
avipinchanski
avi pinchanski 2
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

BREAKING Plane carrying members of Brazil’s Chapecoense Real football team has crashed near the Colombian city of Medellin

Developing Story Avro 146 Plane carrying members of Brazil’s Chapecoense Real football team has crashed near the Colombian city of Medellin. Details still coming in

http://www.airlive.net/breaking-plane-carrying-members-of-brazils-chapecoense-real-football-team-has-crashed-near-the-colombian-city-of-medellin/
isaacvogelzang
Very sad. Prayers to all the passengers and families.
Jack370
Jack370 1
Prayers to all!
cleanergie
Sergio Cuadros 1
Destination> 1605mi - report from survivor claims fuel starvation
yr2012
matt jensen 1
Heard the skipped a sch fuel stop in BOG.
linbb
linbb 0
Sad to hear as the flight crew was the cause due to range,who can expect to fly just beyond max range of any AC as that is perfect day probably not full passenger load to obtain full fuel.
imaraigump
Iain Robertson 1
Fuel exhaustion/starvation in airline transport category aircraft is not all that rare. Recall Air Canada's 767 gliding to Gimli. Air Transat's Airbus gliding to the Azores. United's DC-8 fuex near Portland, OR. Avianca's 707 fuex near JFK...Lynyrd Skynyrd's Convair 240 fuex...the list goes on..
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Once difference here is that there was a Fuel QTY MEL on the A/C and they had to manually stick the tanks. Also the request was requested in Gallons and Was Fueled in Liters. Both the Crew and the Fueler missed that error.
mikehe
I remember the Gimli glider. Also the Air Transat incident resulted from sloppy maintenance on one of the A330's engines (wrong part number on a replacement pipe), then the drivers opened the cross-feed and thus pissed multiple tons of fuel out into the night over the Atlantic.

This sudden silence at altitude was then followed by the longest (so far) successful glide into an airfield in history - helped (IIRC) by the fact that their navigation was so sloppy that being off-course meant they were closer to Lajes than they should have been.

So sometimes, a chain of cock-ups brings a happy end - or at least acceptable (my standard is "did I walk away from that landing?"). They also failed to burst just two out of all the tyres on the undercart when they finally hit the Azores.
treehouse4rent
Carlos Bea 1
Electrical anomalies do occur following engine flameouts. So tragic if true.......:(
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I don't think they had both to occur at the same time. He had already been circling for sometime with electrical issues before the engines flamed out (suspect fuel starvation) This could be that it ran out of fuel, or the Fuel Pumps did not have power to supply them. Will have to wait for the investigators but keep in mind there is usually not one reason for the Crash. Where they already

1.) announced electrical issues and circling
2.) Failure of CRM did not monitor fuel status
3.) Engine failure due to fuel starvation

I am not saying this is what happened, but I see this as 3 separate events that were contributing factors..... In my opinion.
nasdisco
Chris B 1
Notice the crash site has no sign of fire damage. Fuel exhaustion, has to be high on the scale of potential causes.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
As previously pointed out, There was no ign source due to electrical system failure. However, I agree, No Fuel!
turnerfam9
Fran Turner 3
Couldn't an ignition source,in the absence of a controlled onboard power source, be sparks caused during the violent wreck itself (metal against metal,etc)? Just wondering.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Most of it is Aluminium and does not spark to well. Mostly steel will spark and there is very little of that on board the aircraft.
avihais
Martin Haisman 1
Difficult to determine from photo as where the wreckage ended up may not be where it started. May have been semi controlled CFIT taking the wings off earlier. Notice I used the word may as there are several news sources stating several different opinions from electrical to fuel. All we know for fact as I stated above ultra low cost airline, failed certification three times 17 year old aircraft (Manufactured march 1999) bought used and last airline temporary operating certification was in 2014.
nasdisco
Chris B 1
Crash site is 11 miles from the airfield.....
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
They would have made it they did not circle for 30 minutes
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
Unfortunately when another aircraft is experiencing an emergency, that takes precidence..VivaColumbia, bound for Bogata, had already filed an emergency deviation declaration to Medillin.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
They should have declared an emergency...
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
Apparently there are audio recordings out that say the LAMIA pilot notified ATC that he was low on fuel but apparently ATC stated the runway was in cleanup due to the VivaColumbia jet leaking fuel on the runway...I agree..the LAMIA pilot should have just said we are coming in
thomasq
Tom Zaidman 3
Absolutely, shout MAY DAY MAY DAY and anounce you are landing. Once on the ground and alive discuss the reasons etc with the authoritites. A real stupid pilot killed himself and 70 others.
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
Very True... Did not matter how bad that runway was.. He could not have done any worse than what he ultimately did... I mean really?
allench1
allench1 1
hey sparkie, in the second picture showing the hill you will notice that the first tree's hit were barkless indicating more of a flat impact and not much forward energy, just saying.
sparkie624
sparkie624 4
He most certainly landed with at least some control. Seeing how he had no engines and no lights (if no engines, no AC) he would have landed Dark in unknown or limited known terrain. Also, even if he had the system to show ground terrain on board, he would not have had any thing that would have generated power for it. He did land at least in a controllable attitude and that probably contributed to saving some lives, but he was basically coming in very blind.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Why was my comment down voted? Did I say something wrong?
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Also keep in mind that electricity is only required for the igniters and operation of valves to start engines. Once started, the engines do not rely on a/c power to keep them running (unlike our cars). With an Electrical Failure and Engine Failure(s) cannot be the same cause.
alfonsan
It is my understanding that Everytime there is a fatal accident anywhere involving commercial airplanes, the ICAO and FAA adopt new regulations to make flights even safer as they currently are. I suggest, that with the technology available these days, airplanes must transmit relevant fuel data so that the controllers can estimate this risk factor as well
This is the second accident in history caused by fuel starvation and both of them the pilots didn't use the word "emergency". Ref (Avianca B707 in New York)
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
In this article, there is a heartbreaking interview, with the co-pilot, pilot, team players and others aboard, just prior to the flight from Santa Cruz Bolivia to Medillin..this was taken after they had switched flights/companies, and were seated in the doomed LaMia RJ85.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/tragic-model-promises-chapecoense-footballers-great-service-during-interview-filmed-in-cockpit-moments-before-co-piloting-doomed-flight/ar-AAl29NL?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout
avihais
Martin Haisman 1
Sadly an airline that tried three times to get certification and a small team that had to resort to an ultra low cost airline running a 17 year old aircraft requiring specifically qualified strict maintenance schedule and a highly trained flight crew.
joselin701
jose acuña 1
im sorry for the people death.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
My condolences to all the families, friends and colleagues of those involved in the crash..a terrible tragedy..
majanegreanu
So sad. I send my condoleances to all the family, of those involved in this terrible tragedy.RIP !
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
Here is another version making note the manifest says 81 but 4 stayed behind in Bolivia..total aboard was 77 with 6 survivors
http://www.jacdec.de/2016/11/29/2016-11-28-lamia-avro-rj-85-crashed-near-medellin-with-81-on-board/
Shenandoah
David Webb 1
When are people going to learn that a "Captain's" four stripes and an airplane do not an airline make?

Caveat Emptor...!
gerardogodoy
gerardo godoy 1
The whole converstaion of the Pilot and Medellin ATC can be heard here. All Spanish, very sad.

http://caracol.com.co/radio/2016/11/30/nacional/1480525630_107579.html
WigzellRM
Ralph Wigzell 1
The Bolivian DGAC has suspended Lamia's AOC.
sparkie624
sparkie624 -1
A very sad event. A/C was a BAE-146. Make note that these are old a/c, 25 years old would be the youngest a/c as they were discontinued in 2001. First Flight was in 1981.

So sorry to hear so many died in this Tragic crash, Hearts and Prayers goes out to all of those involved or connected.

Another version of the news http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/11/29/colombian-authorities-responding-to-plane-crash-with-72-passengers-on-board.html - Has some video.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
sparkie..this was only 17.7 yr old RJ85 Avroliner, first flight March 25 1999...seeing as this was an ex CityJet, I'm betting it didn't have any aux fuel tanks which means it probably would have come up short to make the Medillin airport from Santa Cruz Bolivia airport...its 1605nm straight shot from Santa Cruz to Medillin which is 5nm more than max allowed for a standard RJ85 and if it had to circle once....
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
The flight map shows they circle their Destination for 30 minutes prior to landing. Not sure about the fuel burn, but they obviously had enough to get there. I suspect they were trying to Troubleshoot the electrical and they lost track of the fuel. The fuel gauge should have worked under battery power, so they at least should have had that and basic instruments. I do believe that they did run out of fuel that ultimately caused their crash, but I think that we can also say that fuel probably was not the major cause because circling for 30 minutes they could have declared a fuel emergency and landed anyway. Another factor, keep in mind that this was a charter flight, meaning they probably had the same flight crew. they had a stop over prior to this flight. We could be looking at an Exhausted Crew that failed on CRM and I sure hope they do not tie in Drugs and/or Alcohol. I think it is going to be quite some time before we know the final outcome of this one... there is a lot of evidence to go through. I am not sure where, but I did read that they found the flight recorders in near perfect shape so that should help them out.

Keep in mind that a 17.7 year old plane (regional) does an average of 8 flight legs per day would be about 52,000 Flight cycles, which in the US would be mandatory parked at 60,000 Cycles and for average flight time would be over 60,000 Flight Hours which is mandatory parking in the US. I would consider this a very old a/c. A lot of the planes that I worked on that were brand new in 1999 are now sitting in the airplane grave yard parked due to being timed out! Keep in mind that you can only blow up the same balloon so many times before it pops!
avihais
Martin Haisman 2
Too many assumptions but correct in age of aircraft.Although ex Cityjet would have done a lot of cycles then it went to LaMia a charter airline that failed to get certification three times most recently third try certification in 2014. Nothing has yet been confirmed with the usual speculation and re- written same sensational media reports. Yep video/photos of hull parts and wing do show a lack of fire and the survivors didn't seem to have burn reports however until weather ATC/FDR/CVR and survivor whiteness statements, pathology and analysis of wreckage is done I'm as usual in the patience camp.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 4
I was making no assumptions and do appreciate sparkie's input
1. Max distance full fuel range of the RJ85 was 1600nm, dropping to 1150nm with max payload..that mileage can increas with very favorable conditions.
2. Straight shot distance, ie no variations, from Santa Cruz Bolivia airport to airport just outside Medillin is 1600nm.
3. The aircraft may have been 17.7 years old but had lower than expected flight cycles due to its time in storage from CityJet Ireland and the fact LAMIA could not get air certification on it until 2015 when in fact they had purchased it from CityJet in 2013.
4. The pilot did not go into a hold pattern at Medillin due to an issue with his craft but that of a VivaColumbia jet, bound for Bogata, that had already vectored in an emergency deviation declaration to Medillin beforehand...Avianca 9477 was also in a hold pattern
5. Wreckage phots show lack of engine operation, at the time of the accident.
6. This was not the same plane or crew that the team flew from Sao Paulo Brazil as Brazil air authorities did not allow LAMIA to charter fly the team directly to Medillin but since they already paid for the LAMIA flight, they took a commercial flight from Brazil to Bolivia, switched aircraft/airlines and proceeded from there.
allench1
allench1 -2
sparkie and myself have been on here for a decade or more and he knows and understands the maintenance of both aircraft and engines so being "new" you may want to think about what your imput implies. "too many assumptions", hardly not from his knowledge and experience. Since you are in "the patience camp" why did you post and be so high handed. I could project my VC days in an F4D an experience that few would understand and you could cretic that, hardly. I am not trying to be hard, but, you may want to back off a little in your condemnation of another's post. I'm sure you will cretic this one
avihais
Martin Haisman 2
I was, just as you, forwarding an opinion and what I believe as too many assumptions and not enough fact. Also just the background of LaMia which is fact. My training and study is aircraft investigation so it’s not about knowing everything it’s knowing where to get it. Yes I know airframes, engineering, power plants, and human factors bla bla. So with those engines I would check if they were under power, any debris injection, marking, fuel sampling, any modifications, measurement of marks, and velocity of impact, back up of instrument marking/setting/memory/airframe/cockpit settings, load, fuel source etc. then they are taken to you/sparkie for a proper AME analysis. All I was saying too much guesstimation and very limited information. Apologies if it was a bit too direct just as you see there is a lot more to it to investigate, confirm, eliminate or is open then what seems obvious.
sparkie624
sparkie624 -1
You will note that I listed very few assumption, but tried to base on as much fact as possible.

1.) Fact they circled for 30 minutes at the destination airport before crashing, they had fuel for hold time, but obviously did not preform good CRM to get it on the ground in time.

2.) I made reference to the comment on the age of the a/c and posted averages for the flying of RJ's Smile math will give you the approximate cycles and hours based on averages. I was working Boeings, McDonald Douglas, and Fokker a/c when that a/c was manufactured.

3.) It is well know fact that the limits in the US on Hours and Cycles are way more strick in the US than almost any other country

4.) The only real assumption is that RJ's normally do 8 Cycles and 10 hours of flying per day average and those averages are fact. Some higher, some lower.

The information is out there, you just have to dig it up - the First fact was how long he held, the 2nd was that he was having electrical issues. Read the news and reports that are out there, and you will find plenty of facts, just sometimes with years of experience those facts that some find hard to find, just seem to stand out like a sore thumb to me... I was considering going to be an inspector for the NTSB, but I do not want to do that much travel to where sometimes you are out of town for weeks sometimes months.
avihais
Martin Haisman 2
1. Yep approximately 30 minutes orbiting.

2. yes based on US averages US averages commuter use. What I was saying the airline is a charter airline less cycles no US comparison.

3. Got to get past the America stuff Columbia IASI.

4. Yes again America statistics commuter airline utilisation.

Don't need to dig aircraft airframe composition/details available. NTSB reports/FAA/CAA rules out there, AD's freely available, manufacturers specifications all there, engine manufacturer details.

What's more important is what condition, accident damage, modifications the aircraft left the US in. What the maintenance history/mods were in Colombia.

I don't disagree with you hypothesis it may turn out to be right on the nail, I am just very wary of media and as I stated all the facts have to be investigated.



rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
The airline/aircraft in question had nada to do with Columbia..LAMIA is Venezulean owned airline but HQ's out of Bolivia...the aircraft left the US almost 7 years ago.
cleanergie
Sergio Cuadros -1
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

AVRO plane with Brazilian Soccer team crashes in Colombia

Electrical problem reported. Plane range 1600mi - Destination> 1600mi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaMia_Airlines_Flight_2933
redcataviation
Sidney Smith -3
The U.S. government signs ridiculous reciprocal treaties with any country and never backs up the agreement with any inspections here or anywhere. Don't want to offend the banana republics. Transport category aircraft can fly for over 150,000 hours IF they are maintained. No aircraft work well without out fuel except gliders. Just say no to foreign flag carriers, maybe BA, Quantas, Air Canada, after that, ah, no.
alfonsan
Yeah Sure Mr Trump, that will be so smart. Economy of the US will drop to zero, but you will have your ass safe. Chicken! Send the army better or build the wall so you can sleep like a baby
sparkie624
sparkie624 -6
Correction article: Was not a Football Team, and 2ndly here is a link that does not push ads: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/11/29/colombian-authorities-responding-to-plane-crash-with-72-passengers-on-board.html - A very sad event. A/C was a BAE-146. Make note that these are old a/c, 25 years old would be the youngest a/c as they were discontinued in 2001. First Flight was in 1981.

So sorry to hear so many died in this Tragic crash, Hearts and Prayers goes out to all of those involved or connected.
jkudlick
Jeremy Kudlick 10
In most of the world, "football" is used to describe what Americans call "soccer."
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 3
And in South America it is Futebol
aidannorman
aidannorman 1
I believe some parts of Mexico pronounce it "Futebol" as well as South America
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Interesting... Never knew that.. Thanks for the info
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 3
Us "Ugly Americans" hijacked their word and name for it long ago..... They are still pissed.
ToddBaldwin3
Todd Baldwin 4
Especially since our version of football uses the hands, it's most confusing to our cousins out there in the rest of the world.
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 4
Indeed that is why they are pissed, it makes no sense to them why we call it football.
aidannorman
aidannorman 3
I don't get why the Americans call their version of football "football", like 99% percent of it is hands and running
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
Rugby in the UK is "99%" (well maybe less) "hands and running", (and with an odd shaped "ball") but it is also considered (in the UK) to be "Rugby Football".
mikehe
Should I mention that I play hockey?

...which our North American cousins in the former colonies call "field hockey".

I love diversity and the English language!

Mike
avihais
Martin Haisman 1
Ha ha we call it Rugby - no helmets or gear and spikes on the shoes. Call football soccer like the US and Europe also call soccer football season with soccer teams. No wonder I took up aviation.
aidannorman
aidannorman 2
American football is supposed to be a mix of Rugby and international football (soccer). But it just seems to be Rugby with PPE being worn.

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!