Yet another aviation thread.

Quote: Pacomartin

The occurrence report was sent at 22:00L, half an hour after their initial descent. So the total delay time does appear to be more than 15 minutes.

Thanks!

The aviation sites tend to drown their reports in jargon...

Given that timeline, it makes more sense now. Still, why'd they agree to enter a hold if they were low on fuel? One possibility is they had malfunctioning fuel gauges and they thought they had more fuel than they really did. another is they were distracted and not paying attention to remaining fuel.

It will be important to figure out what the "electrical problems" were. It sounds to me as though they had no power at all, rendering the plane uncontrollable.

That matters a great deal. From 20,000 ft., you can glide quite a ways, if you can keep control of the plane.

Quote: Nareed

Given that timeline, it makes more sense now. Still, why'd they agree to enter a hold if they were low on fuel?

It sounds like they didn't have a choice about going into a hold pattern. They were waived off because the other A320 was leaking fuel.

It has come out that the chartered jet was supposed to stop and refuel for a second time in Bogota (only 134 miles from Medellin) . The pilot felt that he could skip the stop since he believed he had sufficient reserves.


The flight plan called for two refueling stops
VVI BOG - 1,710 miles
BOG MDE - 134 miles

If the landing in Medellin had occurred as scheduled, he would have been OK But the holding pattern pushed him over the edge.

It seems they did this flight twice before using Captain Ani­bal Arab Airport (CIJ) as the refueling stop which is roughly midway.

CIJ MDE - 1,268 mi

LaMia requested a permit to fly from the Brazilian aviation authorities, ANAC, but this was denied as there were no provisions in the current aviation agreements between Brazil and Bolivia to allow this. The Chapecoense team was then flown to Santa Cruz in Bolivia on a regular commercial flight. This routing caused delays to the schedule and Cobija could no longer be used to refuel because of night time closure of the airport, according to the airline's general director.

There is a difference between fuel in a tank when the plane is level and fuel in a tank when the plane is descending. Its known as "porting" of fuel sloshing around and letting the outlet pipe become exposed to air rather than fuel. Some planes require fuel be pumped from one tank into a central feed tank and then used to feed the engines.

If this model plane has an APU that descends (or can be commanded) into the slip stream to generate emergency power, it takes time to get going and it has automatic priorities.

Pilots often 'bust minimums' and get away with it. Pilots often 'bust minimums' and don't get away with it.

Quote: Fleastiff

Pilots often 'bust minimums' and get away with it. Pilots often 'bust minimums' and don't get away with it.

If this pilot had skipped Bogota refueling and safely landed the plane in Medellin (i.e. no A320 emergency) I wonder if he would have been disciplined. It seems like the answer is probably "no one would have noticed". He must have radioed to someone his intent, or even simply announced to the cabin that he was skipping Bogota,

Here's the latest I know:

The flight was supposed to refuel at Cobija in Bolivia, but that was scrapped when the passengers arrived an hour late from Brazil, as the airport at Cobija closes down for the night.

The ground staff expressed concerns about the fuel, but the captain, who is was part-owner of the airline, assured them it was ok.

The flight plan designated Bogota as a diversionary airport. but given the fuel onboard, had they been unable to land at Medellin after one attempt, doubling back to Bogota would have been impossible.



The bottom line is: the plane lacked enough fuel for the flight.

Notionally they'd have made it if not for the holding pattern. That is still not enough fuel for the flight. Simplified, most aviation regulations require enough fuel to reach the destination airport, for at least one go-round (ie two approaches), for a flight to the diversionary airport, and for 30 minutes on top of that. This plane had just enough to reach the destination airport and land on the first try, assuming no extra fuel burn of any sort.

As we saw happened, a little extra fuel was burned and the plane crashed.

And that's why there are so many rules about fuel.

The thing about airplane crash investigations, is that they usually uncover and fix one or more problems that can cause accidents. We already know about having enough fuel on board, so that's not even an issue this time. But clearly there are issues about oversight. Why was a plane without enough fuel allowed to take off? If the first planned refueling stop was out, why not plan a different one?

Quote: Nareed

Here's the latest I know:

The flight was supposed to refuel at Cobija in Bolivia, but that was scrapped when the passengers arrived an hour late from Brazil, as the airport at Cobija closes down for the night.
The bottom line is: the plane lacked enough fuel for the flight.

I read that flightradar24 indicates that the same plane had flown similar nonstop distances last August. You need a premium membership to look back more than a week so I can'f confirm. It is difficult to know what people are talking about since so many places in Latin America are named Santa Cruz.

SNZ CIJ 1,845 mi Santa Cruz outside Rio to Cobija in Bolivia (Last August?)
VVI MDE 1,839 mi Viru Viru International Airport in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia to Medellin Colombia FLIGHT that resulted in crash.

I thought that Bogota was a planned stop. Instead you are saying it was just the diversionary airport.

Quote: Pacomartin

I read that flightradar24 indicates that the same plane had flown similar nonstop distances last August.

I've read similar reports.

If true, this suggests it was either the airline's or the pilot's common MO, and they probably told no one (though we'd have to know what the configuration of the plane and overall conditions were). This would explain why the captain didn't declare a fuel emergency before, or when being sent to a holding pattern.

Quote:

I thought that Bogota was a planned stop. Instead you are saying it was just the diversionary airport.

That report comes from Sylvia Spruick's site Fear of Landing. She's a pilot and writes about air crash investigations (the book series "Why Planes Crash"). I tend to take her claims seriously.

Quote: Nareed

I've read similar reports.

That report comes from Sylvia Spruick's site Fear of Landing. She's a pilot and writes about air crash investigations (the book series "Why Planes Crash"). I tend to take her claims seriously.

Good article. She does say the pilot had flown the same route four times before. It sounds stupid to say this, but last minute changes are often very risky.

https://fearoflanding.com/accidents/not-enough-fuel-the-disgusting-truth-about-lamia-flight-2933/
On top of all that, there is evidence that the LaMia captain had flown that same route four times before. He was literally playing Russian Roulette with the aircraft.

I think its Ryan Air that routinely punishes pilots with carrying more fuel than is needed.

If the captain owns a significant chunk of the airline then he has a financial motive to cheat on fuel. Excess, safety-margin fuel costs money to haul, cheaper to arrive on fumes. More money for the airline, less for 'wasted baggage load'.

Quote: Fleastiff

Excess, safety-margin fuel costs money to haul, cheaper to arrive on fumes. More money for the airline, less for 'wasted baggage load'.

That may be true, but it is irrelevant in this accident. The plane probably carried a full load of fuel, it was just flying beyond it's range if something went wrong.

The fuel tank on this plane is 3,099 USG in standard configuration. It can have up to 3 auxiliary tanks.An A319 has a fuel capacity of 6400-7980 USG.