Accident

GypsyPilot said:
I'm not sure how such a flight would get beyond the planning stage without an enroute fuel stop being planned... Is there anything to indicate they didn't stop along the way for fuel?
Click to expand...

This is pure speculation from a guy on the internet that is not typed in the aircraft, nor an employee of the company. So I can't begin to guess about this particular aircraft or operator.

There are numerous reasons to justify departing on that flight, and just as many reasons to explain why they came up short. Personally I have departed in an aircraft with a full load and flown it to max range. It happens. Turbulence or weather at the planned altitude and selecting a lower altitude for a better ride but results in a higher fuel burn. Or forecasted winds were not accurate... Holding longer than expected and exhausted all fuel (That's happened in the US too). If the APU was running the entire flight, fuel consumption will increase but not enough to cut into reserves.

Look at the Aaliyah crash. Aside from the drugs, the charter flight was resistant to disappoint the customer and leave luggage behind. Then attempted to fly the aircraft outside the W&B envelope.
 
CFI A&P said:
Holding longer than expected and exhausted all fuel (That's happened in the US too).
Click to expand...
That should NOT happen if you're monitoring your fuel and have a defined bingo fuel at which point you're bugging out to the alternate or divert airport. You should NEVER hold longer than expected. The minute you're given a hold and EFC, you should be computing your min fuel and deciding that, "at X,XXX pounds we're going to KXXX."
 
obx said:
That should NOT happen if you're monitoring your fuel and have a defined bingo fuel at which point you're bugging out to the alternate or divert airport. You should NEVER hold longer than expected. The minute you're given a hold and EFC, you should be computing your min fuel and deciding that, "at X,XXX pounds we're going to KXXX."
Click to expand...
Once you see that B22...I44...N31...G8...O17... you know it's time to bug out with your lift vectorz
 
GypsyPilot said:
What does that have to do with anything? As long as you gas up on the way over, no biggie. I looked at the approach plate, seems pretty straight forward.

I would be much more concerned about the decision making process to not include a fuel stop for such a flight. It just didn't make sense. That's why I'm asking if that's factual or not.
Click to expand...
You fly to where you can, not to where you must. As you point it out, the not doing a stop over in order to have to do a mission under certain set of conditions lead itself into a tighter margin for error. The decision making is flawed, because you HAVE to do something. In aviation, you do what you can, not what you have to.

You don't HAVE to land on this exact airport. You land where you can, hopefully it will be the airport I originally planned to. That's why you hear people flying VFR into IMC because they boxed themselves into HAVING to do something, instead of choosing what they CAN do.

See what I mean??
 
MaRiO FDZ said:
You fly to where you can, not to where you must. As you point it out, the not doing a stop over in order to have to do a mission under certain set of conditions lead itself into a tighter margin for error. The decision making is flawed, because you HAVE to do something. In aviation, you do what you can, not what you have to.

You don't HAVE to land on this exact airport. You land where you can, hopefully it will be the airport I originally planned to. That's why you hear people flying VFR into IMC because they boxed themselves into HAVING to do something, instead of choosing what they CAN do.

See what I mean??
Click to expand...

No, I have no idea what you're talking about... Or at least trying to say.

In professional aviation, you plan flights ahead of time which includes reserve fuel, contingency fuel, and alternate fuel if applicable. If this leg length was as close to the max range for this aircraft as some say, it's really hard to comprehend how a professional charter crew could sign off on such flight planning.

Trying to push a flight to its extreme like an inexperienced private pilot is very unusual, particularly in the planning phase, for professional pilots.
 
It's a scenario encountered by crews world wide on a daily basis. As we would say in the military, an OPORDER (plan), does not survive enemy contact. The second you get your trip you plan on contingencies and keep reevaluating them until the last pax is off the airplane. I've had my destination and alternate go to crap. Haven't diverted in a while, but it's not unusual on a trip to have to start planning one. "When we get to this fuel state, we divert to XYZ. What do you think FO?"
Fuel/diversion was actually a scenario this year in AQP.
 
Blackhawk said:
It's a scenario encountered by crews world wide on a daily basis. As we would say in the military, an OPORDER (plan), does not survive enemy contact. The second you get your trip you plan on contingencies and keep reevaluating them until the last pax is off the airplane. I've had my destination and alternate go to crap. Haven't diverted in a while, but it's not unusual on a trip to have to start planning one. "When we get to this fuel state, we divert to XYZ. What do you think FO?"
Fuel/diversion was actually a scenario this year in AQP.
Click to expand...

Of course. I've been an airline pilot for six years, and I am ASE/EGE qualified and divert a lot. Like every week during winter ops, so I'm pretty familiar with fuel planning.

The original speculation was that the flight flown was at the edge of this particular aircraft's range, to the point of running out of fuel. That is what I find odd. More to the point, I REALLY doubt a professional crew would do that. I'm thinking there is more to the story here... I sure hope so anyway.
 
And it is a calamitose way of using your licence (whichever that might be) to start using the 45-min contingency for your p2p just because you encountered unforecasted head winds. The 45-min reserve must be only usable to circle over the alternate after trying to land there and scream a lot.
 
GypsyPilot said:
No, I have no idea what you're talking about... Or at least trying to say.
In professional aviation, you plan flights ahead of time which includes reserve fuel, contingency fuel, and alternate fuel if applicable. If this leg length was as close to the max range for this aircraft as some say, it's really hard to comprehend how a professional charter crew could sign off on such flight planning.
Click to expand...
You don´t HAVE to fly. You have the choice to say "NO". You don´t HAVE to land at your destination airport. You plan to get there, but if something comes up - weather, a stranded aircraft on a runway - you don´t HAVE to land there. There are a dozen airports on the route that you CAN land on before you get boxed into a critical situation. You don´t HAVE to fly a leg this long. You don´t HAVE to sign the dispatch sheet. You CAN CHOOSE to land elsewhere. It´s all about decision making.
 
I'd like to say we are immune to it here, but based upon the emphasis on fuel at my last AQP I'd say that isn't the case. I've also had a few instances where FO's tried to put me into fuel critical situations.
 
ArcherII said:
Let's say that journalism factoid statements are a worldwide pandemia.
Click to expand...
Some people like to say "Worldwide Pandemic". Some Spanglish speakers probably like to say "Worldwide Pandemia". But, to bastardize Guido Sarducci, either way I think the "pan" in pandemic/pandemia covers it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Crop Duster said:
Some people like to say "Worldwide Pandemic". Some Spanglish speakers probably like to say "Worldwide Pandemia". But, to bastardize Guido Sarducci, either way I think the "pan" in pandemic/pandemia covers it.
So the moral of this story is never hold over the mountains... right? Or was it max range includes reserves? Or was it never divert when you still can? Or was it planning is for ? I think I need a refresher course.
Click to expand...

The moral of the story here is that whatever still-wind max range the AFM says it has, multiply it by 0.80. Not by 1.20.
 
ArcherII said:
And it is a calamitose way of using your licence (whichever that might be) to start using the 45-min contingency for your p2p just because you encountered unforecasted head winds. The 45-min reserve must be only usable to circle over the alternate after trying to land there and scream a lot.
Click to expand...


Avianca Flight 52. The similarities as they present themselves at this early stage in the aftermath are uncanny. I heard on the radio today that this flight was placed in a hold over the field because another plane had declared an emergency, and the crew "pleaded with" controllers to let them land. I am not one to rush to judgment, but with words like Colombia, Medellin, and fuel starvation being thrown around it brings back every over-the-counter case study I've ever had of Avianca Flight 52. Unfortunately, the assertiveness and communication always comes too little too late.
 
Blackhawk said:
I'd like to say we are immune to it here, but based upon the emphasis on fuel at my last AQP I'd say that isn't the case. I've also had a few instances where FO's tried to put me into fuel critical situations.
Click to expand...
????

FO's have gotten you in fuel critical situations? How so? Every crew environment in 121 operations I've been apart of has both pilots verify the others actions. So, if your FO got you there then you're equally as responsible.
 
amorris311 said:
????

FO's have gotten you in fuel critical situations? How so? Every crew environment in 121 operations I've been apart of has both pilots verify the others actions. So, if your FO got you there then you're equally as responsible.
Click to expand...
Read what I wrote again, then pull your head out of your posterior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top