Brazilian plane crash

I've just been reading the details about this, absolutely tragic.

It sound like the plane they used wasn't cut out for the length of journey without a fuel stop, so whoever's idea it was to use that type of plane is in trouble.

I don't understand though why the pilot didn't just tell air traffic control he was making an emergency landing and to suck it up? running out of fuel mid-air was always going to be fatal.
 
The article I read said that planes are legally mandated to carry about 40mins of extra fuel for if they need to circle for a while at the destination airport, the plane they used barely even had a big enough tank to get them there.

Of course it's not their fault but the air traffic controller must feel terrible. :(
 
surely he would have been made to stop for fuel.
flight plan is made before the flight. seems very very odd.
 
mmj_uk said:
Oh, pilot is to blame then I expect.
Click to expand...

Depends, if he made the ground aware of his fuel issue and was still told to maintain a holding pattern then ATC will share some responsibility.

This bit strikes me as alarming:
In a leaked tape, the pilot can be heard warning of a "total electric failure" and "lack of fuel". Just before the tape ends, he says he is flying at an altitude of 9,000ft (2,745m).
Click to expand...

9,000ft is more than enough time to power up the planes APU (a backup power generator), and if he had suffered a total electric failure how was he telling people about it on his radio? O.o
 
Last edited:
he didn't declare an emergency - the previous aircraft did.

edit:

APU need fuel to work and the tanks were dry - all he had were the batteries and the fan windmilling and maybe the rat
 
Last edited:
Sadly the pilot probably took the decision based on false information. e.g. calculated the amount in wrong units, miscalculated the distance, didn't appreciate the headwind, didn;t account for the correct passenger and luggage weight, misread the maximum capacity of the plane or thought there was additional fuel still onboard (faulty gauge?). It tends to be that a single action or event doesn't cause a crash but they are a culmination of several issues that come together.

RIP
 
Hades said:
Sadly the pilot probably took the decision based on false information. e.g. calculated the amount in wrong units, miscalculated the distance, didn't appreciate the headwind, didn;t account for the correct passenger and luggage weight, misread the maximum capacity of the plane or thought there was additional fuel still onboard (faulty gauge?). It tends to be that a single action or event doesn't cause a crash but they are a culmination of several issues that come together.

RIP
Click to expand...

From some of the articles it sounds like the airport he was supposed to refuel at was closed, so he had to choose to divert to get fuel or carry on as he had enough to make it. Sadly his decision didn't factor in an emergency at the destination airport putting him into a holding pattern.
 
[TW]Sponge;30267629 said:
Why would the pilot take such an idiotic risk? If that's the case then, well, I can't think of words to describe such lunacy.
Click to expand...

Possibly a combination of pressure from airline to meet targets (having to divert/land/refuel at an airport costs a lot in time and money, the airline won't say it but they would have reamed him if he had) combined with the knowledge it would be fine unless something goes wrong. It's sad how many accidents are caused by this scenario.
 
[TW]Sponge;30267629 said:
Why would the pilot take such an idiotic risk? If that's the case then, well, I can't think of words to describe such lunacy.
Click to expand...

There was a case a few years ago when a military aircraft crashed with the president of a small country onboard. It was because they insisted on landing at an airport with unsafe fog. They did it because they didn't want to tell the president he would be delayed and rerouted.

Maybe this time the pilot was proud to be flying the football team and wanted to get them there quickly. I doubt he deemed the risk to be high which is why I think there was some other factor involved in his understanding of the amount of fuel onboard or required.
 
ubersonic said:
From some of the articles it sounds like the airport he was supposed to refuel at was closed, so he had to choose to divert to get fuel or carry on as he had enough to make it. Sadly his decision didn't factor in an emergency at the destination airport putting him into a holding pattern.
Click to expand...

You'd think pilots would have to factor in the possibility of an emergency in such a position though, even if's 1% chance it's a big gamble when lives are involved. There must be some element of poor communication between pilot and ATC as well.
 
ubersonic said:
From some of the articles it sounds like the airport he was supposed to refuel at was closed, so he had to choose to divert to get fuel or carry on as he had enough to make it. Sadly his decision didn't factor in an emergency at the destination airport putting him into a holding pattern.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I've not actually read or watched much news about this but the above makes sense.
 
ubersonic said:
From some of the articles it sounds like the airport he was supposed to refuel at was closed, so he had to choose to divert to get fuel or carry on as he had enough to make it. Sadly his decision didn't factor in an emergency at the destination airport putting him into a holding pattern.
Click to expand...

Brazil's O Globo reported that because of a delayed departure, a refuelling stop in Cobija, on the border between Brazil and Bolivia, was abandoned because the airport did not operate at night.
Click to expand...

1605NM between the 2 airports - that's over the top end for an RJ85
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom