[rferguson]

I’ve been reading some absolutely shocking details regarding the LaMia airlines crash in Columbia. It’s so so sad how preventable it was and almost unbelievable it happened in 2016.

In short the aircraft ran out of fuel and crashed. My first thought that this must have been down to some tragic engineering fault or accidental miscalculation. But no.

– the aircraft was an RJ85 which has a maximum range of 2965km. The distance from Santa Cruz to the flights intended destination Medillin is 2960km.

– the flight plan completed and signed by the captain has also been leaked. He lists the flight duration as 4hr22min. And guess what he lists on the same document the maximum flight range for the aircraft? Yup, 4hr22min. The aircraft ran out of fuel and crashed 4hr37min after take off.

– the flight had originally intended to make a refuelling stop en route at Cobija, Bolivia but just before departure they discovered that that airport would be closed at the time of night they were flying. The ground staff were concerned by this but apparently the Captain gave ‘verbal guarantees’ of the flights safety.

– the captain was banking on being able to make a priority landing in Medellin. Unfortunately another aircraft landing around the same time had also requested a priority landing due to a fuel leak which forced the Avro to hold and give that aircraft priority. Had the LaMia Captain used those magic words ’emergency’ or ‘Mayday’ they would have definitely been given priority to land. The Captain did not declare an emergency until the aircraft was out of fuel and descending.

What could possibly motivate a pilot to behave like this? And where was the First Officer whilst all this was going on? And here is where the perfect storm all comes together. The Captain was not only a pilot. He was also the joint owner of the small charter company. He had a football game to get this team to and was probably wanting to cement his companies reputation as reliable instead of an unscheduled stop or diversion. He knew that if he had requested a priority landing into Medellin due to a fuel shortage there would be enquiries as to why. And the First Officer? The female FO was on her first every flight with the company….I guess taking the captain and co owner to task over the issue just felt too much on her first day.

[MartynSinclair]

I recently listened to a series of lectures from a former BA Concorde pilot. I was stunned to hear his theory about the Air France Concorde crash. He presented facts that it was down to the operating crew attempting a t/o into wind, above the MTOW and in an aircraft with a malfunctioning nose wheel.

Crew Resource Management training instils into junior pilots that it is perfectly in order to question the actions of a senior pilot… quite clearly, here are 2 examples, years apart, where the training did not work.

Running out of fuel is an error that both crew members would certainly have seen and monitored…

Very sad and very unnecessary…

[LuganoPirate]

It is sad and unnecessary but no matter what an airline (or other individual for that) says, it is sometimes very hard to contradict a senior colleague who is authoritative and perhaps domineering bordering on arrogance. I’m not saying the captain was arrogant in this case as I don’t know him but can only imagine a junior female co-pilot in what is still a male dominated country, daring to question not only her male senior but her boss as well, would make her perhaps fear for her job and so she chose to keep quiet.

Tragic and hopefully lessons will be learnt by this.

[travelworld]

Yes, I agree. Even more difficult when the captain owns the airline and it’s your first day in the job. The only good thing that comes out of this is that, for training purposes, there will be no better example of why it’s in order for a junior pilot to question the senior. Every pilot will remember it.

[MrMichael]

Is it a criminal offence to take off without the correct fuel including contingency, divert etc? I guess it might depend on the jurisdiction.

Interesting expert on Sky news who put it in a nutshell. “Take off is optional, landing is obligatory”.

[rferguson]

The sad thing is crashes caused by literally daft human decisions continue to happen. I can be a bit of a ghoul when it comes to these air disasters and do enjoy an episode of Air Crash Investigation. It’s amazing how many serious accidents in the past have happened because the more junior cockpit crew aren’t more vocal in their concerns. In a lot of these crashes when the CVR is replayed it is painfully obvious that the FO knew there was something not right yet after a dismissal from the Captain keeps quiet. This goes right back to the worlds most deadly crash in 1977 when a KLM 747 rammed into a Pam Am 747 in Tenerife. The KLM FO questioned whether the Pam AM aircraft was still on the runway. It’s not like the Dutch are known as shrinking violets when it comes to speaking up. The captain (a senior training Captain) was so determined to take off as the flight crew had been delayed and were on the verge of running out of legal hours he just ignored the comment. The Singapore Airlines 747 in 2000 that attempted to take off from a closed runway at night in Tapei and crashed. The FO questioned whether they were on the right runway. The 2010 plane crash that killed the Polish President. The first officer wanted to abort the landing due to the terrible weather but the Captain anxious of delaying the President refused. Numerous crashes or near misses involving asian and particularly Korean airlines where the hierarchy is so strict it is difficult to challenge a senior colleague as they will ‘lose face’. And perhaps the most similar crash to this LaMia one – in 1990 an Avianca flight crashed in New York resulting in the loss of 85 lives after running out of fuel after the aircraft was placed in an extensive holding pattern due to poor weather at JFK. Despite the Flight Engineer advising both the Captain and First Officer to declare an emergency neither did.

It does make you wonder what the answer is to avoid these accidents. Technology has come so so far in making flying safer but so far nothing can change the human brain in how it reacts under pressure. Some airlines have made changes. For example after the LAX crash of the Asiana 777 the korean airlines acknowledged that there is a cultural issue with hierarchy in Korea and so did a mass recruitment of western pilots and a ‘mixed flight crew’ is not quite common there and the western pilots kind of sit outside that hierarchy.

Of course aviation authorities can suspend air craft operating certificates and such (as has been the case of LaMia in Columbia) but when you are a small airline with no aircraft (the sole aircraft crashed) what good is that?

[rferguson]

@ MrMichael – not sure if it’s a criminal offence or not. I do remember the UK CAA gave an official warning to Malaysia Airlines in the early 2000’s that if it did not address it’s habit of flying into LHR with minimal fuel it would revoke it’s right to fly to the UK. I remember the article saying this had been discovered by ‘random’ fuel checks. I imagine after a MH aircraft or two had requested priority landing due to be low on fuel.

I’d imagine repeated incidents would result in an airline losing it’s AOC. If running out of fuel resulted in a crash and deaths however – I guess they could be open to civil action definitely. If not criminal.

[FDOS_UK]

It is usually an offence to depart on a commercial without sufficient fuel and reserves as specified by laws of the jurisdiction you are operating in and/or the jurisdiction the aircraft/crew are licensed in.

[MartynSinclair]

The fuel calculation about how much fuel to load is down to the Captain and they are under commercial pressure by the airlines, not to carry too much excess as it increases the aircraft weight. Also, not to buy too much in countries where the cost is at a premium

[FDOS_UK]

Martyn

In the US, the captain is not the sole flight planner, the ‘dispatcher’ also has quite a say in these matters, which is a very alien concept to us in Europe.

In this instance, a US style dispatcher would have been expected to challenge why the flight duration = the total endurance.

Havgin said that, I don’t know if the dispatcher role exists (in this context) in the juridiction involved.

[canucklad]

It does defy believe that if it all pans out as it seems to be heading that an individual can single handily create such carnage, especially after so many deadly incidents for exactly the same reason.

Sadly, the pressure put on Captains by their operational teams to drive efficiency ( cut costs) makes me wonder how much of the safety envelope is being pushed.
I seem to remember Pan Am pilots created a bit of stooshie after raising the fact that flights where landing at LHR and other airports in Europe. “Flying on fumes” as the company tried to save every nickel and dime that they could.

My final thought is for the victims. I was very touched at Tynecastle last Wednesday when our Brazilian defender seeked out the Brazilian flag that somebody had brought in for the minutes silence.. It reminded me how fragile and unpredictable life can be.

[Author]

Posts