RJ85 (ex Cityjet EI-RJK) gone down in Brazil

maximum12

Was carrying a Brazilian football team

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38140981

Edit: crash site is in Colombia

PukkaStukka

Current mainstream media reports say only 6 survivors, so RIP to those who have tragically perished.

The same reports also say that the aircraft reported electrical failures, and one social media report (unsubstantiated and might just be the usual speculation) says it ran out of fuel.

Irrespective, it's just dreadful.

homerjay2005

terrible news.

how long ago was it a Cityjet plane?

A Dub in Glasgo

Delivery date Airline Registration Remark
30/03/1999 Mesaba N523XJ Correct
20/09/2007 CityJet EI-RJK Named collanmore island - Stored 03/2011
16/10/2013 LAMIA P4-LOR Correct
08/02/2014 LAMIA YV2768 Correct
02/01/2015 LAMIA Bolivia CP-2933 Stored 09/2015



http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-bae146-2348.htm

robyntmorton

homerjay2005 wrote: »

terrible news.

how long ago was it a Cityjet plane?

Delivered to Cityjet 2007 (ex Mesaba/Northwest)
Stored 2011
Delivered LAMIA 2013
Transferred LAMIA Bolivia 01/2015

dubhoop

Is the range on that avro 1595nm and the distance between two airports was 1605nm either way it's truly tragic

duskyjoe

dubhoop wrote: »

Is the range on that avro 1595nm and the distance between two airports was 1605nm either way it's truly tragic

Other forums touching on the same angle. No Fire etc. An Elec issue won't take a plane out of the sky but lack of juice will. Let's see but this is truly an awful disaster for the good people of Brazil.

murphaph

dubhoop wrote: »

Is the range on that avro 1595nm and the distance between two airports was 1605nm either way it's truly tragic

Can the range be boosted with hold or under wing tanks on these or is that really the hard limit?

martinsvi

murphaph wrote: »

Can the range be boosted with hold or under wing tanks on these or is that really the hard limit?

EASA type certificate for RJ85 says you can add additional pannier tanks to each wing giving you about 2000lbs of extra fuel combined.. that is just 10% of the total and these tanks are normally visible from outside, they cause drag, and reduce maximum payload. I think it's very unlikely that they would have been installed, and even if they would have, the range increase would be relatively small and would only make sense for ferry operations

ohlordy

It didn't fly direct, stopped in Bolivia en route, thus range not a factor

kona

duskyjoe wrote: »

Other forums touching on the same angle. No Fire etc. An Elec issue won't take a plane out of the sky but lack of juice will. Let's see but this is truly an awful disaster for the good people of Brazil.

I think you'd find a electrical issue very much can take a aircraft out of the sky.

On the fuel issue perhaps they had a refuelling stop en route?

homerjay2005

ohlordy wrote: »

It didn't fly direct, stopped in Bolivia en route, thus range not a factor

The aircraft was on a flight from the Bolivian city of Santa Cruz de la Sierra to Medellín in Colombia, carrying 72 passengers and 9 crew.[9] The distance between the two airports is 1,605 nautical miles (2,972 km), which exceeds the range of the Avro RJ85, which is 1,600 nautical miles (2,963 km)

^^^^

ohlordy

^^^^^^ oops, my bad, misread it^^^^^^^

ned14

Flight was captured on FR24. Looks to have been holding outside Medellin just before it went down.

homerjay2005

ned14 wrote: »

Flight was captured on FR24. Looks to have been holding outside Medellin just before it went down.

any idea what it was holding? and given the doubts about the fuel, i wonder if it was this hold that led to the potential fuel issue?

GBX

2 tweets showing info from FR24

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/803482522248167424

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/803490617783418881

homerjay2005

fuel seems to be the main topic of discussion in many places.

A Dub in Glasgo

Yeah the Daily Fail stating that the pilot circled to ditch fuel before attempting to crash land

homerjay2005

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yeah the Daily Fail stating that the pilot circled to ditch fuel before attempting to crash land

that plane doesnt have ability to dump fuel i think!

PukkaStukka

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yeah the Daily Fail stating that the pilot circled to ditch fuel before attempting to crash land

How on earth does anyone take that thing seriously? :rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

homerjay2005 wrote: »

that plane doesnt have ability to dump fuel i think!

I did say it was from the Daily Fail

PukkaStukka

Oh dear, found this on Sky News

http://news.sky.com/story/plane-thought-to-be-carrying-a-brazilian-football-team-crashes-in-colombia-10676541

Sky News wrote:

The head of Colombia's civil aviation agency, Alfredo Bocanegra, said reported comments from a female flight attendant that the aircraft had run out of fuel were being evaluated.

GBX

Sly News and Daily fail are one and the same in how the produce inaccurate news.

duskyjoe

No scorch marks at surrounding impact area says to me zero fuel on board......crashed in a nose up attitude into terrain. God love them.

Boulevardier

I have read that there are anti-govt terrorists in Bolivia. Could they be involved in this?

JCX BXC

Boulevardier wrote: »

I have read that there are anti-govt terrorists in Bolivia. Could they be involved in this?

Hardly, the flight consisted of from what I've read, mostly Brazilians.

Why did the aircraft stop in Santa Cruz?

A Dub in Glasgo

JCX BXC wrote: »

Hardly, the flight consisted of from what I've read, mostly Brazilians.

Why did the aircraft stop in Santa Cruz?

I think to refuel

JCX BXC

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I think to refuel

Haven't heard much, but did read that it was coming from Sao Paulo, if true then Santa Cruz is a major deviation from the flight path to Medellin.

martinsvi

It's a Bolivian airline, it can't do direct flights from Brazil to Columbia, that would be considered a Cabotage under ICAO rules. If you have a Bolivian airline you can only operate in and out of Bolivia, thus a stop there ensures the rules have been met. EU/EEA airlines and some other countries have agreements which allows one airline to operate between other states, but I don't think any of the South American countries have such agreements

Furasta

Terrible news alright, as for what martinsvl was saying about the fact it was a Bolivian airline is correct that it would have had to transit through Bolivia. There was a pretty good youtube video here about those agreements:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thqbjA2DC-E

Gamebred

They were not allowed charter a direct flight I've read, I believe they flew a different plane for the first leg.

godtabh

For what it's worth

https://twitter.com/EwanMacKenna

Paully D

https://twitter.com/ruedareport/status/803691298599399426

https://twitter.com/ruedareport/status/803696094781652992

homerjay2005

its starting to look like a very straight forward incident so, that was so so avoidable

PukkaStukka

godtabh wrote: »

For what it's worth

https://twitter.com/EwanMacKenna

According to that link, the pilot was the aircrafts owner...

Van.Bosch

Reports that they requested emergency landing due to low fuel but told to hold due to another emergency.

Gamebred

ATC to blame if thats the case for wrongly prioritizing?

notharrypotter

Gamebred wrote: »

ATC to blame if thats the case for wrongly prioritizing?

Did the pilot declare May day fuel?

vapor trails

Accident would have happened very near to Hacienda Napoles

54and56

PukkaStukka wrote: »

According to that link, the pilot was the aircrafts owner...

Does that not set up an inherent conflict of interest between safety and commercial requirements?

1123heavy

Surprised to have just read that was the only aircraft the airline had in their fleet

Irish Steve

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Does that not set up an inherent conflict of interest between safety and commercial requirements?

Albeit a long time ago, and a much smaller aircraft, the first thing I did before every trip I made was make very sure that there was enough fuel on board to perform the trip. If the owner was flying it, I would have expected him to be equally motivated to ensure that getting to the intended destination was going to be possible without risk.

There are certainly some doubts about the fuel available compared to the trip length, but until we get some definitive statements from the accident investigators, we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions.

54and56

Irish Steve wrote: »

Albeit a long time ago, and a much smaller aircraft, the first thing I did before every trip I made was make very sure that there was enough fuel on board to perform the trip. If the owner was flying it, I would have expected him to be equally motivated to ensure that getting to the intended destination was going to be possible without risk.

There are certainly some doubts about the fuel available compared to the trip length, but until we get some definitive statements from the accident investigators, we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions.

I was talking in general terms about any owner/pilot operating structure having an inherent conflict of interest. IMO it's hard for any human being to wear two hats i.e. that of a pilot who is solely focused on safe operation of the aircraft and at the same time wear the hat of an owner who may want to minimise costs or keep the plane flying in order to maximise revenue.

I'm absolutely not speculating that that was either the case or a contributing factor to the situation here. I'm responding to an earlier comment that the pilot was also the owner and asking a general question ref same and whether it is allowed/common?

PukkaStukka

Latest from AVHerald

AVHerald wrote:

On Nov 30th 2016 the crew of Avianva Airbus A320-200 registration N411AV performing flight AV-9771 from Cartagena (Colombia) to Medellin reported they were arriving at Medellin at about the same time the VivaColombia Airbus A320 diverted to Medellin with priority due to a suspected fuel leak and the LAMIA aircraft arrived at Medellin. They (Avianca) and the LAMIA were sent into holds while the VivaColombia received priority to land in Medellin. The LAMIA crew, told to be number 3 for the approach, queried about the estimated delay, then transmitted they were commencing the approach due to problems with the fuel, then declared Mayday due to electrical failure and contact was lost.

robyntmorton

Unfortunately speculation is always going to happen in these situations, no matter how wrong it is, and how unconfirmed the information in making speculative comments. There is going to be a lot more involved in this than just one "this is the cause" issue

We know the weather was bad
We know the RJ-85 was operating to the limits of its range
We know the aircraft was put into a hold short of its destination, due to the fuel leak emergency

After that, we really know very little, nothing in fact, of the timeline that unfolded, as to the order of events that happened leading to the crash, and other circumstances, such as the airline's owner (and pilot?) being more concerned about the bottom line and not the safety of the flight.

These things will come out in time, but as usual with these things, it is better left to the experts.

homerjay2005

robyntmorton wrote: »

These things will come out in time, but as usual with these things, it is better left to the experts.

so we are not allowed to discuss it then because you believe we are not "expert" enough to do so?

ive yet to see one poster one here going over drive into speculation - this crash in fact seems to be very very straight forward and everybody seems to be on the same wavelength when discussing this.

robyntmorton

homerjay2005 wrote: »

so we are not allowed to discuss it then because you believe we are not "expert" enough to do so?

At no point did I say that, and don't accuse me of doing so. I know there are a lot of knowledgeable posters on Boards.

My post was more directed in dealing specifically in facts, the things that we absolutely do know about it, rather than reading too much into things that could be anywhere between possibly unconnected to the accident, and just wildly untrue. There are plenty of websites doing that anyway.

Shedite27

Think we have fairly well figured out how the plane fell out of the sky (fuel), still need to figure out why (was it put in a hold, did the pilot not know, was the other emergency more critical etc)

Precious flower

God, it's so awful. Fell out of the sky? I thought planes never did that, even if they run out of fuel? It hasn't helped my flying fear either considering I've a flight to Spain tomorrow. I'm half thinking of not going.

Pat Dunne

Precious flower wrote: »

God, it's so awful. Fell out of the sky? I thought planes never did that, even if they run out of fuel? It hasn't helped my flying fear either considering I've a flight to Spain tomorrow. I'm half thinking of not going.

Could I suggest, that you take to the bed, wrap yourself up in cotton wool and never dare venture outside your front door ever again!

JCX BXC

Well personally I haven't been in a car in years, those yokes crash all the time!