Plane ran out of fuel...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38165757

Apparently they were on hold before the crash. Did the pilot run out of fuel while in the holding pattern?

Having been in an airliner that had to declare an emergency just for that reason, I can see it happening.

After all carrying minimum fuel saves pennies--and puts the burden of how much is the minimum to survive on the pilot !
I remember a crash in NYC where the pilot who's English was a second language , didn't use the "I have a fuel emergency" and "go around once more" ended the flight.

quote:

Originally posted by mete:
After all carrying minimum fuel saves pennies--and puts the burden of how much is the minimum to survive on the pilot !
I remember a crash in NYC where the pilot who's English was a second language , didn't use the "I have a fuel emergency" and "go around once more" ended the flight.

Ah yes....Avianca 707....hispanic machismo at it's best..along with lack of english language proficiency..I was flying in and out of Newark that night....it was a true cluster f&&*......otherwise known as chaos.....long night for all.

I'll be damned if I was PIC that I would run my plane out of "gas" with me and other souls on board in a hold pattern in mountains because of an ATC directive! Geez. He was obviously near reserve when he entered hold. WTF was he thinking about(or not thinking)?

Seems that the PIC (who was part-owner of the airline) took off with no reserve, and skipped a refuelling stop...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38178673

Seven minutes on hold, that's all it took to kill all of them. They were 8 miles out on last com, they'd have barely made it.

He did not declare an emergency, and another plane took precedence on landing due to a fuel leak. Between a leak and a zero fuel, which one is the most urgent?

I guess he'll be a prime candidate for "Air crash investigation" on Nat Geo. He fully deserves a Darwin with Honors, pity that he took so many people with him...

I hate it when fuel gets tired......

Negative, emergency aircraft...Clear the pattern we are landing. It's that simple. Never allow ATC to back you into a corner.

ANother thought: the PIC actually owned the aircraft and the company. How much would the refueling stop have costed the company - hence him? Would that have been part of his decision process?

I'm guessing that may well have been a factor. Of course the cost turned out to be much higher!

The first rule of crashing - Crash at the airport, you're closer to help.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
The first rule of crashing - Crash at the airport, you're closer to help.

What's that old saying, a penny saved, a dollar earned ?

Grizz

I once created a mess in the T-38 traffic pattern at Reese AFB. The mission was a simple instrument training sortie with me in the front and the student under the bag in the back. We went up to Cannon AFB and shot several approaches.

Coming back to Reese our planned landing fuel was 800 lbs. Min fuel was 600 lbs and engines had been known to flame out with 400 lbs (emergency fuel) showing. A flameout in the T-38 could cause significant damage because it could actually cavitate and destroy fuel lines.

As we came back our plan was to shoot an approach and land on the main runway full stop. Well, there was a transient C-12 (King Air) coming in and since transient aircraft always had priority I and another squadron aircraft in front of me were vectored around so we would have spacing behind the considerably slower C-12.

The original fuel planning would have had us in the main runway with above 800 lbs. After the vectoring around for the King Air we were doing to land with a little above 600, which was still okay.

Well, when our squadron mate immediately in front of us touched down he called the tower and said he thought he saw a rabbit on the runway. Which caused the tower to immediately close the runway. Still no big deal, all we had to do was change frequency and pull a closed pattern to the parallel T-38 runway. A closed pattern took 150 lbs which was below min fuel but above emergency fuel.

Well, the T-38 pattern was busy so my "min fuel request closed" call was denied. We added "min fuel" to our calls when we expected to land below 600, and "emergency fuel" when we were going to be below 400.

Now an outside pattern took 250-300 lbs, which wasn't going to work out well for me. So I was in the unusual situation of only being emergency fuel if I had to go around the outside pattern.

So as we USAF did when our current situation didn't fit any of the too numerous rules we had, I made stuff up. Immediately after was denied the closed pattern I told the T-38 pattern controller something like "I have to pull closed or I WILL be emergency fuel so get everyone out of my way" and I pulled into the closed pattern, clearing like a bandit, and hearing the controller break other aircraft out of the pattern.

I landed with 500ish lbs and barely made it to the chocks with 400 lbs. If I had gone below 400 lbs I would have shut down the engines on the taxiway (creating another mess) and they would have towed me in.

In discussing all this later with that very traffic pattern controller (another T-38 IP), when explained the sequence on events he agreed I had little choice but to do things as I did.

Just goes to show that even with good planning things can go South. A T-38 typically would fly 1.1 to 1.2 hour contact and formation sorties, and an instrument sortie would usually go about a 1.3. I logged a 1.6 that day, my longest duration T-38 sortie ever.

You guys are great. I always wished I could fly.

The PIC and part owner of the company filed a flight plan that was longer in duration than the aircraft's maximum fuel endurance. His obviously cowed down, pussy of an F/O backed his decision.

He is nearly out of gas yet accepts a holding clearance. Denial is not a river in Africa. he had to of over flown several if not multiple available fuel stops en route. This company needs to be shut down. Whoever this "pilot" was he had no idea about the most basic tenets of flying, safety of flight or a whole host of other crucial skills needed to make a professional pilot.

https://airwaysmag.com/industr...-but-also-murderers/

Unbelieveable.

There are cultures where the boss's words are law and all are afraid to challenge !

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:
Negative, emergency aircraft...Clear the pattern we are landing. It's that simple. Never allow ATC to back you into a corner.

30+ years ATC, never had anyone who declared minimum fuel or emergency fuel left by the wayside. Never had one of my cohorts do it either. Top priority here brother!

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Kobe:

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:
Negative, emergency aircraft...Clear the pattern we are landing. It's that simple. Never allow ATC to back you into a corner.

30+ years ATC, never had anyone who declared minimum fuel or emergency fuel left by the wayside. Never had one of my cohorts do it either. Top priority here brother!

GOD BLESS YOU AND AMERICAN ATC in general! Not so much in some other countries I regularly fly to.

The issue here however wasn't ATC. If ATC doesn't know you have a problem they can't provide assistance. I think this guy was afraid to fess up to his stupidity. He was saving face for his incompetence all the way to his grave and the murder of his passengers and crew.

Jim,

Interesting. The USAF always told us "min fuel" only had meaning at training bases, and that we should use "emergency fuel" if we needed fuel priority with ATC.

Min fuel means very little in terms of priority handling. Emergency fuel gets you what you need. Our SOP is for declaring emergency fuel is Mayday x 3 followed by emergency fuel.

There have been far to many misunderstandings regarding terminology with low fuel situations.

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:
Min fuel means very little in terms of priority handling. Emergency fuel gets you what you need. Our SOP is for declaring emergency fuel is Mayday x 3 followed by emergency fuel.

There have been far to many misunderstandings regarding terminology with low fuel situations.

I was taught and regs stated, minimum fuel meant no unnecessary delays, not an emergency

Here's an Emirates 777 that had a fuel emergency at Vancouver after missing approach at Seattle due to weather.

quote:

Originally posted by Canuck32:
Here's an Emirates 777 that had a fuel emergency at Vancouver after missing approach at Seattle due to weather.

Perfectly handled by the flight crew and ATC.

I really get a high pucker factor as Alaska Airlines drives 737's to Hawaii from West Coast...and begins bumping pax for fuel in the winter when headwinds are fierce....
Last year we watched as they bumped 15 for fuel...and my trusty Omega stopwatch clicked 6:44 on touchdown. I guess the record is only about 5 minutes longer....
I learned from my neighbor copilot that we were actually dispatched to mid point...then if we had fuel to Kona +reserve they would redispatch to destination....vs Honolulu for fuel!!
That's pushin it....but so far nobody is wet yet!!
I like the US reserves requirements....ie destination, to alternate, +45 minutes.
In Dispatchers program, the teaching is- it takes 100 lbs of fuel to fly 1000 lbs of fuel 100 miles (737-300).....soooooo in the modern era of bean counters/computers ruling, the Captain's "throw on an extra 5000lbs" might get overridden these days!!
Sounds like a capacity issue for the route dominated this tragedy...then some decision making...and chances!! SAD!!

Cheers,