Speculation but may have just had enough fuel to get there but weather caused a change that meant a longer journey. Air companies don't like to overfuel and pilots will be judged on this, but this is always done safely.
The only thing that doesn't make sense is why did the pilot say there was electrical failure and why did he make a turn. He may have realised he wasn't going to make it and the electrical failure was an excuse for an emergency landing. We'll have to wait and see but this is a very safe plane.
Question from a non-aviator. If a plane runs out of fuel five miles from the airport could it not glide in and land/crash-land as has happened in past occurances when all engines have failed?
Speculation but may have just had enough fuel to get there but weather caused a change that meant a longer journey. Air companies don't like to overfuel and pilots will be judged on this, but this is always done safely.
The only thing that doesn't make sense is why did the pilot say there was electrical failure and why did he make a turn. He may have realised he wasn't going to make it and the electrical failure was an excuse for an emergency landing. We'll have to wait and see but this is a very safe plane.
Electrical failure was a result of lack of fuel. Engines generate the on board electricity.
I read he did ask for an urgent landing slot but not an emergency landing slot so another plane with 'mechanical failure' was let in ahead of him. He circled whilst waiting for a slot before the complete failure happened.
Speculation but may have just had enough fuel to get there but weather caused a change that meant a longer journey. Air companies don't like to overfuel and pilots will be judged on this, but this is always done safely.
The only thing that doesn't make sense is why did the pilot say there was electrical failure and why did he make a turn. He may have realised he wasn't going to make it and the electrical failure was an excuse for an emergency landing. We'll have to wait and see but this is a very safe plane.
Electrical failure was a result of lack of fuel. Engines generate the on board electricity.
I read he did ask for an urgent landing slot but not an emergency landing slot so another plane with 'mechanical failure' was let in ahead of him. He circled whilst waiting for a slot before the complete failure happened.
So, how many planes are flying around with faults?
It isn't uncommon for a plane to have faults, I have been on a few that have developed faults and had to land at another airport. That doesn't mean they are going to crash. If they run out of fuel they definitely crash. They were 8.2 miles from the runway - thats a few minutes - the pilot clearly thought they would get away with running on fumes.
Speculation but may have just had enough fuel to get there but weather caused a change that meant a longer journey. Air companies don't like to overfuel and pilots will be judged on this, but this is always done safely.
The only thing that doesn't make sense is why did the pilot say there was electrical failure and why did he make a turn. He may have realised he wasn't going to make it and the electrical failure was an excuse for an emergency landing. We'll have to wait and see but this is a very safe plane.
Electrical failure was a result of lack of fuel. Engines generate the on board electricity.
I read he did ask for an urgent landing slot but not an emergency landing slot so another plane with 'mechanical failure' was let in ahead of him. He circled whilst waiting for a slot before the complete failure happened.
So, how many planes are flying around with faults?
No idea. That's just what I have gathered from reading around a number of articles and have put that semi story together in my head. May or may not be correct.
They are very complicated pieces of machinery, they are used a lot, they are going to develop faults but they have warning systems that mean you shouldn't worry about that - they get fixed. It is true the engines generate the electric power on- board, Our plane was diverted to another airport a few years ago and whilst it was being fixed the air conditioning couldn't function so we were sweltering. By rights we should have left the plane but because it was a long haul but the pilots would have gone past their hours allowed if we did. But I don't think this applies to the electricty required for the plane to funtion.
My guess is that the pilot knew he would get into trouble if he made a big issue of it and thought the plane would make it. It might explain why he mentioned the electrical failure, to give another reason for needing a landing slot urgently. If that is true it would be astoundingly reckless. There is a pressure on pilots to be on time with some airlines and refuelling takes time.
If true, this is unbelievable, what the fuck was the pilot thinking?!
"Miguel Quiroga, the pilot of the British-made Avro RJ85 aircraft, had been warned by an official at Santa Cruz airport, in Bolivia, where the plane took off from, that he might not have enough fuel, Bolivian Deber newspaper said. But, despite the official's concerns, he went ahead with the flight to Medellin. The country's authorities have not yet commented. The flight missed a planned refuelling stop in Cobija, on the border between Brazil and Bolivia, because the airport did not operate at night, Brazil's O Globo newspaper reported. The pilot had the option to refuel in Bogota, it said, but headed straight to Medellin."
Seems a highly unlikely story. I'm sure it'll be found to be something else - almost always pilot error.
Nick.....I don't think you're right in suggesting most commercial aircraft accidents are pilot error. I watch all the Aircraft Investigations programs on TV and at a rough estimate I'd say only about 25% are pilot error. Having said that, that is not necessarily a true reflection of the actual figures of course, because they're only TV programs. What an awful tragedy, it sends me right back to The Busby Babes days, which I remember only too well.
RIP all you lost souls....RIP. .
I love aircrash investigation and 99% of crashes are down to human error. The planes almost never ever go wrong.
Figures from the last decade(2000/2010), indicate pilot error was responsible for 60% of commercial aircraft accidents. 18% were mechanical failure. Weather was 9%. Sabotage was 7%. Other was 6%.
Seems a highly unlikely story. I'm sure it'll be found to be something else - almost always pilot error.
Nick.....I don't think you're right in suggesting most commercial aircraft accidents are pilot error. I watch all the Aircraft Investigations programs on TV and at a rough estimate I'd say only about 25% are pilot error. Having said that, that is not necessarily a true reflection of the actual figures of course, because they're only TV programs. What an awful tragedy, it sends me right back to The Busby Babes days, which I remember only too well.
RIP all you lost souls....RIP. .
I love aircrash investigation and 99% of crashes are down to human error. The planes almost never ever go wrong.
Do we watch the same programme nick; see my post above for statistics?
Comments
The only thing that doesn't make sense is why did the pilot say there was electrical failure and why did he make a turn. He may have realised he wasn't going to make it and the electrical failure was an excuse for an emergency landing. We'll have to wait and see but this is a very safe plane.
I read he did ask for an urgent landing slot but not an emergency landing slot so another plane with 'mechanical failure' was let in ahead of him. He circled whilst waiting for a slot before the complete failure happened.
My guess is that the pilot knew he would get into trouble if he made a big issue of it and thought the plane would make it. It might explain why he mentioned the electrical failure, to give another reason for needing a landing slot urgently. If that is true it would be astoundingly reckless. There is a pressure on pilots to be on time with some airlines and refuelling takes time.
"Miguel Quiroga, the pilot of the British-made Avro RJ85 aircraft, had been warned by an official at Santa Cruz airport, in Bolivia, where the plane took off from, that he might not have enough fuel, Bolivian Deber newspaper said. But, despite the official's concerns, he went ahead with the flight to Medellin. The country's authorities have not yet commented.
The flight missed a planned refuelling stop in Cobija, on the border between Brazil and Bolivia, because the airport did not operate at night, Brazil's O Globo newspaper reported. The pilot had the option to refuel in Bogota, it said, but headed straight to Medellin."
Seems a highly unlikely story. I'm sure it'll be found to be something else - almost always pilot error. I love aircrash investigation and 99% of crashes are down to human error. The planes almost never ever go wrong.
18% were mechanical failure.
Weather was 9%.
Sabotage was 7%.
Other was 6%.