Plane crash - Chapecoense FC - Awarded Copa Sudamericana - first game back today. P25

Thanks for the reply ,have you any idea £ wise how much not refueling may have saved assume in the £000,s ?
Just curious for how much saving the pilot was prepared to gamble all those lives for,if that's what he's provern to have done
I'm no expert on aircraft leasing but it's probably less than you might think. If I had to guess, for an aircraft that size, probably in the region of $1000. The expected profit for a day's lease probably wouldn't be much more than that.
 
I'm no expert on aircraft leasing but it's probably less than you might think. If I had to guess, for an aircraft that size, probably in the region of $1000. The expected profit for a day's lease probably wouldn't be much more than that.
Good god you have amazed me ,thought it would of been a lot more than that
 
Good god you have amazed me ,thought it would of been a lot more than that
Roughly an extra tonne of fuel used - about $500. Landing fees - $300 at a guess. Extra crew costs due to longer duration - maybe $200.
I speculate here as I don't know how the aircraft anti ice system works, and whether it needs the electronics to be working, which may have already failed due to the fuel situation, but that may have caused there being no anti icing available, and in the tropics there can be very severe airframe icing close to the freezing level in the right conditions.
Anti-icing uses engine bleed air. Not helpful when the engines aren't running.
 
Thanks, yes I should have remembered that, there could still be some extenuating circumstances that contributed to the lack of fuel, which is clearly the root cause.
This picture explains exactly what went wrong.
3AFBF10100000578-0-image-m-8_1480758830343.jpg

The aircraft's endurance (range with planned fuel load) and estimated flight time were identical which means it was recognised from the outset that there was no margin for any en-route delays (excessive headwinds, holds etc.). The person responsible for accepting the flight plan at the departure airport refused to do this hence no signature in the "accepted by" box. Apparently the despatcher argued the toss and insisted that they would be alright and for some reason they were allowed to take off. If the culprit wasn't dead there would be a murder trial.
 
That's disgraceful, I'd have thought the airport could have refused the plane clearance to take off.
Hadn't seen that, if it was refused, then someone at the airport must also be responsible for allowing it to take off.
Apparently the aircraft's despatcher tried to browbeat the flight plan acceptance person into accepting the flight plan. She had asked them to amend the flight plan but they refused. Obviously someone at the airport should have refused permission for them to take off but from what I can gather the flight crew were made well aware that the flight plan was unsafe but they insisted to the airport staff that it would be ok. No doubt someone junior at the airport will be scapegoated for allowing them to take off but there's no doubt that 99% of the blame lies with the captain and despatcher. There's presumably a culture problem where an apparently senior captain can intimidate an airport official into accepting his request.
 
I'd be shocked if this was the first time he'd pulled this trick, partly because of greed and partly because of the sheer buzz of it.

For some people the bigger the risk, the bigger the thrill.
He's dead but I don't feel wrong in saying the man was a ****. Just pure greed can't see it any other way.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.