Brazil Mid-Air Survivor

[AA717driver]

A 1000' increase in altitude on a long flight WILL make a big difference. Especially if the aircraft in question is not the most effecient in the world.

And, anyone who takes the FMS' word on fuel at landing when you are at top of cruise (even with all the winds in there) is looking for trouble. You always add some fudge.

Good post, though but it sounds like something a non-pilot ground instructor would say. TC

P.S.--What's the range on a Legacy? They were trying to make it non-stop from Sao Paulo to ISP? Our GIV-SP would take 9:48 and land with 1780 lbs. of fuel.

 

[Brasgaucho]

I disagree....Just because something is official does not make it a fact.


I remember reading somewhere about ATC procedures in general. I seem to remember a concept that I remember as "positive seperation" (I think), basically, no two aircraft should ever be in a situation where a loss of communication would produce a mid-air. I think it may have mainly applied to radar vectors. Basically, if two aircraft were converging at the same altitude the aircraft would be stagered laterally or vertically immediatelly even if the eventual plan was to have one of the aircraft turn or change altitude before a conflict would result. Not sure...maybe I'm remembering wrong.

As far as the aircraft trying to "stretch" their fuel...I know I am "preaching to the choir" with most of you looking at this, but this is absurd. Any of us who have flown EMB-135 or aircraft with similar Flight Management Systems would know that the easiest way to stretch the range would be to just pull the power back. The EMB-135 FMS allows you to punch in all of the forecast winds along your route, the altitudes, TAS, etc...the FMS will tell you exactly how much fuel you would have at your destination when the wheels hit the ground to the minute. If you want to stretch your range...you punch in the distant destination you are trying to fly to, and then you keep pulling the power back until the FMS displays the amount of fuel you want to have in the tanks at your destination. We did this all the time flying up and down the east coast and the calculated fuel on touchdown was easily +/- 1% when you punch in all the variables correctly....and all without busting any ATC clearences.

The same people that are saying they climbed 1,000 feet to save ALL THIS FUEL (hardly any at all) are also saying that they were changing altitudes radically. These maneuvers would have negated any fuel savings they would have gained by climbing an extra 1,000 feet. These charges are so outrageous to any jet pilot that I think it makes us all sick to our stomach that these quotes are actually being picked up by reputable papers around the world.

To any reporters reading this (I can tell from some of the articles I have read that you are reading this form) This is clearly an attempted cover up by members of the BraZilian government to place blame on the pilots. Please stop quoting the Brazillian Airports Director (read: head janitor at an airport) These burecracts know absolutely nothing about aircraft operations. Go to Houston, or Dallas, or Miami, or Atlanta, find a flight crew that just got in from South America and ask them what THEY think. These guys do it every week and I am sure you will get some great prophetic stories to run in your newspapers. They will confirm what I will outline for you...

1. It is ridicules to think that this flight crew "turned off" their transponder unless they were instructed to do so by ATC. (which sometimes happens)

2. It is ridicules to think that this flight crew would climb (or not descend)1,000' contrary to an ATC clearence...on purpose...in an effort to SAVE GAS!

3. It is ridicules to think that this flight crew would be doing wild maneuvers in foreign airspace, under IFR, in the Flight Levels, contrary to an ATC clearence, with the boss and a reporter from the New York Times in the back.

This is very similar to the "experts" on TV immediatelly after 9/11 stating that "the pilots could have had guns to their heads and been made to fly into the buildings"....absolutely ridicules.

Anyway, anyone in contact with the pilots please let them know that all of their peers are praying and rooting for them...hang tough.

Later,

- Legacy was cleared to remain on FL370 after BRS until TERES (where on their FPL they should've climbed to FL380)

 

[ReportCanoa]

I disagree....Just because something is official does not make it a fact.


I remember reading somewhere about ATC procedures in general. I seem to remember a concept that I remember as "positive seperation" (I think), basically, no two aircraft should ever be in a situation where a loss of communication would produce a mid-air. I think it may have mainly applied to radar vectors. Basically, if two aircraft were converging at the same altitude the aircraft would be stagered laterally or vertically immediatelly even if the eventual plan was to have one of the aircraft turn or change altitude before a conflict would result. Not sure...maybe I'm remembering wrong.

Assuming the NORDO crew applies the proper Lost Comm procedure.

 

[Jonny Sacko]

Arhcei....

why you be you say thing like that? Thees peples are freingds to me and you. Him no get why we like this, as amerikans we shold have laws to let our 8 year old dahgter get me beer when me at home too drunk to get more beer. LOL... sorry I just gave myself a headache typing like little pump dude.....

Well... I guess its a matter of time now. I hope the best for those guys.

Ya exactly man. Get these FOREIGN idiots out of the sky here. Taking our US jobs. POLITICAL CORRECT THIS!!! Get um out of here.

Ya know, if we were able to return to survival of the fittest, NONE of this would be happening. These people get weeded out just by mother nature.

 

[zbwmy]

Ya exactly man. Get these FOREIGN idiots out of the sky here. Taking our US jobs. POLITICAL CORRECT THIS!!! Get um out of here.

Ya know, if we were able to return to survival of the fittest, NONE of this would be happening. These people get weeded out just by mother nature.

OUCH!!!

Not to 7500 this thread, but I have noticed many many foreign accents on the freq. in the past two years or so. Predominatley on regionals but others also. Is there not enough American pilots to fill those slots?

 

[G4G5]

A 1000' increase in altitude on a long flight WILL make a big difference. Especially if the aircraft in question is not the most effecient in the world.

And, anyone who takes the FMS' word on fuel at landing when you are at top of cruise (even with all the winds in there) is looking for trouble. You always add some fudge.

Good post, though but it sounds like something a non-pilot ground instructor would say. TC

P.S.--What's the range on a Legacy? They were trying to make it non-stop from Sao Paulo to ISP? Our GIV-SP would take 9:48 and land with 1780 lbs. of fuel.

The papers reported that they were to spend the night in Manaus, then fly to FLL for customs then ISP

 

[AA717driver]

The papers reported that they were to spend the night in Manaus, then fly to FLL for customs then ISP

Ok, so trying to climb squeeze out fuel mileage wasn't an issue. TC

 

[RP 04]

OUCH!!!

Not to 7500 this thread, but I have noticed many many foreign accents on the freq. in the past two years or so. Predominatley on regionals but others also. Is there not enough American pilots to fill those slots?

What makes you think they are not Americans?

 

[FN FAL]

Ya exactly man. Get these FOREIGN idiots out of the sky here. Taking our US jobs. POLITICAL CORRECT THIS!!! Get um out of here.

Ya know, if we were able to return to survival of the fittest, NONE of this would be happening. These people get weeded out just by mother nature.

Was that you that went off the highway blowing the horn, hanging out the widow waving the finger with spittle flying out of the mouth hole Friday night? If so, enjoy the aneurysm.

 

[FN FAL]

I disagree....Just because something is official does not make it a fact.

Opinions are nice, but they are often not factualy based either.

Not sure...maybe I'm remembering wrong.