Chapecoense?

[Insidious Von]

Chapeco is a town in Southern Brazil near the border with Paraguay. Their soccer club Chapecoense, were the Leicester of Brazil. They were flying into Medellin for a Coppa Libertadoes (South America's Champions League) for a match against a local Colombian club. The plane crashed near the city killing the entire club except for one survivor. Three others remained in Chapeco on injured reserve. Speculation has it that the crash was caused by fuel starvation resulting from an electrical short.

That begs the question: What the hell were they doing flying through the Amazon Basin!?

Although it would have taken longer, it would have been far safer to fly due west, then turn north through the leeward side of the Andes. The Amazon Basin is a notorious aircraft graveyard. It's one of the stormiest areas in the entire world with frequent lightning storms. Is it possible that the ionic turbulence they were flying above caused the short?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/29/colombia-plane-carrying-brazil-football-team-crashes-latest/

 

[Aardvark154]

The aircraft was on approach to the airport in Medellin at the time it crashed. It had last taken off from Santa Cruz, Bolivia. So I'm not sure what flying over the Amazon Basin has to do with anything.

 

[SkyRider]

How did 5 people survive the crash? Were they sitting in the rear of the plane?

 

[nottyboi]

The plane was out of fuel so there was no fire. The plane has a 1600 NM range and the flight was 1605 NM. It beggars belief that this sort of shit happens.

 

[Insidious Von]

The aircraft was on approach to the airport in Medellin at the time it crashed. It had last taken off from Santa Cruz, Bolivia. So I'm not sure what flying over the Amazon Basin has to do with anything.

That's what I'm trying to find out Aardie.

Flying from the Andean foothills, the sensible route would have been through central Peru. Although longer, they would have been flying through a stable air mass conserving fuel. Had they taken the direct route through western Brazil they would have met with constant turbulence.

 

[Aardvark154]

Ah, I hadn't really thought of that as the Amazon Basin, although of course you are correct.

 

[Mr Bret]

. Their soccer club Chapecoense, were the Leicester of Brazil. They were flying into Medellin for a Coppa Libertadoes (South America's Champions League) for a match against a local Colombian club.

Although it's a minor detail, they were going to play a match in the Copa Sudamericana, not the same as Copa Libertadores.
A sad and tragic day for the world of football.
The Brazilians are showing tremendous signs of respect through their grieving process.

 

[GameBoy27]

That's what I'm trying to find out Aardie.

Flying from the Andean foothills, the sensible route would have been through central Peru. Although longer, they would have been flying through a stable air mass conserving fuel. Had they taken the direct route through western Brazil they would have met with constant turbulence.

Since we don't know what altitude they were flying at, but assuming they were going into high headwinds, taking a longer route would have resulted in the same outcome. In a word, doomed.

Since it was a soccer team, I just assumed they'd all be found alive, rolling around clutching their knees. Too soon?

 

[Sexy_Dave]

I saw a report that the rescuers came upon the survivors sitting down to a picnic lunch of cold cuts.
Too soon?

 

[Insidious Von]

Tisk, tisk, tisk gentlemen, it's too soon. And after TFC's historic win no less.

Makes me want to go to the supermarket and fart in the produce section. There's your headwinds.

 

[SchlongConery]

That's what I'm trying to find out Aardie.

Flying from the Andean foothills, the sensible route would have been through central Peru. Although longer, they would have been flying through a stable air mass conserving fuel. Had they taken the direct route through western Brazil they would have met with constant turbulence.

Flying through turbulence does not consume more fuel.

In fact, in turbulence you slow the aircraft down. If severe enough you slow to "VA" or "Maneuvering Speed"

Flying at lower speeds is far more efficient, conserves fuel increases flight endurance and (depending on wind conditions) can dramatically increase range.

Also, no airline flight plans for longer routes to avoid hostile terrain. Otherwise it would be a lonnnnng flight to Europe or China from Canada!

Plane and simple, is that it seems they just ran out of fuel.

 

[nottyboi]

Flying through turbulence does not consume more fuel.

In fact, in turbulence you slow the aircraft down. If severe enough you slow to "VA" or "Maneuvering Speed"

Flying at lower speeds is far more efficient, conserves fuel increases flight endurance and (depending on wind conditions) can dramatically increase range.

Also, no airline flight plans for longer routes to avoid hostile terrain. Otherwise it would be a lonnnnng flight to Europe or China from Canada!

Plane and simple, is that it seems they just ran out of fuel.

flying through turbulence most definitely consumes more fuel. The aircraft control surfaces are all more active to stabilize and trim the plane. That increases drag and burns more fuel

 

[SchlongConery]

flying through turbulence most definitely consumes more fuel. The aircraft control surfaces are all more active to stabilize and trim the plane. That increases drag and burns more fuel

I should clarify that it does not burn significantly more fuel. And the reduction in airspeed would more than offset any minor control surface deflections.

Can you refer to the Range/Endurance section of any Aircraft Flight Manual that has a notation for changes in range due to turbulence?

 

[Insidious Von]

Thank you Schlong and Notty this is the sort of information I wanted to know about.

However if an object is moving through an almost perpetual low pressure system, isn't it going to expend more energy to get through it?

 

[SchlongConery]

Thank you Schlong and Notty this is the sort of information I wanted to know about.

However if an object is moving through an almost perpetual low pressure system, isn't it going to expend more energy to get through it?

You're thinking too much into this!

Actually, lower density (pressure) of air allows for less aerodynamic drag and more fuel efficient flight.. The altitudes jet airliners fly have extremely low air density and they achieve best fuel efficiency at the highest possible altitude that their engines will allow.

In fact, when jets get stuck down low by ATC, you burn a fucking LOT of kerosene! Worst thing is to get restricted to low altitudes when you are departing an airport. Or get waltzed around down low when you are trying to get sequenced for an approach.

Plus, when you fly above Flight Level 180 (18,000' pressure altitude..NOT actual height above the ground elevation), you adjust your altimeter to a standard setting of 29.92 Hg (inches of mercury) so you flight plan according to your pressure altitude.

The Avro_RJ85 jet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_146#BAe_146-200_and_Avro_RJ85 that they were flying is a shortish range commuter aircraft with four jet engines. These never rely caught on and many were sold cheap into the executive charter business. If you get stuck down low with four of these jet engines idling along, you are burning a lot of fuel that cuts disproportionately into the range.

 

[SchlongConery]

ATC audio just released clearly indicates the aircraft was running out of fuel.

In an audio recording broadcast by Colombian and Brazilian media outlets, the plane’s pilot makes ever more urgent pleas to the control tower, asking for an emergency landing, saying it had run out of fuel. He also said there was a "total electric failure." A female air-traffic controller said the plane would have to wait while a separate plane made an emergency landing.



http://globoesporte.globo.com/sc/fu...ao-da-chapecoense-insistindo-para-pousar.html

Bloomberg reports the same.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-at-limits-of-range-on-fatal-colombia-flight

 

[Aardvark154]

The Avro_RJ85 jet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_146#BAe_146-200_and_Avro_RJ85 that they were flying is a shortish range commuter aircraft with four jet engines. These never rely caught on and many were sold cheap into the executive charter business.

The Avro RJ series has 166 aircraft in service, its predecessor the BAe 146 has 221 aircraft in service.

 

[nottyboi]

I should clarify that it does not burn significantly more fuel. And the reduction in airspeed would more than offset any minor control surface deflections.

Can you refer to the Range/Endurance section of any Aircraft Flight Manual that has a notation for changes in range due to turbulence?

No, because there is no "uniform" type of turbulence. Slowing down often also means reducing altitude depending on how heavily loaded the plane is, so that uses more fuel. Unless turbulence is severe, I don't think they slow down.

 

[SchlongConery]

<sigh>

You don't know what you are talking about nottyboi. I suspect you have some knowledge of aviation, and that you might be in the aviation industry in some capacity. But not as a pilot, dispatcher, designer, engineer etc.

No, because there is no "uniform" type of turbulence.

Lol!

I guess you are correct in that there is no such thing as "uniform" turbulence.

But turbulence is categorized.

The Federal Aviation Authority's Aeronautical Information Manual sets out the most basic categories in Chapter 7-144

It is further categorized by type, intensity and other characteristics etc.

http://maps.avnwx.com/help/turb_desc.html

http://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2016/03/types-of-turbulence-that-can-rock-your-flight/

When it comes to conditions that can effect range and endurance, you better believe that those conditions are factored and published in the AFM.

Manufacturers must engineer and conduct extensive testing of the aircraft according to specific and measurable turbulence types and intensities.

If these well known factors influenced range, endurance etc to any significant effect, turbulence factors would be specified in the aircraft's range, endurance Performance Charts. The granularity of the performance data regarding even slight changes in weight, temperatures, center of gravity etc on airliners is hard to fathom to a layman or even non-ATR/ATP rated jet pilots.

Slowing down often also means reducing altitude .

No it doesn't.

You might change altitude (up or down) to find a smoother flight level, and you might slow down until you find that altitude, but the two have nothing to do with each other.

Slowing down often also means reducing altitude depending on how heavily loaded the plane is, so that uses more fuel.

Wrong again.

Unless turbulence is severe, I don't think they slow down.

You obviously don't even fly on airplanes! LOL

Fucking right you slow down in anything more than light chop. Moderate turbulence is hard on the airplane, paying passengers and the crew who may need to walk around the cabin. The intensity of the effect of turbulence is significantly reduced with lower airspeed.

"Severe Turbulence" by definition: “Aircraft may be momentarily out of control.” Extreme turbulence is defined as “turbulence in which the aircraft is violently tossed about and is practically impossible to control. It may cause structural damage.”

Good article on severe turbulence in this Smithsonian Air and Space magazine article

http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/a-rough-ride-164514997/

 

[Aardvark154]

The plane was out of fuel so there was no fire. The plane has a 1600 NM range and the flight was 1605 NM. It beggars belief that this sort of shit happens.

It gets worse! Supposedly they were 20 minutes late in taking off because they were looking for mislayed video games. This then meant that they couldn't refuel at Cobija,Bolivia because the airport closed at midnight.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-taking-crew-looking-player-s-video-game.html