acvitale
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 8:25 am

AV52 On National Geographic (Air Crash Invest.)

Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:15 am

As we speak here in Ghana on National Geographic is the Avianca 052 crash in January 1990.

I remember the crash. I was non revenue travelling with Pan Am. We were the ground handler for Avianca. I had my flight to Orlando cancelled due to weather.

As fate would have it I ended up spending the evening volunteering to assist the relatives who were at JFK Pan Am Worldport Terminal 3 waiting on the arriving flight.

I remember the evening vividly but, Even so, I learned somethings I was not aware of.

This accident was avoidable and should never have happened. The language barrier was an excuse. The real cause as correctly identified was the continued holds and the failure to use the word EMERGENCY instead of the word URGENT.

Now I learn that this was an accident that was inevitable with the unrealistic goal of 33 landings an hour in windshear, rain, fog, and with one runway shutdown.

I will not forget the calls and then watching the monitors change to "SEE AGENT".

May the victims of AV052 rest in peace.
 
UN_B732
Posts: 3529
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 12:57 am

RE: AV52 On National Geographic (Air Crash Invest.)

Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:52 am

It's on here in Serbia also! Keep watching, another flight should beon in 9 minutes.
What now?
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: AV52 On National Geographic (Air Crash Invest.)

Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:45 am

Quoting ACVitale (Thread starter):
This accident was avoidable and should never have happened. The language barrier was an excuse. The real cause as correctly identified was the continued holds and the failure to use the word EMERGENCY instead of the word URGENT.

I'll be the first to grant you that the "accident was avoidable and should never have happened" but there is no singular "real cause." There are several, and NTSB determines the "probable cause" as well as items/factors "contributing" to cause the accident. Here's what they said re: Avianca 52:

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the failure of the flightcrew to adequately manage the airplane's fuel load, and their failure to communicate an emergency fuel situation to air traffic control before fuel exhaustion occurred. Contributing to the accident was the flightcrew's failure to use an airline operational control dispatch system to assist them during the international flight into a high-density airport in poor weather. Also contributing to the accident was inadequate traffic flow management by the Federal Aviation Administration and the lack of standardized understandable terminology for pilots and controllers for minimum and emergency fuel states."

While the "holds" you mentioned were covered by NTSB's citing FAA's "inadequate traffic flow management", the number 1 item on the contributing factors list was the lack of an operational control system. The Avianca flight had a dispatcher, and although they did the original flight planning work (with some error in weights and the selection of BOS as the destination alternate), there was no in-flight communication between dispatcher and PIC. The airborne holds at ORF, BOTON, and CAMRN all ate up fuel, and had a MIA-JFK flight on a US Part 121 Domestic/Flag received similar holds at those points, the flight's dispatcher and PIC would have been communicating about contingencies. In reality, the flight should have been diverted to someplace like IAD, PIT, or SYR. Their filed alternate (BOS) was forecasted to be below alternate minimums even before they left Colombia, but it was a moot point, as fuel to have reached it was consumed in the first hold over ORF.

Bottomline was that the rules under which Avianca 52 operated (Part 129) essentially kicked it back to the rules of the airline's home country, and in this case, their's were far less stringent than US Part 121 Domestic/Flag, which I was told they have since adopted.

For the full report, see:

http://www.avsaf.org/reports/US/1990...AviancaAirlines_Boeing707-321B.pdf
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
acvitale
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 8:25 am

RE: AV52 On National Geographic (Air Crash Invest.)

Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:51 am

OPNLGuy,

No disagreement, I remember that night vividly.

Nonetheless, I had no idea of the argument that had taken place between the FAA supervisors on duty at JFK and the FAA traffic management system managers.

Finally, I was aware of the language problem and the failure to use the word emergency.

On the other hand what I note is the failure of the controllers to pass the message between each other with none of the controllers being advised that the previous controller had been told they had no fuel and not enough to divert to the alternate.

Finally, They should have diverted long before that point. IIRC ICAO rules are divert with enough fuel to arrive at alternate with 30 mins of fuel remaining.
 
Tomys
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:25 am

RE: AV52 On National Geographic (Air Crash Invest.)

Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:56 am

It was one of very frustrating stories (as is every other when people lose their lives). I know one of the explanation was that in Spanish 'priority' means 'we request to be first' but I am afraid they had adapt US English wording? Therefore 'We decleare fuel emergency' or something like that?
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: AV52 On National Geographic (Air Crash Invest.)

Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:04 am

Quoting Tomys (Reply 4):
I know one of the explanation was that in Spanish 'priority' means 'we request to be first' but I am afraid they had adapt US English wording? Therefore 'We decleare fuel emergency' or something like that?

There doesn't seem to be any doubt that there were some language issues involved, and that something was (literally) "lost in the translation" between PIC (flying), F/O (working the radios) and thus the controllers. In the absence of the "magic" E-word having been spoken, I can't fault the controllers at all.

My main point in bringing up the commonly overlooked operational control aspects of this accident is that the lack thereof "loaded and cocked the gun" that others (crew, language aspects, ATC, etc.) would help pull the trigger on later on.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
RICARIZA
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:56 am

RE: AV52 On National Geographic (Air Crash Invest.)

Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:54 am

I understand from the results of the investigation that it was a 50/50 responsibility for the pilot and for the air controler.

There is a whole thread about this topic:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/1908930
I miss ACES, I am proud of AVIANCA & I am loyal to AMERICAN
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: AV52 On National Geographic (Air Crash Invest.)

Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:30 am

Quoting RICARIZA (Reply 6):
I understand from the results of the investigation that it was a 50/50 responsibility for the pilot and for the air controler.

Looking at the NTSB's probable cause and contributing factors that I mentioned back in reply #2, how do you come to this neat 50-50 split?
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
RICARIZA
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:56 am

RE: AV52 On National Geographic (Air Crash Invest.)

Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:54 am

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 7):
Looking at the NTSB's probable cause and contributing factors that I mentioned back in reply #2, how do you come to this neat 50-50 split?

Because of the procedure explained at the hearing. They were put in 3 different holding patterns coming up the coast and spend over an hour doing it. Their opportunity was to have diverted the flight somewhere well before it got into a low-fuel situation.
I miss ACES, I am proud of AVIANCA & I am loyal to AMERICAN
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: AV52 On National Geographic (Air Crash Invest.)

Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:19 am

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 7):
Looking at the NTSB's probable cause and contributing factors that I mentioned back in reply #2, how do you come to this neat 50-50 split?



Quoting RICARIZA (Reply 8):
Because of the procedure explained at the hearing. They were put in 3 different holding patterns coming up the coast and spend over an hour doing it. Their opportunity was to have diverted the flight somewhere well before it got into a low-fuel situation.

The Hearing and Final Report are two different things. At the time of the Hearing, the official cause had yet to be determined. I attended the Hearings, and don't recall any discussion of a 50/50 apportionment of blame, nor would there have been at that stage.

The Final Report's "cause" section (back in reply #2) mentions a probable cause and three contributing factors, for a total of four items, none of which translates to the 50/50 figure that you mention.

Quoting RICARIZA (Reply 8):
Their opportunity was to have diverted the flight somewhere well before it got into a low-fuel situation.

Just out of curiosity, whose "opportunity" are you referring to?

Cheers
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
CalAir
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:15 am

RE: AV52 On National Geographic (Air Crash Invest.)

Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:00 am

And for those of us in the UK and I guess anyone with National Geographic off the ASTRA satellite or NTL cable, next weeks edition covers the pilot sucked out of the flight deck on the flight to Malaga. They show the graphics of a BA BAC 1-11 but the interior shots were of an EAC cabin. Looks good! 9pm UK time nect Tuesday.
British Caledonian...we never forget, you have a choice
 
RICARIZA
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:56 am

RE: AV52 On National Geographic (Air Crash Invest.)

Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:17 am

The 50/50 was my way of talk of shared responsibility not the exact words of the hearing, just read my post.
I miss ACES, I am proud of AVIANCA & I am loyal to AMERICAN
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: AV52 On National Geographic (Air Crash Invest.

Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:21 am

Is that 50/50 shared responsibility between the pilot and dispatcher, or the pilot and air traffic controller? If it's the latter, that's not what operational control is all about, nor what the results of the NTSB investigation indicated...

[Edited 2005-04-20 03:27:42]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CF-CPI, Fiend, IPFreely, LA704, lancelot07, mouha777, neutrino, rutankrd, rw774477, SCQ83, seahawk and 344 guests