The 737-200 was leased from a Mexican
Airline, the Antonov’s are grounded, spares
Dont come from the US....what Cubana
Planes are flying now, Russian and Ukranian or
Just Russian....dont know what they are charting
Other than this 737-200 from Mexico....
What is wrong with this.....

Super88 wrote:

Malev134, Im talking current Cubana planes, not leased or Chartered from the past....
Several types from history....

A320 is now...

Malev134, Im talking current Cubana planes, not leased or Chartered from the past....
Several types from history....

RIP to the victims.

On a side note, the lone A319 and 4 A320s that Cubana leased are all gone. They have all been returned to the lessor.

LY-COM returned to lessor May 15, 2018
LY-VEV returned to lessor April 10, 2018
LY-VEW returned to lessor April 2, 2018
LY-VEQ returned to lessor May 15, 2018
LY-VET returned to lessor May 1, 2018

http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Cuba ... y-a320.htm
http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Cuba ... y-a319.htm

No more airbuses between Canada and Cuba. As we speak, CU is operating an IL96 on YYZ-CCC.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/cu187

With the Antonovs grounded as well, CU doesn't have much fleet left to fly.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

A320s are gone. They have all been returned to the lessor.

LY-COM returned to lessor May 15, 2018
LY-VEV returned to lessor April 10, 2018
LY-VEW returned to lessor April 2, 2018
LY-VEQ returned to lessor May 15, 2018

http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Cuba ... y-a320.htm

Ooops...I was wrong by 3 days...sorry

reffado wrote:

Apparently not the I-BPAC. FR24 tweeted "We've deleted a tweet referencing Blue Panorama with regards to the crash in Havana, as the airline states it was not their aircraft."

Looks like it might be a mexican-registered aircraft instead.

Two different countries & governments with limited Technology to review the CVR and FDR, so does this means the US NTSB and Boeing could take the lead in the investigation?

I hope there are more survivors soon. RIP to all who perished.

MakevTU134....does Cubana own the A320, if so where can I find the info

It's unknown if it was a 737-200 or 737-500?

Super88 wrote:

MakevTU134....does Cubana own the A320, if so where can I find the info

No, they were dry leased

Would HAV have security cameras around the airport like most US airports?

NYPECO wrote:

It's unknown if it was a 737-200 or 737-500?

From the tail in the picture I would say to about 60% a -500, the leading edge slightly curves until a sharp angle downwards... Where the classic dorsal fin starts. But the -200 might break up in the same manner as well, with a little less curvage on the top. We will have to wait a bit.

3 survivors being reported by the BBC, a little good news.

I have flown the reverse of this route back in 2010 which called in at Cayo Coco on the way from HOG to HAV. It was operated by a Global Air B732 (on behalf of Cubana) which still had USAir head rest covers on. Unfortunately I can't remember the registration but I do recall it being a 1979 build. It was the only aircraft I have ever flown on that has seats facing each other half way down the plane. The crew were nothing but professional and the aircraft was clean and tidy.
RIP to everybody affected.

Super88 wrote:

Exactly MalevTU134, leased, not owned..

Nor chartered, which is what I thought you were asking about before? In other words, "operated by Cubana".

When Cubana leases a plane, do Cubana
Employees staff the plane or does the carrier
They lease/charter from provide the staff....

Super88 wrote:

When Cubana leases a plane, do Cubana
Employees staff the plane or does the carrier
They lease/charter from provide the staff....

All the planes I mentioned were dry leased by CU. Don't know about the B737s, though.

The AVHerald article shows the final crash site as pretty far off to the right with a sharp turn that would have had to be completed by about the middle of the runway. I'm just curious if there is a standard departure from this airport that would match that flight path. It seems like they would have had to start that turn very early.

Thanks ctrabs0114....I think I fixed it, glad to know its happened before....

OK so I'm glad we got the airline down, do we know for a fact yet whether it was a 737-200 or a 737-500? Avherald has it as a 737-200 but others are saying 737-500...

Super80Fan wrote:

OK so I'm glad we got the airline down, do we know for a fact yet whether it was a 737-200 or a 737-500? Avherald has it as a 737-200 but others are saying 737-500...

At this point I wouldn't trust anything that's being said, though it'd be nice if Boeing put out a brief release stating such and such aircraft went down in HAV today and we will assist with XYZ. Basically, something from a reputable source confirming which aircraft it was.

spacecadet wrote:

The AVHerald article shows the final crash site as pretty far off to the right with a sharp turn that would have had to be completed by about the middle of the runway. I'm just curious if there is a standard departure from this airport that would match that flight path. It seems like they would have had to start that turn very early.

In one of the comments to that article it is mentioned that that location is wrong, by a poster who lives close by.

Apparently confirmed as XA-UHZ

https://twitter.com/SCT_mx/status/997569890172141568

Super80Fan wrote:

OK so I'm glad we got the airline down, do we know for a fact yet whether it was a 737-200 or a 737-500? Avherald has it as a 737-200 but others are saying 737-500...

No, Avherald has it as a -500 now. Looks like they had it as a -200 initially, though.

D L X wrote:

algeorge2015 wrote:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4b8bfb2d

Look at that satellite map view marking the approximate final position. Look where it is in relationship to the runway. If that's accurate, what in hell could have made it end up over there?! Wow.

I'm guessing it took off using around 1/3 of the runway and started turning immediately.

TWA302 wrote:

flymia wrote:

Everyone is reporting a 737. Its likely leased/wet leas if its to Cubana. Other possibility is a charter to Florida. I have seen a 737 in "Havana Air" colors when its actually a flight operated by someone like Xtra.

I am leaning towards a leased 737 for Cubana given that is what the state run media is reporting.

https://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status/997530003783942144

This report says that is was a leased Blue Panorama 737 operating for Cubana.

What does operating for mean besides the fact that Cubana sold tickets for it - was it flown by Cubana crew or Panorama crew ?

Looks like CNN has marked it as a 737-200;
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

RossW wrote:

Apparently confirmed as XA-UHZ

https://twitter.com/SCT_mx/status/997569890172141568

Well that would appear to be an official source. Better than FlightGlobal or Wiki at least.

Thanks for the lease info, the types of leasing gets confusing sometimes

HoboJoe wrote:

TWA302 wrote:

flymia wrote:

Everyone is reporting a 737. Its likely leased/wet leas if its to Cubana. Other possibility is a charter to Florida. I have seen a 737 in "Havana Air" colors when its actually a flight operated by someone like Xtra.

I am leaning towards a leased 737 for Cubana given that is what the state run media is reporting.

https://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status/997530003783942144

This report says that is was a leased Blue Panorama 737 operating for Cubana.

What does operating for mean besides the fact that Cubana sold tickets for it - was it flown by Cubana crew or Panorama crew ?

While apparently not the aircraft involved in today's tragedy, the Blue Panorama aircraft seemed to be a wet lease from what I have read online. YMMV - especially today.

Washington Post just issued a breaking news alert that states "More than 100 people are dead after an aging airliner crashing shortly after takeoff...". Terrible.

MalevTU134 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

OK so I'm glad we got the airline down, do we know for a fact yet whether it was a 737-200 or a 737-500? Avherald has it as a 737-200 but others are saying 737-500...

No, Avherald has it as a -500 now. Looks like they had it as a -200 initially, though.

The Mexican government has confirmed the aircraft was XA-UHZ, a 737-200 that was originally delivered to Piedmont Airlines in 1979. Avherald has updated its article with the same information.

https://www.gob.mx/sct/prensa/accidente ... yo-de-2018

http://avherald.com/h?article=4b8bfb2d&opt=0

So much early fog of information. I looked at the photos of the engine on the ground and thought "That looks like a 737-200" engine. But since everybody was saying that this was a Blue Panorama 737NG, I figured I was wrong. Shouldn't have doubted myself so much. It is in fact a 737-200.

Word is that this was a wet-lease from a Mexican carrier, so that carrier's crews would be flying it. (Wet lease = a leasing arrangement where the lessor carrier provides the Aircraft, Crew, Maintenance and Insurance, and you (the lessee) provide the fuel. The wet-lessee generally has to be an airline; civilians can only buy a full-service charter.) Usually the wet lease is for a defined period, for example to serve while one of your aircraft is in the shop. Subservice is similar, but usually for a shorter period -- a few flights, for example.

CitizenJustin wrote:

D L X wrote:

slvrblt wrote:

AA 1334 is on the ground in MIA. Thankful for that.........hoping for the best for those folks in the actual accident but that big smoke plume doesn't make one feel very confident

Until I hear confirmation of any deaths, I'm going to remain optimistic. Remember this "unsurvivable" crash:

The plane shown in the image you posts is an Air France plane. The accident plane has a solid blue tail.

He was only referring to the AF crash as an example of one where it looked unsurvivable in pictures but was actually quite survivable. He wasn't trying to display a picture from today's crash or to imply that this was in any way related to what happened today.

That plane has seen a lot of owners/lessors.

https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/ ... s/O6x1UMMJ

CitizenJustin wrote:

D L X wrote:

slvrblt wrote:

AA 1334 is on the ground in MIA. Thankful for that.........hoping for the best for those folks in the actual accident but that big smoke plume doesn't make one feel very confident

Until I hear confirmation of any deaths, I'm going to remain optimistic. Remember this "unsurvivable" crash:

The plane shown in the image you posts is an Air France plane. The accident plane has a solid blue tail.

He wasn't saying that was a photo of today's accident, he was pointing out that in spite of the consuming fire in the AF YYZ crash, everyone ultimately survived, which he was referencing to remain optimistic. Most of the AF A340 had already been evacuated prior to the worst of the fire however.

D L X wrote:

slvrblt wrote:

AA 1334 is on the ground in MIA. Thankful for that.........hoping for the best for those folks in the actual accident but that big smoke plume doesn't make one feel very confident

Until I hear confirmation of any deaths, I'm going to remain optimistic. Remember this "unsurvivable" crash:

The plane shown in the image you posts is an Air France plane. The accident plane has a solid blue tail.

The picture shows hard right rudder deflection and the crash location is way off to the right when taking off to the northeast. Correlation?

DUSdude wrote:

The picture shows hard right rudder deflection and the crash location is way off to the right when taking off to the northeast. Correlation?

Did the rudder deflection issues plaguing the 737 include the -200? I'm sure it's unrelated but stranger things have happened. As a non-av/non-tech guy, I don't know normal protocol, but is there ever a reason to have a rudder locked (say, deflected) while on the ground? Probably shouldn't even speculate as I know it's early and we've barely figured out what plane it is.

I will also note that the crash location on AVHerald lines up with the view of the smoke from the terminal in the picture above the map location.

i flew in 2011 maybe in the same plane than you from Holguín to La Habana with the same weird configuration ( club ) . As a mexican I recognized that the entire crew was a Mexican crew and for sure it was the same way on this accident.

flymia wrote:

chrisp390 wrote:

The problem is FlightGlobal is using this forum to get its info, and then presenting it as if it is the truth. They should do more independent research instead of relying on forums like this, then they would not have the blunder of reporting the wrong airline on their Twitter!

A lot of news agencies use this forum. I am sure someone from CNN and BBC are reading right now.

Hi PlanesNTrains and chrisp390, this is Ghim from FlightGlobal. Thank you for reading! Could you please kindly reference the link from FlightGlobal where you saw the erroneous information? We have so far carried two stories on the HAV crash which state clearly the owner of the 737-200, but would obviously like to amend any errors elsewhere (Twittersphere and the like) that you might have come across. Thank you for your time!

Airways magazine says the plane was delivered to WN in 1988 then went on to many different airlines....its interesting when
You fly an older plane, I always wonder if
Its been with that airline or several different
One’s, I keep registration numbers and look
It up ehen I get home....

Super88 wrote:

Airways magazine says the plane was delivered to WN in 1988 then went on to many different airlines....its interesting when
You fly an older plane, I always wonder if
Its been with that airline or several different
One’s, I keep registration numbers and look
It up ehen I get home....

That information appears to be wrong. This is a former Piedmont/US plane delivered in 1979.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

DUSdude wrote:

The picture shows hard right rudder deflection and the crash location is way off to the right when taking off to the northeast. Correlation?

Did the rudder deflection issues plaguing the 737 include the -200? I'm sure it's unrelated but stranger things have happened. As a non-av/non-tech guy, I don't know normal protocol, but is there ever a reason to have a rudder locked (say, deflected) while on the ground? Probably shouldn't even speculate as I know it's early and we've barely figured out what plane it is.

Yes the 200's where effected with rudder hardovers.
There was incidents on takeoff but the accidents happened on approach though. Also the issue was finally figured out with the Eastwind flight into Richmond. Supposed to have been fixed but who knows if this aircraft was.

a/c dxer wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

DUSdude wrote:

The picture shows hard right rudder deflection and the crash location is way off to the right when taking off to the northeast. Correlation?

Did the rudder deflection issues plaguing the 737 include the -200? I'm sure it's unrelated but stranger things have happened. As a non-av/non-tech guy, I don't know normal protocol, but is there ever a reason to have a rudder locked (say, deflected) while on the ground? Probably shouldn't even speculate as I know it's early and we've barely figured out what plane it is.

Yes the 200's where effected with rudder hardovers.
There was incidents on takeoff but the accidents happened on approach though. Also the issue was finally figured out with the Eastwind flight into Richmond. Supposed to have been fixed but who knows if this aircraft was.

It was active under a U.S. registration until 2005 (PCU servo fix deadline in the US was in 2002) and had been leased by the U.S. Navy after the PCU servo fixes were ordered, so I imagine it should have received the PCU fix.

The Guyana destination was in a CNN article
Right after the plane crashed, since all the new info has come out since that report, we all know it was going to a Cuban destination and not Guyana.....

gatibosgru wrote:

Maybe sanctions that prevent reliable aircraft to be sold to certain countries isn't the best thing for all humans.

Second that

spacecadet wrote:

The AVHerald article shows the final crash site as pretty far off to the right with a sharp turn that would have had to be completed by about the middle of the runway. I'm just curious if there is a standard departure from this airport that would match that flight path. It seems like they would have had to start that turn very early.

Not sure if these are the most up-to-date, but looking at the departure plates for runway 6 the one that would make the most sense is this ZARAGO 2 DEPARTURE, where there is a right turn. I agree that turn was awful early.
http://www.uvairlines.com/admin/resources/charts/MUHA.pdf Go to page 6 and look for yourself.

Maybe sanctions that prevent reliable aircraft to be sold to certain countries isn't the best thing for all humans.