Talk:LaMia Flight 2933

Wrong number of survivors

• One of the four crewmembers;[5] three of the players; and two other passengers survived. - Actually two crew member survived: Ximena Suárez, Flight attendant, and Erwin Tumiri, Flight Engineer, both from Bolivia.[1]; [2]

Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The preliminary accident report is counting Tumiri as a passenger, not a crewmember. He is not an employee of LaMia. YSSYguy (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I never knew any passenger who refuel the aircraft of his own flight, or made reports, but whatever... --Ganímedes (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I never thought the news reports of there being nine crew members made any sense; I assumed that there were an unusually high number of flight attendants because of the nature of the company's operation. But the official report says there were four crew. My opinion is that Tumeri should be counted as a crew member; but my opinion does not amount to much when it contradicts a source ike that. YSSYguy (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That`s what explanations are for. If there is any discrepancy, right thing is write both, not ignore one statement. "two other passengers" is not accuracy. One of them was journalist, the other was a worker subcontracted by LaMia. Or was he a paseenger like you and I, or a football fan? --Ganímedes (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• 6 Survivors: Rafael Henzel, Brazilian journalist [3]; Erwin Tumiri, Bolivian crewman [4]; Ximena Suárez, Bolivian flight attendant [5]; and three Chapecoense's football players. Luizengmec (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

RVSM

The article says: "It was also found that, due to restrictions imposed by the aircraft not being compliant with reduced vertical separation minima (RVSM) regulations, it could not be legally flown above a flight level (FL) higher than 290 (approximately 29,000 feet (8,800 m) in altitude), but the submitted flight plan (approved by AASANA) was for a cruising altitude of FL300 (approximately 30,000 feet (9,100 m))." But "could not be legally flown" is not quite correct here, I think. Isn't it perfectly possible for a flight to request "non-RVSM flight at FL 300"? It's then the decision of ATC to permit that FL or not, depending on other traffic, weather, etc., They might have to block out a 2,000 ft gap to de-conflict any other traffic, or request a course change, or whatever, But it is their decision. It might be more accurate to say "it might have been problematic for the aircraft to fly above 29,000..." Or are those local Spanish language sources actually claiming it was "illegal"? Do they do things differently in Bolivia? The translation is currently "violated protocols", which is not the same thing as "could not be legally flown". The bottom line is that the Flight Plan requested something that the aircraft was not technically designed to achieve. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question, but I have one observation. The article implies that non-RVSM certified aircraft may not fly "higher than FL 290"; I think it should be "at FL290 or above" (or "higher than FL 280"). According to reduced vertical separation minima non-certified aircraft may not use FLs 290-410 INCLUSIVE. (The upper limit is of no practical relevance to the RJ85, so we can reasonably ignore that). 80.2.106.75 (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree, FL290 is the lowest RVSM level. Have changed the text accordingly. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Plus 55 Fatality?

"Plus 55" is listed in the media subsection of the fatalities section. From what I've read, it seems like Plus 55 is a newspaper, not a person. Why is a newspaper listed by title in the fatalities section? The supplied references don't indicate that the newspaper (or any of its staff) were killed in the flight. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)