The NTSB investigators found that the weather data that the flight crew received in Medellín was nine to ten hours old. Additionally, the alternate airport on the flight plan, Logan International Airport in Boston, was forecast to be below the safe minima for landing. The NTSB also stated that the flight crew should have been more aware of these problems and cited these deficiencies as evidence of inadequacies in the dispatch of the airplane. The NTSB also found no evidence that the flight crew ever requested weather information en route or communicated with Avianca dispatchers about their fuel status and intents as other flights did. Flight 52 did not make contact with FAA flight service stations or flight watch en route, and the NTSB was unable to determine why. The flight did not express any concern to ATC about their fuel situation during the first two holding patterns that the flight made. The first indication of worry came at 20:09 when the flight crew inquired about delays at Boston. The NTSB posited that the flight crew might have become confused about the "expect further clearance" (EFC) times they were given. This confusion may have been the reason that the flight continued to hold, burning up its reserve fuel to the point where it could no longer divert to Boston.