Yemenia Crash

[piet61]

According to the latest radio news at 03.00 hrs and Airliners.net it seems that a Yemenia plane crashed in the Indian Ocean near the Comores Islands.
The flight was heading from Morino to Sana'a and had about 150 persons on board.
The rumours are that it is an A310 that crashed.

[phantom]

Indeed an A310 went down. Plane involved should be 7O-ADJ.

[Boudewijn van Oirschot]

Damn

It is sad to hear the plane was carrying French passengers again.

Airliners.net mentions 7O-ADJ indeed.

[nuckleuz]

They are now reporting that they found 1 survivor.

[SilverWingPix]

Tragic story.

Howevere as always when an airliner comes down I quickly check if I have an image of the machine. This time I did. Sad that so many people were lost. In fact I have a personal connection with Yemenia aircraft as I during my three year employment with DNATA in Dubai dispatched most of thier aircraft, including 7O-ADJ many times.

I shot this image from my garden in october 2005 - Note the huge dent in the nose cone:


Egon/CPH

[nuckleuz]

There are also newsreports that the pilot is found alive...

[Boudewijn van Oirschot]

One of the black box flight recorders from the Yemenia jet that crashed off the Comoros has been found and efforts to retrieve it will begin on Wednesday, a French Government spokesman says.

Yemen’s national carrier insisted today that it had a strict policy to ensure fleet maintenance after being criticised over its safety record following the crash of an airliner off the Comoros.

A Yemenia Airbus carrying 153 people plunged into the Indian Ocean near the Comoros islands yesterday, with one 14-year-old girl plucked alive from a sea of debris and bodies.

Yemenia said in a statement it implemented a strict policy to ensure its aircraft were fully operational, with regular maintenance in line with international standards.

French Transport Minister Dominique Bussereau had said on Tuesday that French inspectors had in 2007 found numerous faults on the plane, an Airbus A310-300, and that the airline was being closely monitored by EU authorities.

“The plane had not since then reappeared in our country,” he said.

PARIS
AFP

[Thermal]

Note the huge dent in the nose cone

They let this A/C fly with a dented nose cone?? So much for maintanence. And people now wonder why it came down?

Very sad news. Not very good months for aviation.

[flying_kiwi]

They let this A/C fly with a dented nose cone?? So much for maintanence. And people now wonder why it came down?

Let it fly?? There is no way of knowing when that dent happened (could have had a bird strike earlier in the approach).

The same aircraft had just completed a flight to London the day before the accident, and Yemenia are stating that the aircraft had a maintenance check at an Airbus approved maintenance facility, so that fact that some defects were found on this aircraft 2 years ago is no reason to condem the aircraft and airline as unsafe!!

With the location of the accident being more accessible than that of AF447, and the report that one of the recorders has been located, there is a better chance that there will be a more accurate idea of the factors involved in this accident that that of AF447.
That said, it will take a while before any report is published, and at the moment there is nowhere near enough information to speculate as to what may have played a role in this accident.

Regards,
Yorden

[Rotorblast]

The French can better keep ...... chauvinistic mouth shut.

Before the tragic AF447 accident Air France had between march 2008 and march 2009, NINE (eight Airbus 340 and one Airbus 330) airspeed/pitot tube related incidents.

Since september 2007 Airbus / EADS recommended to replace the tubes, Air France didn't

In my opinion you don't have to be a professional Aircrash investigator, to conclude that the incorrect 'French manufactured' pitot tubes brought (in a series of events) AF447 finally down (in-flight breakup).

Because Air France didn't replace the tubes as recommend by Airbus / EADS (= negligent) should we avoid or ban (blacklist) Air France?

The same aircraft had just completed a flight to London the day before the accident, and Yemenia are stating that the aircraft had a maintenance check at an Airbus approved maintenance facility, so that fact that some defects were found on this aircraft 2 years ago is no reason to condem the aircraft and airline as unsafe!!

The Brits are doing EC Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA) checks as well.

If the Aircraft (7O-ADJ) was in such a bad 'maintenance' and/or unairworthy condition as the French do 'us' believe, the Brits would have grounded 7O-ADJ

They let this A/C fly with a dented nose cone?? So much for maintenance. And people now wonder why it came down?

A dented nose cone doesn't make the aircraft 'necessarily' unairworthy

It's only esthetical.

[flying_kiwi]

Before the tragic AF447 accident Air France had between march 2008 and march 2009, NINE (eight Airbus 340 and one Airbus 330) airspeed/pitot tube related incidents.

Since september 2007 Airbus / EADS recommended to replace the tubes, Air France didn't

Because Air France didn't replace the tubes as recommend by Airbus / EADS (= negligent) should we avoid or ban (blacklist) Air France?

Easy there tiger!!
As far as I've heard, Airbus hadn't made any recommendations regarding the pitot system, and Air France had decided to replace them anyway. The problem that Air France faced was that the 'improved' pitot system couldn't be manufactured fast enough, so the replacement programme had to be spread out over a period of time.

Due to the location of the AF447 accident, we are for all intents and purposes in the same position there as in this Yemenia accident, plenty of rumours and gossip, but nowhere near enough factual information to be able to make any conclusions as to the primary cause and contributing factors of each tragedy.

As for the report that signals from one of the 'black boxes' detected, apparently it was the ELT, so it going to take a little longer.

Yorden

[streep]

Since september 2007 Airbus / EADS recommended to replace the tubes, Air France didn't

In my opinion you don't have to be a professional Aircrash investigator, to conclude that the incorrect 'French manufactured' pitot tubes brought (in a series of events) AF447 finally down (in-flight breakup).

Because Air France didn't replace the tubes as recommend by Airbus / EADS (= negligent) should we avoid or ban (blacklist) Air France?

Well KLM did not change their pitots until last week either, should we Blacklist them as well .. ??
If test had shown the original pitot tubes were unsafe, they would not have passed the initial airworthiness process of the A330/340.
If in later tests this would have been proven, it would have resulted in a compulsary exchange of tubes.
Now it was just a recommandation.

They let this A/C fly with a dented nose cone?? So much for maintenance. And people now wonder why it came down?

A dented nose cone doesn't make the aircraft 'necessarily' unairworthy

It's only esthetical.

That is not completely true. The nosecone, or better radome, does have a specific function. Such a big dent could prevent proper movement of the weather radar antenna, mounted inside the radome, and especially with the Airbus, where the pitot tubes asre located just underneath the radome, could influence the airflow so much that inaccurate airspeed readings could result from such a dent.

[Rotorblast]

As far as I've heard, Airbus hadn't made any recommendations regarding the pitot system, and Air France had decided to replace them anyway.

If you use your search engine "AF447 Did Not Have Pitot Tube Upgrade" you'll find some third party .....

Ignoring 'manufactures' recommendation(s) isn't the way how we 'foul' play Aviation Safety.

The French should be looking in their own Aviation 'Safety' kitchen first, before blaming other Airlines !!

Between march 2008 and march 2009 Air France had NINE (eight Airbus 340 and one Airbus 330) airspeed/pitot tube related incidents.

Anyway, Air France paid the highest price in Aviation as possible.
Air France lost (another) hull (number three since 2000) and killed 'unnecessary' 216 passengers and 12 crew members

In my opinion the EASA should have grounded (example: AA96 --> THY 981) all involved Airbus types without modified pitot tubes.

Again, if 7O-ADJ wasn't Airworthy or in such a bad maintenance condition as the French do us believe, the Brits would have definitely grounded 7O-ADJ.

BTW anyone studied FMCH's RWY20 approach?
At night, under windy - bad weather conditions and without PAPI (or other visual references) it's 'quite' dangerous.

[flying_kiwi]

As far as I've heard, Airbus hadn't made any recommendations regarding the pitot system, and Air France had decided to replace them anyway.

If you use your search engine "AF447 Did Not Have Pitot Tube Upgrade" you'll find some third party .....

All of the links I've read state that the recommendation from Airbus was regarding the replacement of the pitot systems on A320 family aircraft, and not the A330/340 family, as no problems had been discovered at that time. Air France replaced the systems on the A320s.

When the problems first surfaced on the widebodies, Air France approached Airbus, who perform tests to see if the same solution would work. These tests indicated that the new system could resolve these problems, so Airbus planned an inflight service evaluation of the system. Air France, without waiting for the results of the evaluation flights, launched a programme to replace the pitot systems on the 27th of April.

Making these sort of accusations is in my opinion just as bad as what the French politicians have been saying about the Yemenia aircraft.

BTW anyone studied FMCH's RWY20 approach?
At night, under windy - bad weather conditions and without PAPI (or other visual references) it's 'quite' dangerous.

http://www.ais-asecna.org/pdf/atlas/com ... oni-06.pdf

The instrument approach for 20 at Moroni involves either a VOR/DME or ILS approach to runway 02, and a circle to land on 20. The weather was not what I would call 'bad':
FMCH 292300Z 21025G35KT 9999 FEW020 25/16 Q1017 TEMPO 18015G30KT

Yes, the wind was strong and gusting, but that isn't unusual for an island located well out in the ocean. But there was only 1/8 to 2/8s cloud at 2000 feet, and visibility was more than 10kms. The circle to land approach for 20 has flashing lights along the approach path to assist crews with the turn onto final appraoch, and the runway itself has high intensity lighting, so there should have been enough visual references for the crew to make a safe approach.

As I said in an earlier post, there simply isn't enough information to speculate as to what may have played a role in this accident. Patience.

Regards,
Yorden

[mdkhan0]

@ Steep
How do you that KLM replaced their pitot tubes?