AN12 down in Sudan
Thread Starter
Accident confirmed, ~100nm south of Umm Serdiba, 4 crew, no survivors, no significant post crash fire from the pics I've seen...
Body recovery will be done on Wednesday morning...
R.I.P...
Body recovery will be done on Wednesday morning...
R.I.P...
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: IN THE AIR
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again.....
sorry to hear that, it must be the 6th Antonov accident in Sudan in less than one year. Who was it this time???
Can't wait that the "not older than 20 years manufactured aircraft" CAA ruling comes into action. It will enhance the SD safety record BIG TIME
sorry to hear that, it must be the 6th Antonov accident in Sudan in less than one year. Who was it this time???
Can't wait that the "not older than 20 years manufactured aircraft" CAA ruling comes into action. It will enhance the SD safety record BIG TIME
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Noplacenice
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN-12 down
The AN-12 operated by Sarit was found +- 39NM from Heglig AF, the last contact made with Heglig was 60nm out reporting 4 engine failures / fires and declaring an emergency.
The A/C was diverting to Heglig due to there emergency and was found almost completely destroyed on track to the airport. All 5 of the crew are believed to have died in the crash, the apparent 7th crash involving a Sarit A/C. The nationalities of the crews are still unknown.
All Sarit A/C have not moved from HSSS or HSOB aprons today, and all further operations by the company have been suspended until further noice.
Earlier this year one of Sarit's AN-12 "exploded" on final 08 into Wau, again killing all involved.
The "No more than 20yrs old" is already in place, but doesn't seem apply to Sudanese owned companies, hopefully these sad events will force the CAA to act.
R.I.P...
The A/C was diverting to Heglig due to there emergency and was found almost completely destroyed on track to the airport. All 5 of the crew are believed to have died in the crash, the apparent 7th crash involving a Sarit A/C. The nationalities of the crews are still unknown.
All Sarit A/C have not moved from HSSS or HSOB aprons today, and all further operations by the company have been suspended until further noice.
Earlier this year one of Sarit's AN-12 "exploded" on final 08 into Wau, again killing all involved.
The "No more than 20yrs old" is already in place, but doesn't seem apply to Sudanese owned companies, hopefully these sad events will force the CAA to act.
R.I.P...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not older than twenty
Can't wait that the "not older than 20 years manufactured aircraft" CAA ruling comes into action. It will enhance the SD safety record BIG TIME
Maybe they should look into the respective companies service record and not work according to date of aircraft manufacture, cause unless YOU know of someone with a couple of C-17 Globemasters willing to employ a LOT of unemployed pilots (cause there will be lots if this rule comes into play) I would rather not say things like
Can't wait.........
Kickbacks are a bitch.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: IN THE AIR
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JACOBEST
My statement was cynical. We all know that such rules is NOT addressing a country's safety record at all . We all know that a more than 20 years old aircraft is as safe as a 19, 9, 1 year old one, it is a question of maintenance and how it is used. Some of the IL-76 are under 20 years, but have a look on how they are operated out of Khartoum. If they don't address this issue, then they will keep falling out of the sky
Nigeria had a similar reaction following a row of accidents with Bac 1-11. They imposed a 30 years ban to ground them. Now they found out it didn't address other issues that affect flight safety such as ATC and CAA oversight.....what a surprise
My statement was cynical. We all know that such rules is NOT addressing a country's safety record at all . We all know that a more than 20 years old aircraft is as safe as a 19, 9, 1 year old one, it is a question of maintenance and how it is used. Some of the IL-76 are under 20 years, but have a look on how they are operated out of Khartoum. If they don't address this issue, then they will keep falling out of the sky
Nigeria had a similar reaction following a row of accidents with Bac 1-11. They imposed a 30 years ban to ground them. Now they found out it didn't address other issues that affect flight safety such as ATC and CAA oversight.....what a surprise
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cynical
Sorry Dude. I did not attack you personally, I just get very frustrated when so many people will CLEARLY tell you that more than half the contracts are obtained "illegally" by means of back hands and pay-offs.
Another thing that surprises me is that all the western equipment must have TCAS and the east block aircraft just continue to operate as they are because they are Cheaper. What SHOCKS me is how many aircraft there are with TCAS but the crew conveniently leaves it off so that they can cut corners over borders. One must just look back to a few years ago when a Learjet was shot down over Egypt when the crew decided to cut a corner.
It would seem that although the XX tries to uphold a good safety record on paper, it does not happen on the ground floor.
For the sake of this argument I will give you this example but I will leave out company names. Company A holds a contract with the XX. The XX then instructs them: "Design a pallet less system for air drops or lose your contact" The reason, it costs the XX Z amount for the pallets and they want to save the money. So Company A does exactly that. They design a system that works and their reward? Company A gets moved away from their operation and company B who uses a normal system and does not hold a contract with the XX, not only still continue to fly, but their aircraft numbers increases so that they now drop even more pallets than before. Favoritism, call it what you want, but to me that is a perfect example of the difference between what the XX says must be done and what actually happens on the ground
I just feel that if the XX is run according to what is said on paper, we all will have a safer organization to work for. The chief in charge seems to know what is safe and not. Just look at his speech a while back when he stated that the XX needs C-130's urgently in Darfour. He did not say Aircraft, Antanov's or anything else. Yet what is flying relief to Darfour? Maybe the XX must start to listen to their chief in charge.
Another thing that surprises me is that all the western equipment must have TCAS and the east block aircraft just continue to operate as they are because they are Cheaper. What SHOCKS me is how many aircraft there are with TCAS but the crew conveniently leaves it off so that they can cut corners over borders. One must just look back to a few years ago when a Learjet was shot down over Egypt when the crew decided to cut a corner.
It would seem that although the XX tries to uphold a good safety record on paper, it does not happen on the ground floor.
For the sake of this argument I will give you this example but I will leave out company names. Company A holds a contract with the XX. The XX then instructs them: "Design a pallet less system for air drops or lose your contact" The reason, it costs the XX Z amount for the pallets and they want to save the money. So Company A does exactly that. They design a system that works and their reward? Company A gets moved away from their operation and company B who uses a normal system and does not hold a contract with the XX, not only still continue to fly, but their aircraft numbers increases so that they now drop even more pallets than before. Favoritism, call it what you want, but to me that is a perfect example of the difference between what the XX says must be done and what actually happens on the ground
I just feel that if the XX is run according to what is said on paper, we all will have a safer organization to work for. The chief in charge seems to know what is safe and not. Just look at his speech a while back when he stated that the XX needs C-130's urgently in Darfour. He did not say Aircraft, Antanov's or anything else. Yet what is flying relief to Darfour? Maybe the XX must start to listen to their chief in charge.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: IN THE AIR
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACCIDENT
Date: October 5, 2004
Location: Near Kaduqli, Sudan
Operator: Sarit Airlines
AC Type: Antonov AN-12
Reg: ST-SAF
Route: El Obeid - Juba
Aboard: 4 Fatalities: 4 Ground: 0
Details: The crew of the cargo plane reported an engine failure and tried to divert to the nearest airport but the aircraft crashed and burned in a wooded area.
Date: October 5, 2004
Location: Near Kaduqli, Sudan
Operator: Sarit Airlines
AC Type: Antonov AN-12
Reg: ST-SAF
Route: El Obeid - Juba
Aboard: 4 Fatalities: 4 Ground: 0
Details: The crew of the cargo plane reported an engine failure and tried to divert to the nearest airport but the aircraft crashed and burned in a wooded area.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ukraine
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sudanese weather killed An-12
Hi folks!
An-12 crew reported got into heavy thunderstorm and requested avoiding action following by divertion to alternate. There are terrible thunderstorms this time here. Few month earlier I flown resque mission for another An-12 crushed due to the same reason. Lightning strike to engine
An-12 crew reported got into heavy thunderstorm and requested avoiding action following by divertion to alternate. There are terrible thunderstorms this time here. Few month earlier I flown resque mission for another An-12 crushed due to the same reason. Lightning strike to engine
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Flying world
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having seen and overflying the accident site two days after it happened and having 4 engined aircraft experience of similar kind......
A few questions :
If there had been some problem with ONE engine, the aircraft should be able to fly on the remaining engines...
Even with two out, same, although depending on weight....
Why would all four stop, and what about a relight in flight ?
The tower reported the crew called at 45 nm at FL 170, ......the crash site is at 39 nm from Heglig...... 6 nm from that altitude ?
The wreckage is strewn over maybe 100 meters, if forward speed of about 100-130 kts should be maintained, this seems a short distance......
My symphathy with the Family members.
A few questions :
If there had been some problem with ONE engine, the aircraft should be able to fly on the remaining engines...
Even with two out, same, although depending on weight....
Why would all four stop, and what about a relight in flight ?
The tower reported the crew called at 45 nm at FL 170, ......the crash site is at 39 nm from Heglig...... 6 nm from that altitude ?
The wreckage is strewn over maybe 100 meters, if forward speed of about 100-130 kts should be maintained, this seems a short distance......
My symphathy with the Family members.
