Yemeni airliner down? [Archive]

Capetonian

30th Jun 2009, 05:54

From the BNO Newsroom.

MORONI, Comoros (BNO NEWS) -- A boat found the wreckage of a Yemenia Airlines passenger plane on Tuesday morning, several hours after it went down in the Indian Ocean off Comoros, officials told BNO News. More than 150 people were on board the plane.

Around 8 a.m. local time, or 5 a.m. GMT, a boat which was assisting in the search for the crashed airliner reported that it had found the wreckage of the plane, a government official confirmed to BNO News. He did not know the condition of the wreckage or if any survivors were found.

The plane went down in the Indian Ocean, close to the coast. "The wreckage was found about six minutes from the airport," the government official added. An official at the Comoros Foreign Ministry earlier said that residents from villages on the coast had witnessed the crash.

The plane, an Airbus 310, was carrying a total of 147 passengers and 11 crew members. It was initially reported that there were 142 passengers on board but the official at the foreign ministry revised the number, saying 142 was incorrect. An unknown number of the passengers were Comoros residents returning from Paris. French residents were also reported to be on board.

It was Yemenia Airlines flight 626 which took off from Sana'a International Airport in Yemen, about four and a half hours before it crashed, minutes before reaching it destination. It was en-route to Prince Said Ibrahim International Airport in Moroni, the capital of Comoros.

It is unclear if the boat, which found the wreckage, belonged to Comoros or another country in the area. "Comoros does not have the facilities" to launch a rescue operation, a government official earlier said. He said a number of boats were en-route to the area and that France had sent a boat to assist in the search and rescue operation.

As of 5 a.m. GMT it remained uncertain if there were any survivors. "We are hoping,", the foreign ministry official said. The cause of the crash is unknown, although foul play is not suspected.

On November 23, 1996, Ethiopian Airlines flight 961 was hijacked and crashed near Comoros in the Indian Ocean after it ran out of fuel. A total of 175 passengers were on board, 125 of them were killed.

Earlier incidents involving Yemenia Airlines
Tuesday's plane crash is the worst accident in the history of Yemenia Airlines, records showed. The airline, which was founded in 1961, had been involved in three accidents.

On June 26, 2000, a Boeing 737 went off the side of the runway at Khartoum-Civil Airport in Sudan, causing the nose gear to collapse. There were no injuries.

On August 1st, 2001, a Boeing 727 overran the runway at Asmara International Airport in Eritrea and crashed into a large block of concrete, causing the main landing gear to fail. There were no casualties.

On January 22nd, 2001, an Iraqi man hijacked a Yemenia Airlines flight about 15 minutes after it took off from San'a International Airport in Yemen. He was armed with a pen gun and claimed to have explosives with him. He demanded to be taken to Baghdad but the flight crew overpowered the hijacker when it made a landing in Djibouti to refuel.
Adjix (http://news.bnonews.com/v4z8)

L1011

30th Jun 2009, 06:00

Moroni is a notoriously difficult airfield to fly into, especially at night. The airport is at sea-level on the West side of a skinny island, with a 7700' mountain just to the southeast of it and a 3600' one to the northeast..

There is no published approach to Rwy 20, just an VOR/DME/ILS for 02.

Easy to get disoriented at night as there are very few ground lights, a true 'black-hole' with part of it being the volcano mentioned.

Think SAA had a daylight-only policy for Moroni. No need to look further than CFIT and/or disorientation for this one IMHO.

Another sad day for us all.

EDLB

30th Jun 2009, 06:31

CFIT into the ocean??? Its usually at a known altitude.

L337

30th Jun 2009, 06:54

CFIT into the ocean??? Its usually at a known altitude.

It is if you have the QNH set correctly. If you do not, the ocean could come as an unwelcome surprise.

dessas

30th Jun 2009, 07:07

Moroni is shiv!!!
It is a fighter approach on to the main Rw, around a 6000' mountain. With that wind - WS highly probable. The G/A is even worse.

golfyankeesierra

30th Jun 2009, 07:18

Now we are getting curious for the approach and terrain. Anyone an approachplate?

BTW:
Don't forget to consider operating environment.
Well said!

20milesout

30th Jun 2009, 07:23

See the charts here (http://www.ais-asecna.org/en/atlas/comores/moroni.htm)

champs0206

30th Jun 2009, 07:28

Anyone know the Registration Mark of the A310 ??

GobonaStick

30th Jun 2009, 07:32

7O-ADJ, if anyone cares.

protectthehornet

30th Jun 2009, 07:35

ok

we have a tough airport, tough weather...stuff happens.

Khaosai

30th Jun 2009, 07:36

The airfield charts are posted over in the Middle East forum.

Xeque

30th Jun 2009, 07:48

Airliners.net show 2 A310's for Yemenia - F-OHPR and F-OHPS.
It appears the flight was on approach to 20 from the position of the wreckage that has been found.
I once flew the jump seat for the approach and landing to 02. I won't say which airline but it was pre Dubya paranoia. As I recall we turned final at 3,000' with some higher ground at our 4 o'clock. I don't remember it being particularly bumpy on the approach. It was late afternoon and good weather.

Capt Groper

30th Jun 2009, 07:52

This isn't a place for the fainthearted.

I have seen many white faces after the first visit a night with a little WX to contend with.

Luckily no other traffic to contend with so ATC not a problem.

A serious black hole approach at night.

Glad not to be flying there anymore.

dessas

30th Jun 2009, 07:52

I did a check there and a couple of more flights about 3 years ago... During the day it didn't look so bad, but at night, with this kind of wind... Not my fav spot
:mad:

ArthurBorges

30th Jun 2009, 08:20

Quotes from Transport Minister Dominique Bussereau:

"Two ships have left nearby Réunion Island, and a medivac Transall aircraft."
"We'll also have other means out of Maytoote, near the Comores."
"(The information) is still a bit vague. There's talk of an approach, an abort and a second approach that failed. Right now, you have to be cautious until all this information has been checked."
"(France) will take part in the investigation if French citizens are aboard."
"(Yemenia Air) is not on the black list otherwise it would never have been authorized to take off from Roissy."
"(The A310) is one of the most well-known and most used aircraft in the world."
"Right now, we're still sad one month later about the accident on June 1st."

Original Article
Le ministre des Transports Dominique Bussereau a annoncé mardi que des moyens français étaient mis en oeuvre, après l'accident de l'Airbus A310 de la compagnie nationale Yemenia Air au large des Comores dans la nuit de lundi à mardi.

"Deux navires sont partis de la Réunion proche, et un (avion) Transall médicalisé", a déclaré le ministre sur Europe-1. "On va voir également les moyens disponibles à Mayotte, à proximité immédiate des Comores".

Interrogé sur les mauvaises conditions météorologiques sur le lieu de l'atterrissage, "pour l'instant c'est encore un peu flou", a répondu le ministre. "On parle d'une approche, d'une remise de gaz, puis d'une approche nouvelle qui aurait été ratée. Pour l'instant il faut être prudent tant que toutes ces informations ne sont pas vérifiées".

La France sera "associée à l'enquête s'il y a des compatriotes à bord", a-t-il ajouté.

La compagnie Yemenia Air "n'est pas sur la liste noire sinon elle n'aurait pas eu l'autorisation de partir de Roissy", a-t-il poursuivi, précisant que l'Airbus A310 "est un des avions les plus connus dans le monde et les plus utilisés".

"Pour l'instant on est surtout dans la tristesse un mois après l'accident du 1er juin" du vol AF447 d'Air France, a conclu M. Bussereau. AP

Link: Accident d'avion au large des Comores: des moyens français mis en oeuvre, annonce Bussereau - Yahoo! Actualités (http://fr.news.yahoo.com/3/20090630/twl-yemen-accident-avion-bussereau-1be00ca.html)

ArthurBorges

30th Jun 2009, 09:00

Airbus says it was an A310-300 first delivered in 1990 and had been in service with Yemenia since October 1999. Mfr's serial number was 535 and registered as 70-ADJ.
It had 51,900 flight hours spread across 17,300 flights.

The first A310-300 entered service in December 1985. As at May 31, 2009, 41 airlines operate a total of 214 A310s. The total A310 fleet has logged 11.7 million flight hours during 4.5 million flights.

Link: Crash au large des Comores: l'Airbus A310-300 était en service à la Yemenia Air depuis octobre 1999 - Yahoo! Actualités (http://fr.news.yahoo.com/3/20090630/twl-yemen-comores-airbus-1be00ca.html) (in French)

Pjlot

30th Jun 2009, 09:13

Sky news have just reported that 1 survivor of the A310 crash has been pulled from the ocean.

Any other reports on this?

greenspinner

30th Jun 2009, 09:16

FROM : AIRBUS FLIGHT SAFETY DEPARTMENT TOULOUSE
ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX - ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX
Subject: A310-300 IY626 accident
Our ref.: IY626 AIT n°1 dated 30 June 2009
Airbus regrets to confirm that an A310-300 operated by Yemenia
(Yemen Airways) was involved in an accident at about 2250 UTC
(0150 local time) while approaching to Moroni, Comoro Islands.
The aircraft was operating a scheduled service, flight number
IY626, from Sana'a (Yemen) to Moroni (Comoro Islands).
According to available information there were 142 passengers
and 11 crew members on-board. There is no information about
survivors.
The aircraft involved in the accident, registration number 70-
ADJ was MSN (Manufacturer Serial Number) 535. It was first delivered
from the production line in 1990 and has been operated by
Yemenia Airways since October 1999. The aircraft had
accumulated approximately 51,900 flight hours in some 17,300
flights. It was powered by Pratt and Whitney engines PW4152.
At this time no further factual information is available.
In line with the ICAO Annex 13 international convention,
Airbus will provide full technical assistance to the French
BEA and to the Authorities who will be responsible for the
accident investigation. A team of investigators from Airbus is
being dispatched to the Comoro Islands.
The concerns and sympathy of Airbus go to the families,
friends and loved ones affected by the accident.
Further update will be provided as soon as reliable
information is available and Airbus is authorised to release
it.

slowlane

30th Jun 2009, 09:21

CFIT into the ocean??? Its usually at a known altitude. If you really think that, you need to look outside your immediate comfort zone more often. :=

Xeque

30th Jun 2009, 09:33

"(The information) is still a bit vague. There's talk of an approach, an abort and a second approach that failed. Right now, you have to be cautious until all this information has been checked."
If this does turn out to be correct then I wonder if there might be similarities to the Gulf Air A320 loss at Bahrain in August 2000? I'm not suggesting that anything other than a proper go around procedure was followed here but turning away from land towards the ocean in poor visibility with no visual reference points might have lead to spatial disorientation.

Desertia

30th Jun 2009, 09:37

Funny, having read his quote earlier, to see this:

Paris - Airbus officials in France reported on Tuesday that the Airbus A310 that crashed near the Comoros Islands on Tuesday was 19 years old and had been in service with Yemenia since 1999. It had logged almost 52,000 flight hours and about 17,300 flights. French Junior Minister for Transport Dominique Bussereau told i- tele TV news that French civil aviation authorities had kept Yemenia Airways under close surveillance and had detected "very many defects" on the aircraft. The plane "disappeared from French skies" after these defects were found," Bussereau said."

Politics, anyone? Or poor translation/editing?

Jerry B.

30th Jun 2009, 10:06

Politics, anyone? Or poor translation/editing?
Or factual actually?

Boomerang_Butt

30th Jun 2009, 10:11

Pjlot, have seen survivor reported as a child, will edit in a minute for link, have closed the window...

The Roanoke Times: News, sports and entertainment stories and information from the Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_YEMEN_PLANE_CRASH?SITE=VAROA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

Hosted by the Associated Press

Squawk_ident

30th Jun 2009, 10:12

Vol IY 626 du 30 juin 2009

A310-300, immatriculé 70-ADJ

Communiqué de presse diffusé le 30 juin 2009 :

Accident survenu au cours de l’approche de l’aérodrome de Moroni (Comores) dans la nuit du 29 au 30 juin.
Le BEA a été informé qu’un Airbus A310-300, immatriculé 70-ADJ, exploité par la compagnie Yemenia, vol IY626, assurant la liaison Sanaa (Yemen) – Moroni (Comores) s’est abîmé en mer au cours de son approche de l’aérodrome de Moroni (Comores) à 1 h 50, heure locale.
Le BEA envoie une équipe d’enquêteurs accompagnée de spécialistes d’Airbus.

"Flight IY 626 of June 30, 2009 A310-300, registered 70-ADJ
Press release diffused on June 30, 2009:
Accident which has occurred during the approach of the aerodrome of Moroni (the Comoro Island) in the night of the 29 at June 30.
The BEA was informed that a A310-300 Airbus, registered 70-ADJ, operated by Yemenia Airways, flight IY626, ensuring the connection Sanaa (Yemen) - Moroni (the Comoro Island) was damaged at sea during its approach of the aerodrome of Moroni (the Comoros) at 1:50, local time. The BEA sends a team of investigators accompanied by Airbus specialists."

It is now reported by French media that a child would have survived to the accident

tflier

30th Jun 2009, 10:15

Flew from Sanna to Asmara on Yemeni A310, on the flightdeck. Enough said. Whatever happened here very sad.

Ular

30th Jun 2009, 10:17

to Xeque

suppose more similarities to Armavia 2006
(ASN Aircraft accident Airbus A320-211 EK-32009 Adler/Sochi Airport (AER) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20060503-0))

frontrow

30th Jun 2009, 10:21

"We still do not know the nationality or the gender of the person rescued," Yemenia Airways' Mohammad al Sumairi said.

But a Comoros police official revealed the survivor was a young child.
The news came amid reports of human remains and debris being spotted by search planes. More than 150 people were on board the jet.

A Yemenia Airways Airbus Two French military planes and a French ship had left the islands of Mayotte and Reunion to search for the Yemenia Airways Airbus A310-300, officials said.

The Comoros foreign ministry said 142 passengers - including three children - and 11 crew were on the flight.
Those on board were nationals from France (http://indepth.news.sky.com/InDepth/topic/France) and Comoros - sixty-six were reportedly French.
The airbus was flying from Sanaa to Moroni, the capital of the main island of the Comoros archipelago.
Yemenia spokesman Mohammad al Sumairi said: "The weather conditions were rough - strong wind and high seas.
"The wind speed recorded on land at the airport was 61km (38 miles) an hour. There could be other factors."

Relative of a crash victim A United Nations official at the airport said the control tower had received notification the plane was coming in to land, and then lost contact with it.

Xeque

30th Jun 2009, 10:29

Yes, indeed.

Colocolo

30th Jun 2009, 11:05

Desertia:

Without any direct knowledge about this particular airline, I will give you a scenario:
Flight is done in two parts.
First part of flight European skies is done on a A330 which I suspect is in good shape and is acceptable to the French (read EU) authorities.
Once arrived in Sana'a, passengers are transfered to an A310 for the Moroni leg and second part of the flight. This A310 used to fly into Europe, but was "ramp checked" in France (EU) and found not acceptable to continue flights into the EU. Therefore, this A310 only covers destinations that are "friendly"........::eek:

Perhaps that is what this minister was referring to.
Ps: This is a trick that has been used for decades...:ugh:

Cheers

Colocolo

vincentdevroey

30th Jun 2009, 11:14

I understood, before this accident happened, the EU was considering to put Yemenia Airways on its blacklist of airlines subject to an operating ban for safety reasons.

Does anybody know on which basis/criteria (which safety issues identified) the EU was going to blacklist Yemenia Airways? SAFA/ramp inspections can identify some problems but should in my opinion never be the sole basis to ground an airline (unless drastic safety issues have been identified which would justify immediate grounding).

I seems likely that the EU will now blacklist Yemenia Airways regardless of the further accident investigation. Although nobody would question the need to ground unsafe airlines, it should at the same time be avoided that politics drives safety issues and that decisions are taken on a subjective basis.

Rhys S. Negative

30th Jun 2009, 11:20

@ Colocolo

The subject aircraft operated the London Heathrow service twice last week, so apparently not excluded from the EU.

Rhys.

Colocolo

30th Jun 2009, 11:25

...As I said: without direct knowledge...

I stand corrected, thanks!

Colocolo

vincentdevroey

30th Jun 2009, 11:27

Yes I know they are still allowed to fly to the EU. The issue is that, before this happened, they were going to be heard by the EU Air Safety Committee with a possibility that the might be banned in the future.

I suspect, as result of this accident, that this possibility will not become very likely..

Flare-Idle

30th Jun 2009, 11:33

Looking at the charts of FMCH (post#22), while a 3 degree PAPI is installed on Rwy 02, Rwy 20 has no PAPI. Given the actual wind conditions, this circling with prescribed flight tracks calls for trouble during a night approach...
Wonder why they have chosen to put the PAPI on 02 ISOF 20 ?

FI

feedback

30th Jun 2009, 11:33

@ cocolo:

Yes, on the basis of one (serious) newspaper report at least:

Lundi soir, un Airbus A330-200 a décollé de Roissy, pour faire escale à Marseille, puis à Sanaa au Yémen, où les passagers ont changé d'appareil pour embarquer à bord d'un Airbus A310.

Au moins un survivant après le crash au large des Comores - Société - Le Monde.fr (http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2009/06/30/disparition-d-un-airbus-parti-de-paris-au-large-des-comores_1213271_3224.html#ens_id=1213285)

RoyHudd

30th Jun 2009, 11:33

The Yemenia crews certainly seemed to have problems understanding ATC instructions at LHR, whenever I encountered them. Lots of repeated communications were required to keep these folks in good order. Perhaps just sub-par English language skills on their part. Not a good thing though.

Is it fair to suggest that some airlines are safer than others? (Or is this non-PC?)

dicksorchard

30th Jun 2009, 11:34

"The weather conditions were rough - strong wind and high seas.
"The wind speed recorded on land at the airport was 61km (38 miles) an hour.

If the reports are correct of a child having survived this incident then i cannot see how with the above weather conditions unless the child was wearing some sort of inflatable life vest or in a floating cot ?

But if so that would mean either the passengers knew they where in serious trouble and had been told by there captain they where ditching or one very anxious mother was'nt taking any chances ?

so i was wondering do they have inflatable life vests /cots for children ie toddlers onboard this type of airbus ?

I know the policy on most uk airlines is child under 2 on parents lap and child over 2 years has to have own seat .

But Surely an adult life vest would be much too big for a child between the ages of say 2 years to 7 years ?

do they have something on board specifically for that age group ?

Xeque

30th Jun 2009, 11:41

That is a very good point. That this toddler survived is nothing short of miraculous!

Rollingthunder

30th Jun 2009, 11:49

Infant Life Vests are manufactured. I would assume Yemenia would have some on board. However they are not stowed under the seat and unlesss flt. atts. were in the habit of putting one in the child's seat pocket at boarding, how could they be accessed in a real emergency?

Diver-BR

30th Jun 2009, 12:42

That's a pretty emotional first post.
The fact that an airframe is 19 years old does not mean that it is automatically ready for the scrap heap. There are many commercial aircraft older than this that are still in use and perfectly safe to fly. How old was Concorde when retired? How old are the NASA shuttles?
The keyword is 'maintenance'. Saudia is a half partner in Yemenia. Saudia's safety record is second to none and I would seriously doubt that they would put it on the line.

Xeque, Reuters reports that the plane was inspected in France in 2007, some faults were detected and since then it has not flown in France. So poor maintenance cannot be ruled out yet.

Here, a news channel (Globo) is reporting that there was some sort of passenger's organization that has been complaining about the lack of adequate maintenance by Yemenia, and had scheduled *before the crash* some sort of protest against the company in France. Cannot confirm that from any other source yet.

angels

30th Jun 2009, 13:00

Latest I see on the wires is that there were 66 French nationals out of 153 on board. It was item number 2 on the beeb news at 0600 local this morning, don't know about subsequently.

A boy of five has been rescued. WX was not good, with wind speed at the airport of 61 kph and a rough sea.

The French transport minister says Yemenia was not on a blacklist but was subject to stricter checks and was to be interviewed by the EU safety committee.

Yemen's transport minister says the plane thoroughly examined in May.

MrNosy2

30th Jun 2009, 13:00

PilotBoyy

30th Jun 2009, 13:03

I last flew to Moroni just last week and we approached from runway 20. Winds weren't so bad that day, but on the previous time I flew there about 6 weeks ago, the winds were favouring runway 02 so we came in on the ILS. The turbulence on the approach was so severe we had to disconnect the autopilot and fly manually and the winds weren't even that strong. It was largely due to the hills sitting on the right side of the approach into runway 02 (or the left side when you are coming on on runway 20) and windshear is always a factor you have to contend with in
Moroni. The approach into runway 20 is anything but a straight in approach. There is no such thing as a 10 mile or even 5 mile straight in approach because of the hills to your left. You are doing a visual approach from right base and constantly turning to align yourself with the runway and only the last mile or so are you actually completely aligned with the runway. Because of this, my company has designated Moroni as a 'difficult airport' and we are only allowed to fly there during the day, and before we are allowed to operate there, we have to undergo special training with an instructor captain, i.e. both the captain and first officer have to go through this 'difficult airport' training. The thought of going there at night just makes me shudder.

Hostie from Hell

30th Jun 2009, 13:03

Infant lifejackets will almost certainly have been onboard although in any airline I have worked with they have not been given out to parents unless it is a premeditated ditching.They are stowed in a locker with other emergency equitment. Unless they knew they were ditching I would have thought it unlikely the child was wearing an INFANT lifejacket. The parent may have made the decision to put an adult lifejacket on the child and depending on age/size of the child it may have been ok. Adult lifejackets can be used on a child by inflating before ditching and then deflating it slighty and tieing the tapes acroos the chest and then behind the childs back.

Nothing short of a miracle that the child survived. Very sad indeed the loss of another aircraft regardless of where the plane was from and nationalities onboard.

Dysag

30th Jun 2009, 13:16

About "not a European, North American or Australian airline therefore 'must be unsafe"

Give us the statistics which show that Afircan, Middle Eastern or Latin American airlines are more safe than the above, and I'll listen to you.

Enjoy the view

30th Jun 2009, 13:17

The published intrument charts mention:

"Risque de turbulence en approche RWY 02 et de cisaillement en courte finale par vent de secteur sud-est."

meaning:

"Risk of turbulence on approach for RWY 02 and windshear on short final with winds from the South-East"

The airport weather around 2250Z (time of accident):
FMCH 292300Z 21025G35KT 9999 FEW020 25/16 Q1017 TEMPO 18015G30KT=

Associated with no published Instrument approach available for RWY20 (probably used according to the wind conditions), no PAPI on RWY20, blackhole effect...

Not an ideal set of conditions for a visual approach at night and in case of go-around...

johnriketes

30th Jun 2009, 13:44

Well, that's a bit :mad: rich, considering recent events!!!

BBC NEWS | Europe | EU wants world aviation blacklist (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8126431.stm)

Maybe one or two EU "flag carriers" should be added.

Xeque

30th Jun 2009, 13:58

Pilotboyy said:
The approach into runway 20 is anything but a straight in approach. There is no such thing as a 10 mile or even 5 mile straight in approach because of the hills to your left. You are doing a visual approach from right base and constantly turning to align yourself with the runway and only the last mile or so are you actually completely aligned with the runway.
If you look at the approach charts from page two of the thread you can see what he's saying. There are at least two major obstacles (one at 1,356' and the other at 3,566') that are very close to the final approach path to 20. It's a tight, curving approach from the north-west with a very short final and I can see why a PAPI wouldn't be a great deal of use.
But then, the 'main runway' is deemed to be 02 which has an ILS, GS and a PAPI.
So which runway were they approaching? Reports are that the crash site is to the north of the island but an approach to 20 or a go 'round from 02 would put the aircraft towards the north-west.

MrNosy2

30th Jun 2009, 14:08

Dysag - I'm well aware of what the statistics for different parts of the world say (it's my company's data that gets used by FSF, IATA etc after all), all I'm saying is that people should not generalise and jump to conclusions without being able to back them up. I have no knowledge of Yemenia's actual safety and I've seen none posted on this site so I don't know what the airline is like.

EDLB

30th Jun 2009, 14:09

Hello,

"The airport weather around 2250Z (time of accident):
FMCH 292300Z 21025G35KT 9999 FEW020 25/16 Q1017 TEMPO 18015G30KT="

They had to use RW20. Is it correct that there is only a visual approach possible on RW20 and no ILS?

Has anyone here experience with a visual RW20 approach there at night?

I would assume that if there are no lights on the mountain it is a very dangerous approach if straight in is not possible.

ShockWave

30th Jun 2009, 14:22

Scheduling an airline flight into Moroni at night is a very dangerous thing to do. The risks involved are too high and the services available are very minimal. The non-precision app at night is a ridiculously difficult approach in good weather, with turbulence and strong winds it has always been an accident waiting to happen.
The Yemenia pilots operate out of very difficult airports in tough conditions on a daily basis, Sanaa their home base can be a very tough place to operate a wide body jet. I would not assume that their pilots skills were lacking.
Any pilot flying that approach in bad weather at night would have a much higher risk of dying than is acceptable.
The airline I flew there with pulled out of Moroni 5 or 6 years ago because of those dangers, thankfully!
What ever the cause of this crash, hopefully night flights into that place will be stopped by all airlines.

Xeque

30th Jun 2009, 14:29

Thanks. So the winds were from 210 at 25-35 knots. Yes, 20 would have to be the runway in use.
Night-time, bad weather, fairly high winds and a curving visual approach from the right so the view from the left hand seat is restricted. What a decision to have to make. To go for it, to go 'round or to chuck it in altogether and go somewhere else. Not good at all.

shogan1977

30th Jun 2009, 14:35

Airbus crash: EU concerned about airline - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/30/yemen.plane.crash.safety/)

France's transport minister, Dominique Bussereau told French television that inspectors in his country had also noted several faults on the doomed Yemenia Airways plane, Agence France-Presse reported.

"The company was not on the blacklist (of airlines banned from European airspace) but was being subjected to closer inspection by us and was due to soon be heard by the security committee of the European Union," Bussereau said.

The Airbus A310 was inspected in France in 2007 by the French civil aviation authority and "a certain number of faults had been noted."

"The plane had not since then reappeared in our country," he added.

However, Chris Yates, an aviation analyst for Jane's Information Group, said he suspected weather and/or airport failings were a greater factor in the crash than a technical fault.

"It's more than likely to be a weather-related incident. Having said that, you cannot rule out a maintenance issue," Yates told CNN.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

1) At this early stage how can Yates say that with such certainty?

2) Despite all the reassurance from pilots etc on this forum regarding the safety of aircraft in bad weather, why are so many 'specialists' so quick to cite weather as a probable cause of two recent crashes? It makes nervous travelers such as myself worry about flying in bad weather! :ugh:

R04stb33f

30th Jun 2009, 14:47

Approach video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCG3tjxPRTQ) to RWY02 for interest. Delete as appropriate.

ReverseFlight

30th Jun 2009, 15:11

Child found alive after plane crashes in sea - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/30/yemen.plane.crash/index.html)

A reconnaissance plane spotted traces of the Airbus A310-300 in waters off the town of Mitsamiouli early Tuesday, said Comoros Vice President Idi Nadhoim.

From the Visual Approach Chart (post #22), Mitsamiouli is on a direct line (straight final) into RWY 20, over the distant hills to the north of the threshold (see video of approach into RWY 02, post #69).

Andy_S

30th Jun 2009, 15:27

At this early stage how can Yates say that with such certainty?

He didn't. He used the words "suspected" and "more than likely". I don't see any certainty expressed.

why are so many 'specialists' so quick to cite weather as a probable cause of two recent crashes?

They're not. The people (on this forum at least) who have spoken with genuine knowledge and authority on these accidents have mentioned weather as a contributory factor. That's very different from probable cause.

Xeque

30th Jun 2009, 15:28

From the Visual Approach Chart (post #22), Mitsamiouli is on a direct line (straight final) into RWY 20, over the distant hills to the north of the threshold (see video of approach into RWY 02, post #69).
Today 21:47
So, the procedure is to fly to the VOR, down the length of the runway then round the 'racetrack' to make a curving right hand to final as Pilotboyy said earlier. I guess the heights are in metres?? (my French is 'merde')
So, the question is - why did they come down in the water so far north of the island. Wrong QNH/QFE?

testpanel

30th Jun 2009, 15:40

RUMOURS (read posts) on A.net and Avherald mention that the pilot (captain or fo) was found/resqued as well....

flyer58

30th Jun 2009, 15:47

A lot said about (very difficult) approach for Rwy 20. Very interesting facts, but not relevant. The a/c did not crash during the approach but after that.

Position of the crash site as reported so far (9 miles North) fits with the Missed Approach path for Rwy 02.

Xeque

30th Jun 2009, 15:50

With winds from 210 at 25-35 knots they were using 20 weren't they? The missed approach for 02 is outbound on 330 then back to the south to start again. The inbound track to the VOR from the north is 203 which is, I guess, what they were following.

hetfield

30th Jun 2009, 15:52

Position of the crash site as reported so far (9 miles North) fits with the Missed Approach path for Rwy 02.

Unfortunately A310/A300 were subject to many accidents/incidents during GoAround/Missed Approach....

lomapaseo

30th Jun 2009, 16:01

shogan1977

Despite all the reassurance from pilots etc on this forum regarding the safety of aircraft in bad weather, why are so many 'specialists' so quick to cite weather as a probable cause of two recent crashes? It makes nervous travelers such as myself worry about flying in bad weather!

What probable cause would make you less nervous:confused:

as always the real experts do deal in contributing causes, meaning that it takes several things combining together at the same time. Since weather is one of those nasties that show up in the contributing causes from time to time, it's easy for the armchair experts to fixate on that causal factor in their early words.

If you read the posts a little deeper you will get a hint that the pilots among us are also concerend that this airport has a difficult to approach to landing. In spite of these two it would take even more contributions which is what the onward investigation will look for.

threemiles

30th Jun 2009, 16:11

So, the procedure is to fly to the VOR, down the length of the runway then round the 'racetrack' to make a curving right hand to final as Pilotboyy said earlier. I guess the heights are in metres?? (my French is 'merde')
So, the question is - why did they come down in the water so far north of the island. Wrong QNH/QFE?

The MVI Rwy 20 approach is to turn left over HA, which is roughly 4 NM south of threshold 02. Then enter a right downwind until Radial 308. Then turn in inside the obstacle lights (feux a eclats). The approach charts calls for "to have the lights always to the left of the airplane." Intercepting the final is about 2NM from threshold 20. It is a bit like Funchal, maybe not that tight.

The entire procedure is within a few miles of the airport and far off from the north coast, where the wreckage was supposedly located.

frontrow

30th Jun 2009, 16:15

Media now reporting that survivor is not a 5 year old boy but a 14 year old girl. Wreckage is 34km from the airport.

11Fan

30th Jun 2009, 16:28

Easily confused.

Warning. This post has no value and will be removed shortly.

Mike-Bracknell

30th Jun 2009, 16:29

Media now reporting that survivor is not a 5 year old boy but a 14 year old girl
Easy mistake to make! :ugh:

That brings into question the efficacy of second hand news reporting (and the reliance thereupon) for resulting actions. What if the news had reported nobody alive, and the rescue services had believed it - the child would be dead by now. Speculation is devilish work.

Warning. This post has very little value too and will probably be removed shortly as well.

Xeque

30th Jun 2009, 16:29

Thanks for that. I understand that is the procedure for an approach from the south. What happens if you are approaching from the north?

SLFinAZ

30th Jun 2009, 16:45

As an SLF I'm a bit confused on a couple of points. From the charts the missed approach is not consistent with the planes final position. Would any mechanical or other issues make it prudent for a seasoned pilot to deviate at his discretion?

It would seem that given the difficult approach that the aviate would outweigh the navigate on a missed approach but vectoring out to sea (as per the missed approach chart) would appear to minimize external issues. A loss of spatial awareness during the missed approach would seem to place the accident site in the bay...not its actual location...

irishpilot1990

30th Jun 2009, 17:05

Just seen a report that the crash location is '9.2 miles north of Comoros Island and 20 miles from the airport'.

Meanwhile, I note that all the usual prejudices are coming out - not a European, North American or Australian airline therefore 'must be unsafe'. Aircraft is 19 years old so 'should not have been flying' and so on.

I note that Yemenia has a current IOSA audit (valid to June 2010).

Some one got there before me. From what I am reading elsewhere about this airlines record the prejudices are well warranted, you seem to have a protective attitude. Why in gods name should any airline with a record like this be allowed fly in any part of world never mind Europe? These black lists need to become more public knowledge too. Accessible and PUBLISIED to the general public

SPA83

30th Jun 2009, 17:41

AUDIT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

http://www.icao.int/fsix/auditRep1.cfm (http://www.icao.int/fsix/auditRep1.cfm)

YEMEN

The regulations do not comply in all respects with ICAO SARPs.

There is no established training policy or programme for technical staff.

The Flight Operations Division suffers from a shortage of adequately qualified and experienced operations inspectors.

There is a need to establish a more comprehensive system for the certification and surveillance of air operators that conforms to the requirements of Annex 6 and related guidance material.

With respect to airworthiness supervision and control functions, the CAMA does not comply in many respects with the relevant SARPs in Annex 6, Chapters 8 and 11, and Annex 8.

There is a need to establish a more comprehensive system for the approval of maintenance organizations, maintenance programmes and on-going surveillance that conforms to the requirements of Annex 6 and related guidance material.

The airworthiness inspectors do not have the required knowledge and maintenance experience to discharge the duties expected of them.

Inspectors lack adequate training, regulations are not up-to-date, and guidance material and procedures have not been adequately developed.

Les dossiers noirs du transport aérien (http://henrimarnetcornus.20minutes-blogs.fr/)

threemiles

30th Jun 2009, 18:06

Thanks for that. I understand that is the procedure for an approach from the south. What happens if you are approaching from the north?
You fly to HAI VOR at sufficient altitude. HAI is at the airport. Then you fly southbound for about 10 NM, make a teardrop turn and return for approach 02, break off to the left for right downwind 20.

In a non-radar environment anything but stick to this procedure at night is suicide.

GobonaStick

30th Jun 2009, 18:12

That brings into question the efficacy of second hand news reporting (and the reliance thereupon) for resulting actions. What if the news had reported nobody alive, and the rescue services had believed it - the child would be dead by now. Speculation is devilish work.

It was information given by an official source to the media. Ergo, what you say is nonsense.

White Knight

30th Jun 2009, 18:31

Funny how the french minister is ranting on about unsafe airlines - methinks Air France have lost 3 hulls since 2000:ugh::ugh:

BrooksPA-28

30th Jun 2009, 18:42

According to the BBC this flight, specifically, caused enough controversy in the Comoran community in Marseille to warrant a protest in August. Of note is the baggage allowance quoted in the article, 40kg. That seems like a lot to me. BBC article is here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8127244.stm).

flyhardmo

30th Jun 2009, 19:09

Well said White Knight :D

40kg. That seems like a lot to me.

KLM also allows 40kgs to East Africa as do many airlines.

Callas

30th Jun 2009, 19:23

June 30 (Bloomberg) -- Yemenia, the airline that had a fatal crash today in the Indian Ocean, faced possible blacklisting in Europe after France found fault in 2007 with the same Airbus A310 plane involved in the accident.
The Yemeni national carrier was subject to more frequent inspections (http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air-ban/pdf/list_en.pdf) in Europe after the incident two years ago, according to French and European Union officials. The airline passed checks that could have led to a ban on the continent, European Transport Commissioner Antonio Tajani (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Antonio+Tajani&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) told reporters today in Brussels.
Yemenia was on an EU watchlist because of safety concerns and had not flown A310s into France after a mid-2007 inspection of the plane that crashed, French Transportation Minister Dominique Bussereau (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Dominique+Bussereau&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) said. “This plane had been excluded from the national territory because it represented certain irregularities,” he told members of parliament.
The Yemenia aircraft with 153 people on board came down in the ocean just before it was due to land in the Comoros Islands after taking off from the Arab country’s capital, Sana’a. The cause of the accident hasn’t been determined, though the carrier’s chairman has said weather was to blame. A five-year- old child survived.
‘Strict Surveillance’
“This airline was under strict surveillance,” Bussereau said on France’s i-tele television channel. “It’s a plane that disappeared from French soil following the discovery of numerous faults.”
Bussereau didn’t specify what problems were identified when France’s civil aviation authority, the DGAC, found faults with the aircraft (http://www.airbus.com/).
EU rules require that any ban of planes be implemented across Europe, not just in an individual country. Bussereau didn’t spell out today whether the plane was banned only in France and his press office didn’t respond to six messages seeking comment.
European nations have acted in concert for three years in excluding any airlines or portions of fleets from flying in the region. Fatal crashes in 2004 and 2005 prompted the governments to develop a common blacklist procedure.
The list, updated at least four times a year, is based on deficiencies found during checks at European airports, the use of antiquated aircraft and shortcomings by non-EU airline regulators.
Inspections
Various planes operated by Yemenia underwent 24 inspections in different EU countries after France first identified the problem with the A310 in 2007, according to EU air safety regulators.
The airline wasn’t placed on the EU blacklist because the carrier passed inspections done in Europe after the initial concerns, Tajani said. “The controls were positive.”
The European Commission, the 27-nation EU’s regulatory arm, will ask Yemenia to make a safety presentation in coming days, the transport commissioner said. The next update of the blacklist is due in about two weeks.
“We never had problems with the plane,” Yemenia Chairman Abdulkalek Saleh Al-Kadi (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Saleh+Al-Kadi&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) said in a telephone interview. “It was purely weather.”
The plane wasn’t banned from flying in France, he said, and was last serviced May 2. The pilot was “well experienced, middle aged and has thousands of hours of flights,” he said.
Ali Sumairi, deputy managing director of Yemenia Airlines, told France24 television that the plane “was checked by French authorities with some findings, but they were minor findings that were corrected.”
‘Technically Sound’
Sumairi said the plane departed without any difficulty. “The aircraft was technically sound,” he said. Yemenia had flown an Airbus A330 plane from Paris to Sana’a via Marseilles, and then transferred passengers for Comoros onto the A310.
The EU blacklist, besides imposing a ban in Europe, can act as a guide for travelers worldwide and influence safety policies in non-EU countries. Nations that are home to carriers with poor safety records can ground them to avoid being put on the EU list, while countries keen to keep out unsafe airlines can use the European list as a guide for their own bans.
Yemen is the poorest Arab nation, with about 40 percent of the population living on less than $2 a day, according to the U.K. Department for International Development.
A310 Usage
The A310 is a medium- to long-range widebody plane that is a shorter variant of Airbus’s first model, the A300. More than 150 airlines operate A310s, according to Ascend, a London-based aviation database. The company ceased building A310s in July 2007 as the aircraft was supplanted by newer models.
This is the first fatal crash suffered by Yemenia, according to Ascend. A passenger was killed in June 2007 when a security guard allegedly opened fire while passengers were disembarking from a plane. The airline’s last total loss of an aircraft was in August 2001, when a Boeing 727 struck a concrete block after overrunning upon landing at Asmara, Eritrea.
Today’s crash is the ninth total loss and eighth fatal accident involving an A310 since the type entered service in April 1983, Ascend said, adding that 755 passengers and 74 crew members died in those accidents.
The Yemenia accident is the fifth fatal accident to passengers on paid commercial flights this year and the third involving a western-built jetliner, Ascend said. Toulouse, France-based Airbus is a unit of European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=EAD%3AFP)
Yemenia Fleet
Yemenia leased four A310-300s, according to the Arab Air Carriers Organization. The plane that crashed was the oldest of the model in the carrier’s fleet, having been delivered in 1990. The newest A310 in the fleet was built in 1997. The airline, which is 49 percent owned by Saudi Arabian Airlines, also operates leased Airbus A330-200 and Boeing Co. 737-800 aircraft.
The plane was owned by International Lease Finance Corp., a unit of American International Group Inc., and had been on lease to Yemenia since 1999. Airbus said in an e-mailed statement that it is providing technical assistance to French investigators on the crash.
Most of the passengers were of Comorian origin from France, the airline said. Sixty-six French nationals were on the flight, the French Foreign Ministry said.
The Comoros Islands are an archipelago located off the southeastern coast of Africa, northwest of Madagascar. About 200,000 Comorians live in France, according to the French government.

threemiles

30th Jun 2009, 20:19

Yemenia Chairman Abdulkalek Saleh Al-Kadi said in a telephone interview. “It was purely weather.”

Investigation completed.

11Fan

30th Jun 2009, 20:33

threemiles,

Prophetic statement methinks.

Xeque

1st Jul 2009, 02:59

threemiles

1st Jul 2009, 06:05

Once again, many thanks for your explanation of the visual approach procedure for runway 20 when arriving from the north. The charts in post #22 did not show that.
I have one last question. In the event of a missed approach to 20 do you repeat the procedure exactly?
Finally, can anyone accurately show where the aircraft came down? I am still confused about it's being reported 9 miles to the north of the island.

The proper chart for this is
http://www.ais-asecna.org/pdf/atlas/comores/moroni/pdf/moroni-06.pdf

Because it is a visual approach there is nothing said about a missed approach procedure. Most likely you would stay in the traffic pattern and try again. Can be tricky though, but normally would be briefed well before the approach. Alternative, fly back to HA and repeat complete procedure. This does not seem what happened.

The said crash site is where you extend the centerline rwy 20 over water to the north, well off the shore. There is no part of the procedure that leads there. A straight-in from there (the North) is not possible me thinks, mountains in the way to final.

With INS properly updated all no problem. But lack of DME-DME update may be a problem in the area. If no GPS, mapshift may be significant at the time of approach.

cats_five

1st Jul 2009, 06:38

Who will do the investigation? I can't imagine the Coromos Islands have an AIB department. Yemen since it was their plane? France since that's where Airbus are?

ArthurBorges

1st Jul 2009, 06:54

Transport Minister Dominique Bussereau said the French BEA would participate in the investigation if French citizens were aboard. Which is the case.

ArthurBorges

1st Jul 2009, 07:01

A source "close to the industry" says the A310 belongs to ILFC, a leasing outfit with "one of the world's biggest fleets."

Source: Un A310 s'abîme près des Comores, 152 disparus, une survivante - Yahoo! Actualités (http://fr.news.yahoo.com/4/20090630/tts-comores-avion-ca02f96.html)

Professorrah

1st Jul 2009, 07:26

BBC NEWS | Africa | Yemen plane's black box located (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8127947.stm)

Southernboy

1st Jul 2009, 08:47

As always lots of useful constructive direct knowledge info, so my thanks to all who posted same. The problem with blacklists is that to get on one the airline has to be Dire. Nowadays audits produce little real inside information about company culture, which is arguably more important that how they do their paperwork.

BUSHJEPPY

1st Jul 2009, 08:52

Has somebody access to the IOSA audit of Yemenia as it seems that the A310 operations has been exempted of the audit scope and has not been approved by the IOSA auditor. Why ?

LeandroSecundo

1st Jul 2009, 09:05

Hi,

It's amazing .....

Quote:
Yemenia Chairman Abdulkalek Saleh Al-Kadi said in a telephone interview. “It was purely weather.”
Investigation completed.

He have a friend ..

Google translation

This is not Airbus, who is involved, a particular model of aircraft. A crash is a set of things, sometimes neglected, an error of steering or bad weather, said on France Inter on french Secretary of State for Transport, Dominique Bussereau.
Source
Les Comores mettent en cause Paris dans l'accident de l'A310 - Yahoo! Actualités (http://fr.news.yahoo.com/4/20090701/tts-comores-avion-france-ca02f96.html)

So .. Mr Bussereau know already before eveyone and before any investigation that's Airbus Industry is not involved ... the plane is perfect with no defaults .. know or unknow...
Well ............... that's a good start .

Bye.

20milesout

1st Jul 2009, 09:13

The chart overlay covers an area of about 12nm N to S - approximately the area for a southerly rwy20 teardrop.

"40 km [25 miles] from Grande Comore" (quoting BBC) is far away from there.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4424/googj.th.gif (http://img5.imageshack.us/i/googj.gif/)

edit: image removed

philipat

1st Jul 2009, 09:28

Nowadays audits produce little real inside information about company culture, which is arguably more important that how they do their paperwork

Or what they SAY is the paperwork. In the absence of a positive culture and in the presence of incompetence and corruption, paperwork can be meaningless. General comment to a general comment and not directed at Yemenia, about which I know nothing.

When will the basic facts of this accident be confirmed? It would seem that with winds from the South (Variously reported to date as being from SE and SW) the approach must have been to Runway 20. An approach at night with no ILS? Were there several aborted attempts at landing or not? It seems an awful ong way out, although again, distance reproted variously from 9 miles to 20 miles North of the field. It seems we really have very little so far?

cats_five

1st Jul 2009, 10:21

<snip>
Nowadays audits produce little real inside information about company culture, which is arguably more important that how they do their paperwork.

Surely how they do the paperwork is part of the company culture?

Wiggly Bob

1st Jul 2009, 11:19

Whether Yemania had been banned in Europe or not, this plane would have gone down anyway. Last departure point was Yemen, not Europe, so the flight would have still happenned. It may just have meant fewer Europeans on the flight but there still would have been casualties. Unless the bans become Global, these airlines can still operate in their relative regions in the same manner surely?

Rob

WHBM

1st Jul 2009, 11:46

Yemenia was on an EU watchlist because of safety concerns and had not flown A310s into France after a mid-2007 inspection of the plane that crashed, French Transportation Minister Dominique Bussereau (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Dominique+Bussereau&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) said. “This plane had been excluded from the national territory because it represented certain irregularities,” he told members of parliament.......... “This airline was under strict surveillance,” Bussereau said on France’s i-tele television channel. “It’s a plane that disappeared from French soil following the discovery of numerous faults.”
.......EU rules require that any ban of planes be implemented across Europe, not just in an individual country. Bussereau didn’t spell out today whether the plane was banned only in France .
Well the accident aircraft in question, 7O-ADJ, has certainly been around Europe. It last came through London Heathrow on the Yemen Airways schedule IY743 on 24 June, one week before the accident. Did it overfly French airspace en route to/from Yemen ?

frontrow

1st Jul 2009, 11:53

YEMEN, July 1 2009 - One of the black box flight recorders from the Yemeni plane which crashed in the Indian Ocean on Tuesday has been located, a French official has said.
Efforts to retrieve the recorder will begin during the day, the official added, quoted by AFP news agency. The plane came down in bad weather with 153 people on board. Only one survivor was found but rescue efforts continue. There were 66 French nationals on board the plane, which was flying from the Yemeni capital Sanaa to the Comoros. Most of the plane's passengers had flown on a different Yemenia aircraft from Paris or Marseille before boarding flight IY626 in Sanaa. "The black box's signal was located yesterday at 1630 local time (1230 GMT) by an aerial patrol, 40 km from Grande Comore," a spokeswoman for Co-operation Minister Alain Joyandet said. A French vessel has been sent to the site to start recovery operations,

Xeque

1st Jul 2009, 12:07

I don't think that whether the aircraft had been 'banned' from France is an issue here. I would seriously doubt that this accident is due to mechanical or airframe malfunction. Spatial disorientation following a missed approach is probably nearer the mark particularly since, we've been told, the aircraft came down in the ocean miles away to the north of the island.
Sure the French found faults in the aircraft 2 years ago but there is nothing to indicate that Yemenia/Saudia maintenance did nothing about them. Faults found 2 years ago surely have no relevance here.

LeandroSecundo

1st Jul 2009, 12:35

Hi,

I don't think that whether the aircraft had been 'banned' from France is an issue here. I would seriously doubt that this accident is due to mechanical or airframe malfunction. Spatial disorientation following a missed approach is probably nearer the mark particularly since, we've been told, the aircraft came down in the ocean miles away to the north of the island.

You certainly right .. as it's in Eurocockpit:

Google translation:

Published June 30 2009 at 06:51 by EuroCockpit.

An Airbus A310 of the company Yemenia Airways would have crashed that night off the Comoros in the Indian Ocean.

153 people (142 PAX and 11 PN) were supposed to be on board, perhaps including french nationals. The device connected to Sanaa Moroni, via Djibouti (vol IY626).

UPDATE: Unlike the case of flight AF447, EuroCockpit has no tangible technical comment on this accident.

The only analysis we can make concerns about the french government official, speaking through Mr. Bussereau, who said yesterday that he knew nothing, except that the aircraft was not in question.

EuroCockpit can therefore anticipate the conclusions of BEA, which point to a probable error of steering. Mr Feldzer we speak probably appalling weather ...

Source:
Eurocockpit - Accueil (http://www.eurocockpit.com/index.php)

Bye.

ilndflyers

1st Jul 2009, 13:50

Re Xengue post

That is by far the most intillegent guesstimate I have seen. Missed approach, Copilot giving visual cues with Capt looking over his shoulder,maybe in CWS, Getting the s^&t beat out of them,very strong tailwind on downwind leg (hence the far distance from touchdown), darkness. Not a good scenerio. My guess is they stalled due to improper configuration while hand flown. I dont think anyone was navigating with instruments. We will know the truth soon enough if they are able to read the data from the recorders.
Nothing to do with which airline is banned from which country etc. etc. An accident is an accident and its importance is not based on whose citizens are on board or where they were allowed to fly.. Unfortunately, economics dictate safety and smaller less funded airlines are more prone to dubious mtx and operational practices, though I dont think that is the case in this accident. I have flown for African carriers which were more compliant then those that I flew for in the States. Generally it is usually the Civil Avaition of the member countries which are sanctioned.
My condolences go out to the families and loved ones affected by this tragedy.

RatherBeFlying

1st Jul 2009, 15:25

'Papa, we saw the plane going down in the water. I was in the water, I could hear people talking, but I couldn't see anyone. I was in the dark, I couldn't see a thing on top of that, Daddy. I can't swim well and I held on to something, but I don't really know what'
—Bahia Bakari in telephone conversation with her father
.
.
.
she held on to a piece of the plane from 1:30 a.m. Tuesday to 3 p.m.
.
.
.
Sgt. Said Abdilai told Europe 1 radio that Bahia was too weak to grasp the life ring rescuers threw to her, so he jumped into the sea to get her.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/01/survivor-yemeni- (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/01/survivor-yemeni-crash001.html#socialcomments)

PJ2

1st Jul 2009, 16:01

Southernboy, BUSHJEPPY;
The problem with blacklists is that to get on one the airline has to be Dire. Nowadays audits produce little real inside information about company culture, which is arguably more important that how they do their paperwork
Like the SB and AD processes themselves, the "IOSA Audit" process accomodates politics and economics; whether that is a good thing or not depends upon one's priorities. From the point of view of some flight safety specialists, the IOSA process is somewhat questionable and, like SMS, is focussed on process and documentation and not "what actually is", at an airline. Much can be papered over and otherwise ticked off as done but still not be effective or excused, on the promise that it will be done at some point. Seen it.

Whether that is the case here remains to be examined, (if at all). With statements such as we have heard signaling official reasons "why the accident" by high-ranking corporate and/or political leaders, the chances of a full investigation diminish.

kbootb

1st Jul 2009, 16:12

According to the BBC, they have changed their mind about finding the data recorder. Looks like they found a distress beacon instead.

BBC NEWS | Africa | France reverses 'black box' claim (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8128690.stm)

wes_wall

1st Jul 2009, 17:15

Who will be the investigative government body responsible for handling the details? Will they publish a report?

Capetonian

1st Jul 2009, 17:24

So .. Mr Bussereau know already before eveyone and before any investigation that's Airbus Industry is not involved ... the plane is perfect with no defaults .. know or unknow...
Well ............... that's a good start .

Rule no 1 about the French : They are never wrong.
Rule no 2 about the French : When they are wrong rule No 1 applies.

On a more serious note, if an aircraft belonging to a specific company is banned from the airspace of one EU country, isn't this ban applied EU wide?

Secondly, if one aircraft of a company is suspected to be so dangerous that it is banned, wouldn't it make sense to apply the ban to all aircraft of that company, given that the same standards of maintenance probably apply?

Airbus_a321

1st Jul 2009, 17:38

PJ2
From the point of view of some flight safety specialists, the IOSA process is somewhat questionable and is focussed on process and documentation and not "what actually is", at an airline.

I fully agree, for me its just a another way to make money for the audit, and once this audit "passed", giving the management of those audited airlines an official certificate, a kind of a blank cheque, that they comply with IOSA at least acc the f:mad:ing PAPERWORK, even some of them, I have my very, very big doubts if they really do comply in daily ops business.

Having the paperwork IOSA conformable ist completely different to having the actual business IOSA conformable. IOSA audits and the official IOSA seal is not worth anything.
Sorry, but just my 2pence.

Razoray

1st Jul 2009, 17:39

Capetonian.....

and why would French Citizens be flying on a banned aircraft?

:confused:

Woodsy

1st Jul 2009, 17:53

How would any citizen of any country know whether the aircraft was banned or not. If they could buy a ticket on the journey they wanted to make that would probably be their only requirement, they would assume that the governments and civil aviation authotities would have made all the necessary safety checks.

Woodsy

Rollingthunder

1st Jul 2009, 18:13

Unfortunately, economics dictate safety and smaller less funded airlines are more prone to dubious mtx and operational practices, though I dont think that is the case in this accident.

Yemenia is owned 49% by Saudi Arabia, who have money dripping out their ears. Mainteneance should have been to the highest calibre, not a cause for an aircraft to be banned from French airspace.

Lamyna Flo

1st Jul 2009, 18:53

just another airbus where the black boxes won't be found (as they might actually shed light on airbus's poor design practices).

Except that one already has been: Yemenia plane black box found | World Breaking News | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25720081-23109,00.html)

Please post your overwhelming evidence regarding Airbus's "poor design practices" here, as enquiring minds are desperate to know :rolleyes:

b00bsmith

1st Jul 2009, 18:54

Media is reporting one "black box" has been found, but yet to be recovered.

are you referring the false positive that turned out to be the distress beacon?

Duck Rogers

1st Jul 2009, 18:55

I take it you both (Rollingthunder, Lamyna Flo) read the link in post #114?

PPRuNe Top Tip. Read the thread before posting.

Duck

Capetonian

1st Jul 2009, 19:01

Capetonian.....

and why would French Citizens be flying on a banned aircraft?

I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. In this case they flew from France on a 'safe' aircraft and transferred in Sanaa onto one that was banned from French (EU?) space.

Razoray

1st Jul 2009, 19:45

Capetonian....

Sorry I wasnt so clear.....

Just feel like it's a way for the airline to beat the system. If for some reason an airline has planes that are banned from the EU, than all the planes of that airline should be banned from the EU.

Where is Ralph Nader when you need him?
Famous US consumer advocate....

JanetFlight

1st Jul 2009, 20:39

Yeap Razoray...but it happenned the same with PIA in UK...No 747 or 313 but only 777's allowed...Strange indeed!
However and returning to this very accident at Comoros, IMHO this has lots of similarities with the 320 of Gulf Air and more recently with the Armavia 320 at Sochi by Black Sea...All at night, after succesfull Go-Arounds/Orbits, and specially this one with Armavia like the Comoros, on poor bad weather...:rolleyes:
All of them too without any distress call nor malfunction advises to the ATC.

Capetonian

1st Jul 2009, 21:04

Razoray :

This is what I was trying to say :

... if one aircraft of a company is suspected to be so dangerous that it is banned, wouldn't it make sense to apply the ban to all aircraft of that company, given that the same standards of maintenance probably apply?.

dreamflier

1st Jul 2009, 21:12

Quote:
'Papa, we saw the plane going down in the water. I was in the water, I could hear people talking, but I couldn't see anyone. I was in the dark, I couldn't see a thing on top of that, Daddy. I can't swim well and I held on to something, but I don't really know what'
—Bahia Bakari in telephone conversation with her father
.
.
.
she held on to a piece of the plane from 1:30 a.m. Tuesday to 3 p.m.
.
.
.
Sgt. Said Abdilai told Europe 1 radio that Bahia was too weak to grasp the life ring rescuers threw to her, so he jumped into the sea to get her.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/01/survivor-yemeni-

Does this mean there were other survivors but the emergency services got there too late for anyone else?

protectthehornet

2nd Jul 2009, 00:55

so, there you are making an approach in tough conditions ...maybe you have the autothrottles working to keep the speed right...and then you go around...good move, TOGA pull up clean up and off you go

but now you come back again...might you have not properly set the autothrottles up again for the approach speed? could you have disconnected the AT and forgot to hook them up again?

now you are circling in tough conditions looking out the window trying to find the runway and you are losing airspeed...but you aren't watching as you think the autothrottles will keep a safe speed and bang!

never flew the A310 or any bus...I think the throttles move on that one, right????

kenhughes

2nd Jul 2009, 01:55

French Junior Minister for Transport Dominique Bussereau told i- tele TV news that French civil aviation authorities had kept Yemenia Airways under close surveillance and had detected "very many defects" on the aircraft. The plane "disappeared from French skies" after these defects were found," Bussereau said."

This statement, which I find rather smug, suggests that, rather than fix the defects found by the French civil aviation authorities, Yemenia simply kept it out of French airports/airspace.

There has been no evidence put forward that the defects were not fixed. Nor do we know how serious the defects were - obviously not serious enough to ground the aircraft in France until the problems were fixed.

philipat

2nd Jul 2009, 02:26

but now you come back again...might you have not properly set the autothrottles up again for the approach speed? could you have disconnected the AT and forgot to hook them up again?

now you are circling in tough conditions looking out the window trying to find the runway and you are losing airspeed...but you aren't watching as you think the autothrottles will keep a safe speed and bang!

As in CFIT. ANC? TK/AMS?

greatoaks

2nd Jul 2009, 05:54

A question for the airline guys:

I have no knowledge of the contractual agreements that exist between lessors and airlines apart form the wet and dry etc, but apparently this airbus was owned by ILFC.

Is the leesee not obligated to keep service and maintenance to the regulated standards and do the lease companies perform periodic checks and audits to ensure their equipment is servicable.

Apologies if this is a obvious point but.....

cheers

hetfield

2nd Jul 2009, 06:53

never flew the A310 or any bus...I think the throttles move on that one, right????

Yes they do and they take a hell out of these engines.

As already mentioned it's not the first accidents/incident with A310/300 during Go Around ....

Longtimer

2nd Jul 2009, 13:53

Interesting indeed, they suffer one hull loss and now face banning but other carriers, have a worse record when it comes to hull loss and continue to be acceptable. Double standard??????

JACDEC - Statistics - Global Map of Hull Losses 2009 (http://www.jacdec.de/info/AF447Special/jacdec_special_report_AF30YEARS.htm)

mitchnvic

2nd Jul 2009, 16:58

I heard the very tail-end of a report on the wireless tonight that talked about an airline that crammed so many people on-board its aircraft that (reportedly - by a passenger) some passengers had to stand in the aisles...(ie there were no seats left to accomodate them)! Anyone else hear this report on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting) Thus nite, after the 6 pm news?

hellsbrink

2nd Jul 2009, 17:06

Interesting indeed, they suffer one hull loss and now face banning but other carriers, have a worse record when it comes to hull loss and continue to be acceptable. Double standard??????

Ok, I'll bite.

(And note that I have no info on this and am merely playing "Devil's Advocate")

Maybe it's because there has been other, repeated, breaches of ramp checks, possibly with the same aircraft, over a period of time? After all, enough "black marks" turn into a "red flag". It would have to be over more than just "one hull loss".

757_Driver

2nd Jul 2009, 17:29

yes, But it smacks of double standards.
Most of the EU's 'banned carriers' are only to make it look like the EU are doing something - they are local airlines that never plan to fly to the EU anyway. Who cares if a local indonesian airline is on the banned list - but the EU think it makes them look like they are doing something!
And lets not forget that Air France now have one of the worst hull loss records in the world (as do Turkish) so why are they not under EU investigation?
Its all politics people. Nothing do do with public safety.

airship

2nd Jul 2009, 18:02

Rollingthunder wrote: Yemenia is owned 49% by Saudi Arabia, who have money dripping out their ears. Mainteneance should have been to the highest calibre, not a cause for an aircraft to be banned from French airspace.

Anything less than 50% is still a minority interest though...

Coincidentally, this BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8130543.stm) "Page last updated at 11:56 GMT, Thursday, 2 July 2009 12:56 UK" announces the award of a $2.27 billion contract by the Saudis to EADS, who I believe have more than a passing interest in Airbus.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemenia), Yemenia also have code sharing agreements with the following:

EgyptAir
Felix Airways
Etihad Airways
Kuwait Airways
Middle East Airlines
Qatar Airways
Royal Jordanian Airlines
Saudi Arabian Airlines
Syrian Air

PS. The lone survivor (the 14 year old) was apparently flown back to France to rejoin her father. Indeed, if the picture in the BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8129931.stm) is anything to go by, they didn't use an Airbus, rather a Dassault Falcon trijet as I surmised in a previous post since deleted by our peers...

Che Guevara

2nd Jul 2009, 19:07

All this talk about blacklists etc.....:rolleyes:

Like another poster here, I too flew in and out of Moroni in EK's 310s in the 90s. The visual approach at night to 20 has to be one of most challenging I have ever flown.

You take a 310 with it's very high power to weight ratio when it's light and do a go-around on a dark night....plus the possibility of a pilot pushing forward against the autpilot pitch command (possibly as a result of a somatographic illusion) the next thing you know the autopilot disconnects when the stabilizer reaches the stop and you are left with an uncontrollable aircraft which then decides to go vertical.

On the 310s and 300s unlike other similar aircraft, the autopilot does not disconnect if you override it in pitch until the stab reaches the stops, this has resulted in at least two hull losses and three loss of control in flight situations that I can remember.

We don't know yet what happened to these unfortunate people, and it may have nothing to do with what I have just mentioned, however I do know that they were dealt a poor deck of cards to start with.

411A

2nd Jul 2009, 19:27

And lets not forget that Air France now have one of the worst hull loss records in the world (as do Turkish) so why are they not under EU investigation?
Its all politics people. Nothing do do with public safety.

Yup, agree completely.

Pot calling kettle black, seems to me.

AircraftOperations

2nd Jul 2009, 20:51

I read that Yemenia had already been asked to attend a meeting in Brussels next month regarding their safety and access to EU airspace, before this accident occurred.

Not sure if this is gospel, but it does start to explain a few things if true.

JanetFlight

2nd Jul 2009, 23:21

Welll...all this Black-List & EU Banning stills confusing as hell...for example TAAG-Angola Airlines is still banned from EU Airspace...however it is only the planes of TAAG under D2 Reg's, and not the Company itself, it seems....here in Portugal we have lots of weekly flights of TAAG to Lisbon, under DTA Flight Plans, fully allowed, as long its another plane doing the flight...SAA 744 its the case here mainly.
So TAAG still and could fly, as long others flying for them, even maintaining their own original FPL's codes and callsigns:)

jugofpropwash

3rd Jul 2009, 01:42

This is, apparently, a very difficult airport to fly into, especially at night and/or poor weather.

I am curious whether other "more respected" (for want of a better term) airlines use this airport, and if so, what percentage of them have a daylight-only landing policy?

wes_wall

3rd Jul 2009, 02:21

I asked earlier - What government/country will be investigating this accident - thanks

LeandroSecundo

3rd Jul 2009, 02:41

Hi,

Normally it's the government of Comores
As they certainly not have a like NTSB or BEA (poor country) .. they will require a other authority for handle the investigations.
As french is language in Comores it's likely a french language country will be choice..
Maybe Canada .. but more likely the french BEA due to the French-Comores politics and economics relations + plane is french construction and the already stuff available in the region (Reunion island .. etc..)
IMHO

Bye.

threemiles

3rd Jul 2009, 04:39

Two things here:

Who said there was bad weather? The METAR showed CAVOK earlier in this thread, though it was a bit windy. More likely the vessel experienced a stormy sea during rescue operations.

Who said there was a go-around? It was said earlier, all was normal, aircraft transferred to TWR, then no contact. A go-around - given CAVOK - would certainly have been seen from the Tower. I would think, the aircraft may never have come that close to the Tower so it could be seen. Yes seen, with eyes. I am not talking about radar.

Urban legends.

Graybeard

3rd Jul 2009, 05:03

I wonder if they had the correct altimeter setting.

surplus1

3rd Jul 2009, 05:15

I wonder if they had the correct altimeter setting.

Excellent question. The simple error of forgetting to change from QNE to QNH, at night, over water, and under the right conditions could easily cause you to descend until you strike the surface. A functional E-GPWS or a good radio altimiter might avoid that, but over the ocean either warning might come to late or not at all.

Xeque

3rd Jul 2009, 05:25

The TAF posted earlier in this thread gave the viz as 9999. There was also an eye-witness report from someone watching the aircraft approach who said that it 'veered away'. However, the eyewitness might have been confused by the commencement of the teardrop turn on the HA NDB rather than just before touchdown.
Surplus 1:
I raised that point very early in this thread. Very real possibility as you say.
To others who have actually flown the approach to 20, I wonder why it has to be so complex. Wouldn't an approach similar to (the now closed) Kai Tak 13 be easier? Fly inbound at something like 130 until the HAI VOR is 2 miles DME bearing (say) 170 and commence the turn keeping the 2 bright lights on the left as you do now (i.e. For the Kai Tak Checkerboad substitute the lights)
Here is a drawing of what I mean.
http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s113/Xeque22/Moroni20VMC.jpg

EGMA

3rd Jul 2009, 06:01

Excellent question. The simple error of forgetting to change from QNE to QNH, at night, over water, and under the right conditions could easily cause you to descend until you strike the surface. A functional E-GPWS or a good radio altimiter might avoid that, but over the ocean either warning might come to late or not at all.

My bold ...

Agreed, but on this night that would only account for a 100' error (if I've done the sums right). Altimeter erroneously set maybe, otherwise we may need to look elsewhere.

surplus1

3rd Jul 2009, 06:35

Agreed, but on this night that would only account for a 100' error (if I've done the sums right). Altimeter erroneously set maybe, otherwise we may need to look elsewhere.

Point well made, I didn't check any numbers - just the concept. Here's another hypothesis: How easy is it to misread the altimeters in an A310? I've never been on its flight deck. But I know of an incident in my former airline [B-707] where a crew misread the altimeters and descended to 410 ft instead of 4100 ft. At night, over water.

You don't hit anything at 410 ft, but a similar error could prove to be scary if not disastrous. A lot could depend on how you react when/if you catch the error.

Aonther question: Do the auto throttles move on the A310? Could they have been in flight-idle descending - A/THR OFF - leveled (AP - ON), were distracted, and simply failed to notice decaying airspeed and add power until the shaker went off disconnecting the AP. Where would the stab trim be in that scenario and would they have enough elevator authority to avoid the actual stall when TOGA was applied? Just speculation - my knowledge of this a/c is zero - but its happened before on a different type. If I remember correctly, that crew stalled the aircraft twice before eventually recovering.

threemiles

3rd Jul 2009, 07:43

Press reports (from survivor interview) that pax were briefed and had prepared for ditching.

To others who have actually flown the approach to 20, I wonder why it has to be so complex. Wouldn't a similar approach to (the now closed) Kai Tak 13 be easier? Fly inbound at something like 130 until the HAI VOR is 2 miles DME bearing (say) 170 and commence the turn keeping the 2 bright lights on the left as you do now (i.e. For the Kai Tak Checkerboad substitute the lights)

Approach procedures are laid out in reference to ICAO standards. They take into account cloud breaking at the Missed Approach Point only and hidden obstacles around. For good reasons they never lead straight into high terrain as your proposal would. The IAP 02 Visual/MVI 20 is pretty standard for locations like this and there is nothing weird about it. It may be difficult to fly when winds are strong, but it is a legal procedure. I again refer to Funchal, Madeira, daily flown numerous times, even much more complex. It is all about adherence to procedures and training.

Do the auto throttles move on the A310?
Yes.

LeandroSecundo

3rd Jul 2009, 08:12

Hi,

About the investigations:

The prosecutor of Bobigny opened a judicial investigation against X for "manslaughter" and launched a criminal investigation to "ascertain the circumstances of the accident." Jurisdiction in this matter because most of the passengers boarded in Roissy.

A survey of "flagrante delicto" was entrusted to the search brigade of the gendarmerie airline (GTA).

Bye.

LeandroSecundo

3rd Jul 2009, 08:21

Hi,

Press reports (from survivor interview) that pax were briefed and had prepared for ditching.

Source please.
In many french newspapers I read:

The Falcon 900 by the Secretary of State, on Wednesday evening of Moroni, landed at Le Bourget on Thursday morning, carrying the young survivor Bahia. During this long flight, it was entrusted to the Secretary of State Alain Joyandet who relayed some of his first confession. "It tells what happened to him in pieces because she was obviously shocked. She said that at one time instructions were given to passengers to fast seatbelts. She said then she would have felt a bit like Electricity is the term used. And then, very quickly, it was found in water, agrippée to a piece of the aircraft with which it has fought to keep life for 12 hours "

I think this is normal to have "Fasten seatbelts" when plane will land.
Don't forget this is a girl from 13 years returning by luck from hell.

Bye.

maxrpm

3rd Jul 2009, 08:28

Not sure she has returned yet.

Xeque

3rd Jul 2009, 08:31

For good reasons they never lead straight into high terrain as your proposal would.
I take your point but Kai Tak 13 IGS approach did just that so there is as least one precedent.

bigjames

3rd Jul 2009, 09:50

Indeed, but the lights of the city were always on and always bright and the approach strobe was curved to show the correct turn angle. i sat in the jump seat many times in both day and night landings there. seems quite a different setting than the approach described here (although i admit i have never been to moroni).

merch

3rd Jul 2009, 12:15

As SLF I flew Yemen Air from Sanaa to Djbouti about 10yrs ago, there was no check in baggage it was all was carry on. End result was bags in the isles, between seats and on laps. It's the only flight I have eve been nervous on.
Hopefully things have improved

mods delete if irrelevent
Merch

Andy_S

3rd Jul 2009, 13:27

As SLF, I flew Yemenia from Sanaa to Dubai in the mid 90's on a 727.

Bags WERE checked in. The cabin crew were professional and courteous. The pilot (or at least one of them) made announcements in English as well as Arabic. And while I would have preferred to have flown with a western or major mid-east carrier, I never felt unsafe or uncomfortable.

Xeque

3rd Jul 2009, 13:45

Well said. It's too easy to rubbish an organisation just because it happens to be third world. If an official investigation determines that the Yemenia A310 came down as a result of bad maintenance or bad operating procedures then I'll believe it.
I do not discount disorientation during a missed approach but that is not an indication of improper management. That is something that will, sadly and almost inevitably, be put down to pilot error.

merch

3rd Jul 2009, 14:03

I wasn't rubbishing any one. I stated what I experienced and my feelings at the time. I am not exactly a first trip SLF and I don't care if the airline is "third world" ( I'm not sure what that really means anyway). It happened.

Merch

wes_wall

3rd Jul 2009, 14:03

I was concerned that the BEA would be involved in the investigation. Some conflict of interest is likely - didn't they have a hand in banning the airplane from Frence Air Space? Should be interesting.

Loerie

3rd Jul 2009, 17:05

There seems to be a complete shut-down on any and all information on this accident----lets hope its not going to go the way the last Kenya Airlines accident probe went.....nothing.

threemiles

3rd Jul 2009, 20:45

There was no report on the KQ 738 at Douala
There was nothing to learn from though except that autopilots don't switch on themselves and pilots must know into which direction to turn the yoke.

LeandroSecundo

3rd Jul 2009, 21:44

hi,

Some conflict of interest is likely - didn't they have a hand in banning the airplane from Frence Air Space? Should be interesting.BEA had nothing to do with ban in France or Europe.. this a crash investigation agency.
BEA (http://www.bea.aero/anglaise/index.htm)

Bye.

LeandroSecundo

3rd Jul 2009, 21:57

Hi,

There seems to be a complete shut-down on any and all information on this accident----lets hope its not going to go the way the last Kenya Airlines accident probe went.....nothing.

Seem's some people are taking care of it :)

English translation:
Google Traduction (http://translate.google.be/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffr.news.yahoo.com%2F3%2F20090703%2F tfr-yemen-comores-avion-roissy-56633fe.html&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8)

Original:
Manifestation avant le départ d'un vol Yemenia à Roissy - Yahoo! Actualités (http://fr.news.yahoo.com/3/20090703/tfr-yemen-comores-avion-roissy-56633fe.html)

Bye.

Willie Everlearn

4th Jul 2009, 00:04

My earllier post disappeared into "thin air" so here's a follow up. FWIW

One of the most practiced maneuvers professional pilots fly during every sim visit is the Go-Around.

Are we to believe that a highly 'experienced' crew (their words, not mine) botched a go-around? A maneuver we are completely prepared for? A maneuver we brief on every approach? (possible but not likely)

I'm must be missing something here.

Safety audit. Banned from Europe. What's that got to do with this accident? They weren't flying an approach into an airport in Europe. Until we know more about this accident, how do we know this crew was a 'safety' concern. A310/A300 crews have known about AP behavior in a go-around via Blue pages since the China Airlines go-around accident in Tokyo back in the 90s.

Having read the METAR and the approach, there should have been nothing 'overly" challenging for this aircraft or crew on this approach at night. Risk management training (which they should have received) would have most likely covered spatial disorientation as part of a prelanding brief by the PF. I'm guessing.

Anyone care to comment?

p51guy

4th Jul 2009, 00:30

would have most likely covered spatial disorientation as part of a prelanding brief by the PF. I'm guessing.

In 23,000 hrs of flying I have never heard of this briefing. I guess if you felt dizzy starting the approach it might be appropriate, to be thorough. Isn't it like saying I may not know which way is up in the dark because this happens frequently?

geh065

4th Jul 2009, 01:55

P51guy,

I certainly include in my briefings if we are flying into a black-hole type airport. I do believe it is relevant even if you don't plan to crash that day! No need to mention disorientation. We are all familiar with the black-hole effect and what it implies.

ReverseFlight

4th Jul 2009, 16:23

Yemen airline cancels route after Comoros crash - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/04/yemen.plane.crash/index.html)

Yemenia Airways is canceling all its flights between Yemen and the Comoros Islands after this week's crash on the same route, the airline said Saturday. One more flight between Sanaa and Moroni is scheduled for Sunday, but all flights on the route are canceled after that, Yemenia said.

Xeque

4th Jul 2009, 17:02

So with Emirates, Air France and now Yemenia pulling out, what other airlines are left?
Or will they now have to go by boat to Reunion and catch a flight from there?

wozzo

4th Jul 2009, 17:54

So with Emirates, Air France and now Yemenia pulling out, what other airlines are left?

Kenia Airways connects most of Europe to Moroni via Nairobi (Nairobi to Moroni 4 days a week)

Airbubba

4th Jul 2009, 18:15

A310/A300 crews have known about AP behavior in a go-around via Blue pages since the China Airlines go-around accident in Tokyo back in the 90s.

I don't think Dynasty crashed a 'bus in Narita in the 90's. They crashed A300-600R's at Nagoya in 1994 and Taipei in 1998. Both crashes involved botched go arounds, fighting the autopilot with an abrupt pitchup and stall after the autopilot had trimmed the stab noseup. After the TPE crash, China Airlines' A300 fleet became mostly an expat flight crew operation, a couple of friends ended up there.

The A310/A300 aircraft don't pull the power back to maintain 2000 fpm on a go around like the modern Boeings, instead, they go whole hog with TOGA power. Also, their autothrottles are more agressive in my experience giving a really quick pitch up on a two engine go around, especially on the A310 which is overpowered and short coupled compared to the A306.

Gulf Air crashed an A320 at Bahrain in 2000 after a go around attempt, it is thought that the rapid power change and pitch up without visual references induced a somatogravic illusion in the pilot flying, causing him to think he needed to lower the nose, the plane flew into the water.

JanetFlight

4th Jul 2009, 18:31

I fully agree with AirBubba on the last paragraph...but we also cannot rule out in this Comoros crash some similarities with that of Armavia 320 near Sochi at night in bad weather, after a missed app too, my 2 cents...

hetfield

4th Jul 2009, 18:36

Yes, A310, but also A300 CAN BE A BEAST during go around.

I don't know if this is relevant to the yemeniti crash.

Maybe....

protectthehornet

4th Jul 2009, 18:52

1. circling approaches, especially at night are difficult (we don't do them in the USA...VFR mins apply...not that that was the sole problem here)

2. night operations are difficult unless full instrument procedures and equipment are used.

3. there are airports in the world at which night operations of this type should be banned.

4. go arounds are hard if you are not ready. always be ready.

5. I know of many pilots who lose it in go arounds...sometimes insufficient power, illusions etc.

6. the art of being a professional pilot has been decimated. good luck.

latetonite

4th Jul 2009, 18:55

Too strong tailwind, followed by a go-around, in a now light aircraft, A/P disconnected manually due to high pitch-up, mistrimmed due to push on yoke...could be a plausible explanation for this one.
Let`s see the report .

bobdxb

4th Jul 2009, 19:40

poor viz???, metars are showing 9999, FEW/2000

LeandroSecundo

5th Jul 2009, 11:45

Hi,

Bingo

Google Traduction (http://translate.google.be/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffr.news.yahoo.com%2F63%2F20090705%2 Ftfr-crash-de-l-a310-les-botes-noires-rep-019dcf9.html&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8)

Bussereau :mad:

Bye.

Xeque

5th Jul 2009, 11:53

Praise be.... At least we might be able to achieve closure one one of the ongoing investigations. Fingers crossed they might also find the AF447 boxes but, sadly, I don't think that's going to happen now.

PEI_3721

5th Jul 2009, 14:10

Reminders of the need to conduct a safety assessment at all airports for any risks of ALA, and to use check altitudes and range for all approaches;- Threats During Approach and Landing (http://www.flightsafety.org/ppt/managing_threat.ppt). (http://www.flightsafety.org/ppt/managing_threat.ppt)

Also to refresh the problems of a ‘black hole’ approach, particularly in turning flight, see Incidents 1 and 8. (http://www.icao.int/fsix/_Library%5CTAWS%20Saves%20plus%20add.pdf)

al446

5th Jul 2009, 19:12

World news Feed Article | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8592938)

Sub has heard fdr/cvr

411A

5th Jul 2009, 19:28

Critics within France's Comoran community have claimed that safety lapses may have doomed the aircraft.
The operative words being...may have.:rolleyes:

Yemenia Airways is canceling all its flights between Yemen and the Comoros Islands after this week's crash on the same route, the airline said Saturday.

Good, those folks on the Comoros can stay on their miserable islands and lump it.
Yemenia seems to have a reasonable safety record up to now...so all this knee-jerk nonsense about this accident is just that....nonsense.
Until proven otherwise.

Nothing like waiting for the final report, now is there...:rolleyes::ugh::ugh:

Willie Everlearn

5th Jul 2009, 23:55

AirBubba

Thanks for your correction. Narita it was.

Since Middle East carriers hold one of the world's lowest accident stats (source: Flight Safety Foundation, Boeing) the Europeans can point a fiinger all they want. Fair enough. It's their perogative, a legitimate concern to us all, and it's a concern all professional pilots should understand. Including those at Yemenia. Experience levels on the flight deck are dropping and that means there's but one direction for the accident stats to go. We'll see when the Europeans have concluded their examination of carriers flying into Europe and let them decide who gets the Red Cards.
Fair enough indeed.

With all due respect, if you fly the A310 (or any airliner for that matter) you have practiced numerous go-arounds and become fairly comfortable with any 'behavior' issues your aircraft may have. Two engines. One engine. Good, bad, or otherwise. Right? So let's not make excuses before the fact.
Don't give me 'the A310 can be a beast on a go around' line, when any A310 pilot worth his salt can fly a go around and know what to expect from the A/T THR LATCH or AP Trim on a go. I don't care if you're climbing to 2000 feet or any thousand feet after a miss.

The fact spatial disorientation may have been a factor, is a potential and realistic risk here. As suggested earlier, if it was a concern to this crew it would/should have been briefed. (let's wait for the CVR evidence)
No one likes speculating more than me, but there just isn't enough info yet to enjoy that sport. IMHO

411A - Well said!

Willie :ok:

protectthehornet

6th Jul 2009, 00:41

I can easily imagine that if spatial disorientation/black hole etc. was a factor it would not have been briefed.

there are pilots who really don't have a clue. I'm not saying the crew in this situation is either good or bad.

I've been with pilots who don't think ahead...the old joke was that this type of person would never die in a crash since they were so far behind the plane.

p51guy

6th Jul 2009, 01:02

Spatial disorientation isn't normally briefed. I have never heard one. All pilots know it is a consideration and must be prepared to handle it if it happens. Being a professional pilot dealing with it should be a disciplined procedure to still fly the aircraft properly even though you experience the problem. I have been there and dealt with it so don't think it should ever cause a crash with an experienced crew. JFK Jr. had the problem and died but he didn't fly an airplane 15 days a month like most of us do.

Airbubba

6th Jul 2009, 02:57

Thanks for your correction. Narita it was.

Well, I still say Nagoya:

China Airlines Flight 140 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_140)

ExSp33db1rd

6th Jul 2009, 04:22

Well, I still say Nagoya

From personal memory I agree.

Tmbstory

6th Jul 2009, 06:54

Airbubba:
Exsp33db1rd:
WilleEverlearn:

The above accident was at Nagoya.

I used to operate in and out of Nagoya during this period and still remember the crash site that was reasonably close to the runway.

Tmb

hetfield

6th Jul 2009, 06:55

- Nagoya, 264 dead
- Taiwan Taoyuan (also China Airlines), 203 dead

not to mention go around incidents of INTERFLUG and TAROM.

wall-e

6th Jul 2009, 08:08

just to stay on the same line

Yemenia Flight 626 - IY626 - A detailed meteorological analysis - Satellite and weather data (http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/iy626/)

protectthehornet

6th Jul 2009, 13:39

along time ago, I (and millions of other pilots) used the back course of an ILS to help orient themselves during approaches in VMC.

IF one ''shot'' the ILS to runway 2 and then maneuvered to the west , entering either a circling procedure or downwind, one could still use the ILS back course (if useable) to help find the center line of runway 20.

Indeed, I would have set heading bug in advance of each turn and one to intercept the extended centerline of the runway (back course/ils) in order to avoid orientation problems.

A strictly, ''out the window" approach would be tough at night, over water...and even tougher from the LEFT seat.

Hmmm....any chance the lights for the landing gear didn't illuminate and an ''everglades'' scenario interrupted the basic flying, while circling??????

Willie Everlearn

6th Jul 2009, 22:12

:sad:Team? I hate making mistakes so thanks for the correction, yet again. :ok:
But, Fatigue + Scotch + Late-in-the-evening = Narita for some reason. (silly me!) :\
I stand corrected. Again. It was Nagoya. How stupid of me to say Narita??? Sorry. They stood the 600 on its tail in Nagoya. (just came back from Narita recently, oopsy) Right you are.

That said, the first point I'd like to make is, WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND FLIES A CIRCLING APPROACH IN A JUMBO JET? :ugh:
Okay, before you start, some have done it. I know. Out of necessity. I know. Can be done. I know.
Who in their right mind circles in a widebody, in a black hole, hand flying (presumably), TWICE??? 'kin twice no less??? :eek:

I don't mean to raise the ire of some but this entire read so far smacks of PE. A bold statement, I know. But, c'mon. :mad:

Opinions? :sad:

Flight International this week makes much of this approach and how potentially dangerous it can be with various chart warnings regarding winds, windshear and turbulence.
What about Rhodos, and a couple of other Greek Islands out there. Seems to me this approach looks quite similar to some of them.
Caribbean? Puerto Plata?
I really don't think this approach is as unique as one might believe.

Comments? :sad:

hetfield

7th Jul 2009, 04:20

Who in their right mind circles in a widebody, in a black hole, hand flying (presumably), TWICE??? 'kin twice no less???Try Addis Abeba.

Been there,
done that,
got the T-shirt.

fireflybob

7th Jul 2009, 07:28

Excuse any ignorance but why would you have to hand fly a circling approach? The operator I fly for regularly flies circling approaches at certain airports and we make maximum use of the AFDS flying a well defined circuit until disengagement when turning base leg etc.

hetfield

7th Jul 2009, 07:40

@fireflybob

Yes, also in our company.

But sometimes the AFS is on strike:O

BOAC

7th Jul 2009, 08:33

Hopefully the CVR if found and useable will explain how they got where they did. Any 'g/a' should have taken them to the NW, not the north, and even the hold would not take them that far north - and is at 8000'. Yet another 'mystery'. I have not seen any map (just words) showing the crash position - has anyone photoshopped one?

Dagger Dirk

7th Jul 2009, 10:09

.
Probably be moderated out yet again but a valid point is that spatial disorientation, the leans and somatogravic illusions are three entirely different phenomena.

The more common affliction during the nippy acceleration of light-weight go-rounds is the pitch-up illusion.
.

20milesout

7th Jul 2009, 11:20

No official statement yet about the position of the recorders. Only hint, again, from BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8126180.stm)

In PS it looks like this:

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9199/21482785.th.jpg (http://img139.imageshack.us/i/21482785.jpg/)

canadansk

7th Jul 2009, 11:30

I used to fly in there at night. I do not know what type of approach Yemenia use, but I can tell you that the one we were approved to use was very uncomfortable. It involved lights on the side of the volcano to help with positioning etc... all of this usually accompanied with moderate turbulance. It is the one airport I tried to lose recency on. :suspect:

BOAC

7th Jul 2009, 12:07

Thank you 20miles - I assume the red dot is the interpreted crash site? If so, it can hardly be a 'go-round'/'acceleration illusion' accident, D Dirk? It is no-where near the pattern or g/a.

Che Guevara

7th Jul 2009, 12:54

Probably be moderated out yet again but a valid point is that spatial disorientation, the leans and somatogravic illusions are three entirely different phenomena.

The more common affliction during the nippy acceleration of light-weight go-rounds is the pitch-up illusion.

The pitch-up illusion is the somatographic illusion.

Che Guevara

7th Jul 2009, 15:56

Interesting reading.

http://www.pprune.org/nol/shared/img/printer_friendly/news_logo.gif
Yemenia 'may cancel Airbus order'

The airline Yemenia has said it may reconsider an order for 10 Airbus A350s because it has received "no support" from the manufacturer.
Yemenia chairman Abdul Khaleq al-Qadi said Airbus had jumped to conclusions after the crash of a Yemenia plane off the Comoros Islands last week.
Without any proof, he said, Airbus had told the media the crash was the result of technical problems.
The Yemenia crash killed 153 people. One 12-year-old girl survived.
'Moral support'
Yemenia, which is owned by the governments of Yemen and Saudi Arabia, placed the $2bn order for 10 A350 Airbus planes at the Dubai air show in 2007.
Mr al-Qadi said he was disappointed by the reaction to the crash from both France and Airbus. Neither had shown any "moral support" for Yemenia.
The Yemenia passengers travelling to the Comoros Islands had left Paris for Marseille and Sanaa aboard a modern Airbus A330. But they switched to an older A310 - flight IY626 - to continue to Djibouti and Moroni, the capital of the Comoros.
Sixty-six French nationals were aboard the A310 when it crashed on its approach to Moroni.
EU blacklist
The Comoran community in France held protests in both Paris and Marseille, saying that the 19-year-old aircraft had not been fit for service.
And the French Transport Minister Dominique Bussereau on Friday said that Yemenia was "under strict surveillance", and would have to make "big efforts" to avoid being placed on an EU blacklist of airlines banned from entering Europe. Yemenia, however, says that bad weather - strong winds and high seas - was the more likely cause of the crash of flight IY626.

Still blaming the weather and everyone else apparently, I wonder if he realizes that he perhaps might have to take responsibility...obviously not.

vincentdevroey

7th Jul 2009, 16:32

The basic question I would ask should one fly the non-precision approach into the Comores at night time during bad weather conditions?

Most airlines decided not to fly there at night and certainly not during bad weather conditions. This is matter of basic risk assessment. It seems Yemenia has not made the same risk assessment as other airlines have.

A lot of media attention as focussed on technical issues (relation to EU SAFA checks) or crew error but the main reason of this accident is probably caused by the rather challenging approach in the conditions the crew faced.

Capt Groper

7th Jul 2009, 18:19

It's ludicrous, nonsensical, and farcical, that with modern technology we still have to fly ridiculous circling approaches. Especially to the most challenging airports in counties where UN aid is injected into the economy. Just pay the 10,000 US $ and have a RNAV approach designed where any GPS/IRS/FMS equipped aircraft can fly a straight approach to intercept a VDP/DA/DH as appropriate.

My 10 cents worth…

threemiles

7th Jul 2009, 20:49

No straight-in if there is a hill on 3 miles final, even with RNAV/GPS, no way.

wes_wall

7th Jul 2009, 23:21

Is there any further info on the location/recovery of the recorders?

singpilot

7th Jul 2009, 23:57

Latest (from Associated Press) is that location of detected pings is in a 1000 foot diameter area. Sloping bottom depth in that area is 1600 to 4000 feet deep.

Bodies washing ashore in Tanzania 370 miles distant are said to possibly be from the wreckage. But that bodies washing ashore in Tanzania is not necessarily unusual.

An ROV and a deep diving grapple sub are enroute.

kappa

8th Jul 2009, 00:28

Yemenia, however, says that bad weather - strong winds and high seas - was the more likely cause of the crash of flight IY626.How high does the sea have to be to cause an airplane to crash? It was not a seaplane. That's a new one!

p51guy

8th Jul 2009, 00:45

HURZ

8th Jul 2009, 00:54

Quote: Just pay the 10,000 US $ and have a RNAV approach designed where any GPS/IRS/FMS equipped aircraft can fly a straight approach to intercept a VDP/DA/DH as appropriate.

Don´t forget the A310 is quite an old A/C. For an appch like this you would for sure need RNP 0,15. To my knowledge also the B744 (also not the lates invention), at least in my company, all with GPS, can NOT do that... The best we can is RNP 0.30.

HURZ

411A

8th Jul 2009, 02:21

Why is a non precision approach hard to do in 2009? It was easy in 1999. Training and proficiency? Maybe the automatic airplanes need a pilot even though the computers seem to have the final authority.

Yup.

These types of non-precision approaches only seem to be a problem for those that never learned how...:rolleyes:

lederhosen

8th Jul 2009, 06:49

I do non precision approaches most weeks so they are certainly still done. But it is stating the blindingly obvious that the risks at this airport at night are higher and that with hindsight a daytime only restriction for the circling approach might have avoided this scheduling. However lets wait for some real facts.

BOAC

8th Jul 2009, 07:37

Before we get too exercised about 'difficult approaches' it is worth remembering that the a/c appears to have been no-where near the approach pattern when it crashed.

Based on where we think it crashed, neither the terrain nor the approach pattern appear to have had significant influence on this crash.

vincentdevroey

8th Jul 2009, 13:28

The Flight Safety Foundation has done a lot of work on CFIT accidents. The risk of a CFIT in a non-precision approach is five times higher than in a precision approach.

It should not be a problem for properly trained flight crew to fly a non-precision approach into the Comores during day-time. The issue is however whether the risk of flying the non-precision approach into the Comores at night-time and in bad weather is not too risky even for well trained and qualified flight crew? This is something which is normally assessed as part of risk management within an airline's Safety Management System and this is also the reason why many airlines have decided not to fly to the Comores at night (and certainly not in bad weather conditions).

Off course the accident investigation will need to identify the reason for the Yemenia crash

singpilot

8th Jul 2009, 14:45

The previous Associated Press report of bodies washing ashore in Tanzania has been modified and expanded. The actual location is at Mafia Island, in Tanzania, and is now up to 10 bodies. There is a very strong likelihood that these bodies are from the Yemenia crash.

frontrow

8th Jul 2009, 15:10

is it possible that lights of ships and boats could have been mistaken for the lights on the volcano?

cheers

FrequentSLF

8th Jul 2009, 15:58

protectthehornet

9th Jul 2009, 00:15

Frequenty SLF

sorry to dissapoint you, but I have seen a lot of crap in training in the last 34 years of my flying career.

why should you expect someone is well trained when we have seen costs go down? wages down as pilots, loss of pensions...why not cut on training?

oh, and I don't see you complaining about the cost of a ticket...let's triple your ticket cost and do it right, ok?

p51guy

9th Jul 2009, 01:00

It is probably 10 times riskier to do a minimums approach in heavy rain than a visual approach in good weather. Do we shut down operations until the weather imrpoves or stay on schedule and land? Non precision approaches have been the norm for decades for a lot of airports including San Diego landing west, the normal direction. It isn't any problem but it takes more attention to do it properly.

PA-28-180

9th Jul 2009, 01:41

During my initial IR training (granted, this was 20+ years ago), the very FIRST approaches I was trained to do were non-precision-NDB, VOR - also with circling approaches thrown in for fun. Later on, these were done also at night and in actual wx (fog, light rain)...sometimes down to minimums.
THEN, I moved onto precision approaches, including back course localizer.
On the advice of my instructors, and my examiner, I kept current on ALL approaches either in the airplane with an instructor/safety pilot, OR, booked some time with an instructor in a FRASCA - I completed my 'recurrent' training every 60 days, and kept that up for years.

This was all part 91 before I started flying part 135. Expensive - a little bit...but a heck of lot cheaper than making a hole in the ground! Has training changed THAT much in the past 20 years?? :confused:

marchino61

9th Jul 2009, 03:16

oh, and I don't see you complaining about the cost of a ticket...let's triple your ticket cost and do it right, ok?

Now, now, don't blame the passengers for all the problems in the business :ok:

The fact is, as with any product, price is a factor. It is up to the regulators to ensure this is balanced by safety standards.

protectthehornet

9th Jul 2009, 03:27

regulators insure safety.

HA.

its all about money.

Graybeard

9th Jul 2009, 03:32

The price of a ticket has far less to do with costs than with what the competition charges. Companies adjust costs to meet the competition.

When there is enough supply, the price falls to the level of the dumbest competitor.

GB

BOAC

9th Jul 2009, 10:45

Sounds of skidding as we swerve back onto the road from the bush.

Anyone any suggestions as to what they were doing where they were (apart from crashing, of course)?

wes_wall

9th Jul 2009, 17:42

Any progress on recorder recovery? And, who (Country) is looking?

LeandroSecundo

9th Jul 2009, 18:14

Hi,

No.
France.

Bye.

philipat

10th Jul 2009, 03:25

It seems incredible that even now we seem to have ZERO hard information about the circumstances of this accident?!!

I also note that the (Second) AF 447 thread is now 170+ pages long and wonder why the difference?

Hunter58

10th Jul 2009, 07:12

Philipat

as sarcastic as it may sound, there were not enough 'real' french passports on board...

We unforatunately live in a world where the passport of the person gone amiss is more important than anything else. After all those passports sell the newspapers.

In the case of AF447 don't forget that a lot of speculation is fuelled by the fact that the A330-200 is the basis for a certain tanker aircraft as well...

Maybe our thoughts should be on today's 3 500 people who have and will die in a traffic accident and the aproximate 55 000 who will die of hunger? I know they don't sell headlines, but their deaths are as real as the others.

rh200

10th Jul 2009, 09:57

Hunter58 (http://www.pprune.org/members/20552-hunter58)

Well even though you are most likely right, there could be another reason.

With out knowing, there is a possibility that a lot of people suspect that the Yemeni accident will end up being and unfortunate pilot error, even with out having evidence.

The AF447 accident has from the start, had a lot of wide ranging speculation surrounding it, a sense of sad mystery if you will.

r

einhverfr

10th Jul 2009, 15:48

Philipat:

Well, Air France 447 has an air of mystery (esp. given that the black boxes may never be recovered) that this flight does not have.

How many individual pieces of debris have been reviewed on the other forum? There isn't as much on this forum. This seems like a more straightforward case but less info is public afaics at this stage.

Graybeard

10th Jul 2009, 16:02

This plane, in suspect flying condition, crashed on a night nonprecision approach with howling winds. AF447, OTOH, disappeared from cruise, the normally safest phase of flight.

GB

JW411

10th Jul 2009, 18:46

In 1966/67 I was a training captain on 4-engined aeroplanes based in Aden (ODRK).

For 6 months of the year, we were on runway 26 and for 6 months of the year we were on runway 08. Twice a month I would go flying with 3 or 4 F/Os to practice night circuits.

There was never a problem on runway 26 for there were lots of lights and clues for orientation.

Then we would go on to runway 08 and after take-off there were no visual clues for we were over the water immediately after take-off.

Despite the fact that I used to brief all of them before take-off that they should mainly stick to instruments until they had proper visual clues, several of them started turning downwind in a descending turn which would have ended up in a flight into the ocean had it been allowed to continue.

You would be surprised how many pilots will try to fly a visual circuit with no visual clues!

protectthehornet

10th Jul 2009, 19:29

I'm glad you posted what you did. there are such tragedies waiting for those pilots who have not had great instruction...or even bothered to read a few good aviation books.

In my 34 years of flying...I've started to '''fall ''' for illusions. But instruments, and thinking ahead can minimize that sort of thing.

I once flew a circling apch (vfr conditions) into midway/chicago IL, USA. My copilot was very new (though having some 5000 hours) and when I:

1. pre computed my headings for the maneuver

2. had her tune up the ILS to the runway we were circling to, even though we had used the VOR to get to the circling portion.

she said she had never heard of such things. I also declared a min altitude for each segment of the maneuver, promising to join final no lower than X feet at X dme.

I looked out the window only briefly, and after I had stablized on each segment of the circle.

YOU HAVE TO THINK to fly...let's all start thinking, shall we?

HarryMann

10th Jul 2009, 20:17

You would be surprised how many pilots will try to fly a visual circuit with no visual clues!Not only coming from yonks of experience, but possibly prophetic in this case too...

BOAC

10th Jul 2009, 21:33

Once again folks - this appears to have NOTHING to do with visual or non-precision approaches. Look at the map?

threemiles

11th Jul 2009, 05:50

Once again folks - this appears to have NOTHING to do with visual or non-precision approaches. Look at the map?

If you extend the downwind leg and slowly lose altitude from the what the visual pattern altitude should be, you end up at the crash site.

As this is a straight course and less likely associated to a turn some other distraction may have happened. Remember the otherwise intact 1011 ending in the Everglades when the 3 man crew was dedicated to get the landing gear ind9cator working.

BOAC

11th Jul 2009, 08:18

3m- thank you - the first 'theory' as to how they got there. Plausible indeed, but it does NOT fit with either a 'visual' approach nor a non-precision once they supposedly 'headed off' downwind. This is what I am trying to say - the 'difficulties' of a visual or NPA ar accepted, but in your theory they had 'abandoned' any sort of 'pattern' and would have been wandering aimlessly, would they not?

Anyway, blackboxes etc will tell.

Xeque

11th Jul 2009, 09:36

I'm still not 100% convinced that this accident followed a missed approach. I know that at least one official statement suggested that a go-around had been initiated and I read of one eye-witness who said that the aircraft had 'veered away' in the latter stages of an approach.
Is it possible that both the above referred to another aircraft and not the Yemenia?
The crash site is on the run in to the HAI VOR from the north. If they were following the published approach procedure I would assume that they would aim to arrive overhead the VOR with plenty of terrain clearance then on to the HA NDB to set themselves up for the visual approach just as the approach plates that have been posted in this thread show.
I mentioned QNH/QFE very early on and others have mentioned it too. Could it be that the wrong altimeter setting was chosen which resulted in them descending into the sea before reaching the VOR?

BOAC

11th Jul 2009, 09:47

I have been through that mental loop and the altitude error is so large that it would require a mis-read on the scale of the 'old' 3-pointer altimeters (the '10,000ft error' to put them in the sea there. I think the entry altitude should be 6000ft = around 200mb?

One other possibility is some sort of 'home-built' let-down to a 'round-the-rock' visual - that went wrong - then you could look at a sub-scale error?

20milesout

11th Jul 2009, 13:17

German magazine DER SPIEGEL reported yesterday that by now 18 bodies have been recovered around the island of Mafia. Besides a weather radar gauge was washed upon the shore, amongst other debris. Mafia is located approx 100nm S of Zanzibar and 320nm NW of the Comores:

spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,635403,00.html

Very strange, indeed, that absolutely no official information is available anywhere about what happened. There must be ATC transcripts of the flight, radar tracks and stuff ... ?

Willie Everlearn

11th Jul 2009, 15:48

Sorry folks, I'm still not clear on what approach was flown, other than it was a non precision. I can't find an NDB approach for HAH as such, but they appear to have an approach menu of either a Visual, VOR-DME or an ILS.
Most likely the VOR 02 circling to land 20? Anyone?
If it was an NDB 02 circling, then I'd think that a poor choice, unless the VOR was NOTAMed off the air.

RNP 0.3 is MORE than adequate for a NPA. Back when we didn't have RNP, an NDB approach was fairly accurately flown using the bird in the cage. (with timely and reasonably accurate mode selections)

I'm running with the notion it was an approach to 20 off a circling, based on the METAR.
FMCH 292200Z 18022G33KT 9999 FEW020 24/17 Q1018 NOSIG=
FMCH 292300Z 21025G35KT 9999 FEW020 25/16 Q1017 TEMPO 18015G30KT=

For the A310 pilots reading this thread.
Unless I'm missing the obvious, how is weather a problem here?
Circling for Rwy 20 the wind is practically on the nose. So, how is wind a problem? Turbulent? Most likely. Windshear? Probably.
My suspicion is horizontal shear rather than vertical shear due to the rocks. Potentially, a bit of both. FDR readings will give us a better idea. But, dare I ask, if windshear was present (regardless of type or direction) on finals, and the crew had difficulty with it, wouldn't the cropper be on final instead of in the water? So, if it was W/S go, the disorientation over water at night while hand flying sounds reasonable. Methinks a 'properly trained' crew would be "Positive rate", "Gear up, Auto Pilot Engage" Heading right over the water to fly the 02 miss to 6000'.

As I recall, on page 1 of the A310 FCOM, Airbus tell you the aircraft was designed for maximum use of the automatics. Autopilots are unlikely to suffer spatial disorientation if you provide the APFD with proper modes. As a previous poster pointed out, we humans get spatial disorientation most likely when hand flying over water, in a turn, at night.
I'm inclinded to suggest two basic sins might have been committed here. A lack of threat and error management along with an inadequate use of the automatics. Of course, we won't know for awhile if these are factors in this accident because I'm only speculating. (I love to speculate)

I am not assuming this crew was 'inadequately' trained or not 'trained to proficiency'. I assume they were. It may however, have been awhile since they found themselves in a similar situation. Some of us battle with that balance between optimum use of the automatics and our manual proficiency. Sometimes the untimely choice between the two issues, in the wrong situation or circumstance, can be disasterous. This just might turn out to be one of those times?

p51guy

11th Jul 2009, 22:33

A lot of airports you circle no matter which approach you use direction wise. TGU, Tegucigalpa, Honduras you did the vor 20 and circled to 02 90% of the time. To do the 02 approach required another 10 minutes and because of terrain you had to circle anyway. This airport looks a lot like that where you do the approach from the direction you are arriving and once visual continue on a visual approach.

wes_wall

14th Jul 2009, 14:01

Are there any updates? Search status?

frontrow

14th Jul 2009, 20:14

I must concur with previous comments on this thread about the silence from the manufacturers and other interested parties. I apologise if this has been covered but I wonder how many times the pilot and the FO had landed at this airport at night.

Cheers

Robin42

17th Jul 2009, 11:48

as sarcastic as it may sound, there were not enough 'real' french passports on board...

I don't think this has anything to do with racism, but with cognitive dissonance, which would have been evoked widely, if there had been too much talk about survivors. According to the German Newspaper FAZ, the passengers knew the aircraft was in danger and had already put on their life vests. Bahiya, the now only survivor, mostly suffering from dehyration and hypothermia, does not remember how she made it into the sea. I translate a short paragraph:

The passengers knew, that the aircraft was in danger. They had been told to put on their life vests, she said. The life vest saved Bahiya's life, as she did not learn to swim. At sea, she grabbed hold to a part of wrackage. In the beginning, she heard other survivors near to her, who later on probably drifted away or drowned. She was unconcious several times. At dawn, Bahiya was alone. A Comorian fishing boat spotted her and took her on board. She was conscious, and asked for water.
(my italics) Source : FAZ online, Jul 2, 2009, http://www.faz.net/s/RubB08CD9E6B08746679EDCF370F87A4512/Doc~EC5C26B02409543A2BB45638847B42CEF~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent. html (http://www.faz.net/s/RubB08CD9E6B08746679EDCF370F87A4512/Doc%7EEC5C26B02409543A2BB45638847B42CEF%7EATpl%7EEcommon%7ES content.html)

I noticed the widely spread notion, that the rescue of Bahiya would have been a miracle. It wasn't at all, especially not in the case if the pilots attempt ditching, as they obviously did here. At around 30 percent of all incidents over water there are some survivors, for some time, depending on impact speed and water temperatures.

The waters during winter at Southern Hemisphere should not have been that warm, much in contrast to AF447 incident. How could, in the latter case, the French government spread the notion of a near zero proability for survivors at the very first day? And give orders for a requiem be held at Notre Dame de Paris, just two days later? If one is in urgent need for miracles, here you go.

The incident also points to the need for a legal duty for coast side located commercial airports to be equipped with at least a single SAR plane and some speedy lifeboats.

singpilot

23rd Jul 2009, 14:15

Headlines this morning that the "Black boxes have been located'.

Rather cryptic. Says they were found by sonar mapping vessel amongst wreckage at a depth unreachable by divers. The vessel left the area and delivered the data to authorities ashore. A different vessel with an ROV expects to arrive at the site 'in August' to try and retrieve the boxes.

EDIT: Expandrd article now says it was a French Oceanographic Research Vessel that 'mapped' the wreck. The detailed maps were turned over to both the French BEA and the port director at Cormoros. Another French Research Vessel with an ROV and an experienced crew will arrive to retrieve the recorders.

jaccob

31st Jul 2009, 00:32

A 0485/09 R A0230/09 23/06
ANTANANARIVO FIR
Till September 23rd 2009 EST. DLY BTN 1100/1700. Mines firing will take place at quarry NR2 centred on 185046S 0481809E altitude

1400meters. GND/FL190.

A 0488/09 R A0240/09
24/06
MORONI Prince Saïd Ibrahim Les Comores
Till September 24th 2009 at 2359 EST. Moroni info 4657 5658 and 13300KHz unserviceable. Use Moroni approach on 119,7MHz

A 0496/09 R A0245/09
26/06
ANTANANARIVO FIR
Till September 26th 2009 at 2359 EST. It is strictly prohibited for all acft to overflight the space area PSN center 185952S 0473215E

radius 3NM. A.C. will shoot without warning for

all offender. Except presidentials acft authorised

by the security. GND/FL245.
A 0497/09 R A0246/09
26/06
ANTANANARIVO FIR
Till September 26th 2009 at 2359 EST. It is strictly prohibited for all acft to overflight the space area PSN center 185400S 0473143E

radius 3NM. A.C. will shoot without warning for

all offender. Except presidentials acft authorised

by the security. GND/FL100.

A 0506/09 R A0251/09
29/06
ANTANANARIVO FIR
Till September 29th 2009 at 2359 EST. Meas-ures taken to apply from superior authorities. All civil flights except Air Madagascar and Strangers

airlines for international operating is prohibited

without special authorization or authorization

already delivered.
A 0507/09 N
30/06
ANTANARIVO FIR
From July 01st 2009 at 0500 to August 30th 2009 at 1300 . Daily BTN 0500/1300.

Aerial photography will take place Alaotra Man-

goro region – Delimitations Moramanga region

area WI following coordinates:

S1833 E04750- S1833 E04850- S1930 E01850-

S1930 E04750. FL100/FL200.

SO WHY NOT ASSUME THE AIRCRAFT WAS SHOT DOWN ACCIDENTLY AND FRENCH WANTS TO HIDE FACTS. THATS WHY NO RESCUE TEAMS ALLOWED TO GO NEAR CRASH SITE? IF THERE WAS A SURVIVOR HOW COME SHE WAS THE ONLY PERSON TO READILY GET AS THEY SAY A PIECE OF AIRCRAFT IN THE DARK? WHO WERE THE PEOPLE SHE HEARD TALKING IN THE DARK? WHEN THERE IS A CRASH OR EXPLOSION PEOPLE TALK OR SCREAM TO DEATH? WHY DIDNT SHE SCREAM FOR HER MOTHER?
WAS IT MIRACLE AS IN THEIR WORDS OR MADE UP STORY THAT THERE WAS A SURVIVOR?
TODAY IS ONE MONTH COMPLETE AND NO FAMILIES HAVE GOT BODIES OR WRECKAGE OF AIRCRAFT? BLACK BOX LOCATION WAS FOUND THEN WHAT HAPPENED TO IT? DID THE FRENCH PEOPLE SECRETLY GET BLACK BOX AND PRETENDING LIKE WHAT THEY DID WITH THE BLACKBOX OF AIR FRANCE FLIGHT 296 WHICH CRASHED IN JUNE 26TH 1988?

AirDisaster.Com: Investigations: Air France 296 (http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml)
BLACK BOX WAS TAKEN BY THEM SWITCHED OFF AND DIFFERENT RECORDERS WERE PRESENTED IN COURT?