Air Djibouti B737 has a serious prang

[Old King Coal]

Only a couple of years into their newly revived operation and Air Djibouti have bent a B737-500, ripping off its righthand main undercarriage leg. Fortunately no casualties amongst either the pax or crew.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/750x1000/djibouti_b736_ey_560_garowe_201202_1_43373bd9430f440d20fa6e3 3e297b6f29e279122.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/750x1000/djibouti_b736_ey_560_garowe_201202_2_f45b2aa902449f533342240 2a0af348614c9e55d.jpg

[King Chile]

I'm given to understand that the British team, whom were formerly brought in to revive the fortunes of Air Djibouti, left that airline in good shape when they withdrew (that was back in mid 2017) albeit with apparently significant concerns regarding the 'Safety & Compliance' culture of the team whom were latterly put in charge at the airline and whom have run it since.

This accident perhaps gives credence to those concerns, wherein one does have to question how the present management at Air Djibouti actively choose to operate commercial scheduled passenger services to an airfield that has zero fire cover? (where, in this case, the airport fire truck reportedly wasn't serviceable for upwards of two months) what with that sort of thing being in contravention of ICAO Annex 14 / Aerodrome Standards - Aerodrome Design and Operations / Section 9.2 / 'Rescue and fire fighting'.... which requires that airports without a functional fire service be closed and that flights should not be operated either to / from there; wherein to do otherwise is both illegal & dangerous.

Therein Air Djibouti has knowingly & wilfully put passengers lives at risk and it's only by sheer good fortune that nothing worse happened in this accident and that people weren't either injured or worse.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/750x1000/djibouti_b736_ey_560_garowe_201202_3_d2658aa656f1f5ca274c0d7 57c1a459b887d495f.jpg
Airports fire truck missing a wheel for the last +2 months.

[RoyHudd]

The innocent people who pay to travel with this airline, as indeed they do with so many other airlines in this continent, assume that they operate safely and also legally. It is a sad fact that airline operations such as this are often unsafe and illegal.

Africa is possibly the riskiest continent in which to travel by air, and yet also the one for which air travel is the most necessary.

Corruption and mismanagement in many companies are of a high order. Within the airlines operating they impact upon the aviation safety culture, which is presently of a very low level.

Caveat emptor.

[JanetFlight]

IMHO the thread or at least the beginning of the text should be "Asia Sky Lines Boeing 737-500 operating for Air Djibouti-Red Sea Airlines", since Asia Sky its from another country and also another continent (Tajikistan), Cheers :)

[Longtimer]

The fire truck was missing a wheel but evidently that did not delay it's arrival, more important was the firefighting equipment up to scratch etc etc etc. I guess it all depends upon what the truck's MEL was. :hmm:

[DaveReidUK]

FlightGlobal quotes Air Djibouti as reporting that the aircraft had a "tyre problem". Well you could say that, I suppose.

[ATC Watcher]

Careful with posting definitive statements , a photo of one fire truck with a missing wheel does not mean much as it is not the only firefighting equipment in the airport .
Djibouti is a joint civil/military airport , with both French and US air forces present and they have their own equipment as well.

[Lake1952]

Accident: Djibouti B735 at Garowe on Dec 2nd 2020, touched down short of runway, gear collapse on roll out (http://avherald.com/h?article=4dffab04&opt=0)

[pattern_is_full]

Update: Aviation Herald has a picture showing this aircraft touched down short of the runway, and the main gear hit the raised asphalt threshold, causing the gear collapse.

Accident: Djibouti B735 at Garowe on Dec 2nd 2020, touched down short of runway, gear collapse on roll out (http://avherald.com/h?article=4dffab04&opt=0)

Reminiscent of the Utair accident we were discussing 10 months ago (clipped 1m snow berm just short of threshold). Although snow was likely not a factor in Djibouti ;)

Accident: UTAir B735 in Usinsk on Feb 9th 2020, landed short of runway, gear collapse and runway excursion on landing (http://avherald.com/h?article=4d3110c1)

[SMT Member]

Careful with posting definitive statements , a photo of one fire truck with a missing wheel does not mean much as it is not the only firefighting equipment in the airport .
Djibouti is a joint civil/military airport , with both French and US air forces present and they have their own equipment as well.

Which is utterly irrelevant as the accident didn't happen in Djibouti. The aircraft landed down short in Garowe on a service that was supposed to be Djibouti-Hargeisa-Garowe-Mogadishu. The fire truck mentioned is that of Garowe.

[ATC Watcher]

Oops , read too fast , thought it was in Djibouti ..disregard my remark then .

[CargoOne]

If you run a check list “safety of operation into any Somalian airport”, the missing wheel on a fire truck will be one of your last concerns. It is like escaping a police chase in a stolen car with dead body in trunk and back seat full of guns and drugs - shall the expired car fire extinguisher be of any concern?

[megan]

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/750x483/djibouti_b736_ey_560_garowe_201202_4_a96243cc08b5372d8a32041 fe9ac0c1af8b60c8b.jpg

[WHBM]

Presumably an uninsured loss. Whoever would give insurance to a carrier operating a 737 into a place without fire cover ?

[Checkboard]

Domestic airports in Australia removed all fire cover in the '80s. Fire cover only required for International operations.

[andrasz]

...the main gear hit the raised asphalt threshold...

Yup, that did the trick.

Some of the commenters here clearly lack any knowledge of local conditions on the ground. I have been to Hargeisa quite recently (last year), while that region is perfectly calm and safe, there is no way I would attempt overland travel to Puntland. Given the choice, I would willingly take said airline in full awareness that there are no CFR facilities at the other end. The passengers in this particular flight may have been jolted a bit, but were still much safer than if they would have taken any other means of transport.

[andrasz]

WHBM

It is just a matter of agreed premiums. Everything has a price... Tickets for flights in this part of the world don't come cheap, I guess all this is factored in.

[krismiler]

With a 2000m runway they would have wanted the aircraft on the ground as early as possible, and I doubt there was any form of glideslope guidance such as ILS or VASIs. It looks like they eyeballed the approach and misjudged an attempt to land as close to the beginning of the runway as possible.

[Landflap]

Checkboard : Rbally ? What was the thinking behind such an absurd decision, if true ? What is the difference in risk to operating domestic or international ? You might, for example, abbandon take-off, burst tyres, catch fire but only in Oz would there be no risk as the flight was "domestic". Sorry Checkers, I don't believe it.

[WHBM]

andrasz

Theoretically yes, but I somehow doubt an operator from Kyrgyzstan operating in dark Africa is going to have shelled out way above the premium that BA would pay. And what goes for hull insurance presumably goes for the pax as well.

[jmmoric]

Checkboard

Does that mean you can fly a fully passenger loaded Airbus 330 on a national fligth without fire coverage?

[Checkboard]

Yep. :)

So I was flying, BAe 146 and 737-300 aircraft services to places like Kununurra (YPKU), Gove (YPGV), Ayers Rock (YAYE) and so on, without any fire support.

Quite simply (and sensibly in my opinion) the government looked at aviation statistics and said - the money it costs isn't worth it.

What is the difference in risk to operating domestic or international ? You might, for example, abbandon take-off, burst tyres, catch fire but only in Oz would there be no risk as the flight was "domestic".
No difference in risk per movement - international airports have higher movement rates and so a higher risk of actually using the fire service, but mostly because international carriers require the service to use the airport as an ICAO standard. Domestic services can be regualted under Australian law.

Sorry Checkers, I don't believe it.
The disestablishment of ARFFS may be considered when the number of annual passengers on air transport falls below 300,000 and remains below this level for a 12-month period. The ARFFS provider shall provide CASA with a Safety Case which should justify the closure of the ARFFS.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2008C00128

[JanetFlight]

WHBM

Tajiskistan if you allow my correction...

[SOPS]

jmmoric

Yes you can.

[Gordomac]

Checkboard, my mate, Landflap has been banned and unable to thank you for your clarification (just had him on the phone before he enters the Pprune jail until release date later in December) but I too, share astonishment that the Ozie Regulators put commercial interest ahead of Flight Safety. No desire to creap the thread but it is a very interesting situation. As briefly as I can,; my first trip in LHS on 737-200 was into Malaga just after a DC10 went off the end of the rwy and caught fire. After holding pending long discussion with ATC, airfield was declared open. We were first in. Only on the ground and preparing for departure did we realise that while the airfield was "open", there was no fire cover. All fire vehicles were in attendance at the crash-site and not available for departures (or arrivals, presumably).

Big row with the Airport Director, over the phone, over Regulatory Authority etc for declaring an airfield open with no fire cover. After long delays, everyone else started up & left even though I repeatedly, over the air, asked ATC to confirm that the airfield was "open" although with no fire cover.

Tight spot for a new four-ringer eh ? Technically the airfield should have been closed to all traffic. For safety, as well, my prime consideration, I stuck it out, until ATC declared full fire cover & airfield fully operational..

[ATC Watcher]

Gordomac, just a remark , the ICAO provisions for ARFF are contained in Annex 14. However those are just standards and recommended practices. States may or may not follow the Annex 14 recommendations . So what is valid for country A is not necessary valid for country B. For instance if a Country A ( take USA/FAA for instance ) mandates ARFF from a certain category of commercial aircraft ., but country B allows exemptions during emergencies ( which was maybe your case in Malaga ) or diversions , You may select a diversion airport where ARFF is non existent or not manned ( Greenland ones are good example. ) I do not know the Regulations are applicable to Somalia, but I am pretty sure they do not follow the FAA or UK ones...

That said, regarding your decision in Malaga , will fly with you anytime ...:)

[Checkboard]

... and on top of that, my current operator has minimum RFF coverage in the Ops Manual.. In the situation above (ATC allowing departures with RFF zero) I would have to phone the duty pilot for the Ops Manual exemption, even if the operation was legal in country.

[King Chile]

Checkboard, imho, it's typically not a 'duty pilot' whom grants an Ops Manual 'exemption' (and if he / she does that then they're an idiot, imho... and the aircraft Commander's an even bigger idiot for accepting it)... it's the manager of the Compliance Dept (probably working in conjunction with the Manager of the Safety Dept) whom has to make a safety case, i.e. to operate outside of the approved Ops Manual requirements as laid down & approved by the relevant National Aviation Authority (NAA) of the country where the airline's AOC / OL is held... wherein a case for AMC (Alternative Means of Compliance) has to be made to that NAA and it is they (the NAA and it's on-duty Flight Ops Inspector / FOI plus his / her compliance team working with them) whom then grant permission for any such variance to occur.

Just imagine a case where an airline 'duty pilot' gave his / her permission to operate into / out of an airfield without any RFF cover and something then occurred that involved either damage to the aircraft and / or injuries (or worse) to the pax and which required that RFF be immediately available (but it wasn't) ?! In that instance, do you have any idea of the sort of ****-storm that would (very rightly) rain down upon the airline's Accountable Manager's head (plus all others involved) from the NAA above him (above them) ?!!

[Checkboard]

Ah - sorry. Wrong terminology, perhaps. That section of the ops manual (as it's a company limit) includes a section that allows the Duty Pilot to change the limit on a case-by-case basis.

As I used to fly regularly into and out of airports with no fire cover, I am completely comfortable with that.

[King Chile]

It's all well & good you yourself being 'completely comfortable with that'... BUT, the days of taking liberties with stuff like that are (or certainly should be) consigned to the bin of history, and that's because that's not what fare paying pax, and / or NAA's, and / or the leasing companies & banks whom probably own the aircraft that you're flying, and / or the insurance company whom insure the aircraft, etc, are 'comfortable with'.

Or is it that you are selling tickets to the fare paying public albeit without disclosing to them that you are operating to / from airports at which various expected safety elements either do not exist or are not operational?... and have you told your NAA... and your aircraft's insurance company... and its leasing company... that you're operating with additional risk (possibly circumventing the NAA regulations in the process and / or failing to fully disclose what you're doing to all the aforementioned parties) all because you yourself have decided that you are 'comfortable with that' ?

Accordingly, it's not about you and what you might think is 'acceptable'; wherein there's a far bigger picture involved here, i.e. wrt regulation, risk management & liabilities therefrom. Like it or not, this is the face of modern airline aviation.

[Pilot DAR]

As this thread has drifted to a crash fire rescue thread...

Quite simply (and sensibly in my opinion) the government looked at aviation statistics and said - the money it costs isn't worth it.

Anywhere I read the word "government" I ask myself if I should substitute the word "people", as the government is most commonly using the people's money.

So the people make a considered decision about funding CFR (or not) at a certain place. Okay, the people make a decision about services, other people can then decide if they want to fly in or not. It's not just airplanes that we're talking about, there are many times that an assumption one might make about emergency services available to them is overly optimistic - will someone come to my rescue if I need them? As a retired volunteer firefighter, I have given consideration to emergency services throughout my various travels and activities. I recall staying in a tropical resort, in a twenty storey hotel, for which the local fire department had only on small pumper truck, with very limited equipment, and only two storeys worth of ladders. If my hotel were on fire, most occupants would be mostly on their own. But the hotel accommodation was low cost compared to my home nation.

I landed as a passenger on an A330 at a less common airport. I happened to visit the CFR station during my visit. They were okay equipped. The firefighter who hosted me told me that he'd worked there for five years, and the only fire they had ever attended was a kitchen fire at a nearby house. The was an expensive place to fly into.

The people will fund emergency services to the level they can afford, and feel satisfactory. Then it's the choice of other people to accept that or not. Sitting in judgement of CFR services is not of much use, unless you would like to fund the service.

[megan]

there's a far bigger picture involved here, i.e. wrt regulation, risk management & liabilities therefrom. Like it or not, this is the face of modern airline aviationHow far does that picture extend, you may have RFF but does the town/city have the medical facilities to cope with the aftermath, numerous severe injuries/deaths? DAR's final para is the reality, as is his entire post.

[Gordomac]

Just a round-off ; Checkboard : I was distinctly uncomfortable having just been given full responsibility for the safety of the aircraft, all contents & crew (brand new Commander) by departing. I learned later that the Commercial Director of my company asked the Ops director to "lean" on me a bit as the delay protracted. The latter asked, on telephone "What do you think....?...." I , again, refused to compromise safety and he said "only decision, well done" and supported me throughout. Some seriously big names in aviation departed and took the risk. Only me & spantax left after ATC confirmed full cover.

5 hours on the ground. First trip in Command and into discretion to complete, stacks of paperwork but slept soundly.

[BRUpax]

As SLF we may have a choice but do we know that we have a choice to make? When booking a flight to or from an airport with no ARFF is this fact stated? We (as passengers) can only make a choice if we are made aware of the fact in the first place.

[Checkboard]

Accordingly, it's not about you and what you might think is 'acceptable';
Of course not - I said that the Duty Pilot makes that call, in conjunction with the permissions in the manual. As commander, I can of course apply a higher standard - but I wouldn't because I would be comfortable with operating that way. As commander, I make decisions like that on behalf of my passengers all of the time - that's what the job entails.

As SLF we may have a choice but do we know that we have a choice to make?
Your flight is covered by the rules and regulations in force, and the professionalism of the airline and crew to apply those R&Rs. I wouldn't inform you (as a passenger) of something like this, in the same way that I wouldn't inform you of various bits of unserviceable equipment that may be on the aircraft that day. We don't run airline services by passenger democracy votes (thank goodness!) :)

[Brookmans Park]

Re #24 I was at Malaga when the Iberia DC 10 abandoned at high speed and went off the end hitting a car and narrowly missing a convoy of Saudi Royals. It burned-out within minutes
We then had the"Clear to start no fire cover message " Several flights did so.I waited,it took about 6 hours to get limited fire cover restored.
To my surprise I received a "Well done " letter from the company

[andrasz]

When booking a flight to or from an airport with no ARFF is this fact stated?
This thread has indeed drifted a lot from the original event and region. Rest assured, in most parts of the world there are no such airports, and regulations would not permit any to operate, so it is rather unlikely that you would ever be faced with this choice. (Oz apparently being an exception of which I was not aware...)

However the incident happened on a flight linking three provinces of Somalia, two of which have self-proclaimed independence, and have not quite yet decided if they are at war or peace with each other. On average, an aeroplane gets bent somewhere in the region every other month. On average, one bus gets bent on the roads every night. And then we have not even mentioned 'technical' difficulties (for people unfamiliar with the term, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(vehicle)) and the lions behind the bush selected for the toilet... Yes, the people taking the aeroplane are well aware of the choices they face, and lack of ARFF is the least of the concerns :)

[BRUpax]

We don't run airline services by passenger democracy votes (thank goodness!) :)

Not a clue what you mean by that. All I'm saying is that if a professional airline (as in Australia for example) chooses to operate into an airport without adequate ARFF I reserve the right to make the decision not to fly to/from that airport. It would be quite simple to indicate on the booking engine that XYZ Airport does not provide the necessary emergency services. What that has to do with passenger democracy votes you will have to explain to me! As for MELs, that, at least for me, is not an issue.

[Checkboard]

XYZ Airport does not provide the necessary emergency services
The point is that XYZ is supplying the necessary service - which at that airport are "none required". ;)

[Maoraigh1]

The FAA report quoted in "Accidents and Close Calls" is relevant to informing passengers.
As a basic PPL, I hit a fence on the island of Stronsay in Scotland. As I vacated the cockpit after shutting down, the fire vehicle was coming towards me. The farmer had seen me abort takeoff, driven his tractor towards the airfield, and taken the firewagon. He was not on duty, as that was only for commercial passenger flights.
Fire cover need not cost a fortune.

[Shaman]

IMHO the thread or at least the beginning of the text should be "Asia Sky Lines Boeing 737-500 operating for Air Djibouti-Red Sea Airlines", since Asia Sky its from another country and also another continent (Tajikistan), Cheers :)
So, what happened to this 735? Back flying?

[Liffy 1M]

A bit of searching online indicates that this aircraft is currently flying with an operator from the Central African Republic as TL-VIP.

[Shaman]

A bit of searching online indicates that this aircraft is currently flying with an operator from the Central African Republic as TL-VIP.
Thank you very much. Looks like it was partially repaired at GGR then at JIB.

Found this here (https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-737-500-tl-vip-via-air/ej9kj3)after reading your post:

eased from Asia Sky Lines (https://www.planespotters.net/company/Asia-Sky-Lines)
Incident 2 Dec 2020 at GGR right hand main landing gear collapsed on landing
std at GGR 2 Dec 2020 - 15 Sep 2021
std at JIB 15 Sep 2021 - 12 Sep 2022