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...

EU wants world aviation blacklist.
 

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

BBC NEWS | Europe | EU wants world aviation blacklist

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

Pilotboyy said:
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.

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.

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.

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.

EDLB
 

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.

Quick to blame weather... why?
 

Airbus crash: EU concerned about airline - CNN.com

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:

Approach video to RWY02 for interest. Delete as appropriate.

Child found alive after plane crashes in sea - CNN.com

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).

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

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.

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?

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

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.

flyer58
 

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.

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

shogan1977

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.

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.

Survivor
 

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

Easily confused.



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