Another Airbus goes down !

[SteamWake]

SAN'A, Yemen - A passenger jet carrying 153 people crashed into the Indian Ocean early Tuesday while trying to land in bad weather at the island nation of Comoros.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31638822...ld_news-africa

[Skybird]

Poor maintenance standards of the airline had led this plane to be rejected landing rights in France after it failed technical security checks one year ago. In Yemen itself, people also make the airline reponsible for the desaster, not Airbus.

[mako88sb]

So far only a 14 yr old girl has been rescued. No word on any other survivors. The Island of Comoros according to it's officials, has no sea Rescue Facilities??? I'm watching CNN and I guess the MJ story is too important to bother reporting on this trajedy.

Rob

[Max2147]

Reports say there was bad weather in the area. It's obviously too soon to pin this on the aircraft, the pilots, the maintenance, the weather, or anything else.

The A310 has a less than stellar safety record, but I think that is mostly due to who flies it, not the design. Due to its low price, a lot of A310s ended up with smaller airlines or in third world countries, where maintenance and safety standards aren't up to par. For example, the first major A310 accident occurred when a Russian pilot let his kids fly the plane in the middle of a commercial flight.

[SteamWake]

Airbus could be asked to ground all long-range airliners

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6612165.ece

[Max2147]

Notice that the only quote in there is from a lawyer who is "representing some of the families from the flight." In other words, he's just waiting to get an excuse to sue Air France, Airbus, the pilots' union, the engine makers, the EASA, and anybody else he can think of. He'd sue God, the weather, and the ocean as well if he could. The fact that The Times is publishing an article based only on his quote shows just how far that paper has fallen into tabloidism.

The reality is that the newest generation of widebodies (777, A330, A340) are the safest planes ever designed. Before the tragic Air France crash, none of them had ever suffered a fatal crash in over a decade and a half of commercial service, an absolutely astounding achievement. Compare that to the DC-10, which suffered four fatal accidents in its first decade of service, two of which were the result of design flaws on the plane.

[bookworm_020]

There were reports that the aircraft has a less than perfect maintenance history. I hope this and the other airbus crash can be solved quickly.

[Skybird]

As already said, the plane had been found to be so poorly maintained during a techncial check one year ago, that it was prohibited by French authorities to fly to and land in France.

Considering the other known circumstances of this crash, this is what solves the issue for me - even more when considering that the whole airline has a history of being accused of unsifficient technical maintenance. The Yemenetes (? ) call airplanes of that carrier "flying coffins".

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by Skybird

As already said, the plane had been found to be so poorly maintained during a techncial check one year ago, that it was prohibited by French authorities to fly to and land in France.

Considering the other known circumstances of this crash, this is what solves the issue for me - even more when considering that the whole airline has a history of being accused of unsifficient technical maintenance. The Yemenetes (? ) call airplanes of that carrier "flying coffins".

Careful - correlation does not imply causation. A badly-maintained airliner can still crash for reasons that have nothing to do with maintenance.

I remember the Egypt Air 990 crash. The 767 had previous problems with thrust reversers deploying in flight, including the Lauda Air crash. The Egypt Air plane had recently had a thrust reverser problem. It had also dropped out of the sky suddenly, just like the Lauda Air plane had. So everybody assumed it was a thrust reverser problem. In reality, the thrust reverser had nothing to do with it.

[Letum]

Gah! An RAF Tornado went down in Scotland about two hours ago.
No word on survivors yet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/8130528.stm

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Max2147

Careful - correlation does not imply causation. A badly-maintained airliner can still crash for reasons that have nothing to do with maintenance.

Correct, but poor maintenance is by far the hottest candidate so far, for the two reasons mentioned.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Correct, but poor maintenance is by far the hottest candidate so far, for the two reasons mentioned.

Agreed. But I can think of several accidents where the early "hottest candidate" ended up having nothing to do with the accident. In fact, more often than not the initial speculation surrounding an accident is totally wrong.

[mako88sb]

According to PPRuNE pilots report this airport as quite challenging especially during a night landing and with bad weather mixed in with it. Here's a link to their discussion.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...iner-down.html

Just speculation on their part of course, but they seem to think the planes maintenance did not contribute to this accident.


Rob

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Max2147

Agreed. But I can think of several accidents where the early "hottest candidate" ended up having nothing to do with the accident. In fact, more often than not the initial speculation surrounding an accident is totally wrong.

Your instincts are keen...

Case in point

French say sensors not cause of Flight 447 crash

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/French....html?x=0&.v=1

Pretty good read on CNN about a German woman who survived an airplane crash.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/eu...vor/index.html