Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest redwine

Flight Iy626

Recommended Posts

Guest redwine

Another airbus has crashed an airbus A310 Yemenia airlines went down off the Comoros Isles a 150 missing one surviver a 15 year old found floating in the sea happened late last night

that makes it two in a month

1/06/2009 AF447 228 passengers died

30/06/2009 IY626 150 passengers dead

The media here are already saying that it was an old "flying wreck" etc

The Rio - Paris crash was an A330 and it wasn't old and it did crash

Not forgetting the A320 that went down on the Hudson River in New York last febuary at least nobody died

Airbus should start checking out there aircraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've flown in several airbuses recently and none of them crashed whilst I was on them, so far as I was aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airbuses account for around half the long-haul passenger jets in use worldwide. As there are to all intents and purposes only two manufacturers in the market (OK - there are a small number of MD-11s, Tupolevs etc. still in service, but it's really insignificant), the odds are really pretty short that any two major accidents in a row will affect the same brand of plane. But I agree that coming so quickly in succession, it's a PR headache for Airbus.

Also, I believe that the A310 did not have the 'fly by wire' technology that is believed at least to have played a part in AF447, i.e. the pitot tube sensors supply digital data to a computer which then uses it to work out the plane's airspeed and from there make decisions about how the plane should fly. AFAIK the instruments and flight controls on the A310 are of the conventional, electromechanical sort.

Incidentally, I'm off across the pond in an A330 on Thursday (Amsterdam to Minneapolis). You don't normally get tropical storms over Iceland and Greenland, so I'm guesing I'll be OK!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incidentally, I'm off across the pond in an A330 on Thursday (Amsterdam to Minneapolis). You don't normally get tropical storms over Iceland and Greenland, so I'm guesing I'll be OK!

Only a few thou' from The Bermuda Triangle though. I wouldn't take anything valuable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest redwine
the odds are really pretty short that any two major accidents in a row will affect the same brand of plane. But I agree that coming so quickly in succession, it's a PR headache for Airbus.

Also, I believe that the A310 did not have the 'fly by wire' technology that is believed at least to have played a part in AF447, i.e. the pitot tube sensors supply digital data to a computer which then uses it to work out the plane's airspeed and from there make decisions about how the plane should fly. AFAIK the instruments and flight controls on the A310 are of the conventional, electromechanical sort.

Incidentally, I'm off across the pond in an A330 on Thursday (Amsterdam to Minneapolis). You don't normally get tropical storms over Iceland and Greenland, so I'm guesing I'll be OK!

You are right a PR headache for Airbus and if and only if and i really do not wish this this to happen .The new A380 crashed this time we are talking about 555 passengers "missing"

Boeing with there "dreamliner"would benefit and that could kill Airbus and lots of jobs in europe

That is why i would like Airbus to issue a statement showing some info and knowing what went wrong or some sort of reassurance to there passengers

The last A310 went out of production in 2007 the crash last night in good weather conditions was a A310 made in 1990 so for now as future passengers we have to check out the date that Airbus built the plane ? What happened on the AF447 flight Rio - Paris?

Why the "no answer to anything" Airbus reply or rather total "silence"?

Does an out of date or out of flying date exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The media here are already saying that it was an old "flying wreck" etc"

Paris - The Yemenia Airways jet that crashed into the Indian Ocean off the island of Le Grande Comore early today, with 153 people on board, had previously been "banned" from France after an inspection in 2007 by French technicians found the aircraft to have "numerous defects," according to Dominique Bussereau, France's minister of transportation.

....

Comorians, including Ali Mohammed of the Federation of Comorians in Marseilles, have long accused airlines of using new, well-maintained planes for flights between the Middle East and France, but then switching to older planes not maintained to European standards – aircraft that would not be allowed to land here.

...

On Tuesday, French authorities said the causes for the crash continue to be "blurry." Airbus officials have expressed sorrow, but added that they had no clues to the cause of the crash and probably won't know more until the black box is recovered.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0630/p06s10-woeu.html

Not sure either way, but it looks dodgy enough not to be an Airbus fault and they do fly a lot of planes around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another airbus has crashed an airbus A310 Yemenia airlines went down off the Comoros Isles a 150 missing one surviver a 15 year old found floating in the sea happened late last night

that makes it two in a month

1/06/2009 AF447 228 passengers died

30/06/2009 IY626 150 passengers dead

The media here are already saying that it was an old "flying wreck" etc

The Rio - Paris crash was an A330 and it wasn't old and it did crash

Not forgetting the A320 that went down on the Hudson River in New York last febuary at least nobody died

Airbus should start checking out there aircraft

The Hudson crash was due to Canadian geese flying into the engines, now finely diced and BBQ'ed minced geese!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've flown in several airbuses recently and none of them crashed whilst I was on them, so far as I was aware.

Perhaps you weren't paying close enough attention? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest redwine
"The media here are already saying that it was an old "flying wreck" etc"

]

Not sure either way, but it looks dodgy enough not to be an Airbus fault and they do fly a lot of planes around.

Reading "les echos"forum today some readers from Yeman claiming that there security in air-lines is very strict as "air yeman" is half owned by Saudi-Arabia and there seems to be amix of false/true info going around here at the moment

Air Yeman was not on a "black-list "

Have to give it "time " to find out what really happened if they ever do find out the truth !

Not sure if this aircraft was banned in France in 2007?

Lots of PR everybody blaming everybody else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hudson crash was bird strike - don't tell me, Boeing have been training geese to down Airbuses.

The French one we don't know yet, but I suspect it will be down to Air France not doing updates to the Pitot Tubes when they should - though of course they won't admit it - like BA won't tell us the truth about why that Boeing came down at LHR on its way from China

This one I suspect was a flying death trap - I bet it's not seen proper maintenance for years.... - that's not Airbus' fault any more than you could blame Ford for a 1986 Escort brakes failing and mowing down a bus queue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest redwine
The Hudson crash was bird strike - don't tell me, Boeing have been training geese to down Airbuses.

The Hudson crash "bird strike" has never been "offically " confirmed

The NTSB has yet to publish a report on the Airbus 32O "Hudson River " incident

Check it out on wikipedia "Bird Strike"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much suspect that this Airbus crash was due to the fact that it was poorly maintained, rather than it being a deep flaw in the Planes design (such as the Boeing 737-200).

Its well known that those Planes that come lets say from more dubious countries have a much lower safety rating, than those from Western countries. I would think twice about flying over Africa, unless it was with a Western carrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I very much suspect that this Airbus crash was due to the fact that it was poorly maintained, rather than it being a deep flaw in the Planes design (such as the Boeing 737-200).

Its well known that those Planes that come lets say from more dubious countries have a much lower safety rating, than those from Western countries. I would think twice about flying over Africa, unless it was with a Western carrier.

I very much suspect it was human error and nothing to with maintenance nor design of the plane.

I have no idea but if we were going to place bets on this and the next 10 air crashes, I'm pretty sure I'd come out on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I very much suspect that this Airbus crash was due to the fact that it was poorly maintained, rather than it being a deep flaw in the Planes design (such as the Boeing 737-200).

Several people on airliners.net are opining that the aircraft in question had failed numerous safety inspections on visits to CDG, in consequence of which Yemeni Airlines relocated it to intra-Africa flights only and started using a newer A330 for their twice-weekly return trips from darkest Africa to Paris.

Sounds to me like older aeroplane = needs higher maintenence; didn't get it = potential cause of accident to be investigated.

Older aeroplanes CAN be flown quite safely given the requisite amount of TLC. I flew on a Northwest DC10-30 as late as December 2005 which was about the same age as me (i.e. manufactured in the early 1970s). At that time it made financial sense for NW to eat the higher maintenance costs of a plane that was bought and paid for rather than make loan payments on newer planes that need less maintenance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Hudson crash was bird strike - don't tell me, Boeing have been training geese to down Airbuses.

The French one we don't know yet, but I suspect it will be down to Air France not doing updates to the Pitot Tubes when they should - though of course they won't admit it - like BA won't tell us the truth about why that Boeing came down at LHR on its way from China

This one I suspect was a flying death trap - I bet it's not seen proper maintenance for years.... - that's not Airbus' fault any more than you could blame Ford for a 1986 Escort brakes failing and mowing down a bus queue

The reason the BA plane crashed at Heathrow has been announced. It was a build up of ice on the fuel system (I would say injectors but I can not remember exactly) that when the plane came into land and they start the descent the engines are throttled back to about idle and the ice grew even more. So when they came to apply the power to flatten the approach the engines cut out and the pilot crapped himself and had to glide it in short of the runway.

The fix, well in true Brit style the fix is that the pilot has to rev the engines to keep the heat in them regularly on descent to the airfield. Just do not worry about him exceeding the landing speed.

Of course the whole country believes that it crashed because Jonah Brown was at Heathrow at the exact time lookking at it out of the window as it came into land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anecdotal: i got fed up with my wife telling me that plane crashes always come in threes. She would always point to two previous ones or wait for a further one or two then proclaim annoyingly "these things always come in threes".

eventually i challenged her to "put up or shut up"*. I found records for all the crashes in the last three years and made an excel timeline graph. in fact, these things always come in ones, twos, threes...even sixes.

As a result of our pact, this element of annoyance has been taken out of my marriage.

* i always thought that john major got it wrong. you put up and shut up, don't you? putting up with something is accepting it. shutting up goes alongisde that, rather than being contrary to it.

[/pedantry]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest redwine

Just been looking at the BBC front page

It says "quote"

"Yemeni Transport Minister Khaled Ibrhim al- Wazeer also told Reuters that the plane had recently undergone a through inspection by Airbus and conformed to international standards "

So who is right Airbus ,the french even though they do not like talking about AF447 anymore or the yeman ?

Think that your better off flying with Boeing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason the BA plane crashed at Heathrow has been announced. It was a build up of ice on the fuel system (I would say injectors but I can not remember exactly)

It was the fuel/oil heat exchanger. It's a unit containing pipes in which lubricating oil being pumped out of the engine is passed in close proximity to fuel being pumped from the wing and/or fuselage storage tanks into the engine, in order to bring it up to the optimum temperature for combustion. IIRC the problem was that the exterior surfaces of the unit itself were found to be susceptible freezing at very high altitudes and/or in abnormally cold temperatures at cruising altitude, leading to impared fuel flow that you only find about about when you ask for more power as you're deploying the flaps for landing.

Only affected the Rolls-Royce engines, apparently. If your 777 has the General Electric engines, its fuel warming arrangement doesn't have this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Yemeni crash is a typical story of third world airlines flying old aircraft that they can't maintain and operate properly.

Fortunately they are usually only used by third world people, and there's loads of those around, so its not so important when they crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not forgetting the A320 that went down on the Hudson River in New York last febuary at least nobody died

Airbus should start checking out there aircraft

The pilot got a lot of praise in that one, but surely a superb piece of engineering not to break up on impact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, there are so many airlines flying over so many countries and landing on so many different runways, the choice of aircraft is virtually inconsequential, in safety terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another airbus has crashed an airbus A310 Yemenia airlines went down off the Comoros Isles a 150 missing one surviver a 15 year old found floating in the sea happened late last night

...

Airbus should start checking out there aircraft

And someone else should check there spalling and grammir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   285 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.