Yemeni Airliner Down in Comoros (Indian Ocean)

[Spad13]

I did read the CIA factsheet on Comoros yesterday; it is indeed a very poor country. They have two modern patrol boats, a eurocopter A350 and a large soviet MIL for search and rescue. The main harbor is on another island, so the boats would probably be there and a good 50nm from the crash site. I'm not sure they would want to fly the helos in that wind either.

But let me make a point: The island is also host to several resorts and a major international airline that is landing heavy passenger a/c on their runway. I think any airport servicing such flights should be required to have adequate SAR capability on duty whenever the airport is open. The passengers that travel on these flights place their lives in the hands of the airlines they trust and assume their safety is being looked after, and pax leaving France are never handed a notice telling them that the destination airport has no provision for search and rescue.

The country is poor, but the airline is not. Comoros should finance SAR through landing fees, hotel taxes and grants from the aviation industry.

All the major regulatory agencies should ban major airlines from operating flights to airstrips like this unless they conform to basic safety requirements, or at least provide explicit warning to passengers at booking time that the destination lacks these things and that they travel with increased risk.

Having said that, as a photographer I have traveled to many remote and poor countries and have flown on some frightening a/c. But I knew the risk and opted to take my chances. It goes with the business. I doubt very much these victims, boarding a modern A310 in France, had any idea what risk they were taking.

A lot of "shoulds" in that post there, bud. As for the poor uninformed pax boarding the airplane in France, did they not see the word "Yemenia" in rather large letters on the fuselage?

[Spad13]

No airline around the world provides its own Search and Rescue.

"First World" airlines would not operate to an airport without a certain level of Rescue and Fire Fighting (RFF) service, and I would imagine Comoros has at least limited RFF on these airports. They are not, however, large scale search and rescue for "at sea" and "off airport" crashes.

It is unrealistic to expect these nations to have Search and Rescue. It would be nice if they did, but unrealistic. It is also a rediculous concept that an airline like Yemani has to provide not an on airport, but an off airport rescue service for every airport it operates to! It just can't happen!

It isn't an ideal situation, but if you are going to fly to lesser developed countries, it is unfortunately a risk you take.

FWIW, I'm not sure JFK is all that well-equipped for off-airport crash rescue either. The assets for at sea rescue are available, but they're not exactly at the airport, nor are they necessarily within a few minutes' reach.

[HalcyonDays]

Actually, I'm not sure they did board an A310 in Paris. The sector from Paris to Sanaa was on an A330, with an aircraft change to A310 in Sanaa.

[Evan]

FWIW, I'm not sure JFK is all that well-equipped for off-airport crash rescue either. The assets for at sea rescue are available, but they're not exactly at the airport, nor are they necessarily within a few minutes' reach.

I doubt it would take them six hours to get to the scene, even if they took the BQE at rush hour from Queens.

My point is, as usual, getting distorted. Of course, I don't suggest the airline provide their own SAR. I suggest the industry provide it, and pay for it via landing fees, transportation and accommodations taxes or surcharges, and grants that may already exist. (The Comoros government currently receives a fair amount of grants for various services). I would even advocate a hazardous destination surcharge added to tickets to destinations that are financing these improvements.

In this case I am proposing a few basic search and rescue vessels to pluck passengers out of the water in the event of a ditching. If you had miraculously survived this crash and felt yourself going under after treading water for five hours within sight of land, you might agree with me.

The fly at your own risk argument is cynical. I already pointed out that I accept this when flying a chartered patchwork L1011 to a remote location, but, love them or hate them, Yemenia is a major carrier and sells tickets under the assumed promise of professionalism and safety. They need a place to land that lives up to that promise, or they shouldn't go there.

Also, I'd like to go there. It would be nice to see more reputable carriers serve that airport, and if they upgraded the safety aspects, maybe that would happen.

[Spad13]

I doubt it would take them six hours to get to the scene, even if they took the BQE at rush hour from Queens.

It took until the morning for some specialized vessels to get to TWA 800 site, so six hours is probably optimistic.

The fly at your own risk argument is cynical. I already pointed out that I accept this when flying a chartered patchwork L1011 to a remote location, but, love them or hate them, Yemenia is a major carrier and sells tickets under the assumed promise of professionalism and safety.

Evan, get a grip. This is an airline with 13 total aircraft and with 3 hull losses since 2000. Major airline? You've got to be kidding!

[Evan]

It took until the morning for some specialized vessels to get to TWA 800 site, so six hours is probably optimistic.

TWA 800 crashed far from the airport. How is that relevant?

Evan, get a grip. This is an airline with 13 total aircraft and with 3 hull losses since 2000. Major airline? You've got to be kidding!

Ok, perhaps they are not Etihad, but they have a modern fleet of widebody a/c and 738's and have 10 A350's on order (and previous to this accident, have never lost a passenger). Legitimate is what I mean, as opposed to a no-name charter. I think the legitimate carriers should not operate at airports with sub-standard rescue capabilities. I think you get my point.

[Spad13]

TWA 800 crashed far from the airport. How is that relevant?

Not that far, actually. Only within an hour's drive and within sight of shore, so I'd say it's pretty relevant. And that was Long Island, not Comoros.

Ok, perhaps they are not Etihad, but they have a modern fleet of widebody a/c and 738's and have 10 A350's on order (and previous to this accident, have never lost a passenger). Legitimate is what I mean, as opposed to a no-name charter. I think the legitimate carriers should not operate at airports with sub-standard rescue capabilities. I think you get my point.

It's hard to get your point when you keep changing it. First Yemenia is a major carrier, now they're just a "legitimate" one. Then you expect a podunk airport to have "plucking from water" capabilities that I'm not sure any airport in the known world has, then you just want them to have some "basic vessels".

FWIW, I doubt a night ditching is real survivable, no matter the vessels available. On the other hand, you should look up a guy by the name of Rev Bert Schlossberg. You'll be amazed at the kinds of things he thinks are survivable.

[P3_Super_Bee]

On the other hand, you should look up a guy by the name of Rev Bert Schlossberg. You'll be amazed at the kinds of things he thinks are survivable.

[EconomyClass]

As I stated above, the government of Comoros need not divert funds from other necessities. The aviation and travel industries should provide these things wherever they operate. And they need to be localized. Response time is critical.

Well, in transportation, user fees are how government usually comes up with the funds for certain budget expenditures. So, in a sense, aviation could charge passengers to fund the rescue necessities, just as it does to fund airports themselves. That certainly seems like a rational approach. But after seeing what happened with the AF447 crash, I'm not sure that "localized" is such a common aspect of search capability. So I still think creating it regionally makes sense. It would be idle about 99 percent of the time if it was for only Comoro-bound aircraft that land somewhere other than the runway. If it served a region, at least it would be used more. And like the coast guards of the world, it could rescue more than downed planes. It might also do pirate surveillance, with the understanding that when passenger lives are at risk, all other uses get pushed aside.

[Evan]

It's hard to get your point when you keep changing it. First Yemenia is a major carrier, now they're just a "legitimate" one. Then you expect a podunk airport to have "plucking from water" capabilities that I'm not sure any airport in the known world has, then you just want them to have some "basic vessels".

My point is consistent. I'm advocating a requirement for sea rescue capabilites, however minimal, let's just say adequate, for airports that present a risk of ditching on final approach or departure. I'm opening that up to discussion. If you want to play semantics with me, you'll find that to be more detrimental than constructive.

FWIW, I doubt a night ditching is real survivable, no matter the vessels available. On the other hand, you should look up a guy by the name of Rev Bert Schlossberg. You'll be amazed at the kinds of things he thinks are survivable.

You should also look at a 14 year-old girl named Baya Bakari.

[Spad13]

My point is consistent. I'm advocating a requirement for sea rescue capabilites, however minimal, let's just say adequate, for airports that present a risk of ditching on final approach or departure. I'm opening that up to discussion. If you want to play semantics with me, you'll find that to be more detrimental than constructive.

It's not about semantics, it's about what's practicable and what isn't. Even under the FARs (14 CFR Part 139.325 (b)(9) and (c)(4)), the standard for water rescue is very vague and, furthermore, really applies only to such bodies of water that are on airport property. There really is no standard on what sort of equipment an airport should maintain for off-airport accidents, including on land. If I'm approaching either of 22s at JFK and crash abeam the Belmont, PAPD CFR has no responsibility to respond at all (this within 4 miles of runway threshold). Odds are they will respond to assist FDNY, but the point is I'd be outside of their area of responsibility. And this is in NYC and on land, where you're suggesting airports maintain assets for water rescue miles out at sea, by which measure neither JFK, nor BOS, nor OGG, nor HNL, nor DAB are remotely adequate.

[Evan]

It's not about semantics, it's about what's practicable and what isn't. Even under the FARs (14 CFR Part 139.325 (b)(9) and (c)(4)), the standard for water rescue is very vague and, furthermore, really applies only to such bodies of water that are on airport property. There really is no standard on what sort of equipment an airport should maintain for off-airport accidents, including on land. If I'm approaching either of 22s at JFK and crash abeam the Belmont, PAPD CFR has no responsibility to respond at all (this within 4 miles of runway threshold). Odds are they will respond to assist FDNY, but the point is I'd be outside of their area of responsibility. And this is in NYC and on land, where you're suggesting airports maintain assets for water rescue miles out at sea, by which measure neither JFK, nor BOS, nor OGG, nor HNL, nor DAB are remotely adequate.

If you haven't gathered it by now, I'm proposing to make that standard for water rescue less vague. Spad, obviously I'm not proposing that airports need to take responsibility for water rescue where first responders already exists, so you can stop bringing the developed world into it. I'm proposing that something needs to be provided when there is no existing provision, no coast guard, no naval presence, no fire or police capability etc. And only in such cases I am proposing that it become the airport responsibility and be funded as I have already described. And only if large bodies of water exist within the airport's final approach pattern. Is that so preposterous?

[Spad13]

I'm proposing that something needs to be provided when there is no existing provision, no coast guard, no naval presence, no fire or police capability etc. And only in such cases I am proposing that it become the airport responsibility and be funded as I have already described. And only if large bodies of water exist within the airport's final approach pattern. Is that so preposterous?

It is and here's why: do you really expect places that, as you said, have no fire depts, no police presence, no navy, no coast guard nor much of anything else to nevertheless develop and deploy such specialized assets as at sea rescue? If they can't even muster a squad car and a fire truck (both of which ostensibly would see some regular use), how are they to come up with what you're proposing, especially considering that odds of ever using such assets are nice and low? Further, you still haven't explained what (at least, to your mind) constiutes adequate assets? Cutter-type ships, fast boats, Sea King-type helos? How many? Deployed where? Keep in mind, this is where there is nothing else of significance around.

I'm not trying to be cynical, just realistic. When even, as you put it, "the developed world" has no such capability most of the time, where are the Comoros to get it?

[Evan]

It is and here's why: do you really expect places that, as you said, have no fire depts, no police presence, no navy, no coast guard nor much of anything else to nevertheless develop and deploy such specialized assets as at sea rescue? If they can't even muster a squad car and a fire truck (both of which ostensibly would see some regular use), how are they to come up with what you're proposing, especially considering that odds of ever using such assets are nice and low? Further, you still haven't explained what (at least, to your mind) constiutes adequate assets? Cutter-type ships, fast boats, Sea King-type helos? How many? Deployed where? Keep in mind, this is where there is nothing else of significance around.

I'm not trying to be cynical, just realistic. When even, as you put it, "the developed world" has no such capability most of the time, where are the Comoros to get it?

At minimum, I would envision a couple of powered lifeboats similar to the ones found on commercial vessels. The odds of using lifeboats on a ship are nice and low, but there they are nonetheless. The odds of using firefighting equipment are nice and low, but I'm sure they already have that provision.

Perhaps they could be housed in a shed by the airport on quick launch ramps similar to the ones on container ships. I've already proposed the means to paying for it all. I doubt it would really be such a prohibitively expensive measure.

[Spad13]

At minimum, I would envision a couple of powered lifeboats similar to the ones found on commercial vessels.

Perhaps they could be housed in a shed by the airport on quick launch ramps similar to the ones on container ships. I've already proposed the means to paying for it all. I doubt it would really be such a prohibitively expensive measure.

Who will staff these things? Where will they be trained? To what standard? Who and how will pay for their recurrent training?

I'm starting to get the feeling you're actually advocating some kind of a token entity that will be stationed at the airport and will make people feel all warm and fuzzy, but will in reality be of very limited effectiveness.

I'm also getting the feeling that you don't fully appreciate the costs of such an entity, that is, the amount of money it would take to not only create such an entity, but to make it useful.

Lifeboats in sheds, Evan? Are you serious?