Yemeni Airliner Down in Comoros (Indian Ocean)

[SYDCBRWOD]

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?

I'm with Spad on this. I can see billions of dollars being spent on training, infrastructure, life boats that will need updating on a regular basis, and Murphy's law, the next plane to ditch will be 50k's from the airport - then the outcry will be why didn't we have boats stationed at sea in planeguard positions all over the globe etc, etc. (Incidentally, that Coast Guard ctter WhiteKnuckles was talking about that was maintained between Hawaii and CONUS was from the era when piston engined birds would make the trip - as some have already mentioned it wasn't that unusual to have to shut down a windmill on a routine flight. Nowadays there are probably commercial pilots with 20 plus years that have never had to do an in flight shutdown).

In nearly all cases none of this eqipment will be used - there comes a point where you can go to extremes and advocate silly levels of protection. Its all, like it or not, a cost benefit analysis. A better way to go would be to plunge these resources, particularly in these developing countries into health and infrastructure where far more lives will be saved for starters, and help the country. The more developed the country becomes, the more likely that it will develop its own indigenous SAR capability.

Planes are becoming safer, and provided you pick the right airline, the plane drivers are competant (there's a reason why the 'air coconuts' of this world offer such cheap fares). Planes are equipped with liferafts and lifejackets - and normally in a situation where the crew has the aircraft under sufficient control to ditch then these become useful. That may not help under all circumstances, but the odds of things going seriously wrong are pretty damned slim.

I'm confident to fly with things as they are, sure, the system's not perfect but the odds of still being alive and on water after a prang are astronomical. I'm prepared to take that chance.

[Evan]

Lifeboats in sheds, Evan? Are you serious?

Life rafts onboard an A310, Spad? How is that less ridiculous? But they are there. And one day they might save a life or two by some miraculous turn of fate.

When Ethiopian 961 ditched there, 50 passengers managed to survive and escape the wreckage. It is conceivable that there were more survivors here as well, but they would have drown anyway, because the rescue they would have expected would not come as the hours passed. I ask you to stop for a moment and imagine the helpless frustration of those on land, aware of the crash but having no means to come to the rescue of their loved ones. Even the minimum that I propose would have given them a fighting chance. And what I am proposing is no more demanding then the safety provisions on a commercial ship.

But, if in your cynicism, you wish to apply a lower expense to the value of human life, then perhaps we should do away with the significantly expensive fire fighting measures that are rarely if ever used as well. I see no difference if those lives are lost to fire or to drowning.

So be it. Instead I would respond by prohibiting such flights to substandard destinations that lack SAR provisions. If the industry that supports these flights, and derives profit from their operation, cannot be troubled to provide enough measures to rescue a 14 year old girl from the coastline until she is overcome with hypothermia, and possibly others have drowned, then they do not deserve the privilege of that piece of business. Leave it to the single-aisle charters, the real 'air coconuts', where passengers are fairly made aware of the risks and can choose to take them.

And faced with that ultimatum, I wouldn't be surprised to see some basic, cost-effective SAR measures suddenly appear.

[bob12312357]

well, whatever. I'm so used to this kind of unnecessary putdown from over 20 years of doing this that i know it comes with the territory.

epic fail
failtacular
failcapade
righteousfail
failicous

[EconomyClass]

Planes are becoming safer, and provided you pick the right airline

Someone knows how to do this? I'm very eager to learn how to pick the right airline. Explain your method.

[Spad13]

But, if in your cynicism, you wish to apply a lower expense to the value of human life, then perhaps we should do away with the significantly expensive fire fighting measures that are rarely if ever used as well. I see no difference if those lives are lost to fire or to drowning.

So be it. Instead I would respond by prohibiting such flights to substandard destinations that lack SAR provisions. If the industry that supports these flights, and derives profit from their operation, cannot be troubled to provide enough measures to rescue a 14 year old girl from the coastline until she is overcome with hypothermia, and possibly others have drowned, then they do not deserve the privilege of that piece of business. Leave it to the single-aisle charters, the real 'air coconuts', where passengers are fairly made aware of the risks and can choose to take them.

And faced with that ultimatum, I wouldn't be surprised to see some basic, cost-effective SAR measures suddenly appear.

Sigh...I tried.

[EconomyClass]

It may sound dumb, but I'd be happy to know if a destination could not recover survivors so that I could not fly that route. Airlines will fly anywhere till people stop buying tickets, so the public will have to take the burden of abandoning destinations that are "too poor" to be able to rescue. That's something the cabin attendants never address when they tell you how to put on your life vest. If by a miracle, you don't drown immediately, how long will you have to float there?

[Spad13]

It may sound dumb, but I'd be happy to know if a destination could not recover survivors so that I could not fly that route.

Then I suggest you don't fly anywhere over or near water. The chances of you being recovered are slim, be it the Comoros or Boston.

[MCM]

E.C (Or should that be W.K)

You can make a pretty educated guess at which countries will have a reasonable search and rescue response.

The USA, Europe, Australia are all pretty good bets.

That said, unless you're fortunate enough to crash only a few hundred yards from the airport, it is still going to take a reasonable time to fish you out of the ocean.

In an ideal world, all airports would have top flight Rescue and Fire Fighting on sight... and to a large extent they do. ICAO have a grading system for the level of RFF that is present. For off-airport rescues, however, it is largely upto the navy/civilian search and rescue operators. Most large airports that abut water will have a limited water rescue ability (like Sydney has launches that can fish someone out of Botany Bay), but even the top airports in the world cannot justify the huge expence of having an effective off airport search and rescue.

This airport is one that would not be served by the major carriers of the world.

Leave it to the single-aisle charters, the real 'air coconuts', where passengers are fairly made aware of the risks and can choose to take them.

Evan, even the 'air coconuts' operate jets these days. If I was a resident of Comoros, I'd be very upset if the "safer" option of the regular jet service was replaced by the dodgy carriers. People going to Comoros are going anyway... better it be in a reliable jet than a dodgy prop operator.

There are far more pressing issues than a search and resuce service for a poor country like this - how about Radar for ATC for a start. Another very good question is why the airline were conducting night circling approaches to a runway with no slope guidance. If you want to improve safety, that'd be a good place to start!

[SYDCBRWOD]

Someone knows how to do this? I'm very eager to learn how to pick the right airline. Explain your method.

1. The EU has a list of airlines it prohibits from landing - there are reasons beyond political for that list.

2. Generally the african airlines (save SAA?) do not have as good a reputation as some of the old world airlines (BA, Lufthansa, Qantas, United etc*)

3. Airlines in the former Soviet Union were a bit sus - (kids flying planes, passing a hat around to buy a necessary spare part for a flight to take off etc)

4. From the photo at: http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?t=47810, Merpati seems to have an issue keeping wheels on a 737. Given that:

"With over 8,000 aircraft ordered, over 6,000 delivered, and over 4,500 still in service, at any given time there are over 1,250 airborne worldwide. On average, somewhere in the world, a 737 takes off or lands every five seconds..." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737

Now, I may be wrong here but wheels falling off 737's isn't a widespread thing - and perhaps points to the quality of maintenance this airframe has received.

Two years ago the captain of Garuda Flight 200 tried to land at twice the recommended landing speed on a runway that was shorter than that found at major international airports and without an overrun area. He did this despite automated warnings and his copilot telling him a stack of times to go around for another approach. What does that tell you about the psycological testing of pilots, the 'Infailable Captain Rule' and the application of the lessons learned from Tenerife disaster?

5. The age of the airframe may give an indication - although not always. An old airframe requires more maintenance to perform at its best. So you have the conflicting issues of a low cost or startup airline. If they buy old aircraft the upfront cost will be much cheaper than buying a later generation airframe, but the running costs will be higher as the older aircraft will probably use more fuel, and need more intensive maintenance than a newer airframe. So, particularly in an environment where maintenance standards are not rigorously enforced, the easiest way to save money will be to skip maintenance.

Overall aviation remains an extremely safe activity for passengers on RPT services. If you are paranoid, avoid flying the 'Air Coconuts' of this world. If a lowest cost fare is your objective or that destination is only served by 'Air Coconuts', then it's your call as to whether you take that flight.


*Before everyone jumps on the bandwagon demanding to know why that list didn't include their favourite airline that was only a few random samples.

[EconomyClass]

I've read that. Most I can see is hints at the wrong airline. Still waiting to hear how people pick "the right one". I mean, all the averages are very, very low, so what separates the "right ones" from the "wrong ones"?

[SYDCBRWOD]

I've read that. Most I can see is hints at the wrong airline. Still waiting to hear how people pick "the right one". I mean, all the averages are very, very low, so what separates the "right ones" from the "wrong ones"?

OK, Fly Qantas. Is that definitive enough?

OK, that was pithy.

The reason why this is such a difficult question to answer is that it's not as though aircraft are raining from the skies. Pilots are human, they tend not to kill themselves if they can help it (i.e. will not knowingly take off without thinking that they will be able to land too). Customers also have long memories - if one particular airline has had a history of crashes that is higher than other comparable airlines (such as Garuda), customers will pass on that airline for one where there they perceive there is less chance of an incident. Its the same for any business, give enough poor service and people won't come back - you'll go broke. The same applies with airlines with the added issue that if you have enough crashes or incidents and people won't want to fly with you. See what that does for your load factors. Just recently a Qantas aircraft returned to whichever airport it had just taken off from because of some small issue and yet it was second item on the news about 2 months ago. Nobody died, or was injured, the aircraft landed without incident and taxied back under its own power to the gate, and yet this was the second item on the news including customers who were looking bemused at the media frenzy). Qantas has had a few incidents recently and so the spotlight is upon them. In a way, even if there were no regulatory bodies taking action, the public would help sort the good from the bad.

I'm willing to bet that after their most recent prang and what was uncovered in terms of the pilots aptitude/experience that people would chose airline B if everything else was equal. Of course what those same travellers may not realise is that airline B is probably also employing people from the same pool of experience, but the perception is that airline B is safer.

Qantas has been around since 1920 and has not suffered a fatality since 1951 (Rain Man was wrong). Despite a string of recent incidents its an airline that I'd trust. Maybe its just dumb luck, maybe partly because Australia doesn't have snow and blizzard conditions as a regular occurrence in our domestic routes. Or maybe its because the people are well trained, the aircraft well maintained and there is more a culture of safety than a culture of "I will make this landing stick in spite of what my copilot is telling me".

[EconomyClass]

I know its a hard question to answer. That, in fact, was my point. People throw out these "suggestions" as if there are simple solutions for passengers. Fact is, nothing or nearly nothing is being done to permit people to reduce their risk. I'm betting before Alaska Airlines had its accident after extending maintenance intervals, people flying on the planes weren't aware of this money-saving policy change. I got the impression even NTSB and FAA didn't know, so how could travelers. I think basically the industry has no financial interest in informed customers, so as little useful information will be published as possible.

As for disputants who suggest not flying, I don't do it for a living, but some people's jobs don't let them make the no-fly decisions that I make. I see no reason why corporations should be given the freedom to place their customers at risk. If we want that kind of environment, eliminate all government and remove the illusion someone is looking out for us.

[SYDCBRWOD]

I know its a hard question to answer. That, in fact, was my point. People throw out these "suggestions" as if there are simple solutions for passengers.

Well sorry for trying mate. I apologise that I wasted you time trying to answer the question you asked AS I SAID BEFORE THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE SYSTEM TO SAY THAT THIS AIRLINE IS SAFE AND THIS ONE ISN'T. FLYING IS AN ACTIVITY WITH A HUMAN IN THE LOOP AND OPERATING IN AN ENVIRONMENT WITH CHANGABLE VARIABLES LIKE WEATHER. WHILST EVER THAT HUMAN EXISTS IT BECOMES DIFFICULT TO ISSUE ABSOLUTES, SO LONG AS WE HAVE WEATHER IT BECOMES DIFFICULT TO BE DEFINITIVE.

Fact is, nothing or nearly nothing is being done to permit people to reduce their risk.

That's right the ATSB, and their like is only there for decoration, the airlines are stupid for investing in simulators and safety committees, manufacturers and airlines could save hundreds of kilos out of every airframe by deleting redundant systems. Hell why do we need those pesky lifejackets anyway.

Air travel has never been safer despite volumes growing - Look at the table of deaths compiled by the ACRO - it shows an improving record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents

There is a list here:

http://www.airfleets.net/crash/fatalities_airline.htm

I just googled these - I have suggested to you before that you do the same.

[bobdxb]

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

I doubt very much these victims, boarding a modern A310 in France, had any idea what risk they were taking.

I will answer one by one, in order to have better understanding about Comoros and HAH itself.

1. I doubt air traffic has increased since my last visit in 1996, at that time there was no flag carrier based in Comoros. Also I have not checked Yemenia schedule to HAH; I believe no more then 3 times a week and second operator Air Austral/Reunion flies from HAH via Mayotte to Reunion once a week using B737.....I guess that is not much income to maintain services at HAH airport including SAR matching any LCC airport in europe or usa.

2. Adding above to very basic hotel industry, hotel based on Galawa Beach ( I have stayed for 12 hrs rest on my DXB-HAH-DXB trips and apart of 100 or so south african tourists flown on emirates - could not see other hotel guests) I hardly imagine any healthy income for any kind of infrastructure at HAH or to keep SAR units in large numbers.

3. Most of the victims are Comorans themself with or without french citizenship and therefore you may imagine on what scale knowledge and concerne about safety is. Recent demonstrations in France could speak for itself.

[EconomyClass]

That's right the ATSB, and their like is only there for decoration, the airlines are stupid for investing in simulators and safety committees, manufacturers and airlines could save hundreds of kilos out of every airframe by deleting redundant systems. Hell why do we need those pesky lifejackets anyway.

Nice sentence that totally misses the point! I'm talking about that which allows the passengers to make choices that improve their safety. Because these planes sitting at the bottom of the ocean had these improvements you are speaking of which are totally useless when your plane dives and shatters into a million fragments.

Plain fact is that if the crew is going to screw up when faced with a flying challenge, none of these things is going to do any good. When Alaska Airlines secretly stops greasing the bolts that actuate the stabilizers, the passengers are hosed. Now, if there was legal transparency, things like Valuejet and Alaska airlines might still happen, but people who have enough common sense to put two and two together might avoid victimhood.

And all the eager Darwin award candidates who exalt the airlines with hundreds of drowned victims newly dead could just keep climbing on planes and saying like Dr. Pangloss that "everything is good in this best of all possible worlds".