Yemeni Airliner Down in Comoros (Indian Ocean)

[Jerrycobra Boeing]

nothing is really clear right now, they said 5yr old this morning, then now maybe a 14yr girl.
so, it was a windy night, was there a thunder storm or something or was it just wind? maybe a nasty down draft took it down?

[Evan]

Hmmm, please correct me but at an approach to 016 (RW 02), that wind would come almost from behind...

Right, sorry, on 016 it's of course a tailwind. I shouldn't type before I've had my coffee. Why wouldn't they opt to go around to 196 again? Was there something inhibiting control I wonder...

[Tomtom]

On a German website: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,633567,00.html
Besides confirming a 14 year old girl, they have unconfirmed reports that she wore a life vest.

[ speculation ]
If this is true the crew might have announced a ditching.
However, if the crew decided not to land, why didn't they go for an alternate? Madagascar is 300 - 400 km away, roughly 200 nm... maybe possible to do with 45 minutes of fuel.
[ / speculation ]

Thanks
Tom

[Hazmat]

diversion possibilities

[ speculation ]
If this is true the crew might have announced a ditching.
However, if the crew decided not to land, why didn't they go for an alternate? Madagascar is 300 - 400 km away, roughly 200 nm... maybe possible to do with 45 minutes of fuel.
[ / speculation ]

Tom,

Normally they divert to Mayotte, which is only a stone throw away and simpler to land (certainly when doing app to RWY34 IIRC) or Dar Es Salaam (preferred option) which is half an hour flying and usually their normal Alternate.

[Tomtom]

Tom,

Normally they divert to Mayotte, which is only a stone throw away and simpler to land (certainly when doing app to RWY34 IIRC) or Dar Es Salaam (preferred option) which is half an hour flying and usually their normal Alternate.

Thanks for the update - I was just guessing without a chart....

avherald has a picture with an approximate crash site: http://avherald.com/h?article=41befd4e&opt=0

[Tomtom]

Once again, the lack of radio communication is frustrating but perhaps telling. I know communication is not top priority, but indications are they had time, and certainly good reason to inform of intentions. What types of technical problems might this suggest?

Just some "random" thoughts / possibilities:

• Navigation equipment failure -> crew was lost and did not fly the airplane (unlikely if rescued girl really wore a life vest)
• Night time; IMC; small airport (maybe insufficient lightning); terrain -> crew was lost and did not fly the airplane (unlikely if rescued girl really wore a life vest)
• Weather: 25 knots tail wind, 35 knots gusts at certain times
• Engine failure: Missed approach; heading 330; trying to climb out but unable; turned back NE or E to get close to land; crashed near the northern coast line (There might have been time to inform crew and pax; survivor possibly wearing a life vest)
• Out of fuel or fuel did not reach engines: same as above

[ No accusations; just some thoughts ]

Thanks
Tom

[shamrock]

The French had the plane on their banned list, it had significant issues in the past...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8126576.stm

A Yemeni airline which crashed into the Indian Ocean was banned from France because of "irregularities", France's transport minister has said.

Dominique Bussereau told parliament of ongoing concerns about the safety record of the Yemenia Airbus 310.

One young person is said to have been rescued from the ocean, the only known survivor of the 153 people on board.

...cont./...

[Evan]

The French had the plane on their banned list, it had significant issues in the past...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8126576.stm

Regardless of whether it applies to the cause of this crash, The DGAC should not allow airlines to operate in France if they are known to be operating aircraft anywhere else in the world that the DGAC considers unsafe. Unless they ground the problem aircraft until it is re-inspected, you have to ban the airline, not the airplane.

my 2 cents.

[Tomtom]

Weather - initial approach was into the wind.

This was part of the approach, according to the RW 02 approach plate
(So far, we have not seen a RW 20 approach chart), a fly-over the field against the wind, followed the U-Turn and then with the wind heading 016.

Engine failure - should have been able to go around on one.

Well, they did go around, but crashed 15 nm north of the field. Maybe not getting enough thrust...
But I agree, one engine should have been enough

Fuel - no fuel emergency declared.

Which doesn't mean they haven't had fuel issue.

First question to ask: Why the missed approach/aborted landing/whatever it was?

Maybe everything was fine with the missed approach.

My question: How much tail wind can the crew / plane handle on such a runway?

Second question to ask: Why no radio contact for five minutes?

Possible answer: They were flying the airplane; troubleshooting

Third question to ask: Are any of these early reports accurate?

Never in the first hours...

The only thing I see of note so far is that from eyewitness reports and the approach plate, it loosely suggests that something may have happened during the critical roll maneuver back to 016 with a strong crosswind. Perhaps a factor in a larger situation...?

But the crash site is at the north coast of the island: the turn is 15 nm south of the field and the crash site is roughly 15 nm north...

No answers yet... at least we will have the data to review this time.

Let's hope so!!!

Cheers
Tom

[Tomtom]

Approach charts

Found charts for Moroni airport:

http://www.ais-asecna.org/en/atlas/comores/moroni.htm

Question: What's a MVI approach?

Thanks
Tom

[Gandalf123]

ANy idea how many rotations this plane did?

[Tomtom]

A Comoran government spokesperson said the pilot had tried to land at Moroni airport, as scheduled, missed his landing because of gusting winds and was preparing for a second attempt.

(from http://www.news24.com/Content/World/...crash_survivor_ )

Hmmm, "...preparing..."???? Looks as if they couldn't even finish the missed approach / landing: turn left 330 and climb to 6300 or 8300ft...

Smells more like they couldn't climb for maybe the following reasons:

• Fuel: No or not enough thrust
• Engines: No or not enough thrust
• Configuration: Trim, gear, flaps (Although I claim that the plane will bark at you for wrong configuration; or the plane was not in fully "protected" mode due to inoperative equipment)
• Crew: disorientation

Thanks
Tom

P.S. The recorders really would be very valuable....

[Evan]

ANy idea how many rotations this plane did?

17300*

*Source: Aviation Herald.

[cja]

I had mentioned on this forum shortly after the AF 447 crash that it would be sooner or later before another jetliner goes down.

May those who have perished rest in peace.

Yes but you missed that other astute comment, that "it will either rain or go dark before morning".

Perhaps you should sit this one out!

[Evan]

But the crash site is at the north coast of the island: the turn is 15 nm south of the field and the crash site is roughly 15 nm north...

So it is. The first reports put it right on the 'u-turn' of the FL30 G/O pattern. The information is changing to quickly for me to keep up. Now it seems that they were attempting another shot at the RW20 headwind approach, which makes more sense.

Depth in the area is down to -6000ft. Hopefully we have another sub laying around.