Yemeni Airliner Down in Comoros (Indian Ocean)

[Evan]

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.

Let me get this straight Spad, the chances of being rescued in Boston Harbor are slim? I wonder if there is anyone here from the Boston Harbor Patrol that would like to comment on that?

Look, the need has been sadly demonstrated, the means exist (as I have exhaustively pointed out), why do you resist? Is it just that sort of cynicism that makes you say things like the statement above?

Let me restate the key points of my argument that seem to be getting misconstrued and distorted:

1) I only propose that seaborne SAR be provided by the airport when provisions do not otherwise exist in the form of civil and military rescue capabilities. If there is a coast guard, a navy or a waterborne element of the police or fire department (full time or volunteer), then that could suffice. What I am advocating is a minimal provision where more satisfactory ones do not yet exist.

2) The passenger capacity of planes flying into the airport should be restricted to the SAR capabilities on the ground.

3) The poverty of the nation is not relevant because financing comes from the civil aviation industry and/or international grants.

4) Flagship carriers enjoy the assumption of professionalism and safety that allow them to take business away from the 'air coconuts'. Passenger trust is their selling point. When they knowingly fly to destinations that lack the most basic rescue provisions, they violate that trust. As we have seen, the relatives of the deceased are shocked when they learn that the carrier may not have been providing their loved ones with that assumed standard of safety.

5) Until SAR provision can be in place, a clear notice needs to be posted at booking points that states that the destination airport lacks basic modern SAR provisions and that they fly at their own risk. I might still fly there, but when I am left bobbing in the sea I wouldn't be so bewildered.

6) The cost of what I am proposing (at minimum) is so low that, given the choice between compliance and banishment, the industry would certainly choose compliance. Therefore, in making that ultimatum I would be denying the people of Comoros nothing, and providing them some reassurance that their lives are valued by the more developed world.

[bobdxb]

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.

It is fair to say also that most 3rd world countries SAR's are organized and maintained by military, therefore it depends very much on the countries support....saying that you have to enlist countries like Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, India, Pakistan and many more.

I use to operate from Dubai to the West and East, mainly over the sea and with more then 10,000 hrs in a span of 18 yrs....Airlines operating over the water need to follow (borrowed from another forum)requirements:
- up to 50 miles from land with no over water equipment on board
- 50 miles to 400 miles, life jackets are required
- beyond 400 miles life rafts or slide/rafts, and survival gear is required

However in unlikely event of ditching (forced or unforced) there is requiered a degree of luck for all onboard......mentioned was Ethiopian B767 in Comoros with 50 or so survivors including 2 pilots. They ditched just few hundred meters away from Galawa Beach Hotel; beach goers, daytime, shallow coral waters, local fishermen (home not fishing) and planned ditching all contributed for high survival rate. Not to forget tens of friendly sharks living in coral waters for years....according to local ppl more then 40yrs no shark attacks recorded.

Back to Yemenia accident at the almost same place but different scenario and mainly due a/c crashing into waters rather then ditching will answer questions about necessity for higher level of SAR and other supporting teams....local fishermen could act as good as any well equiped SAR unless they are away at the early morning hours doing what they do every night.....catch fish to survive (probably that's why late response as questioned by Evan)

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!

and to conclude my reply I agree 100% with you; it is far more constructive to start with essential equipment airport requires for safe operations day or night time rather then concentrating on SAR itself.

[Evan]

Back to Yemenia accident at the almost same place but different scenario and mainly due a/c crashing into waters rather then ditching will answer questions about necessity for higher level of SAR and other supporting teams....local fishermen could act as good as any well equiped SAR unless they are away at the early morning hours doing what they do every night.....catch fish to survive (probably that's why late response as questioned by Evan)

A closer look at the island reveals that there is a modern port with large vessels available at Moroni, approx 11 miles from the airport and approx 20 miles from the crash site. Comoros needed only to station a patrol boat there (they have at least two) or commandeer civilian vessels to respond to the crash. They should have been able to reach the site within 60-90 minutes if they were organized and prepared for an emergency. Aviation Herald reported wreckage first located at daybreak, six hours after the crash. I think that is unacceptable.

[MCM]

G'day bobdxb,

I haven't quite got 10,000 hours up but I'm slowly getting there!

I guess with most of the routes that I used to do you'd end up in rather cold water upto about 5 hours flight from the nearest landfall, so you knew that there wasn't any hope of rescue if you happened to go for a swim. SAR was really one of the last things in your mind! I guess its just best not to think about these things when you're at 70S!

I agree with Evan's point that the rescue took too long to mount... and that is always an issue in the lower economic countries... the organisation is usually not there.

My disagreement is just that airlines be responsible for providing SAR. Yemeni is NOT a major first world carrier. It operates older jets, and does niche routes to the places it does. It is completely unrealistic to expect an airline like that to only operate to places with proven national SAR. The nations need affordable air travel to compete and grow at all as nations, and to force air carriers out of the market because they are slightly less safe IF they crash then we're ruling out at least half of the worlds aviation... jet travel to marginal airports.

Hopefully this will force the Comoros government to get their act together and organise some efficient SAR backups, not just for aviation but for fishing operations too.

I assume flying for an operator out of Dubai you wouldn't have had the dubious pleasure of recently flying any no-slope guidance night approaches... I know I'm certainly lucky enough not to!

[bob12312357]

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.

Your chances of surviving a large commercial jet crashing into water is slim period. If its an uncontroled decent then your body will most likely be ripped apart by the G-force as its the same as flying into the side of the mountain. Then theres the explosion and concussive force of the fuel going boom. Then even if the plane is landed in a controled manner, the chances of ripping apart on impact and cart wheeling like a Nascar crash are good, like that crash of the airliner only a few hundred yards off a beach in a very populated area. Then if you survive the crash,what injuries do you have? Your now weak,possibly unconcious,possibly with many broken bones and faced with the prospect of having to remain afloat for at least a couple of hours. No matter the size of the emergency response its highly unlikely to have enough vessels in an area to locate and rescue 100-300 passengers.
The miracle on the Hudson was just that. Sulley was extremely skilled,but also extremely lucky to have it be broad daylight,a relatively small airliner,no instrument failures,relatively few passengers,calm wind,a calm sea state,ferry boats in the area with crews trained in SAR and many of them some of whom realized something was amiss and started following the plane before it hit the water,crashing into relatively warm water sheltered water of a river with land a few hundred yards away on either side,and yet again a big dose of Sulleys airmanship Lets also not forget,as good a crew as they were if this happened in the ocean lets say even a mile off Lagaurdia people could have died as he forgot to shut the sea ditching ports on the aircraft and it took on water. Thats if the stronger currents and sea state didn't rip the plane apart on impact. Not faulting him as he had to make all these decisions in a 2 minute time period,but it could easily ahve been a lot worse if it didn't come down in the middle of a city with more cops,and fire fighters then the population of most small towns.
Another way to look at the whole,why don't they have SAR at every airport. The money needed to be able to rescue 300+ people or whats left of them after a major crash in a rural area could be better spent on say modern medical facilities which could save tens of thousands of lives a year. So now that same money which has a 1 in a billion chance of being needed could have saved tens of thousands of lives year after year. Just food for thought. .02

Side note- How come I can't indent. It just displays itlike this even if I leave space at the begining of a paragraph?

[bobdxb]

G'day bobdxb,

I agree with Evan's point that the rescue took too long to mount... and that is always an issue in the lower economic countries... the organisation is usually not there.

Hi MCM,
I have joined this forum mainly to place more light on Comoros Apt as it is not a major player even for African standards. I have mentioned in this forum some time ago that flag carriers (major airlines) and pilots as frontrunners execute daily so many flights but very few go to places like HAH. My ex airline when started operating on DXB-HAH-JNB sector approached this task very seriously, among other actions a required sim training.

Most probably Yemenia A310 pilots go with the same training before operating to HAH since they use very same training facility in Dubai as I did...therefore what could they have done more? It is just one of those days that something went terribly wrong, what exactly have happened we must wait for black boxes....

Hopefully this will force the Comoros government to get their act together and organise some efficient SAR backups, not just for aviation but for fishing operations too.

I doubt Comoros gov. has capacity to organise SAR task force on their own. I remember back in 1995/1996 when I was flying there, country itself was politicaly very fragile and stage for many coups. It was mainly nearby Mayotte Island french police and legionnaires who would come to help and restoration of Comoros gov. Probably same task is awaiting for french gov. since most of french comorans need to fly back home.

I assume flying for an operator out of Dubai you wouldn't have had the dubious pleasure of recently flying any no-slope guidance night approaches... I know I'm certainly lucky enough not to!

I have had pleasure operating IGS approaches in HKG for many years, probably in same category as it is VFR night HAH RWY20 approach......of course I prefer 10 miles radar vectors and cavok.......but real challenge and skills to show are when u go somewhere you are almost on your own...

And second tought on picking up airline/destination. How many people fly using polar routes or sahara desert on daily basis, far away from SAR teams. Just imagine response time and ability to help lucky survivors.

[Evan]

My disagreement is just that airlines be responsible for providing SAR. Yemeni is NOT a major first world carrier. It operates older jets, and does niche routes to the places it does.

I guess it's time to dispel that myth. Yemenia is not Air France, but they operate A330s and 737-800's that are all 21st century productions, two of their A310 are among the youngest flying, and they have 10 A350's on order with an option on 4 more. They serve more than 30 destinations, including major airports in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East. They are indeed a flag carrier airline, the national airline of the Republic of Yemen, a country of 23 million people. Previous to this accident, they have never had a fatal hull loss incident. Now compare that to Delta.

Also, to my knowledge, no one here has ever proposed that an airline provide its own SAR.

[Spad13]

Let me get this straight Spad, the chances of being rescued in Boston Harbor are slim? I wonder if there is anyone here from the Boston Harbor Patrol that would like to comment on that?

Good idea. Why don't you contact the Boston Harbor Patrol and ask them if they're equipped to recover, say, 300 people from a rapidly sinking A330 should one ditch just short of 33L? Make my day, do it.

Then tell me how long they laugh at you for.

[Spad13]

I guess it's time to dispel that myth. Yemenia is not Air France, but they operate A330s and 737-800's that are all 21st century productions, two of their A310 are among the youngest flying, and they have 10 A350's on order with an option on 4 more. They serve more than 30 destinations, including major airports in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East. They are indeed a flag carrier airline, the national airline of the Republic of Yemen, a country of 23 million people. Previous to this accident, they have never had a fatal hull loss incident. Now compare that to Delta.

Yes, please do compare that to Delta. What do you come up with?

[Evan]

Yes, please do compare that to Delta. What do you come up with?

A nice fleet of DC9-30's from 1967 inherited from NWA, hopefully to be retired at last. A collection of aging 767s with CRT entertainment. Nothing against Delta though, I fly with them all the time. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of calling Yemenia a niche airline with antiquated planes. I find that typical of the xenophobia on these forums.

[Spad13]

A nice fleet of DC9-30's from 1967 inherited from NWA, hopefully to be retired at last. A collection of aging 767s with CRT entertainment. Nothing against Delta though, I fly with them all the time. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of calling Yemenia a niche airline with antiquated planes. I find that typical of the xenophobia on these forums.

As you are not a hypocrite (unlike all the rest of us), I shall assume that it was only by mere accident that Delta's 777s as well as the world's largest fleet of A330s, not to mention all those 737-800s (which, according to you, make Yemenia a world player) that they have just slipped your mind.

[Spad13]

I have been following this interesting conversation.

Evan's original point has the force of common sense: shouldn't an airport situated on an island have as part of its response unit rescue boats in the event of an accident on the takeoff/landing phase over water?

However, the context of the situation leads me to agree with others that with a location so lacking in resources, funds need to be prioritized. It sounds like they're just happy to keep the goats off the runway. Step one it seems to me would be to make the airport safer (starting with improved guidance/radar capability). Another measure might be to improve existing infrastructure in the region to facilitate future rescue operations. Even in the Hudson, ferry boats arrived first. Fishing and merchant vessels might be better organized to help out quicker should there be a next time. Having rescue boats at the airport, however, with the technology and manpower they would require to be of use, would be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees, and paying a lot of money for one of the trees.

We are only looking at one situation here, a plane crashing in the ocean. What if an aircraft were burning on the runway with people trapped inside? Would this airport be well equipped to deal with that situation? I doubt it.

I am reminded of when airports started making everyone remove their shoes after the shoe-bomber incident. Forget the fact that the next terrorist attack or hijacking could take any form, we mitigated against one specific highly improbable circumstance. When we go about trying to improve safety, there needs to be a larger strategy that takes into account the big picture, not reactive tunnel-vision measures whose main impact is psychological.

You have to ask yourself, 'What is it about Comoros that makes it a place you might be reluctant to fly?' Is it really the fact that if the plane crashes in the ocean, it might take several hours for rescuers to reach you?

One distinction that seems to be muddled in this conversation is that this accident did not happen at the airport. It was at least a couple of miles away, and depending on the airport, that can make a world of difference both in terms of jurisdiction and the logistics of where the response must come from.

That's what I (and others) have been telling Evan for a couple of pages now.

[Evan]

Good idea. Why don't you contact the Boston Harbor Patrol and ask them if they're equipped to recover, say, 300 people from a rapidly sinking A330 should one ditch just short of 33L? Make my day, do it.

Then tell me how long they laugh at you for.

From POLICE magazine: Boston Police Harbor Patrol officers serve as first responders for immediate emergencies and patrol in and around the harbor, including waterways surrounding Boston Logan International Airport.

The department has provided the Harbor Patrol Unit with a variety of specialized vessels, including the 86-foot “St. Michael,” a retired Navy minesweeper; the 41-foot “Due Process,” a former Coast Guard utility boat; and two 27-foot, high-speed intercept boats named “Protector” and “Persuader.” The pride of the fleet is the “Guardian,” a 57-foot Sea Ark used for command-and-control rescue and recovery operations. It is also equipped with state-of-the art navigation, communications and video equipment, and a four-bed medical triage unit.

Rest assured Spad, if you ever survive a ditching at Logan, you will soon be rescued.

[Evan]

As you are not a hypocrite (unlike all the rest of us), I shall assume that it was only by mere accident that Delta's 777s as well as the world's largest fleet of A330s, not to mention all those 737-800s (which, according to you, make Yemenia a world player) that they have just slipped your mind.

30 destinations to major airports across Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East (and a mostly modern fleet) makes Yemenia a world player, and I don't think a world player, flagship airline should be conveying unwitting passengers in A310s to airstrips with no SAR capabilities. I can't state it any more simply than that. But go ahead Spad, distort that one for me as well.

[P3_Super_Bee]

30 destinations to major airports across Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East (and a mostly modern fleet) makes Yemenia a world player,.

Ahh they have a whole 8 aircraft, one of which is currently impersonating a submarine... Yeah that's a world player all right.