Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Yemeni Airliner Down in Comoros (Indian Ocean)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Evan View Post
    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 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.
    You're right, Evan. As long as a four-bed-equipped contraption is in the area, I'm safe.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Evan View Post
      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.
      30 destinations with 8 aircraft do not a world player make. I can't state it any more simply than that either.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying
        So if Yemenia Air is going to keep smashing airliners into the ocean performing potentially risky landings at an ill-equipped airport, they should at least have the ability to retrieve the miracle survivors from the water before they drown. Do I have this right now?
        That's what I'm getting out of all this.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Spad13 View Post
          That's what I'm getting out of all this.
          -Not an Airbus or Boeing guy here.
          -20 year veteran on the USN Lockheed P-3 Orion.

          Comment


          • Evan, would you consider Qantas to be a world class carrier? Would you think that Australia is a first world country with modern SAR facilities?

            Well mate, guess what is available to rescue pax from the scheduled 737 services to Broome that may take a dip? An 8 meter RIB crewed by volunteers. The airfield at Port Headland probably had less than that and it was used as the emergency divert location by that Qantas A330 that decided to do the big dipper. Plenty of pax on board that aircraft yet no-one to rescue them. And probably bugger all between Port Headland and Perth.

            There is a regular RPT service out to Christmas Island from one of these places too.

            If a first world country seems to deem this acceptable (I haven't seem riots in the streets here demanding these services be implemented) is there just a chance you are going waaayyy overboard on this?

            If you really want to save human lives get pure drinking water to the vast majority of the 3rd world countries - far better way to spend the dollars IMHO, rather than providing a service that in all likeihood will never be used in a comparitively quiet airport. And no, I do not buy that crap about scrapping airport firefighting services, there would be at least 10 times more use out of this rescue service.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying
              So if Yemenia Air is going to keep smashing airliners into the ocean performing potentially risky landings at an ill-equipped airport, they should at least have the ability to retrieve the miracle survivors from the water before they drown. Do I have this right now?
              No. Please read carefully this time. The lone survivor claimed that she heard voices around her in the water at first, then they grew quiet. She hung on for hours, slipping into hypothermia before she was rescued at first light. That compels me to believe that there were other survivors, as does logic. If there were, those other souls perished because there was no provision to rescue them.

              Both the airline and the airport authorities knew the danger of ditching existed, particularly on a circle-to-land visual approach noted for its turbulence potential, especially at night, yet no provisions were made for an organized rescue operation. None whatsoever.

              The aircraft was seen going down, the tower had a radar track on them and must have had them in visual range, so the crash location was not difficult to approximate. A fairly modern port serving commercial vessels was 11 miles to the south. No contingency plan was devised to mobilize them in an emergency. The waters around Grand Comoros are certainly warm. Survivors could potentially stay alive for the time it would take to reach them. But hours past (reports state over 6 hours), and perhaps there may have been more survivors if only there had been some SAR provision.

              There was none. Please explain to me how that is acceptable to you.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying
                As I said, if there is infrastructure in the region that could be used for search and rescue, that would be my first recourse. So yes, I agree that preparing commercial vessels to help out in an emergency is a prudent idea. I thought you were proposing that the airport be equipped with its own independent operations.
                I was until I realized that the port serving large vessels was so close by. But not million dollar upgrades, just a couple of surf-rescue boats with some lights and radios and first aid, like the powered lifeboats found on container ships. And rafts like the ones on the plane.

                And I think most of the victims on that flight were Comoros nationals.

                BTW, I hear you on the issue of resources, but resources aren't allocated that way. What I had originally proposed would come from fees and grants within the aviation industry for the purpose of aviation safety. Basic infrastructure, health and human services would never compete for those dollars, and that's a discussion for a different kind of forum.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying
                  The aviation industry needs to worry about making this airport safe, making sure the airplanes that fly there are safe, and making sure the airlines that operate there are accountable for safety. Those are the priorities. In aviation, safety is about preventing accidents. Fishing the bodies out of the water after a disaster is of far less importance, and you're not going to convince me that equipping this airport with lifeboats is going to do a single thing to address the significant safety issues that come out of this accident.
                  And once again, I'm advocating a plan to work with the boats they have. I have no idea what you mean when you say fishing people out of the water is of less importance. In the air or in the water, a life is a life.

                  Comment


                  • Somewhere earlier on this thread someone mentioned how their airline would visit an airport and inspect it for proper safety measures before they would begin serving it. This is exactly what passengers should expect from a trusted airline, and it should be a mandatory requirement when operating under the aegis of any aviation regulatory agency in the world. Why? When a passenger boards their aircraft, they take responsibility for that person's safety until they deliver that passenger to the destination airport. That is implied in the transaction. If you land three miles off the coastline, you are still responsible for those remaining three miles.

                    Comoros had the means to effect a quick rescue of any survivors of the Yemenia crash, but lacked the organization, initiative, or even intent. An airport inspection would have revealed that reality, and a plan could have been devised as a condition to receive flights from Yemenia. The airline, on behalf of its passengers, should have had that in place.

                    We all know the drill "in the unlikely event of a water landing". It's given to us at the beginning of every flight, even flights from Las Vegas to Denver where the possibility is, let's just say, very unlikely. Yemenia should have had a drill in place with Comoros called "in the unlikely event of a water landing" for the airport as well. Now the unlikeliest has happened, a plane has ditched and at least one person has survived, and evidence suggests more may have survived the initial crash. If so, the airline and the airport let them die out there for lack of proper foresight and planning. That should never happen. That is a violation of passenger trust and a big hole in the swiss cheese that needs to be closed wherever legitimate airlines operate, regardless of the economic conditions that exist outside the contract of carriage.

                    In this case it would have required only a basic measure of concern and foresight.

                    Comment


                    • A310-300

                      I looked at the seating plan of the A310-300 on the Airbus site. It appears to me like the plane wasn't more than half full. Apparently Yemenia is 50-50 owned by Yemen and Saudi Arabia. And that makes me wonder why a wide body jet would fly to a tiny island with passengers that could fit on a smaller, cheaper-to-run, and (possibly) easier-to-land plane. Frankly, I set out on this search wondering if Sana'a to Moroni could be easily served by a prop plane running several flights a day. Doesn't look on the map like a long journey. Maybe some of these smaller planes can actually ditch in extremis, but maybe they wouldn't even need to. I mean just the carbon footprint of a wide body jet without a full load kinda irks me, though I'm sure the owners can probably afford the fuel.

                      Comment


                      • It has been reported that the location of the aircraft's CVR and Flight Recorder has been pinpointed by a French Naval vessel. They lie in water too deep for divers and remotely-operated equipment is expected to attempt recovery in August.

                        A French navy vessel has detected the black boxes of a Yemenia Airways plane that crashed into the Indian Ocean near the Comoros Islands, the ship's captain said on Thursday.


                        Peter

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          Comoros had the means to effect a quick rescue of any survivors of the Yemenia crash, but lacked the organization, initiative, or even intent. An airport inspection would have revealed that reality, and a plan could have been devised as a condition to receive flights from Yemenia. The airline, on behalf of its passengers, should have had that in place.

                          We all know the drill "in the unlikely event of a water landing". It's given to us at the beginning of every flight, even flights from Las Vegas to Denver where the possibility is, let's just say, very unlikely. Yemenia should have had a drill in place with Comoros called "in the unlikely event of a water landing" for the airport as well. Now the unlikeliest has happened, a plane has ditched and at least one person has survived, and evidence suggests more may have survived the initial crash. If so, the airline and the airport let them die out there for lack of proper foresight and planning. That should never happen. That is a violation of passenger trust and a big hole in the swiss cheese that needs to be closed wherever legitimate airlines operate, regardless of the economic conditions that exist outside the contract of carriage.

                          In this case it would have required only a basic measure of concern and foresight.
                          Perhaps your missing the point. For a small 3rd world country to practice these drills and mobilize every resource they have costs money. Recurrency training every few months,fuel used and maintence required for aircraft,boats,and vehicles,etc. There is very little benefit for a small impoverished nation. Despite what many people who live in their own worlds believe,there is a price to human life. Do I think if they spent 10's of millions a year(low,low,low ball estimate) for the last 50 or 60 years planes have been flying there to save maybe a 3 or 4 other people if any is a good investment. ABSOLUTELY NOT! That comes out to several billion a person over the lifetime of airliners going there. This money could be used for far more beneficial purposes. People die, it's a fact of life. To spend insane amounts of money in a country that has none for a worst case scenario involving relatively few people is wrong and self-fish.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by bob12312357 View Post
                            Perhaps your missing the point. For a small 3rd world country to practice these drills and mobilize every resource they have costs money. Recurrency training every few months,fuel used and maintence required for aircraft,boats,and vehicles,etc. There is very little benefit for a small impoverished nation. Despite what many people who live in their own worlds believe,there is a price to human life. Do I think if they spent 10's of millions a year(low,low,low ball estimate) for the last 50 or 60 years planes have been flying there to save maybe a 3 or 4 other people if any is a good investment. ABSOLUTELY NOT! That comes out to several billion a person over the lifetime of airliners going there. This money could be used for far more beneficial purposes. People die, it's a fact of life. To spend insane amounts of money in a country that has none for a worst case scenario involving relatively few people is wrong and self-fish.
                            Well, actually, my point is being missed. The money involved would have NOTHING to do with the government or the people of Comoros. The money would be provided by and for and within a for-profit industry that has implicit obligations to its customers, you know, the people that support it, the ones they can't leave floating for five hours with no hope of rescue.

                            Or you must tell those passengers in very clear terms that, despite the modern appearance of the airplane, they are flying into a remote destination with no functional search and rescue capabilities should something untoward occur, and, by the way, you will be landing on a runway with no modern automated or visual guidance systems that involves a hairy 180° last minute turn over water into mountainous terrain known for its turbulence. In total darkness. And skip the entire lifejacket under your seat routine because it will only make death more drawn out and painful. In the event of a water landing, should you live, you will eventually die because we cant be bothered at that point. And welcome aboard.

                            And then continue to operate your airline as before, pocketing the profits without providing for the safety of your customers, but then who is being selfish...?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              And then continue to operate your airline as before, pocketing the profits without providing for the safety of your customers, but then who is being selfish...?
                              What profits? Despite what you might think, yes theres a dollar amount to human life.
                              Get breaking Business News and the latest corporate happenings from AOL. From analysts' forecasts to crude oil updates to everything impacting the stock market, it can all be found here.


                              The best one is probably south west. 176 million isn't much when you take into acount shareholders,future debt owed,bond holders,the cost of adding new planes or major retro fits,etc.


                              So taking that 176 million dollar profit southwest made in 08 you honestly expect them to provide SAR for up to 700 people at every airport they serve without modern and well trained SAR. The entire 176 million would be gone just setting up an adequate base in the comoros. You have to purchase equipment,boats and Heli's,initial training,recurrency training,they need to be based somewhere,etc. I mean why 700 people why not 300 or so. Well since they should have response to any and every emergency with their planes you need to take into acount mid-airs. Where does this stop? Setting up one SAR on an island in west bumble fuck,just east of south bumble fuck,and not far from north bumble fuck for the remote event of a crash is insane. Especially considering the volume of traffic probably going to the island. The route would probably just get cut. There are many routes to many rural airports that would face the axe,essentially alienating whole countries.
                              Why not take a far better and cheaper route. Pay pilots a bit better,and increase the hiring standards and recurency testing and training. I mean most crashes,and I believe this one are largely the result of human error. Better pilots on all routes the airline runs will decrease the chance of an accident not just in remote areas,but everywhere. Since its rare to survive an airliner crash,why not spend the money on prevention. Not saving 2 or 3 lives.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by bob12312357 View Post
                                What profits? Despite what you might think, yes theres a dollar amount to human life.
                                Get breaking Business News and the latest corporate happenings from AOL. From analysts' forecasts to crude oil updates to everything impacting the stock market, it can all be found here.


                                The best one is probably south west. 176 million isn't much when you take into acount shareholders,future debt owed,bond holders,the cost of adding new planes or major retro fits,etc.


                                So taking that 176 million dollar profit southwest made in 08 you honestly expect them to provide SAR for up to 700 people at every airport they serve without modern and well trained SAR. The entire 176 million would be gone just setting up an adequate base in the comoros. You have to purchase equipment,boats and Heli's,initial training,recurrency training,they need to be based somewhere,etc. I mean why 700 people why not 300 or so. Well since they should have response to any and every emergency with their planes you need to take into acount mid-airs. Where does this stop? Setting up one SAR on an island in west bumble fuck,just east of south bumble fuck,and not far from north bumble fuck for the remote event of a crash is insane. Especially considering the volume of traffic probably going to the island. The route would probably just get cut. There are many routes to many rural airports that would face the axe,essentially alienating whole countries.
                                Why not take a far better and cheaper route. Pay pilots a bit better,and increase the hiring standards and recurency testing and training. I mean most crashes,and I believe this one are largely the result of human error. Better pilots on all routes the airline runs will decrease the chance of an accident not just in remote areas,but everywhere. Since its rare to survive an airliner crash,why not spend the money on prevention. Not saving 2 or 3 lives.
                                Sorry bob, but you are totally misguided. Airline profits or losses is not the issue at all. and paying pilots better (no offense intended here) will not make them better. Training might but that's another story.

                                I'm kinda confused as to where you get your numbers from. You seem to believe that training SAR teams and keeping them current costs "10's of millions a year(low,low,low ball estimate)" but you provide no basis or source for that tidbit.

                                All that aside, what bothers me the most about your position is your apparent lack of respect for human life. Ah well, so a few hundred people die. So what? People die--it's what they do. Horse crap!

                                If you want airlines to run based on the cost human life, with the assumption that it is acceptable to lose a number of those lives, start with yours, your family's and your friends. How much are they worth? And would you sell some of them now?

                                Of course there is a risk in air travel, and people are going to die. But the point is, if there is a way to mitigate the loss of life after an incident you do it. Even if it means organizing a bunch of fishing pangas to run out and see if they can pick up some survivors. Did you see how many people were helped by civilian boats when the Airbus ditched in the Hudson?

                                Back in another lifetime, I was a paramedic in NYC. I was at the Avianca wreck in Long Island. We drilled for disasters large and small. They taught us over and over and over, the START system (see, http://www.citmt.org/start/flowchart.htm for an explanation). Essentially what the system does is let some people die on purpose. Why? because in the time it takes to treat and possibly save one person whose in perhaps only respiratory arrest, you can prevent multiple persons from becoming critical. Nothing more than playing the odds.

                                So yeah, I recognize the principle of allocating scarce resources.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X