| | |

Yemenia Spotless Record? Really?

I glance at a lot of news sites, mostly skimming just to make sure the facts are the same across the board, and I don’t usually stop and make comments about one particular site, or other. I’m usually focused on the message, not the messenger.

But once in a while, I come across erroneous content.

What should I do when I come across a site that posts an article that says up till the crash in the Comoros, Yemenia Airlines had an unblemished record?

What world is that staff reporter living in? Who gave them that information? Because it’s wrong.

Today’s Yemenia was formerly Yemen Airlines and Yemen Arab Airlines and Yemen Airways. (There may be more DBA names I’m leaving out.)

This airline, rebranded over and over, has had at least 11 crashes and a couple of hijackings thrown in (1973 and 1975.) Just take a look at the actual record.

And there were EU Safety sanctions in JUL 2008: EU safety action (Safety deficiencies noted by ramp inspections in several countries; Yemenia took corrective actions.); on JUL 2009: EU safety action (The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) suspended the maintenance organisation approval EASA.145.0177 issued to Yemenia Yemen Airways, due to unresolved safety deficiencies.) On JUL 2009: EU safety action (The authorities of France suspended the certificates of airworthiness of the aircraft of type Airbus A310 registered in France (F-OHPR and F-OHPS) and operated by the carrier.) On NOV 2009: EU safety action (Member States will verify systematically the effective compliance of Yemenia with the relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on aircraft of this carrier.)

The EU is right to be so demanding. Yemenia Airlines has a dangerous record, no matter what the airline is called. Lack of safety is the reason the airline has been on the EU blacklist. Don’t the people of Yemen deserve a safe carrier?

(See below)

Hijacks first:

  • 14-SEP-1994——Alyemda (Merged with Yemenia—— Boeing 737-2R4C Hijacker(s) demanded to be taken to Saudi Arabia. Duration of the hijacking: less than 1 day.

  • 25 August 1973——a Yemen Airlines Douglas DC-6 was hijacked during a passenger flight from Ta’izz to Asmara. The perpetrator forced the pilots to divert the aircraft with fifteen other passenger and six crew members on board to Kuwait Airport, for which a refueling stop at Djibouti Airport turned out to be necessary. In Kuwait, the hijacker surrendered to local police forces.

  • 23 February 1975——a Yemen Airlines DC-3 was hijacked during a flight from Al Hudaydah to Sana’a and forced to land at an airport in Saudi Arabia. There, the aircraft was stormed and the perpetrator overpowered.

  • 27-AUG-1993——Alyemda (Merged with Yemenia)—— Boeing 737-2R4C An Alyemda Boeing 737 aircraft was hijacked during a domestic flight from Riyan Airport (RIY) to Al Ghaydah Airport The hijacker, a Yemeni soldier who reportedly was armed with a handgun and a hand grenade, demanded to be taken to either Kuwait or Oman. The pilot convinced the hijacker that a refueling stop was necessary.

  • 20-JAN-1983——Alyemda (Merged with Yemenia)—— Boeing 707-300 Three hijackers forced the aircraft to land at Djibouti. After the aircraft landed a gun battle erupted inside the aircraft and two passengers were reportedly wounded. The hijackers subsequently surrendered and were taken Into custody by Djibouti authorities. The hijackers were convicted of air piracy in Djibouti and reportedly sentenced to six months In prison. This was suspended.

  • 22-AUG-1972——Alyemda (Merged with Yemenia)—— Douglas DC-6 Three passengers hijacked the Alyemda plane en route between Beirut (BEY) and Cairo. The flight diverted to Nicosia (NIC), Cyprus. The hijackers said that they belonged to a group named the Eagles of National Unity in South Yemen. After a three hour refueling stop the airplane continued to Benghazi (BEN), Libya. The hijackers surrendered to Libyan authorities.

  • 15-AUG-1985——Alyemda (Merged with Yemenia)—— Boeing 707-336C Climbing through FL230, water inadvertently spilled on the autopilot panel and the crew had to disengage the autopilot because the stabilizer trim wheel started to rotate. Control was lost as the plane pitched up and down. Control was regained at 1000 feet and an emergency landing was carried out at Aden.

  • 09-MAY-1982——Alyemda (Merged with Yemenia)—— DHC-7-103 A Dash 7 passenger plane, operated by Alyemda, crashed into the sea some 2 km from the Aden International Airport (ADE), Yemen. Of the 49 occupants, 23 were killed. The pilot had reported the runway in sight at a distance of 9 nautical miles (17 km) and was cleared to report on final for runway 26. The wind was reported 240 degrees at 5 knots. The aircraft reported short final, was sighted by the tower and cleared to land, then lost altitude andcrashed in the sea.

  • 26-JAN-1982——Alyemda (Merged with Yemenia)——The Boeing 707 was flying a cargo of military supplies from Libya to Damascus when it was attacked by an Iraqi or Israeli fighter plane. The crippled freighter managed to land at Damascus, but was considered damaged beyond repair.

  • 01-MAR-1977——Alyemda (Merged with Yemenia)—— Douglas C-47A-25-DK 7O-ABF Crashed into the sea off Aden. 19 fatalities, 19 aboard

  • 17-SEP-1975——Alyemda (Merged with Yemenia)—— Douglas DC-3 Nose, front fuselage and propellers where damaged following a heavy landing. Aviation News reported the accident happened on Sept. 16

  • 3 November 1958——a Yemen Airlines Douglas C-47 Skytrain #YE-AAB crashed near in Italy, killing eight people on board. The aircraft had been on a flight from Rome Ciampino Airport to Yemen with a planned stopover at Belgrade, carrying the Yemenite Under Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

  • 19 March 1969——a Yemen Airlines C-47 (registered 4W-AAS) crashed near Ta’izz during a post-maintenance test flight, killing the four occupants. It turned out that the elevator of the aircraft did work properly. Repair work had been done on that part, because it had been damaged some days earlier in a ground collision.

  • 16 September 1971——a Yemen Airlines C-47 (registered 4W-ABI) crashed near Rajince, Serbia when it encountered severe icing conditions, killing the five people on board. The aircraft had been on a multi-stopover flight from Yemen to Europe and had just departed Belgrade Airport.

  • 1 November 1972——a Yemen Airlines Douglas DC-3 (registered 4W-ABJ) was destroyed in a crash-landing at an airfield near Beihan.

  • 13 December 1973——a Yemen Airlines DC-3 (registered 4W-ABR) crashed near Ta’izz.

  • 14 November 1978——a Yemen Airlines C-47 (registered 4W-ABY) was damaged beyond repair in a heavy landing at an airfield near Ma’rib.

  • 26 June 2000——a Yemenia Boeing 737-200C, registered 7O-ACQ, was damaged beyond repair when it veered off the runway upon landing at Khartoum International Airport following a cargo flight from Yemen. Despite their plans to carry out a runway 36 approach, the crew landed straight-in on runway 18. The aircraft departed the side of the runway. The nose gear collapsed as it contacted obstructions.

  • 21 January 2001——a Yemenia Flight 448, a Boeing 727-200 with 91 passengers and 10 crew on board, was hijacked 15 minutes into a flight from Sana’a to Ta’izz by an Iraqi man. The plane was forced to land at Djibouti-Ambouli International Airport, where the perpetrator was overpowered by the crew.

  • 1 August 2001——a Yemenia Boeing 727-200 (registered 7O-ACW) was damaged beyond economic repair when it overran the runway upon landing at Asmara International Airport following a flight from Sana’a with 107 passengers and four crew on board, none of whom were significantly injured.

  • 30 June 2009——a Yemenia Flight 626 from Sana’a to Moroni, Comoros crashed into the sea shortly before landing. Of the 142 passengers and eleven crew that had been on the Airbus A310-300 with the registration 7O-ADJ,[23] only a 12-year-old girl, Bahia Bakari, was recovered, alive and conscious, although suffering from extreme tiredness and hypothermia, cuts to her face and a fractured collar-bone.

To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.

Similar Posts

  • | | |

    Co-Pilots to the Rescue

    Capt. Lee Collins of the Coalition of Airline Pilots Association said pilots are prepared for emergencies in the air. The pilot of a transatlantic flight died over the Atlantic Ocean, but the jet landed safely.

    What: Continental Airlines Boeing 777-200 en route from Brussels Belgium to Newark, NJ
    Where: en route
    When: June 18th 2009
    Who: 247 passengers and 3 flight crew
    Why: Four hours into the flight, while over the Atlantic, the captain died. The two first officers took over and landed the plane safely in Newark.

    A doctor on board was called to the cockpit, and the on board defibrillator failed to revive the captain who apparently had died of a heart attack.

    George’s Point of View

    It’s a small world.

    Recently I’d been in a conversation with someone about the Colgan flight.

    Remember the Colgan flight? The one that crashed in Buffalo? The wings iced over, the captain was ill-trained, and the co-pilot was too inexperienced and too exhausted to know how to respond to the particular emergency. The combination resulted in disaster for everyone on board.

    So, I was in this conversation with someone about the Colgan flight, and the question came up about the value of the co-pilot’s experience. The rate of the co-pilot’s pay was released, ($11.00/hr) and that provoked me to write about co-pilots needing “professional” pay. What would happen, we speculated (in this conversation) if the pilot died? The copilot becomes the de facto pilot.

    Then, lo and behold, today a pilot dies of a heart attack. Luckily for Continental and everyone on board, there were two co-pilots on hand, and both of them apparently qualified enough to handle the flight. (Apparently so, since they did manage to finish the flight.)

    I just wasn’t expecting that speculative question to manifest itself in a headline today.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | |

    Knives to Fly Planes On April 25


    Knives are back and flight attendants aren’t happy.

    The TSA ban on knives is due to be lifted on April 25. The blade can be no longer than 2.36 inches. The coalition of Flight Attendant Unions lobbied in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and Norfolk, Va, Chicago, Denver, Miami, New York LaGuardia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Boston against the ban. The arguments are the same as those for and against guns. (If no one carries them, we’re safe.
    If everyone could carry them, we’d be armed against terrorists    .) They are handing out leaflets urging fliers to contact Congress and to sign a petition to White House.

    You can sign the online petition here:
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/keep-knives-plane-block-transportation-security-administration-policy-decision-accept-pre-911/SSzf8wmd

    The family of flight attendant Sara Low, who died on Sept 11, has written an open letter protesting the decision to allow knives back on commercial aircraft, and urging concern for safety and “doing no harm.”

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.

  • Air France 447 DNA I.D. Good-Now Sophie’s Choice Awaits

    Read in Portuguese
    For those who may be reading this in another language, I must explain the phrase Sophie’s choice. The term originates from a William Styron novel of the same name, in which its protagonist, Sophie, is a mother who is forced to make an impossible choice: whether her son or daughter will be allowed to live. She is not allowed to choose both of them to live and sacrifice her own life (which is what most mothers would choose to do.) If she abstains from choosing, both her children will die. So the phrase Sophie’s choice has been accepted in American culture to mean any impossible choice.

    It is completely apropos in our current situation.

    According to police reports, completed laboratory tests extracted viable DNA from tissue samples of two of about 50 Air Flight 447 victim remains. The extraction proves that the DNA can be used to provide identification.

    However, earlier in the week, two Parisian judges in charge of the recovery, Sylvie Zimmerman and Yann Danielle, decided of the remains, “to preserve their dignity and out of respect for the families who mourn them, the remains of those too badly altered should not be recovered. While tests are carried out on those two bodies already recovered to see if they can be identified, no others will be raised.”

    Though judges have ruled the bodies must not be recovered from the sea bed because it is too traumatic for their families, there are families who want their loved ones recovered. So we will not be surprised if any judgment is challenged by family members who find it more traumatic to leave their loved ones at sea, especially while they are now so close at hand. It may be that the stated judgment was not hard and fast, however; it may have been meant only that recovery may be suspended as tests are carried out.

    Although the Brazilian victims’ families association president Nelson Marinho said that “This operation is very encouraging for those families who now have some hope of finding their loved ones’ bodies and being able to bury them,” it appears that some families do not want to be faced with the condition of the remains.

    The families or the judges will soon be facing a Sophie’s choice.

    It would be a non-issue if …

    -if the bodies were located in an easily found, easily retrievable location
    -if all the families agreed
    -if the testing were possible to do on the fly, under water, and immediately
    -if the remains were in an appealing condition

    But none of this is true. The bodies are in an obscure location, and will probably be transient unless actions are performed to secure them. If they are not recovered now, they will likely be lost forever.

    The families have different opinions and needs. Some are shaken by the trauma of recovery because it freshens the grief which is only of two years duration; some hope that a normal burial will provide closure; no doubt there are some who have deep feelings but cannot elect to disturb the remains or abandon them at sea.

    The testing of DNA must be done in a lab, and it is time consuming, and means that for the most accurate assessment, the remains must be recovered in order to be identified. And after two years in cold salt water under the same pressure the black boxes underwent, the condition of the remains either is not that nice, and will be less so upon recovery.

    Whatever is decided, let us remember the law is not cast in stone, but a living thing. Let us hope for the families’ sakes that those who feel qualified to sit in judgement over others choose, in this case, to facilitate individual family wishes, rather than presenting an obstacle.

    The families have been through enough already.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.

  • Air France: Frozen Air Speed Indicator?

    George’s Point of View

    Yet another theory:

    Problems with airspeed indicators led to excessive speed for the Air France A330, triggering the sequence of events leading to the crash. Blame it on pitot tubes. If the pitot tubes froze up during the storm, pilots would get mis-readings on their speed, accelerate, and subject the plane to stresses the structure was unable to withstand.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • |

    CASA Media Releases Direction for new A380 inspections

    Wednesday 2 December 2010

    The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has issued a direction to Qantas to conduct a further inspection of the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines on its A380 aircraft.

    This direction requires Qantas to inspect an oil filler tube that feeds oil to the engine’s high pressure/intermediate pressure bearing structure.

    The oil filler tube inspection must be carried out within two flight cycles.

    Under the direction, Qantas is required to conduct the inspections in accordance with detailed technical information contained in a service bulletin issued by the manufacturer Rolls-Royce this week.

    Inspections will be undertaken using specialist equipment known as a borescope, which is inserted into the oil tube and provides a view of the condition of the wall of the tube.

    Qantas engineers will be looking for any sign of the wall of the tube being out of tolerance and reduced in thickness, which could cause the tube to crack and leak oil.

    Evidence of a problem with the oil tube has been found during the investigation into the Qantas A380 engine failure near Singapore on 4 November 2010.

    The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has identified the condition of the tube as a safety issue and issued a safety recommendation to Rolls-Royce.

    CASA continues to liaise closely with Qantas, the European Aviation Safety Agency, Rolls-Royce, Airbus and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. In monitoring developments CASA will take any further action that may be necessary in the interests of safety.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | |

    Pilots Notorious from GOL Case Find Four Year Sentence Commuted

    Joseph Lepore and Jan Paul Paladino were sentenced to four years and four days in prison in the Amazon plane collision case when the Legacy 600 jet they were piloting made physical contact with a Gol Airlines Boeing 737. All 154 passengers and crew of the Boeing 737 were killed.

    Their sentence was commuted to being banned from flying for four years, and also community service to be carried out in the US. The sentence accuses the pilots of being imprudent and inexperienced, and contends that they turned off the transponder, which the pilots deny.

    The Gol jet collided over the Amazon rain forest with an Embraer Legacy 600 executive jet owned by ExcelAire Service Inc. of New York. The GOL InvestigatIon alleges that the pilots of the New York-based executive jet had placed the transponder and collision avoidance system on standby before colliding with the Boeing 737 operated by GOL Linhaus Aereas Inteligentes SA on Sept. 29, 2006.

    The Legacy landed safely but everyone on the GOL jet died.

    Flight controllers failed to alert pilots that they were on a collision course and also did not notice the transponder was off; in fact they deny turning it off.

    On September 29, 2006, at approximately 4:57 pm, Brasilia standard time, a midair collision occurred over the Brazilian Amazon jungle, between a Boeing 737-800 (PR-GTD) operated by Gol Airlines of Brazil, and an Embraer Legacy 600 business jet (N600XL) owned and operated by Excelaire of Long Island, New York.

    The accident investigation is being conducted under the authority of the Brazilian Aeronautical Accident Prevention and Investigation Center (DIPAA). Under the provisions of ICAO Annex 13, the United States, as state of registry and operator of the Excelaire Legacy, and state of manufacture of the Boeing 737 and Honeywell avionics equipment in both airplanes, has provided an accredited representative and technical advisors for the investigation. The U.S. team included the accredited representative from the major aviation accident investigations division of the NTSB, as well as technical advisors in operations, systems, air traffic control, flight recorders, and aircraft performance. Additional technical advisors from Boeing, Excelaire, Honeywell, and FAA have also been included.

    If the transponder is off in either one of two approaching each other aircraft, the T Cast anti collision avoidance system will not work for either. We know there was no aural
    warning in either plane to “pull up. Pull up.” Or vice versa.

    So for sure the transponder was off in at least one of the planes, and that was probably the Legacy. However, in this Honeywell transponder, it is relatively easy for the
    transponder to go off without the crew knowing that (due to design flaws.)

    ATC put both aircraft coming at each other from oppostive directions at the same altitude, FL 370, and failed to track and warn, even though they had to know that for some reason the transponder in the exec jet was not working properly.

    And who should we look for accountability to if the pilots are being held responsible for a Honeywell issue?

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.