Posted on 06/29/2009 5:58:54 PM PDT by Steelfish
Yemeni airliner crashes in Indian Ocean 150 people reportedly on board; fate unknown
BREAKING NEWS o MORONI, Comoros - An airliner belonging to Yemeni state carrier Yemenia Air crashed in the Comoros archipelago in the Indian Ocean with 150 people on board, a senior government official said Tuesday.
"We don't know if there are any survivors among the 150 people on the plane," a senior government official told Reuters.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I heard a report on ABC that a toddler had been rescued!
Airbus 310.
You could not get me on a 330 on a bet.
I think I read somewhere a small boy was saved???
“There are several nation’s names that should not be combined with “Airline.” Yemen is one of them.”
+++++++++++++
True dat. Not to mention the other issues they have with their ‘religion.’
“The crash comes two years after aviation officials reported faults with the aircraft, an Airbus 310 flying the last leg of a journey from Paris and Marseille to Comoros, with a stop in Yemen to change planes. Most of the passengers were from Comoros, a former French colony. Sixty-six on board were French nationals.”
++++++++++
From your link. It looks like we’re getting more at the root of things...this and the strong winds...crashed on landing...most crashes are takeoff and landing crashes - correct?
I agree. I’ve never been afraid to fly, but I’m making another hop across the pond in a couple of weeks. In light of recent events, I’m beginning to be a little nervous...
Thanks for the fair warning.
I usually stick to the Turnpike (64), which is an awful drive at night, and usually just drop down to the speed limit on cruise control (in most states, actually).
Now, if I was ever accused of speeding in another state while not actually speeding, I would fight it...even if I had to return. AND, you have my word on this: that would probably be the last time I ever set foot in that state, even if I had to drive hundreds of miles around it in the future.
Yes. Takeoff and landing are by far the most dangerous phases of flight, and most crashes occur on landing.
}:-)4
Y’all oughta look at the stats before jumping around like you do.
According to airdisaster.com, Airbus incidents breakdown like this:
A300 11 since 1983 rollout
A310 7 since 1992 rollout
A320 10 since 1988 rollout
A330 3 since 1994 rollout
A340 2 since 1972 rollout
This is a total of 33 incidents in 26 years of operation - approximately 1.27 per year.
If you look at just the Boeing 737 by itself, there have been 84 incidents since it’s rollout in 1972, for an average of 2.27 per year.
If you add all of the modern Boeing fleet up, it looks like this:
737 84 since 1972 rollout
747 35 since 1974 rollout
757 9 since 1990 rollout
767 9 since 1983 rollout
This is a total of 137 incidents in 37 years of operation - approximately 3.7 per year. (Two should actually be removed from the 757 as those represent the 9-11 hijackings - and to be fair, there are a couple of other incidents on both sides that were related to hijacking, though the averages would still be about the same).
So, how does that slogan go again?
If it’s Boeing, I ain’t going?
I doesn’t matter one way or the other. I take a much bigger risk in the long-haul riding my bike during my workouts - or even simply driving my car to the supermarket.
Correct.
LoL. I didn't coin the phrase. I don't think incidents that occurred decades ago are as relevant as trends in recent years. Not too long ago Japanese was considered junk, and more recently Kia and Hyundai were the butt of jokes. Today, Hyundais are among the most popular cars out there.
I tell you what the E-190 is one sweet-riding aircraft. I spend quite a bit of time on them shuttling on a connector from Montreal to Halifax. New planes, comfortable, and nice handling from what I’ve heard from the pilots.
“I don’t think incidents that occurred decades ago are as relevant as trends in recent years.”
Well, how far back do you want to go? I think you’ll find the average statistics run the same if you look back one, two, or three decades.
It’s good to put the number of failures in perspective as you have done, but it would be a lot more meaningful if there were information on the total number of planes that were produced and put into service. For example, 1,050 Boeing 757s have been built, whereas only 255 Airbus A310s have been built, so if you compare the safety record of just these two planes (using the numbers you provided), the Airbus has a much higher per capita rate of failure. But before everyone condemns Airbus completely, there have been 3,893 Airbus A320’s built, so it’s per capita failure rate is actually better than that of the Boeing 757. Sorry, I don’t have the time right now to run through the numbers on all the planes, maybe someone else can do this.
“I understand the Pro-Boeing stance on this forum due to being an American company. But to automatically assume a crash story involves Airbus because it might be of a poorer quality than Boeing, is just foolish.”
The Boeing cheerleaders don’t give a rats a$$ if they come off as being foolish. They live in a constant la la land state of denial in their thinking that Boeings NEVER EVER crash.
I have pointed out in numerous threads that Boeings are subject to ADIRU failures, structural failures (to include in flight break ups), and other mishaps. All the Boeing cheerleaders do is stick their fingers in their ears, stomp their feet on the ground, and screech LA LA LA LA because the truth so upsets their narrow views. Some have even gone as far as launching personal attacks against me and disparaged my military service because they couldn’t handle the truth.
“Airbus produces some fine aircraft, despite being subsidized.”
Boeing is also subsidized through massive state and federal tax breaks, as well as other incentives. For instance Boeing gets a tax break for every airliner that they assemble in Washington state. Japan heavily subsidized the 767, 777, and 787 production through their airlines and heavy industry base such as Kawasaki Heavy Industries and All Nippon Airways. Italy, Russia, and China also gives incentives to Boeing and their partners for the manufacturing of components used in Boeing jets.
“I wonder what kind of physical security is in place for the computer code that runs airplanes. Maybe some smart 15 year old al Queda c++ wiz is bringing these planes down.”
The actual code would be under tighter safeguards than what Microsoft has for Windows, and has much more stringent testing on multiple levels ensuring that faults can’t be “hidden” by a rouge employee or two.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.