A Yemenia airlines Airbus A310, similar to this plane, crashed
Tuesday morning with 153 people aboard. Speculation is rising
that weather may have contributed to the second Airbus crash in
a month. (Image: Chris Sharps)
News reports this morning of the second Airbus manufactured jet in possible severe weather conditions have raised the specter that the planes many not be air worthy under certain conditions. Early Tuesday morning an Airbus A310 with 153 people aboard crashed into the Indian Ocean with reports of strong winds being recorded at the time of the crash. The crash follows on the loss of an Air France Airbus A330 with 228 people on board earlier this month in the Atlantic when severe thunderstorms were reported.
- Video: Yemeni Airline Crashes With 153 on Board
- Slideshow: Reactions to Yemeni airline crash
- Previous story: As Air France wreckage is found, weather remains the focus of investigation
- Related: Another Airbus plane crash in bad weather with a connection to Paris
The crash today of the Yemenia airlines flight IY 626 enroute from Yemen to Comoros occurred during what is being described by Yemeni news as “tough weather.” The plane was 11 miles from its destination and preparing to land in what senior Yemeni aviation official Mohammad Abdel Kader said was 71 mile-per-hour winds.
IHS Jane’s expert Chris Yates said in a statement on the organizations website that, “Weather may indeed have been the primary cause of the crash of this Yemeni Air A310-300. The French Minister for Transport has just confirmed that the aircraft aborted an initial landing and was making a second approach to the Moroni airport.”
Four weeks ago, Air France Flight 447 crashed into the Atlantic after crossing the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) through which the flight was going and thunderstorms were occurring. The ITCZ is an area of low pressure near the equator associated with severe thunderstorms caused by tropical heat. Airbus, manufacturer of the jets involved in the recent crashes, sent a reminder to all pilots after the Air France crash reminding them of proper procedures when encountering severe weather .
Last week, the National Transportation Safety Board announced that it was investigating two recent incidents involving Airbus A330 planes where airspeed and altitude cockpit indicators failed. In one incident aboard a TAM Airlines Flight from Miami to San Paulo, Brazil, the flight crew noted a quick drop in outside air temperature followed by the loss of computers that supply airspeed and altitude information. The second incident was similar but investigators are still gathering data.
Questions about the composite materials used in the construction of Airbus jets have been raised in the past. The two recent crashes are once again putting scrutiny in the material’s strength and its ability to withstand stress.
The vertical stabilizer and rudder on the A310, the type of plane lost in today’s crash has a history of failures and other Airbus manufactured jets have had failures with catastrophic results. Most notably, American Airlines Flight 587 in November 2001 crashed into a Queens, New York neighborhood. Eyewitnesses described seeing the plane, an Airbus A300, lose its vertical stabilizer after encountering wake turbulence from a flight ahead of it. This was one of three similar incidents involving Airbus manufactured jets’ vertical stabilizers.
Some aviation experts have noted that Air France Flight 447’s A330 plane’s vertical stabilizer was found intact leading to theories that it may have separated entirely from the plane in mid-air.
George Larson, editor emeritus of Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine, recently relayed an email conversation he had with a certified aircraft maintenance professional in Opa Locka, Florida. Larson said, “His observations confirm prior assessments of Airbus structural deficiencies within our flight test and aero-structures communities by those who have seen the closely held reports of A3XX-series vertical fin failures.”
The certified mechanic relayed his experience with Airbus airframes saying, “Airbus products are the flimsiest and most poorly designed as far as airframe structure is concerned by an almost obsession to utilize composite materials.” In regards to the vertical stabilizer he said, “The vertical fin along with the composite hinges on rudder and elevators is the worst example of structural use of composites I have ever seen and I am not surprised by the current pictures of rescue crews recovering the complete vertical fin and rudder assembly at some distance from the crash site.”
Much more will be learned in the coming days and weeks about the weather conditions at the time of these two most recent crashes – a preliminary report on the Air France flight is due Thursday. However, if there are questions about these planes’ ability to withstand turbulence or high wind shears, further investigation and corrective action may be required.
Comments
Its so sad that yet another plane crash (involving an airbus)has occurred when we have hardly recovered from the other disaster. But my question is: why not have a system where all the data from the cockpit gets recorded into a computerised system on the ground instead of the data being recorded into a 'black box' located in the plane? If the data is recorded into the computer susytem on the ground, this would make data retrieval much faster and more feasible and totally do away with having to search for a 'black box' in seemingly difficult conditions such as under the ocean bed, as was the case in the crash involving the French A330 Airbus from Brazil.
Nyasha, that seems like a great idea! Howwever, in the event of computer failure the information would still be lost. Still, it couldn't hurt to have both systems set in place.
data recording? great idea, definitely possible..but costs a lot of money, so the airlines don't want it and they lobby hard to avoid lawmakers to make such things mandatory..but what I really wanted to say: Tony Hake, this is an exceptionally bad piece of worthless journalism here, mixing half-truths and apples, oranges and grapes. aren't you concerned about presenting so much incorrect info and amateurish conclusions to the trusting public? the subject here happens to be my field of expertise, but it scares me when I think of all the other subjects I read about, be it medical or law or economy etc. and maybe believing way more than I should!!
Ted,
I appreciate you taking the time to comment however, while accusing me of ‘worthless journalism’ and misleading the public, you make absolutely no coherent rebuttal to the information presented in the article. If anything, your commentary serves to divert attention from a potential issue with the Airbus airframe thus endangering the flying public. Seeing as this is your ‘field of expertise’ I would have expected a much more worthy response offering an actual counterpoint to the facts in the article rather than insulting commentary that lends nothing. Should you have something that actually lends to the discussion, I wholeheartedly ask you to please post it.
Airbus: behold the power of the "public/private" partnership.
I have a suspicion you are onto something here. However I would be reluctant to take the word of a mechanic as authoritative on this topic. A mechanical is not usually quaified to comment the structural design of this equipment. I am more interested to hear what is said by the engineer who have been involved with the stress analysis and testing.
Good article Tony. I also immediately thought of the AAL Airbus that had it's tail ripped off over NY. But this (possible) blatant flying into thunderstorms (again) by an Airbus, or any airplane, is just nuts and suicidal. And those that comment anonymously saying they're experts in anything are usually just experts in BS, but that's just my expert opinion...on BS.
Airbus is the only airplane manufacturer that went with lead free solder connections starting in 2004(under the EU RoHS directive) despite being outside the scope of the directive.
Lead free solder connections are prone for whisker growth, voiding and less reliable brittle solder connections.
Unfortunatly the general public is not aware of this!!
Can any Aviation Expert explain the Survival of Girl? I think she survive only because of not fastening the seat belt.
It's hard to say that these crashes are not by construction. After so much evidence that leads to the vertical fin tearing off. Also, whisker grown in solders is very unlikely due to the connection types installed in most aircrafts. We got to remember that they are certified for use in many different environments. It is still possible for some control to lock up. If referring to, soldering the wing on, well that is just silly. It may seem that the action of the pilot to gain control may cause opposite forces strong enough to tear off the wing. Possible clues would in the control rods and bearings where abnormal wear will give clues to this type of failure. Another clue would be fractures, stress lines, rust formation in these rods. So far, after the New York incident, I don't know of this type of failure was the cause. Most likely if the computers locked up the might have gone into a spin and the vertical fins torn off. A lot can happen and need more check on over sea flights.
Tony, Where did you get these comments attributed to George Larson and the Opi Laka Scrapyard "Certified Mechanic"? Thus far, I have only found it in sent around in e-mails but have never found these comments in any news article.
I recommend that everyone read the preliminary report from the BEA. (F-cp090601). It is available on the Aviation & Aerospace Networking Group. Speculation does not help those who lost people on this flight or the industry as a whole.
Regarding the quote “Airbus products are the flimsiest and most poorly designed as far as airframe structure is concerned by an almost obsession to utilize composite materials.”
I find that comment very hard to understand. When Airbus Industrie started designing aircraft they improved on many design flaws inherent in many other manufactures' designs.
As an engineer overseeing heavy base maintenance on Boeing, MD and Airbus aircraft I must say that I feel safer aboard an Airbus aircraft than any other. Has the above mechanic compared like with like? I see an appalling amount of cracks and corrosion on Boeing aircraft with average flight hours and cycles compared to the equivalent Airbus with a similar history..eg B737 and A320. Boeing are working with a near 50 year old design and there is just service bulletin after service bulletin in an effort to maintain structural integrity. Airbus may have some problems to work out but to say that they are poorly designed and flimsy is just wron
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!