RSS
Home
Are Airbus aircraft unsafe? Comparing the IY626 and AF447 incidents
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
F-GZCP, the Airbus A330-200 that perished as AF447,
pictured before the incident. (Photo: Kevin Boydston)
To start with, the incidents involved two completely different aircraft types.
F-GZCP, the Airbus A330-203 that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean in the most Eastern reaches of Brazilian waters, was delivered on February 25, 2005 and had flown 18,870 flight hours when it broke apart in mid-air. Having collided with an Airbus A321 at Paris' Charles de Gaulle Airport on August 17, 2006, the doomed plane was completely overhauled on April 16, 2009, after which it completed 24 international flights prior to its destruction. The A330 aircraft family is among the safest in the world, having suffered only two hull losses since 1994, killing no passengers.
The Airbus A310-324 which flew as Yemenia IY626, 7O-ADJ, was manufactured in 1990 and had completed 51,900 flight hours during its life. Originally lease to Air Liberté, Yemenia took possession of the aircraft in September 1999, which has not had any documented incidents during its time in service. As we reported earlier, however, the airliner was determined to be faulty during a 2007 inspection in France and had not been inspected by the same authority since then. It is not known to what extent the plane was below its customary standards for safe operation.
Though the Yemenia aircraft was older and had accumulated more flight hours, the Air France plane had been involved in a direct collision with another aircraft. The resulting damage was reported as having been minimal and a complete overhaul of the aircraft was performed, whereas the unspecified flaws on the Yemeni airliner were ignored, knowingly (and, perhaps, purposefully) for two years. The Airbus A310-300 belongs to an older generation of aircraft which is regarded to be less sophisticated, having suffered nine hull losses and nearly 700 fatalities since entering service.
Using hard facts such as these, it is difficult to make a judgment as to the safety of Airbus aircraft, as a whole, which exemplifies the logical discord many see in comparing the two incidents. While Yemenia was at a disadvantage flying an older, more heavily weathered airliner, its willful negligence of serious maintenance issues speaks less to issues surrounding the quality of the plane and more to the overall safety of the airline, which was also called into question by the European Commission.
Circumstance throws a whole 'nother wrench into it, since we don't know the specific chain of events for either aircraft, neither of which had surviving crew members. It has been assumed that the Air France jet , which was traveling at around 39,000 feet, suffered an explosive decompression mid-air as the result of a complete systems failure, which misgauged the severity of the weather battering the plane and rendered it incapable of navigating out of the storms in time to save it. It is unknown whether systems failed as a result of the 2006 collision or what problems existed with the aircraft that could be connected to its fatal malfunction. A similar weather scenario likely plagued the Yemenia plane, though official sources are in disagreement as to whether or not the plane crashed during its landing approach or, rather, disappeared while flying over the Indian Ocean en-route to Comoros. It is also believed that a systems failure of some kind prevented the flight crew from exiting the weather. The unmade repairs cited by the EU as being ignored since 2007 are not confirmed to be connected to the crash in any way. The condition of the Yemenia plane and the existence of a survivor, however, seem to negate the possibility of a mid-air decompression. Still, it is possible that similar failures delivered each plane to its respectively morbid fate, the A310 breaking apart upon impact with the ocean due to the crash allegedly occurring as the plane completed its final descent. The more than seven miles of sky that separated the Air France plane from the surface of the ocean when it first encountered problems, however, would have offered ample time for an explosive breakup of the aircraft prior to collision with the sea.
At this time, the existence of a common aircraft flaw that could down two planes, 15 years apart in age, one much more heavily used than the other, maintained and flown in different parts of the world--albeit under similar final circumstances--seems only tangentially possible. Airbus currently operates nearly half of all aircraft completing international service today and the vast, vast majority of its aircraft perform perfectly for their decades-long lifespans. Though further commonalities between the two incidents may reveal themselves as each becomes further understood, it is most likely that the manufactuerer of both aircraft will remain the only tangible thread tying the two incidents together. For breaking news on developments with both IY626 and AF447, as well as destination guides, time-saving tips and more, stay tuned to the Austin International Travel Examiner.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
