Algerian airliner goes missing...

Status
Not open for further replies.
The linked article has a photo of an A340 captioned with:
Air Algerie flight crashes in Africa
Air Algerie flight AH 5017 crashes en route to Algiers with 116 aboard, losing contact with officials shortly after departing Burkina Faso.

There is a photo down the page a bit of a Swiftair MD-83, the aircraft that actually operated the flight.
Some of the later verbiage is nonsense.
For example, sandstorms don't reach to the cruising altitude of even a DC-9 derivative, and the aircraft didn't crash shortly after takeoff. It had been aloft for fifty minutes. Covective thunderstorms can reach beyond the altitude limits of any aircraft in commercial serivce, though, and there were apparently severe thunderstorms in the area of the flight.
This aircraft had undergone an inspection in France just days before, so it was probably in good mechanical shape.
If you've flown either American or Delta much, you've flown on an MD-80.
These are aircraft of great structural strength that have cycle and hour service limits well beyond those of any Boeing or Airbus design. The engines are old-school low-bypass Pratts that are also quite durable and reliable.
This family of aircraft, from the first DC-9-10 through the last 717 (really an MD-95) were designed to have simple and robust systems that would offer durability and reliability in service, and these have proven to be durable and reliable transporst in use all over the world.
There were no anti-aircraft weapons in the region capable of hitting this aircraft at altitude.
The aircraft probably crashed as a result of an encounter with an active thunderstorm cell, which can and has caused actual structural failure of aircraft in commercial service, or crew inputs to try to maintain control resulting in exceeding the design loads of the aircraft, which has happened on commercial flights as well, or simply by being spit out the bottom of a cell in a high rate of descent with a severe nose down or tail down attitude and maybe inverted, also an event that has happened with aircraft in commercial service.
IIRC, this design can be irrecoverably deep stalled, so that's a possibility.
I doubt that whatever authority investigates this will come up with anything different from these three possibilities.
 
Originally Posted By: Doog
There were heavy thunderstorms in the area at the time. That is my guess that they flew into one accidentally.


Yes, this incident is weather related.

Oh, and by the way FOX is no more, "north,east,west,south" than CNN, MSNBC or any of the other US mass media masquerading as a source for reality or accuracy of events.
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell


Yes, this incident is weather related.

Oh, and by the way FOX is no more, "north,east,west,south" than CNN, MSNBC or any of the other US mass media masquerading as a source for reality or accuracy of events.


Yea man. Beforeitsnews and Infowars is where the truth is. The US was involved with operation gladio and that means CNN sucks.
 
People seem to assume that all flight crews are the same when, sadly, they're not. There are differences in training, experience and, yes, ability.

But hey, outsourcing cockpit crews to the lowest third-world bidder might get you cheaper fares and will definitely get airline executives bigger bonuses...so, it's all good....

Right?
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
People seem to assume that all flight crews are the same when, sadly, they're not. There are differences in training, experience and, yes, ability.

But hey, outsourcing cockpit crews to the lowest third-world bidder might get you cheaper fares and will definitely get airline executives bigger bonuses...so, it's all good....

Right?


The aircraft in question was sourced from a Spanish operator and Spain is not generally considered a third world country.
Also, I can think of four hull losses off the top of my head over the past fifteen years involving what were indisputably first world carriers, two of which resulted in the loss of all aboard, which were absolutely caused by crew error.
I can list them if you'd like, but you probably already know what I'm writing about.
Three of the aircraft lost were Airbus widebodies and the fourth was a 737-800.
Only two carriers were represented.
 
This one is shaping up to be pilot error...simply flying too high when anti-ice was selected. Fail to notice stall (though it was more obvious than AF 447) and fail to recover all the way down...

There have been several crashes directly linked to pilot error and inexperience....most of them happen in the commuter airlines and in the third world airlines. African airlines have several times the mishap rate of US and European carriers...

My comments were more directed towards the CEOS that push for things like Norwegian Air and their outsourcing model...you actually DO get what you pay for...and they're working to pay the absolute least for pilots...so that their bonuses and pay can continue...but those CEOs won't be on the airliner that's at risk...
 
Okay, I can agree with you on that.
Certainly some of the developing nations have shockingly high hull loss rates even using brand spanking new aircraft.
Their crews often appear to be not especially competent and seem to have zero CRM training.
I mean, your crews can't fly a visual approach in VFR conditions without wrecking the airplane?
Really?
In the case of the smaller African carriers, they can be partially excused since they often use aircraft that should have long since been parked in a desert somewhere.
There are reliable airlines based in nations where pilots of any kind are scarce. You know who I'm thinking of.
They contract American, Australian, Canadian and EU expats and have very good safety records.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom