It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


TIMELINE-Deadly plane crashes in the last three years

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:30 AM

TIMELINE-Deadly plane crashes in the last three years

June 30 (Reuters) - An Airbus A310 from Yemen with more than 150 people on board crashed into choppy seas as it came in to land on the Indian Ocean archipelago of Comoros on Tuesday, an airline official said. [ID:nLU506718]

It is the second Airbus to plunge into the sea this month. An Air France Airbus A330-200 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean killing 228 people on board on June 1.

Here are details of recent major plane crashes.

Aug. 22, 2006 - A Russian Tu-154 operated by Pulkovo
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:30 AM
I thought this would be useful, as you already may know there's been another Airbus A330 that's crashed this month, this time in the Indian Ocean.

The 2 models that stand out with obvious concern involving major accidents are the Airbus A330, and the Boeing 737.

If you check wikipedia there has been 4 incidents altogether now with the Airbus 330 in June 2009 alone. Although 2 incidents not as serious, with one of those 7 injuries occurring, and the other thankfully no injuries.

# On 1 June 2009, Air France Flight 447, an Airbus A330-203 en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris with 228 people onboard, was reported lost over the Atlantic Ocean.[20] The aircraft crashed in the Atlantic Ocean 400-500 miles northeast of the islands of Fernando de Noronha. All passengers and crew were killed. The cause remains under investigation.[21]
# On 11 June 2009, a Jetstar A330-200 enroute from Kansai International Airport to Australia's Gold Coast experienced a cockpit fire, requiring the aircraft to divert to Guam. No injuries were reported. The incident is under investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.[22]
# On 22 June 2009, Qantas Flight 68, an Airbus A330-300 enroute from Hong Kong International Airport to Perth International Airport hit severe turbulence over Borneo, causing the aircraft to free fall for ten to twenty seconds. Passengers were "told the radar was not functioning so the aircraft did not see (the air pocket) and went straight into it". Six passengers and one crew member were injured. [23]

So what's wrong with these planes.... pilot error? or serious technical fault in these models? or just coincidence that these particular models have been involved in accidents that are to be expected due to increased air traffic? Or a combination of these and other reasons?

Although I don't think it's a coincidence that the 737 and A330 have two-engines, instead of their four-engine counterparts.

The controlled landing in the Hudson River not so long back also involved a two-engined plane - an Airbus A320.

15 January 2009 - US Airways Flight 1549 - an A320 en route from New York City LaGuardia Airport to Charlotte, North Carolina, ditched into the Hudson River several minutes after takeoff. All 150 passengers and five crew survived, with only one serious injury. The accident was due to a collision with a flock of birds which disabled both engines.[42]

Now I'm not an aircraft engineer, but with the possibility of both engines being disabled in two-engined planes, I would have to say is it worth the risk anymore travelling on two-engined planes? Or was this risk always proportional to total air traffic, and just more apparent now?

Anyway obvious benefits of two-engined planes are that they are lighter, use less fuel, and so suitable for smaller planes (with less passengers for shorter journeys). And of course this makes them less pollutive, approximately half than with four-engines I guess.

But I feel we should have some form of backup, and the safety of human lives should override all these other factors during construction. Serious plane crashes have high mortality rates, and prevention is the best way to save lives.

I do understand that these planes are designed to be able to fly with one engine, providing it can land somewhere nearby, and even four-engined planes could theoretically have the same problem if all engines become disabled through a bird strike or something similar.

But this all makes me wonder.... is it worth the risk flying on two-engined planes, or should we stick to only flying four-engined planes, and only building four-engined planes from now on?

Personally I would prefer a backup on either wing.

Alternatively more engines or just better engines could be a possibility... but not too many so the wings break from the extra mass.
Imagine 6 engines either side but then the wing snaps off. Ooops.
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 30-6-2009 by john124]

[edit on 30-6-2009 by john124]

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:01 AM
reply to post by john124

Wow you did such a great job of answering your own questions you didn't leave much for me to comment on! Nice post!

I was worried when I saw the transition to 2 engine planes, until I looked at the reliability of the engines, they are excellent. The flock of birds could have disabled 4 engines as easily as 2 I suspect.

I'll have to research these some more, I'm an avid study of airline crashes and fixes to prevent future similar crashes, but I don't like to study them too soon after the fact, that's for the investigators to do. I like to know the results of their investigation, not all of the misinformation that circulates while they are still gathering and analyzing evidence.

I was personally in a plane that flew into a microburst and started literally falling out of the sky like all lift had vanished. Actually it felt like the plane was being pushed toward the ground, not just falling, it's a scary feeling. If you're at high enough altitude then you just lose altitude until you fly out of the microburst which was the case in my flight. But if you're not high enough when that happens, losing altitude means you hit the ground. I'm wondering if the Air France flight was a victim of something like this, perhaps combined with the possibility of malfunctioning air speed sensors.

Edit: and this sounds to me very similar to what happened to the Quantas flight. The radar is supposed to be good at picking these atmospheric anomalies up so the pilots can avoid them, but good doesn't mean perfect, I think they will miss some here and there, I suspect that's what happened on the Quantas flight. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the plane, except they could look for ways to improve the radar so they don't miss as many of these pockets of unstable air.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:12 AM
talk about bias

dislike airbus much since thats the only company you highlight;

let me correct that for you:

Sept. 29 - One hundred and fifty-four people are killed when a Boeing 737-800 operated by low-cost Gol airline crashes in the Amazon rain forest.

Oct. 29 - A Boeing 737 operated by domestic carrier ADC, crashes after take off on a flight from the Nigerian capital Abuja to Sokoto. Only seven of the 106 people aboard the flight survived. Among the dead was Ibrahim Muhammadu, who as Sultan of Sokoto was the leader of the Muslim community.

Jan. 1, 2007 - An Indonesian Boeing 737-400 operated by budget carrier Adam Air disappeared from radar screens during a flight from Java to Sulawesi islands. Wreckage was located at sea 10 days later. All 102 passengers and crew were killed.

May 5 - All 114 people on board a Kenya Airways Boeing 737 are killed after the plane crashed in torrential rain after takeoff from Douala in Cameroon en route to Nairobi.

and what of the freezing fuel in the Boeing 777? happened twice now - and the BA flight was a hull write off.

or the 767`s that slide of runwaysthanks to shoddy undercarraige and brakes?

or the 787 who`s wings would fall off in a storm? oh wait - thats only failed in limit load testing - thats limit load not even ultimate load, and it failed before the plane even flew - you woudl think by now boeing would know how to build an aircraft thats actually safe wouldmn`t you.

see i can slant reports just as much ; whats reality is that look at the age of most of the aircraft - they are not young - this one is at least 20 years old, as are most of the others which come down (with the odd exception)

new topics

top topics

log in