Yemeni plane crashes with 150 aboard

Wow! Another Airbus!! Not a good year for’em!

Breaking Here!

Wonder if the tail fell off again?

looks like it was pretty gusty

FMCH 292200Z 18022G33KT 9999 FEW020 24/17 Q1018 NOSIG=
FMCH 292300Z 21025G35KT 9999 FEW020 25/16 Q1017 TEMPO 18015G30KT=
FMCH 300000Z 21025G35KT 9999 FEW020 25/17 Q1016 TEMPO 19014KT=
FMCH 300100Z 16010KT 9999 FEW020 25/13 Q1016 NOSIG=
FMCH 300200Z 18015KT 9999 FEW020 24/15 Q1016 NOSIG=

Winds don’t seem that bad. I’ve seen props land in worse, like KSFO when the winds really gust from the west. So far, it looks like they had gone around for a 2nd attempt at landing, but didn’t make it. So they reached their destination; whatever else happened on getting back onto the approach, we’ll find out soon enough.

Anywho, they can’t blame FBW for this incident, as this model doesn’t have it.


I read they found a survivor.

Correct me if I am wrong here but WAY back in the day I took a class in Aviation WX. I remember hearing the smaller the a/c the easier time it has in wind situations, due to less surface area wind has to contact? Larger a/c like the A310 have more area for wind to hit and tumble around…again just looking to make sure I understand.

Way too early to try and pin this on the airplane, or the pitot tubes.

Yemenia has been flirting with being on-off-on again the EU’s banned carrier list. Could be anything - pilot error, non-design related failure, GOK. Bad couple of weeks for Airbus, but Boeing has had those too.

Maybe, Maybe Not Pat

Last inspection in 2007 showed faults and technical problems.

I meant the design of the airplane, not the way Yemenia had maintained it. Or not.

Just trying to ward off the Boeing-Boosting Buttheads :wink:


Too late, I’m here.

Is it just me or is it always a child who is the only survivor. Maybe there is something we can learn from them.

I think the 310 has some sort of partial FBW.

They’re smaller… harder to hit.

Interesting article. Tks. Glad for the 2 survivors, sad for the rest.

The A300/310 uses conventionally actuated control surfaces. The A320 was Airbus’ first airliner with FBW technology.

Here is some satellite imagery from the time of the crash:

If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going! (just kidding…)

The A320 was the first fully FBW plane, from what I see… the A310 had partial FBW, slats/flaps/spoilers me thinks.

Doesn’t look like it. All of the commonality for this aircraft is with the A300.

From Airbus:

Airbus pioneered the fly-by-wire concept with its A320 Family, and years of reliable service around the world have proven its significant benefits through commonality, improved flight safety, reduced pilot workload, a reduction of mechanical parts, and real-time monitoring of all aircraft systems.

For the A310, let’s have a look at Global Security:

Electrical signaling also was used initially on the A310 for secondary flight control surfaces, preparing the way for Airbus’ subsequent application of digital fly-by-wire controls on the A320, A340 and A380 Family aircraft.

They did use, however, CRT screens instead of traditional dials, making the first glass panel flight deck. The A300 was retrofitted with these a few years after the A310 came out. But for the most, this was a traditional bird, while the A320 started FBW.


Two definitions of FBW:

Fly-by-wire is a means of computer-aided aircraft control. The electronic flight control system coupled with a digital computer replaces conventional mechanical flight controls.

of, relating to, being, or utilizing a flight-control system in which controls are operated electrically rather than mechanically

Which would mean, that according to your last quote, the A310 had FBW on secondary flight control surfaces… agreed?

Depends. Is the electrical signalling triggered by computer or by something mechanical? Splitting hairs, I know, but unless we know the complete specs of the A310, and not just what Airbus feeds everyone from their site, it’s all circumstantial. Although, from the looks of the incident, FBW has nothing to do with what happened.


No. Not agreed. The A300/310 is not considered a FBW aircraft. The secondary flight controls on the A300/310 may use electrical signaling to the mechanical actuators, but it’s not the same concept as triple redundant computer control using algorithmic logic.

Is a Skyhawk FBW since it has electrically actuated flaps? Hmmmmm… :confused: