By: wysiwyg - 8th March 2003 at 09:00
Batbay – delighted to help. I’d like to post more along these lines but I don’t want to be considered a bore!
Bhoy – thanks for reminding me of one of my most favourite moments of television…and how relevant your quote!
There are times when I like to let a thread run for a while before I make a comment and this has been the case with the age concern mentioned in this thread. I think it is very easy to say ground all old aircraft as a knee jerk reaction but the reality is more complex than that. An airline is only as good as its engineering department. I would rather fly on a 30+ year old but well maintained jet than a brand new jet operated by some third world regions with dubious line maintenance programs. I know of an outfit that has 5 ex-Russian operated 757’s. The Russian operator obtained the airframes new but there is no known maintenance record for this period of time. The new operator accepted the 5 aircraft on condition that Boeing did a complete inspection on these aircraft before taking up the leases, which they did and now the aircraft are maintained to UK CAA standards. Now if I had to chose whether I’d rather fly on them now or when they were Russian…
regards
wys
By: Bhoy - 8th March 2003 at 01:08
I’m not sure age has that much to do with it… After all, most parts will have been replaced at some stage…
that joke in Only Fools and Horses comes to mind…
Trigger: I’ve had this broom for 18 years
Del Boy: really?
Trigger: yeah, you just need to look after them properly
Del Boy: how d’you do that, then?
Trigger: well, take this broom, it’s had 12 new heads and 15 new handles in it’s time…
so, although the a/c might be pretty old, it’ll probably have been totally dismantled once or twice and put back together in it’s time.
all still operating DC-3’s are decidely older than even that 732, but they’re still the aircraft a lot of people would aspire to travel on someday…
(Having said all that, I’ve never been overly keen on the 737… it’s an ugly little bassa, specially the 100/200 series…)
By: batbay - 7th March 2003 at 21:06
Thank you wys.
That is exactly the kind of information that I come to this Forum for.
The various pretty c/s of different airlines are not quite in the same league as real information, and I am one of those with the outlook that “knowledge is strength”, although after some of the revelations in the TV programme the other night I might chicken out – falling, strapped in the seat for minutes until you hit the sea ………….
However, in the hope that I won’t experience that, I like to understand how the professionals are receiving the information that will prevent them falling into the sequence of events that become a disaster.
My own experience is nautical, but there are many instances of occurences leading to an event which was preventable, and there is little doubt in my mind that this is how most “accidents” happen.
So we will wait for the accident report on the Algerian crash, but in the meantime I would like to follow up on “Comet’s” comments on the age of some aircraft being operated.
My, very delayed, flight report PPS-MNL-FRA-LHR will, if ever written(!), comment on the 732 that I saw at PPS. Having spent some time at my son’s house in Puerto Princesa and being reminded daily how old some of the Air Philippines 737’s are (the noise gives it away!), I noted the details of the Air Philippines 737 that was on the stand when we boarded our Philippines Airlines flight to Manila. The AP aircraft was “RP-C2021”, which I found was 732 Line Number 6. It is in fact the oldest 732 around.
Now, I genuinely find that very interesting, but I don’t want to fly in it! That aircraft has been marvellous, but I think it should be in a museum. I feel that there is a limit to the number of checks that can be carried out, and there must be items that don’t appear to warrant an inspection, but might fail after 35 years. So I won’t be saving a few Peso’s to fly with that airline. (Mind you, if the ground engineer who checks out my one year old aircraft has been in the videoke bar until 4am, I might be unlucky with my choice!).
So I guess I’ll keep my fingers crossed, and stay away from very old aircraft!
By: KabirT - 7th March 2003 at 07:58
very sad indeed…guessing was a B736? Condolances to the families of the lost!
By: wysiwyg - 7th March 2003 at 07:57
I agree that a single engine failure would not be the cause of the aircraft coming down but we don’t yet know what happened here. Pilots are trained for all the circumstances that you mention above and practice these every 6 months in a sim check that is so testing it puts your whole job (and lifestyle) on the line. Single failures are not a significant event, it is when the initial failure causes knock on events that the problems start to occur.
Let me give you an example – I did a recency check in the sim a few weeks ago where a tyre burst occurred at about 90 knots on the take off roll.
There is no cockpit indication of a tyre burst and when you have 10 tyres in total it doesn’t feel that significant apart from a juddering which could be one of several things, so the problem is not yet verified. We raised the undercarriage (as we had no indication that we shouldn’t) but unknown to us the spinning shredded tyre punctured a fuel tank, severed hydraulic lines and started a fire. Now we have three major problems caused by one relatively insignificant one. There is no wheelwell extinguishing system so the procedure is to put the gear down and let the airflow put the fire out. We put the gear lever down but because the hydraulic lines had been damaged the doors opened but the gear didn’t travel on the right main gear leg. The fire went out but now we had only partial gear extension. We tried the alternate extension but damage to the wheel well area still prevented extension.
We had departed Lanzarote for Gatwick so we had a lot of fuel onboard but obviously there was no way we were going in this condition. Lanzarote weather made a return to there unacceptable so we diverted to Gran Canaria with better weather, facilities and a longer runway to crash onto with just left main gear and nosewheels available. However we now have so much fuel onboard (without a fuel dump facility on the 757) that we would be significantly overweight for landing . Also you don’t want to crash an aeroplane with 20 odd tonnes of fuel on board for obvious reasons! On top of this our fuel leak is now causing the wing tanks to empty asymetrically causing a lateral imbalance which requires aileron input which is reduced because of damage to the hydraulic lines.
We made a crash landing at Gran Canaria and everyone went home for tea and medals but I hope you can see that something as simple as a blown tyre can soon accelerate into a major event because of knock-on factors.
regards
wys
By: keltic - 6th March 2003 at 20:56
Could we, fearfull fliers, fly in a confident way?. Not at all. Big tragedy and really unexpected. Normally a plane doesn´t ditch due to an engine failure. Pilots should be trained to handly this situations which are recreated in simulators. Other causes may be involved. damage in control surfaces, hydraulics, pilot error….an so on.
By: A330Crazy - 6th March 2003 at 20:46
My god… there was a soul survivor according top the updated reports. He was apparently one of the cabin crew, who is in hospital with critical injuries.
102 people in all killed.
My Condolances. 🙁 R.I.P.
By: Selsport69 - 6th March 2003 at 20:12
I echo your thoughts SAAB.
By: Saab 2000 - 6th March 2003 at 18:09
My deepest condolences to all who involved.
By: MSR777 - 6th March 2003 at 17:41
A great shame….as is any crash.
By: Bhoy - 6th March 2003 at 16:31
A passenger plane with 97 people on board has crashed in southern Algeria.
There are fears that everyone on board has been killed, although some reports are speaking of a sole survivor.The Air Algerie aircraft crashed shortly after take-off from Tamanrasset at about 1545 local time (1445 GMT).
The plane – said to be a Boeing 737 – was heading for the capital, Algiers, some 1,300 kilometres (800 miles) away.
The Algerian Government has set up a crisis unit to deal with the emergency, and two ministers have left for the region, the French news agency AFP reports.
Tamanrasset lies at the base of the Hoggar Mountains in the Sahara Desert.
From BBC News Online
By: Jay330 - 6th March 2003 at 16:28
From AFP
ALGIERS (AFP) Ninety-seven people were killed when an Air Algerie plane crashed on take-off from Tamanrasset in southern Algeria, the APS news agency reported.
One person survived the disaster in the Sahara desert, 1,900 kilometres (1,180 miles) south of the coastal capital Algiers, which had been the Boeing 737’s destination, the Algerian news agency added.
By: Jay330 - 6th March 2003 at 16:27
From BBC News
Airliner crashes in Algeria
A passenger plane with 97 people on board has crashed in southern Algeria.
There are fears that everyone on board has been killed, although some reports are speaking of a sole survivor.
The Air Algerie aircraft crashed shortly after take-off from Tamanrasset at about 1545 local time (1445 GMT).
The plane – said to be a Boeing 737 – was heading for the capital, Algiers, some 1,300 kilometres (800 miles) away.
The Algerian Government has set up a crisis unit to deal with the emergency, and two ministers have left for the region, the French news agency AFP reports.
Tamanrasset lies at the base of the Hoggar Mountains in the Sahara Desert.
Sign In
March 6, 2003 at 4:17 pm
