Airplane accidents

RE: Airplane accidents

Hi all, thought i’d better have a quick join in as well!

There are other aspects that ned to go into consideration in this topic. I read earlier about the comet, it wasn’t known at the time about this new type of metal fatigue, nothing so big had flown so high and fast before, and as it turned out it was a design flaw – it’s just evoloution.

RE: Airplane accidents

It ain’t the age its the make. I am not biased but it seems Airbus crash a lot.

RE: Airplane accidents

just to clarify a few points raised earlier,

The early Comet’s suffered from metal fatigue due to the rectangular windows they had. It wsa the extreme pressure atteh corner of the windows which caused the airframe failures. that’s why windows now are rounded at the corners.

As regards the 737-400 bmi crash at East Midlands, that was due as much to faulty wiring as to engine failure. The right engine develeped a fire, but due to the wiring in the warning lights being wrong, the pilot shut the left engine down.

The Aloha 737 losing it’s roof, I think was shown to be attributable not only to the high amount of takeoffs, but also to the high salt content of the air, which corroded the metal.

RE: Airplane accidents

Something stupid but old planes get old because they haven´t crashed. An old plane being checked is reliable and as safe as a modern one. And a modern model, whose performance hasn´t been well tested may have unpleasant surprises. Safety depends on maintenance and crew training and of course external factors as weather, orography and so on.

RE: Airplane accidents

For me, the key point is as was briefly referred to…

WIRING.

Bundles of wire are often in virutally inacessible locations and actual replacement of the wiring is either a horrendous job or it just does not happen.

RE: Airplane accidents

I mostly agree with all of you.

Maintenance is the key point. All serious airline have a very strict maintenance plan. Each a/c has to be checked on a regular basis.
Every 10k hours AF a/c are dismantled, each part is checked , X-rayed and each wire , contact , rivet is checked.

It’s not as as car were ageing is a key point.
I do agree that a brand new a/c is a bit more risky , but both airbus and boeing make a lot of in flight test even before delivery.

I definitely believe that the most important risk in air traffic is the human factor

RE: Airplane accidents

Just to clarify though, the comet that comet is talking about (I’m guessing) was indeed a new aircraft, but at that time fatigue was not understood, and until that accident there was no way of testing for fatigue (they invented the big “bath” we use now), so I don’t agree with Comet on that arguement.

HOWEVER, age is not the actual problem, it is more likely to be be hours flown, or the number of take-off/landings an aircraft has made. In the 1980s an Aloha 737 lost part of it’s roof, even though the aircraft wasn’t near it’s design life limit (in terms of number of hours flown…it was being used for short island hopping sectors), but it was experienceing pressurisation/decompresion more often than most airliners (due to island hopping flights), and this was causing fatigue stress on the fuselage and it cracked!

So age is not the underlying key. Also, we could discuss maintanance issues, but that could expand the topic to new heights.

RE: Airplane accidents

I’m with you Comet! I don’t think the age of an aircraft matters either. All aircraft are subject to numerous checks on the airframe and engines. The aircraft have been desingned by people who know what stresses on the aircraft will be, and how this will affect the materials they have been made from. Each component produced for an aircraft also undergoes a strict quality control process, so if there is a part which stands a higher chance of failure, it is rejected, and not used.

I’d fly an aircraft of any age, it is the safest mode of transport, and if the plane happens to crash… it’s just my unlucky day.

RE: Airplane accidents

I don’t think age always makes a difference. I’m going back in time a bit here, but the problem of metal fatigue showed up most famously on an aircraft which had only been in service for less than 2 years (between May 1952 and January 1954).

RE: Airplane accidents

It is said an aircraft never goes old….it all depends on maintanence by the airline. And about your question, it depends more on the pilot than the a/c, they dont call the aircraft the safest mode of trasnportation for nothing. For me a 15 year old B737-200 is as good as a new B737-800. Its mainly the pilot.

RE: Airplane accidents

I expect there would be many varied view points to this post.

An older aircraft may be more unreliable due to fetige (unsure on spelling) or worn-out components. However, a well looked after a/c would be expected to last a long time. However, Older a/c (as T5 points out) may be more reliable due to the length of time they have been flying.

New a/c have accidents aswell. Airbus lost several A320s, I believe, during testing of the auto pilot and fly-by-wire systems. The kegworth disaster @ East Midlands was a BMI 737 (brand new) an engine failed… should i go on…

Basically I think that any aircraft is as reliable/unreliable as the engineers/operators make it, despite its age. When your numbers up…its up and i suppose the same may apply to aircraft!

Regards

Ben

RE: Airplane accidents

Wouldn’t you say that older aircraft are more reliable? They have been flying much longer which means they are far more reliable.

I personally wouldn’t want to fly on a brand new aircraft or an extremely old aircraft just in case.

A few years ago, one of my mum’s friends who used to work for Air India said she would be able to get one of her friend’s still working for the airline as a pilot to take me to Paris to fetch a brand new 747. God only knows what it was doing down there, but I wasn’t overly keen on the idea!

RE: Airplane accidents

I’m sure the pilots in this forum will say that there is no difference in safety levels…I’m not so sure personally.