Why apologise – its true – I have flown in Tridents and 727s

Re 727ski

Slight diversion from the thread but I could not resist.
The Trijet idea came from the Hawker Sidely Trident and was copied by Boeing as far as I remember.
Sorry

Why apologise – its true – I have flown in Tridents and 727s and in their time they were great, fantastic, stupendous – HS Trident brought out many pioneering safety features for it’s time.
Dare I say it – my CPL flying instructor was Captain on the Trident, I was on board en-route to an academic examination as a final year pre university college student and (long before airline terrorism was even dreamt of) I was honoured with being permitted to sit in the First Officers seat for a short duration. It was as I described it stupendous as a cockpit array for its time.
A toast to great British R&D and long may it continue.

I have quoted you correctly and fully

As for aid programmes to get developing nations better aircraft, I like the idea but in all honesty I think those nations probably have higher priorities like ensuring everyone has food, medicine, etc, rather than buying nice planes.

I have added your exact quote to the post above.

Some where the essentials in countries where travel overland (due to terrain, floods, landslides, etc) is prohibitive (e.g. good roads, railways, etc) good airports fulfil many of the needs you speak of as priorities for these developing countries. Flying doctor services, flying operating theatres (for some types of surgery), aid relief, transport of commuters (safely) to centres of industry or business (within the country of overseas) without having to enforce expensive family relocation.

By saying in 2011 that they don’t deserve ‘nice planes’ as a priority, is possibly taking a condescending attitude towards these struggling nations and their people – the word ‘nice’ isn’t necessarily a word that would describe their needs in airliners for passenger transport.
I wonder whether the grieving families of those who have perished in multiple crashes in ‘older’ (economic in your words) aircraft used to transport fare paying passengers would agree that their tragic losses/sacrifices do not deserve a re-assessment of the methods used for deploying/acquiring passenger aircraft in those regions?

I have said it quite early on in this thread ‘human lives lost are the same where ever they are in the world – they are human lives’

I have no problem with enthusiasts appreciating technically interesting models

On 1st January 2011, 18:49 RIP…… lost their lives.
I’d love to fly on a TU-154, but I would need a large bottle of brave pills before getting on board. As they age further and are farmed out to second and third-tier carriers, their safety record is unlikely to get any better…….That’s what I’d be thinking of, irrespective of the type’s safety record.

I too share you enthusiasm mrtotty
I have no problem with enthusiasts appreciating technically interesting models. I spend most of my time doing the same. Flying in many now can be extremely expensive. That’s me – my life, I choose the possible risk for my pleasure and interest, no problem with that. The same interest that says I’d love to drive a Bugatti Veyron at it’s max speed on the German test track as James May (TG) did.

That is a whole different and exhilarating enthusiasts’ ‘ball game’ from packing innocent fare paying passengers (that place their trust in the airline) into the same model of aircraft and quoting PMN, that their lives (just under 3,000 lost in TU154 since 1973) were mainly lost due to ‘human error’ rather than anything else.
Added to clarify PMN’s quote “If you’re going to quote me then do it properly! I didn’t say it was mainly due to human error, I said quite a lot of incidents were. There’s a difference.”

Even developing nations (BRIC) in 2011 should be seeking the support of all international resources including negotiating preferential terms with Boeing and Airbus and other aircraft manufacturers to get their countries moving along with aid from the WB, EIB, etc to develop airports. Large companies have financial discretion on trading with any customer and may even get their country’s national subsidies from aid programmes in their efforts to do so if it’s in the interests of a nation developing democratically.

Why then should poorer countries take on the burgeoning economics of a TU154 ?

Define a “safe operator”……. :confused:

Again, why would any airline now show interest ….. For a start three engines means more maintenance cost and low bypass engines means more noise ……. they’re not operated by mainline airlines are absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with safety, it’s pure economics. ………make any sense these days to operate such aircraft, and that’s exactly why airlines don’t. It has nothing whatsoever in any way, shape or form to do with safety.

As for whether human error is insurmountable, until I meet a perfect human being I’ll lean more towards thinking it is

.

Then I am back to my original argument why should poorer countries’ airlines take on the burgeoning economics of a TU154 – 3 engines, noise, high maintenance costs, ?
Historically the TU154 has never been of interest to any major airline other than Aeroflot even before 3 engines became less popular.
Imperfect humans seem to be fairing much better though, working for major world airlines operating aircraft other than TU154s even for example with as you say a 12 year vintage fleet at BA (my favourite).

Why so many fatalities and so many crashes ? Is it model, pilots, maintenance or ???

You don’t need to quote the stats to me, I’m more than familiar with them. None of that changes the fact that saying these aircraft are outdated and poorly maintained is ridiculous. What proof do you have they’re poorly maintained? That’s a hefty claim to make without having evidence.

Aircraft simply don’t crash ‘spontaneously’, especially since you say that the TU154 is not outdated.
Is it the model, pilot error, maintenance, or what – please will you consider telling us lesser beings, since you seem to know everything ?
Why then are they not being operated by the world’s major airlines?
Aeroflot ditched them.
They are primarily operated by former Soviet and Third World airlines, particularly in closed or semi- closed markets that don’t like doing business with the West or can’t afford anything better.

It applies to many items the developed nations have tired of

A similar analogy could be applied to the export of obsolete computers to developing nations for the ‘recycling’ of their potential poisonous components.

It applies to many consumer items the developed nations have tired of that are simply ‘dumped’ on these lesser developed/developing nations.
It’s the flip side of the pacifying slogan ‘Free Trade’ where the ‘dumping’ of dated pharmaceuticals/medical equipment, aircraft, ships, buses through to consumer items (motor vehicles,domestic electricals, etc) that should rather be salvaged safely for spares before being completely converted to scrap (not shipped to become environmental nightmares in possibly ‘unseen’ parts of the world).
It’s called being ethical and fair by those that believe their own misleading words.
In fairness the governments and administration of the developing nations are partly to blame for accepting this complete imbalance.
Economists will hasten to correct me by saying that such imbalance is necessary for global economic growth.

The value placed on a life in developing countries is ironically tragic

Yeah they send them all here to Africa. 😡

The value placed on a life in developing countries is ironically tragic.
Yet some of these developing nations are happy to offload ‘garbage’ on populations of less developed regions of the world that can little afford to lose a loved one moreso a breadwinner in any aircraft tragedy (least of all one that is outdated and not maintained adequately).
I am no social reformer but a human life is a life in whatever nation of the world they are in.