Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 8/22/2006 2:19:20 PM EDT
Any rumour about terrorist connections?
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 2:20:07 PM EDT
[#1]

Quoted:
Any rumour about terrorist connections?


None… flew into severe turbulence…


ANdy
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 2:30:02 PM EDT
[#2]
Aeroflot is not known for keeping their planes in a good state of repair.  Fly with them once, and you will swear to never fly on them again.
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 2:31:27 PM EDT
[#3]
I have a feeling the russian passenger airline industry sucks.
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 2:45:27 PM EDT
[#4]

Quoted:
Aeroflot is not known for keeping their planes in a good state of repair.  Fly with them once, and you will swear to never fly on them again.


Wasn't Aeroflot… it was one of the local airlines.

Aeroflot actually have an excellent safety record… ask the US NTSB, they do their safety audits.

ANdy
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 2:51:33 PM EDT
[#5]
The Tu-154 has a shitty track record.

Pulkovo Airlines jetliner down in Russia; 171 aboard killed.
KIEV, Ukraine - A Russian passenger jet carrying at least 170 people — including 45 children — crashed Tuesday in eastern Ukraine after sending a distress signal, killing all aboard, authorities said.

A Russian news agency said officials had ruled out terrorism, but the cause of the crash was still unclear, with various officials citing turbulence, lightning and a fire on board.

The Pulkovo Airlines Tupolev 154 was en route from the Russian Black Sea resort of Anapa to St. Petersburg and disappeared from radar screens while flying over eastern Ukraine around 2:30 p.m., Russian and Ukrainian emergency officials said.

The plane's tail section and other burning debris were found north of the city of Donetsk, about 400 miles east of Kiev, by residents about two hours after the distress signal was sent, said Mykhaylo Korsakov, spokesman for the Donetsk department of Emergency Situations Ministry.

Anatoly Simushin, deputy director of the St. Petersburg-based carrier that there were 170 people on board, including 45 children.

"Unfortunately, we believe that no one managed to survive," Russian Emergency Situations Ministry spokesman Irina Andriyanova said in televised comments.

A bad thunderstorm was raging in the area at the time of the crash, said a spokeswoman for the Ukrainian Emergency Situations Ministry in Donetsk, who identified herself only as Yelena. She said there was lightning and heavy winds.

Interfax quoted Ukrainian Emergency Situations Ministry spokesman Igor Krol as saying a fire broke out on the plane at 32,800 feet and that the crew decided to try to make an emergency landing. Interfax also quoted Russian aviation official Alexander Neradko as saying that the plane might have run into strong turbulence.

Andriyanova said she received information that "the plane most likely was hit by lightning."

"There was no damage on the ground. After it fell, it broke apart and burst into flames," Andriyanova said in televised comments.

Interfax cited witnesses as saying the plane was intact when it hit the ground. The RIA-Novosti news agency later quoted Andriyanova as saying "terrorism has been ruled out."

The plane disappeared from radar screens two minutes after the crew sent a distress signal, said Yulia Stadnikova, another Russian spokeswoman. Officials could not confirm Russian agency reports that said the plane's crew sent out four SOS messages before the crash.

Pulkovo Airlines is among Russia's largest carriers.

It was the third major plane crash in the region this year, and came less than two months after at least 124 people died when an Airbus A310 of the Russian carrier S7 skidded off a runway and burst into flames on July 9 in the Siberian city of Irkutsk.

On May 3, an A320 of the Armenian airline Armavia crashed into the Black Sea while trying to land in the Russian resort city of Sochi in rough weather, killing all 113 people aboard.

Russian-made Tu-154s are widely used by Russian airlines for many regional flights.
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 4:11:07 PM EDT
[#6]

Quoted:
The Tu-154 has a shitty track record.


Funny, that. From the BBC Website:

Since its service entry, some 28 Tu-154s have been lost in accidents, a figure about normal for the quantity, years of service and technology of the type.

The Tu-154 operates in regions with not very good air traffic control and navigation equipment, and in very difficult weather conditions.

The Tu-154 accidents include a number that have little relation to the aircraft.


If you compare it with the Boeing 727, which looks kindof similar and also dates from a few decades ago:

___________________Tu-154___________Boeing 727___________Boeing 737
Built_______________1000+/-__________1,832_________________5,000 +/-
Lost in accidents____28_______________85____________________114
Lost/built ratio______0.028____________0.046_________________0.0228

Those ratios don't seem all that horrible to me. It's almost as good as the 737, which is helped by having a bunch of the 5,000 being far more modern aircraft.

It's like a Lada. Horrible car, but pretty rugged.

NTM
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 4:12:40 PM EDT
[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Aeroflot is not known for keeping their planes in a good state of repair.  Fly with them once, and you will swear to never fly on them again.


Wasn't Aeroflot… it was one of the local airlines.

Aeroflot actually have an excellent safety record… ask the US NTSB, they do their safety audits.


Wasn't Aeroflots safety record horrible in the early 90's?
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 4:18:13 PM EDT
[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The Tu-154 has a shitty track record.


Funny, that. From the BBC Website:

Since its service entry, some 28 Tu-154s have been lost in accidents, a figure about normal for the quantity, years of service and technology of the type.

The Tu-154 operates in regions with not very good air traffic control and navigation equipment, and in very difficult weather conditions.

The Tu-154 accidents include a number that have little relation to the aircraft.


If you compare it with the Boeing 727, which looks kindof similar and also dates from a few decades ago:

___________________Tu-154___________Boeing 727___________Boeing 737
Built_______________1000+/-__________1,832_________________5,000 +/-
Lost in accidents____28_______________85____________________114
Lost/built ratio______0.028____________0.046_________________0.0228

Those ratios don't seem all that horrible to me. It's almost as good as the 737, which is helped by having a bunch of the 5,000 being far more modern aircraft.

It's like a Lada. Horrible car, but pretty rugged.

NTM


That's not how safety is measured in the aviation industry.  We measure it as a ratio of accidents per flying hours.  I guarantee the 737 fleet (which has the best safety record by accidents/hr of any passenger aircraft) would kick the ever loving shit out of the poorly designed, maintained, and operated TU series.  If you only drive your car 100 miles a year your accident rate doesn't very well compare to someone who drives 100K, right?  



ETA:  Before I get corrected, the .mil uses accident rate (class A) per flying hour.  The airlines use fatal accidents per passenger mile, different ways of measuring essentially the same thing.  
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 4:19:21 PM EDT
[#9]
I flew an IL-76, no one checked seatbelts, the flight crew hid in an anteroom between first class and steerage, the chairs folded back onto the lap of the person behind you, guys were lighting up cigars with torch lighters, white smoke was coming outta the air ducts, people were walking around all while the plane was taking off down the runway for what seemed an eternity, I think the curvature of the earth is what finally lfted it airborne.
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 4:50:18 PM EDT
[#10]
This one is a classic. From airdisaster.com:

Date of Accident: 29 August 1998

Airline: Cubana de Aviacion  

Aircraft: Tupolev TU-154M  

Location: Quito, Ecuador

Registration: CU-T1264

Flight Number: 409

Fatalities: 69:90

MSN: 720

Accident Description: The aircraft crashed on its third attempt to takeoff. Two previous takeoff attempts had been aborted due to engine problems.


So what the hell was the deal with that? they decide going down the run way it something isn't right so they give it another try?? and keep trying until either it gets in the air or crashes?

You know after the first attempt I think I would be getting off the plane and never set foot on it again until fixed by professionals.
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 6:15:25 PM EDT
[#11]
When my Dad was flying around Russia,he used to make fun of the Tu-154(they've got a gang flying this thing!/Sounds like an old bomber taking off!) They're somewhat bigger than a 727,but not nearly as advanced/efficient.

Tu-134 is another racketmaster,sounds like an unhushed BAC1-11.
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 6:24:02 PM EDT
[#12]
The TU series have a pretty piss history.

Inflight breakups are pretty rare, as are incidents of turbulence downing transport catagory aircraft.  Perhaps a lightening strike blew a control surface off (a personal nightmare of mine) thus rendering the aircraft uncontrollable.

It's completely plausable that they MEL'd the radar and went marching off into an obscured layer of T-storms.  

Having the FAA do a safety audit is akin to having KFC do a school in cuisine.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top