BR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4531 times:
Ok, Now, I have been led to believe that Russian Aircraft are very unsafe. Now, I do not believe they are, but I do not believe they are safe either....Until somebody can clarify what the controversy about Russian Aircraft are. Why do so many people say they are unsafe?
Ba319-131 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 8267 posts, RR: 56 Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4501 times:
I don't believe Russian Aircraft are more unsafe than western built aircraft.If anything,they may be safer.Before they can enter commercial service with passengers the spend some time carrying cargo - or used to - before nthey could be used for commercial pax ops.This may not be current,but used to be.
The number of accidents with Russian aircraft have gone down in the last few years.
My understanding is the basic problem likes with training,not the aircraft themselves,though,the Russian engines were not quite as reliable as a western engine.I'd rather have a RB211 on t/o though!
Pilottim747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1607 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4460 times:
I think some Russian aircraft have a worse reputation than they deserve but I do think some are just unsafe. The safety records of these aircraft can be debated. It seems like more of them crash, however, than western aircraft (while there are fewer flying).
The one normally in the news is the Ilyushin Il-76. According to the Aviation Safety Netowork, this aircraft has had 47 crahes and caused 668 deaths since 1971, when it was introduced. This could be partly because of shotty maintenance but I think it isn't the safest airplane out there.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4441 times:
Russian aircraft are built like tanks; they were built specifically to deal with any type of conditions commonly faced in Eurasia. I think the fault lies more with shoddy maintenance.
Lots of Russian built aircraft have been sold to owners/operators in third world countries (more readily available and cheaper than their US/European counterparts). Most of these operators aren't up to ICAO standards and God only knows what kind of maintenance, if any at all, is performed on the airplanes. Most of the recent Russian aircraft hull losses have come from just this scenario. If you look at the accident records, we have a fair number of old Boeing jets that go down in less developed countries due to lack of good maintenance.
Cba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4530 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4440 times:
This belief that Russian aircraft are unsafe has been caused by several things. First, anti-Soviet (hence, anti-Aeroflot) western propaganda. Second, the aircraft themselves were fine, but b/c of inefficient Soviet management, they were probably not kept in the best of condition. Also, all Aeroflot civillian aircraft were formerly in military/cargo service, and hence had more cycles. Add the poor maintenance to that, and voila.
Avt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2131 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4394 times:
Why does everyone blame maintenance? Are you saying the flight crews are every bit as good as Western crews? Or that the airports and conditions that they are operated under have no bearing? As an engineer, I must protest!
Backfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4348 times:
Russia's chief accident investigator summed up the reason a few weeks ago when he said that there is a lack of systemic safety culture in Russia and the CIS.
You can't pin the blame on any single problem (maintenance, crewing, training) and to attempt to do so will just lead to disagreement and a failure to understand the real issue.
The issue is that the region has yet to take on the culture of overall safety management - pro-active preventitive analysis instead of reactive damage-containment.
For example: it was only after the Il-86 crash at Moscow that a widespread problem of incorrect Il-86 stabiliser use came to light. Strong safety management - such as encouraging the routine use of flight-recorders to detect possible risks ahead of time, discussions between operators on safety issues and a sharing of data analysis between airlines - would have helped to pinpoint that hazard before it became the subject of a fatal accident.
Russia has already proven that it can build extraordinarily robust aircraft and the region has highly-skilled personnel (flying with a Russian crew is a great experience - you feel as though they're flying an aircraft rather than a computer).
If there's a sense of Russian aircraft or airlines being "unsafe" then it is a perception brought about by a far wider issue, and it can't be conveniently pigeon-holed into a problem with maintenance, crewing, training or anything else.
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4340 times:
I don't believe that Russian aircraft are inherently unsafe. It's not the flightcrews either. Russian airline pilots have to pass a stringent training program, medicals, exams etc just like western pilots do- maybe even moreso in Russia. Russian airline pilots tend to have more engineering type knowledge than their western counterparts. I believe it mainly comes down to shoddy maintenance. Having said that though i don't know much about how their aircraft perform- like the IL-62 is a dreadful performer after the loss of an engine.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4337 times:
It's mainly shoddy maintenance indeed.
In part that's because the maintenance people don't have the resources available to do a proper job (tools, spare parts, etc. are in short supply), in part it's because some of them may lack proper training (especially in the southern and eastern republics), and in part it's cultural.
Yhey were all government employees under a Soviet system where it didn't really matter. If an aircraft crashed you'd just lay blame on a dead man (pilot, flight engineer, or someone in the production line of a spare part who would be executed for treason) and noone was really responsible. It didn't really matter if you did a proper job, you got paid the same if you did the work or just signed it off as done and noone would check on it usually.
OD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1919 posts, RR: 36 Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4301 times:
It should be blamed to negligence, either in maintenance or flight crew errors. Remember the A310 incident?
There are many individuals in the CIS who went for quick money by operating a single plane or two without having all the staff to start an airline in the first place. I think these were the ones who caused the most damage to russian aircraft and were responsible for many crashes.
I don't think that national carriers in the CIS, who operate the same kind of planes, have suffered any fatal accidents in the past 10 years. Like Turkmenistan, Latvia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan (and the list goes on) have not suffered any accidents. These have the better infrastructure to function as an airline.
Petertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3231 posts, RR: 13 Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4257 times:
Well shoddy maintenance has been said a few times and I would like to add the environment. A lot of Russian made planes operate in very harsh terains. Deep in Africa and Russia were airport fascilities tend to be poor(er). A lot of Russian equipment is also cheap to buy so they end up with airlines and governments that are not too rich. This is bound to affect maintenance but also other factors. Instead of new spares they buy old spares.
Aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8358 posts, RR: 47 Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4247 times:
Lack of money sums it up pretty well - no money, no spare parts. No well-paid pilots, no relaxed pilots after their night shifts as cab drivers. No elaborate infrastructure, no accurate ILS (for example).
The Il-76 incident in DR Congo happened because of rusted loading ramp locks.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
UN_B732 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 4286 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4217 times:
in my opinion, Russian pilots are much better than their western counterparts, they were trained by the Russian army, (most of them) and make very smooth landings and flights....The problem is a lack of money, they don't have a lot of money, but for a lack of money they do very well with Tu-134s and Tu-154s...I wonder if you could maintain 737-200s/300s (same age, if not newer) or DC-9s with those same moneys, I'm almost lead to think that Russian aircraft are more reliable (commercially) than American a/c..... The Il-18 was made in the sixties and still going strong.
-Transaero Tupevlov 224-200 (well, you can wish)
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11135 posts, RR: 61 Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4125 times:
Russian aircraft are better built than any western plane.
You put a western built aircraft on roles that a Russian aircraft currently flies, it will be breaking down much more and will be much more prone to accidents.
Like others have said. Russian aircraft are built like flying tanks.
The Russians have always built some of the best aircraft in the world. It's known they are leaders in the Aerospace industry, but the Cold War days and the anti-Soviet propaganda from the west has damaged there reputation and makes them look bad when it's the entire opposite.
Regards
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 27 Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4095 times:
UN_B732
From United States, joined Jul 2001, 492 posts, RR: 3
Reply: 13
Posted Sun May 25 2003 14:38:08 UTC+1 and read 117 times:
in my opinion, Russian pilots are much better than their western counterparts, they were trained by the Russian army, (most of them) and make very smooth landings and flights....The problem is a lack of money, they don't have a lot of money, but for a lack of money they do very well with Tu-134s and Tu-154s...I wonder if you could maintain 737-200s/300s (same age, if not newer) or DC-9s with those same moneys, I'm almost lead to think that Russian aircraft are more reliable (commercially) than American a/c..... The Il-18 was made in the sixties and still going strong.
-Transaero Tupevlov 224-200 (well, you can wish)
Lack of money and funding is exactly why russian pilots are inferior to their western counterparts, they dont get the practical trianing and experience they should get. That is one of the reasons that they have such a higher accident rate. The same goes for their maintenance ops, they dont get the funding they need and dont recieve proper instruction and training. Their aircraft arent any more reliable they are the opposite, but the crews are willing to fly with more systems inop and in poorer condition than western standards.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 40 Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4031 times:
No, they are not unsafe. The problems are, they do things differently in Russia. There are a lot less regulations on maintenance and on flying in certain conditions. Russian aircraft are very well built, the pilots are usually very skilled, although in extreme conditions to cope with the stress I've heard stories that pilots do fly drunk occasionally, which may explain certain accidents!
When cash is short, aircraft tend to not get maintained, add to that that the weather conditions in the former Soviet Union are rather hostile at the best of times, and most airports are unequipped to deal with the weather. I've heard stories about Il76's and tu154's flying into airports with no radar, no proper communication and no proper runway, and with really poor visibility and weather conditions. Add everything together and of course there will be accidents.
Its just a shame that it has to be this way, if Russian airliners had previously been bought by Western Airlines i'm sure you'd see alot less accidents as they would operate in much better conditions and be maintained much better.
Bobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3980 times:
I have little doubt that Russian/Ukrainian aircraft operated in "western" conditions are perfectly safe; probably more durable, albeit less fuel-efficient.
One of my friends working in Baghdad (for a western company) got a lift in on one of their An-12s... he loved it
A good example would be the plan for NATO to charter/lease such aircraft to fill the gap until the A400M arrives... I think they were planning to get about 20 or 25 An-124 & Il-76. Volga-Dnepr did a huge number of military/humanitarian charter flights on behalf of European countries recently.
PIA747 From Pakistan, joined Apr 2003, 624 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3868 times:
Russian Planes are as reliable as any western aircraft if not more. Human factor is the largest contributor to the accident portfolio they carry. Not that the Pilots are incompetent but largely due to the language barrier. Most of the Russian pilots do not have the knowledge of English and have a Radio operator specifically for that purpose. Also the Russian instruments follow the metric system, thus a conversion to SI units is made each time. All these additional steps can increase the risk of a Human error.
Blink182 From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5430 posts, RR: 19 Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3806 times:
I remember reading an Aeroflot article in one of the major commercial aviation magazines, and the Russian vs. "western" aircraft issue was brought up. The response was that in terms of safety, there pretty much is no difference, however, western built aircraft are more efficient and cheaper to operate.
Note, I could be a little off as it was awhile ago and it is late, but I am 95% sure that was the reason.
blink
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3780 times:
Why does everyone blame maintenance? Are you saying the flight crews are every bit as good as Western crews? Or that the airports and conditions that they are operated under have no bearing? As an engineer, I must protest!
Aircraft maintenance guys here in developed nations are great. As a pilot, I put my lives in the hands of you guys every day. I look up to you, and ask your advice constantly. You're probably the most safety-conscious skilled mechanics in the entire world.
Unfortunately, that's not the case everywhere else in the world. When a plane breaks (whatever kind of airplane it is...Airbus, Boeing, Tupolev, Antonov, whatever) in, say, Angola, I highly doubt there's a big white shiny hangar with floors so clean you could eat off of anywhere in the country to fix it. I think it's safe to say that there's not a covey of A&P's around with degrees from Embry-Riddle swarming around those airplanes. The MX crews just don't have the resources in ANY sense of the word to keep the planes operating anywhere near the standards of developed countries.
Airman99o From Canada, joined Aug 1999, 969 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3672 times:
Hey there,
Actually if you go on one of the websites for accidents with the US and then do the same with the Former USSR and now Russia and the CIS. I think that the US has a worse safty record than Russia. Yes lack of money and shoddy repairs have given this industry a bad name. But if you look at the pilots they are probably, some of the best in the world. I would have no problems jumping on at Tu-154 with Aeroflot, or any Russian made plane in the Aeroflot fleet. They keep up the regular repairs on them seeing they are trying to get rid of the Soviet image, and become a world class airline. Hopefully soon we will get to see more of the Russian birds in the skys.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 8267 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2131 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, 
From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1919 posts, 
From France, joined Dec 2002, 411 posts, 
From Pakistan, joined Apr 2003, 624 posts, 
From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5430 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
