Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ilyushin Il-76 - Is This Plane A Deathtrap?  
User currently offlineGoomba From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 309 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5604 times:

It seems to me that these aircraft are simply falling out of the skies on a weekly basis. Another one went down today.

Why are they still allowed to fly?

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3363 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5475 times:

If properly maintained this plane is a safe as any other plane. But these planes fly a lot in places where proper maintenance is often neglected. Also, these planes operate a lot in harsh conditions making the chances for accidents larger.


Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineJmy007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 598 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5398 times:

Goomba-

Where did you find this information about an IL-96 going down? Where, When etc. etc.

thanks!



Cookies are the Gateway pastry. They lead to Éclairs and Bear Claws.
User currently offlineGoomba From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 309 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5377 times:

Jmy - It was posted on

http://www.airdisaster.com

PS - It was an Ilyushin Il-76, not 96.


User currently offlineCaravelle From Norway, joined Aug 2000, 666 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5371 times:

Goomba, man above (Peter) has a point. Can you prove yours? Faulty design? Lack of know-how?

Why and how?

- caravelle



Trains and boats and planes....
User currently offlineGoomba From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 309 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5318 times:

Caravelle - I don't have a point here. Simply making the observation that this aircraft is crashing a lot lately.

User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4489 posts, RR: 21
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5268 times:

Goomba,

On average, one Cessna 172 is written off every one to two days.

Does this make the aircraft unsafe?

Nope. Petertenthije's explanation is the best.




I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineGoomba From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 309 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5224 times:

JBird:

That's an interesting point. Are the 172's being written off because they are nose diving into the ground every one to two days, or is it because of old age? Is the 172 a safe plane? Sure...if properly maintained. My point is that the ILyushin 76 is an old plane that is not being "properly maintained". Why is it still allowed to fly commercially then? Cessna 172's carry 4 people max...the Ilyushin 76 carries many more than that. Surely insurance carriers that cover these foreign airlines that fly the Ilyushin 76's are screaming to get these planes out of the sky.


User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4489 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5145 times:

Goomba,

Sure the 172 is old--in fact, the earliest ones date DECADES before the IL-76 came into existence.

How can you write off an airplane as being a "deathtrap" without even looking at the accident report? For all you know, it could have run into a flock of wild turkeys, snuffing out all four engines. You're going down one way or another then.

Early model Airbus and Boeing aircraft that are being used in those conditions receive shoddy maintenance, too...and a fair number of those crash. Lots of factors contribute to those...ie relatively untrained aircrews, bad maintenance, routine overstressing of the equipment, etc.

IL-76's are not commercial airliners, they are cargo airliners (and troop transports, in some cases). Russian aircraft are overbuilt in a lot of ways.

WHY aren't these companies "screaming" to get rid of the planes? Well, that much is easy. Safety is not the number one priority at a LOT of operators worldwide. New aircraft mean huge price tags. That's just not feasible for 99% of these operators.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineNetdhaka From Bangladesh, joined Feb 2004, 183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5108 times:

Ilyushin Il-76 - Is This Plane A Deathtrap?

We have to find out the cause of crash to determine this. If the plain crashes because of pilot error then better training is required and if the plane crashes for mechanical reasons then better maintenance is required. If proper parts are unavailable then it should stop flying.


User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2591 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5042 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

About 1000 Il-76 have been built. 48 hull loss accidents have occured. More than half of these involve air force aircraft. Here are the statistics of the crashed aircraft.

13 were shot down
2 Il-76 collided with each other(probably pilot error)
6 were destroyed on the ground(3 by US air raid, 3 by enemy fire)
1 had a fuel shortage
1 overran a wet runway
1 collided with a B747 in India(control/pilot error)
3 were overloaded
1 was destroyed by a typhoon
3 from in-flight fire
12 various crashes on takeoff and apporach because of pilot/control error and bad weather
5 because of mechanical fault

As you can see...out of all those 48 hull loss accidents only 5 are the plane's fault and they operated with airlines that don't really maintain them good. Some of these accidents weren't the Il-76 plane's fault at all like shot down and typhoon and destroyed on ground during raids. 5 out of about 1000 planes due to mechanical fault isn't bad at all. The Il-76 is a very reliable and tough airplane but today alot are flying in unreliable hands which leads to a crash once in a while. Also you mention Cessnas carrying 4 people and Il-76 carrying "alot more". Il-76 is a cargo plane...it really doesn't carry more than 10 people at a time. Also the Il-76 design is from the 1970s and those first produced aircraft probably aren't flying anymore. Il-76s aren't that old for a cargo plane and are still being produced.


User currently offlineSW733US From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4882 times:

I still think that 5 out of 1000 is still a high number, but I see your point Sovietjet

User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2591 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4762 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well those 5 are all probably related to the bad maintenance which we talked about. The rest isn't really the plane's fault.

User currently offlineBen From Switzerland, joined Aug 1999, 1391 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4618 times:

It is not possible to understand these things with an American-centric view.

The world doesn't work like the USA. You really need to go to these places and see the conditions which they are operated in and what they are expected to perform. Then you would understand that 5 (or 48) is really a small number.

ILyushin 76 is an old plane that is not being "properly maintained".

Wow.. you can group more than 1000 aircraft in 20+ countries into such a neat sterotype?

Some are just a year or 2 old... some are more than 20. Some are well maintained, some are not.

It's like me saying that because a 727 crashed in deepest darkest Africa (which they do regularly), that a 727 operated by United Airlines in the USA is automatically unsafe too. After all, Boeings are regularly falling out of the sky, aren't they? Maybe one a month somewhere in the world?


User currently offlineRA-85154 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 618 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4552 times:

Why are they still allowed to fly?

Why NOT? May I laugh?? I am really getting tired of this short-sighted generalization all the time, especially regarding the Soviet/Russian aviation industry...

Like Ben says, every aircraft, every country and operator is a different story...no IL-76 is identical to the other.

This is the same for any aircraft in the world, whether it is a Boeing, an Airbus or a Tupolev.

So please do me a favour and inform yourself about the aircraft/design, operators and aircraft operating conditions before starting a post like this...

regards
Martijn







User currently offlineTcfc424 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 517 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4481 times:

While I agree with everyone about the fact that the IL-76 is being mistakenly construed in a bad light, I would like to address the issue regarding the Cessna 172's that I saw above. Old age was listed as a reason for the high number of crashes, however no one happened to point out that it is a very widely used pilot training aircraft and therefore has a huge number of pilot error crashes...

User currently offlineGoomba From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 309 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4280 times:

Point taken everyone...Geez. I was simply making an observation that it seems like a lot of Russian built aircraft are falling out of the skies lately.

User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10677 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4193 times:

48 hull losses out of 1000 IL-76s built (were there really so many produced?) is still far less than the almost 100 writeoffs out of little more than 1000 737-200s built!

User currently offlineRussophile From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4146 times:

Geez. I was simply making an observation that it seems like a lot of Russian built aircraft are falling out of the skies lately.

Like I replied to someone else on another thread -- 1 Yak-40 and 1 Il-76 since the beginning of this year.

How many Boeings, Airbuses, etc have crashed since then?

There is a general underlying hatred and distrust of all things Soviet in these forums -- we don't see threads every day on "Is the DC-10 a deathtrap" -- "Is the A320 a deathtrap" -- "Is the 737 a deathtrap" -- well actually, to some extent there are these threads, but they generally are backed up with some facts -- but when discussing Russian aviation it is simply enough to say the word "Russian" or "Soviet" and it is automatically assumed they are unsafe.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is The Ilyushin Il-76 Still Allowed In The EU? posted Mon Apr 1 2002 22:39:38 by Blackened
Is This A Plane Or Some Kind Of Hydrofoil? posted Mon May 22 2006 00:13:08 by Airplanepics
Is This Plane Really In Service? posted Sat Mar 25 2006 14:15:11 by Junior1970
Where Is This Plane Landing? posted Fri Mar 24 2006 10:00:31 by Blasphemystic
Is This Plane Still Flying? posted Tue Aug 30 2005 20:51:04 by Drinkstrolley
What Is This Plane? posted Tue Apr 5 2005 18:32:20 by Byrdluvs747
What Is This Plane? posted Sun Dec 19 2004 17:37:15 by European
What Is This Plane? posted Sat Jun 5 2004 05:24:26 by NWADC9
What Is This Plane Doing....? posted Sat Feb 21 2004 09:05:58 by HNLFlyboy
Where Is This Plane Going?! posted Fri Feb 6 2004 19:14:39 by ScottishLaddie