Petertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3421 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5840 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.
Goomba From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 309 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5589 times:
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.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4495 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5510 times:
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.
Netdhaka From Bangladesh, joined Feb 2004, 183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5473 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.
Sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2655 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5407 times:
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.
Ben From Switzerland, joined Aug 1999, 1391 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day ago) and read 4983 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?
Tcfc424 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 518 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (10 years 12 months 23 hours ago) and read 4846 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...
Russophile From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 12 months 19 hours ago) and read 4511 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.