Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
PIA Grounds All Fokker F27 Aircraft, Now Confirmed  
User currently offlineBravo45 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2165 posts, RR: 11
Posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3773 times:

All PIA Fokkers have been grounded!!! Now with ATR replacement on their way (one has arrived already), I don't think the PIA Fokkers will ever see the sky again.

There were rumors about the aircraft being grounded on the day of the crash as well (10 July), and at first I didn't believe it today when I heard it again from my Uncle that it was decided in a meeting of the Prime Minister with his cabinet.

I'm sure the decision was taken under pressure from people who don't know the ABC of aviation safety.

Fokker-phobia was already there in the public (because of its age and appearance, and of course because of its dives in air-pockets and turbulence), but on the day of the crash more panic was "induced" by the media who don't know much about aviation (and neither does the average reader/viewer). The headlines in newspapers of 11 July highlighted the age of the aircraft and implied that the crash was "DEFINITELY BECAUSE IT WAS 40 YEARS OLD"... one headline was, "PIA still flying seven 40 year old aircraft".
Even though a smaller headline told that the engineer who inspected the aircraft's fitness for flying was also on board the aircraft and died... He must've been 100% satisfied with the Fokker's "health" to get on board himself!!


My photos from PIA Fokker F-27 AP-BCZ (Lahore - Peshawar - Islamabad, 11 Jan 06):
http://www.globalpia.net/pkisb.asp
http://airport.fotopic.net/c894975.html (more of them)

[Edited 2006-07-13 00:26:21]

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSayem55 From Pakistan, joined Jul 2001, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3661 times:

good
now they should get rid of them too



StarFighter
User currently offlineBravo45 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2165 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3641 times:

Well I am saddened by this news actually. Not that I want Fokkers to fly despite any short commings but the fact is its a decision apparently seem to have been taken in the heat of a tragic accident. The Fokkers, if I remember correctly have better performance both: With one engine as well as at high humid and hot temperatures. In other words, having the ATR in the same situation would have not only not made a difference, but would have further reduced the chances of making it. Now the sad thing is no one survived so the last statement almost becomes immaterial. And if you say the ATR would not have had a problem (being a new aircraft), well I think we should wait before saying this because we don't know what happened. In short, why withdraw Fokker prematurely if it was not its fault. We simply don't know yet.

P.S Want to make it clear, they will continue to operate cargo.


User currently offlineAntskip From Australia, joined Jan 2006, 936 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3549 times:

Quoting Bravo45 (Thread starter):
All PIA Fokkers have been grounded

More on this from the Pakistan on-line newspaper www.dawn.com:

Quote:
Though the Fokker fleet is meeting all international standards, we have imposed the ban owing to growing demands from passengers and cabinet members,” Information Minister Mohammad Ali Durrani told a briefing later.

When pointed out that much before the Multan crash Defence Minister Rao Sikandar Iqbal had asked PIA to stop using Fokker planes for commercial flights, Mr Durrani said: “That’s why now you see the ban.” According to insiders, some cabinet members said that although Fokker aircraft were considered the safest worldwide, in Pakistan they were called ‘flying coffins’ because they were being used beyond their capacity and age, and their maintenance left a lot to be desired.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/07/13/top1.htm


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3523 times:

Quoting Bravo45 (Reply 2):
Well I am saddened by this news actually. Not that I want Fokkers to fly despite any short commings but the fact is its a decision apparently seem to have been taken in the heat of a tragic accident. The Fokkers, if I remember correctly have better performance both: With one engine as well as at high humid and hot temperatures. In other words, having the ATR in the same situation would have not only not made a difference, but would have further reduced the chances of making it. Now the sad thing is no one survived so the last statement almost becomes immaterial. And if you say the ATR would not have had a problem (being a new aircraft), well I think we should wait before saying this because we don't know what happened. In short, why withdraw Fokker prematurely if it was not its fault. We simply don't know yet.

Sux to see them go too, but I think it was needed to be done...... Sad



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineBravo45 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2165 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3486 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 4):
Sux to see them go too, but I think it was needed to be done......

Yeah I guess so.  Sad

BTW the trip pics above were from my brother's trip. Just realised it and I can't edit it now.


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3284 times:

Quoting Bravo45 (Reply 2):
Not that I want Fokkers to fly despite any short commings but the fact is its a decision apparently seem to have been taken in the heat of a tragic accident.

I agree Bravo.
At work I am told they will keep them flying albeit as cargo planes.

I never understood what people have against a little older A/C's, if properly maintained it should not be a problem besides they are not even close to there maximum number of cycles.



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineAF1624 From France, joined Jul 2006, 664 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3255 times:

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 6):
if properly maintained it should not be a problem

Any machine can survive forever, If it is maintained properly. It's not really the point. I can see two problems that go against the possibility of re-using really old aircrafts :


  • To have a good maintenance on an old aircraft, you have to be able to repair, or buy, the exact same part of the aircraft that's broken. If it's damaged beyond repair, you have to buy a new one. What If these parts are too old to still be in production ? Can those parts be repaired forever ? I don't think so, because the materials wear-out. More repairing, more production of out-of-production parts is more money wasted.

  • What do you do If the aircraft (that's very old) doesn't follow the rules of today's skies ? Safety rules, procedures, or even comfort standarts, that are created each day with the appearance of brand-new, highly-technological aircraft like the B777 or the A380 ? It would not be the cause of a crash in most cases, like in this one. But it surely would be violently criticized by both passengers and international regulation organizations (like those who prohibit this or that aircraft of flying over this or that country).


Apart from that, I think it is really sad to get rid of aircrafts. It really is, for all of them. The Fokker-27 is a beautiful machine, and was a beautiful creation at its time. I flew the F50 quite a few times (which is the renewed version of the F27, with slight differences) and always liked it. It's a shame those aircrafts have to go away. But it's like anything else in this world.



Cheers
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4876 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3170 times:

Quoting Bravo45 (Reply 2):
why withdraw Fokker prematurely if it was not its fault. We simply don't know yet.



Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 4):
but I think it was needed to be done


 checkmark 
Precisely why the others were grounded. Pending conclusive proof that the ill-fated aircraft and the others were not faulty, by some means or another, it's wiser to err on the side of caution.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineBravo45 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2165 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3052 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 8):
it's wiser to err on the side of caution.

Oh no doubt about that, its just that the Fokkers right now are always being prejudged by the general public DESPITE the excellent record to prove otherwise (like the DC-10s in the past). That is where the problem lies. I think even if (as it most likely would), Fokkers turn out not to be flawed, yet again, the public will simply not trust the official word and so will not fly on the Fokkers.
Let us not forget, they have to be replaced at some point, in fact they are already in the process of being replaced. But the fact that they have useful life left in them is something the public simply is not capable of understanding. So the earlier the replacements arrive the better it is now. I can't have imagined a worse farewell for one of the most beautiful birds ever after working so hard flawlessly, even in my wildest dreams. It should not be forgotten, the fact that the brand new ATRs are incapable of doing what the PIA has accomplished with the Fokkers in the past, the operations from unpaved airfields high in the mountains etc.

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 6):
I never understood what people have against a little older A/C's,

Well they are the ones to pay to keep them running and that is how those who have no idea how the system works have their opinions matter over the contrary word from professionals. Its the sad and unfortunate truth about many industries.


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2953 times:

Quoting AF1624 (Reply 7):
To have a good maintenance on an old aircraft, you have to be able to repair, or buy, the exact same part of the aircraft that's broken. If it's damaged beyond repair, you have to buy a new one.

As a volunteer I am one of the (few) guys responsible for the maintenance of this F27.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Honders


It is the oldest flying F27 in the world and infect the very first production Friendship which left the production line in 1958.
Never experienced a spare part problem up to day.

Quoting AF1624 (Reply 7):
What do you do If the aircraft (that's very old) doesn't follow the rules of today's skies ? Safety rules, procedures, or even comfort standarts, that are created each day with the appearance of brand-new, highly-technological aircraft like the B777 or the A380 ?

A general misunderstanding.
The above F27 complies with today's regulations like Ground Prox, Tcas and so on.

Quoting Bravo45 (Reply 9):
Well they are the ones to pay to keep them running and that is how those who have no idea how the system works have their opinions matter over the contrary word from professionals. Its the sad and unfortunate truth about many industries.

Might be all true but still I have the feeling that the public has a general misunderstanding about older A/C.
As a proffesional licensed engineer I can honestly tell you that we have a lot more problems with modern aircraft(including B77 etc..) then the older ones.
Of course I do not know much about PIA F27 status and their way of working.
Still I keep saying "if well maintained they should not have a problem".

The dispatch reliability is a lot higher then any other A/C I can think of.
Don't know exactly but I believe our F27 flew for Aicruising Australie for 20 years or so and only ones a flight had to be canceled due to mx !
Try that with a modern F50/70/100, B77, A33/34 or what ever.



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineDIJKKIJK From France, joined Jul 2003, 1811 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2932 times:

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 10):
Never experienced a spare part problem up to day.

There has to be a big difference in the requirement of spares between a museum aircraft that does barely one flight a day, and a workhorse which flies daily in one of the most inhospitable conditions the world. The Lelystad F27 may be the older, but the ones at PIA have to endure much more demanding operational conditions, with the wear and tear of components increasing substantially as a result.

Quoting AF1624 (Reply 7):
The Fokker-27 is a beautiful machine, and was a beautiful creation at its time

Have to agree with that! It is a beautiful airplane. It is sad that so few are still flying in the world.

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 6):
never understood what people have against a little older A/C's

Mentality... fuelled by ignorance.



Never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience.
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2886 times:

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 11):
There has to be a big difference in the requirement of spares between a museum aircraft that does barely one flight a day, and a workhorse which flies daily in one of the most inhospitable conditions the world. The Lelystad F27 may be the older, but the ones at PIA have to endure much more demanding operational conditions, with the wear and tear of components increasing substantially as a result.

Maybe so but I meant spare parts are no problem whether you need them daily or ones a month.
Also there is no difference between between operations in terms of demand.
For this type of A/C lifetime is measured in cycles rather then hours and a cycle is a cycle without any demand issue.
The airframe is certified for 110.000 cycles tested under the most demanding circumstances(maximum load each time) with a tolerance of +50% in the plus(recall from the head might be 25% don't remember exactly).
So from an airframe point of view there are only "easy flights" even at PIA, this particular airframe would make 200.000 cycles without any structural problem in usual airliner circumstances.(eventhough it is not allowed)
What's left are engines and other systems for which there are mx intervals that has to be followed.
My point is that any A/C is tested and certified under max loads plus, loads that will normally never be reached by any operator.... not even PIA and a year count does not exist.

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 10):
Might be all true but still I have the feeling that the public has a general misunderstanding about older A/C.

To explain my previous point even further.
There is no difference between modern and older A/C's in terms of regulations, this is in my view also a general misunderstanding.
If the rules say "from the year 2000 you can only perform pax flights with GPWS and Tcas onboard" then that's it.
Nowhere it will say that older A/C's are excluded.
So all F27's in the EU flying under EASA regulations like Farnair, MiniLiner and WDL comply with today's regulations without any exception.

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 11):
It is sad that so few are still flying in the world.

Few is relative I guess, well over 200 frames are still flying.



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
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...
All CO 73G/738's Now Winglet-ed posted Fri Sep 1 2006 09:02:06 by IAHcsr
Larger Aircraft Now Allowed In Pullman-Moscow posted Mon Aug 21 2006 01:54:34 by AirlineBrat
PIA Operating All Fleet Types To BOM? posted Thu Apr 6 2006 19:20:56 by SM777
PIA To Lease 10 New Aircraft posted Sun Mar 12 2006 10:28:52 by Cabso1
N505LL (CIA Aircraft) Now At GFK posted Mon Nov 21 2005 03:17:58 by TWA902fly
PIA Wants To Lease More Aircraft posted Sun Oct 2 2005 15:18:29 by A342
Two Aircraft Now Missing In New Jersey posted Mon Jun 20 2005 22:59:21 by Jalto27R
All Canada Express Aircraft In Dublin This Morning posted Sat Dec 18 2004 13:27:35 by RobK
How Many Aircraft Now In The New UA Livery? posted Sat Nov 20 2004 17:43:48 by BMIFlyer
An All White B747 Aircraft Registration Request posted Wed Sep 1 2004 23:43:00 by Runway25