Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Tu-154 Sealed Emergency Exits  
User currently offlineAmbanmba From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 48 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 10735 times:

I recently took my first SU Tu-154 ride from LED to SVO. It was a great experience and a bit of a trip back in time.

While boarding in LED, I noticed that one of the emergency exits was sealed shut. From the interior, they've added an additional row so it wouldn't be usable anyway. In addition, the safety instruction card made no mention of the sealed exit.

Big version: Width: 720 Height: 540 File size: 52kb
SU Tu-154 Overwing Exits


Looking through the photos in the A.net database, you can see that sometimes the door is sealed and sometimes not. Was this always designed as an optional feature? It seems that if you add extra rows of seating by blocking exits, you are increasing seating capacity while reducing exit capacity.

For interest, have some additional pics and videos from my trip here: http://blog.ambor.com/2009/05/aerofl...t-tupolev-tu-154m-trip-report.html

-ambanmba


Concorde 300/10/19/20/21/30/40/80 707/17/27/37/47/57/67/77 AT7 146 CRJ DC3/9/10 DHC8 F100 L1011 MD11/80 S340 T154M Y7C
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 10654 times:



Quoting Ambanmba (Thread starter):
It seems that if you add extra rows of seating by blocking exits, you are increasing seating capacity while reducing exit capacity.

Presumably they still meet the local certification rules for the number of exits based on the total number of seats on the aircraft.

There have been other cases in the past where installed exits were deactivated and sealed up. In the early 1980s BA sealed up the overwing doors on their 747-100/200s and installed additional seats in that area. You wouldn't have known the door was there from inside the aircraft except for the several missing windows as new wall panels matched the rest of the cabin. That was a controversial action. It apparently still met minimum evactuation requirements but many people considered it an unwise change to deactive doors while increasing seating capacity. It obviously significantly increased the distance to the nearest exit for many passengers. I believe BA/KL/CX were the only carriers that made that change.

Photos of the same aircraft below before and after the overwing doors were deactivated. You can see the painted outline around those doors is missing in the 2nd photo.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © pkaviation
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim Rees



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George Canciani
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Martin Boschhuizen - AirTeamImages



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George Canciani
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marc Lehmann



Early UA 727-200s had an extra emergency exit on both sides just foreward of the wing. I think they had expected FAA evacuation rules to be changed but it turned out that those exits were not needed and they were saled up a few years later..They were never installed on later 727-200s. I believe UA's early 722s with the only ones built with those extra exits. Same aircraft below, before and after those exits were deactivated.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Pierre Langlois
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon Collection-Pima Air and Space Museum



User currently offlineJQFlightie From Australia, joined Mar 2009, 1010 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 10345 times:

you are so brave from going on that aircraft! now as cabin crew and i book a holiday anywhere, i always check the aircraft im flying on! lol im not getting on anything russian! as much as they are beautiful people another thing could be said about the A/C they make! haha


Next Trip: PER-DPS-KUL-BKK-HKT-CNX-BKK-SIN-PER
User currently offlineLarshjort From Niue, joined Dec 2007, 1527 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 10305 times:



Quoting JQFlightie (Reply 2):
you are so brave from going on that aircraft! now as cabin crew and i book a holiday anywhere, i always check the aircraft im flying on! lol im not getting on anything russian! as much as they are beautiful people another thing could be said about the A/C they make! haha

I would fly an Aeroflot Tu-154 any day, last time Aeroflot had a crash with fatalities was in 1994, and it was an Airbus.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/operator/airline.php?var=6824

/Lasrs



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 10265 times:



Quoting JQFlightie (Reply 2):
you are so brave from going on that aircraft! now as cabin crew and i book a holiday anywhere, i always check the aircraft im flying on! lol im not getting on anything russian! as much as they are beautiful people another thing could be said about the A/C they make! haha

Unfortunately, you really don't know very much about aircraft. However, with regards to your assertion, what you really mean is you check the aircraft you think you are flying on.....as cabin crew then you would surely know that equipment can be changed at any time!


User currently offlineAmbanmba From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 10207 times:



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 4):
you check the aircraft you think you are flying on.....

In fact, I specifically booked on two Tu-154 flights to give me a better chance - and only got one (the SVO-LED flight had an equipment change onto one of the new SU A320s).

A similar thing happened when I got to fly on a QV Y7C a few years ago per photo below - Was supposed to be one of their ATRs.  Smile


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alastair Bor



-ambanmba



Concorde 300/10/19/20/21/30/40/80 707/17/27/37/47/57/67/77 AT7 146 CRJ DC3/9/10 DHC8 F100 L1011 MD11/80 S340 T154M Y7C
User currently offlineAcabgd From Serbia, joined Jul 2005, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 10194 times:



Quoting JQFlightie (Reply 2):
lol im not getting on anything russian! as much as they are beautiful people another thing could be said about the A/C they make!

Your statement leaves a lot to be desired, to put it nicely. You apparently have very little knowledge about aircraft, Russian aircraft or aviation in general.
Sad if it's true you are cabin crew.

I'd fly on a Russian airliner any day (and I did). OTOH, I always check what airline will be operating the flight - be it in Russia or elsewhere.



CSud,D9,MD8x,D10,Trid,BAC1,A30,31,319,320,321,33,346,B71,72,73,74,75,76,77,L10,S20,A42,A72,T13,T15,F50,F70,F100,B146
User currently offlineJQFlightie From Australia, joined Mar 2009, 1010 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 10033 times:

well when you look at how many fatalities there has been on russian built aircraft then it makes you wonder why i said it, look at the state of it, i wouldnt have a problem getting on a SU A320 or even their 767's but in asumption to you all thinking i dont know my aircraft i think thats a big statement to make! look at the picture submitted, it doesnt exactly look apealling to a PAX does it now! And i statement made saying im a bad cabin Crew, well i think that is quiet something seeing tho you dont know me!


Next Trip: PER-DPS-KUL-BKK-HKT-CNX-BKK-SIN-PER
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27341 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 9931 times:



Quoting Acabgd (Reply 6):
I'd fly on a Russian airliner any day (and I did). OTOH, I always check what airline will be operating the flight - be it in Russia or elsewhere.

I would have no problem flying on Russian A/C. Some of them are better than Boeings.


User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 9923 times:

Your comments reveal a fairly shallow understanding of appearance versus reality, when it comes to flying.

Has it escaped your notice that modern, well presented, young, Airbus and Boeing aircraft have been involved in crashes or incidents as a result of poor maintenance, poor training, or air traffic control incidents? They might look great - doesn't make flying in your Jetstar A320 any safer though. The Turkish 738 incident is a good example.

In fact, many of Aeroflot's pilots would have vastly more experience than your average Jetstar "rookie".

The TU154 is an extremely robust, well proven aircraft. Well maintained and correctly operated, it's really no safer or more dangerous than anything else. It's history of incidents has a lot more to do with lesser operators than the design of the a/c itself.

Flown on any domestic US flights recently? Try an old DC9 and see how you go...



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4577 posts, RR: 40
Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 9843 times:



Quoting JQFlightie (Reply 7):
well when you look at how many fatalities there has been on russian built aircraft

Could you please back that up with statistics? I don't think you can make a sweeping generalisation like that without evidence.

I had a look at http://aviation-safety.net/database/type

These are figures for hull loss accidents and consequent fatalities I got for major Western and Russian jet-powered airliner types. Now, this data is a bit artificial by itself - it really would be better taking into account the number of aircraft built, time in service, the number of flights conducted, and the number of miles flown (for example, I'd expect more hull losses and fatalities for the 737 than for the 720). I'd also expect more modern types to show better figures over a same period by virtue of improved technology and procedures. I can't find all that data readily, so this will have to suffice, unless you can provide better.

Aerospatiale/BAC Concorde - 1 with a total of 109 fatalities
Airbus A300 - 17 with a total of 1126 fatalities
Airbus A310 - 8 with a total of 673 fatalities
Airbus A32x - 16 with a total of 637 fatalities
Airbus A330 - 2 with a total of 7 fatalities
Airbus A340 - 2 with a total of 0 fatalities
Boeing 707 - 142 with a total of 2732 fatalities
Boeing 720 - 12 with a total of 175 fatalities
Boeing 727 - 90 with a total of 3704 fatalities
Boeing 737 - 133 with a total of 3847 fatalities
Boeing 747 - 40 with a total of 2850 fatalities
Boeing 757 - 6 with a total of 467 fatalities
Boeing 767 - 6 with a total of 569 fatalities
Boeing 777 - 1 with a total of 0 fatalities
Convair CV-880 - 14 with a total of 90 fatalities
Convair CV-990 - 7 with a total of 201 fatalities
Lockheed L-1011 - 7 with a total of 534 fatalities
McDonnell Douglas DC-8 - 74 with a total of 2256 fatalities
McDonnell Douglas DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/717 - 115 with a total of 3313 fatalities
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 - 26 with a total of 1261 fatalities
McDonnell Douglas MD-11 - 6 with a total of 237 fatalities
Sud SE-210 Caravelle - 52 with a total of 1227 fatalities
Vickers VC-10 - 3 with a total of 130 fatalities

Ilyushin Il-62 - 19 with a total of 1068 fatalities
Ilyushin Il-86 - 3 with a total of 14 fatalities
Ilyushin Il-96 - 0 with a total of 0 fatalities
Tupolev Tu-104 - 33 with a total of 978 fatalities
Tupolev Tu-124 - 13 with a total of 303 fatalities
Tupolev Tu-134 - 56 with a total of 1332 fatalities
Tupolev Tu-144 - 2 with a total of 8 fatalities
Tupolev Tu-154 - 53 with a total of 2470 fatalities
Tupolev Tu-204 - 0 with a total of 0 fatalities
Tupolev Tu-334 - 0 with a total of 0 fatalities
Yakovlev Yak-40 - 85 with a total of 805 fatalities
Yakovlev Yak-42 - 7 with a total of 526 fatalities

Like I said, it is a bit hard to interpret the data by itself without access to a significant amount of other details, but to say that there have been a lot of fatalities on Russian types and not on western types is just outright incorrect.

Personally, I think this argument, which has been had numerous times, is irrelevant to this thread. Start a new thread on it if you want, but I'd suspect you find you are in a minority in your views by a fair margin...

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9546 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 9724 times:



Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 9):

 checkmark 

Time to trot out The List again, which I compiled some time ago for someone else who didn't want facts to get in the way (US date format).  Smile

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

02.19.1973 Aeroflot - Prague, Czechoslovakia

"PROBABLE cause: "Owing to the high degree of destruction.and total disintegration of the aircraft in the crash and ensuing fire it was not possible to establish the precise cause of the accident. The influence of unexpected atmospheric turbulence during the aircraft's final approach cannot be entirely ruled out.""

09.30.1975 Malev - Beirut, Lebanon HA-LCI

"PROBABLE cause: Undetermined."

06.01.1976 Aeroflot - Macias Nguema, Equatorial Guinea

"Near Malabo the aircraft collided with Mount San Carlos on Macías Nguema Biyogo (now Bioko) Island at 750 m."

12.02.1977 Balkan Bulgarian Airlines - Benghazi, Libya LZ-BTN

"When the crew weren't able to locate the alternate airport, they ran out of fuel."

07.07.1980 Aeroflot - Alma-Ata, Kasakastan

"Two minutes after takeoff from Alma-Ata, at a height of 120-150 m, the plane entered a zone of high air temperature (30-40 deg C) where the airspeed dropped because of the wind. Then the plane was caught in a downdraft and stalled. It descended nose down until it struck a farm and crashed on a wheat field near the suburbs of Alma-Ata."

11.16.1981 Aeroflot - Nor'ilsk, Russia

"While on approach to Noril'sk, the plane acquired an excessive vertical speed and descended below the glideslope. It impacted terrain in an open field about 470 m from the runway threshold and slid across the frozen ground for about 300 m. The Tu-154 had a high descent speed, maximum forward centre of gravity and slow flying speed. The high descent speed could not be countered by applying maximum elevator trim."

10.11.1984 Aeroflot - Omsk, Russia

"Flight 3352 as approaching Omsk in poor weather; light rain, visibility 2 miles, 300 feet ceiling. Landing lights were switched off as they caused a reflection due to the drizzle. Immediately after touching down at a speed of about 140 knots the crew noticed snow cleaning vehicles on the runway. An evasive manoeuvre was of no avail as the aircraft struck two vehicles and crashed in flames. One of the controllers had fallen asleep and thus failed to inform the approach controller about the presence of the vehicles."

12.23.1984 Aeroflot - Kranoyarsk, Russia

"Two minutes after takeoff, at an altitude of 2040 m, the no. 3 engine suffered an uncontained failure. The no. 3 engine caught fire, but the flight engineer shut down engine no. 2. The fire spread around the tail of the plane, causing the Tu-154 to lose control just prior landing."

07.10.1985 Aeroflot - Uchuduk, Uzbekistan

"Went into a flat spin while cruising at FL350 and crashed."

01.18.1988 Aeroflot - Krosnovodsk, Turkmenistan

"Heavy landing; broke up.
PROBABLE cause: The approach and landing were carried out by the co-pilot (against regulations under conditions)."

05.23.1991 Aeroflot - Leningrad, Russia

"The Tupolev approached with a rate of descent during a rain shower and landed hard 13m short of the runway. The right gear collapsed and the aircraft started to break up."

07.20.1992 Georgian Air - Tbilisi, Georgia

"The aircraft didn't become airborne and overran the runway, striking the localizer building. The Tu-154 broke up, overturned and crashed into a ravine.

PROBABLE cause: Overloaded and a centre of gravity too far forward."

02.08.1993 Iran Air - Tehran, Iran

"Mid-air collision between a Tu-154 (departing from runway 29R) and an Iranian Air Force Sukhoi 22 (on VFR approach to runway 29L)"

09.22.1993 Transair Georgia - Sukhumi, Georgia

"The aircraft was shot down by Abkhazian rebels after a flight from Tbilisi. The Tu-154 crashed onto the runway and caught fire."

01.03.1994 Baikal Air - Mamony, Russia

"PROBABLE cause: Break-up of the no.2 engine starter, damaging fuel and oil lines. The crew shouldn't have departed in the first place, but underestimated the severity of the situation "due to shortcomings in the operational documentation and the instructions used for the training of flight and technical personnel, as well as the unsatisfactory information provided in the cockpit by the starter's status monitoring system.""

06.06.1994 China Northwest Airlines - Xi'an, China B-2694

"PROBABLE cause: Auto-pilot induced oscillations caused the aircraft to shake violently. It appeared that the autopilot yaw-channel had been connected to the bank control and the bank-channel to the yaw controls. This was done the previous evening 'in the field' rather than in a workshop."

12.07.1995 Far East Aviation - Grossevichi, Russia

"PROBABLE cause: Fuel-feed selected from wing tanks on the left side only. This was done to counteract the tendency to fly left-wing low. The fuel imbalance caused the aircraft to bank to the right during the flight. The autopilot was able to counteract this bank until 35 minutes after take-off."

08.29.1996 Vnokovo Airlines - Spitsbergen, Norway

"Eighteen significant factors have been identified as leading the flight to the disaster.
For example, inadequate planning, unsatisfactory crew resource management and monitoring, a lack of a suitable procedure for offset localizer approaches in connection with an inappropriate rule requiring the landing course to be set instead of the localizer course, not solving navigational problems at safe altitude, not discontinuing the approach when procedural uncertainties exist, limited knowledge of the operating language and the actual airspace with respect to service given."

09.13.1997 Luftwaffe - Namibia, Africa

"At approximately 1510 hours UTC, 65 nautical miles west of the Namibian, coast, a US Air Force C-141B Starlifter collided with a German Air Force (Luftwaffe) Tupolev 154M in mid-air."

12.15.1997 Tajikistan Airlines - Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

"PROBABLE cause: "The pilot descended below the assigned altitude and unintentionally continued a descent into terrain. Contributing factors were self-induced stress, slight turbulence and non-adherence to operating procedures.""

08.29.1998 Cubana de Aviacion - Quito, Ecuador

"When the aircraft reached the Vr speed, it would not rotate. It took the crew 10 seconds to decide to abort the take-off. With 800 m of runway length remaining, brakes were applied. The Tu-154 overshot the runway, plowed into a soccer field. The plane barely missed a middle-income residential area.
It is presumed that because of the problems during start-up and the time, almost 38 minutes, that passed to the beginning of take-off, the final point of the checklist for taxiing was not complied with and the crew forgot to select the switches for the hydraulic valves of the control system."

02.24.1999 China Southwest Airlines - Rui'an, China

"PROBABLE cause: A self-locking nut, other than castle nut with cotter pin as specified, had been installed at the bolt for connection between pull rod and bellcranck in the elevator control system. The nut screwed off, resulting in bolt loss, which led to the loss of pitch control."

07.04.2001 Vladivostok Avia - Burdanovka, Russia

"The approach into Irkutsk was flown by the first officer. While on approach, flying at 2640 feet, an aural warning indicated a wide angle of attack. Eleven seconds after the first officer began this maneuver, the aircraft then entered a flat spin. The captain ordered the throttles to be advanced, but the crew were unable to regain control."

10.04.2001 Sibir Airlines - Black Sea off Adler, Russia

"Flight 1812 had departed Tel Aviv for a flight to Novosibirsk. It proceeded at an altitude of FL360 on airway B-145 over the Black Sea. At the same time the Ukraine defence forces were doing an exercise near the coastal city of Theodosii in the Crimea region. Missiles were fired from an S-200V missile battery. A 5V28 missile missed the drone and homed in on the Tupolev. The missile exploded some 15 meters above the plane. The aircraft sustained serious damage, resulting in a decompression of the passenger cabin and a fire. The aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent, crashed into the sea and sank to a depth of 2000 m."

02.12.2002 Iran Air Tours - Khorramabad, Iran

"Crashed into the Kuh-e Sefid Mountain at 9100 feet while descending for Khorramabad, in preparation for a non-precision approach to runway 11."

07.01.2002 Bashkirian Airlines - Ueberlingen, Germany

"Mid-air collision due to ATC shortcomings."

08.24.2004 Sibir Airlines - Gluboki, Russia

"Flight 1047 departed Moscow about 22:40 for a flight to Sochi. It crashed almost simultaneously with a Volga-Aviaexpress Tupolev 134 which had also departed Domodedovo earlier that night. Investigations revealed traces of Hexogen, a highly sophisticated explosive also known as RDX in the wreckage. It appeared that the explosives had been carried aboard by a female passenger. Two female suicide bombers arrived at Moscow at 19:45 on the same day on a flight from Makhachkala in the company of another two Chechens. They had taken aside on arrival and were handed to a police captain in charge of antiterrorist precautions, but they were released without apparently having been searched. Both women then bought tickets on the Sibir flight to Sochi and the Volga-Aviaexpress to Volgograd from a black-market peddler. After bribing a Sibir Airlines employee in charge of check-in and boarding one of the women was able to bypass security and get on board the Tupolev 154."

08.22.2006 Pulkovo Aviation Enterprise - Donetsk, Ukraine

"The Tu-154 entered an area of severe turbulence, pushing up the airplane from 11.961 m to 12.794 m within just 10 seconds. The angle of attack increased to 46 degrees and the airspeed dropped to zero. It entered a deep stall from which the crew could not recover."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As with most accidents involving Soviet or western aircraft, accidents caused by problems with the design and/or manufacture are pretty rare.


User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2648 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9072 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting JQFlightie (Reply 2):

It's people like you that give Russian aircraft a bad name, not the aircraft themselves...


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8706 times:



Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 10):
Like I said, it is a bit hard to interpret the data by itself without access to a significant amount of other details, but to say that there have been a lot of fatalities on Russian types and not on western types is just outright incorrect.

As far as Aeroflot is concerned, you also have to consider that in the Soviet era, although the same name was used for everything, there were many divisions of Aeroflot that, as far as I know, operated almost as separate airlines, flying everything from biplane crop-dusters to longhaul international routes.

Unless I''ve overlooked something, the international division of Aeroflot, which was the basis for the current airline, has only had 2 fatal Tu-154 accidents in almost 40 years of operating the type, and both of those were over 30 years ago -- one after departure from Luanda, Angola, and one that crashed short of the runway approaching PRG. The first one hit a mountain -- hardly the aircraft's fault. They never found a clear cause for the PRG accident but turbulence was mentioned as one possibility.

That's a far better record than many, many western carriers operating non-Russian types. For example, Pan Am wrote off 5 707s in 9 months in 1973-74, all with fatalities. Pan Am wrote off a total of 12 707s in 11 years (1963-74) during their years operating the type, Only one of the 12 was non-fatal and one was due to a terrorist bombing..


User currently offlineMarcinGDN From Poland, joined Jun 2008, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8377 times:

i would never have any problem to fly the 154M, in fact I would love to do it!
In PL Russian aircraft got a bad reputation due to the IL-62 accidents, that's why LO's new TUs were disposed of.



Terra Incognita
User currently offlineDc10s2hnl From New Zealand, joined Aug 2006, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8269 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 13):

That's a far better record than many, many western carriers operating non-Russian types. For example, Pan Am wrote off 5 707s in 9 months in 1973-74, all with fatalities. Pan Am wrote off a total of 12 707s in 11 years (1963-74) during their years operating the type, Only one of the 12 was non-fatal and one was due to a terrorist bombing..

Exactly.
One needs to think and do some research before resorting to a blanket statement such as:

Quoting JQFlightie (Reply 2):
im not getting on anything russian!



User currently offlineAjd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8081 times:



Quoting JQFlightie (Reply 2):
you are so brave from going on that aircraft! now as cabin crew and i book a holiday anywhere, i always check the aircraft im flying on! lol im not getting on anything russian! as much as they are beautiful people another thing could be said about the A/C they make! haha

You'll find they're actually built a lot better because they're designed to operate into rough gravel and generally unprepared airfields. I'll bet if you had an Airbus and any Russian type into a gravel strip, the Airbus wouldn't be able to take off again safely.

You should really do some more research and as cabin crew, saying that is just unprofessional.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7997 times:



Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 10):
Could you please back that up with statistics?

You might want to take another look at your figures. Here's a good place to start.

www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf


User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3394 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7997 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
Photos of the same aircraft below before and after the overwing doors were deactivated. You can see the painted outline around those doors is missing in the 2nd photo.

Interesting, I never knew that. Do you also know why BA, CZ and KL decided on not plugging the overwing door on their '400s? Is it due to the higher capacity of the hump?



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7868 times:



Quoting Petertenthije (Reply 18):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
Photos of the same aircraft below before and after the overwing doors were deactivated. You can see the painted outline around those doors is missing in the 2nd photo.

Interesting, I never knew that. Do you also know why BA, CZ and KL decided on not plugging the overwing door on their '400s? Is it due to the higher capacity of the hump?

I forget the history, but regulations may have been change to prohibit that change after BA/KL/CX did it, however as far as I know they didn't reactivate the overwing doors before they retired or sold their 741/742s.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7736 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):
Quoting Petertenthije (Reply 18):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
Photos of the same aircraft below before and after the overwing doors were deactivated. You can see the painted outline around those doors is missing in the 2nd photo.

Interesting, I never knew that. Do you also know why BA, CZ and KL decided on not plugging the overwing door on their '400s? Is it due to the higher capacity of the hump?

I forget the history, but regulations may have been change to prohibit that change after BA/KL/CX did it, however as far as I know they didn't reactivate the overwing doors before they retired or sold their 741/742s.

Found the following in the February 22, 1986 issue of Flight International in the FlightGlobal site:

747 Evacuation Succeeds

EVERETT

Boeing carried out a successful 747 evacuation test on February 15 without the use of the controversial overwing exits which remain sealed in British Airways' aircraft.

All 540 passengers plus 11 crew and two pilots were evacuated from the 747-300 through four main deck and one upper deck exit in 80sec.

Standard criteria for these tests are a full load of passengers through half the available exits within 90sec.

Success will probably mean that the airline will not be required to undertake the expensive operation of replacing its doors. Most other 747 operators have either decided against sealing them or have reopened them.

BA comments that the test "has proved that evacuation procedures on this aircraft are to the same high standards as on other aircraft.worldwide".

Boeing expects to issue a full analysis of the results this week.


User currently offlineCschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1306 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 7600 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
Early UA 727-200s had an extra emergency exit on both sides just foreward of the wing. I think they had expected FAA evacuation rules to be changed but it turned out that those exits were not needed and they were sealed up a few years later..They were never installed on later 727-200s. I believe UA's early 722s with the only ones built with those extra exits. Same aircraft below, before and after those exits were deactivated.

I recall someone from United Airlines once telling me the reason for those extra exit doors on the 727-200's was they originally planned for them to serve high-density, intra-California routes, presumably LAX - SFO, with more seats than the typical -200.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7847 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 7475 times:

All I have to say about the 134 and 154 is make sure you duck when entering the aircraft, the doors are a lot lower than western aircraft, I'm only 180 cm tall and have bashed my bonce a couple of times. So small doors and smaller luggage bins aside I don't have any problem with either type and have been on them many times.

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...
Tu 154 Emergency Landing. posted Mon Mar 12 2001 07:26:36 by Kevin
Does Aeroflot Still Fly The IL-96 And TU-154? posted Thu Apr 9 2009 10:23:36 by Sankaps
Help With Tu-154 ID - Maldives posted Tue Mar 24 2009 10:59:26 by Kaitak
Current Aeroflot TU-154 Routes? posted Sun Feb 8 2009 16:56:56 by Avek00
Tu-154. Still In Production Line? posted Sat Jan 31 2009 02:31:30 by SIBILLE
4 More Tu-154-M For Atlant-Soyuz posted Mon Jan 12 2009 08:27:38 by SIBILLE
Cool Video With An Air Koryo Tu-154 posted Thu Dec 4 2008 13:17:36 by LH4116
First Tu-154 Flight. 40 Years Ago Tomorrow! posted Thu Oct 2 2008 05:20:16 by SIBILLE
TU-154 At BOS 29 Sep posted Thu Oct 2 2008 03:17:41 by PeachAir
December 2010. End Of Tu-154 In Aeroflot Fleet. posted Fri Aug 22 2008 09:09:08 by SIBILLE
Some ?s About Emergency Exits posted Tue Aug 4 2009 07:20:14 by AA777223
Aeroflot Retires Tu-154 posted Fri Jan 15 2010 13:27:18 by Scipio
Tu-154's Currently Operating Outside Of Russia posted Sun Nov 8 2009 19:41:00 by Transpac787
Too Fat For Emergency Exits On ERJs/CRJs posted Fri Jun 26 2009 22:50:30 by Gulfstream650
Safety Record Of TU-154 posted Wed Sep 2 2009 22:25:28 by Farzan
Does Aeroflot Still Fly The IL-96 And TU-154? posted Thu Apr 9 2009 10:23:36 by Sankaps
Some ?s About Emergency Exits posted Tue Aug 4 2009 07:20:14 by AA777223
Caspian Airlines #RV-7908 TU-154 Crash In Iran (EP-CPG) posted Wed Jul 15 2009 02:10:08 by Dalavia
Too Fat For Emergency Exits On ERJs/CRJs posted Fri Jun 26 2009 22:50:30 by Gulfstream650
Does Aeroflot Still Fly The IL-96 And TU-154? posted Thu Apr 9 2009 10:23:36 by Sankaps