COboeing777 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 693 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (13 years 3 months 1 day ago) and read 2803 times:
All the ones that are still flying
Actually, are you talking about aircraft types that have never had a fatal crash or ones that have never been in some kind of incident. I dont think any aircraft can claim the latter. However, there have yet to be any fatal crashes of a 777. I hope it stays that way too.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 3198 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (13 years 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 2720 times:
Aeroflot lost an IL-86 a few months back in Dubai. No injuries, but the pilots evidently forgot to lower the landing gear. The A-340 has never had an operational hull loss, although 2 have been written off in hangar fires and gun battles. 3 A-330's have been written off without fatalities, plus one that was lost in testing. A-319 and A-321 have spotless records so far. On the boeing side, the 737NG, 717, 753, 764, and 777 have no hull losses. The 717 does have an "incident" though, as a TWA bird landed without the nosegear. It was repaired and put back in service fairly quickly.
Big777jet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 2664 times:
I checked aircraft census information. The British Airways 777-236ER MSN 28840 of G-VIIK was damaged wing on Sept 6th 2001. I don't know if they repaired to return in service. Can anyone tell me if you saw still active G-VIIK somewhere today?
Brons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3035 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (13 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2397 times:
Date: 30 JUN 1994
Type: Airbus A.330-321
Operator: Airbus Industrie
Year built: 1993
Total airframe hrs: 360 hours
Engines: 2 Pratt & Whitney PW4164
Crew: 3 fatalities / 3 on board
Passengers: 4 fatalities / 4 on board
Total: 7 fatalities / 7 on board
Location: Toulouse-Blagnac Airport (TLS) (France)
Departure airport: Toulouse-Blagnac Airport (TLS)
Destination airport: Toulouse-Blagnac Airport (TLS)
The test flight was part of the preparation required for the certification of the Pratt & Whitney equipped Airbus A.330 autopilot to Cat. III standards (approach and go-around under very bad visibility conditions). The first part of the test flight was completed successfully when the aircraft landed on runway 15L. A 180deg turn was made for a runway 33R takeoff. The second takeoff was to be performed under conditions similar to those of the first takeoff. For this test however, the autopilot would incorporate the modification under study (Spatiaal with Bubble in 3972 state). The aircraft weighed 147,700kg and a centre of gravity of 42%. The takeoff was performed by the co-pilot with TOGA (takeoff Go Around) power, instead of Flex 49 (a lower power setting). Rotation was positive and pitch input was stopped when the attitude changed from 12deg to 18deg nose-up. Within 5 seconds after takeoff several attempts were to engage the autopilot were unsuccessful. After it was engaged, activation was delayed by 2 sec because the 1st officer was exerting a slight nose down input on the side stick. The aircraft, still trimmed at 2.2deg nose-up pitched up to reach 29deg and the speed had decreased to 145kts. The captain meanwhile reduced thrust on the no.1 engine to idle and cut off the hydraulic system in accordance with the flight test order. Immediately after it activated, the autopilot switched to altitude acquisition mode (altitude had been set at 2000ft on the previous flight phase). This caused the pitch attitude to increase to 32deg in an attempt to reach 2000ft. The speed decreased further to 100kts (minimum control speed=118ts!). Roll control was lost and the captain reduced no.2 engine thrust to idle to recover symmetry on the roll axis. Bank and pitch attitudes had reached 112deg left and -43deg resp. before the pilot managed to regain control. It was however too late to avoid ground impact at a pitch attitude of around -15deg. PROBABLE CAUSES: "At the present stage of its work, the commission estimates that the accident can be explained by a combination of several factors none of which, taken separately, would have led to an accident. The initial causes are primarily related to the type of the test and its execution by the crew during the last takeoff: 1) choice of maximum power (TOGA) instead of Flex 49; 2) very aft CG for the last takeoff; 3} trim set in the takeoff range, but in too high a nose-up position; 4) selected altitude of 2000ft; 5) imprecise and late definition of the test to be conducted and the tasks to be performed by the captain and first officer, respectively; 6) positive and very rapid rotation executed by the first officer; 7) the captain was busy with the test operations to be performed immediately after take off (engagement of the autopilot, reduce thrust on the engine and cut off the blue hydraulic system) which temporarily placed him outside the control loop; 8) in addition the absence of pitch attitude protection in the autopilot altitude acquisition mode played a significant role. The following is also contributed to the accident: 1) The inability of the crew to identify the mode in which the autopilot was placed; 2) the confidence of the crew in the expected reactions of the aircraft; 3) the late reaction from the flight test engineer when faced with a potentially hazardous change in parameters (speed in particular); 4) the time taken by the captain to react to an abnormal situation."
Source: (also check out sources used for every accident)
S183 + S184; FI 10-16.8.94(6); AW&ST 11.07.94(26-27) + 3.4.95(72-73) + 10.4.95(60) + 17.04.95(44-45) + 15.05,95(58-59) + 22.05.95(54,56) + 29.05.95(69-70); TT + Ceefax; ASW 23.01.95(4)
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
Aviatsiya.ru From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (13 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2352 times:
Aeroflot lost an IL-86 a few months back in Dubai. No injuries, but the pilots evidently forgot to lower the landing gear.
They didn't exactly lose it. A decision was made by Aeroflot headquarters that the cost of salvaging the aircraft didn't warrant the expense, especially seeing as they were retiring the aircraft from their fleet in the near future.
Airsicknessbag From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 4723 posts, RR: 31
Reply 21, posted (13 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2348 times:
I personally count families, not single types. So, on my "no write off"-list, 717, 753, 764, 737NG, 319, 321 don´t show up because "family members" were written off. But that´s of course a matter of personal preference.
The majority of airliner types with spotless records were very scarcely built:
Mercure - 12
Tu 234 - 2
Tu 334 - 1
IL 96 - 16
Tu 204 - 36
So I guess the 777 with roughly 400 built is the only airliner which is around in substantial numbers without having been written off so far.
Other types mentioned in this thread:
IL 86 - in addition to the already listed accident in Dubai last September, another one was destroyed by a crashing 737 in Delhi in 1994.
747SP - a LAM had an uncontained engine failure in 1998 which resulted in a successful emergency landing but caused the plane to be damaged beyond repair.
Another interesting bit of information: there were no fatal crashes of a 737-100. There was only one economical write off after a hard landing of a COPA in 1993 in Panama City.