DELTA777
Posts: 637
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 6:34 am

AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 8:28 am

I found a web site that listed all of the fatalities adn crashes of all MAJOR airlines around the world. i was looking at AeroFlots and they have about 3 crashes every year! or at least they used to. see for yourself:

http://www.crashdatabase.com/cgi-bin/webdata_crashdatabase.pl?cgifunction=Search&Airline=Aeroflot

D E L T A 7 7 7

 
RedAirForce
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 1999 4:04 am

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 8:51 am

Did you look up how BIG Aeroflot was up until 10 years ago?

Did you look up how MANY flights Aerflot flew compared to western airlines?

Using partial information to asses any situation is dangerous.

Should military flights to Afganistan really count? Would you count it agianst Deltas saftey record if a Delta 777 was blown out of the sky by a stinger missle?
 
Al
Posts: 584
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 10:28 pm

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 9:17 am

Delta 777 your information is badly skewed. The "old" Aeroflot had in excess of 3,000 airframes and covered everything from cropdusters in Siberia to the long haul intercontinental fleet of the old elite International arm. How many of those "at least 3 per year" were on the elite, seperate, (as in the Aeroflot the rest of the world outside the USSR only ever saw) intercontinental fleet?? Probably just a couple over all those years - very comparable to other carriers. Taking into account the amount of airframes for Aeroflot as a whole and the astronomical amount of daily departures of all of those airframes, then 3 incidents per year equates to a fairly excellent record IMHO, and more than likely a better record, statistically wise (which is what you were on about) than most of the more "respected" western carriers. Air China is arguably a more balanced equation - although the International division of the old CAAC and now Air China itself has a superlative record (1 fatality in over 40 years) the domestic CAAC divisions within mainland China were woeful. The old fleet size of CAAC is comparable to many other carriers, but again, like Aeroflot, the International division was the only one that the rest of the world outside of China ever saw/flew on, and as they were run, like Aeroflot, as a seperate division, that record is the one that should show up. Cheers/Regards. Al.
 
Soku39
Posts: 1731
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 7:16 am

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 9:55 am

Yep they both got it right. I mean back then almost every aircraft in the U.S.S.R. was registerd to Aeroflot.
The Ohio Player
 
Guest

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 10:55 am

Let's have a look at the safety record of Aeroflot since the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991.

I can't see a single crash involving an Aeroflot aircraft since that date, and they are still flying safely.

Just remember the only thing which the Aeroflot of today, and the Aeroflot of yesterday, have in common is the name. Nothing more, nothing less.

So I would be saying

AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!, isn't it GREAT?!?!?

 
VonRichtofen
Posts: 4260
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2000 3:10 am

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 2:05 pm

Here's a question for you guys.....Which russian MANUFACTURER has the safest record?

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
An-225
Posts: 3859
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 2:55 am

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 2:40 pm

Probably Ilyushin.
Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 4:50 pm

Aviatsiya,

Remember the kid flying the Airbus?

People need to remember that virtually every civilian plane in the Soviet Union, and even some military ones, were in Aeroflot colors. In remote areas of Siberia, they actually used Aeroflot aircraft as schoolbuses, landing at tiny hamlets, picking up a few kids in each one and finally landing near the school.

They also flew their planes in conditions which would be unacceptable to a western airline. The Tu-154 which crashed the other day was roughly equivalent to the 727, but could operate from unprepared airstrips where the 727 would sink into the mud. And operating at -40 or -50 degrees was not unusual.

Finally, people still make the mistake of calling all the domestic carriers Aeroflot, including the crash the other day. Aeroflot, for the last decade almost, is only the Sheremetyevo-based airline, with about 60 or 70 planes. The rest are something else.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
ben
Posts: 1369
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 1999 9:27 pm

Statistics? Try This!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 5:28 pm

The Aeroflot that you speak of (Soviet Airlines), at their peak flew 250 billion passenger KM per year... 4 times higher than number 2 on the list.

That was equivalent to the output of the worlds top 6 airlines combined.

If you want to know all the facts, get a book called "Aeroflot - history of the worlds largest airline" by R.E.G. Davies.

With 11,000 airframes in service... THREE OR FOUR CRASHES PER YEAR is actually very very safe!

Aviatsiya, do you still have that article by Paul Duffy (I think?) regarding Russian/Soviet safety?? I lost it but maybe you can post it again...
 
ben88
Posts: 1037
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 4:49 pm

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 6:13 pm

Hey Ben......I wanted that username  Smile
 
Guest

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 7:02 pm

Cfalk

Yes, I do remember the kid flying the Airbus, and it is on this exact point which shows one knowledge of the intricacies concerning civil aviation in Russia. The A310 which crashed in 1994 (from memory without checking), was NOT an Aeroflot A310. It was in fact, operated by RAL and crewed by RAL crews, but operated for Aeroflot. It all had to do with the A310 being the first "western" aircraft being allowed to operate in the Aeroflot fleet, and to get around the tax laws and to gain concessions, the aircraft were leased by RAL...not Aeroflot.

Ben

I think I still have it here in my email somewhere (I keep most things handy). Will try to locate it and post it.

Cheers

Scotty
 
airsicknessbag
Posts: 4626
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 2:45 am

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 9:16 pm

well, here´s a list of all Aeroflot AIRLINER write offs (no crop dusters, no helicopters etc.) since 1990 - I´ll leave it to others to comment:

00: 1 IL76
98: 1 IL62
96: 1 AN124
95: 1 TU154
94: 1 A310, 1 IL86, 2 TU134, 1 AN72, 1 AN26, 1 AN24, 1 AN22
93: 1 TU154, 1 AN26
92: 1 AN124, 1 IL76, 1 IL62, 2 TU154, 1 TU 134, 1 AN30, 1 AN26, 1 AN24, 1 AN22, 1 AN8
91: 1 TU154, 1 YK40, 3 L410, 2 IL14, 1 AN74, 2 AN24, 2 AN12
90: 2 IL76, 2 IL62, 2 TU154, 1 TU134, 1 YK42, 3 YK40, 1 L410, 1 IL14, 2 AN26, 1 AN24, 1 AN12, 1 AN8

If I have a lot of spare time some time, I might continue with that list before the 90s.

Daniel Smile
 
rajno1
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2001 10:17 pm

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 9:37 pm

Q. - What's the difference between Aeroflot and a scud missile?

A. - Aeroflot has killed more people.....
 
trintocan
Posts: 2725
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 6:02 pm

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 9:53 pm

Statistics can be very misleading. The 1994 list shows an IL86 being lost but the reality of that plane was that it was struck in New Delhi by a hijacked, crashing Sahara India 737-200. That plane skidded off the runway and hit the empty IL86, which caught fire. 2 ground crew members attending to the plane were later found to have been killed. Does that count as an Aeroflot crash? No, it does not - Aeroflot had nothing to do with that, it was bad luck.

No IL86 has ever crashed. Overall, despite the seemingly long lists for Aeroflot write-offs, if one puts into perspective the conditions in which it operated flights and the numbers of planes and services their record is about the same as any other western carrier.

Trintocan.
Hop to it, fly for life!
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 10:01 pm

Airsicknessbag,

You fell into the trap - Aeroflot has lost only 1 aircraft, the A310, since the breakup. All the other losses were of other airlines.

Seriously, Aeroflot Russian International Airlines should have called themselves something else. In keeping the name, they've kept all the bad publicity.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
il75
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 7:35 pm

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 10:40 pm

Charles says,

"Seriously, Aeroflot Russian International Airlines should have called themselves something else. In keeping the name, they've kept all the bad publicity".

Indeed a very interesting point: the big question here is how many "westeners" fly nowadays with Aeroflot compared to how many Russians.

I wonder if by changing the name Aeroflot could have attracted some foreigners but at the price of loosing a lot of its own market. This thread seems tu suggest that it is precisely Aeroflot the best choice if your are going to fly safely in or to Russia with a Russian carrier!

Best regards
Erico
 
sushka
Posts: 4657
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 1999 12:33 am

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 11:41 pm

Aeroflot seems to be getting alot better nowdays. But what gets me is that the Tu154 had crashed 29 times already!
Pershoyu Spravoyu Litaki!
 
Guest

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Thu Jul 05, 2001 11:46 pm

Aeroflot's safety record has improved because they are now flying some modern up-to-date Western made aircraft from Airbus and Boeing.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8005
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Fri Jul 06, 2001 12:21 am

Actually, Aeroflot's Soviet-era record is not bad considering the flying conditions they have to endure.

Try landing and takeoffs on what amounts of packed gravel runways in temperatures below -30 degrees Celsius much of the year. I'm surprised there hasn't been more accidents in conditions that Western pilots would not dare try to fly in. That's why Russian planes have strongly built landing gears to start with, and the An-2 was very popular because it could fly into any flat field regardless of ground condition.
 
airsicknessbag
Posts: 4626
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Trintocan/Cfalk

Fri Jul 06, 2001 1:18 am

>>>Does that count as an Aeroflot crash? No, it does not - Aeroflot had nothing to do with that, it was bad luck.

well, Trintocan, maybe you noticed I didn´t talk about "crashes" but "write offs" (or "full hull losses", if you like that terminology better). And the fact that "SU had nothing to do with it" or "bad luck" - that could be applied to lots of "real" crashes as well.

>>>You fell into the trap - Aeroflot has lost only 1 aircraft, the A310, since the breakup. All the other losses were of other airlines.

Hmm, Charles, I actually had tried hard not to - I did NOT include in that list the countless "XY-stan Avia Enterprise North South East West Flight Directorate Air" crashes. Only the ones clearly indicated as "Aeroflot". Wouldn´t your argumentation also exclude all Condor crashes from the LH safety record? Just a thought.
Anyway, I´m no expert on Russian aviation; check out http://www.aviation-safety.net yourself, maybe you can do more with that information than I can.

Daniel Smile
 
RedAirForce
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 1999 4:04 am

Tedski

Fri Jul 06, 2001 1:21 am

"Aeroflot's safety record has improved because they are now flying some modern up-to-date Western made aircraft from Airbus and Boeing."

How do you figure this? They have one 777, a couple of 767s and a few 737's from Boeing to go with a few older Airbus AC. The vast majority of the fleet is still Russian built; the vast majority of flights are still inside Russia with Russian built AC.

I would not say that the record has improved, rather stayed somewhat steady, which was not that bad to begin with.

RAF
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Fri Jul 06, 2001 4:57 am

Hmmm... www.airdisaster.com shows the last Aeroflot crash to happen in July '92 (Tu134 at Ivanovo, I remember it since I still was there at that time). As for the list provided by Airsicknessbag... well, for instance, losses in 1994: only three with fatalities

Tupolev 134 RA-65760 7(7)
Gromov Flight Test Centre/Aeroflot

Airbus A.310 F-OGQS 75(75)
Aeroflot

Antonov 22 RA-09331 7(10)
Aeroflot / CIS Air Force

of which neither Gromov Flight Test Centre nor CIS Air Force (what is it??? never heard about!!!) are Aeroflot while that A310 was of Russian International Airways, not Aeroflot Russian International Airlines. Too many mistakes to consider aviation-safety.net as a reliable source...
 
RedAirForce
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 1999 4:04 am

CIS

Fri Jul 06, 2001 6:22 am

Aeroflot / CIS Air Force of which neither Gromov Flight Test Centre nor CIS Air Force (what is it??? never heard about!!!)

CIS is / was the Commenwealth of Ind. States. Set up by Belorussia, Ukraine, and Russia after the breakup of the USSR for awhile they had a unified AF and Navy. Not anymore.
 
Guest

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Fri Jul 06, 2001 12:19 pm

Cfalk

You fell into the trap - Aeroflot has lost only 1 aircraft, the A310, since the breakup. All the other losses were of other airlines.

You too have fallen into the trap. The A310 was not Aeroflot at all; as I have explained above, it was RAL (Russian Air Lines). The aircraft was painted in Aeroflot livery (the one with the eagle on the tail) and operated for Aeroflot.

Let's think about this:

Air New Zealand leases one of their 747-200Bs to Airtours International. Air NZ provides the crew (flight, engineering, etc) for the aircraft. The aircraft is also given Airtours livery. On a flight for Airtours from London-Istanbul, the Air NZ 747 crashes into the Mediterranean.

Who does this crash go against?

Air New Zealand or Airtours?

It would be Air New Zealand, because Airtours have nothing to do with the aircraft, it is only being operated for them.

This is the same with the RAL A310 which crashed in 1994. The aircraft had nothing to do with Aeroflot, and as such, RAL is fully responsible for this.

After the 1994 crash, RAL was closed down, and the A310s came under direct Aeroflot control.

I have alerted sites like aviation-safety.net to this fact, but they don't seem to care about providing correct information, as they still refer to the 1994 crash as Aeroflot.
 
Guest

Aeroflot DID NOT Lost A310 In 1994

Fri Jul 06, 2001 3:08 pm

Aviatsiya is 100% correct about the A310 accident in 1994.

Evidence 1: According to http://www.Airdisaster.com's Aeroflot accident database, there is NO entry for 1994.

Last 2 accidents involving Aeroflot aircraft were back in November 11, 1998 and August 27, 1992.

Evidence 2: According to Airline Disaster
http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/Disasters.htm

There was a big list on that site. For the March 1994 entry, the operator wasAEROFLOT-ARIA, but for the entries, the operator was AEROFLOT.

So did AEROFLOT lost A310 in 1994? NO! It was AEROFLOT-AVIA that lost their A310.

Evidence 3: Flight Number.

Today, Aeroflot uses SU593 for SVO->HKG flight. Back in 1994, The A310 crash was also SU593 from SVO to HKG. Traditionally, when the flight number involves to serious accident, they usually get replaced with another pair of flight number. However, Aeroflot didn't didn't replace flight number 593.
 
Monocleman
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 10:21 am

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Fri Jul 06, 2001 3:20 pm

Well if I was the kid flying the Airbuts I sure wouldn't let it crash....
 
Guest

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Fri Jul 06, 2001 3:33 pm

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi_bin/view_details.cgi?date=03231994&airline=Russian+International+Airways

This is the entry for the A310 accident in 1994. It should be Russian International Airways, not Russian Air Lines, as a mentioned on my last post.

By the way, does anyone have the news story about using the aircraft as a schoolbus in the Siberian region?

Regards,

Jim.
 
Starship
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 1999 3:26 am

RE: Ben & Aviatsiya

Fri Jul 06, 2001 4:24 pm

That article on Russian airline safety can be found at

http://www.avia.ru/english/articles/24may-1.shtml

Examining Russia's Air Safety Record - by Paul Duffy




Behind every "no" is a "yes"
 
Guest

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Fri Jul 06, 2001 5:03 pm

Looking at the list that Airsicknessbag has compiled

00: 1 IL76
98: 1 IL62
96: 1 AN124
95: 1 TU154
94: 1 A310, 1 IL86, 2 TU134, 1 AN72, 1 AN26, 1 AN24, 1 AN22
93: 1 TU154, 1 AN26
92: 1 AN124, 1 IL76, 1 IL62, 2 TU154, 1 TU 134, 1 AN30, 1 AN26, 1 AN24, 1 AN22, 1 AN8
91: 1 TU154, 1 YK40, 3 L410, 2 IL14, 1 AN74, 2 AN24, 2 AN12
90: 2 IL76, 2 IL62, 2 TU154, 1 TU134, 1 YK42, 3 YK40, 1 L410, 1 IL14, 2 AN26, 1 AN24, 1 AN12, 1 AN8


From 2000

* The Il-76 which made an emergency landing in June 2000 was a Russian Air Force example. It was probably still left in basic Aeroflot markings

From 1998

* The Il-62 which was destroyed in November 1998 in Alaska, was due to an Asiana 747-400 nearly ripping of the tail of the Il-62, as the OZ 744 was taxiing to the gate.

From 1996

* The An-124 which crashed in Italy was owned by Aeroflot, but leased, operated and maintained by Ajax. In this case, it is like QANTAS leasing one of their aircraft to Cathay Pacific, where Cathay will take all responsibility for crew, maintenance, operations of that aircraft, but ownership staying with QANTAS

From 1995

* The Tu-154 which went missing near Grossevichi was Aeroflot Khabarovsk Airlines. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, each of the baby-flots continued to operate under the AOC of Aeroflot. Aeroflot Khabarovsk Airlines later changed its name to Dalavia, but continued to operate international flights out of Khabarovsk for Aeroflot, hence why the Aeroflot name was incorrectly used for this airline.

From 1994

* The A310 I have explained above
* The Il-86 was destroyed when a Sahara Airlines 737 which had crashed in Delhi hit the Aeroflot aircraft
* The Tu-134A which crashed in Sept was hit by a Tu-22. Also it was not operated by Aeroflot, but by the Gromov Flight Test Institute (GosNii)
* The Tu-134A which was written off in May, was due to a landing gear not coming down properly. Also, the airline responsible for this aircraft was Arkhangelsk Airlines, NOT Aeroflot.
* The An-72 was a Ministry of the Interior aircraft. Obviously still being operated in Aeroflot livery.
* The An-26 belonged to KIT Space and Transport Air, being operated in basic Aeroflot livery.
* The An-24B was operated by the Central Regionals Civil Air Detachment, being operated in basic Aeroflot livery.
* The An-22 was a Russian Air Force aircraft, being operated in basic Aeroflot livery.
* There was also a Let L-410 write-off in 1994, but that aircraft belonged to Blagoveschenksk Air Enterprise, NOT Aeroflot.

From 1993

* The Tu-154B-2 was written off in Grozhny due to a nosegear collapsing on landing. Not a crash. No fatalities
* The An-26 belonged to Polyot, obviously still wearing basic Aeroflot livery.

From 1992

* The An-124 belonged to Aviastar, and was still being operated in Aeroflot livery.
* The Il-76 was blown up by Afghan missiles whilst on the ground in Kabul.
* The Il-62M was destroyed when a cigarette ignited with fuel whilst the aircraft was being refuelled in SVO.
* The 2 Tu-154s which were destroyed in Bratsk, were destroyed during a refuelling accident. It is also likely that these aircraft belonged to Bratsk Air Enterprise, and not Aeroflot.
* The Tu-134 belonged to the Central Regions Civil Air Detachment, and not Aeroflot, although it was obviously still in Aeroflot livery.
* The An-30 would have belonged to one of the small carriers in Yakutia. Still in Aeroflot livery.
* The An-26, An-22, An-8 and An-24 were operated by smaller carriers in the regions, and would have still been in Aeroflot livery.

From 1991

* The 2 Il-14s would not have been Aeroflot aircraft, but controlled and operated by a government ministry. Unless Aeroflot was flying to Antarctica on scenic flights...but with the Il-14?
* The An-24 belonged to Tatarstan Airlines, in Aeroflot livery.
* The An-12/An-22 crash would have been a military flight.
* The An-74 was owned by the Tshersk Aviation Plant, operated in Aeroflot livery.
* The Yak-40 was a Makhachkala Air Enterprise aircraft, operated in Aeroflot livery.
* The An-12 which crashed in KHatanga was a military flight, in Aeroflot colours.
* The 3 L-410s were operated by smaller regional carriers (one in Kazakstan).
* The Tu-154 was a Pulkovo Aviation Enterprise aircraft.

1990 was before the break-up of the Soviet Union, and hence, all aircraft could be argued to be Aeroflot aircraft (even though they may only be in SU markings).

Does anyone know which airline had the worst safety record in 1991?

Going by what some people take as gospel, I would say that Kuwait Airways was the aircraft with the worst safety record in that year. After all, they lost 2 A300s and 2 767s on the same day. But those statistics don't show the picture do they? The figures alone do not show you that the 4 aircraft did not crash, but were destroyed on the ground during air-raids. Hmmmm....but still....statistics don't lie do they? So I would suggest that you don't fly Kuwait Airways, because the chances are one of their aircraft will be destroyed.

Jiml1126

Aeroflot-ARIA is Aeroflot. ARIA is Aeroflot Russian International Airlines. RAL is Russian Air Lines. A completely separate company altogether. Not one website displays this information correctly; which is why I do not take at face value any of these "air crash" sites have to say when an incident concerning a Russian airliner or airline occurs. They can't even get a BIG piece of information correct, so why should they bother about small details?
 
airsicknessbag
Posts: 4626
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 2:45 am

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Fri Jul 06, 2001 7:19 pm


Concerning my list, I appreciate how you shed some light on that, especially you, Scotty/Aviatsiya. I´m far from defending the accuracy of "my" list - because it isn´t my list but aviation-safety.net´s.
But nevertheless, I´d like to comment a little on what has been written by other people:


>>>From 1991
>>>* The An-24 belonged to Tatarstan Airlines, in Aeroflot livery.
>>>* The An-74 was owned by the Tshersk Aviation Plant, operated in Aeroflot livery.
>>>* The Yak-40 was a Makhachkala Air Enterprise aircraft, operated in Aeroflot livery.
>>>* The An-12 which crashed in KHatanga was a military flight, in Aeroflot colours.

Isn´t the fact that those a/c were in SU colours a hint that those were SU flights as well? Technically belonging to other companies, but really SU? Being the non-expert I am, might these small independent airlines be not that independent but rather quite tangled in the SU structure? Just a thought.


RE: that A310 thing - no offence Scotty, but I find that a little, well, nit-picky. With your argumentation every ILFC owned aircraft that crashed would count as an ILFC crash. Or a Contactair F50 would have to be counted as an LH crash, because LH own those planes.

>>>Air New Zealand leases one of their 747-200Bs to Airtours International. Air NZ provides the crew(flight, engineering, etc) for the aircraft. The aircraft is also given Airtours livery. On a flight for Airtours from London-Istanbul, the Air NZ 747 crashes into the Mediterranean.
Who does this crash go against?
Air New Zealand or Airtours?
It would be Air New Zealand, because Airtours have nothing to do with the aircraft, it is only being operated for them.

I disagree, sorry.


And the last point - I´m talking about write offs all the time; not "crashes", not "fatalities". If you take the KU losses in 1991 to discredit that point of view, that´s a particularly bad example: How can you treat for example KE 7 different from those planes lost on the ground in Baghdad? You cannot, in my opinion.
Or the >>Tu-154B-2 [that] was written off in Grozhny due to a nosegear collapsing on landing. Not a crash. No fatalities -
she had an accident,she suffered damage, that damage was unrepairable - if that´s not a crash, I don´t know what is one. It doesn´t take a shattered a/c, splattered over ten square miles to constitute a crash.


Daniel Smile
 
Guest

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Fri Jul 06, 2001 8:49 pm

Isn´t the fact that those a/c were in SU colours a hint that those were SU flights as well? Technically belonging to other companies, but really SU? Being the non-expert I am, might these small independent airlines be not that independent but rather quite tangled in the SU structure? Just a thought.

Totally wrong. Up until 1991, the majority of aircraft in the Soviet Union were in Aeroflot liveries. After the break-up of the Soviet Union into the 15 indepedent republics, and the different regions of the Russian federation, each of these entities took over the aircraft which were in their vicinity at the time. Airlines such as Vnukovo Airlines, Domodedovo Airlines, Air Ukraine, etc, started to paint their aircraft (even just with their titles). However, smaller carriers, such as Belgorod Civil Air Detachment and Nizhneudinsk Civil Air Detachment did not have the money or resources to be able to paint their aircraft in their own liveries. That is why they were still in Aeroflot liveries. You will even find in Russia today, some smallers airlines operating aircraft in basic Aeroflot livery, even though Aeroflot has nothing to do with them. It is actually a quite simple explanation.

The only airlines which Aeroflot has an interest in these days are Aeroflot-Don (formerly Donavia) and Aeroflot-Perm (a joint venture between SU and Perm Airlines, but it seems this may be on hold).

RE: that A310 thing - no offence Scotty, but I find that a little, well, nit-picky. With your argumentation every ILFC owned aircraft that crashed would count as an ILFC crash. Or a Contactair F50 would have to be counted as an LH crash, because LH own those planes.

It is not being nit-picky. It is called accuracy. The only thing that the A310 had to do with Aeroflot is that it flew with an Aeroflot flight number, and had Aeroflot markings on it. RAL was responsible for the operations, and RAL was responsible for the crew member; the crew member who was ultimately responsible for letting his son take the controls and crashing the aircraft.

ILFC is not a valid argument, because they do not supply crew for their aircraft. They only supply the aircraft.

Your Contactair analogy proves my point about the SU A310. A Contactair crash goes against Contactair. Not Lufthansa, even though Contactair flights are operated with Lufthansa flight numbers. The "SU" A310 was operated by RAL crew, and was owned and operated by RAL.

I disagree, sorry.

It is easy to disagree. But why do you disagree? Let's say that this flight was a one off flight for Airtours. Who's crash is it, and why? Any answer which isn't Air New Zealand is wrong!

Further, Air Canada has leased some 767s to Ansett. Ansett will crew these aircraft, provide maintenance and support. Ultimately, Ansett is responsible for these aircraft. If one crashes, it will go down to as an Ansett crash, because of who responsibility for that aircraft goes down to.

Also, QANTAS uses Polar Air Cargo (I think) 747Fs for flights from Sydney to Los Angeles. These aircraft are operated by Polar for QANTAS and with Polar crews. Is QANTAS reponsible for this aircraft? No they aren't.

And the last point - I´m talking about write offs all the time; not "crashes", not "fatalities".

Well, we are talking of safety record here. And a safety record for an airline which 99% of people are totally ignorant to. Aeroflot is not responsible for a single aircraft write-off which have been credited to them, and which would reflect on their true safety record.

Going by your way of thinking, Aeroflot is responsible for the actions of the Asiana 747-400 pilot who rammed into their Il-62 in Alaska. BTW...the Il-62 was parked in a stationary position. Aeroflot is also responsible because some Afghan rebels decided to blow up one of their aircraft with a missile.

If you take the KU losses in 1991 to discredit that point of view, that´s a particularly bad example: How can you treat for example KE 7 different from those planes lost on the ground in Baghdad?

There is a BIG difference with Korean Air 007 and the Kuwait aircraft.

Firstly, the Kuwait Airways aircraft were blown up by missiles (or whatever) in their home port.

KE007 had actually strayed into hostile air-space; their pilots knew this. However, how would KE007 impact on their safety record? In my eyes, it was partly incompetence on the behalf of the KE pilots, which was to blame for KE007 (after all...if they didn't stray into Soviet airspace, they wouldn't have had a problem).

We as aviation enthusiasts need to be able to distinguish between an incident which is truly the responsibility of an airline, and those which were out of the hands of the airline; let's not get into the mindset whereby we sensationalise like the media; let's stick to the facts, and treat those facts as such; FACTS!

Also, I am trying to verify this, but I am sure that the Tu-154B-2 which "crashed" in Grozhny belonged to the now defunct Grozhny Civil Air Detachment, and not Aeroflot.

So if you look at the story, and the WHOLE story, the fact remains that Aeroflot Russian Airlines has not had a crash since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. That is not disputable.
 
Pe@rson
Posts: 16004
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:29 pm

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Fri Jul 06, 2001 9:18 pm

lol thanks for your reassurance guys! I'm flying from LHR to DEL via SVO on SU on August 18. I was wondering why the airfare was about £100 cheaper than the next cheapest fare  Big grin
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
 
MEA-707
Posts: 3666
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 1999 4:51 am

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Fri Jul 06, 2001 9:39 pm

I'm sorry Scotty, you don't convince me, I think it IS disputable if the A-310 is Aeroflot or not. Passengers buy a ticket at an airline and swap the responsability to the airline to bring them to their destination safely. If Aeroflot "decides" to let this seperate organization fly some of its routes, you would expect it to be of Aeroflot standards, all the more if "Aeroflot" is painted on the plane.
But there is a big grey area. In safety statistics I would certainly count the A-310 with Aeroflot, but I would doubt about another example;
When for instance Air France decided to transport their passengers who fly from Paris to Quito by TAME on the final leg Bogotá-Quito with an Air France flightnumber, like in 1998, it was counted as a TAME accident. Still I think it's appropriate this accident is partly credited to Air France, because while the plane and inflight magazines might carry "TAME Ecuador", it was Air Frances desicion and responsability to work with TAME, share flightnumbers, which you would only do after a thorough check if TAME's procedures, operations and product were as safe as Air France's. Because it's Air France who is at the frontdesk, having sold you a ticket with an AF number on it, so as a client you expect they give AF safety and quality, you don't care if they codeshare or wetlease aircraft in. But a TAME accident made the chance of being killed while in an Air France itinerary a little bigger, which should be counted in statistics as such.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
 
airsicknessbag
Posts: 4626
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Aviatsiya

Fri Jul 06, 2001 10:27 pm


Scotty,

1.: Liveries
OK, point taken.

2.: Who is the operator
If I understand you correctly, you want to judge who operates an aircraft by the crew? Hmm, I´d say if you lease out a plane INCLUDING a crew, I wouldn´t attribute a crash to the lessor. I guess that´s another point where we have different opinions and neither of us is going to persuade the other into adopting that view.
I´m not talking about code shares or franchises here. The Contactair example was not because Contactair flies exclusively under LH flight numbers as "Member of Team Lufthansa" but because, unlike other Team LH planes, Lufthansa actually owns those planes and leases them to Contactair. I didn´t want to argue that the airline whose flight number is on the flight is the one for which the crash has to be counted (I´d come to absurd results like that, SR111 as a DL crash etc.).

3.: What´s a crash
This is not about responsabilities. You can have crashes, even "real" ones without being responsible for them. So all "safety records" are "unfair" in a way - you´ll always have JL123 mentioned in a row with NG4 - the general public perceives both as a crash without realising who´s responsible.

Daniel Smile

P.S.: More food for thought on point three: what about UA´s sole 747 loss, UA826, in December 1997 - you wouldn´t count that as a loss as well, would you? But look at the chain of events - incident/accident -> causes damage -> which can´t be repaired - while certainly not literally a "crash" - it´s a write off, without doubt.
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: AeroFlot Safety Record! Wow!

Sat Jul 07, 2001 3:45 am

Dear RedAirForce,

In 1994 I still was in the former USSR (not in CIS as it can be seen from my user name). I'm still not sure that there was such a thing as "CIS Air Force" then but I recall something about unified Army, Air Force and Navy - closer to 1992, I believe. Of course, I may be wrong, and saying "CIS Air Force in 1994" aviation-safety.net makes no mistake... though it still wasn't Aeroflot. Thank you for information anyway.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 321neo, Baidu [Spider], deltacto, GianiDC, HALtheAI, OA940, SCQ83, soundmind, StTim, tnotten, woodcutting, XaviClot, zknzf and 204 guests