Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
hoons90
Posts: 3858
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 10:15 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 9:01 pm

I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s
I don't think true aviation lovers would think that..

What's wrong with old planes ? I would think that what matters is if the aircraft is maintained properly, not the aircraft's age. Even major airlines with a good reputation like JAL operate the DC-10, 742, and 741 (741SRSUD).
 
MD-11 forever
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:15 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 9:57 pm

@Whisperliner

"Also how does Boeing or Airbus know exactly what needs to be replace 30-40 yrs down the line? I think at best it is an estimate of the lifespan of a particular part. Most airlines would most likely wait until the end of the lifespan before replacing the part for cost effectiveness...that in itself wouldn't make me feel comfortable."

I can only speak for engine parts, but the general philosophy regarding lifetime limited parts and certification of them is the same as far as I know. All major rotating and structural parts are life limited (the description of what is considered a critical part is given by the JAR and FAR rules). The determination of the actual limit in terms of a number of cycles (this is the main driver in the CFM engines that I handle) is determined by tests and is considered to be very conservative. During the life of the product, the test engines accumulate more cycles at a faster speed than the actual operating commercially used brothers and sisters, and there the parts are checked and inspected from time to time as well as in service experience and findings are considered. Then routinely the airworthiness authorities are reviewing this experience reports and adjust (escalate or shorten whatever is proven by experience) the life time limits. That's in short version the way that life limits are obtained and controlled.

Also, the manufacturer has to report to the certification authorities any problems that may have an influence of the safe operation. In other words, if any manufacturer becomes aware of let's say a cracking problem in a certain area of the fuselage, the authorities require him to introduce an inspection program for the whole fleet and corrective actions to sort out the problem. If the airworthiness authorities conclude that this is a serious problem, the inspection and modification will be included in an airworthiness directive and no plane is allowed to remain in service unless it complies with the requirements.

I hope this could give you some insight in how the in service behaviour of aircrafts is actively monitored (no matter if it is an old DC-9 or the latest 777, same rules apply) and corrective actions are taken whenever necessary.

For me, age of the aircraft is no critical matter, as long as I trust in the airworthiness authority of the country in which the plane is registred.....

Cheers, Thomas
 
gordonsmall
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2001 1:52 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:14 pm

Well, let's face it guys - the chances of you being killed in a plane crash are many millions to one no matter whether you are in a brand new 777-300ER or a 25 year old 747-200, whilst there may be a minutely greater chance of dying in a slightly older plane, is the risk really enough to get into a hissy fit about considering the long odds to start with?

IMHO at the end of the day the best gauge of whether a plane is considered safe or not is whether there are still pilots on the flight deck - a pilot of sound body and mind isn't going to go aviating if he doesn't think his aircraft is perfectly safe (or as safe as it possibly can be).

Take that MyTravel 757 that got grounded in Spain a few months ago because of a faulty NLG sensor which the captain later fixed himself because no engineers were based at that station, many of the passengers refused to board, claiming that the plane was unsafe to fly - now would I have gotten on that plane? Absolutely, because the guys with the stripes ain't gonna even suggest flying if they aren't absolutely sure it's safe to do so.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there's a greater chance of the pilot committing suicide and taking the aircraft and passengers with him (think Egypt Air 767) than there is of a mechanical/structural failure causing the deaths of the passengers on board - and a suicidal pilot is still suicidal no matter how old his plane is.

Regards,
Gordon.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15079
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:18 pm

What is an NLG sensor ? I guess it would help to know before deciding whether to board or not. I agree entirely that if the captain is willing to fly, in all likelihood it is safe to do so, and if the NLG sensor is the one that says the kettle has boiled for the coffee, that's fine. But if the NLG sensor is the thing that tells you theres a mountain directly ahead, I might have second thoughts  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
Guest

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:38 pm

Some statistics for Dr. Qantasclub...
xxx
Most B-52s and KC-135s still flown today are from the late 1950s...
The USAF might still be using them say 10 years...
xxx
I am a pilot, and fly these dangerous "classic" 747s... yet my life insurance premiums are no higher than say a teacher or a secretary... Who knows best about life expectancy and accidents... would it be insurance companies...?
xxx
I know a few doctors and lawyers who fancy airplanes, and a few buy these luxury airplanes like Bonanzas and Barons... Some even get therselves an instrument rating... Be aware that doctors and lawyers rate very poor in aviation and pilot statistics...
xxx
Would you like to see me do an appendectomy as a hobby...?  Big grin
Happy contrails -
(s) Skipper
 
nwadc10
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2002 6:51 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:45 pm

I can't wait to fly on DC-10s!! What a fabulous plane!!!!! The clean cabin air, the large windows, that lovely profile..oooh!
 Smile/happy/getting dizzy

And I love flying on Dc-9s too!
 
Airbus Lover
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2000 10:29 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:11 am

I'd fly a DC9 or B727 over a B737 any time  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
I'd fly a B741 over B744 if I still have the chance  Big grin
I'd fly a DC10 over a B777 when the opportunity arises Big grin
 
n844aa
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:38 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:32 am

I guess I'm different from the person who started this topic -- I'd love to have a chance to fly on a DC-10 or a 747 with the spiral staircase leading to the upper-deck. For that matter, I'd also love a chance to get on an early DC-8, a 707, a VC-10, a Trident, a Caravelle, etc., etc...

I'd be a lot more concerned about a given airline's maintenance practices than the chronological age of one of its planes. But the chances of a disaster occurring are so small, I'd probably even risk a ride on a fly-by-night Sudanese cargo operator if it meant a chance to fly one of those types.
 
L1011Lover
Posts: 736
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:16 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 6:05 am

I would not hesitate to fly any aircraft flown by a safe western carrier!
No matter how new or old it is!
I´ve been on LH´s Ju-52 and felt as comfortable and safe as on any other of LH´s, DL´s, UA´s, TW´s ... (etc.) planes!
I would love to fly a DC-10, 747-100, 727-200 or L1011 one more time!
If the maintanance is ok, so why not???
I´ve been on much older planes (when deadheading in the carribean and Cuba) and even there I felt much safer than on any bus or boat while having a ground transportation, especially in those countries!!!
Qantasclub: You should try and ride a bus in a 3rd world country, then you would love to fly on a 30 year old DC-10 instead, trust me!!!

Best regards,

L1011Lover
 
airways6max
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 6:22 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 6:17 am

The real question is how well an aircraft is maintained. I would be all right flying on a thirty year-old aircraft that was well maintained and airworthy. By the same token, I would be uncomfortable flying a new aircraft that had not been properly cared for.
 
LHR001
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:56 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 6:32 am

QantasClub,

First.... Let me say that I admire Qantas......

Now, let me start to discuss something with you. The fact of airline safety!

The DC-10, as much as I do not like it... It has proven to be a trust worthy and very reliable aircraft for a great many airlines!

The 747-100, -200.... perhaps you are not sentimental for your international trips back in the 70's, 80's, or 90's?

The is a forum to bring aviation to a great many people.. We are here for a passion.... and that is civil aviation... be it a Qantas 747SP, Qantas 747-300, Qantas 767-200, Northwest DC-10, or a Japan Air Lines 747-100!


Regards,

LHR001
 
Guest

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 6:41 am

Sad to say - some "new model airplanes" - advanced technology, suffer some accidents when during the first years of operation...
xxx
It was the case of the DC-6 when new... in the late 1940s...
It was the case of the first Comets, in the early 1950s...
It was the case of the L-188 Electra, late 1950s...
It was the case of the BAC 1/11, early 1960s...
It was the case of the DC-10, in the 1970s...
xxx
The new technology airplanes, have not been spared by problems...
Some accidents - remember that Airbus "low pass" at the airshow in France...
xxx
Personally I feel safer in a well maintained, well proven 20 years old plane...
I fly these 4 or 5 times a month... When I hug my family leaving for a trip, I do not have to check if my last will is up-to-date... I will get to destination safely.
xxx
Learn something from pilots... if they say "we go", means it is safe... We are not heroes.
They do not want to die, and leave lovely wives or girl friends behind...
Besides "they are FIRST on the scene of the accidents"...
xxx
Happy contrails  Smile
(s) Skipper
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15673
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 6:42 am

I disagree strongly with the suggestion something is 'more likely to be missed' while maintaining an older aircraft. Maintenance is a practice of exacting standards - the end result is the same whether something is missed on a 30 year old aircraft or during a plane's first five year check.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 8:01 am

1: Most airliners of the 50´s to 70´s were built much stronger than necessary because fatique wasn´t understood that well back then. The MD-11s, 747-100 and 727-100s I work on are built like tractors compared to modern aircraft.
2: If a structural item gets repaired the repair has to provide the same structural strength as the original structure.
3: Douglas planes have a much higher structural lifespan than Boeing and Airbus aircraft.
4: Highly stressed components are often life time or cycle rated. At 737 D-checks at Lufthansa for example we used to replace the flap tracks. The old ones were given to the ground equipment engineering shop, where they were cut to pieces with oxygen-acetylen cutters to prevent them from being refurbished and used again.

Refering to the 757 nose sensors: These can be either the gear down / up, locked/ unlocked sensors or the ground switches. In each case you have two independend proximity switches supplying signals to two independend warning systems, A and B.
The first ones provide the information for the 3 green / red landing gear position indicator lights. Both systems have to be working for dispatch.
The ground sensing switches are connected to the scissor linkage and give the plane information if it is on the ground (nose gear strut compressed) or in the air (nose gear strut extended).
The fault could have been either an electric fault (checkable through the proximity switch electronic unit PSEU in the avionics compatment), and adjustment problem or maybe just a bent target on the landing gear (Also checkable through the PSEU).

Rgds
Jan
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 10:01 am

TG992 - I AM TOTALLY WITH YOU ON THIS ONE!

I'm sorry Qantasclub, your showing you are newbe to aviation. That is the kind of thing I would expect some clueless twit to say.... the same kind of people who grab their seat arm rests on takeoff because they think an engine is going to explode. This IS WORSE than your posts about Air NZ. Futhermore, I'd like to point out to you that there are still 727 flights within Australia. They carry parcels, but, if it were dangerous, as you suggest certain older types are (742s are newer afterall), that wouldn't be allowed.

Now think about this. Up until very recently, the USAF used to shuttle Hillary Clinton around in 707s. These aircraft were not all fomer Airforce one aircraft either. Do you think for a moment this would have ever been done, if it posed even the slightest risk? These kind of posts are based on public misinformation.

You know, I remember hearing Gordon M. Bethune, (he is CEO of Continental for your information Dr) when he first took over continental, it was in a lot of trouble. Very similar situation to our dear old freind Ansett. Anyway, one of the first things he did was start spending money on aircraft interiors and terminals, to attract the business travelers. Shortly after he implemented this rapid program (knowing all very well that if results didn't show the company could run out of money in the mean time) he boarded one of the company's oldest aircraft. A boeing 737-130. It was built for Lufthansa, then later sold to Peoplexpress, before passing to continental, so the aircraft would have been built in the late 60s. While boarding was being completed, her heard the people in front of him commenting on, "how isnt' it great that continental are getting all of these new planes". They had assumed they were on one! The public have NO idea, and you really can't take any notice of anything they say. New seats, new sidewalls and a few touches and they can't even tell they are on a 30 year old aircraft!

Like for example... aeroflot. Under the USSR, aeroflot, was the biggest and on of the safest airlines in the world. And every day, Tupolev tu-154s would flight into airports many many times below freezing, and operate with no troubles. In conditions that many western planes, well, just wouldn't have been as dependable. But if you told most members of the public this, they would have assumed Aeroflot was dangerous during the USSR.

So I say to you.... go and learn a little more...maybe even do a bit of work in the industry. Go and start flight training, get you pilots licence! Read some ooks. A good one to start with may be the story of Continental under Bethune - "from worst to first". You would have been so busy in med school you wouldn't have had time for this stuff... now is time to catch up! Everybody starts out misinformed. There are some older books around too that were wrote in the late 70s by TWA captains talking you through the who process of crossing the atlantic in a 742. Lastly, don't believe everything you hear on this forum!
 
Qantasclub
Topic Author
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:48 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 11:27 am

Thank you, Lufthansa for your comments. They are noted, and well received. I accept completely, and note, many of the comments and replies on this topic. I am a member of the travelling public with some interest in the industry, but, as many have repeatedly pointed out, I am not an aircraft mechanic. Reading many of the responses here, I have no doubt now, that these aircraft are safe. Would I still fly them? Probably, if I had to, but I wouldn't go out of my way to do so; My preference is still for newer aircraft I guess, because there are many other factors such as aircraft interior and aesthetics that older aircraft may be lacking in. (very subjective). And contrary to the 'purists' in the industry, I like PTVs! and many of the newer gadgets airlines are cramming into their planes nowadays. Whats wrong with that? Each to his own.
What I do want to say is, I am dissapointed that many of you have chosen to attack or ridicule my profession...what does my being a doctor have to do with anything? Is EVERYONE who participates here an airline staff member of pilot? I never claimed to know everything about aviation, but my interest keeps me here. There just opinions, and if you think they are misinformed, then correct whoever made them, but don't resort to personal insults. (especially airbus lover).
So, to summarise then, old planes ARE safe, Most people would still fly them, although some have a preference for newer aircraft.

cheers!
Qantasclub.
 
User avatar
flybynight
Posts: 1539
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 11:53 am

It really amazes me to see people like Lufthansa go after Qantasclub for having his opinion. A lot of people don't like flying older planes. I assume most of you talk with non-aviation people who don't like flying on older planes. My 72 year mother is one.
I realize that older planes are generally as safe a new planes. I have no problem flying on a 742 as opposed to a A346, but people remember plane accidents due to stress fatigue (Aloha Airlines 737 for example). What are the two things the news always reports - age of aircraft in question and how many accidents the type of aircraft has had.
Face it, this what the public has in the back of their heads (along with low fares, of course!).
Either way, let Qantasclub have his day in court, so to speak.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 12:24 pm

Qantasclub:
Superfly, 767 I can understand, but would you really prefer an old 742/741 or DC-10 over a 777 or new A330?

YEP!
Yes indeed, I would take the older A/C in stead of the new one if given the choice. (see post #47)



Ooooops Embarrassment
I am so sorry on the mix up of your job. I meant to say Onocologist.
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. I have a lot of respect for Doctors.
Both are equally important to a society.
 
jeffrey1970
Posts: 1520
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 1:41 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 12:27 pm

I agree Qantasclub has every right to prefer newer planes over older planes, and he is right when he says his profession has nothing do with this topic. However, in my opinion how a plane is maintained is more important then the age. After all, I knew many people who had Volkswagen Bugs that lasted much longer the cars like Jaguars. What I am trying to say is that if a plane is taken care of very well age will become much less of a factor in my opinion. This is not meant as an attack.

God bless through Jesus,

Jeff
 
Guest

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 12:30 pm

Dear Dr. Qantasclub -
xxx
I apologize for my extremes in defending these old airplanes on which I will be completing my career as a pilot. At my age, now 60 since a couple of days, I have no interest, as an old dog, to learn "new tricks"...
xxx
As you realize, we defended our point of view against yours, with, at times, a little undue force defending what we believe in, or for those who are here because of hobby or interest.
xxx
Many of our friends here, are quite expert in aviation, occasionally even, they educate me with their opinions or facts that surprise me, but that do verify as true and actually fully correct.
xxx
I currently fly 747s, and have flown 707s, 727s and DC8s in my career, many of which deserve a place in museums. Some of them still fly today. I was at one time offered a contract to train on the 747-400s, much newer technology than the 747 "Classics" I am qualified in, when I had a 1 year contract with Cargolux in 1992, yet I did not take the offer, for two reasons - I was not impressed (and possibly intimidated) by the EFIS etc... and I sincerely do not believe in the soundness of a 2-pilot crew on airplanes which are operating on long range oceanic flights. For me a flight engineer is my most important crew complement in the cockpit.
xxx
You questioned the safety of old 747-100s... well, they have 4 engines. I am personally no too impressed by "ETOPIA"... the disease of crossing oceans with twin ETOPS airplanes... In my old days, long range airplanes crossing the Atlantic or Pacific had 3 or 4 engines... Remember what this "yours truly" say to you... one day, there will be a twin ditching in the ocean... then suddenly, maybe, nervous passengers will demand to be booked on old DC10s or 747s...
xxx
Doctor, I became a pilot because my father was once a pilot flying B-17s in WW II and F-86s in Korea. I started to learn to fly at age 15. If it was for my mother, I would have become a concert pianist... I have 22,000+ hours flying, and will retire at 65... and yes, I teach my boy, now age 14, to fly. I own an old 1953 Piper Cub ex-army liaison airplane... a 50 years-old and very SAFE airplane... I dont want him to learn in the new junk airplanes from today. He learns to fly using road maps, railroads and drift angles. All that GPS hi-tech he will learn later...
xxx
Again, my sincere apologies for my excesses in wording on previous posts, but I wanted to defend my point of view which is shared by many on our A.Net. friends. I am definitely traditional and somehow old fashion. Be insured that if you board my airplane, my crew and I shall get you to destination, safely.
xxx
And... I hold high respect for your profession, Doctor...  Smile
Happy contrails -
(s) Skipper
 
User avatar
zippyjet
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 12:30 pm

Age of aircraft is relative. Which is older? A vintage 747 used for transatlantic flights? (longer in-flight time/less take offs and landings) Or, a 737-500 used on a quick turn short hop airline/route. Less air miles but greater take offs and landings? I would go with the airline's safety record as my first priority. Probably the only aircraft I'd be not too eager of flying would be Russian built birds, and some Third World carriers.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3515
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 12:39 pm


For my 2 cents worth I think it matters more on the safety reputation of the carrier and the abilities of the highly skilled aircraft engineers that the airline employees than the age of the aircraft you are flying on.

Having said that I go out of my to fly the newest aircraft I can. My last holiday was booked around the fact I could fly on an A330-300 followed by an A340-300, 737-300, 777-200, A320-200, 747-400 and 767-300ER. Variety is the spice of life after all.
 
Guest

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 12:45 pm

Personally, there is no way in the world I would fly a DC-10 or and 742/741 these days

Good for you. So don't. We don't need to know about it.

I think we buried this one before....a/c age is not based upon years, it is based upon the number of cycles.

At the current rate, NWA could still be flying DC9's 10 years from now.

My question is the AirTran DC9's from the 60's. Here your not only talking about age and cycles, your also looking at outsourced heavy mx. Does the name Sabretech ring a bell anyone????????


Oh you mean the grand total of ZERO they have in scheduled service? Speaking of things that have been buried before, drop the "Airtran isn't safe because they used to be Valujet" crap and move on with your lives.
 
Qantasclub
Topic Author
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:48 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 12:51 pm

Thats fine, no offense recorded. In appreciate many of your comments (most of you) and in the short time I have joined this forum, I've learned plenty already. I'm amazed that I haven't discovered this website earlier! My wife is extremely relieved now, as I have a forum to rant and rave and ask questions about airline affairs.
And please don't call me doctor! I really shouldn't have put my profession in my profile-I notice that most people don't. We are all fellow enthusiasts and I can understand that people feel passionate about certain issues. As long as it doesn't get personal. Thanks again for all your replies. Better get back to the clinic...
cheers,

Qantasclub
 
LFutia
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 11:04 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Wed Nov 26, 2003 1:10 pm

why DC10? I just flew one last year!! and PH-BUN i think thats a 743 or a 742 i forget... im getting old... (im 16)....

hehe

Leo/ORD
 
dc-10 levo
Posts: 3376
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2001 3:22 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Thu Nov 27, 2003 1:35 am

Well I don't know about you, but I'd jump at the chance to fly on a DC-10! They're beautiful!

DC-10
 
TWA902fly
Posts: 3168
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 5:47 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:19 am

I think arguing in these posts... gives you more of chance of dying (heart attack, just going crazy, laughing yourself to death, suicide etc...) than flying on a 727 or 741. no offense ofcourse. heh.

TWA902fly
 
na
Posts: 9865
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:28 am

I´m making my choice of airliner/airline always after the credibility of the airline (safety record) and priceworthiness of the ticket, and on longhaul its very important to me to fly on a quad, especially since I witnessed a pretty dramatic B767 emergency-landing after one engine blew inflight and talked to some of the frightened white-faced passengers afterwards.
The age of the individual aircraft is far less important to me. A 20 year old 747-200 of LH (sadly now retired) is more trustworthy than a 10 year old 767 or A300 of an obscure charter airline. And one of the best flights ever I had on a twentysomething year-old, but immaculate DC-10 of Continental. And one of the worst on a 2 or 3 year old 777 of BA.
 
usair320
Posts: 909
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 9:53 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:51 am

I flew valujet (some name for an airline) ATL-MIA then back in 95. I'll tell you I didnt trust that plane and I found out that 1 year later the same plane on the same route crashed.
 
canopus235
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2001 9:38 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:58 am

As long as the planes are operated and well maintained by well known and popular airlines, I would definitely not hesitate to get on one of these. It's great to still see some of the old ones around!
Regards
 
cpharris5514
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 3:36 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Thu Nov 27, 2003 4:08 am

I am one of those who wouldn't hesitate in the least to fly a DC9, 737-200, 727, 742, or DC10. If they are well and regularly maintained (as many have stated) these aircraft can perform beyond admirably. I've had the opportunity to fly several of the 9s and 10s from NW. No problems whatsoever. What's funny is that the only serious mechanical delay I've ever experienced on NW was aboard an A320. There we sat at the gate in DTW with a dead air conditioner. The older birds were taking off all over the place!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
MSYtristar
Posts: 7543
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 12:52 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Thu Nov 27, 2003 4:18 am

I would kill (well not kill, maybe mame) to get on a 747 classic!  Smile

You cannot judge the quality of an aircraft by its age. That's like saying "Oh, I love wine, but that 1982 Cabernet would be nasty...let's go for a 2002 bottle instead!"

A plane gets BETTER with age as far as i'm concerned.

If the aircraft were not safe, trust me, the flight crews would not operate them.


Stephen in New Orleans
 
oerk
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 10:41 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Thu Nov 27, 2003 4:52 am

Yep, flying on a NWA DC-10 in April next yet.

My only hesitation was not from a safety perspective, but one of comfort and noise... but hey, I need to get somewhere, and if thats the best and cheapest way to do it, so be it.

I might be foolish, but I have just assumed that a well established airline such as NWA wouldnt operate unsafe aircraft. If you dont trust that assumption, remember that those planes have been flying for many years without a hitch. As has been made pretty clear throughout... look at the airline more than the plane for a guide as to reliability and safety.
 
L1011Lover
Posts: 736
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:16 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Thu Nov 27, 2003 7:07 am

Hi MSYtristar:

This is exactly, what I remember a F/A on a DC-9 telling passengers!!! LOL

It´s like drinking wine, the older, the BETTER!!!!  Big grin

L1011Lover
 
User avatar
flybynight
Posts: 1539
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:19 pm

What would be cool is to get a flight in a DC3, like my father did travelling through Africa in the late 50's

B747Skipper - Interesting your father flew B17's during WWII. It certainly was a pleasure to walk inside of a B17 years ago in Syracuse, NY.
What model B17 did he fly, and what years?
 
Alaskaairlines
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 12:28 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:54 pm

Some of you need to get your facts strait. I just flew on a DC-10 one week ago, and didn't have the least heasitation. NWA maintains their a/c, and most other companies do also. So there is really no good reaon to avoid flying on them, evern teh diesel 9's.
 
MRb757
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 5:34 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Thu Nov 27, 2003 11:59 pm

Just let me say something really quick! There are reason why these so called airplanes are flying, becuase they are safe too fly in them. Why would these plane be put in the sky if they were'nt safe to fly! These airplanes must meet regulation and tests!!!! So for me i dont care if the airplane if a DC-10 or a T777 im still cool. Cuz i know its safe too.
 
cchan
Posts: 979
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Fri Nov 28, 2003 4:42 am

Personally, I love DC-10s but not the older 747s. I would go on a DC-10 if possible. Went on a Biman DC-10 a few weeks ago. The appearance suggested it may not be in perfect condition, but still I never worried it will crash on landing at Dhaka. With airlines like Biman, probably flying a newer aircraft will be a better choice. The JAL DC-10s are far better than the Biman ones. To go on older aircrafts or not really depends on which airline operates them.
 
brons2
Posts: 2480
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Fri Nov 28, 2003 6:16 am


I'm starting to think that the majority of these posts are intentionally started to cause these types of pointless arguements. At least I hope so, because I cannot fathom the rationale of some people.


I agree. Just a bunch of useless trolls on this site. problem is, they don't even know they are trolls.

A start at improvement, I think, would be to not allow users younger than 21 any longer.

In my 2+ years of dropping by this site, the quality has dropped markedly.

BOT (back on topic) I would not hesitate to fly on any properly maintained plane, regardless of age.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3515
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Fri Nov 28, 2003 6:49 am


Brons2 as your President would say, "I love free speech." If you don't like it you dont have to read it. You can just think "this is crap" and click the little x box at the top.
 
User avatar
kurt
Posts: 429
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2001 10:04 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Fri Nov 28, 2003 7:26 am

I'm a United guy. Have been for most of my life. I would love to have just one more flight on one of United's 747-100s, 747-200s, 727s or DC-10s, or for that matter, DC-8s. They bring back great memories for me.

New aircraft are wonderful but the older birds are just as great in their own way. Those who aren't aware of airline history and the heritage of great aircraft that have served over the years are just a bunch of kids, IMHO.

If you had the chance to fly on a Caravelle or DC-7 would you be complaining about the lack of a PTV? Oh wait, it's Airliners.net. Of course you would.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6600
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Fri Nov 28, 2003 7:56 am

The love for raw jet power and noise and the glamour gals prancing around the cabin has been replaced by PTVs... PTVs? Now they make you close the window shades and prevent you from seeing the world go by ! Rent a God Damn video when you get home and for God's sake, read a book instead of watching repeats of sitcoms !

They say an A343 derated take off is boring yet they don't want to try a light DC10 or 742 on full thrust take off? Hell, the only new plane that got me glued to my seat was the now not so new 757... The SPs still packed a punch for a light 7hr ride!

Don't you love it when you enter the flight deck and there are three guys in it, with one having little to do and spend the next hour talking about flying and the aircraft systems instead of having 2 guys trying to keep awake for a long flight?

Don't you love it when you enter an old but loved 737-200 to find it pristine clean instead of the "just another plane" 737-3/4/5 of a mega-carrier?

Dilapidated old planes ARE scary... but so are new ones... Loved and well cared old planes, are more comfy for me than the new ones (unless someone shove me in J). I've had a nightmare on a neglected A313... you won't get me on that plane again! Get me on trusty old Ten-er or a Ten-Eleven anyday... or get me a nice new but well maintained equivalent!

Long Live the almight duct tape and Say no to Stage n for n>2 Big grin

Mandala499
 
miamix707
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:22 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Fri Nov 28, 2003 8:36 am

First of all, happy thanksgiving.

All I have to say is, this is the type of post I wouldn't even care to read had it not been for the amazing amount of responses/coments. Why is it that people flock to irrelevant type of posts like this one is beyond my comprehension.
But since I'm at, seeing you live in Australia you are much more likely to fly on new boring A330s and soon A320s so.. don't worry so much
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3515
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Fri Nov 28, 2003 9:12 am


Theres nothing boring about QF's new A330's they are damned comfortable on the Sydney-Perth runs. They dont beat the 747-200's though or the A300's that QF got from Australian or the 3 Ansett 767's with 3 cockpit crew.
 
ual777
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:18 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Fri Nov 28, 2003 9:20 am

I also miss the Diesel 10. I would also like to have flown on an L1011, but at my age, UA didn't have them. However, today I flew SFO-ORD on one of UA's "domestic" 777s. It had no PTVS. I got to watch it projected on a screen on the bulkhead. It brought back the memories.


I love the older 60s and 70s aircraft.
 
BR715-A1-30
Posts: 6525
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 9:30 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:04 am

Airdude66 I think your mistaken.....J7 mx was 100% better than FL.

BA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Thanx man, I needed that laugh.
 
POSITIVE RATE
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 11:31 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:16 am

Theres nothing boring about QF's new A330's they are damned comfortable on the Sydney-Perth runs. They dont beat the 747-200's though or the A300's that QF got from Australian or the 3 Ansett 767's with 3 cockpit crew.

Why do you think the A300's were better than the A330's? Just curious, i haven't flown on either one of those birds. Was the seat layout on the A300 better?
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3515
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:35 am


Positive; the A300 was good because it was big. It was larger than Ansett's 767's in width and was slightly more roomy. From memory the seat layout was 2-4-2, but it has been a few years since they were retired. When QF took Australian over they confined the A300 to Syd-Mel-Brisbane and the 767-200ER's took the trans continental routes. The A330-200 is great to fly on. I've done the midnight Perth-Sydney run on them 3 times now and it's perfect for the service. Again its bigger in width than the 767's, the cabins are more modern and the seats are more comfortable. I hope someone from Perth can snap a picture because at midnight Perth is A330 central with the services to Sydney-Melbourne and Brisbane all sitting on the ramp.
 
miamix707
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:22 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:37 am

I would be really excited to fly on an A320 or on a A330 if I was maybe a teen who had never seen, photographed, flown in, appreciated classic, original, older airplanes that are all but gone now. And if I'm the only one in the world who feels that way, I don't regret it  Big grin
 
Iflewrepublic
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2000 11:31 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Fri Nov 28, 2003 1:13 pm

MSYTristar made an excellent point, and I agree with him whole-heartedly. If an airplane were not well maintained, the flight crew would not want to be on it. I ask myself that each day..."Do I feel safe?" My answer is "Without a doubt...Yes!"

Iflewrepublic.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos