Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
DH106
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:08 am

Quoting Iwok (Reply 98):
A key problem with the 300 is that the pedal force decreases as speed increases

Does it actually decrease ?
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark by the Tanhauser Gate....
 
bennett123
Posts: 10725
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:30 am

A few points spring to mind here;

1. If the F100 has major icing problems, how come no losses in Swissair or Transwede service, the Austrian Airways crash was due to ice protection panels failing not the effects of ice itself.

2. The fatigue problems affected the Comet 1 only.

3.AA587 was due to repeated rudder reversals, (about 6). My understanding is that this is what caused the tail to fail.
If the design is faulty then why no other similar crashes. The A300 first flew in 1972, The A300-600 in 1983.

4. The Concorde crash was triggered by hitting that piece of debris. However clearly there were other issues as well. Even without further evidence directly proving that the Continental DC10 dropped the debris, (which I believe was found) given that it was consistent with a DC10, and one took off only two planes before the Concorde would justify the police taking them in for questioning, (which is all that ever happened). I also understand that the piece should have been made from Alloy and was actually Titanium. This would result in substancially more damage. Perhaps the difference between a puncture and a blow out on on car tyre.

IMO we should be looking for aircraft with a poor safety record with different Airlines. If ten Airlines can operate a type for no losses and another Airline losses several, perhaps we should look at the airline.

David
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:57 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 96):
A 777, A330, and A340 should prevent it via envelope protection in the FBW system.

I don't think you can build a FBW 100% protection for the rudder. Any envelope protection would not have helped the flight AA587 as the airframe remained within the "envelope" during the repeated full deflections of the rudder. There'd have to be some magical sensors on the airflow at the empennage & some stellarly sophisticated software to translate the disruptions into bending force. Or even better, why not use force sensors on the rudder directly? Or what the best and easiest solution probably is, tell your people not to make any repeated full rudder deflections in flight!
 
N501US
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:51 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:56 pm

The Lockheed L-188 Electra had severe structural deficiencies and several crashes (NW Tell City Indiana comes to mind). Investigation led to modifications and the plane went to have a good safety record with several airlines and with the US Navy as the P-3.
Fools and thieves are well disguised in the temple and the marketplace.....
 
DH106
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:04 pm

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 102):
I don't think you can build a FBW 100% protection for the rudder. Any envelope protection would not have helped the flight AA587 as the airframe remained within the "envelope" during the repeated full deflections of the rudder.

Agreed such a system would have to be very sophisticated - have to measure yaw, yaw rate, yaw acceleration and perhaps higher derivatives of these and also anticipate any time lag it would take to operate. Since yaw is to some extent coupled with roll, roll parameters may also have to be taken into account.The aim would to be to prevent the yaw exceeding the prescribed max. angle under any circumstances of pilot input, inertial and dynamic coupling.
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark by the Tanhauser Gate....
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:08 pm

Quoting LY204 (Reply 22):
AA -- at one time, they were flying DC10s/MD11s, A300s, and F100s...three less-than-stellar safety records (while they were at the same time flying 757s and 767s...which are certainly safer craft)

The MD11s I'll give you - those were complete pieces of sh*t from day 1, at least from my experience, as we've discussed (argued over) here on A.net a million times. The Fokkers were also maintenance hogs, but were hardly unsafe by any stretch. Same for the A300s: they may spend more time in maintenance than in the air, but they're not at all unsafe as long as they're well taken care of.

But as for the DC10s in particular: those birds were absolutely fantastic aircraft - we should be so lucky as to get to fly on airplanes made like that today. Those DC10s were built like absolute freaking tanks: reliable/indestructible, and could fly through anything. They don't make planes like that anymore.

People loved those things - flight crews, cabin crews, maintenance techs, passengers. They were great planes. The AA ORD DC10 crash was the result of an ill-conceived maintenance procedure, and had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft itself, which was completely and totally sound.

God, I miss the DC10s so much!

Quoting LY204 (Reply 22):
"fair enough, but one has to admit that AA may have been better off with L10s, more 767s, and 737s (earlier on) than the choices they had selected...

Nobody has to admit anything of the sort. Sure, the L1011s were good planes, but so were the DC10s - as good or better.

As others have said: do you actually believe this?
 
cchan
Posts: 979
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:37 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 105):
The MD11s I'll give you - those were complete pieces of sh*t from day 1, at least from my experience, as we've discussed (argued over) here on A.net a million times.

The MD11 flights I have been on are really great. Not sure how to describe, but after a couple of rough weather rides, I can sense that the MD11 has very good performance.
 
iwok
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:35 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:38 pm

Quoting DH106 (Reply 100):
Does it actually decrease ?

I am pretty sure it does, based on my reading of the FAA investigation proceedings. For some wierd reason, the way the rudder limiter works acutally has a side effect of reducing pedal force requirements as speed increases.

Quoting DH106 (Reply 104):
Agreed such a system would have to be very sophisticated - have to measure yaw, yaw rate, yaw acceleration and perhaps higher derivatives of these and also anticipate any time lag it would take to operate.

It would be complex, but I believe its possible. They use stability control systems in cars which are essentially 2-D versions of what would need to go on a plane.

iwok
 
DH106
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:03 pm

Quoting Iwok (Reply 107):
am pretty sure it does, based on my reading of the FAA investigation proceedings. For some wierd reason, the way the rudder limiter works acutally has a side effect of reducing pedal force requirements as speed increases.

My reading was that the rudder travel was limited at the pedals as speed increased by simply reducing the travel by some sort of baulk on the the pedals.Since the force required on the pedals increases with amount of travel, the force required to go to max. travel allowable would effectively decrease simply because the travel has decreased. But the effective pedal force per rudder deflection doesn't decrease.
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark by the Tanhauser Gate....
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:47 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 105):
The MD11s I'll give you - those were complete pieces of sh*t from day 1, at least from my experience, as we've discussed (argued over) here on A.net a million times.

Can't believe it has escaped your attention during that span of time that some reasonably profitable airlines use MD11 aircraft on passenger services with an around 16 hours per day schedule today, but that takes place outside the good old U.S. The situation is also such that all available MD11 airframes worldwide are either doing useful work, or are in preparation for useful work. Obviously, some either like those s**tty airframes, or have found ways to make the MD11 work profitably for them.
 
WINGS
Posts: 2315
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:09 pm

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the TU-144. A total of 16 airworthy TU-144's were built and two of them suffered fatal accidents.  Sad

03 June 1973 ( Le Bourget)
23 May 1978



Regards,
Wings
Aviation Is A Passion.
 
76er
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:04 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:23 pm

Funny nobody questioning the the MD11's record: 200 built, 5 crashes, although not all of 'm fatal. Three of those in the landing phase.
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:25 pm

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 101):
1. If the F100 has major icing problems, how come no losses in Swissair or Transwede service, the Austrian Airways crash was due to ice protection panels failing not the effects of ice itself.

The ice protection panels failed because the crew switched the de-icing system on to late if I remember correctly, at the moment there was already huge ice build up in the air intakes which took the panels away when it came loose.
Further I can't recall any F70/100 icing incident which of course might be due to my aging memory system.

Guess it's the same old A.net story, people hear something without understanding the issue and take it for a fact which can be freely posted without further study.
Just have a look at what has been said about the MD11 and Concorde..............  boggled 
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
DH106
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:36 pm

Quoting WINGS (Reply 110):
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the TU-144. A total of 16 airworthy TU-144's were built and two of them suffered fatal accidents.

03 June 1973 ( Le Bourget)
23 May 1978

Was the 2nd one fatal ?
Wasn't that a test flight that injured the crew when it had to force land following a serious fire?
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark by the Tanhauser Gate....
 
BA777ER236
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:18 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:12 pm

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 82):
Correct me if I am wrong but were there not several losses of Vickers Viscounts attributable to problems with the horizontal stablisers? BEA at Manchester in the mid 1950s and EI off Malin Head in 67 are two that I recall specifically, but I'm certain there were others.

I think you are referring to the loss of G-ALWE at Wythenshawe on 14 Mar 57. This was caused by an assymetric Flap failure due to an attachment bolt shearing. This also led to a jammed aileron, which was a contributing factor. This was undoubtably a design flaw, and was addressed by modification.

The EI accident you refer to was EI-AOM, and it crashed off Ireland on 24 Mar 68. This is still a controversial accident to this day, and the cause was never conclusively established. There are still many people in Ireland who think that she was shot down by the Royal Navy! Although the main wreckage didn't include the horizontal stabiliser, it couldn't be established that the loss of this was the main cause of the accident.

There were one or two other accidents where the horizontal stabiliser was a factor, but none were attributable to design flaws, although you could argue that the lack of tailplane anti-icing (which contributed to an accident in Stockholm in icy weather) was a design flaw. You would have to remember that the Viscount was designed shortly after WWII, and when you consider that, it's safety record was very good, and many flew operational lives of over 40 years.

Cheers
 Smile
please visit: www.vickersviscount.net for more info
Flying would be easy if it wasn't for the ground
 
EDICHC
Posts: 1545
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:38 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:55 am

Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 114):
The EI accident you refer to was EI-AOM, and it crashed off Ireland on 24 Mar 68. This is still a controversial accident to this day, and the cause was never conclusively established.

I am aware of the contoversy regarding the loss of Oscar Mike (my late father worked for EI at the time of the time of the accident). The most recent review of the accident stated the 'most likely' cause was a failure of the horizontal stabiliser. IIRC it stated a possible loss of control situation occurred owing to an unspecified problem with the control surfaces of the rear horizontal stabliser which then resulted in the structural failure of the enitre tailplane. It totally excludes the popular miconception that it was a missile strike (accidental or otherwise).
A300/319/320/346 ATR72 B722/732/3/4/5/6/8/742/4/752/762/3/772/3 BAC111 BAe146 C172 DHC1/6/8 HS121 MD80 PA28
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:58 am

Quoting LY204 (Reply 93):
You are partially right, but statistics speak for themselves...even when considering that the DC10 was comprised of more airframes.

Don't get me wrong, I love both the DC-10 and Tristar, but this incident would indicate the DC-10's airframe structure was built better.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19950823-0

Of course, we all know the L-1011's systems in many ways were better. Each had its pros and cons.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 95):
While the L-1011 did have wing rear spar problems, the rear spar was never the cause a crash.

Thankfully no fatal accidents, although it is unclear if it did play a role in the TW 843 incident at JFK. Some evidence suggested such, but ultimately the NTSB claimed it did not.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 105):
The MD11s I'll give you - those were complete pieces of sh*t from day 1, at least from my experience, as we've discussed (argued over) here on A.net a million times.

Funny you are pro DC-10 but anti MD-11. The DC-10 had three major accidents in which the design played a key factor in the cause, the MD-11 had none.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 105):
The AA ORD DC10 crash was the result of an ill-conceived maintenance procedure, and had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft itself, which was completely and totally sound.

I agree that if AA had done proper maintenance on the DC-10, AA 191 would have never crashed. But the hydraulic and electrical systems contributed to the accident.

Quoting 76er (Reply 111):
Funny nobody questioning the the MD11's record: 200 built, 5 crashes, although not all of 'm fatal.

The MD-11 had one major fatal accident, SR 111, which was caused by the wiring of the IFE, lack of fire alarm sensors and sprinklers in the area, the flammable material surrounding the initial spark, and some very questionable decision making made by the flight crew. The design of the MD-11 played no part.

All other hull losses and fatal incidents involving the MD-11 were pilot error, and/or weather.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:02 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 116):
Funny you are pro DC-10 but anti MD-11. The DC-10 had three major accidents in which the design played a key factor in the cause, the MD-11 had none.

There were also almost 400 DC10s built so, using your numbers, three accidents over almost 40 years with nearly 400 aircraft in the air over that time, I'm feeling pretty good about my odds when I step onto a DC10, personally.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:17 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 116):
Thankfully no fatal accidents, although it is unclear if it did play a role in the TW 843 incident at JFK. Some evidence suggested such, but ultimately the NTSB claimed it did not.

I assisted with the NTSB investigation on TW 843 (L-1011 s/n 193B-1014) and can assure you that the rear spar failure was caused by the TRO, not the other way around.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:46 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 117):
There were also almost 400 DC10s built so, using your numbers, three accidents over almost 40 years with nearly 400 aircraft in the air over that time, I'm feeling pretty good about my odds when I step onto a DC10, personally.

Almost 450 if you include the tankers, and I don't disagree with you one bit. But if that's how you feel about the DC-10 then it doesn't make sense to throw the MD-11 under the bus. Range and dispatch reliability issues don't make for an unsafe airplane. Just look at the MD-90, no fatal accidents.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 118):
I assisted with the NTSB investigation on TW 843 (L-1011 s/n 193B-1014) and can assure you that the rear spar failure was caused by the TRO, not the other way around.

I was told by others at the NTSB that metal experts examined the cracks and concluded they resulted from the impact forces, not pre-existing before the incident. I have no reason to doubt that. I think the premise that wing spar was at all at fault centers around the fact the aircraft (N11002) had yet to receive the mod, because it was leased and not owned by TW.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:13 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 119):
Range and dispatch reliability issues don't make for an unsafe airplane.

I'm just going by what I know from pilots, flight attendants and mechanics who worked regularly on and with the MD11. Let me put it this way: it wasn't called the "Scud" and the "Death Star" for nothing. The DC10, on the other hand, got glowing reviews from everyone I know who used to work on it: they used to love that plane, as did I.
 
iwok
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:35 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:45 am

Quoting DH106 (Reply 108):
My reading was that the rudder travel was limited at the pedals as speed increased by simply reducing the travel by some sort of baulk on the the pedals.Since the force required on the pedals increases with amount of travel, the force required to go to max. travel allowable would effectively decrease simply because the travel has decreased. But the effective pedal force per rudder deflection doesn't decrease.

I think we are saying the same thing... The way I looked at it was that to get to x% of the total available rudder deflection at any given speed, the required force decreases. This is another way of saying that to get to x% of the maximum availble non-limited rudder travel, the required force is the same. Make sense  eyepopping 

I've also heard rumors that pedal force actually decrease for the same amount of rudder travel, but I don't have enough confidence in what I read....

What I do no for sure is that the pedal for to get to x% of total available rudder deflection decreases with increasing speed.

iwok
 
fanofjets
Posts: 2032
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2000 2:26 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:00 am

The Antonov An-10 apparently had a terrible safety record, with about half the airframes built written off in accidents. I believe most of the crashes were attributed to the plane's inherent instability, problems that were resolved with the Antonov An-12 (a very fine aircraft).


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ilya Morozov - Russian AviaPhoto Team

The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
 
DH106
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:40 am

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 115):
Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 114):
The EI accident you refer to was EI-AOM, and it crashed off Ireland on 24 Mar 68. This is still a controversial accident to this day, and the cause was never conclusively established.

I am aware of the contoversy regarding the loss of Oscar Mike (my late father worked for EI at the time of the time of the accident). The most recent review of the accident stated the 'most likely' cause was a failure of the horizontal stabiliser. IIRC it stated a possible loss of control situation occurred owing to an unspecified problem with the control surfaces of the rear horizontal stabliser which then resulted in the structural failure of the enitre tailplane. It totally excludes the popular miconception that it was a missile strike (accidental or otherwise).

This has always struck me as quite a mysterious accident.

I think in any airliner of the period where the tailplane is downloaded as part of the pitch stability setuo, the loss of a tailplane would result in an immediate and rapid pitch down into a near vertical dive (DanAir B707 G-BEBP 1977 at Lusaka, BEA Vanguard G-APEC 1971 near Aarsele).
It's been a while since I read the evidence from the -AOM accident, but I don't think this fits with the evidence - in that the crew seemed to struggle for some time (minutes?) to control the aircraft, were able to make a brief radio call, and a witness to the 'splash' who didn't describe the flight path as at all 'vertical'.

I think more likely is some sort of elevator / trim tab type control failure perhaps resulting in marginal control - perhaps causing elevator flutter. This would make pitch control very difficult if not impossible, but probably not result in an immediate nose dive to the ground. This theory has been proposed before - one of the Viscount's elevator trim tabs was washed up on a beach sometime after the accident. Since the tab didn't float, the inference was drawn that it must have been 'dropped' from the aircraft before impact to be washed up the some distance away that it was.

Just my 2p worth  Wink
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark by the Tanhauser Gate....
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5098
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:31 am

Quoting DH106 (Reply 113):
Was the 2nd one fatal ?
Wasn't that a test flight that injured the crew when it had to force land following a serious fire?

Sort of, it was a Tu-144D delivery test flight that crashed with crew fatalities.
 
Joost
Posts: 1877
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:27 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:00 am

Quoting Peh (Reply 18):
You're not seriously quoting Wikipedia as a reputable source, are you? Give me a minute and I'll go into Wikipedia, delete what's there and say that the A300 was brought down as a result of alien aggression.

Instantly bashing wikipedia as an unreliable source is just as short-sighted as instantly quoting wikipedia as a reliable source. In this particular example, the contents of the quoted paragraph are based on a NTSB press release, as mentioned in the reference list. In the last year, especially the english wikipedia pages, have made great process in quoting sources, and in removing trash. When tracking the references yourself, wikipedia can be a useful source of summaries of long stories.
 
BA777ER236
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:18 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:58 pm

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 115):
It totally excludes the popular miconception that it was a missile strike (accidental or otherwise).

Yes, I am aware of this, but there are still many in Ireland who believe that the evidence was 'covered up', and that it was an accidental shoot down. They also cite the disastrous attempt by the RN to recover the wreckage which led to the loss of most of the physical evidence.

Quoting DH106 (Reply 123):
This has always struck me as quite a mysterious accident.

Agreed.

Quoting DH106 (Reply 123):
I think more likely is some sort of elevator / trim tab type control failure perhaps resulting in marginal control - perhaps causing elevator flutter.

I think this is much more likely, as you say. IIRC there was some doubt as to the maintenance history of this ex-KLM a/c, and the records were mysteriously unavailable for the later reviews of the evidence!

My father flew Viscounts for many years, and never came across an incident in his fleet of trim tab failure, nor anything remotely like a pitch control problem, so the accident to EI-AOM is very mysterious, and could well have been down to a maintenance issue.

Cheers
 Smile
Flying would be easy if it wasn't for the ground
 
ly204
Topic Author
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:33 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:26 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 117):
All other hull losses and fatal incidents involving the MD-11 were pilot error, and/or weather.

No doubt that pilots in these cases may have contributed to the crash, but my understanding is that the MD11 had design flaws that led to difficult handling characteristics...particularly as it related to landing.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:17 pm

Quoting LY204 (Reply 127):
No doubt that pilots in these cases may have contributed to the crash, but my understanding is that the MD11 had design flaws that led to difficult handling characteristics...particularly as it related to landing.

There is the notion that the MD-11 is tail heavy at low speeds but I've heard MD-11 pilots write that off as garbage. I don't fly one, but I think if it was a big problem there would be more incidents in recent years, considering all but a handful are still active.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
md90fan
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:15 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:08 am

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 17):
The ATR doesn't particularly like ice either.

Cut the crap  silly 


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Juha Kankkonen
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mikko Maliniemi

http://www.devanwells.blogspot.com/
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:06 am

Quoting LY204 (Reply 127):
No doubt that pilots in these cases may have contributed to the crash, but my understanding is that the MD11 had design flaws that led to difficult handling characteristics...particularly as it related to landing.

I didn't say that - you quoted the wrong person.

And you won't get any argument from me that the MD11s - at least some of the earlier-build, passenger versions AA got, definitely had something wrong with them. Again, they didn't earn that loving nickname of "Scud" and "Death Star" for nothing.
 
ly204
Topic Author
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:33 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:28 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 130):
And you won't get any argument from me that the MD11s - at least some of the earlier-build, passenger versions AA got, definitely had something wrong with them. Again, they didn't earn that loving nickname of "Scud" and "Death Star" for nothing.

Apologies for the unintentional misquote. I suspect there aren't too many people (whether they be pilots, maintenance specialists, or passengers) who would ever cite the MD-11 as a superior machine to many of its predecessors and certainly its successors.
 
Woosie
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 3:47 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:30 am

If you like, take a gander at this book Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents, Worldwide Opertions, 1959-2006. It's as unbiased as it can be but doesn't tell the story about the accidents themselves - those can be found in NTSB reports. Not sure if the general public has access to these reports. The graph on the front cover shows the fatal accident rate over time.

Essentially, all aircraft flying now are incredibly safe, including first generation 707s, DC-8s, 727s, 737-100s/200s, and DC-9s. The fatal accident and hull loss rates nowadays are quite low; don't get them mixed up with the number of fatalities tallied annually. Check out page 17 for the comparison; on pages 12 and 13 are lists of the accidents themselves. On page 20, there's a bar chart that compares accident rate by model.
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:56 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 128):
but I think if it was a big problem there would be more incidents in recent years, considering all but a handful are still active

And some of the aviation authorities worldwide would have reacted, as well as the accident investigators. An International Conspiracy not to reveal the public the facts?

Quoting LY204 (Reply 131):
I suspect there aren't too many people (whether they be pilots, maintenance specialists, or passengers) who would ever cite the MD-11 as a superior machine to many of its predecessors and certainly its successors.

I know one Nordic company that actually acquired more, the last one only quite recently. They also maintain MD11s for others, so their mechanics must be absolute nervous wrecks by now, having had to work on the "Scuds" year in year out from 1990.
 
GoAllegheny
Posts: 310
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2000 4:48 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:50 pm

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 133):
If you like, take a gander at this book Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents, Worldwide Opertions, 1959-2006.

It's actually a Boeing PowerPoint presentation, but whatever, it's great data, as far as it goes. Doesn't tell the story behind the accidents, but at least in a couple of cases (F-28s, for example) suggests that one or two types still have some issues.

As someone earlier said about the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser, 56 or so were built, with 13 hull losses. That's a pretty lousy record for one of the last post-war props, especially for a plane that was only in widespread service for about a decade before the jet era rendered it obsolete. Go to http://www.ovi.ch/b377/index.html, choose Articles, and click on "More Speedbird Strats" for a story about what it was like to fly one. Simply amazing - like for example, it landed nosegear first. Here's an excerpt:

"The Strat was a peculiar beast. Its pilots never knew for certain what might happen next, but we never had to ditch one, as Pan-Am had to do on two occasions. An engine once caught fire, burnt itself out, then conveniently fell off, and there were a few landing accidents (not too surprisingly). That great first gentleman of the air, Capt O.P. Jones (we were on the same Strat course) later landed one short at Goose Bay, fortunately without hurting anyone. Next day he went out to examine where his wheels' marks were. He resigned and never flew for BOAC again. He had done enough for his airline and country."
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4961
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:08 pm

Quoting Fanofjets (Reply 122):
The Antonov An-10 apparently had a terrible safety record, with about half the airframes built written off in accidents. I believe most of the crashes were attributed to the plane's inherent instability, problems that were resolved with the Antonov An-12 (a very fine aircraft).



View Large View Medium

Photo © Ilya Morozov - Russian AviaPhoto Team

Add the AN-8, similar but for cargo, Antonov pulled the certficate on this one.
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:38 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 15):
It happens that the A300 rudder control design will allow the flight crew to put in enough rudder command to exceed the ultimate load of the rudder. They're not supposed to do that, obviously, but they can and, in this situation, did.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 15):

Whether that's a design flaw in the aircraft is somewhat debatable...the flight crew took the aircraft outside its design envelope, so it's not strictly the aircraft's fault. However, you can make a legitimate argument that it shouldn't be that easy to get outside the envelope for that particular case.

The aircraft is designed to allow full rudder deflection up to a given speed with reducing rudder availability thereafter. What it is not designed to do, is to withstand repeated aggressive rudder oscillations thereby placing both the weight of the aircraft and its inertia on the rudder in alternating directions multiple times over a short timespan. You can kick an A300 out of wake turbulence but there is no need for the lead diving boots technique the AA FO employed. Airbus specifically stated this in the A300 training manual years in advance of the AA crash.

So I do not accept that there could be any reasonable argument that the crash was caused by a design flaw. It was caused by poor training practice at AA.
I AM the No-spotalotacus.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:18 pm

Quoting Iwok (Reply 98):
This was debated and debated over and over again. A key problem with the 300 is that the pedal force decreases as speed increases; non the less, the pilots and pilot training got blamed and AA will never buy Airbus for a loooooong time.

Like when MDD took the blame for the Chicago DC-10 crash, even though it's primary cause was a total illegal deviation from maintenance procedures issued by Douglas, for which the Airline maintenance was at fault?

Quoting Commavia (Reply 105):
The MD11s I'll give you - those were complete pieces of sh*t from day 1, at least from my experience, as we've discussed (argued over) here on A.net a million times.

At your age range of 16-20, how much experience with MD-11s do you have? Any at all or are you jusdt shooting of your mouth?

200 MD-11s were built before Boeing killed the programme (after the teething problems have been worked out and the plane became very reliable), because they saw it as a competitor to their B777 and B747.
Of those 5 got lost, one due to a dodgy inflight entertainment system and stupid pilots, who insisted on flying on in accordance to procedures instead of getting the plane down on ground ASAP.
One crashed because the pilots insisted on landing in a taifun, where all other airlines diverted.
I don't know too much about the other three hull losses, but AFAIK none was caused by any system or structural fault.
Sorry, the MD-11 is not a Boeing, so pilots, don't expect it to handle like a Boeing and mechanics, don't troubleshoot and maintain it like a Boeing.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:41 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 137):
even though it's primary cause was a total illegal deviation from maintenance procedures issued by Douglas, for which the Airline maintenance was at fault?

What was illegal about what AA was doing? It may have been approved but no way was it illegal.
[
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:45 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 138):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 137):
even though it's primary cause was a total illegal deviation from maintenance procedures issued by Douglas, for which the Airline maintenance was at fault?

What was illegal about what AA was doing? It may have been approved but no way was it illegal.
[

I can't find my FAR book at the moment, so I can not give the exact quote, but according to FAA (and EASA rules), you can only carry out maintenence in accordance with FAA approved documentation, like the maintenance manual. The manufacturer has a certain right to authorise deviations from the documentation, but I as an A&P can not deviate from the manuals. This is also why we ALWAYS have to quote the exact maintenance manual reference for any procedure (e.g. L/H main wheel assembly replaced iaw AMM 32-45-11, ckd satis"). And for an engine change the AMM specifies the equipment(e.g. that you have to use certain hoists with dynamometers to measure the forces and to prevent overstressing of the pylon, the use of a forklift is definitely NOT approved)) and the order of removals, e.g. you remove the engine first and then the pylon. The way AA removed the engine TOGETHER with the pylon (to save time) using a forklift was certainly neither approved by the manufacturer nor by the FAA and thus illegal.
In a world without politics the person who signed for the engine change AND his manager who ordered the change to be carried out like this would be punished.

But AA threatened not to buy and planes from Douglas if Douglas would not accept the blame (though Douglas's fault was to have the slat actuators designed in a way that they were not fault tolerant to a break in the hydraulic lines, which was rectified by a redesign after the accident).

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:55 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 137):
Of those 5 got lost, one due to a dodgy inflight entertainment system and stupid pilots, who insisted on flying on in accordance to procedures instead of getting the plane down on ground ASAP.

"From any point along the Swissair Flight 111 flight path after the initial odour in the cockpit, the time required to complete an approach and landing to the Halifax International Airport would have exceeded the time available before the fire-related conditions in the aircraft cockpit would have precluded a safe landing."

"The SR 111 pilots quickly investigated the situation and made a timely decision to divert the flight, even though, based on the perceived cues, the situation was not classified as an emergency."

"The pilots made a timely decision to divert to the Halifax International Airport."

All extracted from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada report on the accident:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/.../a98h0003/eReport/sr111_200303.pdf

The board found that the crew acted appropriately given the information available *and* that, even if they had immediately turned around at the first sign of odour in the cockpit, the fire would have doomed the aircraft before they could have landed.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 138):

What was illegal about what AA was doing? It may have been approved but no way was it illegal.

Maintenance plans are approved under the Operating Certificate. In the US, the airline doesn't have the authority to deviate from their approved maintenance plan without FAA concurrence, even based on data from the manufacturer. If AA got a procedure from Douglas that they incorporated in their maintenance plan without FAA approval that would be a violation of their Operating Certificate, hence a violation of the FAR's, hence illegal.

Tom.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:22 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 140):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 137):
Of those 5 got lost, one due to a dodgy inflight entertainment system and stupid pilots, who insisted on flying on in accordance to procedures instead of getting the plane down on ground ASAP.

"From any point along the Swissair Flight 111 flight path after the initial odour in the cockpit, the time required to complete an approach and landing to the Halifax International Airport would have exceeded the time available before the fire-related conditions in the aircraft cockpit would have precluded a safe landing."

"The SR 111 pilots quickly investigated the situation and made a timely decision to divert the flight, even though, based on the perceived cues, the situation was not classified as an emergency."

"The pilots made a timely decision to divert to the Halifax International Airport."

All extracted from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada report on the accident:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/.../a98h0003/eReport/sr111_200303.pdf

The board found that the crew acted appropriately given the information available *and* that, even if they had immediately turned around at the first sign of odour in the cockpit, the fire would have doomed the aircraft before they could have landed.

One problem was that the inflight entertainment system was wired in a way, which bypassed the "smoke switch". On the MD-11 the smoke switch allows to switch off the AC busses independently, together with an not related airconditioning pack (e.g. AC bus 3 / aircon pack 1; AC bus 2 / aircon pack 3; AC bus 1 / aircon pack 3) off to determine the source of an electric fire or smoke in the aircon system. You simply turn the switch from the "norm" position (all AC busses / all packs on) to another position, shutting one bus and one pack down, and chevk if the smoke disappears. This is the normal procedure, which the pilots carried out. Now this entertainment system was connected directly to a generator bus, thus bypassing the switch. It could not be turned off by the switch, the problem was that the pilots didn't know this. For them all users on the plane were routed through this switch and it's associated contactors.
When they discovered that they could not isolate the problem, instead of going straight to Halifax, again in accordance with the operating manual, they decided to dump fuel. While they were doing this, they lost control and crashed. After the accident the Swissair operating manual was changed to make pilots go straight to the next airport and land, if necessary doing an overweight landing.

Concering the handling characteristics, we have one MD-11 pilot here on the forum (WILCO737). For myself, while working on these planes I have met numerous pilots, who loved the plane.

Jan

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:43 pm

What was illegal about what AA was doing? It may have been approved but no way was it illegal.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 139):
I can't find my FAR book at the moment, so I can not give the exact quote, but according to FAA (and EASA rules), you can only carry out maintenence in accordance with FAA approved documentation, like the maintenance manual.

You are correct. However there is a small problem in that the Maintenance Manual (MM) is not an FAA approved manual and removing and replacing an engine is a MM procedure.

The Structural Repair (SRM) manual FAA is approved as the the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) along with Service Bulletins (SB) the Maintenance Review Board Manual (MRB) if required are FAA approved. To require a maintenance provider to follow the MM 100% would require it be written in such detail that it would be thousand and thousands of page thick and cost millions of man hours to produce.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:32 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 142):
You are correct. However there is a small problem in that the Maintenance Manual (MM) is not an FAA approved manual and removing and replacing an engine is a MM procedure.

I think you are mistaken there. The AMM is, like the SRM, the WDM and the FIM an FAA approved manual. This is part of the maintenance programme the operator has to show that he has in place to get his AOC. We have to make sure that we ALWAYS use the latest edition of the AMM and have to give exact reference which procedures we use. Also, there are critical jobs, where the AMM prescribes exactly which tools have to be used. The same goes for the IPC. I'm not allowed to substitute any parts unless they have been listed in the IPC as being effective for this particular plane.

There exists another category of documents which is FAA ACCEPTED, but NOT APPROVED, like the Aviation circular AC 43 .13-1B/2A "Acceptable methods techniques, and practices Aircraft inspection, Repair and Alterations".

Jan

[Edited 2007-10-28 17:35:15]
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:06 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 142):
To require a maintenance provider to follow the MM 100% would require it be written in such detail that it would be thousand and thousands of page thick and cost millions of man hours to produce.

The AMM is thousands and thousands of pages thick and it does cost at least hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of man hours to produce.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 143):
I think you are mistaken there. The AMM is, like the SRM, the WDM and the FIM an FAA approved manual.

The AMM is FAA accepted, not FAA approved. OEM's do not have to get FAA approval for changes to the AMM, WDM, or FIM. They do for the SRM.

Part of the Maintenance Planning Data, which tells operators the intervals to use for AMM tasks, is FAA approved. That might be what you're thinking of.

Regardless of source, a particular airline's maintenance plan is always FAA approved. That plan may say "Maintain the aircraft per AMM" but that doesn't mean the AMM document is FAA approved.

Tom.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:26 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 144):
That plan may say "Maintain the aircraft per AMM" but that doesn't mean the AMM document is FAA approved.

This again means if I deviate from the AMM, I'm breaking the law.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:45 am

Quoting GoAllegheny (Reply 134):
The Strat was a peculiar beast. Its pilots never knew for certain what might happen next, but we never had to ditch one, as Pan-Am had to do on two occasions.

NW also ditched a Stratocruiser in Puget Sound soon after takeoff from SEA in 1956, with 5 fatalities of 38 aboard.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:17 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 130):
at least some of the earlier-build, passenger versions AA got, definitely had something wrong with them. Again, they didn't earn that loving nickname of "Scud" and "Death Star" for nothing.

The key phrase there is earlier-build." Yes, the AA MD-11's had a more drag prone fuselage and the GE engines were not as fuel efficient. They also received none of the PIP mods (something you should look into) that rectified the early build problems. In short, using AA's opinion on the MD-11 is as good as taking UA's word on GE engines, or US on 737 rudders.

Quoting LY204 (Reply 131):
I suspect there aren't too many people (whether they be pilots, maintenance specialists, or passengers) who would ever cite the MD-11 as a superior machine to many of its predecessors and certainly its successors.

The MD-11 was a superior machine to the DC-10, it's predecessor. Routes such as JFK-NRT or TLV-LAX would have been very difficult if not impossible with a DC-10. The aforementioned accidents in Paris, ORD, and Sioux City would have not taken place with an MD-11.

If we consider the A343 a successor, the later build MD-11's hold their own in range at standard operating weights. The power and speed is a given, and while the A343 may burn less fuel, the MD-11 has it beat in payload. So why was the A343 a bigger success? More commonality between different families of aircraft and it's manufacturer will surely never be taken over by Boeing.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 140):
All extracted from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada report on the accident:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/...3.pdf

I have spoken with several at the NTSB who would beg to differ.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 141):
When they discovered that they could not isolate the problem, instead of going straight to Halifax, again in accordance with the operating manual, they decided to dump fuel. While they were doing this, they lost control and crashed. After the accident the Swissair operating manual was changed to make pilots go straight to the next airport and land, if necessary doing an overweight landing.

 checkmark  Exactly. Especially since dumping fuel required turning back over the ocean, in darkness no less.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:56 am

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 145):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 144):
That plan may say "Maintain the aircraft per AMM" but that doesn't mean the AMM document is FAA approved.

This again means if I deviate from the AMM, I'm breaking the law.

Yep, unless your approved maintenance program says something else (lots of them do).

Tom.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Aircraft Models With Notorious Safety Records

Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:13 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 148):
Yep, unless your approved maintenance program says something else (lots of them do).

The usual exception is an engineering order from the engineering department (e.g. if the airline has the authorisation to design repairs on their own, e.g. LH has this but many small airlines not) or the manufacturer. But I cannot deviate from documented maintenance procedures on my own, at least not were critical items are affected. I went through the whole thing once when I had a big argument with a manager at some airline I worked for before wanted me to ignore a known defect (which was neither deferrable as per MEL or CDL and for which we didn't have any parts), so that he could improve his statistics about no delays on his watch.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi

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