User avatar
HAWK21M
Topic Author
Posts: 30067
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:34 am

Apart from B777,A330,A340 & Emb 170.Are there any Aircraft models Flying that have not crashed.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
User avatar
vzlet
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:34 am

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:59 am

I can't recall any crashes of B717s or C-17s. There was, however, a fatal crash of an A330 during a test flight in 1994.
"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:59 am

Douglas DC-5

Of course there were not many of those made and they did not have much of a service life.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
User avatar
HeyMach
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 3:37 am

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:11 am

The A380, but then again....  Smile
 
VSIVARIES
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 9:25 am

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:12 am

The A330’s and A340’s haven’t been quite as lucky as you think  Sad – although thankfully there have not been any serious accidents.

An A330-301 Crashed into a pole (minor damage) http://aviation-safety.net/database/2002/021217-2.htm

An A340-311 Landed on a partially collapsed gear http://aviation-safety.net/database/1997/971106-1.htm

Nobody hurt luckily but the 340-311 badly damaged.
777 has a VG track record so far.

BR
Rich
For every action there is always an unequal but mostly similar reaction.
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1576
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:20 am

Has there been a 737NG lost? I don't think there has...
 
vector
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2000 10:37 am

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:17 am

Well...

If we are talking about crashes with fatal victims... then the ERJ-145 (with more than 800 flying) is one that did not have any fatal event.

In fact only 3 ERJ´s are considered w/o...
> one in a training flight (Continental Express)... that made a crash landing (minor injuries to the crew).
> A crash landing with one Rio-Sul aircraft (tail broken due to the hard landing), with no injuries.
> And an American Eagle ERJ the hit the hangar door during an engine run-up test.

An expressive mark for the ERJ´s.

 
milan320
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:25 pm

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:02 am

Didn't the A330 crash during engine type certification - pilot error as far as I recall.
/Milan320
I accept bribes ... :-)
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7858
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:10 am

one 'ERJ' in a training flight (Continental Express)... that made a crash landing (minor injuries to the crew).

...and the serial number of that plane....??? 013....!!!!

Do, doo, dooo... Creepy
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9292
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:00 pm

Has there been a 737NG lost? I don't think there has...

No 737NG write-offs (knocking on wood)... though GOL drove one through a stone wall -

http://aviation-safety.net/pictures/accidents/20031220-1-C-d-2-500.jpg
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7038
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:19 am

Dassault Mercure.

But this list is quite meaningless since a perfect record only shows that a particular airliner type has only been maintained and operated by qualified people and has been lucky enough not to be shot down by a MiG fighter (KAL-006), blown up, hijacked and flown into a tower, by ATC directed into midair collision. Etc.

It is more relevant to look at what planes have been lost due to design flaws.

One prominent candidate is the DH Comet 1 disasters 50+ years ago.
Maybe we can also count the Lauda B-767 which engaged engine reverser during cruise.
Concorde - scraps from a blown tire could puncture a tank - tons of fuel flushed into two engine intakes.
Old B-737 rudders are still being discussed - I shall not judge.
DC-10, badly designed baggage hatch locks, uncontained #2 engine failure could wipe out all three hydraulic systems.
What else?
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1576
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:01 am

Boeing 307 rudder lock (3/18/1939)
Boeing 377 propeller failure (4/29/1952 and 3/26/1955)
Boeing 707 fuel explosion from lightning strike (12/8/1963)
Boeing 720 high altitude upset sensitivity (2/12/1963)
Boeing 727 high rate of descent in Flaps 40 (11/11/1965)
Boeing 727 deep stall? (8/16/1965 and 2/4/1966)
Boeing 747 fuel explosion from lightning strike (5/9/1976)
Boeing 747 engine shear pins (10/4/1992)
Douglas DC-6 fuel vent feeding into the cabin heater inlet (10/24/1947)
BAC 1-11 deep stall (in flight test 10/22/1963)
Tu-134 deep stall (on the same day as the BAC 1-11!)
HS.121 Trident deep stall (6/3/1966 and probably 6/18/1972)
Martin 2-0-2 structural failure (8/29/48)
Lockheed Electra propeller whirl mode flutter (9/29/1959 and 3/17/1960)
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:25 am

It is more relevant to look at what planes have been lost due to design flaws

Can't let Boeing have all the fun! (A320)

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_details.cgi?date=01201992®=F-WWDP&airline=Air+Inter
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7038
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Tue Feb 01, 2005 9:31 am

Right Boeing Nut, but the 1992 Air Inter accident was a slightly different thing. The remedy was making the plane more "fool proof" in order to avoid pilot error.

The primary reason for the accident was not an unintentional malfunction of the plane. It was pilot error.

We could just as well count the MD-80 at Stavanger some 20 years ago which engaged spoilers at 50 feet altitude because some switches could be (and were) put in a wrong position. Luckily nobody got hurt. A good landing is when all on board survive AND the plane can be flown again. That MD-80 never flew again (banana shaped fuselage, engines pointing in wrong direction, landing gear coming out on upper wing surface etc.).

Fool proofing planes is a very important issue, and there is hardly one design more than a few years old which hasn't been subject to several updates and/or proposals for updates in order to minimize risk of pilot error. Fool proofing of all types of planes is a never ending story.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1576
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:09 am

Airbus? How about:

Airbus A300-600: Excessive rudder sensitivity (11/12/01)
Airbus A300-600: Inability to override autopilot (4/26/94)
Airbus A310: Inability to override autopilot (2/11/91)
Airbus A320: Control problems (8/26/93, 2/7/01, 3/17/01)
Airbus A330: Control problems (6/30/94)
Airbus A330: Fuel system (8/24/01)
Airbus A340: Control problems (can't find the date)
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Topic Author
Posts: 30067
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:58 pm

So its the B777 at least  Smile
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19709
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:36 pm

Didn't the A330 crash during engine type certification - pilot error as far as I recall.

Yes it did, with fatalities.


As usual, people think that 1 or 2 data points constitute statistics... There is no way to make statistical conclusions about particular models from the limited crash events (which were all very different) except to say airliners are very safe.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Catatonic
Posts: 1096
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:58 am

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:53 pm

Airbus A300-600: Excessive rudder sensitivity (11/12/01)

Thats quite contentious! I believe the verdict on that put the blame on AA's doorstep!
Equally Cursed and Blessed.
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1576
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:53 am

> Thats quite contentious! I believe the verdict on that put the blame on AA's doorstep!

I attended a FAA DER Recurrent Training Seminar last October that included a presentation on the AA587 accident. The presenter showed that the A300-600 has an unusual sensitive rudder. The pilot for some reason danced on the pedals and because of the sensitive rudder he was able to excite the Dutch roll mode of the aircraft. This allowed the aircraft to overyaw, leading to the VT failing at 158% (which means it was overdesigned by 8%).
 
IDAWA
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:07 pm

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Sat Feb 05, 2005 8:05 am

Here is a link to the A330 accident:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19940630-0

As far as I know, Alitalia was in the process of choosing between the A330 and the 767 at the time, and had sent two of its pilots at Toulouse to evaluate the A330's performance. Unluckily, pilots Pier Paolo Racchetti and Alberto Nassetti were aboard the testflight that ended up in the crash.
Alitalia chose the 767 over the A330 and named the first two planes after the two pilots killed in the crash


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rudy Chiarello
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Francisco José Jurado Ariza



I-DAWA
Flown on: 319, 320, 321, 340, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, DC9, D10, M11, M80, 146, EM2, BEH, CRJ, DH8, L4T.
 
XXXX10
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 7:10 am

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:43 am

Not sure about the following

A318
A319
A321

Tu 204
Tu214

TU144 2 lost no passenger fatalities
 
VC-10
Posts: 3552
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:28 am

BAC 1-11 deep stall (in flight test 10/22/1963)

I don't think it is fair to include prototype test flying. I mean, after all, test flying is all about finding the limits. In this case the aft C of G limit.

[Edited 2005-02-06 22:29:23]
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1576
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:51 am

> I don't think it is fair to include prototype test flying. I mean, after all, test
> flying is all about finding the limits. In this case the aft C of G limit.

I was responding to:
> It is more relevant to look at what planes have been lost due to design flaws.

This was a design flaw. It should have been found during the wind tunnel testing of the design, not during flight test. If they had anticipating finding it in flight test, they should have had a parachute on the aircraft and the flight crew should have had parachutes.

Flight testing on airliners is really about validating the limits established for the design, not finding the limits.
 
VC-10
Posts: 3552
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:04 pm

The limits had in fact been found in the wind tunnel.

From the official accident report -

"The technique followed in the VC10 stalling programme consisted of taking the aircraft up to or just beyond the angle of incidence at which wind tunnel tests had shown CL max to occur, so that experience and information would be built up gradually. During the intial stalling tests of the One-Eleven, however, the angles of incidence based upon wind tunnel tests, which were provided as a guide to the test pilots,were considerable exceeded, no allowance for scale effect had been made when establishung these incidence values. Nevertheless if the VC10 stall investigation technique had been closely followed in this case the One-Eleven stalling tests would not have been taken so far, so fast.........................It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that as by 25 degs in the wind tunnel tests the nose-down in the pitching moment gave way to a nose-up tendancy, and as the firm had a general background knowledge of stalling problems that had arisen with T-tail aircraft, stalling tests should have been more cautiously approached, more closly controlled and more carefully correlated with wind tunnel and flight recorder data."

The tail parachute -
" Consideration had been given in the case of the One-Eleven, as in that of the VC10, to the fitting of a tail parachute. The matter was being kept under review and no final decision had been made, although it had been intended that a parachute should be fitted before the aircraft made a dymanic stall, thus significantly exceeding the stalling incidence............................Wind tunnel tests carried out by BAC since the accident indicate that with the elevators in effect locked up and with the aircraft in astable stall, a tail parachute of the type it was intended to fit would not have given sufficient pitching moment to provide for recovery."


All the 7 crew wore parachutes. Once stalled the a/c descended virtually horizontal at 10800 fpm with pilots trying recover. " Although it may be expected that there was considerable alarm at the rapid loss of height, it seems reasonable to accept that no question of abandoning the a/c arose until all possibilities of recovery, culminating in the application of full power, had been attempted. When this had been done the a/c was probably at just under 5,000 Ft with less than 30 seconds to go before impact. There is evidence that some attempt was made to abandon the a/c at a very low height, probably far less then 5,000 Ft, since

a) witnesses heard a sharp report, which could have been the firing of the explosive bolts on the forward escape hatch, when they estimated the a/c to be a few hundred feet; after the crash the door was found trapped between the fuselage and the ground in an inverted position still partly covering the door opening and two of the occupants were near this exit.

b) althought the rear ventral door (second escape exit) was in position, two of the occupants were some distance towards it."


The accident site revealed the a/c impacted the ground at a very high ROD and low forward speed, only moving forward 70 Ft.

How do you escape from below an a/c descending at a rate of 10,000 FPM with low fwd airspeed?
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1576
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:33 am

VC-10:

Thanks for the info. I have been read about the accident, but have never read the actual accident report (where did you find it?). I've got to say that they were amazingly cavalier to fly this test when the tunnel data showed trouble. I've also been told that both engines flamed out in the deep stall and they weren't able to relight them. Sometimes you can work your way out of a deep stall with thrust.

As to the bailing out, this sounds a lot like the 1980 loss of the #1 Canadair Challenger. In that case, they used the tail chute to break a deep stall, but then couldn't get rid of it. Two crew members were able to bail out, but the pilot got fixated and ended up riding it in. I don't know what the rate of descent was in that case. 10,000 FPM is a very very high rate of descent.

An interesting thought: if it was concluded that a tail chute wouldn't have been of any use in breaking a deep stall on the BAC 1-11, would it have been any good in breaking the deep stall that caused the 1993 CRJ crash in Kansas? In that case, they forgot to engage the chute before firing it.
 
VC-10
Posts: 3552
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:11 am

The accident report can be found as an appendix the Brian Trubshaw's book "Test Pilot".

It is interesting to note the second 1-11 came down some months later when the Pilot thought he was in a deep stall and streamed the a/c's parachute. This accident report stated that -

"Although the a/c's behaviour and instrument information indicated otherwise the pilot believed the a/c to be developing a stable stall condition and streamed the tail parachute

The nose down pitch due to the tail parachute was small because the angle of attack (incidence) was low.

Had the tail 'chute been jettisoned during the descent, the flight could have been continued normally."

The day after this incident the pilot went to see the Chief Test Pilot and said 'I am the biggest bloody fool in the business, I have slept on it and there was nothing wrong with the a/c'


The engines didn't flame out during the first incident, the turbines were burnt out when they tried to apply full power due to the lack of airflow. Subsequently the One-Eleven engines had a 'Fuel Dip' dip system fitted which whan a stall was detected removed a good proportion of the fuel supply to the burners. I have the actual figs in my Spey course notes but I can't be bothered to find them right now.

 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1576
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:15 am

VC-10:

Thanks - I just ordered "Test Pilot" from Amazon...
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Topic Author
Posts: 30067
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Aircraft Model - No Crashes

Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:05 pm

The day after this incident the pilot went to see the Chief Test Pilot and said 'I am the biggest bloody fool in the business, I have slept on it and there was nothing wrong with the a/c'

He must have felt like @#%$.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

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