VH-PGW PA-31P-350 15 June 2010 Crash Investigation

[remoak]

Arnold E

All of that is fine, providing that you are prepared to accept less jobs in the industry, both pilot and engineer.

That doesn't necessarily follow at all, you are still carrying the same numbers of pax and probably using similar-sized aircraft, just powered by turbines and with better performance. And if, for example, it became the norm to operate two-crew, pilot numbers would go up, not down, and so on.

The fact is the fares needing to be charged to sustain the purchase of modern aircraft would be higher that the public would want, or indeed afford, to pay.

Yes, but if everyone was forced to use more modern aircraft, costs would rise uniformly. I don't agree that fares would be higher than the public can afford to pay, fares have been dropping for years and a restoration to an appropriate level, that reflects the true cost of aviation, is not unsustainable.

Old Akro

As far as I can see the whole aging aircraft thing has been invented to pursue some sort of political agenda. Are we concerned about the age of our bridges? Buildings? Trains. Ships? Dams? Gas pipes? The list goes on.

Actually, yes, we are. Take oil tankers, for example. In 1995 it was agreed that all tankers would have to be converted to double-hull (or taken out of service) when they reached a certain age (up to 30 years old). This measure was adopted to be phased in over a number of years because shipyard capacity is limited and it would not be possible to convert all single hulled tankers to double hulls without causing immense disruption to world trade and industry.

Although the double hull requirement was adopted in 1992, following the Erika incident off the coast of France in December 1999, IMO Member States discussed proposals for accelerating the phase-out of single hull tankers. As a result, in April 2001, IMO adopted a revised phase-out schedule for single hull tankers, which entered into force on 1 September 2003.The new revised regulation set out a stricter timetable for the phasing-out of single-hull tankers. That phase-out date was progressively revised until the final date became 2010 (it had been 2015).

Bridges, tunnels, and especially pipelines are all routinely replaced when they reach the end of their useful life, or completely refurbished to meet modern standards. Small piston twins, on the other hand, remain essentially unchanged throughout their life, which is pretty much always far longer than the manufacturer intended it to be.

Diligent maintenance (which is sadly uncommon) means that a 5,000 hour aircraft is as safe and reliable as a new one.

Sure it is... but that isn't the point. The REAL point is, are we still prepared to accept the safety standards that were in existence when these aircraft were certificated? Standards that are now over 40 years old and way out of step with modern expectations?

There are plenty of aircraft around that, although certificated in the '60s, are so marginal in performance terms that were they to be presented for certification now, they would never achieve it. Older turboprops like the F27 are good examples.

Nobody is arguing that a 40 year old aeroplane cannot perform as it did on the day it rolled out of the factory, the point is, is that level of performance adequate?

43Inches

I would not say that the aircraft is dangerous or even marginal, considering the types of operations these aircraft continue to be used you would think the rate would have been higher.

Your sample is too small to be meaningful, try having a look at the NTSB stats.

Also, the fact that pilots have managed to save the situation (easily, or only just) doesn't mean that the aircraft itself isn't marginal, it just means they did a good job (or got lucky).