Aircraft down in residential area of Karachi? [Archive]

Montrealguy

28th Nov 2010, 04:49

Regretably I think " Russian Cargo Aircraft" is probably enough of an explanation if we look at historical precedent, no need to involve Osama B.L. methinks.

Really ? Lets look at 2010 fatal accidents by manufacturer and country of origin and see what they have to say about your comment.

Airbus 2
Antonov 6
ATR 2
Beechcraft 2
Boeing 5
Convair 1
DeHaviland 1
CASA 1
Cessna 4
Dornier 1
Embraer 3
Fairchild 1
GAF 1
Learjet 1
LET 2
Lockheed 1
PZL 2
Rockwell 1
Tupolev 1

Australia 1
Brazil 3
Canada 1
Czech Rep 2
France 4
Poland 5
Germany 1
Russia 5
Spain 1
USA 16

If this crash was indeed an IL-76, it would be the first fatal Ilyushin crash of 2010.

PS All An-2 were built in Poland after around 1961 and are counted as Polish. I counted Airbus and ATR as "French" although its more complicated.

CargoFlyer11

28th Nov 2010, 05:14

YouTube - Russion Cargo Plane iL-76 Crash in karachi sunday 28 November 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TpScTyxaqw)

cats_five

28th Nov 2010, 08:08

BBC says its mechanical failure so we might as well close this thread.
<snip>

The BBC actually says:

Witnesses say they saw that one of the plane's engines was on fire, which suggests that the cause of the crash may have been a mechanical failure.
...
The cause of the crash was not immediately known, and an investigation is now under way.

Super VC-10

28th Nov 2010, 08:12

Sun Way Flight 4412 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Way_Flight_4412)

alainthailande

28th Nov 2010, 11:30

Amateur video showing the last few seconds of flight.
YouTube - Amateur Video Clip of Ilyushin Il-76 hitting ground in Karachi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeFZqvCWv4Q)
Shown by a Pakistani TV channel.

denlopviper

28th Nov 2010, 13:02

there are reports of the crew declaring mayday and requesting emergency landing. the airplane caught fire just after take off, and for a change we have video to confirm it. it went down into some houses being constructed for naval officers in Pakistan Naval Station Karsaz.

as far as i can figure the crash site is pretty much in line with 25L an slightly left of 25R at about 2NM from the end of 25L.

WindSheer

28th Nov 2010, 14:16

Escape Path

28th Nov 2010, 14:18

Eyewitnesses stated that one of the starboard engines was on fire as the aircraft climbed out of Jinnah. The crew attempted to return to Jinnah, but the aircraft crashed on approach to runway 07R

In the video the aircraft is still on fire when it hit the ground. Seems to me it was too much time for just an engine fire. :uhoh:

Machinbird

28th Nov 2010, 14:47

In the video the aircraft is still on fire when it hit the ground. Seems to me it was too much time for just an engine fire.

The short inflight portion of that last video showed a pretty big fire going. Seems likely that more than just an engine was burning. Perhaps another uncontained engine failure?

Montrealguy

28th Nov 2010, 15:16

Montrealguy

How many 76's are there airworthy these days?

Its the number of accidents per fleet size that really matters.
Boeing come out 2nd 5, but there are thousands of those flying all over the world!

Oh, and welcome to prune...

Thanks for the welcome.

Actually there are several hundred IL-76 still flying these days, but there are only 130 civilian IL-76s flying legally, ie with a real and a valid Certificate of Airworthiness. These are all listed here on the Ilyushin website:

Airworthy Ilyushins (http://www.ilyushin.org/eng/company/news.html)

The very reason Ilyushin listed those CIVILIAN aircraft that were flying legally, is because many of those that were involved in crashes these past years, crashed, not because they were Ilyushins, but because they had been flown without conforming to the maintenance and inspection programs of the manufacturer, leading to comments like were made by you on this Forum.

You will notice that 4L-GNI, the Georgian Registered IL-76 involved in last night's crash, is not on the list of the IL-76 with a real Certificate of Airworthiness. Not a coincidence.

Ilyushin encourages visitors to this page to also visit the website of Saturn, the engine manufacturer' Website, to discover if the engines that are hung on an individual aircraft are legal.

The Indian Air Force has 26 IL-76-based aircraft and has been operating them since 1985 with zero losses. Not a coincidence either.

Shell Management

28th Nov 2010, 15:24

There are reports that after 2007 this airframe was only allowed to fly if a service life extension programme was completed.

captplaystation

28th Nov 2010, 16:16

Montrealguy,

I think what you, and others, have posted justifies , rather than invalidates , my comment.

I didn't claim that the aircraft, if operated/maintained in accordance with its original design brief by a technically competent crew/legally operating company/correctly functioning airworthiness authority, couldn't be safe. But, even without getting involved in African ops, that is not how the majority of these aircraft/companies are conducting their business, so my comment , in the very general sense, stands, and is I believe an accurate reflection of all Soviet cargo aircraft worldwide this last decade or more. Read flight international's annual accident reviews and see how many Soviet cargo aircraft come to grief each and every year.
Final Q, you can get in the back of one of these mothers, or get the train and take a few days longer, what you gonna choose ? me, I'll let the train take the strain thanks.
Look at some of the related videos appearing on youtube, like the curvature of the earth aided take-off. :eek: These aircraft ,through no fault of their own, are being operated by individuals/companies/regimes that don't have the first idea, and even less concern for, anything relating remotely to flight safety. Sad but, evinced by the number of smouldering wrecks each year, all too true.

ATCO1962

28th Nov 2010, 17:47

Just about every airworthy IL 76 is operating through our airspace in the Middle East, servicing a little dispute to the north of Oman. You wouldn't believe the sheer number of them plying the routes up to Afghanistan.

If the average quality of the fleet is to be judged by the ones we actually see here, then we will be waiting for more of these disasters.

Sadly, the Russians build great aircraft but don't have the will/resources/culture to continue to maintain and fly them in a manner that ensures safety.

Phileas Fogg

28th Nov 2010, 18:08

captplaystation

28th Nov 2010, 18:37

The main problem is that the countries/companies they have ended up operating for are either morally/financially, or in some cases both, bankrupt.
No fault of the robust products from the ex-soviet empire per se, just that the maintenance and tlc they need ain't forthcoming, and the rule books have been long forgotten.
Quite amazing how un-regulated this sector of aviation is, and a large part of the blame must fall on "much more Western" :hmm: nations who turn a blind eye, just to get the job done at the lowest price.

The $ is King :suspect:

lomapaseo

28th Nov 2010, 19:47

There is one hell of a stretch here to take a far away video of a plane flying with a fire ball so low that it might have even hit a ground obstacle before crashing and turning the thread into an airworthiness maintenance discourse.

Sure there's questions but can we have just a trifle more on-scene information before going two pages deep in a thread.

No wonder the news media gets confused.

Montrealguy

28th Nov 2010, 20:38

MontrealGuy,

Whilst many Antonovs may be built in the Russian Federation Antonov are actually a Ukrainian company and also have/had plants in Ukraine, Uzbekistan etc.

I find it unusual, by your list, that the Antonov incidents of 2010 all involve Russian built machines!

You are quite correct, several of the machines I listed as Russian were built in the Ukraine, some at a time when Ukraine was part of the USSR, others after independence. Machines such as the AN-26 and the An-32 were built in the Ukraine, while the An-28 is built in Russia, the An-12 was built strictly in Uzbekistan (although none were involved in fatal accidents in 2010) and the An-2 was built in Poland. But if we were to follow that logic, the IL-76, all of which were built in Uzbekistan, is not a Russian machine at all and should be listed as Uzbek.

What really counts ? The country where the designers are located or the country where the plant that assembles the aircraft is located ?

The Soviet Union left us a situation which is quite weird for "westerners". Antonov is Ukrainian. The Aviastar aviation factory in Ulyanovsk, Russia, builds Antonovs, Tupolevs and has now begun building Ilyushins as well. But about half of An-124s were built at Aviastar (before and after the end of the USSR). Are they Ukrainain or Russian ?

But all this is besides the point. Lets look at fatal accidents of 2009, if 2010 was not convincing enough, by type this time

Airbus 310 1
Airbus 330 1
An-2 1 (Soviet/Ukraine design, Polish built)
An-12 2 (Soviet/Ukraine designed, Uzbek built)
An-26 1
An-32 1
ATR-72 1
BAE 146 1
BAE 32 1
BAE 41 1
BAE 125 1
Beech 99 1
Beech 1900 1
BN-2 3
Boeing 707 1
Boeing 737 2
Canadair 600 1
CASA 212 1
Cessna 208 3
Cessna 650 1
DHC-6 3
DHC-8 1
DC-3 2
Emb110 1
F-27 1
Falcon 20 1
Falcon 100 1
GAF N22 1
GAF N24 1
Hesa 140 1 (Ukraine designed, Iranian built)
IL-62 1
IL-76 4 (Soviet/Russian design, Uzbek built)
Lockheed C-130 3
MD-11 2
PZL M-28 2 (a Polish built and modified An-28 with US engines)
TU-154 1

If we go by country of last assembly:

16 US
7 UK types
5 Uzbek
5 Canadian
5 French
3 Polish
2 Russian
2 Ukraine
2 Australian
1 Iranian
1 Spanish
1 Dutch
1 Brazilian

By Country of Design

16 US
10 USSR
7 UK
5 Canadian
5 French
2 Polish
2 Australian
1 Spanish
1 Dutch
1 Brazilian
1 Ukraine (the HESA 140)

Despite the many shady operators of ex Soviet machines, the statistics do no reflect the poor reputation they were given.

ExSp33db1rd

28th Nov 2010, 20:45

Montrealguy - there are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics ( oft repeated quote )

Statistics can be 'massaged' to prove whatever the author wishes.

Phileas Fogg

28th Nov 2010, 21:07

MontrealGuy,

So if a McDonnell Douglas built Harrier crashes do you regard it as a British (Tommy Sopwith) design incident?

captplaystation

28th Nov 2010, 21:39

Montreal (Yeah right ? ? :hmm:) guy.

I don't think this thread is being best served by discussing the politics involved in the break up of the former USSR , or the quality of design/construction of aviation products which were indeed all from there, no matter the name of the territory now.

Finally, these aircraft were designed to be operated/maintained in a certain way. The somewhat incomplete historical safety records available to those of us on the other side of the iron curtain makes any discussion of relative safety levels achieved WITH this benefit a bit of a nonsense. . . but, what is assuredly true, is that these birds most certainly are NOT being maintained/operated in any way likely to result in the safety levels anticipated by their designers.

Just to avoid confusion, this is not a Commie/USA discussion here, these aircraft are invariably now in the wrong hands, being operated by companies/countries who have a VERY poor track record.
If you doubt my take on this, I would ask you freely and without bias, look at how many Boeings have been crashed this last twenty years in Africa, or indeed South America QED?

A used car is only as good as its last owner, an aircraft is exactly the same.

Phileas Fogg

28th Nov 2010, 22:28

I have flown around the former USSR quite extensively on such types as AN-24's, Yak42's, Tu-134's etc. and maintenance does leave a lot to be desired.

There are IL-76's parked-up at airports all around the former USSR just waiting for "tin-pot" operators to sign them up and get them airborne, as an example just 'Google Earth' on Zaporozhye Airport to establish the airframes parked-up, at just one airport, available to, with a kick of the tyres etc, get airborne, unfortunately economical hardships dictate what is safe and what is not!

Big Pistons Forever

28th Nov 2010, 23:00

You are quite correct, several of the machines I listed as Russian were built in the Ukraine, some at a time when Ukraine was part of the USSR, others after independence. Machines such as the AN-26 and the An-32 were built in the Ukraine, while the An-28 is built in Russia, the An-12 was built strictly in Uzbekistan (although none were involved in fatal accidents in 2010) and the An-2 was built in Poland. But if we were to follow that logic, the IL-76, all of which were built in Uzbekistan, is not a Russian machine at all and should be listed as Uzbek.

What really counts ? The country where the designers are located or the country where the plant that assembles the aircraft is located ?

The Soviet Union left us a situation which is quite weird for "westerners". Antonov is Ukrainian. The Aviastar aviation factory in Ulyanovsk, Russia, builds Antonovs, Tupolevs and has now begun building Ilyushins as well. But about half of An-124s were built at Aviastar (before and after the end of the USSR). Are they Ukrainain or Russian ?

But all this is besides the point. Lets look at fatal accidents of 2009, if 2010 was not convincing enough, by type this time

Airbus 310 1
Airbus 330 1
An-2 1 (Soviet/Ukraine design, Polish built)
An-12 2 (Soviet/Ukraine designed, Uzbek built)
An-26 1
An-32 1
ATR-72 1
BAE 146 1
BAE 32 1
BAE 41 1
BAE 125 1
Beech 99 1
Beech 1900 1
BN-2 3
Boeing 707 1
Boeing 737 2
Canadair 600 1
CASA 212 1
Cessna 208 3
Cessna 650 1
DHC-6 3
DHC-8 1
DC-3 2
Emb110 1
F-27 1
Falcon 20 1
Falcon 100 1
GAF N22 1
GAF N24 1
Hesa 140 1 (Ukraine designed, Iranian built)
IL-62 1
IL-76 4 (Soviet/Russian design, Uzbek built)
Lockheed C-130 3
MD-11 2
PZL M-28 2 (a Polish built and modified An-28 with US engines)
TU-154 1

If we go by country of last assembly:

16 US
7 UK types
5 Uzbek
5 Canadian
5 French
3 Polish
2 Russian
2 Ukraine
2 Australian
1 Iranian
1 Spanish
1 Dutch
1 Brazilian

By Country of Design

16 US
10 USSR
7 UK
5 Canadian
5 French
2 Polish
2 Australian
1 Spanish
1 Dutch
1 Brazilian
1 Ukraine (the HESA 140)

Despite the many shady operators of ex Soviet machines, the statistics do no reflect the poor reputation they were given.

Utterly meaningless statistics. The only meaningfull way to compare statistics between aircraft is accidents per 100,000 flying hours and even this does not account for operational differences like short haul vs long haul, operations at 2nd or third tier airports etc.

However the latest numbers I have seen put the accident rate per 100,000 hrs of ex soviet block aircraft at 15 times higher than all operators using Western built aircraft. No amount of jiggery pokery will hide the fact the IL and Antonov aircraft crash at much higher rate than Western aircraft. The cause of that discrepency can be debated but not its existance.

captplaystation

28th Nov 2010, 23:01

Thank you gentleman, by your real world experience,you confirm what my gut feeling told me all along.
Montrealguy, no hard feelings, but this is BS for everyone involved in it, so, at least, don't deny the reality, and help everyone stuck with it, to MAYBE?, move forward.

Dairyground

28th Nov 2010, 23:30

Big Pistons Forever

The only meaningfull way to compare statistics between aircraft is accidents per 100,000 flying hours and even this does not account for operational differences like short haul vs long haul, operations at 2nd or third tier airports etc.

Given that most accidents occur on take-off, approach or landing, and relatively few in the cruise, is not accidents per sector a more useful statistic for type/operator/regime comparison than accidents per hour?

Big Pistons Forever

28th Nov 2010, 23:53

Big Pistons Forever

Given that most accidents occur on take-off, approach or landing, and relatively few in the cruise, is not accidents per sector a more useful statistic for type/operator/regime comparison than accidents per hour?

Obviously the more granularity the better the data. The problem becomes getting data that you can be sure compares like to like. Total flight hours is the easiest to obtain and is not subject to different intreptations. Therefore I think the accident per 100,000 metric seems to be the most commonly used when broad comparisons are made

jcjeant

29th Nov 2010, 01:07

Hi,

Flying Or Driving: Which Is Safer? (http://www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/flying_or_driving_which_safer) :O

Montrealguy

29th Nov 2010, 02:44

However the latest numbers I have seen put the accident rate per 100,000 hrs of ex soviet block aircraft at 15 times higher than all operators using Western built aircraft.

That would be convincing information, if true. Care to share where you saw those numbers.

Montrealguy

29th Nov 2010, 04:58

News reports state seven of the occupants were Ukrainians, and one was Russian. THE Aircraft was Georgian registered and and belonged to Sunway Airlines, which I had never heard of. It seemed to be based in the UAE these past years, first as Kyrgyzstan Airways EX-036, then as Georgian National Airlines 4L-GNI before going over to Sunway. It started life as Aeroflot's RA-76785.

grounded27

29th Nov 2010, 05:34

Soo many russian aircraft are written off as mechanical flying into areas where ATC is worse then theirs and hostility is more rampant than many others wish to venture. Sure Russian built fleet's are old but they are an easy target for the horse**** CAA's of these regions.

Norman Stanley Fletcher

29th Nov 2010, 06:48

Montrealguy's statistics are interesting. It is a statistical fact, however, that you are infinitely safer travelling with a 'western' airline than one from outside that geographic (and cultural?) area. You can argue whether or not that is due to the presence of western (ie Boeing or Airbus) aircraft or Russian ones, and we would all acknowledge that the issue is more complex than that. Many operators of ex-Soviet aircraft are financially strapped to such an extent that regular maintainance and training that would be considered 'must-haves' in the west just go to the bottom of the shopping list in favour of survival. Cultural attitudes that discourage adherence to SOPs and the clear questioning of error in a flight deck colleague to save face are overwhelming difficulties that pervade much of non-western aviation practice. It is therefore very difficult to blame the massive safety gap between western and non-western operators on Russian aircraft alone. There can be no doubt, however, that such a gap exists. Denying that is merely part of the tragic process of denial in the face of overwhelming evidence which characterises these debates.

alainthailande

29th Nov 2010, 06:59

While googling for that aircraft's registration number, I have hit several interesting articles mentioning that it once belonged to a company called Sakavia. That company was supposedly linked to the suspected russian arms and drug dealer Viktor Bout who was recently extradited from Thailand where he has been held for quite a while to the US. The plane was then sold to Sky Georgia, the privatized successor of the Georgian National Airlines and as such was photographed at Sharjah (SHJ) airport in January 2010:
Photo Sky Georgia Ilyushin IL-76TD 4L-GNI (http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=915977)
I'm not suggesting anything about the current owner of that ill-fated airframe. I just though it was worth mentioning its troubled past. If it wasn't, shoot me.

Wannabe Flyer

29th Nov 2010, 10:26

I just though it was worth mentioning its troubled past. If it wasn't, shoot me.

Just wondering if you meant troubled past of the aircraft or it's prior owners. Cannot see any airworthiness related issues in the articles......:ugh:

captplaystation

29th Nov 2010, 14:04

With 4 engines you shouldn't. . . . . but, when you see the performance achieved with all 4 turning (due perhaps to some "flexibility" in the load-sheet) in some cases perhaps there is a case for considering the options.
Any twin /4 eng aircraft is "expected" if operated within limits to climb (well, perhaps not if you include Piper Apache/Twin Comm etc), but it wasn't so many years ago that a HS748 was put down ahead in a field after take-off from STN. If I remember there was no criticism of the PIC which was an eye opener indeed.
A bit sad you should have to consider this drastic action, but, aircraft perf deterioration with age, and aforementioned laissez faire in respect to loading may make it a necessity.
Having said that, watching early A340 normal 4 eng climbs used to leave me wondering how well it would manage on 3 without descending terrain/curvature of the earth on its side.

oversteer

29th Nov 2010, 14:46

It is a statistical fact, however, that you are infinitely safer travelling with a 'western' airline than one from outside

:hmm: I think you may need to work on your 'facts'

ChiefT

29th Nov 2010, 15:02

You can always set up a statistic in that way you need to convince people. With statistics I can prove, that a fuel guzzling 707 is still more fuel efficient than a new aircraft...

However, often enough the Il-76 are overloaded. Then you have even with 4 wholes no chance if you lose one...

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

29th Nov 2010, 15:03

<<one golden rule I cannot forget was with engine
problems after take off never try to return to the ‘field’
look ahead for best crash sight.>>

Given that major international airports are often located in or near to densely populated areas, this may not be a good idea. Multi-engined aircraft should be capable of returning with one engine out - at least, every one I have seen has done so.

rcsa

29th Nov 2010, 16:18

... it has been my experience, in twenty or so years of hitching rides on Sov (and ex-Sov) freighters into Sudan, and DRC, and Bosnia, and Nagorno Karabagh, and Afghanistan, and a dozen other places where only fools travel lightly, that most - very nearly all - the aircrew on these aircraft are ex- military. Same goes for a lot of the chopper pilots that get chartered to lift stuff in (and people out) of miserable places.

I had a beer (or ten - and that's another aspect of the problem) with an Mi-17 pilot in Mozambique a couple of years ago, and he said you should never fly with anyone under 45. Older than that, and they'll have been trained properly in the old USS-of-R. Under that, and they probably didn't.

They have a somewhat more casual attitude to The Rules than most pilots. And of course the bottle of vodka that usually has a place near the throttle quadrant just makes it easier.

Many of them are outstanding pilots and engineers, keeping these old birds running when they really should be on the scrap heap.

But every now and again they'll mess it up.

Super VC-10

29th Nov 2010, 16:44

Ahh, flexibility in the load sheet - produces take-off like this :eek:

YouTube - Close call! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWtdtuspnoM)

rmac

1st Dec 2010, 04:24

Referring to previous posts alluding to "troubled pasts", Victor Bout and chronic overloading and cross referring that with an IL76 flight which I have taken some years ago in Congo which had three layers of cargo, (munitions, rice and people) and which barely got off the end of the runway in Goma.............I have to ask, does anyone think that the impact explosion was a little....large...

Super VC-10

1st Dec 2010, 06:42

I don't think that the size of the resultant fire is anything other than what would have been expected. The Il-76 has a range of 3,650 km (1,970 nmi) at max payload (Ilyushin Il-76 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-76)), whereas the straight line distance between Karachi and Khartoum is 3,721 km (2,009 nmi) (ASN Aircraft accident Ilyuhsin 76TD 4L-GNI ? Karachi-Jinnah International Airport (KHI) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20101128-0)). Max payload is about 45 tonnes, with the aircraft reported as carrying 36-40 tons of cargo. So the fuel load at departure is likely to have been approaching maximum.

Norman Stanley Fletcher

1st Dec 2010, 11:07

Montrealguy

1st Dec 2010, 13:52

oversteer - if you can find a scrap of credible evidence to suggest that western airlines are statistically less safe than non-western ones, then I would be delighted to see it. If the word 'infinitely' is an issue to you then give us all a number to work with - 5, 10 or 20 times? Any of those values would be 'infinite' to me, given the subject matter. If you want to be a numpty over terminology, then be my guest. If, however, you can prove western airlines are less safe overall than non-western ones, there are going to be a lot of alarmed and astonished people taking a big interest in what you have to say.

Wait a minute here. You were the one who made an unsubstantiated claim. Oversteer did not agree with it, and now you put the onus on him to prove you wrong. Why don't you begin by backing your original statement with "credible evidence" ? And then you can ask Oversteer to provide his evidence, if he has any.

Big Pistons Foreever claimed earlier that Soviet built aircraft have an accident rate per hour of flight 15 times greater than Western built aircraft. I asked him for a source, which of course he will not provide. He has not even replied. I wonder why.

Montrealguy

1st Dec 2010, 14:39

So if a McDonnell Douglas built Harrier crashes do you regard it as a British (Tommy Sopwith) design incident?

Good question. When one of the 651 Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd built Mig-21s crashes, as many have, do you regard it as Russian or Indian ?

Norman Stanley Fletcher

1st Dec 2010, 17:02

Montrealguy, having taken part in a few discussions with people who see black as white over the years, I do not intend to give too much time to this one. There is almost certainly nothing anyone could say to you or tell you that will change your mind, and I do not intend to try.

For those who want to make a more rational investigation into the issue under discussion, I would draw your attention to the following pdf file that gives some excellent information as a starter:

http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf

The slight snag with it is that it draws a distinction between US & Canadian operators and everyone else. I think it would be reasonable to include western European operators in that group too, and therefore some adjustment is required to reflect 'western' operations.

I also heartily recommend:

Aviation Safety Network > Statistics (http://aviation-safety.net/statistics/)

This is a great website providing accident statistics going back many years. Finally, I would invite interested people to view the lastest accidents website:

JACDEC - Current News (http://www.jacdec.de/news/news.htm)

This website tracks every known accident in the world (fatal or not) by type, nation and operator. It gives a very good feel for who is dropping out the sky and who is not!

Having had a look at that lot, do come back and tell me I am wrong.

Lonewolf_50

1st Dec 2010, 17:51

Montreal Guy, I don't think you picked up on the metrics "per flight hour" as well as "per sortie" or "per sector" which indicate the opportunity for mishap, against which the number of successful or unsuccessful sorties/sectors are weighed.

There are other layers of granularity, of course, to include crew factors, system factors, company/supervisory factors, and maintenance factors that contribute to the stats.

Previously alluded to is the double whammy of low margin operators buying "cheaper" planes as well as "saving money" by doing less maintenance. If that coupling typically happens with products from vendor X, it would be no surprise to any of us when the mishap rates for that vendor / operator combination appear a sigma or two above the mean.

Big Pistons Foreever claimed earlier that Soviet built aircraft have an accident rate per hour of flight 15 times greater than Western built aircraft. I asked him for a source, which of course he will not provide. He has not even replied. I wonder why.

I think someone else has already addressed the transparency issues. If you don't get my point on that, consider that one can only account for or analyze accidents and incidents that are reported. From about 1940 to present, there is about a fifty year period of minimal transparency from your pet vendors.

I wonder why. :rolleyes:

Montrealguy

1st Dec 2010, 18:44

Thank you for the reply. The first Boeing report only covers "Western" built aircraft of the world, and as you pointed out, it compares Canada and the US to the rest of the world, which includes western Europe.

One good thing about that report, is that it reports accidents per million departures, rather than per 100,000 hours of flight which shows the more accident prone aircraft vs the safer ones. The older ones which had their heydays in the 60s (DC-8/707) being more accident prone than newer models (757/A-330)

As for the Aviation Safety Network, its precisely where I took the information I posted earlier on this thread, the 2010 and 2009 fatal accident statistics by type. Of course, these do not reflect the actual numbers of such aircraft in service, nor do they reflect the actual hours that these aircraft fly.

But if one looks at the sheer number of aircraft built vs th numbers that are crashing, it gives a good if not perfect insight.. Lets take the An-12 which is the Soviet equivalent to the C-130. 140 were lost to accidents out of a production of 1243 so a little over 11%
The Herc saw 335 crashes out of a production of 2159 so about 15%. Are we claiming that the mostly military Air Force operated An-12s flew much less than the mostly military and Air Force operated C-130s ?

The An-24/26/30/32 family of tactical aircraft (they are all different versions of the same airframe) saw a production run of 3215 aircraft, out of which 327 were lost in crashes, which is about 10%. What can we compare it with? The F-27/FH-227/F-50 family also saw a lot of military service. Out of a total production of 1206, 236 were lost in accidents, almost 20%. The DeHavilland Caribou/Buffalo family is a good compare, a tactical airlifter of about the same size. Out of a total production of 443, 103 crashed, over 23%.

The IL-76 now, since this article is about that machine after all. About 940 were built, and 60 were lost in accidents, a little over 6%.

So I know my figures are not perfect, but that is what the data you pointed to shows. If anyone can provide DATA, not prejudice or pre-conceptions based on prejudice, I'd like to hear from you.

Yes there are tons of shady operators out there that operate aircraft in a reckless way, and there are plenty of Soviet-built aircraft that can be had cheap in the world and which are in high demand on the charter market. I have found on the internet, "flyable" (which does not mean airworthy) IL-76s for half a million dollars or less. An-12s for even less. But when these same machines are operated by reputable operators like Volga-Dnepr (An-124, IL-76) or Antonov Airlines (An-124, An-12), which fly these machines around the clock, I think that these machines are just as safe and reliable as any "western" built machines.

Montrealguy

1st Dec 2010, 18:58

I think someone else has already addressed the transparency issues. If you don't get my point on that, consider that one can only account for or analyze accidents and incidents that are reported. From about 1940 to present, there is about a fifty year period of minimal transparency from your pet vendors.

I wonder why.

Lets just look at the post-Soviet era then. It's already been 20 years in case you haven't noticed, more than enough for reliable data and statistics.

Lonewolf_50

1st Dec 2010, 20:44

Do you presume that in 1989 transparency magically appeared? I don't.

However, as time goes on, I'll agree with you that it has improved, and a suitable benchmark can be arrived at. Also agree that "who" is operating can have a significant impact on mishap rates. (heck, that's even true within a given military service ... some squadrons/wings do better at keeping them out of wrecks than others).

But if one looks at the sheer number of aircraft built vs th numbers that are crashing, it gives a good if not perfect insight.. Lets take the An-12 which is the Soviet equivalent to the C-130. 140 were lost to accidents out of a production of 1243 so a little over 11%
The Herc saw 335 crashes out of a production of 2159 so about 15%. Are we claiming that the mostly military Air Force operated An-12s flew much less than the mostly military and Air Force operated C-130s ?

Are you using comparable utilization and readiness rates?
Planes that don't fly don't crash ... ;)

Phileas Fogg

1st Dec 2010, 21:08

Just have a read of Tupolev Tu-144 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144) to appreciate what a heap of cr@p the Tu-144 truly was yet it was permitted, approved, to fly by the USSR aviation authority and government etc.

Lonewolf_50

2nd Dec 2010, 12:18

:( rightly chastized, I am :(

GarageYears

2nd Dec 2010, 13:15

I think that these machines are just as safe and reliable as any "western" built machines.

If I buy a car and park it in my garage for 20 years, does that make it the safest car ever built? Statistically yes.

If I drive it 20 miles a year? Or perhaps 200,000 miles a year?

When considering aircraft accident statistics, it doesn't matter a jot how many were built and how many have since crashed, unless you also factor in how many sectors/hours were flown. I don't understand how this cannot be blindingly obvious.... :ugh:

100 aircraft built, 10 crashed, 1,000,000 miles flown
100 aircraft built, 10 crashed, 10,000 miles flown....

If you ignore the third data value from both rows, those two 'aircraft' have identical safety statistics according to Motrealguy. Which is obviously rubbish.

I know which of the two I'd pick if I had to take a flight.

- GY

Montrealguy

2nd Dec 2010, 16:59

If I buy a car and park it in my garage for 20 years, does that make it the safest car ever built? Statistically yes.

Your post, as well as several other people's on this thread, assumes that Soviet-built aircraft flew very little. What do you base that assumption on? Cold War prejudice mixed with a lot of thin air, is my guess. Or did you even do minimal research? Have you looked into it, or do you just repeat, without verifying, what other like-minded people have been telling you ?

If you want to know the truth, there are ways to verify what you have said. For example by looking at used aircraft sales ads. They often provide the age and total time of the aircraft. Go for example on SpeedNews - The Source for Aviation News and Information (http://www.speednews.com). Lets look at a few ramped aircraft.

"Western Aircraft"

A 1957 C130 with 11,600 hours TT. Thats an average of 219 hours of flight per year.

There is a 1967 Buffalo with 18,167 hours TT. Thats 422 hours per year.

Soviet now:

A 1968 An-12 with 33,923 TT for 808 hours per year (there are others with as little as 220 hours per year)

A 1982 An-26B with 10789 TT for 385 hours a year.

A 1983 IL-76TD with 19,315 TT for 715 hours per year (there is another that flew 284 hours per year)

I found a report that indicates that the US military C-130s flew an average of about 480 hours per year (between 268 and 687 per year) and that High time US Military C-130 airframes had about 16,000 hours TT. The C-141s were retired when they reached their 30,000 service life (730 hours a year) and the high time C-5 has just 22,000 hours (523 hours a year).

With these figures in hand, how can you claim that Soviet Aircraft didn't crash because they "spent 20 year parked" ?

GarageYears

2nd Dec 2010, 20:43

Montrealguy:

With these figures in hand, how can you claim that Soviet Aircraft didn't crash because they "spent 20 year parked" ?

Talk about putting words in my mouth! :rolleyes:

I NEVER said anything regarding whether or not Soviet aircraft did or didn't crash, or claim they spent 20 years parked. Please show me where I did if you disagree?

What you have done here is simply infer something I did not say. My point is that you have and continue to pick numbers that fit your "point". All I was doing was point out how numbers can be misleading....

.... like the ones you have here again. Sure any one airframe may have been ramped, and carry N hours, but again unless you factor ALL the airframes then any one statistic is MEANINGLESS.

Crash statistics only make sense looking at crashes per departure and/or per 100K miles. Argue away. :}

- GY

Norman Stanley Fletcher

2nd Dec 2010, 21:54

Montrealguy - I am intrigued by the basic premise of your argument. As I said before, you have an agenda and will not be dissuaded from it. My question is, what is that agenda? Talk of 'Cold War prejudice' etc is all straight from the Pravda world of delusion from where I sit, but I am open to be persuaded. What are you actually saying? Is your argument that people like myself are fundamentally wrong and that non-western aviation is as safe as western aviation? My argument is that when taken together, there are many factors in non-western aviation, that taken together make it significantly less safe than western aviation. That includes the employment of older aircraft, unacceptable operational practices, inadequate training, poor maintainance and unsafe cultural attitudes. Do you dispute that view?

Big Pistons Forever

2nd Dec 2010, 22:41

Montrealguy is just a wind up. I bet this started when while flying his Microsoft flight sim, he noticed he was crashing the Western types at about the same rate as that pirate Antonov download :rolleyes:

The truely sad part of this futile arguement is that it has nothing to do with the fact that there are 8 more dead airman this year.....

Montrealguy

3rd Dec 2010, 00:57

A Georgian-registered IL-76 that belongs to a startup Georgian company no one ever heard of, an aircraft that is not on the Manufacturers' list of aircraft flying with valid Airworthiness documents, crewed by 7 Ukrainians and a Georgian, and that is based at Sharjah, in the UAE, crashes after a 1 AM take-off from Pakistan, on its way to war-torn and arms-embargoed Soudan, and this one poster writes as his hypothesis for the cause of the crash:

Regretably I think " Russian Cargo Aircraft" is probably enough of an explanation

and all you "experts" stay mum but criticize me for attempting to show that this statement was wrong and baseless. I guess you all agree with him then. It crashed because it was a Russian cargo aircraft. The Pakistan civil aviation authority seems to agree with most of you anyway:

Precaution: Russian aircraft at Pakistani airports grounded – The Express Tribune (http://tribune.com.pk/story/84333/precaution-russian-aircraft-at-pakistani-airports-grounded/)

con-pilot

3rd Dec 2010, 16:30

A 1968 An-12 with 33,923 TT for 808 hours per year (there are others with as little as 220 hours per year)

You consider 800 hours a year high usage for an airliner?

Montrealguy

3rd Dec 2010, 21:53

You consider 800 hours a year high usage for an airliner?

First I didn't say it was high usage, just that it was representative of the kind usage similar western aircraft, like the C-130, would have.

Second, its not an airliner. It's a ramped tactical airlifter with military origins, just like the C-130. In the civilian life, it cannot legally carry passenger, like the C-130.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/8/1/5/1790518.jpg

I already posted info on US military C-130/C-141 and C-5 usage earlier.

Now here is a website that has 6 C130s "airliners" for sale:

PlaneCheck Aircraft for Sale - New planes and price reductions (http://www.planecheck.com/index.asp?ent=ap&man=&des=C130&type=&grp=Lockheed%20C-130%20Hercules&id=0)

A 1967 C-130A with 11,600 hours
Another 1957 model with 15,700 hours
A 1959 model with 9,759 hours
A 1980 model with 12,000 hours
A 1982 model with 10,298 hours
A 1970 model which does not provide TT.

The Norwegian Air Force also has 5 C-130E for sale. These were built in 1968.

http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/00904/hercules_904582a.pdf

They have between 21,000 and 23,000 hours. Thats 523 hours a year.

All I am saying is that these kinds of hours and usage are representative of aircraft of this nature. Its false to claim that eastern built freighters such as the IL-76 have a higher crash rate per 100,000 hours of flight or per take-off, because they spend most of their lives parked on ramps. They fly just as much as any aircraft of that category. Sometimes more.

Montrealguy

3rd Dec 2010, 22:14

What are you actually saying? Is your argument that people like myself are fundamentally wrong and that non-western aviation is as safe as western aviation? My argument is that when taken together, there are many factors in non-western aviation, that taken together make it significantly less safe than western aviation. That includes the employment of older aircraft, unacceptable operational practices, inadequate training, poor maintainance and unsafe cultural attitudes. Do you dispute that view?

I'm afraid you are attempting to change the subject since this whole discussion is and was not about "aviation" but about "aircraft". This whole thing began when someone suggested the cause of the crash could be explained by the simple expression Russian Cargo Aircraft He was not talking about the airline, since it wasn't Russian. He wasn't talking about the crew which wasn't Russian either. It could't be the location of the crash, which was not in Russia. He was talking about the aircraft itself. I say this is B/S.

You call that "an agenda" ?

Phileas Fogg

3rd Dec 2010, 22:34

With some inside knowledge these aircraft are not maintained to spec, crew duty time regulations are "make it up as you go along", i.e. 'Commanders Discretion' is persuaded by an X amount dollar bill, I mean I worked for a cargo operator and when I dared to suggest to the charterer, anyone around here named 'Chapman' and/or 'Freeborn'. that a crew be allowed a legal rest period I was flamed regarding and formally complained about by that charterer to my senior management.

Now go figure why such airframes fall from the sky and go try figure how such 'cowboy' charterers sleep in their beds of a night!

Norman Stanley Fletcher

5th Dec 2010, 16:45

Monetrealguy - we are both changing the subject as this thread is about an accident in Pakistan. If you want an intellectual debate about semantics and terminology then you are probably in the wrong place. Nonetheless, my question to you stands - do you believe that non-western aviation is safer than its western counterpart and that any views to the contrary are merely cultural foolishness on the part of myself and others still stuck in a Cold War bunker somewhere? While you are thinking about that, may I draw your attention to a particularly interesting thread about an accident in Moscow involving a 'Dagestan Airlines' Russian-built aircraft. It does make fascinating reading - a mere coincidence I am sure.

Montrealguy

6th Dec 2010, 01:10

do you believe that non-western aviation is safer than its western counterpart and that any views to the contrary are merely cultural foolishness on the part of myself and others still stuck in a Cold War bunker somewhere?

Sir, in the seventies, eighties and early nineties, there was an area of Miami International Airport called Corrosion Corner. It was home to all sorts of big piston airliners, mostly flying freight. They operated DC-3s, DC-4s, DC-6s, DC-7s, CV-240s, CV-440s, C-46s, L-1049s, KC-97s. I was in that area early in my flying career and flew some of these aircraft. I jump-seated on many others. Some of these aircraft were US registered, others were not, but just about all were US-owned and operated, even when they were registered in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and other central American countries. These were mostly fly by night operations, with no procedures, bad maintenance, bad conditions. We would often come back with one engine "punched"
One US company at the time, went and got a bunch of Boeing KC-97s from the boneyards, ex-military aircraft that had no business being flown as civilian cargo aircraft, had them registered in the DR and had them approved there at their military gross weights (although the high octane Avgas the military had used to obtain those weights was no longer available) and flew them for years between Santo Domingo and Miami, and all through the Caribbean , all flown by Miami based US aircrews (Here are a few pictures for you : KC-97s in Miami Photo Search Results | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=%3D%22boeing+c-97+stratofreighter+(367)%22&airlinesearch=&countrysearch=-+Miami+-+Int.+(MIA+/+KMIA)&specialsearch=&daterange=&keywords=&range=&sort_order=photo_id+desc&page_limit=15&thumbnails=)) DC-6s in Miami Photo Search Results | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=%3D%22douglas+dc-6+(c-118/r6d/liftmaster)%22&airlinesearch=&countrysearch=-+Miami+-+Int.+(MIA+/+KMIA)&specialsearch=&keywords=&sort_order=photo_id+desc&page_limit=15&daterange=&range=&thumbnails=&engine_version=6.0)

In one famous crash in Mexico, one of these overloaded beasts overan the runway (or flew in ground effect) with a load of horses and crashed in slum, killing 44 people on the ground. The Mexicans hauled the US crew (who all survived) to jail (ASN Aircraft accident Boeing C-97 Stratofreighter G HI-481 Mexico City (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19870730-0)). I many aircraft like it that ended as balls of metal in or as reefs. I remember one DC-6, I think, that blew up on the ground in Miami, while some poor soul was grinding the inside of one of the fuel tanks with a grinder.
I also knew this pilot (ASN Aircraft accident Lockheed C-121S Super Constellation HI-515CT Levittown, P.R. (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19900405-2)). The captain was from Florida, and he owned that Dominican Registered Constellation. He ditched close the Beach in Puerto Rico but drowned in the aircraft. The others got out.
Finally, in 1994, after many accidents, incidents and mishaps, the FAA clamped down on these operators and shut the whole lot down. And these were all US built aircraft mostly flown and maintained by US personnel. "Western" as you call them.

Now, Mr Norman Stanley Fletcher, do you find that I replied to your question?