Risky (relatively speaking) Business
Thread Starter
Risky (relatively speaking) Business
I am not trying to inflame feelings here especially after the awful 744 accident recently but as a regular reader of these forums it occurred to me that Cargo flying seems to have some real risks compared with regular passenger stuff.
This recent crash is the sixth 747 in recent years to come to grief i think ( Baghram, Stanstead, Dubai, Sea of Japan, Brussels, Eastern Canada) and adding in the notorious MD11 mishaps there seems to be quite a high accident rate on widebody freighters.
I am not suggesting any common cause here , although it seems two may be related to hazardous cargo but considering the relatively small size of Cargo fleets it does seem a high accident rate. Is this something crews feel? Is cargo work is more risky than Pax? Such incidents seem to get coverage in the media in about the same proportion to the people on board, 4 vs 400 and are usually written up in a rather dismissive way as ‘ A cargo plane has crashed in XX the crew were killed ‘ and it disappears from the media agenda by the following day although I am sure the authorities investigate crashes with the same dedication.
This recent crash is the sixth 747 in recent years to come to grief i think ( Baghram, Stanstead, Dubai, Sea of Japan, Brussels, Eastern Canada) and adding in the notorious MD11 mishaps there seems to be quite a high accident rate on widebody freighters.
I am not suggesting any common cause here , although it seems two may be related to hazardous cargo but considering the relatively small size of Cargo fleets it does seem a high accident rate. Is this something crews feel? Is cargo work is more risky than Pax? Such incidents seem to get coverage in the media in about the same proportion to the people on board, 4 vs 400 and are usually written up in a rather dismissive way as ‘ A cargo plane has crashed in XX the crew were killed ‘ and it disappears from the media agenda by the following day although I am sure the authorities investigate crashes with the same dedication.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the reasons I left freighting.
Consider this:
1. Usually (but not always) old aircraft who've finished their front-line passenger service. This obviously does not include purpose-built freighters.
2. Usually operated at the maximum possible ZFW (unless bulked out) sporting 'tired' engines in many cases.
3. My experience was operating into Africa (particularly) often at night with minimum aids.
In a nutshell, old aircraft working harder than they ever have, often with less than ideal serviceability, and yes, often operated by crews that can't get a job elsewhere (not all by any means, but more than my experience of the average ability crews elsewhere - doubtless I'll take flak for that, but I can only say it as I saw it).
So, yes, it can be hazardous. That's why being with a good freighting company cuts down the risk.
Consider this:
1. Usually (but not always) old aircraft who've finished their front-line passenger service. This obviously does not include purpose-built freighters.
2. Usually operated at the maximum possible ZFW (unless bulked out) sporting 'tired' engines in many cases.
3. My experience was operating into Africa (particularly) often at night with minimum aids.
In a nutshell, old aircraft working harder than they ever have, often with less than ideal serviceability, and yes, often operated by crews that can't get a job elsewhere (not all by any means, but more than my experience of the average ability crews elsewhere - doubtless I'll take flak for that, but I can only say it as I saw it).
So, yes, it can be hazardous. That's why being with a good freighting company cuts down the risk.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: PADLI
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i concur. We always take the maximum loads, often missing max ZFW by few kilos. Aircraft often have few things on the MEL. Flying for small operator, due to commercial reason, always had to close an eye say, autobrake inop. Flew without it for 2 months before the company have the money to rectify the problem. Wing body overheat light illuminated is permanent feature on the overhead panel.
What has been said is true. Though the aircraft work less hours (90% during nighttime) but when it flew, it flew close to the limitations, considering things are a bit tired now (Engine and all)
What has been said is true. Though the aircraft work less hours (90% during nighttime) but when it flew, it flew close to the limitations, considering things are a bit tired now (Engine and all)
Last edited by ssangyongs; 4th May 2013 at 02:55.
Thread Starter
DD
yes I take your point but the reason I posted this was that recently while the Africa factor as youdescribed it seems to have still taken its toll along with the 35 yo 747 etc it seemed to me that recently there had beena rash of accidents involving pretty new aircraft operating for often better founded companies which I found a bit disturbing and unusual
PB
yes I take your point but the reason I posted this was that recently while the Africa factor as youdescribed it seems to have still taken its toll along with the 35 yo 747 etc it seemed to me that recently there had beena rash of accidents involving pretty new aircraft operating for often better founded companies which I found a bit disturbing and unusual
PB
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idea that Cargo crew can not find a job in a Pax company is mostly totally wrong. Almost all Cargo crew has flown pax. before . cargo Night freight is the most demanding branch of commercial aviation, you do need to be at the top of your game and sloppy operators have no place in a night freight operation.
Cargo crew have more DGR's to cope with, need to check the correct loading of the aircraft ( all too often not done unfortunately, also amongst UPS,DHL,Fedex and TNT crews), fly with indeed often older equipment during the time of the day that your body needs sleep instead of work. It is therefore normal that Cargo crews ( and I am talking medium and widebody Jet) are paid better than their Passenger hauling colleagues.
Cargo crew have more DGR's to cope with, need to check the correct loading of the aircraft ( all too often not done unfortunately, also amongst UPS,DHL,Fedex and TNT crews), fly with indeed often older equipment during the time of the day that your body needs sleep instead of work. It is therefore normal that Cargo crews ( and I am talking medium and widebody Jet) are paid better than their Passenger hauling colleagues.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The idea that Cargo crew can not find a job in a Pax company is mostly totally wrong."
I think that rather depends on who you've flown/are flying for.
I did add it was personal experience . . . It was almost completely RIGHT, as many crew had applications in for Pax companies (as you've phrased it) - often to no avail.
I moved from one to go to EAT/DHL who most certainly had their own problems, however compared with what I'd left, they were highly professional and their equipment was well maintained.
I think that rather depends on who you've flown/are flying for.
I did add it was personal experience . . . It was almost completely RIGHT, as many crew had applications in for Pax companies (as you've phrased it) - often to no avail.
I moved from one to go to EAT/DHL who most certainly had their own problems, however compared with what I'd left, they were highly professional and their equipment was well maintained.
