VH-PGW PA-31P-350 15 June 2010 Crash Investigation
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wally Mk2
Sorry, I have to rant a bit...
I understand where you are coming from, and I get the sentiment, but part of me says "no".
That is the part where men and women who aspire to be pilots, and become responsible for the lives of others, are held to a higher standard (and should hold themselves to a higher standard as well). Nobody is perfect, but as the old saying goes, "to an even greater degree than the sea, it (aviation) is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect".
If you read "The Right Stuff", you will gain some insights into how the test pilot/astronaut fraternity dealt with mistakes, errors and ultimately the deaths of many of their peers. There were very analytical in their approach to accidents, submerging their emotions to arrive at a correct conclusion as to a probable cause.
Unfortunately, what tends to happen in GA is a lot of hand-wringing, a lot of excuse-making, and a lot of "there but for the grace of God go I".
In this case, no matter what happened to the "good" engine, there was always an opportunity to put this aircraft down safely, maybe not in the best place from a commercial point of view, but safely nevertheless.
We who are professionals should call the outcome what it really is, rather than trying to make excuses for the unfortunate pilot.
Having just got back into GA after many years in airlines, I am absolutely appalled at the level and quality of training that is regarded as normal in the GA world. The training that I received on types that were new to me, was a complete joke and nowhere near the standard that should be required for these types of operations.
Probably the single biggest aspect that is apparently missing from GA, is the ability to make good judgement calls in difficult situations... which is what seems to have happened here.
I beg to differ... and it is the ability to rise above the "blur" and keep on functioning until the end that separates competent professional pilots from less competent ones. the Alaska Airlines flight 261 (elevator screwjack) pilots never gave up, right up to the point where they hit the water. The United Airlines Flight 232 (Sioux City) pilots never gave up. The US Airways Flight 1549 (Hudson River) pilots never gave up...
When we train in the simulator, if a guy starts to lose it as the pressure mounts, and begins making bad decisions, he goes back in the sim until he gets it right (or he gets chopped).
Until GA starts to properly equip pilots, this stuff will keep on happening.
OK, rant over...
Sorry, I have to rant a bit...
fallible to all the things that we humans do under duress.
That is the part where men and women who aspire to be pilots, and become responsible for the lives of others, are held to a higher standard (and should hold themselves to a higher standard as well). Nobody is perfect, but as the old saying goes, "to an even greater degree than the sea, it (aviation) is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect".
If you read "The Right Stuff", you will gain some insights into how the test pilot/astronaut fraternity dealt with mistakes, errors and ultimately the deaths of many of their peers. There were very analytical in their approach to accidents, submerging their emotions to arrive at a correct conclusion as to a probable cause.
Unfortunately, what tends to happen in GA is a lot of hand-wringing, a lot of excuse-making, and a lot of "there but for the grace of God go I".
In this case, no matter what happened to the "good" engine, there was always an opportunity to put this aircraft down safely, maybe not in the best place from a commercial point of view, but safely nevertheless.
We who are professionals should call the outcome what it really is, rather than trying to make excuses for the unfortunate pilot.
Having just got back into GA after many years in airlines, I am absolutely appalled at the level and quality of training that is regarded as normal in the GA world. The training that I received on types that were new to me, was a complete joke and nowhere near the standard that should be required for these types of operations.
Probably the single biggest aspect that is apparently missing from GA, is the ability to make good judgement calls in difficult situations... which is what seems to have happened here.
I'm not saying he didn't keep trying to land safely but faced with virtually zero safe options we would all under the same circumstances just be part of the blur that he was faced with.
When we train in the simulator, if a guy starts to lose it as the pressure mounts, and begins making bad decisions, he goes back in the sim until he gets it right (or he gets chopped).
Until GA starts to properly equip pilots, this stuff will keep on happening.
OK, rant over...
'remoak' it's not a rant yr post it's an opinion just like mine. We all have them (opinions) some will kind of agree with me some won't, yr the latter & that's fair enough.
I'm not going to go head to head with you here I simply respect others opinions & in yr case some of what you say is yr airline background speaking for you. Remember this guy the pilot in question wasn't at yr level of training or thought processing. It would be nice if ALL pilots where trained 'till they got it right, but we don't live in a fairytale land now do we?
Am sure the pilot didn't give up as such but was at the end like all pilots in this situation was just going along for the ride whilst doing everything humanly possible to the end.
Wmk2, happy to read other stories from others
I'm not going to go head to head with you here I simply respect others opinions & in yr case some of what you say is yr airline background speaking for you. Remember this guy the pilot in question wasn't at yr level of training or thought processing. It would be nice if ALL pilots where trained 'till they got it right, but we don't live in a fairytale land now do we?
Am sure the pilot didn't give up as such but was at the end like all pilots in this situation was just going along for the ride whilst doing everything humanly possible to the end.
Wmk2, happy to read other stories from others
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A serviceable Mojave has a single engine ceiling of about 15,000 feet. It can maintain level flight at 7,000 feet with one engine shut down. It is a younger design than the Boeing 747 and this one has flown less hours than most of our airliners.
A Lycoming TIO540 engine can run at maximum power for 50 continious hours without exceeding limitations. This was a requirement for it's certification. (The Whylalla one did not because it was running very lean.)
This pilot DID advise ATC that he had shut down an engine. That is the same as saying the magic PAN words. He advised that he had non normal operation.
The aircraft should have made it safely back to Bankstown. The pilot's decision to do that appears to be a sound one.
The aircraft then flew at a higher speed than I would have expected (143 kts) and had a high rate of descent. We do not know why. I consider a strong tail wind is unlikely.
So there must be another factor Which we do not know yet.
Hopefully there will be more information coming fro ATSB.
Remoak
I agree with some of your comments. But our government members do not seem to use GA aircraft, and do not seem to know what an important part of our transport system GA aircraft are. I think many of them do not know it exists. We have to fix that. Then we can start fixing the other things.
But that is another subject and probably not appropriate here.
A Lycoming TIO540 engine can run at maximum power for 50 continious hours without exceeding limitations. This was a requirement for it's certification. (The Whylalla one did not because it was running very lean.)
This pilot DID advise ATC that he had shut down an engine. That is the same as saying the magic PAN words. He advised that he had non normal operation.
The aircraft should have made it safely back to Bankstown. The pilot's decision to do that appears to be a sound one.
The aircraft then flew at a higher speed than I would have expected (143 kts) and had a high rate of descent. We do not know why. I consider a strong tail wind is unlikely.
So there must be another factor Which we do not know yet.
Hopefully there will be more information coming fro ATSB.
Remoak
I agree with some of your comments. But our government members do not seem to use GA aircraft, and do not seem to know what an important part of our transport system GA aircraft are. I think many of them do not know it exists. We have to fix that. Then we can start fixing the other things.
But that is another subject and probably not appropriate here.
Last edited by bushy; 16th Jul 2010 at 09:02.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wally Mk 2
Actually I'm not really disagreeing with you, I guess what I am really saying is that GA leaves it's pilots terribly exposed when it comes to training.
When I went from a four-engined jet and over 10,000 hours experience to my current GA job, I felt well out of my depth. I was released to line flying very quickly and left to fend for myself. I didn't feel at all comfortable, and that's with all that airline experience!
So I do agree with you that this pilot probably never stopped trying, but I suspect that his last few minutes were mostly filled with desperation and no clear plan, following a bad judgement call. That sort of thing can be mostly fixed with good training - the examples I was quoting were given as examples of coolness under pressure, and a reasoned plan being executed (to some extent, anyway).
So what I am saying is that training is the issue. I reckon this guy was let down a bit by his training - not by the people who did it, who I am sure did a good job, but by a system that sets pilots loose without covering all the bases. That has certainly been my experience, and that of most of the GA people I know.
Actually I'm not really disagreeing with you, I guess what I am really saying is that GA leaves it's pilots terribly exposed when it comes to training.
When I went from a four-engined jet and over 10,000 hours experience to my current GA job, I felt well out of my depth. I was released to line flying very quickly and left to fend for myself. I didn't feel at all comfortable, and that's with all that airline experience!
So I do agree with you that this pilot probably never stopped trying, but I suspect that his last few minutes were mostly filled with desperation and no clear plan, following a bad judgement call. That sort of thing can be mostly fixed with good training - the examples I was quoting were given as examples of coolness under pressure, and a reasoned plan being executed (to some extent, anyway).
So what I am saying is that training is the issue. I reckon this guy was let down a bit by his training - not by the people who did it, who I am sure did a good job, but by a system that sets pilots loose without covering all the bases. That has certainly been my experience, and that of most of the GA people I know.
I agree completely 'remoak'
We both acknowledge that training in GA is at best basic at worst down right dangerous & I reckon mainly due cost sadly. I work at the high end of GA & the checking & training is excellent.
Two of the pieces of the Swiss cheese for this guy was one, training & two the actual A/C. meaning that he obviously wasn't too prepared for such an event & the A/C should have been able to sustain flight on 1 engine all things equal. BUT at this stage we don't know how 'equal' this guys mount was on the day.
Funny you know we have had pilots with many hrs on heavy jets/large turbines come work for us for various reasons & all bring vast knowledge but most struggle with SP Ops & the high demand of our work at all hrs so experience in some ways isn't of benefit funnily enough.
I still believe you can train a pilot to be the best in a controlled environment such as a Sim but under real pressure he/she can turn to making even the most basic mistakes, humans not the machines is the real problem
Just as an Eg of well trained pilots some years ago now pre Beech 200's the "RUFDUS' used C404's. One night a flight could have turned to poo big time with the loss of an engine in IMC leaving the pilot to do a full NDB at BDG to the min then overshoot due not being visual then off to an Alt AD (ECH) where another NDB was performed & a successful landing was carried out, remember all on one donk! Couldn't think of anything more terrifying. Without being awful here I doubt few could handle that scenario without proper recurrent training to a very high std.in a well maint A/C
Wmk2
We both acknowledge that training in GA is at best basic at worst down right dangerous & I reckon mainly due cost sadly. I work at the high end of GA & the checking & training is excellent.
Two of the pieces of the Swiss cheese for this guy was one, training & two the actual A/C. meaning that he obviously wasn't too prepared for such an event & the A/C should have been able to sustain flight on 1 engine all things equal. BUT at this stage we don't know how 'equal' this guys mount was on the day.
Funny you know we have had pilots with many hrs on heavy jets/large turbines come work for us for various reasons & all bring vast knowledge but most struggle with SP Ops & the high demand of our work at all hrs so experience in some ways isn't of benefit funnily enough.
I still believe you can train a pilot to be the best in a controlled environment such as a Sim but under real pressure he/she can turn to making even the most basic mistakes, humans not the machines is the real problem
Just as an Eg of well trained pilots some years ago now pre Beech 200's the "RUFDUS' used C404's. One night a flight could have turned to poo big time with the loss of an engine in IMC leaving the pilot to do a full NDB at BDG to the min then overshoot due not being visual then off to an Alt AD (ECH) where another NDB was performed & a successful landing was carried out, remember all on one donk! Couldn't think of anything more terrifying. Without being awful here I doubt few could handle that scenario without proper recurrent training to a very high std.in a well maint A/C
Wmk2
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once....and just for for once, I'd have to say that some of what Remoak has to say has some merit.
True a lot of what he says in previous posts and threads smacks of "notice me, notice me I've flown a jet, God why won't you Godforsaken Kiwi GA types look at me...mine's HUUGGGEE!!!",
his last post pretty well sits with where I think GA is at right now.
Remoak..... post something silly, I'm starting to take you seriously!
True a lot of what he says in previous posts and threads smacks of "notice me, notice me I've flown a jet, God why won't you Godforsaken Kiwi GA types look at me...mine's HUUGGGEE!!!",
his last post pretty well sits with where I think GA is at right now.
Remoak..... post something silly, I'm starting to take you seriously!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lol... hmmm not sure if I should be pleased or offended... 
It's not willy-waving, it's just that once you have experienced "the other side" you see things from a different perspective. I'm sorry if my posts seem arrogant or self-serving, believe me that is not the intent, it is just that every time I see one of these accidents, I get very angry at the unnecessary loss of life, and a system that allows the lower end of GA to muddle along with poor equipment, poor training, and inadequate regulatory support.
I also think that most light twins should be banned from any form of RPT, they are just too marginal to be considered safe in today's environment. Why we allow '60s technology to be used for passenger air transport is beyond me. It just needs a government with the balls to take action, and a major shakeup in the industry to remove the dodgy players. Finally, it needs an acceptance from the public that if you want a safe GA environment, it comes with a price tag, and that means realistic fares and charges.
And more money spent on training... there is no excuse at all for not training GA pilots in simulators, even generic ones. Some of the new generation of GA sims are really excellent.
It's not willy-waving, it's just that once you have experienced "the other side" you see things from a different perspective. I'm sorry if my posts seem arrogant or self-serving, believe me that is not the intent, it is just that every time I see one of these accidents, I get very angry at the unnecessary loss of life, and a system that allows the lower end of GA to muddle along with poor equipment, poor training, and inadequate regulatory support.
I also think that most light twins should be banned from any form of RPT, they are just too marginal to be considered safe in today's environment. Why we allow '60s technology to be used for passenger air transport is beyond me. It just needs a government with the balls to take action, and a major shakeup in the industry to remove the dodgy players. Finally, it needs an acceptance from the public that if you want a safe GA environment, it comes with a price tag, and that means realistic fares and charges.
And more money spent on training... there is no excuse at all for not training GA pilots in simulators, even generic ones. Some of the new generation of GA sims are really excellent.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a mongrel aircraft when it was new and it just got worse from there.
It came out of a desperate last gasp from the dying embers of the Piper company, if I recall correctly they only built 50.
Even the RFDS on whom it was trying to be foisted jacked up.
It came out of a desperate last gasp from the dying embers of the Piper company, if I recall correctly they only built 50.
Even the RFDS on whom it was trying to be foisted jacked up.
.........'bushy' even though I understand where ya comin' from there that's a long bow yr drawing there. One could even go as far as to say the 747 was Wright Bro's technology ( as was every A/C) but with transport cat A/C they have to have guarneteed performance with en eng failure from the day they where made 'till the day they are scraped. A/C of the PA31 type simply deteriorate during there life & where at best marginal due pwr to weight ratio on one donk from day one. You had to have everything going for you to make it work, rarely do we have that many years down the track with man & machine.
'remoak' old planes like the PA31 will go on killing people no Govt agency is going to ban them just as no Govt agency is going to ban the automobile the other mode of transport that kills far more than some old beat up planes. There is simply no 'to cover all' answer, we designed them, we accepted them & we use them & will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. One can reduce the risk by lowering the A/C's T/off weight etc to give it a better climb gradient in the critical stages of flight but few operators would agree to that on commercial grounds, the most powerful reason why we do anything in life where profit is concerned.
At the end of the day what have we got here?
We have an old airframe that is marginal under these circumstances (Eng failure)
We have low/er experienced pilots flying them with at times minimal training.
We have them operating in the worst level of WX, blw 10K with few protections
We have them conducting flights that are based on nothing but commercial reasons
And the real hit home hard one is we operate them to climb that ladder & we ALL do what we have to do to get to the top meaning we have done things along the way that where somewhat risky in a high risk plane design. (not just the PA31 either)
'guanty' yr right the Dr's didn't like the Mojave's at all I believe. To get any guaranteed performance from them they had to operate them at a reduced weight making the plane marginal in other area's, range & mission capabilities etc.
Wmk2
'remoak' old planes like the PA31 will go on killing people no Govt agency is going to ban them just as no Govt agency is going to ban the automobile the other mode of transport that kills far more than some old beat up planes. There is simply no 'to cover all' answer, we designed them, we accepted them & we use them & will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. One can reduce the risk by lowering the A/C's T/off weight etc to give it a better climb gradient in the critical stages of flight but few operators would agree to that on commercial grounds, the most powerful reason why we do anything in life where profit is concerned.
At the end of the day what have we got here?
We have an old airframe that is marginal under these circumstances (Eng failure)
We have low/er experienced pilots flying them with at times minimal training.
We have them operating in the worst level of WX, blw 10K with few protections
We have them conducting flights that are based on nothing but commercial reasons
And the real hit home hard one is we operate them to climb that ladder & we ALL do what we have to do to get to the top meaning we have done things along the way that where somewhat risky in a high risk plane design. (not just the PA31 either)
'guanty' yr right the Dr's didn't like the Mojave's at all I believe. To get any guaranteed performance from them they had to operate them at a reduced weight making the plane marginal in other area's, range & mission capabilities etc.
Wmk2
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the Boeing 747. It's 50's technology.
The PA31 barely changed throughout it's production. It was marginal when it was designed, and it still is, which is not a criticism you can level at the 747.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing wrong with ageing aircraft being utilised in these operations. As long as they are within the fatigue life limits and well maintained.....emphasis on the well maintained (big ask).There does come a time when the economic viability of an aircraft is not sustainable and they are retired. Its the TT and fatigue life, maintenance and perhaps damage history that counts.
Finally, it needs an acceptance from the public that if you want a safe GA environment, it comes with a price tag, and that means realistic fares and charges.
Why we allow '60s technology to be used for passenger air transport is beyond me
Did Marconi ever meet Bernoulli?
Guglielmo Marconi was born about 200 years after Daniel Bernoulli, so I'm confident they never conspired. There are no radio calls that would have changed the way this aeroplane flew. There are no radio calls that would have changed its fate. The aeroplane did what physics and a pilot told it to do. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.
Similarly, pieces of metal do not get together to have parties to celebrate birthdays. 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.
Aircraft deterioration with age is primarily about 2 things. 1. Fatigue life. While our GA fleet might be old, the vast majority of the fleet is well under its fatigue cycle design limits. 2. Maintenance and the number of times & diligence with which parts have been disassembled & reassembled for inspection. Diligent maintenance (which is sadly uncommon) means that a 5,000 hour aircraft is as safe and reliable as a new one. In fact the "bathtub"curve of component failures would suggest that it would be more safe.
A car over its life might have as little as 10 labour hours spent on its maintenance (ie 30,000km service interval x 5). Unlike aeroplanes which have a maintenance and part replacement schedule, cars are not maintained. A typical light aircraft might have twice as many labour hours spent on its maintenance in a year as a car does in its life. To use cars as a paradigm for aircraft aging is false & misleading. No intelligent person would do this unless they were pursing a false agenda. Its certainly has no engineering discipline as its base.
Similarly, pieces of metal do not get together to have parties to celebrate birthdays. 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.
Aircraft deterioration with age is primarily about 2 things. 1. Fatigue life. While our GA fleet might be old, the vast majority of the fleet is well under its fatigue cycle design limits. 2. Maintenance and the number of times & diligence with which parts have been disassembled & reassembled for inspection. Diligent maintenance (which is sadly uncommon) means that a 5,000 hour aircraft is as safe and reliable as a new one. In fact the "bathtub"curve of component failures would suggest that it would be more safe.
A car over its life might have as little as 10 labour hours spent on its maintenance (ie 30,000km service interval x 5). Unlike aeroplanes which have a maintenance and part replacement schedule, cars are not maintained. A typical light aircraft might have twice as many labour hours spent on its maintenance in a year as a car does in its life. To use cars as a paradigm for aircraft aging is false & misleading. No intelligent person would do this unless they were pursing a false agenda. Its certainly has no engineering discipline as its base.
This is some research from the ATSB site regarding the PA31, it is a list of accidents/incidents involving the aircraft for the last 30 years or so. I have not included the latest accident as there is not enough evidence available yet. Also not included are a number of landing gear related accidents.
VH-OPC Most probably loss of control due spatial disorientation (no mechanical defects found)
VH-ZGZ Most probably loss of control due spatial disorientation (no mechanical defects found)
VH-LHR Fuel Starvation
VH-BTD Loss of control, spatial disorientation (recovered and landed)
VH-WAL Precautionary landing due to low fuel
VH-TFX In-flight shut down landed on water (investigation still in progress)
VH-ZMK Failure on approach and landed on taxyway
VH-PYN Broke up in thunderstroms
VH-OAO CFIT/Disorientation/Ice (no mechanical defects found)
VH-MZV Double engine failure induced by pilot (mixture control)
VH-IGW In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-PRJ Take-off with control lock installed
VH-BSM In-flight shut down, could not maintain altitude due flap extension and also instrumentation issues
VH-OCF In-flight fire and shut down with successful landing
VH-UBC Double engine failure induced by pilot (tank selection)
VH-MZK Double engine failure (whyalla)
VH-JCH In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-TTX In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-LTW In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-FML In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-FMU Fuel starvation
VH-NPA In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-KIJ CFIT whilst circling
VH-WGI CFIT whilst circling
VH-UFO Double engine failure induced by pilot (tank selection)
VH-NDU CFIT whilst circling
In bold are the aircraft specific occurances with the shut downs from MZK to FML all during the time the crankshafts were suspect.
All the aircraft related failures (Except MZK) resulted in the pilot and passengers walking away. 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.
VH-OPC Most probably loss of control due spatial disorientation (no mechanical defects found)
VH-ZGZ Most probably loss of control due spatial disorientation (no mechanical defects found)
VH-LHR Fuel Starvation
VH-BTD Loss of control, spatial disorientation (recovered and landed)
VH-WAL Precautionary landing due to low fuel
VH-TFX In-flight shut down landed on water (investigation still in progress)
VH-ZMK Failure on approach and landed on taxyway
VH-PYN Broke up in thunderstroms
VH-OAO CFIT/Disorientation/Ice (no mechanical defects found)
VH-MZV Double engine failure induced by pilot (mixture control)
VH-IGW In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-PRJ Take-off with control lock installed
VH-BSM In-flight shut down, could not maintain altitude due flap extension and also instrumentation issues
VH-OCF In-flight fire and shut down with successful landing
VH-UBC Double engine failure induced by pilot (tank selection)
VH-MZK Double engine failure (whyalla)
VH-JCH In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-TTX In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-LTW In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-FML In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-FMU Fuel starvation
VH-NPA In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-KIJ CFIT whilst circling
VH-WGI CFIT whilst circling
VH-UFO Double engine failure induced by pilot (tank selection)
VH-NDU CFIT whilst circling
In bold are the aircraft specific occurances with the shut downs from MZK to FML all during the time the crankshafts were suspect.
All the aircraft related failures (Except MZK) resulted in the pilot and passengers walking away. 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.
43 Inches.
Nice work, thanks.
I note that there doesn't seem to be any recent increase of mechanical issues that would be attributable to age.
I hope the twin engine skeptics note the number of successful landings after engine shutdowns.
Nice work, thanks.
I note that there doesn't seem to be any recent increase of mechanical issues that would be attributable to age.
I hope the twin engine skeptics note the number of successful landings after engine shutdowns.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arnold E
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.
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
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.
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
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).
All of that is fine, providing that you are prepared to accept less jobs in the industry, both pilot and engineer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).