how safe are these aircrafts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: burma
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how safe are these aircrafts
hello,
I am a regular passenger of ATR 72-212 as well as ATR 42-320.
The flight normally takes about 1.5 hours (not sure of the distance( at 22,000 feet, and though so far nothing really scary has happened, I still feel uncomfortable flying in either one.
The aircraft is so small, turbulence-like incidents occur everytime. One would hear constant engine noise through out the flight, but sometimes the noise level is reduced or completely gone for few seconds and I get really nervous when that happens.
Are these aircrafts safe at all ?
thanks.
I am a regular passenger of ATR 72-212 as well as ATR 42-320.
The flight normally takes about 1.5 hours (not sure of the distance( at 22,000 feet, and though so far nothing really scary has happened, I still feel uncomfortable flying in either one.
The aircraft is so small, turbulence-like incidents occur everytime. One would hear constant engine noise through out the flight, but sometimes the noise level is reduced or completely gone for few seconds and I get really nervous when that happens.
Are these aircrafts safe at all ?
thanks.
You know it has always amazed me how the Authorities world wide have cleared these death traps for flight.
I mean, you'd think that they would at least put them through some tests to find out if they fly properly and that the makers of these aircraft would have to conduct an exhaustive and expensive flight test programme before they enter service!
As for the turbulence well obviously aircraft shud only fly on days when there is no wind at all therby making for a nice smooth flight.
To all you kamikaze crew flying the many hundreds of these aircraft world wide, pray tell how do you dare work on them, do you not care about your lives??
Sorry if this is interpreted as being sarcastic
I mean, you'd think that they would at least put them through some tests to find out if they fly properly and that the makers of these aircraft would have to conduct an exhaustive and expensive flight test programme before they enter service!
As for the turbulence well obviously aircraft shud only fly on days when there is no wind at all therby making for a nice smooth flight.
To all you kamikaze crew flying the many hundreds of these aircraft world wide, pray tell how do you dare work on them, do you not care about your lives??
Sorry if this is interpreted as being sarcastic
The most dangerous part of travelling by air is the drive to/from the airport. The chances of the vehicle being unsafe are, in most countries, much higher than the aircraft being unsafe. In some countries, you can almost guarantee the vehicle isn't very safe.....
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or, in engineers lingo
"an airframe-ground interface"
"an airframe-ground interface"
Tsamaya sentle
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the "Passengers&SLF" section and the question posted is perfectly reasonable for a person who is not too comfortable flying in no-jet aircraft. No need to be sarcastic, ironic or whatever.
riot air, think of turbulence like pot holes in a road. When you drive a bad road in your car, you might get a bump here and a push there, nothing more. Driving a Mercedes, you might not notice much, but driving a small Polo or Fiesta you will certainly feel and hear the rough road. It´s a bit like that in aeroplanes. Air is not smooth. Aeroplanes are made to fly through not so smooth air, and although it might feel scary, it is very, very rarely dangerous. Huge airliners are a bit like your Mercedes, and the ATRs like your Polos or Fiestas.
The noise level is quite high in the ATR cabin. When the noise suddenly decreases (which is normal once you´ve reached cruising altitude, and in various phases of the approach) you´re bound to notice these differences.
The ATR is a safe aircraft.
riot air, think of turbulence like pot holes in a road. When you drive a bad road in your car, you might get a bump here and a push there, nothing more. Driving a Mercedes, you might not notice much, but driving a small Polo or Fiesta you will certainly feel and hear the rough road. It´s a bit like that in aeroplanes. Air is not smooth. Aeroplanes are made to fly through not so smooth air, and although it might feel scary, it is very, very rarely dangerous. Huge airliners are a bit like your Mercedes, and the ATRs like your Polos or Fiestas.
The noise level is quite high in the ATR cabin. When the noise suddenly decreases (which is normal once you´ve reached cruising altitude, and in various phases of the approach) you´re bound to notice these differences.
The ATR is a safe aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: burma
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hello EDDNHopper,
thanks, your post answered my question.
In the country I am in now, maintenance is always an issue. Genuine Spare parts for cars are scarce, and I wish that is not the case with aircrafts'
I know most of the pilots personally (local pilots, not expatriates), and they have tried to convince me that nothing I should worry about. Oh well.
still, thanks again...
thanks, your post answered my question.
In the country I am in now, maintenance is always an issue. Genuine Spare parts for cars are scarce, and I wish that is not the case with aircrafts'
I know most of the pilots personally (local pilots, not expatriates), and they have tried to convince me that nothing I should worry about. Oh well.
still, thanks again...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PARIS, France
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATR's
HA!
I got a lot of flak on another forum for writing that the ATR was a piece of cheap junk. I am glad to discover I ain't the only one of that opinion.
At the begining of its career, the ATR encountered many problems due to a faulty design of the de-icing system. It caused a couple of deadly crashes, several serious incidents and some quarelling between the FAA and the builder, a french-italian consortium which began, as usual, by denying there was a problem..
Meanwhile the incidents continued.
If you go to the ATR site you'll notice the accent is put on the "cheap" aspect of that plane. Cheap to build, cheap to operate, cheap to fix and easy to sell since it comes in many versions. But basically it's a cargo plane with passengers seats slapped inside.
I flew in several ATR's. In all occurrences, the flight was either uncomfortable (Noise, cramped conditions, VERY bumpy ride) or downright scary.
On two occurrences I flew an ATR from Denver, Co. to Cody, Wo.
The first time was a hellish ride around huge storm clouds. The cabin crew bravely tried to give us drinks, half crouched in the low fuselage, and naturally that's just after that that we hit the biggest "pothole" of the flight that made us drop at least 100 feet. My orange juice ended partly on the (low) ceiling and mostly on my pants. Some people got scared.
Upon landing in Cody I asked the pilot what kind of kite this piece of junk was. He smiled at me with that "pilot smile" and said: "It's an ATR, it's a pilot's plane".
-"Well, I replied it sure ain't a passenger's plane"..
The second time was on the same route. Shortly before departing we were informed that half of the luggage had to stay in Denver because, due to "hot and humid" conditions, the aircraft would be too heavy to fly..
Hot and humid in Denver in july???
Then how do we describe weather conditions, for instance, in Manila, Philippines, in august??
Before that I didn't really consider Denver to be a tropical city..
I asked a stward whether there was excess baggage and he said no, it's just the hot and humid weather.
The next time I rented a car in Denver and DROVE to cody...
So, to sum it up, the ATR is a safe plane provided you don't fly when it's too cold or when it's too hot...
Well, moderately hot. That day in Denver was definitely not a sweltering day.
This plane is not designed to carry passengers comfortably and safely, it's designed to be cheap. And cheap it is.
Indeed, however, when you hit a pothole with your Polo, you do not fly a couple of miles up in the air. See? That's the problem..
I got a lot of flak on another forum for writing that the ATR was a piece of cheap junk. I am glad to discover I ain't the only one of that opinion.
At the begining of its career, the ATR encountered many problems due to a faulty design of the de-icing system. It caused a couple of deadly crashes, several serious incidents and some quarelling between the FAA and the builder, a french-italian consortium which began, as usual, by denying there was a problem..
Meanwhile the incidents continued.
If you go to the ATR site you'll notice the accent is put on the "cheap" aspect of that plane. Cheap to build, cheap to operate, cheap to fix and easy to sell since it comes in many versions. But basically it's a cargo plane with passengers seats slapped inside.
I flew in several ATR's. In all occurrences, the flight was either uncomfortable (Noise, cramped conditions, VERY bumpy ride) or downright scary.
On two occurrences I flew an ATR from Denver, Co. to Cody, Wo.
The first time was a hellish ride around huge storm clouds. The cabin crew bravely tried to give us drinks, half crouched in the low fuselage, and naturally that's just after that that we hit the biggest "pothole" of the flight that made us drop at least 100 feet. My orange juice ended partly on the (low) ceiling and mostly on my pants. Some people got scared.
Upon landing in Cody I asked the pilot what kind of kite this piece of junk was. He smiled at me with that "pilot smile" and said: "It's an ATR, it's a pilot's plane".
-"Well, I replied it sure ain't a passenger's plane"..
The second time was on the same route. Shortly before departing we were informed that half of the luggage had to stay in Denver because, due to "hot and humid" conditions, the aircraft would be too heavy to fly..
Hot and humid in Denver in july???
Then how do we describe weather conditions, for instance, in Manila, Philippines, in august??
Before that I didn't really consider Denver to be a tropical city..
I asked a stward whether there was excess baggage and he said no, it's just the hot and humid weather.
The next time I rented a car in Denver and DROVE to cody...
So, to sum it up, the ATR is a safe plane provided you don't fly when it's too cold or when it's too hot...
Well, moderately hot. That day in Denver was definitely not a sweltering day.
This plane is not designed to carry passengers comfortably and safely, it's designed to be cheap. And cheap it is.
think of turbulence like pot holes in a road.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: EU
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dear Antoninus/journalist from paris,
You are very ignorant in the field of aviation and you have no understanding of how to judge the safety of a plane.
You should refrain from making such statements as we do refrain from commenting politics or climate change topics, etc..
the ATR is an extremely safe plane!
You are very ignorant in the field of aviation and you have no understanding of how to judge the safety of a plane.
You should refrain from making such statements as we do refrain from commenting politics or climate change topics, etc..
the ATR is an extremely safe plane!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK - no doubt someone will prove me wrong but ......
I believe the icing problem has been sorted
If its too hot to carry the luggage that is an airline scheduling/purchasing problem not the aircrafts problem
If an aircraft hits an airpocket, falls 100ft and stays together - in my book thats a good aircraft!
Oh and you dont pluralise aircraft by adding an "s" - 1 aircraft 2 aircraft etc
I believe the icing problem has been sorted
If its too hot to carry the luggage that is an airline scheduling/purchasing problem not the aircrafts problem
If an aircraft hits an airpocket, falls 100ft and stays together - in my book thats a good aircraft!
Oh and you dont pluralise aircraft by adding an "s" - 1 aircraft 2 aircraft etc
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PARIS, France
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I believe the problem was fixed...
But there was a problem.
http://www.eetronics.com/icing_air_crashs.htm
As for being ignorant of flying well, not totally. I know the basics, like what "hot and humid" conditions means in terms of lift. I also know that Denver airport is at something like 3000 ft and that adds up.
However I seriously doubt that taking off at full load from Denver on a clear day in july qualifies as "extreme" conditions.
Toomuchrads, you are a professional pilot, I suppose and you know far more than I about ATR's.
So I admit the ATR is "a pilot's plane" and a extremely safe plane. But trust me on that, it really doesn't look that way from a passenger's point of view...
Now seriously could someone tell me what happened in Denver on that hot and humid day?
Was it that the aircraft really couldn't take off or was it that it would have been too slow --and costly in fuel-- to reach cruise level in these flying conditions?
Again, according to the crew, there was no excess load.
But there was a problem.
http://www.eetronics.com/icing_air_crashs.htm
As for being ignorant of flying well, not totally. I know the basics, like what "hot and humid" conditions means in terms of lift. I also know that Denver airport is at something like 3000 ft and that adds up.
However I seriously doubt that taking off at full load from Denver on a clear day in july qualifies as "extreme" conditions.
Toomuchrads, you are a professional pilot, I suppose and you know far more than I about ATR's.
So I admit the ATR is "a pilot's plane" and a extremely safe plane. But trust me on that, it really doesn't look that way from a passenger's point of view...
Now seriously could someone tell me what happened in Denver on that hot and humid day?
Was it that the aircraft really couldn't take off or was it that it would have been too slow --and costly in fuel-- to reach cruise level in these flying conditions?
Again, according to the crew, there was no excess load.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: EU
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
performance calculations
an aircraft can be limited in its take off weight by many factors.
among which are:
1) obstacle clearence requirements
2) local ATC requirements
3) air density
4) conditions of R/W surface
5) length of R/W
6) position of CG
7) how much fuel must be carried to reach destination and comply with alternate destinations' requirements
so, as you can appreciate the hot and humid day may be even not important if compared to many of the other limiting factors.
Passengers may not fancy the ATR because of its "visible propellers" but, as an airline pilot, i can ensure you that these planes are very,very safe indeed!
in addition to this, dear antoninus/journalist, you are not even qualified enough to mention a "loss of 100 ft" due to turbulence as you don't have altimeters in front of you nor can imply that a (relatively) "economic plane" is junk as it is not.
It's called "fuel efficiency" mate and that is achieved by the use of those "visible propellers" which are part of a very efficient and extremely safe TURBO PROP/ JET ENGINE.
among which are:
1) obstacle clearence requirements
2) local ATC requirements
3) air density
4) conditions of R/W surface
5) length of R/W
6) position of CG
7) how much fuel must be carried to reach destination and comply with alternate destinations' requirements
so, as you can appreciate the hot and humid day may be even not important if compared to many of the other limiting factors.
Passengers may not fancy the ATR because of its "visible propellers" but, as an airline pilot, i can ensure you that these planes are very,very safe indeed!
in addition to this, dear antoninus/journalist, you are not even qualified enough to mention a "loss of 100 ft" due to turbulence as you don't have altimeters in front of you nor can imply that a (relatively) "economic plane" is junk as it is not.
It's called "fuel efficiency" mate and that is achieved by the use of those "visible propellers" which are part of a very efficient and extremely safe TURBO PROP/ JET ENGINE.
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown as a pax on Aurigny's ATR 72s on several occasions in recent years.
I think it is a marvellous aircraft and I never have the slightest worry when flying in one.
On a clear day on flights such as Bristol to Guernsey it beats a jet every time, with beautiful views of the countryside and English Channel slowly unfolding below.
My wife is not a keen flyer but has never expressed any concern at flying in an ATR rather than a bigger jet.
I could more easily understand someone not liking turbo props as a genre because of the propellers, the extra noise and less cabin space, but to pick on one type (the ATR) is surprising to me.
I think it is a marvellous aircraft and I never have the slightest worry when flying in one.
On a clear day on flights such as Bristol to Guernsey it beats a jet every time, with beautiful views of the countryside and English Channel slowly unfolding below.
My wife is not a keen flyer but has never expressed any concern at flying in an ATR rather than a bigger jet.
I could more easily understand someone not liking turbo props as a genre because of the propellers, the extra noise and less cabin space, but to pick on one type (the ATR) is surprising to me.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ant.....
KDEN is actually 5431ft amsl (above mean sea level).
In July the temperature will frequently top out at 30deg C or 86F, giving a denisty altitude of over 8000ft.
The degradation on aircraft performance is very marked in those conditions - but then I suspect you don't really want to know that anyway!
BTW it is hot and high that matters more than hot and humid.
As to the ATR specifics, I can't comment, but what I CAN say is that these conditions affect all aircraft to a degree.
KPHX at 42degC in a 747-400 even at 1300ft amsl, equates to a density altitude of about 6000ft - a considerable consideration for an intercontinental flight to Europe. Start talking then about Bogota at 8400ft and 18deg C, or Mexico at 7500ft amsl and 23deg C and you are really talking about aircraft envelopes!
In the meantime, do your research and you may discover the truth!
As for being ignorant of flying well, not totally. I know the basics, like what "hot and humid" conditions means in terms of lift. I also know that Denver airport is at something like 3000 ft and that adds up.
In July the temperature will frequently top out at 30deg C or 86F, giving a denisty altitude of over 8000ft.
The degradation on aircraft performance is very marked in those conditions - but then I suspect you don't really want to know that anyway!
BTW it is hot and high that matters more than hot and humid.
As to the ATR specifics, I can't comment, but what I CAN say is that these conditions affect all aircraft to a degree.
KPHX at 42degC in a 747-400 even at 1300ft amsl, equates to a density altitude of about 6000ft - a considerable consideration for an intercontinental flight to Europe. Start talking then about Bogota at 8400ft and 18deg C, or Mexico at 7500ft amsl and 23deg C and you are really talking about aircraft envelopes!
In the meantime, do your research and you may discover the truth!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: KGLS
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Antoninus
The plains the western part of the United States can produce a very bumpy ride on hot summer day. The lighter the aircraft, the bumper the ride. Even the different refective colors of the ground can produce thermals of different velocity. Flying over plowed fields and fields of green can give you a jolt when passing from one to the other.
This area can also produce quite violent storms. This area is the only place in the U.S. that I've seen or hear of toss hail. Hail that is thrown out of the top of a storm and comes down several miles away from the storm.
I remember in the 1960's talking to a Central Airlines pilot. He got caught in a T-Storm going in to KAMA, Amarillo, Texas. The rate of climb indicator showed 3000 feet per minute climb in the updraft and the reverse in the downdraft. This was in level flight in a DC3.
Turbo-props and jet aircraft usually fly high enough where rough rides are not common. When they occur most passengers are alarmed.
The plains the western part of the United States can produce a very bumpy ride on hot summer day. The lighter the aircraft, the bumper the ride. Even the different refective colors of the ground can produce thermals of different velocity. Flying over plowed fields and fields of green can give you a jolt when passing from one to the other.
This area can also produce quite violent storms. This area is the only place in the U.S. that I've seen or hear of toss hail. Hail that is thrown out of the top of a storm and comes down several miles away from the storm.
I remember in the 1960's talking to a Central Airlines pilot. He got caught in a T-Storm going in to KAMA, Amarillo, Texas. The rate of climb indicator showed 3000 feet per minute climb in the updraft and the reverse in the downdraft. This was in level flight in a DC3.
Turbo-props and jet aircraft usually fly high enough where rough rides are not common. When they occur most passengers are alarmed.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PARIS, France
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks
Thank GLS and Topbunk for the recent answers. They appear like words of kindness in a world of brutes...
I knew air density was significant but not that significant. I'll try to refresh that post of mine.
1- Obstacle clearance requirements. Does it mean that in this particular configuration (full load) on a hot an humid day the A/C won't be able to clear that building, or those trees, at the end of the R/W? Or those hills, a bit further?
2- ATC requirements. Does it mean the ATC's say the plane does not meet the criteria to be cleared for T/O? (I'm getting good at all those acronyms..)
3 - Air density. Indeed. Hot and humid as we were told. Actually in the case of Denver it's indeed hot, high and humid.
4 /5- Conditions and lenght of R/W surface. Denver. Modern, big airport, excellent runways.
6 - Position of CG. Dunno about that one either. I suppose there is a procedure to load baggage into an A/C?
7 - Fuel. Not in this case. An ATR 42 has a range sufficient enough to go from Denver to Cody and back several times before running out of gas.
Alternate destinations between Denver and Cody?
I dunno... The prairie?
Actually no, there's an airfield half way. Can't remember the name. the first time I flew there we stopped over to drop mail and some freight.
The result is still that an ATR 42 fully loaded, but not exceeding the limits could not take off from Denver airport on a clear july day, because of a "hot and humid condition" and that no one decided that on a whim. There must have been a reason.
And that reason, according to your answers is that the plane just couldn't take off in the fully loaded configuration.
Maybe a few more square feet of wing area would help?
I don't question the safety of that plane. However I don't recall planes of the same type (turboprop/high wing) encountering that kind of de-icing problems. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll check on places like Fokker..
Could it be that ATR rushed things a bit, testwise, in order to market their "product" faster than the competition?
Naaah. That wouldn't be nice wouldn't it?
BTW, in several of these incidents, it is thanks to the pilots' skill, steady nerves and good training that no one died. They actually fought with a flatiron that wouldn't even fall down straight.
Actually I am pretty sure that all modern planes are extremely safe to fly and that includes the ATR.
Until the de-icing flaws were fixed, that is...
BTW MerchantVenturer I never flew in the ATR 72 series and since it's a bigger aircraft I suppose it's not so much a roller coaster ride as in the 42 series. Trust me on that, each time I flew these things I was too busy with my stomach being stuck in between my ears at regular intervals to be able to enjoy the scenery. The only other turboprop I ever flew in was a big Vickers Viscount, between London and Paris, shortly after the 100 Years War, so it doesn't count.
I can't speak about the ATR's direct competitors, I never flew in any but I suspect all high wing twin turboprops of that size produce the same roller coaster ride.
Nowadays the problem is solved. In Europe, I mostly drive or ride the train when it's less than a thousand Kms. The countryside is generally nice; when driving I can "land" whenever I feel like, eat properly or even extremely well, and stretch my legs and my arms without hitting the person next to me. It also saves me the nightmarish airport scene, the wait, the waiting lines, the security checks and the very lowly status of "pax".. I don't have to take my shoes off either.
I certainly don't consider it a waste of time.
Now, after shooting down, the ATR in flames, I'd like to praise the 747. Where do I go for that?
I knew air density was significant but not that significant. I'll try to refresh that post of mine.
1- Obstacle clearance requirements. Does it mean that in this particular configuration (full load) on a hot an humid day the A/C won't be able to clear that building, or those trees, at the end of the R/W? Or those hills, a bit further?
2- ATC requirements. Does it mean the ATC's say the plane does not meet the criteria to be cleared for T/O? (I'm getting good at all those acronyms..)
3 - Air density. Indeed. Hot and humid as we were told. Actually in the case of Denver it's indeed hot, high and humid.
4 /5- Conditions and lenght of R/W surface. Denver. Modern, big airport, excellent runways.
6 - Position of CG. Dunno about that one either. I suppose there is a procedure to load baggage into an A/C?
7 - Fuel. Not in this case. An ATR 42 has a range sufficient enough to go from Denver to Cody and back several times before running out of gas.
Alternate destinations between Denver and Cody?
I dunno... The prairie?
Actually no, there's an airfield half way. Can't remember the name. the first time I flew there we stopped over to drop mail and some freight.
The result is still that an ATR 42 fully loaded, but not exceeding the limits could not take off from Denver airport on a clear july day, because of a "hot and humid condition" and that no one decided that on a whim. There must have been a reason.
And that reason, according to your answers is that the plane just couldn't take off in the fully loaded configuration.
Maybe a few more square feet of wing area would help?
I don't question the safety of that plane. However I don't recall planes of the same type (turboprop/high wing) encountering that kind of de-icing problems. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll check on places like Fokker..
Could it be that ATR rushed things a bit, testwise, in order to market their "product" faster than the competition?
Naaah. That wouldn't be nice wouldn't it?
BTW, in several of these incidents, it is thanks to the pilots' skill, steady nerves and good training that no one died. They actually fought with a flatiron that wouldn't even fall down straight.
Actually I am pretty sure that all modern planes are extremely safe to fly and that includes the ATR.
Until the de-icing flaws were fixed, that is...
BTW MerchantVenturer I never flew in the ATR 72 series and since it's a bigger aircraft I suppose it's not so much a roller coaster ride as in the 42 series. Trust me on that, each time I flew these things I was too busy with my stomach being stuck in between my ears at regular intervals to be able to enjoy the scenery. The only other turboprop I ever flew in was a big Vickers Viscount, between London and Paris, shortly after the 100 Years War, so it doesn't count.
I can't speak about the ATR's direct competitors, I never flew in any but I suspect all high wing twin turboprops of that size produce the same roller coaster ride.
Nowadays the problem is solved. In Europe, I mostly drive or ride the train when it's less than a thousand Kms. The countryside is generally nice; when driving I can "land" whenever I feel like, eat properly or even extremely well, and stretch my legs and my arms without hitting the person next to me. It also saves me the nightmarish airport scene, the wait, the waiting lines, the security checks and the very lowly status of "pax".. I don't have to take my shoes off either.
I certainly don't consider it a waste of time.
Now, after shooting down, the ATR in flames, I'd like to praise the 747. Where do I go for that?
Last edited by Antoninus; 30th Aug 2005 at 13:50.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Antoninus The ATR did experience problems with icing (The NTSB report may be found here and a response by the manufacturer here (Both are .pdf files)
My understanding is that the issue is now resolved, and that safe operations of this type are now normal. It may be that the aircraft operator chooses to operate the type on a route that is inappropriate (in terms of weight/performance) at certain times of year and under certain weather conditions, and that would surely be a commercial issue to take up with the airline concerned.
The ride quality for customers on a relatively small aircraft, flying at lower altitudes will often tend to be inferior to that of a modern jet at high altitude - Sad, but true.
BTW - If you're lookinf for an arena to praise the 747, then this would be the ideal place, and I'd be the first to agree with you!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PARIS, France
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747, then..
Thanks for the input paxboy and tightslot..
And may Bokonon protect you..
Also: is it true that high wing planes are generally less comfortable to fly than low wings?
Ah.. The Jumbo.. Big plane, so big that you almost forget you're in a plane.. So big that when you fly through those big mid-atlantic turbulences halfway between the US and Europe, you barely feel the bumps.
And so on..
Now that is what I call a passenger plane.
But there another thing I discovered lately, to my total amazement, actually as I was watching on the net videos of "hairy" landings. That thing moves like a fighter plane!
One of these videos was shot at the dreaded HKG Kai-Tak airport --the old one. It's a KAL Jumbo. Some of you here must have seen that.
Here it is...
http://www.lindauer-fly.ch/movies.htm
then click on "Korean Air Landung auf Hong Kong Kai Tak"
Now, how exactly do you do achieve an aerobatic figure like that with an aircrfat weighing about 300 000 pounds???:eek
And may Bokonon protect you..
Also: is it true that high wing planes are generally less comfortable to fly than low wings?
Ah.. The Jumbo.. Big plane, so big that you almost forget you're in a plane.. So big that when you fly through those big mid-atlantic turbulences halfway between the US and Europe, you barely feel the bumps.
And so on..
Now that is what I call a passenger plane.
But there another thing I discovered lately, to my total amazement, actually as I was watching on the net videos of "hairy" landings. That thing moves like a fighter plane!
One of these videos was shot at the dreaded HKG Kai-Tak airport --the old one. It's a KAL Jumbo. Some of you here must have seen that.
Here it is...
http://www.lindauer-fly.ch/movies.htm
then click on "Korean Air Landung auf Hong Kong Kai Tak"
Now, how exactly do you do achieve an aerobatic figure like that with an aircrfat weighing about 300 000 pounds???:eek
Last edited by Antoninus; 21st Aug 2005 at 16:33.