Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Aircraft down in residential area of Karachi?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Aircraft down in residential area of Karachi?

Old 29th Nov 2010, 15:04
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,352
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.
captplaystation is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2010, 15:46
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 194
It is a statistical fact, however, that you are infinitely safer travelling with a 'western' airline than one from outside
I think you may need to work on your 'facts'
oversteer is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2010, 16:02
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Here and there
Posts: 261
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...
ChiefT is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2010, 16:03
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 8,276
<<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.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2010, 17:18
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: en route
Posts: 203
anecdotally...

... 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.
rcsa is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2010, 17:44
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 56
Posts: 592
Ahh, flexibility in the load sheet - produces take-off like this

YouTube - Close call!
Super VC-10 is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 05:24
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 493
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...
rmac is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 07:42
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 56
Posts: 592
Size of explosion

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), 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)). 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.
Super VC-10 is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 12:07
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
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.
Norman Stanley Fletcher is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 14:52
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by Norman Stanley Fletcher
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 is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 15:39
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by Phileas Fogg
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 ?
Montrealguy is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 18:02
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
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

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

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.
Norman Stanley Fletcher is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 18:51
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,446
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.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 1st Dec 2010 at 19:06.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 19:44
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 56
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 is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 19:58
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by Lonewolf 50
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.
Montrealguy is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 21:44
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,446
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 ...
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 22:08
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,878
Just have a read of Tupolev Tu-144 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to appreciate what a heap of [email protected] the Tu-144 truly was yet it was permitted, approved, to fly by the USSR aviation authority and government etc.
Phileas Fogg is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 13:18
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,446
rightly chastized, I am
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 14:15
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: VA, USA
Age: 54
Posts: 561
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....

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
GarageYears is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 17:59
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by Garage Years
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. 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" ?
Montrealguy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.