Planes You would Avoid Flying?

I know absolutely nothing about aircraft.

2 questions.

1. Are there any commercial aircraft models that you would not ride on for fear of failure because of design? I don't mean just a plane that has reached it's service life, but a design with an intrinsic flaw that would keep you away.

2. Are there airlines upon which you would not fly due to upkeep of aircraft?

thanks.

 

I know a lot of people used to avoid the L10-11 like the plague, but I believe most of them are out of service by now anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar

 

I will fly them all.... On average I would say that I'm involved with at least a dozen in flight emergencies (IFEs) a year. Everything from a little smoke in the cockpit to multiple engines having issues at once and full up fires. Only twice has it been significant enough to really be concerned.... once was an APU fire that was still indicating burning after both fire bottles were popped into it. Another was an hour from land over the Atlantic when 3 of 4 engines came up with low oil. Having said that the only times I really thought I might die were the result of people doing dumb things in the plane. Flying commercial I really don't know any good way to tell if the pilot is a competent and disciplined professional or a dangerous jackass so I just fly commercially in ignorant bliss.

 

For a while Airbus was getting some bad press due to their design philosophy that the engineers and programmers knew more than the pilots. This lead to un-commanded control incidents initiated by the firmware, in effect the software doing dumb things:

http://project7alpha.com/2010/04/airbus-loss-control-incident/

I haven't heard as much about this lately, though the site above refers to Sully's A320 as having an alternative if the FADEC hadn't shut the engines down.

 

In answer to question 1.
In the last 5 decades the testing required to qualify a commercial design for regular production and use (large airliner) precluded the allowance of an aircraft with an inherent "major" design flaw to enter service.

With that said, there are exceptions.
Sixty years ago when high altitude pressurized flight was just coming into it's own there was insufficient Engineering background/knowledge/data of the stresses the aluminum fuselage went through repeatedly with each cycle which was soon brought to light with the disasters of mid-flight explosive decompression of numerous DeHavilland Comets, none of which have been in service for decades.

Aside from the MAJOR design flaws there have been a plethora of lesser design flaws throughout the years, some of which caused great loss of life.
One that stands out would been early the design of the cargo door lockout indicators and latch design on the DC-10 when it first came out. An aft door blew out in mid-flight causing catastrophic loss. Research found that the door was forced shut and the lockouts were bypassed by the ground crew. see Turkish Airlines Flight 981, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981.

These days testing and design proof is so stringent that I would fly just about any design in the air today as long as it has been well maintained.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCwYAzqvcrQ

 

In answer to question 2.

I cannot name any airlines specifically (today) but any airline under severe financial stress that continues to fly OLD airplanes are ones I would stay away from. The first thing to suffer is MAINTENANCE.

Eastern Airlines was a prime example of being run into the ground (literally) and flying really old equipment, like the 727 that suffered a major hydraulic failure TWICE on one flight between Florida and Washington D.C.

I read recently that Northwest Airlines is STILL flying DC-9s. That bothers me.

 

I read the Wiki but don't see why people avoided it like the plague with the information there. They did have a lot of problems with the Rolls Royce engines though.

 

From what I read the FADEC also prevented restart because it sensed damage to the engines. If he could have refired at least one of those engines things may have turned out differently.

 

I would be more likely to avoid an airline as opposed to an aircraft. I avoided Continental during the Frank Lorenzo era, and more recently U.S. Airways has been a bit worrisome. On the whole, though, I trust the North American and western European airlines to do the right thing. If I went overseas, I'd worry about some airlines like Aeroflot or Korean, though at least the Russians have gotten rid of a lot of their Soviet-era airliners and are now leasing Western equipment.

I never had any trouble on L-1011s and I continued to fly DC-10s in spite of their various problems. I don't fly many Airbus aircraft, but that's mainly because they are not common on the routes and airlines that I fly.

 

I wouldn't worry about any US Part 121 jet carrier.

As for aircraft types, generally I wouldn't worry about any of them. I think (off the top of my head) that the MD-11 probably has the worst safety record of any large western airliner, but I think KLM is the only airline operating them that you might end up flying on.

Even then, would I get in an MD-11 if it was going where and when I wanted to go, nonstop, at the cheapest fare? Yes.

EDIT: According to Wikipedia, the MD-11 has had 7 total hull losses, out of a fleet of 200, or 3.5% of the fleet. In comparison, the 767 has lost 11 airframes (including 2 on 9/11) out of a fleet of 1,043. The A330 has lost 6 out of a fleet of 1,108.

The DC-10 has had 30 hull loss incidents, out of a total fleet of 446, although with more total hours than the MD-11 fleet.

 

Thats odd, I dont know who your talking to but in 20 years ive never met any pilots that said anything bad about the 1011.

 

The L-1011 had 10 hull losses, out of a fleet of 249. I've never heard anyone say anything bad about the TriStar either, although that's not a great safety record.

 

I find it hard to blame any one particular design for hull loss versus total built when, from the data that I have read, at least 90% of the losses were caused by human deficiencies versus actual design shortcomings.

 

If you design an airplane which is possible to land in gusty, crosswind conditions, but requires an exceptional degree of skill, is that a human deficiency or a design shortcoming?

 

Thanks for all the insight, Gentlemen.

Southwest recently announced they will have service to an airport near me. My wife will be making many trips to San Antonio.

Any adverse buzz about Southwest?

Thanks.

 

as donv points out it had a less than stellar safety record, and from what I recall it wasn't the most comfortable plane from a passenger standpoint.

 

would this be the bustling Greenville Spartanburg airport?

I like Southwest, prefer it over other domestic airlines.

 

Yer a worldly feller.

 

I love Southwest, they have carried me to my destination on time every time and my luggage has always arrived with me. They are also probably the closest to the way we haul people when I'm in the desert hauling Army dudes.... Point to point to point with the appropriate cattle getting on and off the aircraft as necessary and sorting out their own seating arraignments as necessary, it's not the most high brow way to travel but it gets the job done. They seem to turn a pretty consistent profit which in my mind means they probably keep the planes well maintained to keep the routes running on time. And finally a couple of the best pilots I have flown with in the USAF retired and went to Southwest. Having seen what they can do with a POS cargo plane that came off the production line in the '70s they are definitely the ones I want behind the controls in the off chance something were to go wrong.

 

Thanks guys.

 

Assuming you don't mind the cattle-car aspects of their service, Southwest is an exemplary airline.

In their entire history, they have never killed a passenger.

They did have one fatal accident, but the person killed was on the ground in a car. A Southwest aircraft ran off a runway and hit the car.

 

They actually have had one passenger die. He was beaten to death by the other passengers after he tried to make a run to the cockpit and break in.

My friend's husband flies for Southwest and they have very good pilots. I wouldn't worry about safety flying with them. Their 737s are starting to age, but they recently bought AirTran, which has newer 737s (and 717s). I asked him (ex-F5, F4, F16 pilot) if he can tell if a Navy pilot is flying based on the landings (used to rough carrier landings I figured). He said the best landings he was aware of was done by a Navy pilot, lol. The youngest pilot on their fleet is 28ish btw. Pretty much the fastest route you could get to that position he said.

My only gripe with Southwest is the first-come-first-serve boarding with online check-in. When they don't let you get your boarding pass online or sign-in 30 minutes later, you are last in the plane. That's why I won't fly with them anymore.

 

Are you implying that the L1011 required an exceptional degree of skill to land in a gusty crosswind??