Planes You would Avoid Flying?

I probably flew on a couple of those back in 90-91 when I lived in Turkey. Flew a lot of THY Ankara - Izmir - if I remember correctly you could sometimes see the Eastern logo showing through the crappy white paint. Flying those old things on THY back then was pretty scary. Now they have one of the newest fleets of any airline.

 

Earlier this year flew with THY Istanbul to Chicago. A wonderful ride in business with the angled seats and a good entertainment system. Far better ride than Royal Jordanian Amman to Chicago although the club in Amman had some outstanding features.

Jeff

 

THY is in the process of taking delivery of 10 new 777-300ERs at the moment. The ride should get nicer.

 

I'm trying to figure out if this video is evidence of something dumb or something competent.

Looks pretty darned hairy either way! In fact, it looks so completely frightening, I've been trying to figure out if this is a real video or special effects... the video is a little grainy.

YouTube - Concorde captain changes his mind​

All the best,
Andrew.

 

I'm pretty sure that was "something competent".

Now, this is something similar - but dumb...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyw2vgJffqU

 

I've seen that video many times, There is nothing fake about it. Another example of a performance aircraft trying to land in a crosswind.
The nose up angle is typical for a delta winged aircraft of that size at that speed. It's required to maintain lift at lower speeds. I watched the approach, landing and takeoff of this jet in Seattle. The nose was pitched high for a VERY long time after he left the area.

In this video he had the altitude and power when he decided to go-around. Those are military style after-burning engines by the way. Ear splitting when he firewalls them.

 

I recall someone mentioning hull losses as a % of manufactured.

Boeing 707: 167 hull losses out of 1,010 made. Yikes. More than 15%.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/type/type.php?type=100

 

Thats nuts.................there is no way in this world that anyone will ever convince me that you have as much control with that stupid joystick as you would with a big old fat yoke in both hands!!!

 

Heck most of those things have been flying in 3rd world countries for decades that number does not surprise me, its not an indication of the quality of the design though.

 

Which supports what Spasso hit on earlier: "MAINTENANCE"

Very true...we all know those countries simply don't have the resources to maintain the birds properly. I don't know about the quality of their pilots to comment on that. They might have some US pilots working extra out there for all I know...

 

Another aborted landing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32CNIaZdA08

 

One of the more common crosswind compilations on You Tube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X_7Xt2ga-s&feature=related

Some actual flight test footage of an early 777
Ballsy KAL 747 side slipping/'S' turning into Kai Tak and almost banging #1 on the strip.
Numerous small Airbus' in very strong winds.
Some wild stuff.

I don't care how good you are,
or how good you think you are,
or how good your airplane is,
or how smart you are,
The weather CAN kick your ass and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

I'm preferential to the Boeing products in the commercial world as well. As far as a plane I wouldn't want to touch, I would have to go with a Mitsubishi MU-2. You lose an engine on those things near Vmc and you have a 98% chance of crashing.
People that own them really love them, and joke that you just weren't ready for the engine failure, but that seems to be a really unhappy turboprop on on engine.

 

After what happened on that Quantas flight out of Singapore, I ain't getting on an Airbus A380.

They were milliseconds from disaster, and it's only a matter of time till they have one. And if it's packed, it's going to be one for the record books.

 

PM sent.

 

An excellent landing of a Concorde at Kai Tak of all places. Couldn't have greased it on better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBtLix4xqdI&feature=related

 

It appears that there may be a defined life for aircraft after all, at least ones that are certified in the future. Here is a blurb from Aviation International News...

FAA Issues Final Transport-category Fatigue Rule
Under new final rules issued by the FAA, all transport-category (Part 25) aircraft certified henceforth will have to meet requirements “to prevent catastrophic failure due to widespread fatigue damage throughout the operational life.” The rule also applies to existing Part 25 aircraft operated under Part 121 and 129 regulations with an mtow of more than 75,000 pounds. Manufacturers that certify new Part 25 airplanes will have to include a limit of validity (LOV) that accompanies engineering data used to support the structural maintenance program. Essentially, once an airplane reaches its LOV, it will no longer be able to fly because the LOV is a strict airworthiness limitation. However, the rule does allow any person, not just the manufacturer, to apply for an LOV extension based on maintenance actions that would be incorporated into the maintenance program. The new rule is limited to transport-category turbine-powered airplanes. One change that the FAA made in the final rule was to eliminate “the requirement to evaluate widespread fatigue damage associated with most repairs, alterations and modifications of the baseline airplane structure,” although a change prompted by an airworthiness directive will need to be considered.

What this doesn't appear to do is address all of the ancient hacks that are still flying and probably shouldn't be that are in airline service, but does smack down the ones that are flying Part 121 and 129.... My guess is that the next step will be to set a LOV life for the airline service aircraft. Then they will be able to force them out of service. The airframers would love this because it gets old airplanes (that they are legally liable for) out of the air and forces the airlines to buy new ones. Talk about enforced obsolescence....

 

+1 on that one..

As the old saying goes... "Ya can't fool Mutha Nature!"

 

Not even the greatest aviator of the generation got away with it. T-storm 1, Crossfield 0.

 

Think what this is going to do to residual value of the aircraft. Finite end dates will plummet the later year values. A lot less of the older airplanes will be headed for Africa and South America if this rule is implemented without further changes.

Jeff

 

(A little sideways from the subject)
We have a AeroMexico DeHavilland Comet under restoration here where I work. As I understand it, this Comet was an earlier version that didn't have ALL of the structural upgrades that the last and best versions had. The FAA wouldn't allow this A/P to fly in the United States any longer so here it sits. It flew in and never flew out.

Restoration progress is encouraging with some of the interior now being installed.

(This effort is part of The Museum of Flight in Seattle).

 

Might be based on cycle count, or a combination of cycle counts and time. Really hard to implement because some airplanes are well cared for and could fly for a long time, but others are crap in short order. Some are flying in the middle of the country and not seeing salt, and others are in the islands or on the coasts for their whole life. The FAA will find a way to be arbitrary and will ground a lot of good airplanes when other airplanes are just junk flying in formation.

Just remember the FAA's motto... "We're not happy until YOU'RE no happy"

 

I mostly fly on-boards Boeing 777, I love the Airbus A340-600 silence and I have superb memories of the L-1011. I avoid DC-10 and MD-11 as much as possible.

Most modern aircraft are incredibly safe, comfortable and more and more economical.

As many here said, avoid some airlines, not some airplanes.

 

"Nice landing. Going for the 3 wire, were you?" Early 737s flown in third world countries had a rash of gear failures until they figured out that the pilots were landing hard because the runways tended to be shorter and they were worried about overruns. So Boeing beefed them up and that was that.

 

The MD-11's will fly for KLM till 2015-2016. they will be replaced by A330-300's or eventually the 787 or A350 depending on when they are available.