UPS A300 Crashed Alabama
Discussion
Are there any inherent safety issues with cargo companies using older airframes like this? Last time I flew on an A300 was 4 years ago, and that was a plane drafted in at short notice by Monarch after a mechanical on the planned plane. I guess they should be safe if maintained properly and most stuff like this is removed from passenger service for economic rather than wear reasons but I do still wonder.
jamiebae said:
Are there any inherent safety issues with cargo companies using older airframes like this? Last time I flew on an A300 was 4 years ago, and that was a plane drafted in at short notice by Monarch after a mechanical on the planned plane. I guess they should be safe if maintained properly and most stuff like this is removed from passenger service for economic rather than wear reasons but I do still wonder.
They're no less safe than any other plane in the sky, You'll find passenger planes as old if not older than a lot of cargo planes.Bigger than the twinjet widebodies and a third engine for a bit of oomph - but no potentially wasted overhead space like the hump in a 747, and one less engine to maintain.
Also by the time MD sorted the range/payload issues for the passenger versions, the 777 was on the scene. Hence the wave of freighter conversions.
Also by the time MD sorted the range/payload issues for the passenger versions, the 777 was on the scene. Hence the wave of freighter conversions.
Apache said:
from the pics it seems to me that at least one engine was not rotating on impact
What seems odd is that the pilots don't appear to have got on the radio to report a problem. So presumably whatever happened, happened unexpectedly and suddenly at or about the time of the crash. How long would it take an engine to stop rotating?It'll all come out when they get the data recorder I guess...
nascarrules said:
dvs_dave said:
Why is it that these days you only ever see MD-11's doing cargo duty? Can't remember the last time I saw a passenger version.
KLM are still using them for passengers, although they are being phased out by the end of next year I believe. Munter said:
Apache said:
from the pics it seems to me that at least one engine was not rotating on impact
What seems odd is that the pilots don't appear to have got on the radio to report a problem. So presumably whatever happened, happened unexpectedly and suddenly at or about the time of the crash. How long would it take an engine to stop rotating?It'll all come out when they get the data recorder I guess...
Maybe the absence of a report from the crew was down to events unfolding unexpectedly at the last minute. I understand from reports elsewhere on the web that the ILS was out of action but that the crew might not have been aware of this and were relying on the autopilot in the believe that the ILS was working. All conjecture at this point, I admit, but if that is the case they may not have been aware of just how low they were until they hit the trees and by then they'd have been too busy trying to sort things out to contact ATC.
MitchT said:
nascarrules said:
dvs_dave said:
Why is it that these days you only ever see MD-11's doing cargo duty? Can't remember the last time I saw a passenger version.
KLM are still using them for passengers, although they are being phased out by the end of next year I believe. Munter said:
Apache said:
from the pics it seems to me that at least one engine was not rotating on impact
What seems odd is that the pilots don't appear to have got on the radio to report a problem. So presumably whatever happened, happened unexpectedly and suddenly at or about the time of the crash. How long would it take an engine to stop rotating?It'll all come out when they get the data recorder I guess...
Maybe the absence of a report from the crew was down to events unfolding unexpectedly at the last minute. I understand from reports elsewhere on the web that the ILS was out of action but that the crew might not have been aware of this and were relying on the autopilot in the believe that the ILS was working. All conjecture at this point, I admit, but if that is the case they may not have been aware of just how low they were until they hit the trees and by then they'd have been too busy trying to sort things out to contact ATC.
A lex said:
Aviate
Navigate
Communicate
You will tend to find that crashes on the approach or landing rarely, if ever, involve calls to ATC.... theres simply too much going on.
The Asiana and BA 777 incidents had no ATC calls until it was all over for example.
I get that. That's why I was interested to know how long it would take an engine to virtually stop spinning. If it's 10 seconds it means nothing that it wasn't spinning. If it's minutes, they'd have stood a chance to call in, which would conflict with it being a more sudden event.Navigate
Communicate
You will tend to find that crashes on the approach or landing rarely, if ever, involve calls to ATC.... theres simply too much going on.
The Asiana and BA 777 incidents had no ATC calls until it was all over for example.
jamiebae said:
Are there any inherent safety issues with cargo companies using older airframes like this? Last time I flew on an A300 was 4 years ago, and that was a plane drafted in at short notice by Monarch after a mechanical on the planned plane. I guess they should be safe if maintained properly and most stuff like this is removed from passenger service for economic rather than wear reasons but I do still wonder.
Simple answer. No.Monarch still have A300's on the fleet, so it needn't have been drafted in.
IforB said:
Simple answer. No.
Monarch still have A300's on the fleet, so it needn't have been drafted in.
Mmmm, a budget airline run wide body full of screaming children, I can think of nothing better!Monarch still have A300's on the fleet, so it needn't have been drafted in.
I think the plane we were on was a Monarch one, just not the plane we were supposed to be on (that was the excuse given for the delay anyway)
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff