another tupolev 154 crashes

[DBSV8]

landed at Domodedova airport russia to find a major section closed following another Tupolev TU 154 crash apparently two of the engines failed at 9000ft and the pilot tried to land on the third central engine which also failed just before touchdown according to the moscow times its suspected that lack of deicer in the engines was the reason for all engines shutting down

According to the Aviation Safety Network, there have been 66 crashes involving Tu-154s, including six in the past five years. The Russian carrier Aeroflot recently withdrew its Tu-154 fleet from service.

this was the type of plane that wiped out the polish pm
has there been a worse commercial plane than the tupolev ?





http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/black-b...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/r...

Edited by DBSV8 on Thursday 9th December 21:56

[Simpo Two]

I guess any plane will crash if it's not looked after properly.

[Eric Mc]

Nothing wrong with the Tu154 per se - but poor maintenance and sloppy standards wiil doom any aircraft.

[blueST]

I flew on one years ago, from Manchester to Sofia. I think the airline was Balkan Air or similar. I clearly recall seeing tyres on the main gear with the 'canvas' showing through when we were boarding. My Dad had spotted them too but neither of us mentioned it to the other so as not to appear chicken. Secretly we were both stting it on the landing! The nose cone also looked liked someone had been at it with a sledge hammer. A concourse winner it not but it certainly had a rugged sturdiness to it.

[The real Apache]

blueST said:

I flew on one years ago, from Manchester to Sofia. I think the airline was Balkan Air or similar. I clearly recall seeing tyres on the main gear with the 'canvas' showing through when we were boarding. My Dad had spotted them too but neither of us mentioned it to the other so as not to appear chicken. Secretly we were both stting it on the landing! The nose cone also looked liked someone had been at it with a sledge hammer. A concourse winner it not but it certainly had a rugged sturdiness to it.

Fear not, that's perfectly normal actually

[blueST]

The real Apache said:

blueST said:

I flew on one years ago, from Manchester to Sofia. I think the airline was Balkan Air or similar. I clearly recall seeing tyres on the main gear with the 'canvas' showing through when we were boarding. My Dad had spotted them too but neither of us mentioned it to the other so as not to appear chicken. Secretly we were both stting it on the landing! The nose cone also looked liked someone had been at it with a sledge hammer. A concourse winner it not but it certainly had a rugged sturdiness to it.

Fear not, that's perfectly normal actually

I gathered as much the rows of even more dilapidated looking aircraft on the tarmac at Sofia airport.

[Streps]

It's a fantastic proper soviet jetliner
It's got a bad record of incidents,but when you look at the poorly equipped areas they serviced
(unpaved runways ) in the world's worst climates of Siberia and the Arctic over the period concerned
no other plane would have been as reliable nor as safe

But most have totalled many hours and have probably not been maintained well.

shame

Edited by Streps on Friday 10th December 10:14

[Eric Mc]

If there is one fundamental flaw with the Tupolev airliner designs of that era it is with the location of the mainwheel undercarriage legs.

If you look carefully, you will see that they are mounted well out on the wings and they retract into pods mounted on the rear of the wings.
This design was used on the Tu 104, 124, 134 and 154. The reason why is because the wing used on these airliners derived from the wing used on the 1950s bomber, the Tu 16 Badger. If you look at the picture of teh Badger shown below you will see the undercrriage pods on the wing -



On a bomber, this makes sense as it leaves the fuselage unobstructed so a continuous bomb bay can be installed. It is not great for airliners because, in the event of a heavy landing, the excessive shock loads are taken straight into the wing spar rather than the fuselage. Many 124s/134s/154s have had bad accidents where heavy landings resulted in wing failures, burst fuel tanks and serious fires or total loss.

Western airliners (and more modern Russian designs) have their main undercarriage units mounted on the central fuselage with crumple zones, progressive deformation and crushing and fuse pins, all designed to allow for a progressive absorbtion of vertical loads BEFORE a major component such as a wing or fuselage breaks up.

[Mr Dave]

DBSV8 said:

has there been a worse commercial plane than the tupolev ?

"As of May 2010, a total of 303 incidents involving 737s had occurred, including 148 hull-loss accidents[111] resulting in a total of 4,097 fatalities. The 737 has also been in 106 hijackings involving 324 fatalities"

[Chuck328]

Mr Dave said:

DBSV8 said:

has there been a worse commercial plane than the tupolev ?

"As of May 2010, a total of 303 incidents involving 737s had occurred, including 148 hull-loss accidents[111] resulting in a total of 4,097 fatalities. The 737 has also been in 106 hijackings involving 324 fatalities"

I'd be interested to know where you found that info?

How does that stack up against RPK vs the Tupolev?

[CelicaGT]

Streps said:

It's a fantastic proper soviet jetliner
It's got a bad record of incidents,but when you look at the poorly equipped areas they serviced
(unpaved runways ) in the world's worst climates of Siberia and the Arctic over the period concerned
no other plane would have been as reliable nor as safe

But most have totalled many hours and have probably not been maintained well.

shame

Edited by Streps on Friday 10th December 10:14

Certainly an aircraft's safety record is affected by the type of operations it does and the type of operator (e.g. high quality Western airline vs. low quality 3rd world cargo operator) but it's impossible to say:

"no other plane would have been as reliable nor as safe"

You just can't know that. Yes, Russian aircraft are rugged, but rugged is not the same as safe.

Mr Dave said:

DBSV8 said:

has there been a worse commercial plane than the tupolev ?

"As of May 2010, a total of 303 incidents involving 737s had occurred, including 148 hull-loss accidents[111] resulting in a total of 4,097 fatalities. The 737 has also been in 106 hijackings involving 324 fatalities"

There have also been over 6605 deliveries of 737s as compared with 1015 Tu-154s built. The Tu-154 stands at just under 3000 fatalities while most likely having far fewer flight hours per aircraft. According to the all-knowing wikipedia "The Tu-154 is described as having an average (or better than expected) safety record considering its length of service and heavy use in the most demanding conditions."

737 build numbers
http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/display...

Tu-154 accidents
http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?fie...

[Escort Si-130]

PMSL

blueST said:

I flew on one years ago, from Manchester to Sofia. I think the airline was Balkan Air or similar. I clearly recall seeing tyres on the main gear with the 'canvas' showing through when we were boarding. My Dad had spotted them too but neither of us mentioned it to the other so as not to appear chicken. Secretly we were both stting it on the landing! The nose cone also looked liked someone had been at it with a sledge hammer. A concourse winner it not but it certainly had a rugged sturdiness to it.