PDA

View Full Version : No survivors in Russian jetliner crash in Perm City



OuterSpace
14-09-2008, 15:21
RIP for all of them...


No survivors in Russian jetliner crash - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/09/14/russia.plane/index.html)

Official: Plane crash in Ural mountains kills 88 - MSNBC Wire Services - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26692985/)

MickeyTong
14-09-2008, 17:27
RIP, and condolences to the families.

Judge
14-09-2008, 19:55
RIP....
Very sad news.

MissAnnElk
14-09-2008, 20:00
It is certainly all that is on the Russian news today. Devastating.

Joost
14-09-2008, 20:06
I used this flight twice last week(Monday and Wednesday).
I am very shocked to hear this sad news.

Strider
14-09-2008, 20:38
a very strange coincidence... it is Medvedev's birthday today, and the pilot of that plane was also Medvedev...

Transparent Theatre
14-09-2008, 21:01
Sad and startling news - I've also flown that route several times.

Zyablik
14-09-2008, 21:54
very very bad thing that many Russian comp. still buy old airplanes at the end of their resources....(this one was after China use).....
OuterSpace, thank you for first post!

BeachBum
15-09-2008, 09:14
RIP for all of them...


No survivors in Russian jetliner crash - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/09/14/russia.plane/index.html)

Official: Plane crash in Ural mountains kills 88 - MSNBC Wire Services - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26692985/)
I especially loved the comment in the Moscow Times:

"The pilots most likely tried to avert a collision with the buildings," said a source in the Perm department of the Emergency Situations Ministry, RIA-Novosti reported."

Typical idiotic blather about pilot heroics... A 737-500 minus one engine (at an altitude of approximately 1100 Meters Above Ground Level AGL in 0/0 conditions) as reported has about as much lateral control capability as a brick with feathers!!!.... The pilots were busy maintaining altitude/ situational awareness relative to the landing field, but, mostly just kissing their asses goodbye,,,,,as any pilot could tell you!

Sidney Bliss
15-09-2008, 09:31
R I P

Benedikt
15-09-2008, 10:58
RIP
and heartfelt condolences to family and relatives




2007 they built some 7 new planes, as Putin rather angrily said on TV.
when is Russia going to stop to buy/lease/rely on old second hand planes that even the Chinese are not flying anymore.
I was listening to a comment from a Boeing representive who tried to tell the world that it was a chance in 1 in i don't know how many millions, and another statistic that it could happen again in 1 in another million or so....
he should tell it to the relatives. the comment was one statistic after the other.
If it would have bee a russian made palne we would have heard about how unsafe they are, how delapidated (sp?) and how bad the pilots are..
but it is a western plane so Boeing are trying to talk their way out of it.
How many more billions have to be pumped into the local costruction bureaux and factories before they start MASS producing safe, comfortable and reliable planes.Apparently not before 2015..
( from a news item on yesterdays TV news)

BeachBum
15-09-2008, 11:18
RIP
and heartfelt condolences to family and relatives




2007 they built some 7 new planes, as Putin rather angrily said on TV.
when is Russia going to stop to buy/lease/rely on old second hand planes that even the Chinese are not flying anymore.
I was listening to a comment from a Boeing representive who tried to tell the world that it was a chance in 1 in i don't know how many millions, and another statistic that it could happen again in 1 in another million or so....
he should tell it to the relatives. the comment was one statistic after the other.
If it would have bee a russian made palne we would have heard about how unsafe they are, how delapidated (sp?) and how bad the pilots are..
but it is a western plane so Boeing are trying to talk their way out of it.
How many more billions have to be pumped into the local costruction bureaux and factories before they start MASS producing safe, comfortable and reliable planes.Apparently not before 2015..
( from a news item on yesterdays TV news)
I agree in theory with you. However, I have to back up Boeing in this case. They make an exceptional aircraft. The 37 series is truly a great plane. PROVIDED it is adequately maintained! ,, and this is where the cheap Russians suck!.. The idiots running Aeroflot have ammassed a huge cash surplus that goes into Okolev and his croonies pockets instead of building up a reliable maintenance infrastructure. Russian maintenacne standards aren't even one fourth of US standards for 100 hour inspections, and complete overhauls. Not mentioning pilot error due to poor training standards, checks and mandatory simulator time. Simple risk analysis math says that incidents of this sort will occur on a much more frequent basis. So really, I would bet that Boeing is not to blame. The cheap-ass corrupt Russians are!

trebor
15-09-2008, 11:57
The problem arises when local airlines want to fly foreign aircraft (Boeing and Airbus) for prestigious reasons.
These planes cost a lot more in maintainance/safety and training than Russian jets.
Basically, they can't afford to maintain them.

BeachBum
15-09-2008, 12:24
The problem arises when local airlines want to fly foreign aircraft (Boeing and Airbus) for prestigious reasons.
These planes cost a lot more in maintainance/safety and training than Russian jets.
Basically, they can't afford to maintain them.
Sorry to disagree but the reasons are purely practicle. A 737-500 running on Stock CFM engines ( a GE engine) which even if outdated and TBO'd to hell are still far more fuel efficient and maintenance friendly than those in the closest Russian counterpart the TU-154 ,which incidently, is basically a Pig with wings! Dont be silly!.It ain't about the the prestige or appearance. Russian business decisions despite their all their 'VIP' loving buss__t are still dominated by simple economics!

trebor
15-09-2008, 12:39
Sorry to disagree but the reasons are purely practicle. A 737-500 running on Stock CFM engines ( a GE engine) which even if outdated and TBO'd to hell are still far more fuel efficient and maintenance friendly than those in the closest Russian counterpart the TU-154 ,which incidently, is basically a Pig with wings! Dont be silly!.It ain't about the the prestige or appearance. Russian business decisions despite their all their 'VIP' loving buss__t are still dominated by simple economics!

I'm not trying to sound like an expert ;) but foreign planes will need foreign know how (technicians) and spare parts. Also training.
If your customers feel safer in your planes you get more customers, that's simple economics.
Didn't mean to appear silly. ;)

Rustralian
15-09-2008, 14:39
It was interesting to read the criticism of Aeroflot in this post, which was intended to be about the sadness of a lot of people dieing, through what was a tragedy.

For those who are ready to blame the money hungry and greedy Execs at Aeroflot, remember that this is Aeroflot Nord a subsidiary and independent company of Aeroflot and not Aeroflot itself. You may also be interested to note that this 'ancient old plane that even the Chinese would not use' was simply leased from a leasing company and came from China Air, it had nothing to do with the plane being some old crate. Further the maintenance of Aeroflot Nord planes is done by Lufthansa, so their Boeing's are maintained and repaired by what should be highly competent and trained staff.

And no, I am not an expert, but my wife works for the company that sells them their spare parts (they are one of her clients) and knows where they are sent for servicing and who does it for them and yes, they buy plenty of spare parts and from what I can see maintain their planes properly.

As for Aeroflot not having any concerns about safety etc and bad training and placing all their money into the pocket of their Executives - this is the first accident by an Aeroflot airline since 1994 - which involved an A310 (even though this isn't actually Aeroflot) and Aeroflot have spent a great deal of money in making sure that they are an international carrier of international standard and have tried to overcome the sterotypical attitude towards them from Soviet days. I have flown with Aeroflot many times and I find that they operate good planes and have better service than many of the European carriers - especially on the Moscow - Europe flights, where the European carriers use the oldest planes in their fleets that are old clunkers. The Aeroflot planes are either the same age or younger and better equipped that the ageing fleet most of the Europeans airlines assign to the Moscow route.

As for bad Russian airlines, since 1970 there have been 28 fatal events involving airlines from the former Soviet Union (which includes Georgia, Ukraine and the Stans) while there have been 51 in the US for the same period (ignoring the 4 from 9/11). Transaero has been in operation since 1991 and has an accident free record and has achieved all required levels of quality control and maintenance standards to be a high quality airline operating at the best of European/EU standards - it is a Russian airline.

Perhaps rather than taking the opportunity to make general sterotypical criticism of Russian airlines (not that people even criticised the correct airline) people could stick to the purpose of the post and express their sympathy for those that have died and wait until the investigation of the accident is carried out to see what actually caused the accident.

All I am waiting to read is that this was a neocon Zionist plot to kill 8 Russian nuclear scientists and a Russian General that were travelling on the plane or that maybe it was a Kremlin plot intended to look like a neocon Zionist plot to discredit the neocon Zionists and the US Presidential Election candidates ... or maybe it was a plot by the Iranians made to look like a Kremlin conspiracy, designed to appear like a neocon Zionist conspiracy ... or maybe .... it was just a tragic and catastrophic accident that saw 88 people die, including a father die with his young daughter and a family of 4 all die together and a whole range of foreigners die in a foreign land away from their home, that we should just see as that, without recriminations or accusations.

RIP

BeachBum
15-09-2008, 14:40
I'm not trying to sound like an expert ;) but foreign planes will need foreign know how (technicians) and spare parts. Also training.
If your customers feel safer in your planes you get more customers, that's simple economics.
Didn't mean to appear silly. ;)
Actually, I believe in this respect you are absolutely correct.

"If your customers feel safer in your planes you get more customers, that's simple economics."

Correct for Russian customers who I believe equate safety with a Brand name. Which in the aviation industry is Boeing and Airbus. SO you are correct! If I may. what is your opinion of US customers? IMy belief is that the American consumer and more specifically, Aviation consumer is more educated to look past the Brand issue. I think American consumers also question the safety record of Airlines when buying. But this is also a moot point. Since American Aviation has stringent safety standards the American consumer can at least in theory rely on the safety standards, in general, for any particular US based Air Company.

Your opinion?

BeachBum
15-09-2008, 14:47
It was interesting to read the criticism of Aeroflot in this post, which was intended to be about the sadness of a lot of people dieing, through what was a tragedy.

For those who are ready to blame the money hungry and greedy Execs at Aeroflot, remember that this is Aeroflot Nord a subsidiary and independent company of Aeroflot and not Aeroflot itself. You may also be interested to note that this 'ancient old plane that even the Chinese would not use' was simply leased from a leasing company and came from China Air, it had nothing to do with the plane being some old crate. Further the maintenance of Aeroflot Nord planes is done by Lufthansa, so their Boeing's are maintained and repaired by what should be highly competent and trained staff.


RIP

Potatoe potato,,,,,,,Any way you slice it a 737/500 is an old aircraft. Which although it may be a great aircraft, which it is. It is still old. And Aeroflot Nord like all subsideries (spelling) utilizes second generation airfraft on feeder routes.

Recent news articles have indicated "engine failure" as the cause. IF you read my posts that is exactely what I was talking about.

Now 3 causes for engine failure:
1) Inadequate maintenance. Again what I cited.
2) Fuel starvation i.e. Pilot error. Again what I cited.
3) Component failure. Which means your wife is selling bad parts!

Transparent Theatre
15-09-2008, 14:51
The idiots running Aeroflot have ammassed a huge cash surplus

Clearly you know 0 about the aviation business.

The plane that crashed was AEROFLOT NORD.

Aeroflot Nord is a completely different airline which has franchised to use Aeroflot's NAME only. They have no access to Aeroflot's cash.

Aeroflot cancelled the franchise within hours of the crash, publicly saying "we have sold the right to use our flag too cheaply".

Rustralian
15-09-2008, 14:54
Recent news articles have indicated "engine failure" as the cause. IF you read my posts that is exactely what I was talking about.

Now 3 causes for engine failure:
1) Inadequate maintenance. Again what I cited.
2) Fuel starvation i.e. Pilot error. Again what I cited.
3) Component failure. Which means your wife is selling bad parts!

Again, assumptions are being made before the facts are made available. Is it not possible to wait until there are actual findings of fact before allocating blame.

Also, if the parts being supplied are bad, then it is the fault of the US manufacturer and poor manufacturing standards and procedures - all the parts for the Boeings are all supplied from the US ...!

Rustralian
15-09-2008, 15:03
Clearly you know 0 about the aviation business.

The plane that crashed was AEROFLOT NORD.

Aeroflot Nord is a completely different airline which has franchised to use Aeroflot's NAME only. They have no access to Aeroflot's cash.

Aeroflot cancelled the franchise within hours of the crash, publicly saying "we have sold the right to use our flag too cheaply".

I actually think that was a bit of Aeroflot PR bullshit to deflect the fall out, which is understandable as the main press coverage was the remaining bit of fuselage they found that said "Aeroflot" - minus the Nord part.

As far as I understand Aeroflot Nord have been flying about as long as I have been kicking and breathing and Aeroflot bought them out about 10 years ago, so they were a subsidiary, but like any other corporate empire, they were an independent company undertaking domestic flights only.

I also think it was Aeroflot which announced compensation of 1 million rubles per victim - which was a good PR move.

BeachBum
15-09-2008, 15:34
Again, assumptions are being made before the facts are made available. Is it not possible to wait until there are actual findings of fact before allocating blame.

Also, if the parts being supplied are bad, then it is the fault of the US manufacturer and poor manufacturing standards and procedures - all the parts for the Boeings are all supplied from the US ...!
Fist I can guarantee I know way more than you think about the aviation business. Are you really so naive to think that in Russia a company that leases out its name for use in not also getting something on the "back end". This is Russia! That is business as usual. Clearly you know knothing about the aviation business and Russian business in general.

As for parts, again your wifes company can indeed be held liable. Or have you never read anything "product liability" lawsuits.

Sellers (ooops sorry "re-sellers) of defect products are indeed liable for manufacturer faults!

And yes you are correct, Assumptions are being made. I am clearly ASSuming and citing media reports. So lets stick to the facts. There are none. But I will bet my bottom dollar:

Primary: "pilot error"; secondary: engine failure due to fuel starvation. ...Remember this!

Rustralian
15-09-2008, 15:40
And Aeroflot Nord like all subsideries (spelling) utilizes second generation airfraft on feeder routes.


Just trying to work out if you are suggesting that subsidiaries should be spelt that way or you have highlighted that you spelt it incorrectly... whichever, I will stick to subsidiaries as being the more correct English spelling.

BeachBum
15-09-2008, 15:43
Just trying to work out if you are suggesting that subsidiaries should be spelt that way or you have highlighted that you spelt it incorrectly... whichever, I will stick to subsidiaries as being the more correct English spelling.
My spellingj was alwasy terrible as are my tiping skilS! ))

anyways, I am in a crappy mood today so I hope you'll forgive me if i come off sounding like an asshole in these posts! )

Rustralian
15-09-2008, 15:58
Fist I can guarantee I know way more than you think about the aviation business. Are you really so naive to think that in Russia a company that leases out its name for use in not also getting something on the "back end". This is Russia! That is business as usual. Clearly you know knothing about the aviation business and Russian business in general.

As for parts, again your wifes company can indeed be held liable. Or have you never read anything "product liability" lawsuits.

Sellers (ooops sorry "re-sellers) of defect products are indeed liable for manufacturer faults!

And yes you are correct, Assumptions are being made. I am clearly ASSuming and citing media reports. So lets stick to the facts. There are none. But I will bet my bottom dollar, pilot error due to fuel starvation. Remember this!


I didn't mention anything about leasing out the Aeroflot name, so I am not sure why you are directing your comment to me - but perhaps your are confusing yourself. But if you are going to attack me for someone else's post that you didn't like, then get it right!

As for product liability I know a little about about the area. However, I was not engaging in a discussion about the jurisprudential obligations of sellers and buyers and the various liability laws that would be involved in a cross jurisdictional law suit involving different US States and the Russian laws (notwithstanding the express liability disclaimers contained in the various supply agreements and the voluntary submission to a specific jurisdiction for all litigation), I was merely pointing out, as you were laying blame for faulty parts on the company my wife works for, that the parts are all manufactured and sourced from the US - which would contradict your passion for the "superiority" of US safety and compliance.

And yes, you are most probably correct, pilot error is likely to be the cause, it so often is ... but let us bury the poor bastard before we condemn him for killing his passengers.

BeachBum
15-09-2008, 16:17
I didn't mention anything about leasing out the Aeroflot name, so I am not sure why you are directing your comment to me - but perhaps your are confusing yourself. But if you are going to attack me for someone else's post that you didn't like, then get it right!

As for product liability I know a little about about the area. However, I was not engaging in a discussion about the jurisprudential obligations of sellers and buyers and the various liability laws that would be involved in a cross jurisdictional law suit involving different US States and the Russian laws (notwithstanding the express liability disclaimers contained in the various supply agreements and the voluntary submission to a specific jurisdiction for all litigation), I was merely pointing out, as you were laying blame for faulty parts on the company my wife works for, that the parts are all manufactured and sourced from the US - which would contradict your passion for the "superiority" of US safety and compliance.

And yes, you are most probably correct, pilot error is likely to be the cause, it so often is ... but let us bury the poor bastard before we condemn him for killing his passengers.
As a former professional pilot myself, I have a different take on the 'poor bastard' scenario- I have a hard time feeling bad for a guy that buried his passangers.It ain't too difficult to read a weather prognog or Hold and return with adequate fuel reserves. But you are correct. Lets not lay blame first.

,,,,,,,,,and yes Transparent theater brought up the 'Aeroflot Nord',,,,,,,,, My apologies!

boscoe
15-09-2008, 16:21
I also think it was Aeroflot which announced compensation of 1 million rubles per victim - which was a good PR move.

1 million rubles is an insult not a 'good PR move' !!!

BeachBum
15-09-2008, 16:30
1 million rubles is an insult not a 'good PR move' !!!
I hate to go off thread. But can somebody please explain to me one economic fact.

Givern: A)Ticket prices on russian carriers are comparable to their Eurpoean counterparts , B) fuel costs are equivalent. C) Labor costs amount for the major operational expense.

How, then can carriers like Aeroflot, Transaero, et al. clain such small profits when you consider that they pay their employees slave wages. eg. I know a 777 captain for Aeroflot who makes 2800 US a month and a flight attendent who makes 1100. Compared to 250K in the states 50,000 yearly respectivel.

Rustralian
15-09-2008, 16:51
1 million rubles is an insult not a 'good PR move' !!!

It can be seen that way, but for a Russian family - which was most of the victims, it is a lot better than they would get in any other circumstance and they (Aeroflot) didn't have to make the offer (we still have to see if they follow through), so I am glad that they did it - irrespective of the merits of the amount offered.

Transparent Theatre
15-09-2008, 18:22
Meanwhile, back with the crash...

... it's become clearer today that the crash-site (onto the railway lines) wasn't accidental...

... seems the Captain was trying to direct the plane away from nearby adjacent housing, although he knew he was already a dead man himself.

Respect is due.

BeachBum
15-09-2008, 19:17
Meanwhile, back with the crash...

... it's become clearer today that the crash-site (onto the railway lines) wasn't accidental...

... seems the Captain was trying to direct the plane away from nearby adjacent housing, although he knew he was already a dead man himself.

Respect is due.
There isn't much directing you can do in a 70000 lb aircraft on one engine, under near zero visiblity conditions. The Hollywood stereotype of the 'doomed' pilot avoiding populated areas is baloney. Prvovided you are not in a non-recoverable dive any pilot worth his salt would have been directing the aircraft into a controlled crash-skid in hopes of not losing all souls on board. Sorry to bust your theory......

El_Desaparecido
16-09-2008, 13:12
And there is the same story again and again after every crash, "engine failure suspected as cause of the crash". It seems that people will never stop to believe that planes just fall from the sky if an engine fails.
You got another one, remember? Although performance decreases significantly of course, you can still fly and even climb on one engine. You donīt just fall to the ground like a brick.
Engine failures are probably the most trained defects in pilot training (in fact you fly around on one engine for most of the time on the simulator).

An engine lost can CONTRIBUTE to disaster, but it canīt be the sole factor that brings down an aircraft (as there is almost never one single cause for a crash but always a chain of events).

is4fun
16-09-2008, 16:26
It was interesting to read the criticism of Aeroflot in this post, which was intended to be about the sadness of a lot of people dieing, through what was a tragedy.

For those who are ready to blame the money hungry and greedy Execs at Aeroflot, remember that this is Aeroflot Nord a subsidiary and independent company of Aeroflot and not Aeroflot itself. You may also be interested to note that this 'ancient old plane that even the Chinese would not use' was simply leased from a leasing company and came from China Air, it had nothing to do with the plane being some old crate. Further the maintenance of Aeroflot Nord planes is done by Lufthansa, so their Boeing's are maintained and repaired by what should be highly competent and trained staff.

And no, I am not an expert, but my wife works for the company that sells them their spare parts (they are one of her clients) and knows where they are sent for servicing and who does it for them and yes, they buy plenty of spare parts and from what I can see maintain their planes properly.

As for Aeroflot not having any concerns about safety etc and bad training and placing all their money into the pocket of their Executives - this is the first accident by an Aeroflot airline since 1994 - which involved an A310 (even though this isn't actually Aeroflot) and Aeroflot have spent a great deal of money in making sure that they are an international carrier of international standard and have tried to overcome the sterotypical attitude towards them from Soviet days. I have flown with Aeroflot many times and I find that they operate good planes and have better service than many of the European carriers - especially on the Moscow - Europe flights, where the European carriers use the oldest planes in their fleets that are old clunkers. The Aeroflot planes are either the same age or younger and better equipped that the ageing fleet most of the Europeans airlines assign to the Moscow route.

As for bad Russian airlines, since 1970 there have been 28 fatal events involving airlines from the former Soviet Union (which includes Georgia, Ukraine and the Stans) while there have been 51 in the US for the same period (ignoring the 4 from 9/11). Transaero has been in operation since 1991 and has an accident free record and has achieved all required levels of quality control and maintenance standards to be a high quality airline operating at the best of European/EU standards - it is a Russian airline.

Perhaps rather than taking the opportunity to make general sterotypical criticism of Russian airlines (not that people even criticised the correct airline) people could stick to the purpose of the post and express their sympathy for those that have died and wait until the investigation of the accident is carried out to see what actually caused the accident.

All I am waiting to read is that this was a neocon Zionist plot to kill 8 Russian nuclear scientists and a Russian General that were travelling on the plane or that maybe it was a Kremlin plot intended to look like a neocon Zionist plot to discredit the neocon Zionists and the US Presidential Election candidates ... or maybe it was a plot by the Iranians made to look like a Kremlin conspiracy, designed to appear like a neocon Zionist conspiracy ... or maybe .... it was just a tragic and catastrophic accident that saw 88 people die, including a father die with his young daughter and a family of 4 all die together and a whole range of foreigners die in a foreign land away from their home, that we should just see as that, without recriminations or accusations.

RIP


I'm not a real expert in flying but I am an expert in not trying to experience dying. People have the right to question why planes go down. Why would I wish to even board a plane if the previous one landed like the one did in Perm? I seriously need not take your word because your girlfriend told you the company she works for is a great supplier of parts. Man! My sympathies do go out to the one's that lost thier families but more so to the ones that have tried to prevent Sh*t like this happening and were not able to anything about it.

Please elaborate as to the executive making money aspect that you stated in this post? I did not read any blame on this thread as regards to greedy executives.

BeachBum
16-09-2008, 16:46
And there is the same story again and again after every crash, "engine failure suspected as cause of the crash". It seems that people will never stop to believe that planes just fall from the sky if an engine fails.
You got another one, remember? Although performance decreases significantly of course, you can still fly and even climb on one engine. You donīt just fall to the ground like a brick.
Engine failures are probably the most trained defects in pilot training (in fact you fly around on one engine for most of the time on the simulator).

An engine lost can CONTRIBUTE to disaster, but it canīt be the sole factor that brings down an aircraft (as there is almost never one single cause for a crash but always a chain of events).

Perhaps I should have better explained my response regarding the limited ability to direct the aircraft. I was referring to an aircraft with one engine out, and in a non-recoverable orientation.Sorry if I was not more explicit.

Finally somebody who has a vague understanding of heavy aircraft flight characteristics! Thank you Mr. El-Desperiacio!! )))

kharon
16-09-2008, 17:01
By The Way
Why Nobody Turn Off Mobile Phones In Russian Flights
Despite The Announcement About It???

I Was Really Shocked To See People Making The Mobile Muted And Putting In Pocket Again:11513::11513:

OuterSpace
16-09-2008, 17:22
By The Way
Why Nobody Turn Off Mobile Phones In Russian Flights
Despite The Announcement About It???

I Was Really Shocked To See People Making The Mobile Muted And Putting In Pocket Again:11513::11513:

Yeah it happened to me several times.Sometimes they even dont bother to mute it.
In a flight during landing approarch the girl`s who sits right next to me accross corridor telephone ringed and i became crazy and started to say her to shutdown it but she was looking at me with a stupid looking...

And also i saw a girl who was talking until plane`s take off and she opened her phone as soos as plane`s tires touch the ground...

I dont understand why they can not live without phone at least couple of minutes...They can open it when plane totally stops..And why they dont turn off their phone during the flight... It is dangerous..

OuterSpace
16-09-2008, 17:35
And there is the same story again and again after every crash, "engine failure suspected as cause of the crash". It seems that people will never stop to believe that planes just fall from the sky if an engine fails.
You got another one, remember? Although performance decreases significantly of course, you can still fly and even climb on one engine. You donīt just fall to the ground like a brick.
Engine failures are probably the most trained defects in pilot training (in fact you fly around on one engine for most of the time on the simulator).

An engine lost can CONTRIBUTE to disaster, but it canīt be the sole factor that brings down an aircraft (as there is almost never one single cause for a crash but always a chain of events).

Yeah agree with you
In aviation history there were losts of cases which planes could able to continue their remaining engine without problem..

And also even without any engine!!! But it very very rare in Airliner History for such kind of big airliners..

People think if both of engines stops plane would crash like a iron ball.
It is not.Plane have a altitude a speed and can glide...
In 1983 a pilot successfully could able to land a Boeing 767 without working engine..But there were some important things came together..
He knew the region he flied.He several times landed that airport.He had been trained AirGliders before and also engine failure happened enough altitiude so he could glide his plane...If it happened lower altitude it would not be possible...

For more information check this link...

Gimli Glider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Gimli_Glider_performing_slip.JPG" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Gimli_Glider_performing_slip.JPG/260px-Gimli_Glider_performing_slip.JPG"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/4/49/Gimli_Glider_performing_slip.JPG/260px-Gimli_Glider_performing_slip.JPG

米乐龙
16-09-2008, 17:52
Yeah it happened to me several times.Sometimes they even dont bother to mute it.
In a flight during landing approarch the girl`s who sits right next to me accross corridor telephone ringed and i became crazy and started to say her to shutdown it but she was looking at me with a stupid looking...

And also i saw a girl who was talking until plane`s take off and she opened her phone as soos as plane`s tires touch the ground...

I dont understand why they can not live without phone at least couple of minutes...They can open it when plane totally stops..And why they dont turn off their phone during the flight... It is dangerous..

Have you been to the cinema here in Moscow? Nobody mutes their phones and whenever there is a call they always answer it during the movie. So no, Russians, especially Russian girls, cannot live without their phones even for a few seconds. Seen Russian girls texting on their mobiles while driving? I wonder how many accidents that causes.

BeachBum
16-09-2008, 17:53
Yeah agree with you
In aviation history there were losts of cases which planes could able to continue their remaining engine without problem..

And also even without any engine!!! But it very very rare in Airliner History for such kind of big airliners..

People think if both of engines stops plane would crash like a iron ball.
It is not.Plane have a altitude a speed and can glide...
In 1983 a pilot successfully could able to land a Boeing 767 without working engine..But there were some important things came together..
He knew the region he flied.He several times landed that airport.He had been trained AirGliders before and also engine failure happened enough altitiude so he could glide his plane...If it happened lower altitude it would not be possible...

For more information check this link...

Gimli Glider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider)
I am laughing right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! XE XE XE!!!!!!!!..... Glide a 767 !!!!.........

Dude,,,, a 767 has the glide characteristics of a brick with paper wings!!!!!!!

XE XE XE!!!!!!....

What was it Newman said,,,,,,, " Oh the HUMANITY!!!!!! "

XE XE XE!!!!

Aleydis
16-09-2008, 17:55
By The Way
Why Nobody Turn Off Mobile Phones In Russian Flights
Despite The Announcement About It???

I Was Really Shocked To See People Making The Mobile Muted And Putting In Pocket Again:11513::11513:

It is not a problem that pertains to RF. Some people are just careless / stupid or simply know nothing about aircraft. A couple of weeks ago I was on board of an A321 taking off from Geneva (a Swiss flight) and some a**hole (American judging by the accent, though not sure) sitted in the window seat (I was in the aisle) was sorting stuff out with his gf (I assume) as we were taking off. I was beside myself. :rant: safety rules are there for a reason -- is that so hard to grasp?

OuterSpace
16-09-2008, 18:07
I am laughing right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! XE XE XE!!!!!!!!..... Glide a 767 !!!!.........

Dude,,,, a 767 has the glide characteristics of a brick with paper wings!!!!!!!

XE XE XE!!!!!!....

What was it Newman said,,,,,,, " Oh the HUMANITY!!!!!! "

XE XE XE!!!!


I dont understand why you laugh
This flight happened He could able to land whole plane without any casuality

In Wikipedia they say `The crew was able to glide the aircraft safely to an emergency landing at Gimli Industrial Park Airport, a former airbase at Gimli, Manitoba`

And i didnt give that nickname `Gimli Glide` and of course with using gliding word in my post i did not mean gliding of that Boeing like standard gliders!!!

In this incident wikipedia is not my only information source i also watched Tv documentary about it ( Mayday (TV Series - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_(TV_Series)) )

Orion
16-09-2008, 18:35
Double posted...see below

Orion
16-09-2008, 18:36
Yeah it happened to me several times.Sometimes they even dont bother to mute it.
In a flight during landing approarch the girl`s who sits right next to me accross corridor telephone ringed and i became crazy and started to say her to shutdown it but she was looking at me with a stupid looking...

And also i saw a girl who was talking until plane`s take off and she opened her phone as soos as plane`s tires touch the ground...

I dont understand why they can not live without phone at least couple of minutes...They can open it when plane totally stops..And why they dont turn off their phone during the flight... It is dangerous..

Cell phones on planes...you have to turn them off because it would be to expensive and laborious to test each and every model to see if its Electro Magnetic Signal would interfere. The airlines don't want to spend this money to sort the overwhelmingly fine from the potential of one having an effect.

News: Why? Tell Me Why! :: Cell Phones on Planes (http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/news-why-tell-me-why--cell-phones-on-planes.html)

And, as far as I could find, there has never been a reported incident where a cell phone did cause an interference with a plane's avionics.

米乐龙
16-09-2008, 19:17
As far as I know it interferes with the pilot's and co-pilot's headset etc. Just like when you put a phone next to speakers it makes a beep beep sound. Same on an aircraft. This is maybe why the pilot was not doing as the control tower wanted, perhaps couldn't hear clearly?

fenrir
16-09-2008, 23:19
The EU apparently doesn't think it is so dangerous.

ABC News: EU Allows Mobile Phones on Airplanes (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/BusinessTravel/wireStory?id=4603176)

BeachBum
19-09-2008, 11:51
The EU apparently doesn't think it is so dangerous.

ABC News: EU Allows Mobile Phones on Airplanes (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/BusinessTravel/wireStory?id=4603176)
on occasion I used my mobile during flights while driving. A big FAA No no.. but I did. never interfered with headset op/