No, its not. There are many 30+ year old planes flying around safely.
It really depends on the number of flight/pressurization cycles rather than the actual age.
Domestic commercial jets usually have a lifespan of 10ish years but can go considerably beyond that if they're not heavily used. Big international jets last a long time as well because they have limited number of flights.
I have this question, for someone who knows more about how it is to handle a plane.... So apparently the plane struggled to gain enough altitude, but was there nothing that the pilots could've done to at least avoid hitting that beacon? In the re-inactments we've seen, it looks as though there were plenty of open space, but the plane flew directly over the beacon. Could that suggest a degree of pilot error, either in not trying to avoid the beacon or in taking the risk that the plane was going to be high enough? Or would even such a slight maneuvering of the plane during the take off (especially if the plane was struggling a bit) have been extremely difficult to manage?
It really depends on the number of flight/pressurization cycles rather than the actual age.
Domestic commercial jets usually have a lifespan of 10ish years but can go considerably beyond that if they're not heavily used. Big international jets last a long time as well because they have limited number of flights.
For the fleet I work flight hours are really the most important number but even then you can go to heavy maintenance and fly even longer. Look at the Hercules aircraft that the military uses. They have are very very old with long hours on them but can still fly.
__________________
"With all those ring cups in my eyes, ears and butt, I can't follow what you're saying"
-hockeyrules123
dont talk about things you have no clue about! This plane wasnt permitted to fly in EU because the engine is too noisy!
Uhhh - nope.
That specific plane was banned from EU Airspace because it lacked required safety equipment and did not have a certificate of airworthiness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattia Mei
EU COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1144/2009
of 26 November 2009
amending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are
subject to an operating ban within the Community
"(113) The competent authorities of the Russian Federation
informed the Commission on 9 November 2009 that
they modified their decision of 25 April 2008,
whereby they excluded from operations into the
Community aircraft on the AOC of 13 Russian air
carriers. These aircraft were not equipped to perform
international flights as per ICAO standards (not
equipped with TAWS/E-GPWS) and their certificate of
airworthiness had expired and had not been renewed.
(114) According to the new decision, the following aircraft are
excluded from operations into, within and out of the
Community:
(...)
i) Tatarstan Airlines: Yakovlev Yak-42D: RA-42374, RA-42433;"
For the fleet I work flight hours are really the most important number but even then you can go to heavy maintenance and fly even longer. Look at the Hercules aircraft that the military uses. They have are very very old with long hours on them but can still fly.
The thing I think people are missing is the fact that the actual airplane, the skeleton, wings, ect, can last a very, very long time. You need to replace specific parts and engines inside that, but the actual age of the structure is not that affected from long durations of use.
You are less likely to incur an accident by air than you are on the road but you're also less likely to survive an air accident if one should occur. Those are the risks of flying and while there are obvious precautions and rules that need to be followed, there is always room for unpredictability. When a gigantic metal machine flying thousands of miles up in the air decides to pull a surprise on you, there's very little you can do at that point. I think North American leagues have paid attention to the safety of their players during travel and I assume so based on the committments the North American professional leagues have with reputable airlines that fly their players from city to city.
I can't speak for the incident in Russia as I haven't read any details about what they think may have caused the crash but if the reasons are anything that were easily preventative with some attention and care, then I would hope that this tragedy will convince some and remind others that there's a responsibility to have everything done within one's power to ensure planes meet the highest standards before people are allowed on them (regardless of what they do for a living).
But regulation of industry is evil, or so I've been told by certain types of politicians...
I have this question, for someone who knows more about how it is to handle a plane.... So apparently the plane struggled to gain enough altitude, but was there nothing that the pilots could've done to at least avoid hitting that beacon? In the re-inactments we've seen, it looks as though there were plenty of open space, but the plane flew directly over the beacon. Could that suggest a degree of pilot error, either in not trying to avoid the beacon or in taking the risk that the plane was going to be high enough? Or would even such a slight maneuvering of the plane during the take off (especially if the plane was struggling a bit) have been extremely difficult to manage?
I was wondering sort of the same thing, I just wanted to understand the whole technical aspect of why it didn't gain altitude, and also if it's logical to have that tower at the location it was at taking into account the probability of such incidence, meaning that it was directly in the path of an ascending plane
The plane that Lokomotiv was flying on entered service in 1993, any time you fly on a 747, you're probably flying on one that entered service anywhere from the 70's and later. The difference between flying in Russia and say Canada are the regulations surrounding maintenance. You can have a plane that is a year old, but if it's not probably maintained, it could be even more dangerous than flying on a plane from the 1960's that has been meticulously maintained.
One of my friends who's a big cold war history buff told me that the Russian weren't able to afford enough fuel for military training purposes so they didn't have many hours in their plane. If it was that bad for the military, imagine how bad it would be for civilian aircraft.
It really depends on the number of flight/pressurization cycles rather than the actual age.
Domestic commercial jets usually have a lifespan of 10ish years but can go considerably beyond that if they're not heavily used. Big international jets last a long time as well because they have limited number of flights.
You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
Most US fleets, especially domestic, average way over 10 years old. Aircraft are put through extensive checks and maintenance after XX number of hours. A "lifespan" of an aircraft can be extended for perpetuity provided they go through the necessary checks and maintenance. Why are aircraft replaced then after 20-30 years? The maintenance becomes too costly, and generally the aircraft is less fuel efficient than current models.
I have this question, for someone who knows more about how it is to handle a plane.... So apparently the plane struggled to gain enough altitude, but was there nothing that the pilots could've done to at least avoid hitting that beacon? In the re-inactments we've seen, it looks as though there were plenty of open space, but the plane flew directly over the beacon. Could that suggest a degree of pilot error, either in not trying to avoid the beacon or in taking the risk that the plane was going to be high enough? Or would even such a slight maneuvering of the plane during the take off (especially if the plane was struggling a bit) have been extremely difficult to manage?
A commercial aircraft is a heavy aircraft and isn't designed for quick maneuvers like a Cessna or fighter jet. It's not like you can yank the yoke to the left and immediately make a drastic change of course. When turning a commercial aircraft you have to think a few seconds ahead, kinda like driving a 16 wheeler. Furthermore, if the aircraft is only a couple hundred feet off the ground and struggling for altitude, the last thing you want to do is make a hard turn, and possibly lose control of the aircraft. Your focus is generally on stabilizing the aircraft, troubleshooting, and trying to gain altitude. Although the beacon/antenna maybe obvious after the crash, in the heat of the moment, when you're trying to salvage your aircraft you might not notice the skinny mast off on your wing.
Last edited by LetsGoIslanders: 09-08-2011 at 12:00 PM.
traveling on train would be the best option. economically, safety, and comfort. best in all categories
Yes, rapid trains, at least between the major urban centers, could be a smart way to go for a variety of reasons. A lot of cities that are less than about 600 km apart could use such a system and have it be extremely convenient, and in the NHL there are a lot of cities between which such a commute could be used.
traveling on train would be the best option. economically, safety, and comfort. best in all categories
Really?
I'm sure teams would sign up for that 19 hour trip from NYC to Chicago or that 48 hour trip from Chicago to LA. The US isn't Switzerland where you can get anywhere in three or four hours.
An accident is an accident. An accident is more likely on a plane that is poorly designed, poorly maintained, and operated by under qualified pilots and cost cutting carriers. But they still happen everywhere and is a mathmatical inevetablility regardless off the odds. The problem is cost effectivness. How much more is it going to cost to charter a second plane to split a traveling team in two? A significant amount more than rebuilding a squad from scratch possibly a hundred years down the road.
BTW I've always been in favour of implementing game series (even just back to backs) where ever possible to reduce travel and operating cost. Lessening the chance of something like this would be an added advantage.
A commercial aircraft is a heavy aircraft and isn't designed for quick maneuvers like a Cessna or fighter jet. It's not like you can yank the yoke to the left and immediately make a drastic change of course. When turning a commercial aircraft you have to think a few seconds ahead, kinda like driving a 16 wheeler. Furthermore, if the aircraft is only a couple hundred feet off the ground and struggling for altitude, the last thing you want to do is make a hard turn, and possibly lose control of the aircraft. Your focus is generally on stabilizing the aircraft, troubleshooting, and trying to gain altitude. Although the beacon/antenna maybe obvious after the crash, in the heat of the moment, when you're trying to salvage your aircraft you might not notice the skinny mast off on your wing.
I think the last part of what you said more so answers the likely scenario the pilots faced. I wasn't asking about some "hard turn" or "drastic change of course", but just enough to try and avoid flying directly over the beacon.
I'm sure teams would sign up for that 19 hour trip from NYC to Chicago or that 48 hour trip from Chicago to LA. The US isn't Switzerland where you can get anywhere in three or four hours.
Even between NY and Chicago, which I presonally wasn't considering, you're likely talking nothing more than 4 or 5 hours with a bullet-type train.
I think the last part of what you said more so answers the likely scenario the pilots faced. I wasn't asking about some "hard turn" or "drastic change of course", but just enough to try and avoid flying directly over the beacon.
I would guess, key word: "guess", that the pilots were more concerned about getting the plane to a higher altitude than to avoid a beacon they probably didn't see or think about in that situation.
As soon as the nose is up, the pilots only see sky, and when the nose is down, they only look at instruments.
The plane that Lokomotiv was flying on entered service in 1993, any time you fly on a 747, you're probably flying on one that entered service anywhere from the 70's and later. The difference between flying in Russia and say Canada are the regulations surrounding maintenance. You can have a plane that is a year old, but if it's not probably maintained, it could be even more dangerous than flying on a plane from the 1960's that has been meticulously maintained.
Yeah I once flew on a KLM 747 that looked pretty old, and a MD-11 and MD-80 also. I think MDs aren't built anymore since 15 years at least. Northwest still used some DC-9(?) not a long time ago.
Even between NY and Chicago, which I presonally wasn't considering, you're likely talking nothing more than 4 or 5 hours with a bullet-type train.
That 4-5 hours is double+ what it takes to fly.
Those relative times would only increase in the west where the high speed lines would be much more spread out and require trains to travel out of their way. You also have the issue of the mountains.
Vancouver to Denver is maybe a 3-3.5 hour flight direct. By train, even high speed, it would likely take at least 12 hours, possibly significantly more due to the lack of a direct route.
And that's even assuming someone invested the hundreds of billions required to build a national high speed rail network.
The other thing to consider is the psychological impact of that additional time. Many players (and people in general) are more than willing to put up with an uncomfortable plane to be home 3 hours earlier than if they were in a comfortable rail car, especially when the cost to them is the same.
Does anyone know the frecuency of accidents on Bus rides in the minor leagues? (Mostly in baseball and hockey, I guess) not talking tragedies but random crashes can't be that uncommon. I would bet those rides are more dangerous.
Of course, that when there's a plane accident the outcome is huge and it's a tragedy. But considering all the air travel that there's out there in this modern world. I say we really can't ask for more in regards of air travel safety (talking in general here.)
Those relative times would only increase in the west where the high speed lines would be much more spread out and require trains to travel out of their way. You also have the issue of the mountains.
Vancouver to Denver is maybe a 3-3.5 hour flight direct. By train, even high speed, it would likely take at least 12 hours, possibly significantly more due to the lack of a direct route.
And that's even assuming someone invested the hundreds of billions required to build a national high speed rail network.
The other thing to consider is the psychological impact of that additional time. Many players (and people in general) are more than willing to put up with an uncomfortable plane to be home 3 hours earlier than if they were in a comfortable rail car, especially when the cost to them is the same.
Fine, but it's not 19 hours as the other poster suggested. And I also said that I was talking about rapid trains being used for shorter distances, less than 600 km, whereas between NY and Chicago it's over 1100 km.
Such a system could be used between almost all of the teams in the northeast section of the continent, between the midwest teams, between the teams in north and southern California, and between Vancouver and the Alberta teams (though admittedly to much greater expense in building the route through the mountains).
traveling on train would be the best option. economically, safety, and comfort. best in all categories
If you could get a high speed rail in sure that may work but with the current system no it just could not work those 2 week road trips would become 4 week road trips etc.
You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
Most US fleets, especially domestic, average way over 10 years old. Aircraft are put through extensive checks and maintenance after XX number of hours. A "lifespan" of an aircraft can be extended for perpetuity provided they go through the necessary checks and maintenance. Why are aircraft replaced then after 20-30 years? The maintenance becomes too costly, and generally the aircraft is less fuel efficient than current models.
10ish years was meant before a major overhaul maintenance is done. Certainly the physical jet is older than that but it's similar to a house remodel. Virtually everything is replaced/updated.
From all accounts this jet (and others very similar) were flown well beyond that without anything near the overhaul maintenance that a jet in the US or EU receives, nevermind the routine maintenance.
In the US, a jet which just received routine maintenance (typical pre/post flight stuff) would indeed be considered ancient at 20ish years.
Since the 50's when professional sports were in the baby steps of flying everywhere (they used to take buses and trains) there has only been about a dozen plane crashes.
But if you want to save yourself the time, of the 10 crashes, only 2 occured in the 90's or later. Aside from a 2001 crash there hasn't been one in 10 years.
I obviously speak from no experience with dealing with airplane safety but i would have to guess that the professional leagues/team's owners take it extremely seriously, not to mention the exponential growth of plane safety, it has to be miles ahead of what it was in the 50's, 60's, and 70's.
This was just a terrible, terrible accident that i'm sure the KHL will not allow to happen again.
