latest news 747 crash image
stuttgart
Operational history
In August 2008, a total of 934 MD-80 aircraft (all variants) were in airline service, including American Airlines (304), Delta Air Lines (118), Alitalia (74), Scandinavian Airlines System (44), and Allegiant Air (35). Other operators fly fewer numbers of the type.[4]
16 August 2005; West Caribbean Airways MD82; near Machiques, Venezuela: The aircraft was on an international flight from Panama City, Panama to Martinique when the crew reported to air traffic control that the aircraft was experiencing some kind of engine problem and requested a descent from cruising altitude of 33,000 feet down to 14,000 feet. The crew later reported that both engines were experiencing problems and that the aircraft was not controllable. All eight crew members and 152 passengers were killed.
Fatal Events for Airlines from Latin America and the Caribbean
16 September 2007; One-Two-Go Airlines MD82; Phuket, Thailand: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Bangkok (DMK) to Phuket (HKT). After landing, the aircraft skidded off the runway, impacted several trees, and caught fire. There was reportedly heavy rain and poor visibility at the time of the crash. There were at least 89 deaths, including 85 of the 123 passengers and five of the seven crew members.
Fatal Events Involving Asian Airlines
30 November 2007; Atlasjet MD83; near Keciborlu, Turkey: The plane was on a domestic flight from Istanbul to Isparta when it disappeared from radar screens. The crew had requested permission to land shortly before the aircraft crashed in mountainous terrain near the town of Keciborlu, about 12km (7.5 miles) from the Isparta airport. All seven crew members and 50 passengers were killed.
Description: Audio (MP3), Video (MP4, WMV, YouTube)
Fatal Events Involving MD80 Series Aircraft
Fatal Events Involving Atlasjet
20 August 2008; Spanair MD82; Madrid, Spain: The aircraft crashed shortly after attempting a takeoff for a scheduled domestic flight from Madrid to Las Palmas in the Canary Islands. Early reports indicate that one of the engines caught fire during the takeoff, the aircraft became airbore, and that the crew set the aircraft down in a area to the right of the departure runway. The aircraft broke up and caught fire.
Should read 2 MD 80s crashed in one year, 2007 (not 1997).
Answer
No. The MD-80 / DC-9 series, like the B-737 were (are) built for high frequency operation to smaller airports. Whereas the ratio of MD80/90/DC-9's vs. say, the 747, is probably 10-1, the MD-80s will make probably 20-30 take-off and landings for every takeoff and landing done by a B-747. A B-747 will almost always use a 10-12,000 foot runway whereas an MD80 will very often find itself taking off on a 6,500' runway.
So yes, more MD80's have crashed than have say, Dassault Mercures (aircraft designed for similar roles) but look at the number of aircraft built, hours flown, take-offs and landings made, etc.
And actually, many more MD80's have crashed in 2007 (and 1997 for that matter) than you point out. A crash doesn't necessarily require flaming debris and scores of dismembered bodies. More often than not, the crew and PAX walk away from these unsensational accidents but we don't read about it because itâs not very exciting news. (Senator Obama's MD80 almost fell apart in midair and lost control just last month. We only heard about that because Obama was on board)
No. The MD-80 / DC-9 series, like the B-737 were (are) built for high frequency operation to smaller airports. Whereas the ratio of MD80/90/DC-9's vs. say, the 747, is probably 10-1, the MD-80s will make probably 20-30 take-off and landings for every takeoff and landing done by a B-747. A B-747 will almost always use a 10-12,000 foot runway whereas an MD80 will very often find itself taking off on a 6,500' runway.
So yes, more MD80's have crashed than have say, Dassault Mercures (aircraft designed for similar roles) but look at the number of aircraft built, hours flown, take-offs and landings made, etc.
And actually, many more MD80's have crashed in 2007 (and 1997 for that matter) than you point out. A crash doesn't necessarily require flaming debris and scores of dismembered bodies. More often than not, the crew and PAX walk away from these unsensational accidents but we don't read about it because itâs not very exciting news. (Senator Obama's MD80 almost fell apart in midair and lost control just last month. We only heard about that because Obama was on board)
Is Europe going to lift their flight restrictions or not? The contradicting news is confusing!?
Lea
I keep seeing that the airlines are calling it a European "mess" and that they are pushing the ministers to open airspace even if that ash cloud remains there.The scientists are all saying it is still not safe. what gives? I am set to fly to Europe (Amsterdam) Friday and I can say that even if they lift the restrictions I am still scared to death of going. My husband is not worried and thinks we will be able to fly but I just want to cancel until we figure out what is going on.
It seems it is economic related. Cant they find a way to get stranded people back home without planes. Cant they use ships? I hate to say this...and I KNOW it has an economic impact but I do not think that lives are worth being lost over the risk. Sure, the test flights may have gone well but there only has to be that ONE plane that gets the glass/sand mixture into their engines and it will crash. That is like knowing there is a terrorist on the loose and knowing he will be on a plane in the next few days and still continuing to fly. Would you want it to be YOUR plane he was on?
I think the airlines need to put safety first.
Answer
I agree with Fifi here. KLM flew a 737 through the cloud yesterday very successfully, however, today and F-16 ruined its engine flying through it because of glass particles in the air. So, no airline in their right mind is going to risk flying through the dust cloud when they are not certain if that cloud will be harmless or completely destroy an engine. In 1989, a KLM 747 flew through a dust cloud and all four engines stalled. They later started them, but only after scaring the crap out of all passengers on board. Every airline wants to fly again, but none of them wants to be the airline that crashed because they couldn't wait until it was safe.
I agree with Fifi here. KLM flew a 737 through the cloud yesterday very successfully, however, today and F-16 ruined its engine flying through it because of glass particles in the air. So, no airline in their right mind is going to risk flying through the dust cloud when they are not certain if that cloud will be harmless or completely destroy an engine. In 1989, a KLM 747 flew through a dust cloud and all four engines stalled. They later started them, but only after scaring the crap out of all passengers on board. Every airline wants to fly again, but none of them wants to be the airline that crashed because they couldn't wait until it was safe.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment