Another plane crash due to probable poor maintenance. A Caspian Airways (joint venture between Russia and Iran) plane crashed just outside Tehran in Iran on its way to Yerevan in Armenia.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_iran_plane
Perhaps there should be much tougher regulations for maintenance as well as parts used during maintenance of planes. I was always under the impression that the airline companies had to follow a rather rigid maintenance schedule, with each plane being inspected on a regular basis. In any business, the chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, in this case it seems that the weak link was the maintenance.
Here in the US we have a serious problem of rampant laziness, most everyone is looking for the easiest way of getting something done, or to reach any goal. Tragically, in some instances this attitude can cause the loss of life or other casualties. It won't matter how rigid we make an inspection standard if everybody doesn't follow it to the letter.
As morbid as it sounds, sometimes it takes a tragedy to serve as a "wake up call" and entice the people in charge to actually do something instead of just postulating about how bad it is.
| Vrythramax wrote: |
Here in the US we have a serious problem of rampant laziness, most everyone is looking for the easiest way of getting something done, or to reach any goal. Tragically, in some instances this attitude can cause the loss of life or other casualties. It won't matter how rigid we make an inspection standard if everybody doesn't follow it to the letter.
|
That's what the FAA is for. They do regular inspections to prevent such things. I don't know how often they inspect aircraft maintenance shops, but they inspect landing instruments every 6 months at every airport (military and civilian) in the US. Any airport that fails inspection is shut down immediately, and only re-opened after they fix all the problems found by inspectors, and pass a new inspection. That makes failing an inspection a BIG deal, I assure you that everyone involved takes it very seriously... their jobs are at stake.
Also, a little fact that's nice to know... When the FAA investigates the cause of a crash, they trace it back. If it was because of faulty aircraft maintenance, they would find the maintainers who signed the plane off as flight-worthy and arrest them. Lazy or incompetent workers have the threat of jail time to keep them diligent.
I presume Iran and Russia have similar agencies, but I don't know the quality of those agencies. | ocalhoun wrote: |
... Also, a little fact that's nice to know... When the FAA investigates the cause of a crash, they trace it back. If it was because of faulty aircraft maintenance, they would find the maintainers who signed the plane off as flight-worthy and arrest them. Lazy or incompetent workers have the threat of jail time to keep them diligent.
I presume Iran and Russia have similar agencies, but I don't know the quality of those agencies. |
The threat of prison can be a rather sobering thing. 
I would also imagine that other countries have similar agencies to oversee the aircraft, it would sure make many people rest a bit easier on long foreign flights if they knew they were in capable hands. Who can really be sure when dealing with a foreign (not your own) government and it's policies? The thought that we should all have one standard for safety is alluring, but completely unrealistic, and at least at this point in time an un-obtainable goal. Opposing governments can't even agree on what it is they are dis-agreeing about! That may sound like a joke...but it's true.
*sorry for the edit, there was a glaring error 
Last edited by Vrythramax on Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:56 am; edited 1 time in totalIn the case if Iran and Russia, I'm certain that there must be FAA equivalent agencies in place, however of course people get bought off. I can't imagine the last accident involving a US plane however. Except the two in the Hudson and Buffalo and those seemed to have had other causes than maintenance. The state of the economy would be worrisome, as that is usually when people are seriously cutting corners, but since the US is quite good with litigation in class action suits against the airline companies, and those companies are going through very difficult times, I would imagine that they would be even more vigilant than before in their maintenance schedules.
When I buy flight tickets, I seriously avoid airlines from some countries. I never would've flown with a joint venture between Iran and Russia... American or west-european, I also trust japanese and big well-known airlines from Asia/Middle East.
Aircrafts are manufactured with great precision. Strong materials are used. There is calculation over strength of every piece. Then there are backup plans in case of failures. A lot is done to make an aircraft safe for travel. But there are hanudreds and thousands of parts and there are many different reasons and failures that can lead to a situation that the aircraft may not be able to fly. I beleive that with all the maintenance proceedures, there is potential danger for every flight. The good precision and efforts in designing is keeping things running but a failure can occur even with all maintenance proceedures intact.
The article that was quoted indicated that there are quite a number of plane accidents in Iran, due to lack of maintenance and availability of parts, perhaps they are not following the international aviation standards and cutting corners as well.
| Quote: |
The crash of the Tupolev jet leased by Caspian Airlines was the latest in a string of air disasters in recent years that have highlighted Iran's difficulties in maintaining its aging fleet of planes. Iranian airlines, including state-run ones, are chronically strapped for cash, and maintenance has suffered, experts say.
U.S. sanctions prevent Iran from updating its 30-year-old American aircraft and make it difficult to get European spare parts or planes. The country has come to rely on Russian aircraft, many of them Soviet-era planes that are harder to get parts for since the Soviet Union's fall.
Iranian civil aviation agency chief Ali Ilkhani said the Tu-154M that crashed was built in 1987, was bought by Iran in 1998 and had an overhaul certificate valid until 2010, state TV said.
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_iran_plane | Quote: |
The crash of the Tupolev jet leased by Caspian Airlines was the latest in a string of air disasters in recent years that have highlighted Iran's difficulties in maintaining its aging fleet of planes. Iranian airlines, including state-run ones, are chronically strapped for cash, and maintenance has suffered, experts say.
U.S. sanctions prevent Iran from updating its 30-year-old American aircraft and make it difficult to get European spare parts or planes. The country has come to rely on Russian aircraft, many of them Soviet-era planes that are harder to get parts for since the Soviet Union's fall.
Iranian civil aviation agency chief Ali Ilkhani said the Tu-154M that crashed was built in 1987, was bought by Iran in 1998 and had an overhaul certificate valid until 2010, state TV said.
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_iran_plane
Hard to believe that US sanctions cover airplane parts. Safety equipment and parts should be in the category of food -- would the US embargo food shipments to Iran just due to politics? No. So they shouldn't embargo plane parts either.^Why can't Iran just manufacture its own aircraft replacement parts?
And given that it was jointly operated by Iran and Russia, why couldn't they get parts from Russia?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
^Why can't Iran just manufacture its own aircraft replacement parts?
And given that it was jointly operated by Iran and Russia, why couldn't they get parts from Russia? |
I'm sure they can get the parts, but they may be "cheap" ones, i.e. copies. Or possibly maintenance is sloppy as they are operating strictly for profit. While the going is good, the "good" is going, until it busts 
| ocalhoun wrote: |
^Why can't Iran just manufacture its own aircraft replacement parts?
And given that it was jointly operated by Iran and Russia, why couldn't they get parts from Russia? |
I don't think Russia has been doing so well in recent years with manufacturing. There seems to be a whole lot of news articles pertaining to the failure of this or that in Russia. Not to mention that since the fall of the Soviet Union most of the new (?) countries that broke away don't even talk to each other. It's not surprising with all the upheavals in that country that a stable infrastructure is a bit hard to nail down.
Even if they could lay claim to stability...would YOU order parts from them that require critical tolerances? | Vrythramax wrote: |
...would YOU order parts from them that require critical tolerances? |
I would do that before saying 'oh well, we can't get parts... might as well put the broken one back in.'
If need be, you could test the parts for being within tolerance.
And, given post-soviet improvements in relations with Russia and the rest of the world, why couldn't a half-Russian company order replacement parts directly from the original manufacturer?
And, if parts for Western planes were just too hard to get, why not simply fly Russian-made airliners? | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Vrythramax wrote: |
...would YOU order parts from them that require critical tolerances? |
I would do that before saying 'oh well, we can't get parts... might as well put the broken one back in.'
If need be, you could test the parts for being within tolerance.
And, given post-soviet improvements in relations with Russia and the rest of the world, why couldn't a half-Russian company order replacement parts directly from the original manufacturer?
And, if parts for Western planes were just too hard to get, why not simply fly Russian-made airliners? |
One thing is for sure. I would never get into a Russian made or Russian flown plane. I'm not sure whether I will get to Russia one day, I would love to visit St. Petersburg, but if and when I do it will be with British Airways, KLM, Lufthansa or any of the well known operated ones. None of them are 100% safe, but at least I know that they would less likely circumvent maintenance procedures. | ocalhoun wrote: |
I would do that before saying 'oh well, we can't get parts... might as well put the broken one back in.'
If need be, you could test the parts for being within tolerance.
And, given post-soviet improvements in relations with Russia and the rest of the world, why couldn't a half-Russian company order replacement parts directly from the original manufacturer?
And, if parts for Western planes were just too hard to get, why not simply fly Russian-made airliners? |
I don't know man, I wouldn't ride in that puppy at all. The "almost as good" part may suffice, and certainly is more appealing than the broken one...but if given a choice (which I kind of doubt that they would make it public knowledge if they went with either of the given choices)...well, not me. Even if you would opt for the transportation for yourself, would you trust it for your wife, kids, mother, etc.?? | Vrythramax wrote: |
| I don't know man, I wouldn't ride in that puppy at all. |
Totally agreed. I may even go as far as to say, I would not like to fly in any of the off the main capital city routes in those places of the world. I'd rather use a train if I really have to be there, and I don't have a choice in the matter. | deanhills wrote: |
| Vrythramax wrote: | | I don't know man, I wouldn't ride in that puppy at all. |
Totally agreed. I may even go as far as to say, I would not like to fly in any of the off the main capital city routes in those places of the world. I'd rather use a train if I really have to be there, and I don't have a choice in the matter. |
Because trains never derail and kill people, and nobody ever put an inferior replacement part on a train... | ocalhoun wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Vrythramax wrote: | | I don't know man, I wouldn't ride in that puppy at all. |
Totally agreed. I may even go as far as to say, I would not like to fly in any of the off the main capital city routes in those places of the world. I'd rather use a train if I really have to be there, and I don't have a choice in the matter. |
Because trains never derail and kill people, and nobody ever put an inferior replacement part on a train... |
OK, point taken. Lucky I was not in Croatia yesterday ... 
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Because trains never derail and kill people, and nobody ever put an inferior replacement part on a train... |
LOL....you really got a point there! Amtrak doesn't exactly have a "stellar record" do they?Soviet-era built aircraft are not safe!
