A Study If I May

[SeanTK]

Disclaimer: If promotion for this is not allowed, I apologize and expect this to be removed.
UPDATE: An "Other" option has been added at 6pm US Eastern time, November 9th, and unfortunately that appears to have wiped the results. (We only had about 6 in at the time of change).
PLEASE re-vote! Sorry, there will be no more changes to the poll.

I am attempting to conduct a small, limited-focus study on modern perceptions in the aviation enthusiast community of Russian/CIS/"Eastern-Bloc" aircraft and aviation.

This is mainly for my own curiosity, but I may be able to actually use parts of this sometime in the future based on what graduate program I will be entering in in the Spring, and if so, I'll go through the proper channels with participants before introducing my findings while at a formal institution.

I encourage users here to at the very least pick one of the options to vote on (guest voting enabled at the link).
But, I would appreciate even more if you make an effort to expand on your thoughts and reasoning for your choice, or perhaps why none of the choices fit your mindset.

Guest voting is enable at the following link, but you cannot express written thoughts without registering, so if you don't want to register there, I hope that you'll place your thoughts in this SOH thread.

http://www.aviationcafe.co.uk/Index/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=1277

Please read through the post outlining my position and reason for this study on that page, and read each option carefully.

While I know it is evident to many members here where I stand on the subject, please be assured that I respect all opinions. As I state in the linked thread, I may try to clear up some misconceptions, but I understand the right to an opinion, and I'm not looking for a major argument, although I understand that in some communities, that may be a possibility.

Thank you for reading, and I hope that you participate in some manner. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

-Sean

 

[SSI01]

Sean - visited your site but the option I would choose is not listed in your poll, that being "Very interested in Soviet/Russian/CIS aviation, would never fly in any S/R/CIS product." I have seen their products and am concerned about quality control (original build and rebuilding as well), standards of maintenance, and basic materials used. We had a number of AN-2s stop here all at once at McKinnon Airport some time ago on their way to a rebuilder, and to look inside them was appalling. My work in the government brought me into daily contact with someone who was a representative for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Part of their job involved flying through Russia visiting strategic weapons storage areas, and facilities where rocket boosters were fired on the ground to burn up their propellant, then the missiles crushed - they had to witness these procedures, part of the START Treaty, to verify the Russians were in fact doing what they had agreed to do under that treaty. My friend (a U.S. Army member, and Russian translator) told me she had many trips on Soviet-era fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, Aeroflot and military, as part of this travel, and sweated through every one of them. During an assignment in Hawaii, I met a number of staff members at the Central Identification Laboratory - Hawaii (CILHI), part of the organization that searches for, recovers, processes, and ships American dead from WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam. These were civilians and military members both. When traveling to SE Asia, the usual mode of transportation to the hinterlands where these crash or burial sites are located was by Soviet-built helicopters. They had the same reaction as my former Army friend - flying with baited breath waiting for something to happen. This, I think, reflected standards of local maintenance more so than basic manufacturing skill and technology. What was significant for me was the opinion of the military members - most of whom were Army personnel who had spent their share of time on UH-60s, UH-1s, and CH-47s - so they were in my mind equipped to make a valid comparison between the aircraft itself plus the flying personnel involved. Not long ago a number of CILHI personnel were killed in an Mi-8 crash in Viet Nam, I think. The fears and concerns are valid.

 

[Kiwikat]

I don't think I'd have any problems flying on the mentioned aircraft. I don't find many of them interesting though. There's a few Russian WWII planes I'd like to see in FSX, as well as a jet or two, but that's it.

 

[SeanTK]

I added one option to the poll "Other" but that appears to have wiped the results (we had around 6 by the time of changing).

Very sorry, but please revote if able.

If you choose "Other" please explain here or there why.

 

[SSI01]

SSI01 just voted; you may use my comments above as the explanation for my vote of "Other."

 

[OBIO]

If given a real life chance to fly on a Russian aircraft...I'd be on that bird before the pilot and crew! My thought is this: when my "bingo" number is called by the Big Man Up Stairs, it doesn't matter where I am, or what I am doing, I'm outta here. I could be on a Russian helo with poor construction/maintenance, or I could be sleeping in the bed I share with my wife....if it's my time to depart this world, I'm gone. So, if I had a real life change to climb into an AN-2 and fly through the mountains, I'd take that opportunity without a single hesitation. I figure my odds of dying on that plane are the same as they are if I were flying on a brand new Boeing 747....50%. I would either come back alive, or I'd come back dead. If I let the fear of dying prevent me from doing anything at all, it would be driving....the odds of me dying in a car accident are much greater than the odds of me dying while riding in a plane. Heck, I think my odds of dying are greater getting out of the shower than they are in flying....well, that settles it...no shower for me tonight!

OBIO

 

[SeanTK]

Thank you for the responses so far. We have one dozen votes, but less than a half-dozen expanded entries.
I'm hoping for more visibility on this, and more participation. Thanks!

 

[CG_1976]

I've been on a few Il96's and TU-204's, AN26 and 148, Yak42 to name a few and never feared once the flight. The Il96 was a very enjoyable flight and excellent service and smooth. the only aircraft im not going on is a Airbus. I have a severe phobia of airbus

 

[kilo delta]

I've flown in an An-2 before and would have no hesitation about flying in one again,providing it's operators were reputable. Same goes for any other Soviet bloc/Russian aircraft...except the Tu-154.Our local aerobatic display pilot had an Su-26 (with a twin seat Su-29 also on the field) but it was lost in a ground fire...these things need drip pans!

 

[SeanTK]

....,providing it's operators were reputable. Same goes for any other Soviet bloc/Russian aircraft...except the Tu-154......

Thanks again for the expanded responses, everyone.

Kilo, may I politely request that you expand on your reasoning for singling out one aircraft type while being OK with all of the others?
Additionally, since you highlighted the section referencing reputable operators (makes sense of course! ), I'm wondering if you could expand a bit on that statement. What constitutes reputable, and/or what are you looking for as criteria?
Thanks very much!


Likewise with CG, unless it was mainly in jest (I think so, but hard to be sure through text) if you wouldn't mind expanding on your hesitation with Airbus, and what attributes of their aircraft contribute to that if you do indeed have a hesitation with them. I have heard of others that do have hesitation with the extremely automated systems of Airbus aircraft, but the smiley/laughing face on the end is throwing me off of whether or not you're joking a bit.

 

[kilo delta]

Thanks again for the expanded responses, everyone.

Kilo, may I politely request that you expand on your reasoning for singling out one aircraft type while being OK with all of the others?

The Tu-154 has a pretty poor safety record,although it's possible that this is more apparent due to the numbers built. Either way, it's the one aircraft type that I'd be wary of flying aboard.

What constitutes reputable, and/or what are you looking for as criteria?

A reputable operator will comply with all maintenance and operational requirements to the letter of the law (and beyond) and will not turn a blind eye once in a while in order to save a few bucks.

 

[SeanTK]

Thanks!

 

[SSI01]

CG if I am wrong, I apologize but I'm guessing this is your reason - CG might have a problem with an aircraft whose computerized flight-control system, when it was first built, would argue with its pilot about what configuration the aircraft was in, and what the pilot wanted to do with the aircraft once it was in that configuration. I refer to the well-publicized incident at the Paris Air Show (I think) where one of the first Airbus birds was put into landing configuration by its pilot for a low-and-slow pass by the crowd. He then attempted to clean up the bird for another, faster pass and the aircraft's computer insisted it wanted to land, wouldn't let him spool up, retract gear, flaps, etc. There was no override on the computer; the pilot was desperately hauling back on the yoke and trying to shove the thrust levers forward - the computer would readjust the yoke for landing and keep retracting the thrust levers. The aircraft eventually plowed through some trees off the EOR and burst into flames. Airbus, and the French government (because it owns Airbus, and therefore has a major stake in selling this product, defects or no) tried to blame the pilot for this problem, and in fact did convict him - not sure of the charge. My memory says the airline pilots' union in France eventually threatened a general strike unless a more reasonable investigation was conducted, which it (grudgingly) was. There was an appeal. I think there was an override built into the system eventually but the engineers hated to be proven in error. a rather muddled explanation was given for the accident, and I don't think the pilot ever flew again, although he was exonerated. Then there was the other fairly recent problem where the big Airbus crashed into the Atlantic off the e. coast of S. America. Once again the French gov tried to blame the pilots, and did not do a thorough search for the FDR, which was eventually located by the U.S. Navy and recovered. Analysis determined the pitot tubes and AOA indicators had iced up, feeding false readings to (once again) the aircraft's computer, which the crew had too much faith in. Don't they have pitot tube heaters in France? At face value there seems to be a pattern of the French government being far too quick to blame the aircraft's pilot(s) when something goes wrong rather than look at a basic design or system defect of the aircraft they funded - in this case, there is far too much reliance on "Col. Computer."