Not a very smooth day for LYs operations...
Apr 2, 2014, 5:27 am
#16
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 595
Very sadly, El Al is already known for having taken the risk of poor maintenance in the past and it ended in one of the most horrific aviation accidents in Europe :-( . It was more than 20 years ago so probably most people here have forgotten.
Negligence is a devastating disease in Israel, and I think we can consider it to be a "miracle" that things are working as they are. But sometimes luck is not present :-(
Negligence is a devastating disease in Israel, and I think we can consider it to be a "miracle" that things are working as they are. But sometimes luck is not present :-(
Apr 2, 2014, 4:21 pm
#18
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: GVA
Programs: miles & more
Posts: 192
Care to explain? According to the Wikipedia entry on LY1862, it was a problem with the aircraft design, not poor maintenance.
sure, there was a problem with the conception of the engines' attachment to the wings. However, the problem had been identified and Boeing issued an emergency warning to all 747-200F operators just a few days before the catastrophe - following a similar accident which had resulted in the loss of an Air China 742F the year before.
El Al was able to give sufficient proof that it had acted according to regulations. But additional precaution, especially after the Boeing notice, could have certainly avoided the disaster.
I may add that this is not simply my own personal opinion on the matter.
Apr 2, 2014, 4:55 pm
#19
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 595
sure, there was a problem with the conception of the engines' attachment to the wings. However, the problem had been identified and Boeing issued an emergency warning to all 747-200F operators just a few days before the catastrophe - following a similar accident which had resulted in the loss of an Air China 742F the year before.
El Al was able to give sufficient proof that it had acted according to regulations. But additional precaution, especially after the Boeing notice, could have certainly avoided the disaster.
I may add that this is not simply my own personal opinion on the matter.
El Al was able to give sufficient proof that it had acted according to regulations. But additional precaution, especially after the Boeing notice, could have certainly avoided the disaster.
I may add that this is not simply my own personal opinion on the matter.
2. First you claim poor maintenance caused the accident, then admit El Al acted according to regs (and if those were poor, that would be Boeing's fault, correct?). Quite the goalpost move.
Apr 6, 2014, 4:46 pm
#20
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: GVA
Programs: miles & more
Posts: 192
Boeing issued a notice to 742F operators a few days before the tragedy, and the system was identified as problematic, but it's true: nor Boeing neither the FAA grounded the planes.
Apr 6, 2014, 11:33 pm
#21
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 595
I don't "admit" nor deny anything. The report "admits" that El Al acted according to procedure, and I hope it is true. I just say that even if the final report has cleared El Al, there is a probability that the accident could have been prevented with a more-than-minimal degree of attention.
Boeing issued a notice to 742F operators a few days before the tragedy, and the system was identified as problematic, but it's true: nor Boeing neither the FAA grounded the planes.
Boeing issued a notice to 742F operators a few days before the tragedy, and the system was identified as problematic, but it's true: nor Boeing neither the FAA grounded the planes.
Apr 7, 2014, 6:01 pm
#22
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: GVA
Programs: miles & more
Posts: 192
Since you are unable to provide evidence for this claim despite requests, and it is very far from your original claim (that the accident would've been prevented, not that 'there is a probability') - your above posts in this thread are completely baseless and should be edited/deleted.
edited or deleted.....ha ha you are truly funny. maybe one day you'll learn about freedom of speach and that kind of stuff.
What I say, and what I have said, is that with a more thorough care this accident might have been prevented. frankly, one has just to look at El Al's planes to wonder about the level of maintenance. And if it is not enough, I suggest you go and visit some of El Al's hangars at TLV. But wait...it's El Al's territory AND airside, so there's a good chance they won't let you in.
maybe you are living in a fairy tale world in which ANYTHING done in Israel is of the utmost quality. Very sadly this is not the case. Maybe you're not aware, but Israel was until recently in the FAA's lowest category because of its poor organisational standards in civil aviation. It's maybe not El Al, but it's part of the same picture and it gives a good idea of the situation.
Apr 8, 2014, 1:11 am
#23
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 595
edited or deleted.....ha ha you are truly funny. maybe one day you'll learn about freedom of speach and that kind of stuff.
What I say, and what I have said, is that with a more thorough care this accident might have been prevented. frankly, one has just to look at El Al's planes to wonder about the level of maintenance. And if it is not enough, I suggest you go and visit some of El Al's hangars at TLV. But wait...it's El Al's territory AND airside, so there's a good chance they won't let you in.
maybe you are living in a fairy tale world in which ANYTHING done in Israel is of the utmost quality. Very sadly this is not the case. Maybe you're not aware, but Israel was until recently in the FAA's lowest category because of its poor organisational standards in civil aviation. It's maybe not El Al, but it's part of the same picture and it gives a good idea of the situation.
What I say, and what I have said, is that with a more thorough care this accident might have been prevented. frankly, one has just to look at El Al's planes to wonder about the level of maintenance. And if it is not enough, I suggest you go and visit some of El Al's hangars at TLV. But wait...it's El Al's territory AND airside, so there's a good chance they won't let you in.
maybe you are living in a fairy tale world in which ANYTHING done in Israel is of the utmost quality. Very sadly this is not the case. Maybe you're not aware, but Israel was until recently in the FAA's lowest category because of its poor organisational standards in civil aviation. It's maybe not El Al, but it's part of the same picture and it gives a good idea of the situation.
That doesn't change the fact that you continue making an extraordinary claim with zero evidence (actually, despite evidence to the contrary!). How exactly does inventing conspiracy theories improve LY in any way?
Beeteedubs, no idea what "freedom of speach" is, however freedom of speech is limited by defamation laws.
Apr 9, 2014, 11:20 am
#24
Join Date: Aug 2012
Programs: UA 1K/MM, EK Gold, CX Silver
Posts: 880
Not a very smooth day for LYs operations...
Sometimes you can blame the airline for medical emergencies too.
Many years ago I tried to help a sick passenger in the departure lounge at JFK, who was obviously in no condition to fly. The LY doctor approved travel over they phone (after talking to me, Ashgabat my advice), and sure enough w the passenger became seriously ill en-route, and we had to land in Paris. Of course I also spent most of the flight standing next to the sick passenger.
That was negligence, not bad luck
Many years ago I tried to help a sick passenger in the departure lounge at JFK, who was obviously in no condition to fly. The LY doctor approved travel over they phone (after talking to me, Ashgabat my advice), and sure enough w the passenger became seriously ill en-route, and we had to land in Paris. Of course I also spent most of the flight standing next to the sick passenger.
That was negligence, not bad luck
Apr 14, 2014, 5:49 pm
#25
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: GVA
Programs: miles & more
Posts: 192
What a silly response. I'm more aware than most of Israel's faults, and nowadays refuse to fly LY unless it's a short hop and cheaper than *all* competitors. However, it's one thing to criticize an airline for its faults and completely another to invent faults to justify your position.
That doesn't change the fact that you continue making an extraordinary claim with zero evidence (actually, despite evidence to the contrary!). How exactly does inventing conspiracy theories improve LY in any way?
Beeteedubs, no idea what "freedom of speach" is, however freedom of speech is limited by defamation laws.
That doesn't change the fact that you continue making an extraordinary claim with zero evidence (actually, despite evidence to the contrary!). How exactly does inventing conspiracy theories improve LY in any way?
Beeteedubs, no idea what "freedom of speach" is, however freedom of speech is limited by defamation laws.
Regarding "evidence": I would suggest you start to study thoroughly the causes of the LY 1862 disaster, instead of being aggressive and ridiculous - *typos* are indeed a highly interesting element on internet forums ^
The sequence of events which led to the tragedy is known. The only "open" question is whether the microscopic cracks could have been detected prior to the accident or not. And on this precise question, even the official accident report indicates that Boeing and El Al disagree on the answer.
Btw, according to a report in the leading Swiss newspaper NZZ of October 23 1992 which I still have and which can be found online (www.nzz.ch/archiv), following a few incidents and accidents involving the attachment system of the 747 engines, Boeing had invited all 747 operators to Seattle for a discussion regarding new procedures and measures on September 21 1992. Furthermore, on October 1st, 1992, Boeing announced by telex to every 747 operator the publication of a Service Bulletin with all the detailed measures which will have to be implemented. The Bulletin was published on October 5. All this indicates that the problem which ultimately caused the disaster was known and was a subject of discussion between the manufacturer and the operators. This alone can raise questions.
I never claimed to have "proof" or "evidence" of anything, the only thing I am saying is that there is room to believe that careful maintenance COULD HAVE prevented the accident. There are no conspiracy theories of any kind here (I wonder how you come up with such notions) nor any "invented" stories nor defamation....... But as it seems to be truly too difficult for you to conceive, let's stop this nice and courteous discussion here, with three little extracts from the investigation report itself to illustrate the complexity of the issues.
The report can be found here: http://fr.scribd.com/doc/2460079/Air...October-4-1992
Page 30:
[...]
Boeing also carried out a metallurgic investigation of the fuse pin. The Boeing findings concur with the NLR findings. Boeing was able to derive a crack growth curve of the fatigue fracture surface as a function of total airplane cycles (flight cycles) versus crack depth.
Based on this curve Boeing concludes that at the last inspection of the fuse pin, 257 flights before the accident flight, the fatigue crack would have had a depth of .14 inch. As the ultrasonic reference depth is .085 inch a detectable crack existed at the last inspection.
El Al however contests the Boeing findings regarding the crack growth data.
El Al is of the opinion that the redistribution of loads after the initial failure in the inboard midspar fitting lug resulted in a significant increase in crack growth rate during a number of flights and that it is therefore conceivable that the crack was of less than detectable length at the last ultrasonic inspection.
The NLR was requested to comment on this fundamental difference of opinion between Boeing and El Al regarding the interpretation of the striation count of the fatigue crack in the outboard midspar fuse pin. The NLR concludes that: "The intermediate markings between 'heavy striations' cannot be interpreted unambiguously".
[...]
Page 33:
[...]
By pure coincidence an aircraft spotter took some photographs of El Al 1862 when it arrived at Schiphol Airport on October 4, 1992. On these photographs it appears that engine no 3 has an upward tilt in relation to the other three engines. The question arose whether this upward tilt could have been caused by disconnections of the wing to strut attachments. Experts explained that a disconnection could not possibly result in a tilt as shown on the photographs. Because a transit maintenance check (including condition of engine and strut) was properly carried out and also because the Board at this stage of the investigation became aware of the technical improbability that pylon no.3 attachments had failed prior to the accident flight, further investigation on this subject was put aside.
[...]
And in the "CONCLUSIONS", Page 44:
[...]
18. Inspection and analysis performed by specialists on recovered vital parts of the pylon construction revealed severe damage due to fatigue.
19. No firm conclusion could be drawn whether or not the fatigue crack in the outboard midspar fuse pin was detectable at the last ultrasonic inspection.
[...]