Hi Everybody..
thanks for having such good forum.

i ahve one question..
i am living in toronto..and like to fly to Delhi with my family
i have got very good price via Aerosvit Airlinei never flew earlier with this airline..some one told me they use very old planes and comprmise with safety measures...is it true

please suggest me this airline is ok. to fly to delhi...what kinds of planes the use....
thanks
regards
Deshi

Well if the fly to Toronto and New york then they will have to follow the strict FAA safety rules.
Also their fleet are mainly Boeing 733/34/35 and 767 those are better planes safety wise than any Russian plane
Good luck

http://www.aerosvit.com/

There is some discussion of Aerosvit in the "Other European FF Programs" forum. Check out this thread for example.

Alex

Interesting. Please point out to me those Russian planes that have crashed due to inflight thrust reverser deployments or uncommanded rudder deflections.

Seems u have never been on a russian plane before.
Then can you explain to me why all new russian planes use western technology and engines instead of russian one's
Hundreds of plane crashes in the mid60's.70's and 80's that occurred in the old eastern block where never annouced and or explained
I still prefer a Boeing or an Airbus to any russian plane anytime anywhere

Actually, I have been on Russian planes, but thanks for making assumptions. About the engines, probably because Russian engine technology has lagged behind the west since the 1950s, meaning Russian engines are very loud and inefficient. About the avionics, probably because the Russians have no experience in modern avionics, which creates a more user-friendly cockpit. I'm no expert, but I doubt that an older cockpit is any less safe than a new one.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Tu-134 has had one mechanically-related crash, when the crew inadvertently shut down the operating engine after an engine failure. The Tu-154 has had three mechanical crashes, one to an engine fire, one from overstress caused by the malfunctioning autopilot, and one due to the use of a non-standard part. An-24s have crasehd twice since 1992 from engine failure. One Il-86 has crashed from an uncommanded elevator deflection. Some of those engine failures were no doubt caused by poor maintenance, which was endemic in the former Soviet Union in the 1990s, rather than from design faults.

To compare with western aircraft, the A320 has crashed because the computer didn't know the plane had landed. The Boeing 737 has had 7 mechanically related crashes since 1992, due to everything from malfunctioning instruments to engine failures to rudder deflections to stuck throttles. The 747 has the amazing exploding fuel tank. And don't even get me started on the DC-10/MD-11.

In short, Russian planes do not seem to crash more frequently than western planes due to design flaws. Comfort is a valid reason for preferring western-built aircraft. Safety is not.

Well thank you for proving my point
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Tu-134 has had one mechanically-related crash, when the crew inadvertently shut down the operating engine after an engine failure. The Tu-154 has had three mechanical crashes, one to an engine fire, one from overstress caused by the malfunctioning autopilot, and one due to the use of a non-standard part. An-24s have crasehd twice since 1992 from engine failure. One Il-86 has crashed from an uncommanded elevator deflection. Some of those engine failures were no doubt caused by poor maintenance, which was endemic in the former Soviet Union in the 1990s, rather than from design faults.
The accident rate has fallen because they started using western technology
Also you can not go on 1 by 1 ratio .The Soviet union produced around 1500 civilian planes in the last 40 years of the twentieth century compared to well over 10,000 in the west.
And still can you give me an accurate number of civilian russian made planes with major fatal accidents in that period. I know u can't because hundreds of accidents were never reported in the news. The few reported never got a clear reason beyond pilot error.
I have been on few russian planes in my time from TU to IL and one more i can not remember trust me those planes were not safe and you can ask any old pilot he will tell you so.
One more item Egyptair in the mid 70's refused to take deliveryof few TU154
the pilots refused to fly them as being very unsafe so the Tu company send there chief pilot to prove otherwise but the only thing he did was crash the plane killing himself and a bunch of Russian and Egyptian pilots.
Those planes stayed years in the open at Cairo airport before TU took them back

Russia built many more than 1,500 civilian aircraft in the past 40 years. With 1,100 Yak-40s and 900 Tu-154s built, the count is already well over 1,500 airframes. I know I can't give accurate information from the time of the Soviet Union; that is why I limited my examples for Russian and western aircraft to 1992 onward, ignoring some spectacularly awful DC-10 crashes that happened prior to that date. Also note the improvement in Russian aviation safety after Putin's crackdown in 2001 following the Vladivostok Avia crash in Irkutsk. I maintain that poor maintenance, not faulty design, is responsible for most mechanically-caused Russian plane crashes.

I will meet you halfway.The major causes of accidents in the communist block planes prior to 1992 was a combination of bad maintenance and poor design. But the accident rate was much higher in the Eastern block by at leasr 3-4 folds.

Yes, I agree that Aeroflot had a lot of crashes during the days of the Soviet Union. They were by far the largest airline in the world, with a fleet of well over 1,000 aircraft, so I'd say that sheer volume of flights explains the high number somewhat. They lost quite a few in Afghanistan, mostly due to shoot downs or sabotage. The rest, I agree with you that nobody really knows, and the causes probably cover all manner of possibility, from drunk pilots to design flaws. My point I was trying to make was that, in the present day, with aircraft in common usage, with the exception of the Il-86 elevator, I can not think of an ongoing design concern, while I can think of several in western-built aircraft. I do not claim to be an expert, and it was not my intention to get into a pissing contest over this. If I have been wrong in what I have said, somebody please correct me.

I actually prefer flying Aeroshvitz Airlines instead. I love their in-flight Sauna.

I am sorry that just like on the other Aerosvit thread I have to chip in with a whole lot of corrections. What is it about non-US designed aircraft that makes those from the US write such unmitigated and uninformed rubbish about them?

The history of the entire Soviet civilian aircraft production right down to An-2 level is well documented in specialist publications, and all aircraft produced are completely accounted for, along with all major incidents.

Since when did the FAA's mandate extend to Canada ? Toronto to Kiev does not cross US airspace.

The Aerosvit fleet is entirely Boeing, 8 737s and 2 767s. They do not have Russian-built aircraft and are not based in Russia but in Ukraine. The aircraft are not old, and are as well looked after as elsewhere. For the OP, the flight from Toronto to Kiev is on a 767, and on to India is on a 737.

Well, let's look at some facts, like no passenger has EVER been killed in a Soviet/Russian made widebody, anywhere. A 100% safety record.

For those posting here interested the production of Soviet/Russian turbine transports (which roughly corresponds to all major airliners built there since 1960) the total figure is 9,503, broken down as follows:

Jet - 3,859. Largest numbers are the Yak 40 (1,011 built), then Tu 154 (926 built).

Turboprop - 5,644. Largest numbers are the Antonov 24 - 32 types (3,413 built).

In addition there were many other types built. The Antonov 2 10-seat feederliner with the big radial piston engine has turned out over 15,000 examples until well into the 1990s.

Then can you brake this number to civilian and military please