5 ms·

Not a train, but years ago I found myself on a flight in the Republic of Congo - only to have this strange feeling that something was a bit odd. After a few mi

by lb1lf 10y ago

Not a train, but years ago I found myself on a flight in the Republic of Congo - only to have this strange feeling that something was a bit odd. After a few minutes, I realized it was the faded sticker on the seatback in front of me - it said 'Livvest under setet dykkar' ('Life vest under your seat') in Norwegian - definitely not something you'd expect to see on a flight en route to Pointe-Noire! I checked the MFG # sign as I left the aircraft, and a few E-mails later I found the plane (A 737-200) had been sold for scrap in 1993 as it no longer complied with relevant noise regulations; it then made its way to the Congo by some dubious route and, to paraphrase the puzzled Boeing customer rep who got in touch - 'As far as we are concerned, the plane is not as much flying as not having crashed yet.' Aircraft in exile indeed.

Gibbon1 10y ago
> the plane is not as much flying as not having crashed yet.' > Aircraft in exile indeed. That made me think of this; vintage Douglas DC-3 plane in Columbia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-F-cBF5ZbQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-F-cBF5ZbQ
- lb1lf 10y ago
  Note that ancient and operated in a remote part of the world (well, remote to me, anyway!) does not necessarily mean poorly maintained. One (dubious) perk of my job is that I get to fly on all sorts of dilapidated airlines all over the world. I have never flown on a DC-3, but have tried its DC-4 and DC-6 siblings on a couple of occasions. They do have a couple of things going for them: a) Over-engineered to extremes; rather than calculating how much weight could be shed without making a part too fragile, it seems they did the opposite - just how sturdy can we make this and still be able to take off? This approach doesn't get them any fuel economy medals, but as for longevity? Oh-la-la. b) Very (VERY) simple to work on; simple access to just about anything that matters, very little by way of fancy solutions requiring deep specialist knowledge. As long as you maintain oil pressure, the engines will run. Also, the economics kicks in here, too - maintaining an airframe properly is cheaper in the long run than having to replace them occasionally after a total loss. Presumably also better for your reputation and recruiting capability. While chatting with the aircrew of a positively ancient Antonov in the Congo once, I found that a mechanic would come along for the flight. In my naïvety, I asked what he could do in the event of an issue while en route. The first officer shrugged and said 'Not much - but it sure keeps them focussed while working on the plane!' Crude, but effective.

by lb1lf 10y ago

Gibbon1 10y ago

> the plane is not as much flying as not having crashed yet.' > Aircraft in exile indeed. That made me think of this; vintage Douglas DC-3 plane in Columbia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-F-cBF5ZbQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-F-cBF5ZbQ

lb1lf 10y ago
Note that ancient and operated in a remote part of the world (well, remote to me, anyway!) does not necessarily mean poorly maintained. One (dubious) perk of my job is that I get to fly on all sorts of dilapidated airlines all over the world. I have never flown on a DC-3, but have tried its DC-4 and DC-6 siblings on a couple of occasions. They do have a couple of things going for them: a) Over-engineered to extremes; rather than calculating how much weight could be shed without making a part too fragile, it seems they did the opposite - just how sturdy can we make this and still be able to take off? This approach doesn't get them any fuel economy medals, but as for longevity? Oh-la-la. b) Very (VERY) simple to work on; simple access to just about anything that matters, very little by way of fancy solutions requiring deep specialist knowledge. As long as you maintain oil pressure, the engines will run. Also, the economics kicks in here, too - maintaining an airframe properly is cheaper in the long run than having to replace them occasionally after a total loss. Presumably also better for your reputation and recruiting capability. While chatting with the aircrew of a positively ancient Antonov in the Congo once, I found that a mechanic would come along for the flight. In my naïvety, I asked what he could do in the event of an issue while en route. The first officer shrugged and said 'Not much - but it sure keeps them focussed while working on the plane!' Crude, but effective.