Airbus A310 safety ?

[be200]

Hello,
I am not a pilot and came across this website while browsing online...
We booked a vacation with Air Transat to go to Caribbean and our airplane will be A310
I see it is 20 to 25 years old machine and just wanted to ask you, our Canadian pilots just how safe to fly on this machine...???
I guess we a bit worried.
Thank you all for keeping us safe in the skies!

[FL_CH]

You'll be fine.

Safety has more to do with the Operator, and I'd trust Air Transat.

[ahramin]

Firstly, most of the technological improvements that have come along over the years to prevent crashes are capable of being implemented on older aircraft. For example all Air Transat's A310s have GPS, EGPWS (Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System), and ACAS (Airborne Collision Avoidance System).

Secondly, the age of the aircraft has little bearing on safety compared to the quality of the pilots and mechanics.

However, if you happen to get a missile strike the A300/310 has proven fairly resilient :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghd ... n_incident

[kevind]

25+ year old aircraft are OK for our Armed Forces...

[just curious]

I would have no qualms about flying in an A310

[KK7]

Older aircraft have had the time to work out the kinks in its systems, and most possible failures have been experienced. New aircraft have kinks to work out and failures nobody thought of can happen.

[Moose47]

"25+ year old aircraft are OK for our Armed Forces..."

Hmmmm better make that 45+year old aircraft. i.e. CT-114 Tutor, C-130E Hercules, CH-124 Sea King and CC-115 Buffalo.

Cheers...Chris

[iflyforpie]

Yeah, but the RCAF aircraft hardly have any hours on them. I'd be very surprised if the Polarises had even ten thousand hours on them.... something a commercial airliner can rack up less than ten years.

The big thing with aircraft are the hours and the cycles and how good the maintenance is. The A310 was designed as a long range aircraft, so hours per cycle are quite high and the hours would be relatively low compared to a shorter ranged aircraft like a 737 (one Alaska Airlines example I worked on had 18,000 hours in 8 years).

I've flown on 50 year old planes with nearly 100,000 hours on them, and I'm still here.

[C-FABH]

Statistically speaking, you're more likely to get injured while driving to the airport.

[767capt]

IF IT AIN'T BOEING I AIN'T GOING

[GGCC]

IF IT AIN'T BOEING I AIN'T GOING

I'm a Boeing fan myself...got the T-shirt

[Mohawk]

"I see it is 20 to 25 years old machine and just wanted to ask you, our Canadian pilots just how safe to fly on this machine...???"

LOL better ask the mechs that work on them the crew have a good idea but they don't see the guts of the machine!!!!

IF its maintained in Canada your good to go!!!!!

BOEING IS still the BOSS

[frosti]

IF IT AIN'T BOEING I AIN'T GOING

IF its maintained in Canada your good to go!!!!!

Some pretty ignorant comments.

[704type]

If it wasn't a safe airplane, it wouldn't have gotten to be 25 years old....

[CID]

You should ask how old Air Canada's 767s are. Or how old MOST of the airplanes in American airline fleets are. I think you'll be very surprised. There are plenty of airlines operating in Canada that are easily pushing 40. And I have no qualms about jumping on any of them. But if you plan on booking Air Canada, make some back up plans.

[pilotbzh]

Transat has the A310 for a long time now and they haven't crashed any, so they must be safe...

25 year hold airframe are barely broken in...good for another 25 if well maintain...

[Colonel Sanders]

This is a question that I get asked now & then. My answer:

"The smaller the airplane, the more important the weather".

CAR 705 and FAR Part 121 operators have a pretty good
safety record. They operate pretty good equipment with
pretty good crews and pretty good maintenance.

However, the smaller commercial operators generally (not
always) have more problems when the weather is bad - at
either the departure point, or destination.

I'm sure it will enrage many here, but I tell people the biggest
thing they can do, to improve their safety on smaller
commercial aircraft - possibly on other continents - is to not
fly when the wx is sketchy.

After the harrumphing here has died down, I would like people
to remember:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Air_Flight_6560

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 5w0010.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueJeC2pxxbM

Maybe even 705 & 121 aren't immune to crap wx.

PS Oh yeah, this thread is about equipment / age. Well,
I regularly fly aircraft that are 70 years old. It's all in the
maintenance.

Start harrumphing now:

[CID]

Although I agree with the "Colonel" on the connection between small aircraft and weather, I think it's a bit deeper than that. Aircraft operating under 705/121 must (under regulation) are the cream of the crop in performance, capability and reliability. 705/121 flight crews and maintenance are under the most scrutiny for qualification and quality.

That's not to say that an equivalent level of safety can't be maintained with lesser aircraft and more modest crew and maintenance requirements with proper risk mitigation as the other operating rules try to achieve. The problem is not directly with the size of the airplane or the weather. It's the failure of the small airplane pilots to operate within their limitations. Don't fly a VFR airplane into IMC.

Of course the smaller aircraft operators have more problems if the weather is "bad". But they are supposed to avoid the "bad" weather if it is outside the limitations of their equipment and operating rules. Operators of small airplanes need to stop dispatching airplanes like they are 777s.

[Beefitarian]

IF IT AIN'T BOEING I AIN'T GOING

I'm a Boeing fan myself...got the T-shirt

Me too. I also have a watch and a hat.

[ea306]

Been on Boeings most of career.
Flew the A310-300 and A300-600R over ten years ago....would never hesitate to fly one again! Loved the machine. Very capable aircraft.
You will be in very good hands at AT. Enjoy your vacation.

[ScudRunner]

Yeah, but the RCAF aircraft hardly have any hours on them. I'd be very surprised if the Polarises had even ten thousand hours on them.... something a commercial airliner can rack up less than ten years.

I do believe the Polaris CC-150 (A310) where acquired from Ward Air/ CP in a bail out kind of deal, so I think they might just be north of 10,000 hours.

[paddycanuck]

Hello all,

Like the original poster, we are also booked on the a310 for a flight across the pond in August. While not a great flyer, I've been getting worse as I get older (what's up with that!??). I am a little worried about the safety record on the a310 especially the loss of rudder on the TS 961. Can any of you please tell me if there has been enhanced safety measures introduced to prevent such an occurrence (on an a310) happening again? Also to any of you pilots out there... what could someone like me with an irrational fear do to settle the nerves? I don't want this fear to continue interrupting our lives.

Cheers - paddycanuck

[airway]

As a pilot for a major Canadian airline (I include Air Transat in that definition), this is what I tell people who are "nervous flyers" flying on a major North American airline.

The chances of you dying or even being injured on a single flight are at least a million to 1.

Also, you are more likely to pick all 6 numbers on the 6/49.

[200hr Wonder]

Airway, check your odds, the odds of getting all 6 on 6/49 is 1 in 13,983,816, so if you say you have less odds of getting killed on a top 30 airline in terms of safety which is 1 in 29.4 million. So roughly half. Just saying be accurate

[airway]

Airway, check your odds, the odds of getting all 6 on 6/49 is 1 in 13,983,816, so if you say you have less odds of getting killed on a top 30 airline in terms of safety which is 1 in 29.4 million. So roughly half. Just saying be accurate

OK, but do you agree that my 2 statements regarding the odds are correct?