Jump to content

Talk:Tupolev Tu-154/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Safety record

You can't say it has an "undeservedly poor safety record". It either has a poor safety record, in which case it deserves it, or it doesn't, in which case there is no need to mention it. In fact, it does have a poor safety record, as I mentioned before. I'm unclear why my better wording was changed. The cause of the poor safety record is unimportant - if a larger number than average of a particular type is involved in accidents, then there could be a common cause, even if the accidents are due to "human error". There may be a design fault that tends to increase the chance of human error for example. However, none of that matters - statistically, the Tu-154 is involved in a higher number of accidents than average. That's all, and it's all that can be said about it in the article. "Undeservedly" is POV. Graham 06:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Most hull losses of the 154 are not the result of mechanical failure, whereas they are in planes such as the 737, which is an important difference when considering hull loss stats. Boeing 737 has a hull loss rate of at least 2.5% and doesn't operate in anywhere near as demanding conditions as do many 154s. SineBot

The Tupolev 154's chequered safety record owes more to errors than technical problems.. please refer to BBC for details. Due respect should be given to these workhorse which served, on daily basis, the most unforgiving climactic and geographical extremes; anywhere from Spitsbergen to Ulan Bator and with anything in between, particularly the Siberian airports. Temperatures to as low as -61 degrees Celsius and frosts and poor visibility beyond any extremes found either in northern Europe or Canada. There are many Russians living in those places. The Tu-154 forms that lifeline. The accident database of the Tu-154 reveals that most accidents happen apart from the extreme weather, due to the shoddy management of the civil aviation in the iron curtain; ATC asleep, runaway lights not working, pilots ignoring and overriding airplane systems, poor maintenance and for some just plain bad luck to be blasted off the skies by SAMs. Put equivalent 727 in such situations and see if it makes the difference...Fikri

You may be right, but it doesn't change the fact that it's not the 727 having these accidents, it's the 154! You'll notice my wording does not draw any conclusions from this, it simply mentions the fact. That's all that can be said, and anything else is POV. Graham 05:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I suggest scrapping the safety comment until we can see some hard evidence as to hull loss compared other airliners or similar design.

According to aviation safety authority John Wiley:

"the TU-154 is essentially banned in the West because it does not comply with European noise and pollution regulations, but it has a safer than average accident record" (quoted in ttp://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/15/iran.plane.crash/index.html). Another source says the safety record is very similar to the 727 and 737, but that it operates in harsher climates and conditions (ETN news 16/7/09). You can use accident statistics in numerous ways by highlighting different parameters, but I think it's fairly safe to conclude that overall the safety record is probably equal to or better than a 727 or 737 operating under the same conditions. Aria 613.

Just a heads up: The intro says the plane has a 'poor safety record' while the incidents section says 'average'. Randomdestructn (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"According to the BBC and aviation expert Paul Duffy, the Tu-154 has a poor safety record for its type and length of service especially considering its heavy use in the most demanding conditions often with poor air traffic control; of the 66 aircraft lost to accident many appear to have been due to technical failure.[1]" This just doesn't make sense. According to most sources, the plane has an average safety record, but when it's average working circumstances in the former Soviet Union are taken into account (extreme cold and a lot of bad weather, poor runways, poorly equipped airports, poor traffic control) one cannot avoid the conclusion that this is actually a good quality and safe plane, with little accidents related to technical failures. Furthermore, the reference in the attributed footnote (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vip-syndrome-and-pilot-error-blamed-for-crash-1942116.html) does not support the assertions made. Niekd (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok there seems to be something wrong with the quote, or it has been mis-quoted. There were only 37 losses of Tu-154 since 1968 (counting the Polish presidential crash in fog at Smolensk) not 66 (this seems to be the number of incidents, but not fatal ones), and there are virtually NO accidents due to technical failure (up to the early 2000s, only two accidents were due to 'mechanical malfunction'). This is because the Tu-154 has all major controls in triplicate, so in fact all three would have to fail before it became serious. The sites I've seen all say that the plane has a better than average safety record even considering where it has been used (in many places/conditions where most other planes can't even operate, let alone safely). Maxzden Apr '10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxzden (talk • contribs) 04:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wording

The article is too technical in places. What the heck is are "triple bogie main undercarriage units"? One should be able to read this without expert knowledge... Averell 15:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

\it is not true/ Why type anything like this? I find the wording in the "design features" strange, especially since it says "it is not true" in the end. It shouldn`t refer to a particular flight as source, but I can confirm the description of the cabin, after flying from Oslo by Moscow to Baku and back again, the planes were all tight. Shauni 19:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Huh?

The comparable western analogue of Tu-154 is Boeing 727. Boeing has a better fuel efficiency while Tupolev has better soil load characteristic (Tu-154: 17-19 tonnes, Boeing 727: 31-33 tonnes)

What does this mean - what is "soil load", and what do the tonnages mentioned actually refer to? Graham 00:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

soil load is undoubtably a less than perfect translation of "ground load."

ground load is a very important consideration in large aircraft, especially when it comes to use of less than optimum quality runway. the tu154 is designed to use runways in poor weather or poor design/construction conditions and therefore its exceptionally low ground load is notable.71.252.85.62 17:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Orignal photo

I am restoring orignal photo which was removed a few months ago. The original photo more strongly conveys the harsh weather conditions the 154 is designed to operate under.71.252.85.62 16:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hull-loss accidents

There were far more than 29 losses since its delivery. According to aviation-safety.net, there were 62 such incidents, including the latest crash near Donetsk. I've updated the article. --unpluggged 19:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Crashes

There needs to be some mention of crashes in this article. I'm aware of the arguments that there are lots of 154s operating and that they operate in difficult conditions, possibly with poor maintenance, but the simple fact is that Tu-154 crashes are common. We can't ignore this. 81.77.72.130 13:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The crashes are mentioned. There is a problem as they are attributed to human error, which is not the case. the concencus is that the several other factors are more likly contributors: huge number of cycles (takeoffs and landings); use on many many poor runways or poor runway conditions; and poor mainatainace. these three seem to be more of a factor than eithe rhuman erro or problems deriving inherently from design.71.252.85.62 17:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article refers to 63 TU-154s "lost to accidents". The corresponding article in Russian section of Wikipedia refers to only 29 TU-154s "crashed" in terms of "being lost", and lists all of them meticulously, including those hit by missiles or exploded by terrorists.
Using such wording as "63 lost to accidents" misinforms the reader while the cited source (aviation-safety.net) contains information which is not 100% reliable, especially when it comes to air fleet in USSR. Their list of TU-154 incidents even includes the same incident twice (with RA-85795). Alexander0807 07:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Collision

when a tupolef tu-154 collided with a DHL boeing 757 I was amazed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.217.98 (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Tu-155 vs A380

So what is the big difference between the A380 alternate fuel flight on the 1st of february 2008 and the Tu-155? Only one engine was run on alternate fuel on the Tu-155, did all engine run on alternate fuel on the A380? RGDS Alexmcfire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire (talk • contribs) 01:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

82 airlines would not use an unsafe aircraft

first of all the plane who graham put it has a checkered safety record is flown by airlines such as Eest sky McAdam Airways easyjet and airbee and thay have had no problems Chip2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip1990 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement of fault

The current document announces declaratively that Israel intentionally shot down the Malev 240 flight off of Lebanon. While a theory definitely exists that this may be the case, it seems that no conclusive investigation was undertaken. Further, similar theories suggest Syrian influence See [[1]]. The official record provides little by way of useful information at [[2]]. Strikes me that the text should be clear about what is theory (who and why) and what is fact (that it went down). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmping (talk • contribs) 22:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.

Six of those incidents resulted from terrorist or military action including an intentional shootdown by Israel...

This is a false statement. I have changed the word "intentional" to "alleged" and removed "Israel" and provided appropriate references. I'm sure more references are available. I removed Israel simply because Syria, for one, was also implicated. This entry, as is now known, is now factual. Anyone wishing to revert this entry should discuss it first. The simple words "shot down" are inaccurate as the cause of the crash has never officially been determined. There is also no freight manifest so the contents of the aircraft are unknown. This required further editing. Simple cleanup of what I have done, while remaining factual, is welcomed.--Traumatic (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Primary users

Aeroflot and Rossiya don`t use Tu-154 anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.131.32.65 (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

I'm not sure that the flags are a) necessary, and b) in accordance with WP:MOSFLAG. I propose that they are removed, with the country spelled out and wikilinked in the column for the location of the accident. Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, normally the only flags in aircraft articles are in the operators sections. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Number built

I am not sure what to believe - the 917 claimed on the article or the 1025 listed here especially since there are photos of Tu-154 #1000 and beyond out there, both in service and in production in Tu-154 #1000's case, which suggests that the number of 917 is inaccurate. --Quadunit404 (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Quadunit404. I'm not sure who changed the production figures to 917 because that would be the number if you only count B and M variants up to 1996. There were also A and C variants and at least 36 planes without suffix designations (for example early Balkan Air and Russian Airfoce examples did not have them). Here are the numbers as close as I can get. At 1996, there were 1006 airframes plus the unregistered prototype = 1007 (of these, 12 were still unregistered because they hadn't yet entered service). By 2006 a further 8 were added (=1015) with 10 more being completed after 2006. This gives 1025 to date. I hope this helps. Maxzden May 2011

Oh good grief!

So I change "mid 2000s" to "first decade of the 2000s", and as justification say that "mid 2000s" could be taken to mean around 2500. This gets reverted with the comment, "taken by whom? Martians?".

Yes, as a matter of fact, Martians could assume that "mid 2000s" means around 2500.

So could mathematicians. And nerds in general. And anyone who likes to use the English language for accurate communications and dislikes sloppy short forms that can be misunderstood.

I'll agree that "first decade of the 2000s" is clumsy, and would be pleased if someone has a better suggestion. RenniePet (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I propose "mid naughties" (naught for zero). I think that either is quite ok, actually.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
As the lead is meant to be a summary of the article the subject doesnt actually appear in the main body of the article. That said it really needs a reference, and adding to the main body of the article, which will probably give a more accurate date. MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll leave this up to someone else to decide. But please consider that if "mid 2000s" is supposed to mean around 2005, then how should this statement be interpreted: "Passenger aircraft powered by jet engines first entered service around the mid 1900s." RenniePet (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
You are indeed correct: but until we have gotten very near to year 2500 nobody will reasonably interpret "mid-2000s" as such. Of course, your version is more accurate, and I don't think it necessary to revert it. If nothing else, this will clarify things four hundred years from now, should there still be any Tupolevs flying then. While admittedly snarky, this comment of mine should be read as support for RenniePet's opinion.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Prominence of NATO reporting names

Placement of "NATO Reporting Names" in the first sentence of each Soviet, Russian or East European civil airliners represents a point of view problem.

I've looked at about a dozen aircraft that are over 90% civilian use and see this, and can say for a fact that in civil use western authorities do not use these desgnations, for example the US FAA and US and western ATC do not use Nato Reporting Names in either formal or informanl reference.

One does not see Russian or Chinese code names attributed to Boeing or Airbus civil airliners that are also used occassionally in the military.

Therefore the NATO designation is better placed far below in the section on miliary uses.71.252.85.62 17:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. What you suggest is part of the rampant revisionist effort to downplay 50 years of Cold War history. The NATO names were widely used and their military uses were at least as common as civilian use. Aeroflot (which was much larger then) was an instrument of the Soviet military as much as it was a civilian airline. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
rampant revisionist? Of what a pov desingnation not used in 90% of references? The nato names were not widely used but rarely used. what you mean is nato names used by nato. these are russian and east europenman civil airliners.
Are you suggesting the Soviet or Russian code names for the boeing 707 etc be in the first sentence of the 707 and all the other civil airliners? the c and kc 135 varients were not the only case, the 707 passenmger version itself was also used as US military transport.
As far as aeroflot being as much an instrument of the soviet military that is no different than US airlines civil airliners which also were used for military transport.
This is not "rampant revsionism, but removal of a POV suggestion that these aircraft are moslty military which is false. the FACT is googling the tu154 on western websites, including the FAA, a slew of civil aviations sites, official and not, hardly ever use this disignation
It is not going to be removed, but moved lower down to notes on military use. 71.252.85.62 16:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Soviet Union does not have formal reporting names for Western aircraft. If you remove "Careless" again, you will start getting vandalism warnings. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I am 100% against all these NATO names! I agree wholly with the first comment, as we do not see Chinese, Italian or Russian names for U.S.A. aircraft. It reeks of Yankee jingoism and has little or no use in a "Global" reference medium. It is primarily condescending to Russian technological efforts, and at best implies a world view through Dr. Strangelove's eyes. Maybe there should be an international vote to determine this, rather than the imposition from a few outdated NATO military types. --189.188.163.200 (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This isn't about condescension or Yankee jingoism. NATO assigned these code names to Soviet aircraft, military and civilian, because they didn't know what the actual Soviet identification names were. Even if they did know the names, they couldn't pronounce them unless they heard them first hand or spoke Russian. These NATO code names were strictly for the purposes of identification.
This isn't anything new. The Allies had similar identification issues with Japanese aircraft during World War 2. They either didn't know what the Japanese named their aircraft or if they did, it was a name that was very complicated for those who couldn't speak Japanese. As such, they needed to come up with code names for Japanese aircraft that Allied pilots who encountered them could understand. One example of this is the Nakajima Ki-43, which was given the Allied code name Oscar.
As for their being no Chinese, Italian or Russian names for American aircraft, it would hardly be necessary for these countries to have such names since American aircraft companies already give names to most of their aircraft, like the 'Hercules' name for the Lockheed C-130.
If coming up with code names for Russian aircraft can help NATO with identification issues, more power to them.
And003 (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Is this a two-year old discussion! in any case the current consensus is to state the nato reporting name in the lead only and not use in the rest of the article. As I understand it this article agrees with that consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess I should have paid closer attention to the dates of these posts. It's just that I had to restore the 'Careless' name to the lead of the Tu-154 article early this morning after discovering that someone replaced it with the word 'Soviet'. I didn't understand why until I came across this section of the talk page. Since this seemed to explain the reason for my discovery, I felt obliged to put in my 2 cents on this matter.
And003 (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Image "Tu-154M of Cubana" disappeared

Somehow, this file was disappeared:

File:Cubana Tu-154M.jpg
Tu-154M of Cubana

Tony Mach (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The file was deleted from Commons as a copyright violation. NtheP (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ceasing Production

There has been some contention about the date of final production and whether production has really stopped. This is the quote from the reference given in the article...

"Last week, a chapter of Soviet aviation has been closed forever..." This was as of Jan 2013

...of course this may not be true but there needs to be a better or conflicting reference for the changes that seem to keep being made to stick Andrewgprout (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Airworthiness standards

This article claims that the TU-154 was the first Soviet aircraft manufactured to Western airworthiness standards. The book Tupolev Tu-154, the USSR's medium-range jet airliner by Dmitriy Komissarov, published by Midland Publishing in 2007 makes no reference to any Western standards. It does say on pages 15-16 that prior to 1967 the USSR had no such standards. The Tu-154 was the first airplane developed to the Soviet NLGS-1 (Normy Iyotnoy Godnosti Samolyotov, Airworthiness standards for fixed wing aircraft) standard. Furthermore, the book OKB Tupolev, A history of the Design Bureau and its Aircraft by Yefim Gordon and Vladimir Rigmant, translated by Alexander Boyd and edited by Dmitriy Komissarov (Midland Pub, 2005) makes no reference to either set of standards.

I also find it hard to believe that in the 1960's the Soviets would be designing aircraft to Western standards. Therefore, I think that the reference to Western standards should be removed. DanielCar67 08:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

IIRC the first Soviet-built airliner designed to Western airworthiness requirements was the 1975 Yakovlev Yak-40 [3] [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

NVU?

What exactly does NVU mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.228.59 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tupolev Tu-154. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Checked Redalert2fan (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tupolev Tu-154. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tupolev Tu-154. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Missing TU-154 on December 25, 2016

Looks like there might be another incident/accident to add here once all of the details are properly reported: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/25/asia/russian-military-jet-disappears/index.html

As of the time of this Talk page post, a Russian military TU-154 has seemingly mysteriously vanished after taking off from Adler airport, near the Black Sea. 83 passengers and 8 crew members aboard, including a popular Russian folk group and journalists. Story is still developing at this time. This might need to be added once further information is available.

Spencer Doak (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

More news here - it seems to have been on the way to Syria and disappeared off radar over the Black Sea.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tupolev Tu-154. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tupolev Tu-154. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tupolev Tu-154. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tupolev_Tu-154/Archive_1&oldid=1101630727"