Russia Adoption Blog

03/27/07

Russian Adoption: How Safe Is Russian Air Travel?

Posted by : Virginia M. Citrano in Russia Adoption Blog at 05:52 am , 400 words, 211 views  
Categories: Travel, Air Travel
Airplane
The other day, I got to take a virtual train trip across Russia, knowing that some of you may have real train rides while you travel to orphanages. But all of you will spend some part of your Russian adoption journeys traveling by air, and that can sometimes be disconcerting. Even more so when the nightly news contains a mention of an airplane crash in Russia, as happened last week.

I have made three round-trip flights to Russia for adoptions, the first on Aeroflot in 1999 and trips two and three on a combination of Aeroflot and Transaero, one of Russia's newer carriers, in 2005. But over the years, I have had the chance to fly--for business and pleasure--on some of the world's carriers with the worst safety records and some with the best safety records. I have been equally nervous regardless because I am one of the world's worst white-knuckle fliers. My dear friend Joe has spent hours trying to talk--and fly--me through it, but I don’t know that I will ever be comfortable in a plane, despite all the statistics that show it is safer than car travel.

SPONSOR
Click Here for More Information

Still, putting the words "Russia" and "airplane" together causes a lot of concern for a lot of people. So I'm going to take a few posts to look at why they should--and shouldn't--worry you.

First, there's the legacy of the past. The old Soviet Union threw a huge blanket of secrecy over aviation safety. The West rarely heard officially about crashes, and that has created some lasting distrust.

But Aeroflot has actually had a very good safety record since the Soviet Union ceased to be in December 1991: Just two fatal crashes according to one Web site that tracks safety, AirDisaster.com. That compares with 125 from 1953 through late 1991. Here's another bit of statistics to put this into perspective: American Airlines has just 16 crash records in AirDisaster's database; Continental has only seven.

So, for Aeroflot, points for improvement. My six flights were uneventful and reasonably comfortable. The in-flight entertainment--and couple of shoot-em-up movies in Russian--was not to my taste, but the food was better than I've had on most carriers in the United States lately and the service was helpful.

Now on to Russia's newer carriers and how you can check out a Russian airline before you fly.

--Part Two: Russia's New Carriers And Safety
--Part Three: Checking Out Your Airline In Russia

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: John [Member] Email
Hi Virginia. I am a retired airline pilot, be careful in using statistis on saftey. Yes, American had twice the number of accidents, but they are more than twice as large as Continental. Aeroflot is large, two accidents over that period is very impressive.

Equipment is a large factor, but as you pointed out, poor maintenance and training can quickly negate the advantage of a new ariplane.

Part of the issue in Russia are the ground facilities. The super hi-tech stuff we are so used to here in the US is not common in Russia. Lots of non-percision approaches, and old style ILS approaches. That leaves more opportunity for problems. John
PermalinkPermalink 03/27/07 @ 18:09
Comment from: Virginia M. Citrano [Member] Email · http://russia.adoptionblogs.com/
John, very good points. I wish I could have analyzed the accident stats against something like passenger miles flown, but I couldn't find such stats on Aeroflot.

When you talk about the ground problems, is that at all airports (including the biggies in Moscow and St. Petersburg) or just the smaller regional airports? The most recent UTAir crash also made me wonder about the onboard avionics in the Tupolevs.
PermalinkPermalink 03/28/07 @ 09:11
Comment from: John [Member] Email
Virginia, I am not surprised that the stats weren't availble for Aeroflot, I don't think they have ever provided that info. (Gee, I wonder why?)

The avionics and ground equipment deficiencies go together. The large airports get the big well equiped aircraft, and have great navigational aids, with good runways. The remote locations get the cheaper ground aids and are served by older or smaller aircraft, which have much less sophisticated avionics.

The most common approach for remote areas is an NDB approach. It is cheap to install and maintain, but has an extremely heavy work load for the pilots. There are many opportunities for error.

The UTAir crash brings up the other issue, facilities at the airport itself. Runways at outlying locations may not be grooved (big difference stopping on a rain slicked runway), and they may be short. Emergency equipement may be very limited, or non existant.

What goes up must come down, but its nice if you can do it with some degree of finess. John
PermalinkPermalink 03/28/07 @ 14:19
Leave a Comment: You need to login to leave comments.:

Login | Register

Login To AdoptionBlogs.com

Search

Sponsors

Related Discussions

    Misc

    Subscribe to Russia Adoption Blog

     Enter your email address:
     

     

    Who's Online?

    • carolisabeachlover
    • Guest Users: 122