Well, on last nights national news, Brokaw mentioned that the US is very interested in the crash several weeks ago of the 747 in China. Seems it was US made and now they are wondering about the safety of our fleet of aging 747's. Just what nervous me wants to hear - I will be on one in 2 weeks! Any thoughts on this out there?

They US carriers have to tear them down and rebuild after so many hours. And there are a lot of new 747 used by US carriers.<BR><BR>Don't worry be happy!

yep, no airplane in the US is truly "old". they go over them with a fine tooth comb in the US, and replace parts constantly. they have to. it's the law.<BR><BR>planes flown by other countries are subject to the laws of those countries air ministries. maybe they are stringent, maybe they are not...

The maintenance requirements for the U.S. airlines are about the same as those for the U.S. Air Force. As a former Air Force pilot, I am reminded by your question that the B-52 bombers still being flown effectively were introduced into the Air Force fleet in the 1950's. Yes, that's right. And none of them are very new because they haven't really been building new ones for about 30 or more years. As you were already advised by another contributor, maintenance is what makes airplanes reliable. Maintenance is not as good in many other countries as it is in the U.S. And by the way, you sound in your post as if there must be 747's that aren't U.S. made. They are all made by Boeing in Washington.

Wayne,<BR>Since you're making corrections you probably should have said that<BR><BR>They are all assembled by Boeing in Washington

Well, to the nit-picker who thinks anyone cares, I offer my apologies. I didn't know I was making "corrections;" I was only offering further evidence. Autos are made by many auto companies in Detroit; shall we now be sure we say they are only "assembled" in Detroit? And computers are made by Dell in Texas; shall we now say they are only "assembled" in Texas? I think you (whoever "well" is) are really reaching to make a point that is obvious to everyone but you. Why not try to make a constructive suggestion?

Wwll, since YOU'RE making corrections, you might like to know that many componants and some assembly is also done in Wichita, Kansas, the so-called "air capital of the world."

Maintenance is the key to the reliability of anything "old" (take me, for example). A brand-new airplane that's never had its oil changed is not safe; a 25-year old airplane that's overhauled on a regular schedule is. If I'm flying on airline with which I'm not familiar (like Royal Air Maroc a few years ago), I check it out on various websites (Royal Air Maroc came out two thumbs up).<BR><BR>I never worry about the age of the aircraft; my concern is more the airline's maintenance standard and safety record, and those are easy things to research.

Fattie,<BR><BR>Since you're being a bit picky here, perhaps in the future you might try spelling component correctly!<BR><BR>US

Thanks for the info on US maintenance policies on the upkeep of airplanes. I found that info helpful.<BR><BR>What isn't so helpful is when the reponses are disintegrating into an argument and name-calling thread. <BR>Why does that happen way to often on this site? <BR><BR>

While it is true that mechanical components are replaced on a regular basis, that does not include many structural components (the airframe). Metal fatigue can cause cracks in these components, and xrays and other equipment are used to detect developing flaws. But there is a definite risk when an aircraft has been thru a high number of cycles (takoffs and landings) which are very stressful on the airframe.

The duct tape holding the engines to the wings makes me a little nervous but other than that I'm not concerned.