Hi,
I am new to Forums. I have somewhat fear of flying and recently i will be doing travel on chartered airline for work purposes. Upon investigating, i saw the planes that i will be traveling on are almost 30-40 years old 737-200's.

I feel a bit uncomfortable knowing the planes are that old and how can they still be in flight and safe for flight.

Am i being un reasonable? are these planes still safe as of today as they were yesterday(if they were?)

The operator of the plane is Nolinor Aviation

Welcome to the forums! In short, yes the 737-200 is still very safe, and an extremely rare treat at that.

I would be buzzing and so excited knowing one of these was going on my log especially in 2018!
My favourite plane, enjoy the experience!

Bo)am

Okay, because the previous posters only gave you pure aviation geek answers, let my try to be a little bit more serious...

If you will be travelling on some airline from a First World country (like Air North in Canada etc.) I would not worry at all. If it's some shady charter operator from a slapdash South American country where the owner is airline CEO and pilot at the same time, I would perhaps worry a bit. From a geek perspective I would be thrilled to get on a 732 these days in both cases, but it would feel safer on a professional airline.

One thing you can note down as a fact: just because a plane is old, it can be perfectly safe and reliable. It's all about maintenance. A two year old plane can be less safe than a 40 year old plane, if the 40 year old one is in top notch condition and the two year old one has been lacking proper maintenance oversight. So don't worry for the age, but check where the operator is from.


As you fly Nolinor Aviation you are 100% safe, they are a Canadian operator and maintain their aircraft to high standards. These smaller airlines from Canadas North love the 737-200, because it is the last 737 which can land on gravel air strips in the frozen North, because of it's small engine inlets and the installed gravel kit at the wheel trucks. Don't worry!

We have a forum member that worked in Canada's upper regions, and knows Nolinor very well. So he can answer you very precisely.
Anyway, Nolinor for me is a 100% go, their planes may be old, but they keep em like treasures.

Once an airplane is older, its safety depends on who operates and maintains it, and the quality of the government.

A 737-200 in DR Congo might be pretty dangerous. Your question isn't crazy. But in a good country like Canada, with a good operator like Nolinor, any potential concern is fully taken care of, and you are PERFECTLY safe (western airline safety level).

Edit: what CARST said.

I have flown 732s in Canada, Peru, Zimbabwe within the last 3-4 years, with the age of them being between 28-36 years old at the time of flying. I really don't think flying them elevates your risk of dying in a plane crash. The fact is they are more comfortable to fly than modern narrowbodies, with decent seat padding and recline. They still feel more sturdy than modern 737s and A320s to me.

aerorobnz wrote:

I have flown 732s in Canada, Peru, Zimbabwe within the last 3-4 years, with the age of them being between 28-36 years old at the time of flying. I really don't think flying them elevates your risk of dying in a plane crash. The fact is they are more comfortable to fly than modern narrowbodies, with decent seat padding and recline. They still feel more sturdy than modern 737s and A320s to me.

I wouldn’t get on one in any third world country as I would avoid certain airlines


But in Canada with a first rate aviation authority and this well known operator
you’re as safe as you can be

Any well maintained old airplane is a safe one I say.

NearMiss wrote:

Any well maintained old airplane is a safe one I say.

Not necessarily, if you don’t have competent, well trained pilots it doesn’t matter how good the aircraft is


Look at Asiana in SFO and Turkish in AMS
First rate, modern aircraft crashed by incompetent Pilots

Hello, and welcome to the forum.

Nolinor Aviation is a great operator, and their aircrafts are kept in tip top shape! You are actually very lucky to be flying on such a rare aircraft, and with such a bunch of professionals. They are a niche operator with an impressive track record. Also, the 737/200 is one of the sturdiest, most reliable jets; and especially when in the hands of such a capable operator (who knows all the type's systems inside and out) there's absolutely nothing -and I mean NOTHING- to worry about.
Go with the flow: let go of all fears, and do enjoy the ride.

Feel free to contact me privately: Not only I am an enthusiast who knows quite a bit about the 737/200, but I am also familiar with anxiety management techniques, which might come in handy for you.

I'm pretty sure there was a thread here recently about Nolinor spending a fortune updating a 737-200 to a glass cockpit. Clearly they are very happy to spend over and above what is needed to maintain their aircraft to superb condition.

Generally, Safety in 1st world countries is great regardless of airplane age.

The safety record of the 737-200 is nothing to worry about, even if it indeed is worse than that of newer airplanes. This more or less applies to all planes of that age. Modern avionics have considerably eased workload and have increased the safety record.

Virtual737 wrote:

I'm pretty sure there was a thread here recently about Nolinor spending a fortune updating a 737-200 to a glass cockpit. Clearly they are very happy to spend over and above what is needed to maintain their aircraft to superb condition.

Yep, they're in the middle of upgrading their fleet. Quite the bit of kit they've installed.

For the first time ever on a B737-200, all electromechanical navigational and flight instruments will be replaced with four active matrix LCD colour screens with LED blacklighting (Universal Avionics EFI 890R). These will be coupled with two solid-state inertial navigation systems (Honeywell Laseref V) and two LPV flight management systems (Universal UNS-1Lw). In addition, the transponder system will be upgraded to meet ADS-B OUT requirements.
The replacement of all gyroscope components streamlines the system architecture by eliminating a number of digital/analogue interfaces and increasing the stability of navigational instruments in remote areas. Meanwhile, improvements to the on-board navigation systems will increase the flexibility of operations in monitored areas.
This US$828,350 (CA$1,110,000) investment to modernize the avionics equipment of our first Boeing 737-200 (registration C-GTUK) will also reduce the amount of time required for maintenance troubleshooting thanks to the self-diagnostic capacity of the new on-board systems.
Nolinor Aviation is the first carrier in the world to install such sophisticated navigational systems in a Boeing 737-200. This first step towards the modernization of the avionics suites of our fleet will ensure the continued operations of Nolinor not only in the Arctic region, but also in large urban centres. Innovation is at the forefront of our company’s core values, focus and management.

https://nolinor.com/en/news/making-inve ... ve-better/

CARST wrote:

One thing you can note down as a fact: just because a plane is old, it can be perfectly safe and reliable. It's all about maintenance.

If one can't trust an operator with a 737-200 there's no reason to trust them with a newish A320, either. Maintenance without shortcuts.

A more general question: a bathtub reliability curve is a common trend in many situations. Would that apply to planes, and how serious that wear out trend would be ?

kalvado wrote:

A more general question: a bathtub reliability curve is a common trend in many situations. Would that apply to planes, and how serious that wear out trend would be ?

Stop worrying, you will be fine. You have more chance of dying from a falling piano than on a plane (true fact that).

It boils down to the operator. Some operators on other continents are pretty shady, and B737-200s in those hands can be dangerous indeed, and very maintenance-intensive. Witness the recent accident in Cuba (though we don't know the cause yet).

The 737-200s in Canada's north are used for one very specific reason: the gravel kit allowing operation off gravel runways. These birds are very rare now on the used market. As a result, they are very precious to these operators and absolutely essential to their operations, which is why you find them investing heavily in them as Nolinor has with a glass cockpit, and intensive maintenance. Literally, if they can't get another gravel 737 their route system is in peril; they would be stuck finding used Dash-8s to service their markets, with far lower speeds, payloads and thus lower efficiencies.

So I am pretty sure that they are doing everything they need to do, and more, to keep their existing 737-200s in top condition knowing full well they may not be able to get another one anytime soon.

A friend of mine is a semi-retired dentist, and a pilot with a multi-IFR CPL, and works in Quebec's far north, where there is a shortage of health care professionals, regularly. He flies on these all the time, usually configured for mixed cargo and a dozen or so pax. He has no worries about his safety; though the odd time the 737 gets grounded for a maintenance issue or is stuck somewhere due to weather, and a Dash-8 is substituted. He loves the Dash-8 as an aircraft but isn't too fond of 3+ hour flights in them.

One did crash some years ago, but it was because of a navigational error in poor weather, something the glass cockpits in the Nolinor aircraft will make *less* likely. Make no mistake, flying in the Arctic is very challenging, with weather issues, lack of diversion airfields, etc., but these pilots are extremely skilled and experienced Arctic flyers, and I wouldn't hesitate to fly with them.

Now if you asked me to board a 4th-hand 737-200 operated by some unknown operator in the jungle somewhere, I would refuse. But that has nothing to do with the aircraft. When I was flying on business a lot prior to retirement, I spent tons of hours in 30+ y.o. Air Canada DC9s. I just loved that aircraft (also got a few jump seat rides in the cockpit of DC9s in the pre 9/11 days). They were well-maintained, solid aircraft as are Nolinor's 737s.

Beech

Samrnpage wrote:

kalvado wrote:

A more general question: a bathtub reliability curve is a common trend in many situations. Would that apply to planes, and how serious that wear out trend would be ?

Stop worrying, you will be fine. You have more chance of dying from a falling piano than on a plane (true fact that).

Worrying or not, my question is purely technical. Are you saying bathtub curve does not apply? I would call that bullshit... Well mitigated - maybe.
And regarding a piano - I heavily doubt that. I've flown a few times since last time I saw a piano - and that hints that my odds of getting hit by one are lower than those of a crash.

beechnut wrote:

Witness the recent accident in Cuba (though we don't know the cause yet).

Beech

Global Air just recently stated the cause of the Cuba crash as pilot error - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/cu ... experience

Obviously, they are not the most unbiased source, as they want their operations reinstated, but it does fit with other publicly known facts.

gen90 wrote:

are these planes still safe as of today as they were yesterday(if they were?)

The operator of the plane is Nolinor Aviation

As others have said - safety is about quality maintenance, procedures and piloting, and Nolinor is well regarded in all areas. Aircraft age plays very little role. Nolinor's 737-200's are probably safer today than they were at the time of manufacture.

Enjoy your flights.

As someone who lives in the North, I used 732's frequently to get down south. These birds are perfectly safe, and are a backbone for accessing some Northern communities.

Here in Yellowknife, Nolinor has a dedicated maintenence team to keep GNRD in order. You'll be fine.

Max Q wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

I have flown 732s in Canada, Peru, Zimbabwe within the last 3-4 years, with the age of them being between 28-36 years old at the time of flying. I really don't think flying them elevates your risk of dying in a plane crash. The fact is they are more comfortable to fly than modern narrowbodies, with decent seat padding and recline. They still feel more sturdy than modern 737s and A320s to me.

I wouldn’t get on one in any third world country as I would avoid certain airlines


But in Canada with a first rate aviation authority and this well known operator
you’re as safe as you can be

I wouldn't get on a 2 year old 737 NG with certain 3rd world operators. I'd get on any Nolinor aircraft of any vintage in a heartbeat. They are extremely professional and experts at what they do (i.e. Northern and gravel ops...along with charters of just about any kind). Nolinor have actually started an avionics upgrade program on their 732s, meaning they'll be around for years to come. They also recently bought a 'new' low time 732 from TAAG Angola.

A little off-topic here, but what aircraft will Nolinor operate when the 732 becomes too old to maintain? Given its function to TO/land on gravel?

Once I saw the operator any doubts left my mind. A well known established Canadian Airline. You have absolutely nothing to worry about. The driving you will be doing in that area is much much more dangerous by a massive margin than flying on their 737-200s. Enjoy the ride!

4engines4lnghll wrote:

A little off-topic here, but what aircraft will Nolinor operate when the 732 becomes too old to maintain? Given its function to TO/land on gravel?

The Quebec government, as well as the governments of the territories of Nunavit, NW, and Yukon, will have to put up money to pave some of those runways. Also of note...Nolinor just acquired a 732 from TAAG that is less than half time, and they're still flying 65-year old Convairs. (One could also say the same about Alaska, where Everts Air operates the DC-3 and DC-6 still.) The one time I have seen Nolinor in the USA, it was their oldest plane (the 354th 737 built, in 1974 - ex-Transavia).

As for the OP, I would not worry about anything for the 732s under the jurisdiction of the FAA or Transport Canada (most of the remaining 732s are in Canada). Some of the 732s in Canada have also spent their entire flying careers in Canada.

In the 70's, we operated some very tired B707's and 720's and maintenance on our aircraft was O.K., not great and yet we never had a an incident that was ever serious, just some Nitnoid items that were more of an inconvenience than a safety issue. Really speaks a lot about the redundancy built into Jet age aircraft.

Nolinor seems to be sort of on par with what we did back in the day with old aircraft and from what I have read probably has better maintenance than we did. Still they have had some of those Nitnoid type incidents that are more common on older aircraft.
https://www.aeroinside.com/incidents/airline/nolinor

As an aside, I went on an after maintenance test flight on a B731 when they still had a 3 man crew with a flight engineer. He was referred to as the "GIB" (Guy In Back)

Almost forgot. In the 80's I installed the gravel runway kits on a few B-732's and it's just amazing how Boeing approached the engineering issues to make operating from a gravel runway work. We worked on one aircraft that had sucked some gravel into the L/H engine and it seemed like when the gravel hit the fan it just sort of vaporized, because the compressor blades had no damage were the fan must of had at least 100 or more small divots on the blades.

If you could, post the tail numbers of the aircraft you flew on after your trip.

stratclub wrote:

In the 70's, we operated some very tired B707's and 720's and maintenance on our aircraft was O.K., not great and yet we never had a an incident that was ever serious, just some Nitnoid items that were more of an inconvenience than a safety issue. Really speaks a lot about the redundancy built into Jet age aircraft.

Nolinor seems to be sort of on par with what we did back in the day with old aircraft and from what I have read probably has better maintenance than we did. Still they have had some of those Nitnoid type incidents that are more common on older aircraft.
https://www.aeroinside.com/incidents/airline/nolinor

As an aside, I went on an after maintenance test flight on a B731 when they still had a 3 man crew with a flight engineer. He was referred to as the "GIB" (Guy In Back)

Cant seem to make out if you are appraising Nolinor or saying they are Just O.K?

Many people seem to be complaining about same airline and plane that they can be uncomfortable etc.

I flew on I think an F28-1000 up in Canada to a gravel field. Not sure what jets are gravel capable.

Flighty wrote:

I flew on I think an F28-1000 up in Canada to a gravel field. Not sure what jets are gravel capable.

Did the F28's need a gravel kit with those high engines? Flew plenty of them on Canadian Regional but never onto gravel.

Will always remember the 732 for the rocket like engines. Some good window rattle if you sit a few rows behind the nozzle.

kalvado wrote:

Samrnpage wrote:

kalvado wrote:

A more general question: a bathtub reliability curve is a common trend in many situations. Would that apply to planes, and how serious that wear out trend would be ?

Stop worrying, you will be fine. You have more chance of dying from a falling piano than on a plane (true fact that).

Worrying or not, my question is purely technical. Are you saying bathtub curve does not apply? I would call that bullshit... Well mitigated - maybe.
And regarding a piano - I heavily doubt that. I've flown a few times since last time I saw a piano - and that hints that my odds of getting hit by one are lower than those of a crash.

Depends. I would agree with "well mitigated". As planes age, their maintenance becomes more costly because more parts have to be checked for fatigue, and more of the checked parts have to be replaced due to fatigue. But as long as they are well maintained, they are as safe as (nearly) new. Metal fatigue, particularly in an aviation context, has been studied very much and is a fairly well known process today.
Obviously, some structural parts just can't be replaced easily and usually aren't. If these are found to be faulty, or if the airframe runs out of hours or cycles, it won't return to service again.
Finally, the aircraft probably won't be much safer than the original design. You won't find a state-of-the-art Fly-By-Wire system on the 737. Most of the known flaws will have been corrected, though.
The main reason why old airframes tend to crash more is that they often end up with shady airlines in difficult environments towards the end of their life. In that context, the bathtub model may actually be correct.

mxaxai wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Samrnpage wrote:

Stop worrying, you will be fine. You have more chance of dying from a falling piano than on a plane (true fact that).

Worrying or not, my question is purely technical. Are you saying bathtub curve does not apply? I would call that bullshit... Well mitigated - maybe.
And regarding a piano - I heavily doubt that. I've flown a few times since last time I saw a piano - and that hints that my odds of getting hit by one are lower than those of a crash.

Depends. I would agree with "well mitigated". As planes age, their maintenance becomes more costly because more parts have to be checked for fatigue, and more of the checked parts have to be replaced due to fatigue. But as long as they are well maintained, they are as safe as (nearly) new. Metal fatigue, particularly in an aviation context, has been studied very much and is a fairly well known process today.
Obviously, some structural parts just can't be replaced easily and usually aren't. If these are found to be faulty, or if the airframe runs out of hours or cycles, it won't return to service again.
Finally, the aircraft probably won't be much safer than the original design. You won't find a state-of-the-art Fly-By-Wire system on the 737. Most of the known flaws will have been corrected, though.
The main reason why old airframes tend to crash more is that they often end up with shady airlines in difficult environments towards the end of their life. In that context, the bathtub model may actually be correct.

Regarding running out cycles - would it be a reasonable interpretation that aircraft are limited (certification-wise) to stay within flat area of bathtub curve and not allowed to hit the back wall?

gen90 wrote:

Many people seem to be complaining about same airline and plane that they can be uncomfortable etc.

are you referring to posts about the 737 itself being an uncomfortable plane?
if that's the case, then you are out of luck, as you presumably have no choice in terms of your destinations, etc. I mean, assuming you are flying their 3 x 3 seating configuration, that's just what you are stuck with. The comfort is really about the cushioning of the seat, and pitch available for legroom. Perhaps someone here with direct knowledge can comment, personally I have not been on their aircraft. Its completely possible that if they are still older style padded seats, that comfort could be significantly better than brand new aircraft with todays horrid "slimline" (ie, no decent padding) seats. Yes, this decades old aircraft will be somewhat noisier than newer ones. Good thing you're sitting inside and not outside

The flight times can't be that long, as the aircraft doesn't have great range.
I do think you are worrying about nothing.

Nolinor are a very well respected airline here in Canada. You are more likely to be eaten by a polar bear than have an accident with them. I would put myself and my family on their flights with no second thoughts.

kalvado wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Worrying or not, my question is purely technical. Are you saying bathtub curve does not apply? I would call that bullshit... Well mitigated - maybe.
And regarding a piano - I heavily doubt that. I've flown a few times since last time I saw a piano - and that hints that my odds of getting hit by one are lower than those of a crash.

Depends. I would agree with "well mitigated". As planes age, their maintenance becomes more costly because more parts have to be checked for fatigue, and more of the checked parts have to be replaced due to fatigue. But as long as they are well maintained, they are as safe as (nearly) new. Metal fatigue, particularly in an aviation context, has been studied very much and is a fairly well known process today.
Obviously, some structural parts just can't be replaced easily and usually aren't. If these are found to be faulty, or if the airframe runs out of hours or cycles, it won't return to service again.
Finally, the aircraft probably won't be much safer than the original design. You won't find a state-of-the-art Fly-By-Wire system on the 737. Most of the known flaws will have been corrected, though.
The main reason why old airframes tend to crash more is that they often end up with shady airlines in difficult environments towards the end of their life. In that context, the bathtub model may actually be correct.

Regarding running out cycles - would it be a reasonable interpretation that aircraft are limited (certification-wise) to stay within flat area of bathtub curve and not allowed to hit the back wall?

You could consider it that way.
Although, the maximum number of cycles is not fixed for eternity. If testing and new maintenance procedures show that the inevitable fatigue is less than expected or can be detected before reaching a critical level, then the number of cycles can be increased. Most types start with a relatively low number that can be more than doubled over the airframes lifetime. So the "back wall" is very much a moving target (that you want to avoid, of course). I'm not sure if, for very old types like the 707, DC-8 or the 737-200, airlines can "reset" the counter by performing more extensive maintenance, e. g. replacing large parts of the airframe skin or its support structure.

gen90 wrote:

stratclub wrote:

In the 70's, we operated some very tired B707's and 720's and maintenance on our aircraft was O.K., not great and yet we never had a an incident that was ever serious, just some Nitnoid items that were more of an inconvenience than a safety issue. Really speaks a lot about the redundancy built into Jet age aircraft.

Nolinor seems to be sort of on par with what we did back in the day with old aircraft and from what I have read probably has better maintenance than we did. Still they have had some of those Nitnoid type incidents that are more common on older aircraft.
https://www.aeroinside.com/incidents/airline/nolinor

As an aside, I went on an after maintenance test flight on a B731 when they still had a 3 man crew with a flight engineer. He was referred to as the "GIB" (Guy In Back)

Cant seem to make out if you are appraising Nolinor or saying they are Just O.K?

Many people seem to be complaining about same airline and plane that they can be uncomfortable etc.

Definitely praise. I was comparing Nolinor's operation with the operation of other old aircraft. I was saying that even with O.K., not great maintenance our B707's never had a critical incident and so Nolinor's 737's with good maintenance that folks are reporting would be just as safe as any other newer aircraft with good maintennce.

The biggest thing that sends an aircraft to the bone yard is time. As an aircraft ages, maintenance cost gets to a point where it isn't cost effective to maintain them anymore. The gravel runway B732's are unique because they are a pure jet that was Type Certificated by Boeing to land on gravel runways and so to Nolinor, the cost of the required aging aircraft maintenance is cost effective.