If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
In article op.tcfi56vzj9nxpm@clive,
Clive wrote: But, The concorde crash was caused by something outside the control of the concorde crew i.e. debris from another aircraft (also the same for the Lockerbie 747), So had it not been for that it's record would have been 100%. That is a totally unrealistic line of thought. There will be FOD on the ramp or runway as some point in an airplane's operating life. Had that small piece of metal not been on the runway the day that the Concorde crashed, it would have been on some other runway some other day. An airplane that is designed to crash, burn, and kill over 100 people when it its a small piece of FOD is an aircraft that is both flawed and an accident waiting to happen. The only curious thing is why it took so long. In fact, a previous time that a Concorde hit debris and punctured the fuel tanks, the aircraft managed to survive without crashing. That is probably the true wonderment. -john- -- ================================================== ==================== John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ================================================== ==================== |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
In rec.aviation.military John A. Weeks III twisted the electrons to say:
The only curious thing is why it took so long. As you said later on in your post ... In fact, a previous time that a Concorde hit debris and punctured the fuel tanks, the aircraft managed to survive without crashing. .... so that would be two cases in more than a few years of take-offs / landings. Which would tend to suggest that the reason "it took so long" was because it wasn't a very likely event. I could also point the Boeing 737 rudder defect? -- These opinions might not even be mine ... Let alone connected with my employer ... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
In article ,
John A. Weeks III writes In article op.tcfi56vzj9nxpm@clive, Clive wrote: But, The concorde crash was caused by something outside the control of the concorde crew i.e. debris from another aircraft (also the same for the Lockerbie 747), So had it not been for that it's record would have been 100%. That is a totally unrealistic line of thought. There will be FOD on the ramp or runway as some point in an airplane's operating life. Had that small piece of metal not been on the runway the day that the Concorde crashed, it would have been on some other runway some other day. An airplane that is designed to crash, burn, and kill over 100 people when it its a small piece of FOD is an aircraft that is both flawed and an accident waiting to happen. The only curious thing is why it took so long. In fact, a previous time that a Concorde hit debris and punctured the fuel tanks, the aircraft managed to survive without crashing. That is probably the true wonderment. -john- SMALL piece of FOD? Or a big chunk? Whatever, it shouldn't have been there. -- Mike Lindsay |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
Mike Lindsay wrote: In article , John A. Weeks III writes In article op.tcfi56vzj9nxpm@clive, Clive wrote: But, The concorde crash was caused by something outside the control of the concorde crew i.e. debris from another aircraft (also the same for the Lockerbie 747), So had it not been for that it's record would have been 100%. That is a totally unrealistic line of thought. There will be FOD on the ramp or runway as some point in an airplane's operating life. Had that small piece of metal not been on the runway the day that the Concorde crashed, it would have been on some other runway some other day. An airplane that is designed to crash, burn, and kill over 100 people when it its a small piece of FOD is an aircraft that is both flawed and an accident waiting to happen. The only curious thing is why it took so long. In fact, a previous time that a Concorde hit debris and punctured the fuel tanks, the aircraft managed to survive without crashing. That is probably the true wonderment. -john- SMALL piece of FOD? Or a big chunk? Whatever, it shouldn't have been there. It shouldn't have been there in the sense that even in the real world airplanes aren't supposed to shed small pieces of themselves, or in the sense that this is just a bad thing? In the first case, the idea that a piece of metal might have been on the ground was not only wrong, but unforseeable. I've yet to hear anybody say that this is the case, and that there's no realistic way that such bits of metal would find their way onto a runway - therefore, regardless of the misconduct (if it was misconduct) of the flight that left the offending piece of scrap, the possibility of such scrap would appear in a spot that would threaten Concorde was forseeable and should have been a design consideration. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
In article ,
Mike Lindsay wrote: SMALL piece of FOD? Or a big chunk? Whatever, it shouldn't have been there. You still miss the point. It doesn't matter if it should or should not have been there--sooner or later, there is going to be FOD on the runway or ramp. If you could make a rule that prohibited FOD, then the USAF wouldn't have to do a FOD walk every morning at each of the US airbases. The fact is that you have to design for FOD, or you crash and burn, just like the Concorde did. In comparison, one F-15 lost half a wing, and an A-10 came back with a missile lodged in the wing, and both planes lived to fly again. That is the difference. As it turns out, for many years, the Concorde flew with an on-board FOD generator in the form of the main landing gear. Time after time the tires would shred on take off or landing, and spray debris all over the bottom of the aircraft and all over the runway. It wasn't supposed to happen, but it did. At least until a better tire design was made available. -john- -- ================================================== ==================== John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ================================================== ==================== |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
Concorde.... Both European airlines operated demonstrations and test flights from 1974 onwards. The testing of Concorde set records which are still not surpassed; it undertook 5,335 flight hours in the prototype, preproduction, and first production aircraft alone. A total of 2,000 test hours were supersonic. This equates to approximately four times as many as for similarly sized subsonic commercial aircraft. Clive And the ratio of hours of revenue flight for the two are what then? And when you combine the two, the ratio of revenue flight hours to test-flight time is what? Concorde had been the safest working passenger airliner in the world according to passenger deaths per distance travelled, although the Boeing 737 fleet acquires more passenger miles and service hours in one week than the Concorde fleet acquired in the course of its entire service career. The crash of the Concorde was the beginning of the end of its career. Good enough? Clive |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
Clive wrote: Concorde.... Both European airlines operated demonstrations and test flights from 1974 onwards. The testing of Concorde set records which are still not surpassed; it undertook 5,335 flight hours in the prototype, preproduction, and first production aircraft alone. A total of 2,000 test hours were supersonic. This equates to approximately four times as many as for similarly sized subsonic commercial aircraft. Clive And the ratio of hours of revenue flight for the two are what then? And when you combine the two, the ratio of revenue flight hours to test-flight time is what? Concorde had been the safest working passenger airliner in the world according to passenger deaths per distance travelled, although the Boeing 737 fleet acquires more passenger miles and service hours in one week than the Concorde fleet acquired in the course of its entire service career. Which is sort of the point...actually one of many points against Concorde. According to AirSafe.com, The 747 flew about 16 million flights over the course of its continuing career, and in that time suffered 28 fatal events. Concorde suffered only one, but amassed a much smaller flight record - only 90 thousand - meaning that we'd have to multiply the number of fatal events by 180, then further factor the much smaller passenger capacity of the Concorde to get a better idea of what Concorde could have done were it actually judged by the same standards as unglamorous subsonic jobs that actually move the vast bulk of airline passengers and generate revenues for their operators. This is ofcourse putting aside the possibility that fatal-event numbers would not remain proportionate to the number of flights in the event that operators would try to get more flights out of Concorde. The crash of the Concorde was the beginning of the end of its career. Good enough? If you really think that it took the crash of Concorde to begin the end of its career, then that's probably good enough for you. For me, the fact that Concord made only a negligible dent on air travel, carried only the deepest-pocketed passengers - if anybody- and laid no ground for a successor. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
wrote: On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 14:25:55 -0500, "John A. Weeks III" wrote: That is a totally unrealistic line of thought. There will be FOD on the ramp or runway as some point in an airplane's operating life. Had that small piece of metal not been on the runway the day that the Concorde crashed, it would have been on some other runway some other day. An airplane that is designed to crash, burn, and kill over 100 people when it its a small piece of FOD is an aircraft that is both flawed and an accident waiting to happen. The only curious thing is why it took so long. In fact, a previous time that a Concorde hit debris and punctured the fuel tanks, the aircraft managed to survive without crashing. That is probably the true wonderment. -john- Agreed John but like some 747's now it was an old aircraft and should have been taken out of service long before the crash in France the 747's will probably be run until they drop also . I wouldn't say that. We've had DC-10's, L-1011's and 727's retired in the past few years before they began raining from the skies - why should things be any different for the 747? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
"Mike Lindsay" wrote in message ... SMALL piece of FOD? Or a big chunk? Whatever, it shouldn't have been there. -- Mike Lindsay Frankly that doesnt matter. No single failure should result in the loss of an aircraft and the FOD simply burst a tyre, something that is always a possibility. It was the tyre fragments that punctured the wing tank and the armouring of the tank that removed the hazard wasnt exactly rocket science. Keith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Concorde - join the campaign | Keith Willshaw | General Aviation | 10 | July 11th 06 09:30 PM |
Concorde - join the campaign | LWG | Naval Aviation | 0 | June 9th 06 09:06 PM |
Concorde - join the campaign | Brian Goodspeed | Soaring | 0 | June 7th 06 01:44 AM |
Concorde - join the campaign | Jim Carter | Owning | 0 | June 6th 06 03:28 AM |
Concorde - join the campaign | Jim | Naval Aviation | 2 | June 3rd 06 10:27 PM |