A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Products
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Concorde - join the campaign



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 9th 06, 08:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
John A. Weeks III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default 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  
Old July 9th 06, 08:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
Alistair Gunn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default 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  
Old July 9th 06, 08:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
Mike Lindsay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default 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
  #15  
Old July 9th 06, 09:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
FatKat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default 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  
Old July 9th 06, 09:43 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
John A. Weeks III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default 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  
Old July 9th 06, 09:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
Clive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default 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  
Old July 9th 06, 10:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
FatKat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default 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  
Old July 9th 06, 10:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
FatKat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default 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  
Old July 9th 06, 11:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
Keith W[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Concorde - join the campaign Clive General Aviation 30 July 23rd 06 12:15 AM
Concorde - join the campaign LWG Naval Aviation 0 June 9th 06 09:06 PM
Concorde - join the campaign Derek Copeland Soaring 0 June 6th 06 05:59 PM
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.