Re: Concorde - join the campaign

[Clive]

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:16:49 +0100, > wrote:

> On 3 Jun 2006 12:54:17 -0700, wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
>> signatures this week!
>>
>> Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.
> Concorde grew old and killed many humans and so was pensioned off so
> has not to kill again which it surly would have done .
> It was a beautiful aircraft but you wouldn't catch me flying in it now
> where it still in service I value my life to much for that .

The Concorde crash has been proven to be debris on the runway and human
error (groundcrew).

Had the debris not been on the runway and the gear been assembled
correctly then the accident would not have happened.

From your post then we should all stop flying 747's. How many people has
the 747 killed?

Clive

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <op.tcd3kpvzj9nxpm@clive>,
Clive > wrote:

> The Concorde crash has been proven to be debris on the runway and human
> error (groundcrew).
>
> Had the debris not been on the runway and the gear been assembled
> correctly then the accident would not have happened.

This is a chicken and egg problem. The Concorde was unusually
susceptible to the problem that happened. Had it been designed
differently, the accident may not have happened. In fact, there
was a previous similar accident (that did not result in a crash),
and at that time, the airlines decided not to fix the problem.
That is the sad part--they had prior warning, which they ignored.
That is also true of both Space Shuttle accidents.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:35:03 +0100, Clive
> > wrote:
>
>
>> From your post then we should all stop flying 747's. How many people has
>>the 747 killed?
> Never been in a 747 never had any intention of going in a 747 don't
> want to go in a 747 and the only way anyone will get me in that
> monstrosity that Airbus have built will be to put me in a coffin with
> the lid screwed down .
> Time we got back to the days of the BAC 1-11 .

You yearn for an aircraft which wuld not meet modern safety
standards. Of the 244 airframes built 32 were lost in accidents.

The design was susceptible to deep stall from which recovery
was impossible and the twin tail mounted engines mean that
an uncontained engine failure will not only probably knock
out the other engine but also damage the flight controls.

Keith

[Guy Alcala]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:35:03 +0100, Clive
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> From your post then we should all stop flying 747's. How many people has
> >>the 747 killed?
> > Never been in a 747 never had any intention of going in a 747 don't
> > want to go in a 747 and the only way anyone will get me in that
> > monstrosity that Airbus have built will be to put me in a coffin with
> > the lid screwed down .
> > Time we got back to the days of the BAC 1-11 .
>
> You yearn for an aircraft which wuld not meet modern safety
> standards. Of the 244 airframes built 32 were lost in accidents.
>
> The design was susceptible to deep stall from which recovery
> was impossible and the twin tail mounted engines mean that
> an uncontained engine failure will not only probably knock
> out the other engine but also damage the flight controls.

Now Keith, you should know that making rational arguments is a waste of time
with someone who suffers from irrational fears.

Guy

[FatKat]

Clive wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:16:49 +0100, > wrote:
>
> > On 3 Jun 2006 12:54:17 -0700, wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
> >> signatures this week!
> >>
> >> Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.
> > Concorde grew old and killed many humans and so was pensioned off so
> > has not to kill again which it surly would have done .
> > It was a beautiful aircraft but you wouldn't catch me flying in it now
> > where it still in service I value my life to much for that .
>
> The Concorde crash has been proven to be debris on the runway and human
> error (groundcrew).
>
> Had the debris not been on the runway and the gear been assembled
> correctly then the accident would not have happened.
>
> From your post then we should all stop flying 747's. How many people has
> the 747 killed?
>
What is the incidence of fatal or serious incidents in other aircraft
traced to circumstances similar to that of the Concorde? I doubt that
it's as much as Concorde, given how much higher use that type has
provided compared to Concorde in roughly the same period of time. Of
course we have lost 747's, but mostly in incidents of spectacular human
accident/incident (Tenarife, Lockerbie). There is ofcourse FT800 (if
you accept/buy the official story), but the demonstrable safety record
of the 747 still seems spotless in comparison.

[FatKat]

wrote:
>> Both a total unnecessary waste of life why the yanks are hell bent on
> sending tones of metal into space I shall never know.

Unlike Russians, Chinese, Japanese and various Europeans who send up
Kilos of metal into space?

[Clive]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 16:48:54 +0100, FatKat > wrote:

>
> Clive wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:16:49 +0100, > wrote:
>>
>> > On 3 Jun 2006 12:54:17 -0700, wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
>> >> signatures this week!
>> >>
>> >> Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.
>> > Concorde grew old and killed many humans and so was pensioned off so
>> > has not to kill again which it surly would have done .
>> > It was a beautiful aircraft but you wouldn't catch me flying in it now
>> > where it still in service I value my life to much for that .
>>
>> The Concorde crash has been proven to be debris on the runway and human
>> error (groundcrew).
>>
>> Had the debris not been on the runway and the gear been assembled
>> correctly then the accident would not have happened.
>>
>> From your post then we should all stop flying 747's. How many people
>> has
>> the 747 killed?
>>
> What is the incidence of fatal or serious incidents in other aircraft
> traced to circumstances similar to that of the Concorde? I doubt that
> it's as much as Concorde, given how much higher use that type has
> provided compared to Concorde in roughly the same period of time. Of
> course we have lost 747's, but mostly in incidents of spectacular human
> accident/incident (Tenarife, Lockerbie). There is ofcourse FT800 (if
> you accept/buy the official story), but the demonstrable safety record
> of the 747 still seems spotless in comparison.

Partially correct - I'll agree that the number of hours flown by 747's far
outnumbers those by Concorde.

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%.

However, a lot of aircraft accidents have been caused by design errors -
Concorde never suffered any of those - or at least design error that
caused fatalities.

It would be interesting to know, but I suspect that the number of hours
flown by Concorde (before it was given a permit to fly) was more than any
other aircraft.

Clive

[FatKat]

Clive wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 16:48:54 +0100, FatKat > wrote:
>
> >
> > Clive wrote:
> >> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:16:49 +0100, > wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 3 Jun 2006 12:54:17 -0700, wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >>
> >> >> The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
> >> >> signatures this week!
> >> >>
> >> >> Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.
> >> > Concorde grew old and killed many humans and so was pensioned off so
> >> > has not to kill again which it surly would have done .
> >> > It was a beautiful aircraft but you wouldn't catch me flying in it now
> >> > where it still in service I value my life to much for that .
> >>
> >> The Concorde crash has been proven to be debris on the runway and human
> >> error (groundcrew).
> >>
> >> Had the debris not been on the runway and the gear been assembled
> >> correctly then the accident would not have happened.
> >>
> >> From your post then we should all stop flying 747's. How many people
> >> has
> >> the 747 killed?
> >>
> > What is the incidence of fatal or serious incidents in other aircraft
> > traced to circumstances similar to that of the Concorde? I doubt that
> > it's as much as Concorde, given how much higher use that type has
> > provided compared to Concorde in roughly the same period of time. Of
> > course we have lost 747's, but mostly in incidents of spectacular human
> > accident/incident (Tenarife, Lockerbie). There is ofcourse FT800 (if
> > you accept/buy the official story), but the demonstrable safety record
> > of the 747 still seems spotless in comparison.
>
> Partially correct - I'll agree that the number of hours flown by 747's far
> outnumbers those by Concorde.
>
> 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%.

Actually, the Lockerbie incident was caused by deliberate conduct by
terrorism, whereas the Concorde accident appears to involve debris that
could be found on any runway in the world. Also, the fact that the
Concorde accident occurred "outside" the control of the crew is at best
irrelevant and at worst aggravating - we're talking about design flaws,
the plane being unfit when it leaves the factory despite the expertise
of the aircrew.
>
> However, a lot of aircraft accidents have been caused by design errors -
> Concorde never suffered any of those - or at least design error that
> caused fatalities.

Except for the one in 2000. How many errors of similar or otherwise
comparable circumstances befell 747, keeping in mind how much greater
use was provided by one against the other?
>
> It would be interesting to know, but I suspect that the number of hours
> flown by Concorde (before it was given a permit to fly) was more than any
> other aircraft.

And you would suspect that based on what?

[Clive]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 17:16:54 +0100, FatKat > wrote:

>
> Clive wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 16:48:54 +0100, FatKat > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Clive wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:16:49 +0100, >
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 3 Jun 2006 12:54:17 -0700, wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi all,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
>> >> >> signatures this week!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.
>> >> > Concorde grew old and killed many humans and so was pensioned off
>> so
>> >> > has not to kill again which it surly would have done .
>> >> > It was a beautiful aircraft but you wouldn't catch me flying in it
>> now
>> >> > where it still in service I value my life to much for that .
>> >>
>> >> The Concorde crash has been proven to be debris on the runway and
>> human
>> >> error (groundcrew).
>> >>
>> >> Had the debris not been on the runway and the gear been assembled
>> >> correctly then the accident would not have happened.
>> >>
>> >> From your post then we should all stop flying 747's. How many people
>> >> has
>> >> the 747 killed?
>> >>
>> > What is the incidence of fatal or serious incidents in other aircraft
>> > traced to circumstances similar to that of the Concorde? I doubt that
>> > it's as much as Concorde, given how much higher use that type has
>> > provided compared to Concorde in roughly the same period of time. Of
>> > course we have lost 747's, but mostly in incidents of spectacular
>> human
>> > accident/incident (Tenarife, Lockerbie). There is ofcourse FT800 (if
>> > you accept/buy the official story), but the demonstrable safety record
>> > of the 747 still seems spotless in comparison.
>>
>> Partially correct - I'll agree that the number of hours flown by 747's
>> far
>> outnumbers those by Concorde.
>>
>> 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%.
>
> Actually, the Lockerbie incident was caused by deliberate conduct by
> terrorism, whereas the Concorde accident appears to involve debris that
> could be found on any runway in the world. Also, the fact that the
> Concorde accident occurred "outside" the control of the crew is at best
> irrelevant and at worst aggravating - we're talking about design flaws,
> the plane being unfit when it leaves the factory despite the expertise
> of the aircrew.
>>
>> However, a lot of aircraft accidents have been caused by design errors -
>> Concorde never suffered any of those - or at least design error that
>> caused fatalities.
>
> Except for the one in 2000. How many errors of similar or otherwise
> comparable circumstances befell 747, keeping in mind how much greater
> use was provided by one against the other?
>>
>> It would be interesting to know, but I suspect that the number of hours
>> flown by Concorde (before it was given a permit to fly) was more than
>> any
>> other aircraft.
>
> And you would suspect that based on what?

747 - 1500hrs test (Source Boeings own site)

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

[FatKat]

Clive wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 17:16:54 +0100, FatKat > wrote:
>
> >
> > Clive wrote:
> >> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 16:48:54 +0100, FatKat > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Clive wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:16:49 +0100, >
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On 3 Jun 2006 12:54:17 -0700, wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
> >> >> >> signatures this week!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.
> >> >> > Concorde grew old and killed many humans and so was pensioned off
> >> so
> >> >> > has not to kill again which it surly would have done .
> >> >> > It was a beautiful aircraft but you wouldn't catch me flying in it
> >> now
> >> >> > where it still in service I value my life to much for that .
> >> >>
> >> >> The Concorde crash has been proven to be debris on the runway and
> >> human
> >> >> error (groundcrew).
> >> >>
> >> >> Had the debris not been on the runway and the gear been assembled
> >> >> correctly then the accident would not have happened.
> >> >>
> >> >> From your post then we should all stop flying 747's. How many people
> >> >> has
> >> >> the 747 killed?
> >> >>
> >> > What is the incidence of fatal or serious incidents in other aircraft
> >> > traced to circumstances similar to that of the Concorde? I doubt that
> >> > it's as much as Concorde, given how much higher use that type has
> >> > provided compared to Concorde in roughly the same period of time. Of
> >> > course we have lost 747's, but mostly in incidents of spectacular
> >> human
> >> > accident/incident (Tenarife, Lockerbie). There is ofcourse FT800 (if
> >> > you accept/buy the official story), but the demonstrable safety record
> >> > of the 747 still seems spotless in comparison.
> >>
> >> Partially correct - I'll agree that the number of hours flown by 747's
> >> far
> >> outnumbers those by Concorde.
> >>
> >> 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%.
> >
> > Actually, the Lockerbie incident was caused by deliberate conduct by
> > terrorism, whereas the Concorde accident appears to involve debris that
> > could be found on any runway in the world. Also, the fact that the
> > Concorde accident occurred "outside" the control of the crew is at best
> > irrelevant and at worst aggravating - we're talking about design flaws,
> > the plane being unfit when it leaves the factory despite the expertise
> > of the aircrew.
> >>
> >> However, a lot of aircraft accidents have been caused by design errors -
> >> Concorde never suffered any of those - or at least design error that
> >> caused fatalities.
> >
> > Except for the one in 2000. How many errors of similar or otherwise
> > comparable circumstances befell 747, keeping in mind how much greater
> > use was provided by one against the other?
> >>
> >> It would be interesting to know, but I suspect that the number of hours
> >> flown by Concorde (before it was given a permit to fly) was more than
> >> any
> >> other aircraft.
> >
> > And you would suspect that based on what?
>
> 747 - 1500hrs test (Source Boeings own site)
>
> 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?

[John A. Weeks III]

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
================================================== ====================

[Alistair Gunn]

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 ...

[Mike Lindsay]

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

[FatKat]

wrote:
> On 9 Jul 2006 08:48:54 -0700, "FatKat" > wrote:
>
>
> > Of
> >course we have lost 747's, but mostly in incidents of spectacular human
> >accident/incident (Tenarife, Lockerbie).

> A 747 crashing on an housing estate is bad enough God help the people
> under an Airbus A380 when the first one comes down fully loaded .

God help pretty much everybody above and below....

[FatKat]

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.

[John A. Weeks III]

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
================================================== ====================

[Clive]

>>
>> 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

[FatKat]

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.

[FatKat]

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?

[Keith W[_2_]]

"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

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <op.tcfv2ea5j9nxpm@clive>,
Clive > wrote:

> 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?

No. The safety record that the Concorde had was a quirk of statistics.
The Concorde had low flight hours and zero fatal accidents. That made
the safety number look good. Once it had its first fatal accident,
the Concorde dropped to the bottom of the list, and became the least
safe working passenger airliner in the world. With one fatal accident
and so few flight hours, the Concorde made the Russians look like
models of safety.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

[Keith W[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:27:11 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> With one fatal accident
>>and so few flight hours, the Concorde made the Russians look like
>>models of safety.
> And the cause of the crash was due to an object being thrown up from
> the runway and piercing a fuel tank in the wing ,now has most aircraft
> have tanks located in their wings are not all the jets that are about
> to take off at this very moment not susceptible to this problem .
>

The cause of the crash was NOT the puncture of the wing tank
but was the ignition of the leaking fuel by the afterburning jet engine
behind it.

Since most aircraft do NOT have such afterburning engines aft of
them this would not be problem. There have been major fuel leaks on
other aircraft without such fires.

Of course your favourite aircraft, the BAC One-11 DID have low
bypass rear mounted engines and so was rather more susceptible
to such problems.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Keith W[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:55:34 +0100, John Wright >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Concorde was already on the slippery path to obsolescence long before
>>the crash - many of the suppliers who made original parts for it had
>>gone out of business, either that or jigs and tools had been lost, so
>>many more parts were having to be specially made. So the costs of
>>keeping it running were rising year after year.
> Which all goes to prove it should never have been allowed of the
> drawing board .

Right we should never make anything which will become obsolete.

Guess that means back to the horse and cart huh !


Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[FatKat]

wrote:
> On 9 Jul 2006 14:18:55 -0700, "FatKat" > wrote:
>
> >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?

> Just set matters straight regarding the 747 we are talking about the
> OLD 747's not the new ones that are still rolling out of the factory.
> It don't make much difference to me anyway my feet are remaining
> firmly on the ground from now on .

Are there still -200's & 100's in service? It's probably because I'm
in the NYC but the only 747's I see these days are the -400's, with
maybe a few of the older planes flying irregularly for cargo outfits.
I suppose it's different in other places - I know when I go to Miami,
there's always a smattering of cargo and charter outfits flying older
planes. For a dedicated plane watcher, MIA is a cool place to check up
on old types - it's like an airline dumoing ground. (I know I saw an
Eastern jet hanging around there for a few years after they went out of
business.)

[Flying Rat]

In article m>, FatKat
says...
>
> wrote:
> > On 9 Jul 2006 14:18:55 -0700, "FatKat" > wrote:
> >
> > >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?
>
> > Just set matters straight regarding the 747 we are talking about the
> > OLD 747's not the new ones that are still rolling out of the factory.
> > It don't make much difference to me anyway my feet are remaining
> > firmly on the ground from now on .
>
> Are there still -200's & 100's in service? It's probably because I'm
> in the NYC but the only 747's I see these days are the -400's, with
> maybe a few of the older planes flying irregularly for cargo outfits.
> I suppose it's different in other places - I know when I go to Miami,
> there's always a smattering of cargo and charter outfits flying older
> planes. For a dedicated plane watcher, MIA is a cool place to check up
> on old types - it's like an airline dumoing ground. (I know I saw an
> Eastern jet hanging around there for a few years after they went out of
> business.)
>
>
there are a few -200 series 747s still flying passengers. There are also
a good few -300 series which look like the newer versions but are more
similar to the early models under the skin.

There are a couple of -100 passenger aircraft still about, although with
airlines in places like the Gulf. Many of the -200 versions still in
service are of the Combi layout with a side cargo door which makes them
more desirable to operators.

Northwest was the last main US operator with any kind of regular B742
passenger flying, although they may have parked their aircraft up by
now.

[Keith W[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:35:34 +0100, "Keith W"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Right we should never make anything which will become obsolete.
> Concorde was obsolete before it was built due to its very high
> operating cost and small passenger capacity plus the passenger market
> that it was aimed at plus of course the excessive noise it made I saw
> and heard it once over here on one of its test flights before going
> into service .

Obsolete does not mean unprofitable. Perhaps you should
acquire a dictionary.


> Why do you think only a few ever went into service at
> great expense to the British and French tax payers just has the
> channel tunnel is/was in fact but at least ordinary people can afford
> to travel via the tunnel, I have been through it four times in either
> direction in the last year in fact .


In fact the Channel Tunnel cost the British taxpayer nothing.
The private investors who put up the money lost a bloody fortune
however.

By your definition this makes it obsolete !

Taxpayer money has however been spent on the high speed rail
link between London and the tunnel portal.


> 29.00 London to any station in Belgium is a good deal I think and much
> cheaper than going by any airline and less messing around at the other
> end even though the journey will take me 11 hours from here to where I
> go in Belgium and the same returning the next day .

The minimum return fare from London to Belgium is £59 and that is only
available
with a 21 day advanced purchase. I frequently use Eurostar between London
and Paris but usually end up paying around £150 for a semi-flexible
ticket


Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mike Lindsay]

In article >, Keith W <keithspam@k
willshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:55:34 +0100, John Wright >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Concorde was already on the slippery path to obsolescence long before
>>>the crash - many of the suppliers who made original parts for it had
>>>gone out of business, either that or jigs and tools had been lost, so
>>>many more parts were having to be specially made. So the costs of
>>>keeping it running were rising year after year.
>> Which all goes to prove it should never have been allowed of the
>> drawing board .
>
>Right we should never make anything which will become obsolete.
>
>Guess that means back to the horse and cart huh !
>
>
>Keith

But you can't get much more obsolete than a horse and cart.
--
Mike Lindsay

[Sylvain]

Keith W wrote:

>
> Right we should never make anything which will become obsolete.

no quite: we should never make anything which is already obsolete
on the drawing board (e.g., A380, Concorde, etc.) just for
the sake of prestige -- but then, it's tax payer money, why
bother asking such questions?

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Keith W wrote:

> Obsolete does not mean unprofitable. Perhaps you should
> acquire a dictionary.

don't be pedantic; it was obsolte as a blue print -- and
so is the A380 -- because it was trying to solve a problem
that was no longer relevant or never existed, other than
in the imagination of the decision makers: fly faster across the
Atlantic (considering the severly limited range of the Concorde,
and the fact that nobody wanted the dang thing to overfly them
at supersonic speed, it couldn't really be used for anything
else), who cares? when most of the time spent travelling is
spent waiting in line at the large hub airport (and traveling
to and from said large hub airport), or in the case
of the A380 competing with the boeing 747 thirty years to
late, and when it has been clear for quite a while now that
the big-hub-to-big-hub model of air transport no longer
make sense.

that said, if the private sector wants to sink money into
projects like that, I am all for it; hey, let's try to
raise some money to build the largest pyramid too while we
are at it.

--Sylvain

[FatKat]

Mike Lindsay wrote:
> In article >, Keith W <keithspam@k
> willshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
> >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:55:34 +0100, John Wright >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Concorde was already on the slippery path to obsolescence long before
> >>>the crash - many of the suppliers who made original parts for it had
> >>>gone out of business, either that or jigs and tools had been lost, so
> >>>many more parts were having to be specially made. So the costs of
> >>>keeping it running were rising year after year.
> >> Which all goes to prove it should never have been allowed of the
> >> drawing board .
> >
> >Right we should never make anything which will become obsolete.
> >
> >Guess that means back to the horse and cart huh !
> >
> >
> >Keith
>
> But you can't get much more obsolete than a horse and cart.

I'll reserve my judgement when I get the fuel and maintenance bills for
each, and try to keep an open mind until somebody's horse & buggy goes
down in flames over some French village.

[Miles Bader]

"FatKat" > writes:
> Are there still -200's & 100's in service?

Are they the ones with the shorter top-deck? I remember seeing some
Korean Air 747s of that type at Narita within the last year or so.

-Miles
--
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that
you do it." Mahatma Ghandi