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?