Concorde - join the campaign

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

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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 ...

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