shortfinals
And do we think that the new AD, when carried out, will make Concorde safe?
Don't ever let the general public hear you say that!
Forgive me it was unintentional, but use of the word "safe" in that context is very problematic. It means different things to different people. To an engineer like myself, saftey is a quantifiable parameter, like any other. To most people in the street it is an absolute: something is either safe or it's not safe. If it's not safe, then they want to know why the hell they should fly in it and, if someone's been hurt or killed, how much compensation they can get from someone because it wasn't designed right!
Are you implying that it wasn't safe before the AD? Are you implying that it is 100% safe after? These are the sorts of questions and demands that the guy in the street has.
I think Concorde always was a "safe" aircraft; and I use that in the sense that there is a high safety factor - so to speak. With the mods, it is now saf
er, which can only be a good thing!
I think there is a very high probability that under exactly the same circumstances, the AD would prevent exactly the same accident from happening again. But then, what is the probability that exactly the same circumstances will transpire again?
Still, if the money spent on the mods gives Joe Public (or even the CAA) a warm and fuzzy feeling about flying the old bird again, then I'm happy. Long may she continue to grace our skies.
[ 07 September 2001: Message edited by: Covenant ]