PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Paul Phelan’s article in The Australian on Fri 10 Aug.
Old 16th Aug 2007, 02:38
  #26 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,303

First up, thanks for having the cohonas to defend yourself publically- not many journalists do.

No, there is no evidence that the aircraft would not have broken up if they had been operated at a lighter weight.
Why, then, was this the clear implication of your acticle?

Clearly however, higher operating weights increase the risk of a failure incurring . That is one of the two reasons why MTOWs are imposed.
But there is no evidense that this was the reason or even a factor in these accidents. The original MTOW was imposed for the OTHER of the two reasons, performance. Indeed you note that there have been quite a number of in-flight break-ups of aircraft opperated to the original MTOW.

As the headline of the article is clearly misleading, and your name is on the by-line, have you asked the newspaper to print a retraction?
Wizofoz is online now