PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - BBC Concorde Incompetence
View Single Post
Old 11th Nov 2002, 16:52
  #50 (permalink)  
NW1
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just a couple of thoughts in response to comments here. Oneworld22 - you discuss statistics, but it is difficult to draw conclusions either way with such a small fleet using statistics. Statistical analysis becomes more and more irrelevant as the population sample reduces. Some bloke won £9.8M on the lottery the other day with his first ever ticket - that does not indicate that the odds of winning the lottery are 100%. One problem may appear a few times in succession before resolution by engineering (as on any other type) - but with only 5 a/c on the fleet, you cannot extrapolate and and label the aircraft unreliable just because there aren't many of them.

The Olympus engine is a small diameter zero bypass pure jet and its rugged simplicity has proved itself many times in service, it can swallow massive amounts of debris before showing any distress (the testing which followed Gonesse proved the engine beyond any doubt - one engine was induced to a Hiroshima of a surge by injecting massive amounts of JetA into its throat at max. reheated thrust and it went on to perform dozens of start/flight/shutdown cycles under test in spite of significant internal damage). I believe it is the most rugged jet engine in airline service today. There have been a couple of shutdowns recently due to an indication error elsewhere. It has been resolved now, but when you have 4 engines it is better to err on the safe side (as I pointed out earlier, a shutdown is no big deal) even though it turned out to be fine. Just because this occurred on a very small fleet flying only one return service a day does not imply massive unreliablility, whatever the statistics can be made to extrapolate.

Effendi - you talk about fuel mist and afterburners, but it has been proved that the afterburners are not an ignition source. To emphasise the point - the fuel jettison pipe has a single outlet on the port side of the tail cone, in between and close to the engine exhaust assemblies, and we can actually jettison fuel safely with the afterburners going as a standard procudure - they do not ignite the misted fuel stream. The reason the Gonesse aircraft fuel leak was ignited was because the hole was massive and the leak rate enormous (hundreds of litres per *second*). A part of the return to service work done was to make sure that a hole and leak of such massive, unique proportions could not happen again, even though it was extruciatingly improbable in the first place (the mechanism leading to the tank rupture was not penetration by debris). There had been a couple of incidences of fuel tank penetration years ago but the leaks formed from such minor leaks did not present anything like the same situation as Gonesse (this a/c fuel tanks were not penetrated from outside by anything) - or the risk of ignition.

And Hovis - when engineering becomes under-resourced, you get aircraft late out of check - not under-checked. Our jets are looked after better and more thoroughly than any other type in service. They are very young in terms of use, hours and cycles, and are looked after by a band of very knowlegable enthusiasts. I'm not interested in putting my own life at risk, and I intend to fly them for as long as they're there......
NW1 is offline