airworthiness certificate

[aeroguru]

NTSB concludes the most exhaustive and expensive enquiry ever with a "don't know FOR CERTAIN but suspect wiring short through fuel probes" in the centre tenk of B747-100.
Still huge uncertainty on the B737 rudder hardover occurrences.
B767 seems it may have elevator control system faults.
Concorde is grounded because FOD on runway burst tyre and the fuel tank got punctured.
Which of these aircraft meets all the airworthiness requirements then?

[Clever Bloke]

It all comes down to politics and who has the biggest cheque book!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Hate to tell you with, but speaking as an Engineer who has certified several complete aircraft, and lots and lots of modified aircraft - there probably isn't an aircraft flying which meets every bit of the design code it was certified against.

It just isn't possible, that's why the people who approve new aircraft designs have large salaries and grey hair. The art of certification is churning out an aeroplane that's as close as you can get it, and all non-compliances have been shown "acceptable". Sometimes we get this last bit wrong, I've not worked on Concorde or the 747, but I can think of a number of aircraft where these assumptions were made and they came back to bite us - but far more where thank goodness they didn't.

What is very very important, is that the deficiencies are documented properly and everybody involved in operating the type is aware of them.

G

[trapper]

aeroguru, completely agree with your point. Concorde is grounded because it is a small fleet. Perhapes it does have a design flaw, but then so does the 747 etc with the air cond packs beneath the centre tank together with low volt tank wiring in same loom as 115v wiring. Some reports say Concorde design was accident waiting to happen. Are other designs really thatn different?