Concorde - Danger to the public?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the report in French posted by Catchup
From (English) reports I've read, it seems some new report into the AF Concorde crash, which is critical of French officials for allegedly not rigorously monitoring Concorde's safety, has been leaked to the press.
NB: It’s not clear from what I’ve read whether the new report was prepared by an independent body or by experts instructed by lawyers representing people claiming damages.
French lawyer Roland Rappaport who represents the family of pilot Christian Marty says he’s read the report and expects it will lead investigating judge Christophe Regnard to place officials from DGAC, the country's civil aviation authority, and the aerospace giant EADS, which made the supersonic airliner, under investigation.
Claire Hocquet, a colleague of Mr Rappaport, said: "We have all reason to think, we're hoping it in any case, that the judge will announce the placing under investigation."
Rappaport (predictably) makes lots of emotive comments, claiming "For 20 years, Concorde was a danger to the public, and the accident had to happen some time."
An article in Valeurs Actuelles, a French weekly magazine, said the new, follow-up safety report had explored who was at fault for failing to come up with a system to monitor years of safety incidents leading up to the crash. It says the report states: "[The plane's] owners, authorities and builders failed to put into place a system collecting reports on [past] incidents".
The magazine says the new report could lead to the judge launching investigations into whether there had been "involuntary homicide".
In March, the French judge placed Continental Airlines under judicial investigation for "involuntary homicide and injuries".
A lawyer for Continental has denied the United States airline bore any responsibility.
The prosecutor's office has contended that Continental broke US Federal Aviation Administration rules by using titanium in a part of the plane that normally required the use of aluminium, which is softer.
A spokeswoman for EADS said: "On anything related to judicial enquires, our policy is to refrain from making any comments."
British Airways, which also operated the supersonic aircraft, categorically denied the lawyer's claims about Concorde safety. A spokeswoman said yesterday: "We would never have operated an aircraft we considered to be in any way unsafe."
A spokesman for the UK CAA said Concorde had been one of the most closely-monitored aircraft because its supersonic capability made it so complex: "The aircraft would not have flown unless it met CAA and European safety requirements. " Maintenance would have been carried out by airline engineers after every flight to CAA specifications, but there would also have been independent inspections, sometimes as often as weekly."
(Edit)
This has been split from another thread, hence the reference to a post by 'Catchup'.
Just in case anyone misunderstands my post - I think it was one of the saddest events in the history of aviation when one of the finest aircraft ever built stopped flying.
From (English) reports I've read, it seems some new report into the AF Concorde crash, which is critical of French officials for allegedly not rigorously monitoring Concorde's safety, has been leaked to the press.
NB: It’s not clear from what I’ve read whether the new report was prepared by an independent body or by experts instructed by lawyers representing people claiming damages.
French lawyer Roland Rappaport who represents the family of pilot Christian Marty says he’s read the report and expects it will lead investigating judge Christophe Regnard to place officials from DGAC, the country's civil aviation authority, and the aerospace giant EADS, which made the supersonic airliner, under investigation.
Claire Hocquet, a colleague of Mr Rappaport, said: "We have all reason to think, we're hoping it in any case, that the judge will announce the placing under investigation."
Rappaport (predictably) makes lots of emotive comments, claiming "For 20 years, Concorde was a danger to the public, and the accident had to happen some time."
An article in Valeurs Actuelles, a French weekly magazine, said the new, follow-up safety report had explored who was at fault for failing to come up with a system to monitor years of safety incidents leading up to the crash. It says the report states: "[The plane's] owners, authorities and builders failed to put into place a system collecting reports on [past] incidents".
The magazine says the new report could lead to the judge launching investigations into whether there had been "involuntary homicide".
In March, the French judge placed Continental Airlines under judicial investigation for "involuntary homicide and injuries".
A lawyer for Continental has denied the United States airline bore any responsibility.
The prosecutor's office has contended that Continental broke US Federal Aviation Administration rules by using titanium in a part of the plane that normally required the use of aluminium, which is softer.
A spokeswoman for EADS said: "On anything related to judicial enquires, our policy is to refrain from making any comments."
British Airways, which also operated the supersonic aircraft, categorically denied the lawyer's claims about Concorde safety. A spokeswoman said yesterday: "We would never have operated an aircraft we considered to be in any way unsafe."
A spokesman for the UK CAA said Concorde had been one of the most closely-monitored aircraft because its supersonic capability made it so complex: "The aircraft would not have flown unless it met CAA and European safety requirements. " Maintenance would have been carried out by airline engineers after every flight to CAA specifications, but there would also have been independent inspections, sometimes as often as weekly."
(Edit)
This has been split from another thread, hence the reference to a post by 'Catchup'.
Just in case anyone misunderstands my post - I think it was one of the saddest events in the history of aviation when one of the finest aircraft ever built stopped flying.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 27th Aug 2005 at 15:24.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are not all aircraft a danger to the public when you think about it? Concorde flew for 20 years without any loss of life, but its grounded now so like Diana, we should let it rest!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why let it rest? Concorde was arguably the most incredible aircraft ever built and put into service. All we needed was a partner with money to help fund the project. The technical excellence was British through and through and the politics of envy was the deadliest nail in the Concorde coffin. It had an incredible safety record and SHOULD still be flying. It was so very tragic that there was a loss of life from factors outside the control of the aircraft and crew, and the responsiblity must be put where it properly belongs.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of rubbish! The BA aircraft were almost wrapped in cotton wool by their engineers. All incidents were reported and recorded, along with those involving any of their other fleets, in their monthly reports which had a wide readership.
On a different tack, but worth mentioning, unlike AF, BA was highly proactive and creative in marketing Concorde and was very active in the business of spare hours charters ranging from " Round the Bay" to " Round the World",together with a limited additional peak scheduled service operation to Bahrein around 1984 and 85, later replicated by a similar operation to Jeddah in the early 90s. Barbados became a regular peak season feature and further ad hoc operations which were sold publicly rather than through charters included Hong Kong and Jakarta. All these were meticulously planned in accordance with a deep safety-first culture.
On a different tack, but worth mentioning, unlike AF, BA was highly proactive and creative in marketing Concorde and was very active in the business of spare hours charters ranging from " Round the Bay" to " Round the World",together with a limited additional peak scheduled service operation to Bahrein around 1984 and 85, later replicated by a similar operation to Jeddah in the early 90s. Barbados became a regular peak season feature and further ad hoc operations which were sold publicly rather than through charters included Hong Kong and Jakarta. All these were meticulously planned in accordance with a deep safety-first culture.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 years and one fatal accident would make Concorde the safest aircraft ever built. I believe a Japanese consortium is working on a supersonic Mach 2 rocket assisted design, shortly to be tested at the Woomera rocket range in Australia. Four hours NRT to LAX with 300 pax.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 years and one fatal accident would make Concorde the safest aircraft ever built.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you need to know the Hours/cycles of the Conorde fleet then use this site
http://www.concordesst.com/207.html
then go to fleet
http://www.concordesst.com/207.html
then go to fleet
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
apaddyinuk - Thanks. It is not often on these pages someone is in agreement with me. I do feel very strongly that as a nation of excellent engineers we have been sacrificed time and again on the high alter of politics. What a short sighted, lilly livered bunch of hypocrits our politicians appear to have been over the ages. Just think about Concorde, TSR2, Hovercraft, Harrier, to name but a few! Sorry to everyone for being somewhat off topic, rant over.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>Concorde was arguably the most incredible aircraft ever built and put into service. The technical excellence was British through and through......
WorkingHard<<
****************************************************
Such a load of bunk!!!
There was a lot of great French design as well.
What will you say when France and Japan develop the next generation Concorde?????
You need to get your head out of the English mist and look to the real world.
The USA were flying Mach 3 plus aircraft
(SR71, XB70, X15, Apollo, Shuttle).
WorkingHard<<
****************************************************
Such a load of bunk!!!
There was a lot of great French design as well.
What will you say when France and Japan develop the next generation Concorde?????
You need to get your head out of the English mist and look to the real world.
The USA were flying Mach 3 plus aircraft
(SR71, XB70, X15, Apollo, Shuttle).
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My rough calculations are:
BA - 48K cycles (i.e. commercial flights)
AF - 26K cycles
All-up, this 74K cycles is equivalent to two senior widebody
lifetimes.
Does one in every two widebodies crash with fatal results?
BA - 48K cycles (i.e. commercial flights)
AF - 26K cycles
All-up, this 74K cycles is equivalent to two senior widebody
lifetimes.
Does one in every two widebodies crash with fatal results?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unmanned transport - "The USA were flying Mach 3 plus aircraft
(SR71, XB70, X15, Apollo, Shuttle)."
You from the USA by any chance? The a/c you list, unless I am mistaken do not carry 100 people at Mach2 for a few hours. In any case IF the USA develops a supersonic transport will there be an orchestrated series of demonstartions to keep it out of US airspace until all orders have dried up? I did not think so. I am proud that Britain built Concorde and she is still the ONLY supersonic passenger a/c the world has seen.
(SR71, XB70, X15, Apollo, Shuttle)."
You from the USA by any chance? The a/c you list, unless I am mistaken do not carry 100 people at Mach2 for a few hours. In any case IF the USA develops a supersonic transport will there be an orchestrated series of demonstartions to keep it out of US airspace until all orders have dried up? I did not think so. I am proud that Britain built Concorde and she is still the ONLY supersonic passenger a/c the world has seen.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey fellas,
How come these subjects always come down to nation bashing, which always stifles the debate on the original subject,and it is always a waste of time as every country has designs , machines or constructions which not only they but all off mankind can be proud of, and you have to admit that CONCORDE was an Anglo-French design.
So let us get back to the subject
How come these subjects always come down to nation bashing, which always stifles the debate on the original subject,and it is always a waste of time as every country has designs , machines or constructions which not only they but all off mankind can be proud of, and you have to admit that CONCORDE was an Anglo-French design.
So let us get back to the subject
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe-the sunshine side
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed ,an impresive plane it was.
Regarding safest airplane build,you should check this site : http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/
It is not the years of service that made a plane the safest,is the nr of accidents versus number of flights.
You will see that even it has only 1 accident ,at a number of 0,08 milion flights ,concorde ranks nr 19 (last)
The 737 ,with 47 accidents (till dec 2004) ,ranks nr 5 with 76 million flights.
Another interesting example, the mighty 747 is nr 14 ,with 24 accidents from 14.8 million flights.
The statistics can be quite surprising sometimes.
Regarding safest airplane build,you should check this site : http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/
It is not the years of service that made a plane the safest,is the nr of accidents versus number of flights.
You will see that even it has only 1 accident ,at a number of 0,08 milion flights ,concorde ranks nr 19 (last)
The 737 ,with 47 accidents (till dec 2004) ,ranks nr 5 with 76 million flights.
Another interesting example, the mighty 747 is nr 14 ,with 24 accidents from 14.8 million flights.
The statistics can be quite surprising sometimes.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a really interesting chart, but with some inconsistencies. It treats the MD-80 separate from the DC-9, but lumps all 737's into one type. It overlooks the RJ's completely (save the 146).
Of these nineteen types, the worst four aircraft have fatal accident rates between 2.0 and 12.5 per million flights. Ranks 12 - 15 have rates between 1.0 and 2.0.
And the best eleven have rates LESS THAN 1.0 per million.
And the best of the lot is the little 340.
But the big 340 & 330 are absent.
Of these nineteen types, the worst four aircraft have fatal accident rates between 2.0 and 12.5 per million flights. Ranks 12 - 15 have rates between 1.0 and 2.0.
And the best eleven have rates LESS THAN 1.0 per million.
And the best of the lot is the little 340.
But the big 340 & 330 are absent.
Last edited by barit1; 27th Aug 2005 at 23:09.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am proud that Britain built Concorde
******************************
Did France have no input????????
The Concorde was a complete sales failure
since the world's airlines did not want it, just like
most other British built airliners.
Anyway, the Concorde was just a glorified exec jet,
just stretched a bit.
******************************
Did France have no input????????
The Concorde was a complete sales failure
since the world's airlines did not want it, just like
most other British built airliners.
Anyway, the Concorde was just a glorified exec jet,
just stretched a bit.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi catchup, I've been looking for your post, too, since I made a reply in it, with pictures of the Air France Concorde in the Sinsheim museum (or is that the reason for it being pulled? would be very odd I think.....)
I don't think the Concorde wasn't a sales success because the airlines didn't want it... it was because they couldn't FLY it to the airfields they would have liked to have flown to. What's the use of an aircraft if there are too many restrictions? No overflying of the USA, and countries in Europe except France and England. You have an airplane to take people where they want to go, not to some place out of the way.
As I said in the now disappeared thread, innovation is more important then in which country an aircraft, or anything else for that matter, is built or produced! Competition is healthy and should be seen as such and not as a reason to bash!
Westy
I don't think the Concorde wasn't a sales success because the airlines didn't want it... it was because they couldn't FLY it to the airfields they would have liked to have flown to. What's the use of an aircraft if there are too many restrictions? No overflying of the USA, and countries in Europe except France and England. You have an airplane to take people where they want to go, not to some place out of the way.
As I said in the now disappeared thread, innovation is more important then in which country an aircraft, or anything else for that matter, is built or produced! Competition is healthy and should be seen as such and not as a reason to bash!
Westy
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Catchup - whichever 'supermod' split the thread FL refers to, (it weren't me - I'm too junior
) probably had a touch of finger trouble (probably being aircrew and therefore qualified) and deleted the remaining parts, which unfortunately included yours.
OTOH it was sadly heading for a nationalistic bashing session (through no fault of yours!)
) probably had a touch of finger trouble (probably being aircrew and therefore qualified) and deleted the remaining parts, which unfortunately included yours.OTOH it was sadly heading for a nationalistic bashing session (through no fault of yours!)