The real reason why aircraft have crashed

What your instructor never taught you. Continuing your education and learning from others. Flight safety topics and accident/incident discussions.

Moderator: Moderators

  • Advertisement

User avatar
jimdavis
10000 and still climbing
10000 and still climbing
Posts: 13963
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:46 am
Closest Airfield: FAGG
Location: Wilderness

Re: The real reason why aircraft have crashed

Unread postby jimdavis » Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:37 am

Geeeee! That sloppy cockpit discipline just confirms my long-held resolve not to fly with Air Frog.

jim
WOW! Volume 2 of Jim's new book "FLYING IN AFRICA" is out already. Get it on Kindle. http://www.jimdavis.co.za
isoexcite
Pre-take off checks
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:42 pm
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Cape Town

Re: The real reason why the De Havilland Comet crashed

Unread postby isoexcite » Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:13 pm

Christopher wrote:kudu and Thermalator, thank you both for posting these fascinating stories -- great journalism from David Rose and the vivid interview with John Hutchinson. They represent, perhaps, <the> most interesting and compelling reportage I have ever read/seen on the subject of an aviation accident -- and sad, too, when one realizes how avoidable the whole thing was!

I know this thread has gone from Comet to Concorde; but I hope we can live with that...this was the first nail in poor Concorde's coffin, wasn't it? After reinforcing that belly-section/area with kevlar, the aircraft went back into service and, as everyone may remember, a fleet management committee was formed by British Airways, comprising active aircrew and others, and the aircraft went on to <make money> for BA, mainly on charter flights. I suspect, therefore, that the whole thing about rising operational costs may have been a red herring? I bet Concorde could have operated successfully for plenty more years...


You are more correct than you think there...the real reason Concorde was pulled was because the main honcho at Airbus wanted to get Airbus out of it's design authority obligations (and supporting Concorde's operation), thereby making more money and making himself look good (with consequent bonuses too, of course)...but that wasn't main reason...the real reason was because he was also poep-scared another crash would happen on his watch and would hurt his career...(and ego) - he manipulated things politically for his own self-gain basically...to cancel Concorde...somebody wrote a big expose on it somewhere...I will try find it...the stuff of spies and clandestine meetings...

Bottom line : No real and proper reason (even economic) why Concorde should not have continued flying...other than this particular "genius" at Airbus being in the way...and more worried about himself, than anything else...
User avatar
MadMacs
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:41 pm
Closest Airfield: GRJ
Location: On my bed

Re: The real reason why aircraft have crashed

Unread postby MadMacs » Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:46 pm

Yes, even Richard Branson wanted to buy them but British Airways was also a thorn in the side anyone wanting to use them.
“Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting.” George Orwell
Volo
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1170
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:39 pm
Closest Airfield: FAOR
Location: Kempton Park

Re: The real reason why the De Havilland Comet crashed

Unread postby Volo » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:11 pm

isoexcite wrote:
Christopher wrote:kudu and Thermalator, thank you both for posting these fascinating stories -- great journalism from David Rose and the vivid interview with John Hutchinson. They represent, perhaps, <the> most interesting and compelling reportage I have ever read/seen on the subject of an aviation accident -- and sad, too, when one realizes how avoidable the whole thing was!

I know this thread has gone from Comet to Concorde; but I hope we can live with that...this was the first nail in poor Concorde's coffin, wasn't it? After reinforcing that belly-section/area with kevlar, the aircraft went back into service and, as everyone may remember, a fleet management committee was formed by British Airways, comprising active aircrew and others, and the aircraft went on to <make money> for BA, mainly on charter flights. I suspect, therefore, that the whole thing about rising operational costs may have been a red herring? I bet Concorde could have operated successfully for plenty more years...


You are more correct than you think there...the real reason Concorde was pulled was because the main honcho at Airbus wanted to get Airbus out of it's design authority obligations (and supporting Concorde's operation), thereby making more money and making himself look good (with consequent bonuses too, of course)...but that wasn't main reason...the real reason was because he was also poep-scared another crash would happen on his watch and would hurt his career...(and ego) - he manipulated things politically for his own self-gain basically...to cancel Concorde...somebody wrote a big expose on it somewhere...I will try find it...the stuff of spies and clandestine meetings...

Bottom line : No real and proper reason (even economic) why Concorde should not have continued flying...other than this particular "genius" at Airbus being in the way...and more worried about himself, than anything else...


On the contrary i think in the end it was simple economics.that finished off concorde
A concorde burned 25 tons / hr carrying 100 pax
A 747 burns. 15 tons / hr carrying 400 pax
Its viability was further affected by its noise limitations as it was not allowed supersonic over certain routes.
And finally maintenance must have been a nightmare
isoexcite
Pre-take off checks
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:42 pm
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Cape Town

Re: The real reason why the De Havilland Comet crashed

Unread postby isoexcite » Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:40 pm

Those are all valid points Volo...but they are not what finished Concorde off...if they were the only things which finished Concorde off, then Concorde would've been finished before it even got off the ground for the first time...but it flew for decades...

No cigar.

:D
User avatar
kudu177
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1677
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:57 pm
Closest Airfield: Rand
Location: Jo'burg

Re: The real reason why aircraft have crashed

Unread postby kudu177 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:11 pm

jimdavis wrote:Geeeee! That sloppy cockpit discipline just confirms my long-held resolve not to fly with Air Frog.

jim


I've flown them and enjoyed the experience, even the the snarky cabin crew. (And I got comp of 600 euros when they bumped me off the return flight in Paris. Had to fight for it but for a country that invented red tape and bureaucracy, well rules are rules ...)

But reading the AF 447 CVR transcript a while ago put me off flying them again.
Nav is a good life lesson: pick a point on the horizon and go there



Return to “Academy & Flight Safety”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 340, Argonaught, Capt. Kyle, Cherokee235, CommonCrawl [Bot], Davidc, eekor, Ian.C, mpfly, rpretorius96, Shepherd, Taxicabs, Ugly Duckling, vr46, Zimfly and 1 guest