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

User avatar
jimdavis
10000 and still climbing
10000 and still climbing
Posts: 14336
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:46 am
Closest Airfield: FAGG
Location: Wilderness

Re: The real reason why aircraft have crashed

Unread post by 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
"SO OTHERS MAY LIVE - Flying Accidents Analysed". This book will be available soon. It asks: "Can Smart Pilots See Accidents Coming - And Avoid Them?" Get this and other Jim Davis books on Kindle at: http://www.jimdavis.co.za
isoexcite
Flaps set for Take off
Posts: 91
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 post by 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: 1840
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:41 pm
Closest Airfield: GRJ
Location: On my bed

Re: The real reason why aircraft have crashed

Unread post by 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.
“Hey Referee, you should open up a caravan park because the opposition are camping on the offside line!”
Volo
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1209
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 post by 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
Flaps set for Take off
Posts: 91
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 post by 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: 1695
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:57 pm
Closest Airfield: Rand
Location: Jo'burg

Re: The real reason why aircraft have crashed

Unread post by 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”