A slightly less happy anniversary - Concorde crash

JRS · 25 Jul 2006 at 10:13

25th July 2000 - Air France Flight 4590 Concorde crashed in France after suffering damage during take-off. The beginning of the end for the greatest passenger jet ever, and the start of one gigantic leap backwards for the airline industry.

D4VE · 25 Jul 2006 at 10:17

It is a shame, the Concorde was awesome.

iBot · 25 Jul 2006 at 10:19

Well it was getting too old/unsafe anyway.

They should have decommisoned it years ago.

iCraig · 25 Jul 2006 at 10:26

Rust In Peace.

Visage · 25 Jul 2006 at 10:28

The Boeing 767 is better.

JRS · 25 Jul 2006 at 10:30

iBot said:
Well it was getting too old/unsafe anyway.

They should have decommisoned it years ago.

From Wiki - "The accident would make way for modifications to be made to Concorde, including more secure electrical controls, Kevlar lining to the fuel tanks, and specially developed, burst-resistant tyres. The new-style tires would be another contribution to future aircraft development."

Yeah, sounds terribly unsafe that. As for 'old' - how long has the oldest 747 been in service? Or the oldest DC-10?

Glaucus · 25 Jul 2006 at 10:39

iBot said:
Well it was getting too old/unsafe anyway.

You being serious?

It had and still has got the safiest track record out of any passenger airliner.

Nismo · 25 Jul 2006 at 10:40

Visage said:
The Boeing 767 is better.

What has that got to do with this thread? :confused:

Mickey_D · 25 Jul 2006 at 10:45

JRS said:
From Wiki - Yeah, sounds terribly unsafe that. As for 'old' - how long has the oldest 747 been in service? Or the oldest DC-10?

Hell, there's even some original 707's flying. There're MD-11's out there still flying the Seattle - Anchorage route under Alaskan Airlines that are older than the oldest operational 747, which would still be a fair few years older than the oldest Concorde built!!

[EDIT] Oops, sorry. Got my planes mixed up there. Said MD-11, was thinking MD-80, what I meant was the DC-9........

z3b3dy · 25 Jul 2006 at 11:25

iBot said:
Well it was getting too old/unsafe anyway.

They should have decommisoned it years ago.

Did you use it/go on it? As has already been mentioned there a numerous other planes that are still flying with airlines that are far older.

On the New York route it was brilliant and made getting to the States for easier with the option to then long-haul it back and make the time zones work in your favour. Given that it was cheaper than First class helped also!

AthlonTom · 25 Jul 2006 at 11:40

AcidHell2 said:
You being serious?

It had and still has got the safiest track record out of any passenger airliner.

That might just be because their wasn't very many of them, if you've only got a small number of aircraft then you havent got many to crash!

Scuzi · 25 Jul 2006 at 11:44

Visage said:
The Boeing 767 is better.

At supersonic passenger transport? No it isn't.

I doubt we'll ever hear the callsign BAW1 on the airwaves again for some time, if ever again.

Retorted · 25 Jul 2006 at 11:54

AthlonTom said:
That might just be because their wasn't very many of them, if you've only got a small number of aircraft then you haven’t got many to crash!

True. Concorde had a very light workload. It wasn't one of thousands of jets that bounce around the world's airports like there's no tomorrow. It's a step back in commercial aviation technology.

It's like discovering fire then snuffing it out because somebody got burned.

^comments courtesy of Jeremy Clarkson

Scuzi · 25 Jul 2006 at 11:58

It's not really a step back in technology though, is it? Concorde is an old aircraft and whilst it was well ahead of its time, it is old technology. A bigger, better and faster aircraft could quite easily be built with todays technology but the reason it isn't is that such an aircraft isn't commercially viable.

NathanE · 25 Jul 2006 at 11:59

It got canned because of falling market demand - not any inherent safety issue. It's safety was second to none - it is afterall a British aircraft design.

Scuzi · 25 Jul 2006 at 12:02

NathanE said:
it is afterall a British aircraft design.

And French. That has no bearing on how safe it will be either

Lopéz · 25 Jul 2006 at 12:08

Visage said:
The Boeing 767 is better.

I know what I'd rather have parked on my (large) drive.

Retorted · 25 Jul 2006 at 12:09

Scuzi said:
It's not really a step back in technology though, is it? Concorde is an old aircraft and whilst it was well ahead of its time, it is old technology. A bigger, better and faster aircraft could quite easily be built with todays technology but the reason it isn't is that such an aircraft isn't commercially viable.

I understand what you are saying. It's not economically viable which means that we'll never really further the technology to a point where it does actually become a workable commercial solution perhaps.

Lopéz · 25 Jul 2006 at 12:13

iCraig said:
Rust In Peace.

Luckily, not many will be left to decay. It's a shame the same cannot be said for the Tupolev Tu-144, the Soviet Unions "answer" to Concorde. The ones that aren't dumped in forests and abandoned airbases are sold for scrap, including the one that had $350 million spent on it....

NathanE · 25 Jul 2006 at 12:22

Scuzi said:
And French. That has no bearing on how safe it will be either