English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-09-06 14:55:26 · 12 answers · asked by Rodman 2 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

12 answers

not good safety record. a few very dangerous accidents.

2007-09-06 15:03:20 · answer #1 · answered by patrick e 3 · 0 3

The Concorde crash was caused by a tyre exploding on take off when it hit something on the runway, and from which chunks of material punctured the fuel tank.

Because the cause of the crash was not known at the time, the CAA prevented Concorde from flying.

Once the cause was discovered, additional strength was added to the skin of the aircraft wings, and if people recall, it DID fly again when the ban was lifted.

However, by this time, the maintenenace of Concorde was becoming a problem, and parts had to be cannibalised from other aircraft which had been taken out of service, and opening up a new specialist Concorde parts manufacturing facility was simply uneconomic and impractical.

One suspects that THE ONLY CRASH WHICH CONCORDE EVER HAD, possibly hastened the death of the plane, but the writing was already on the wall before that.

Incidentally, I once sat around a table at a wedding, where various members of the original design-team were present, and some of them closely related. What incredibly intelligent people they were.

That wonderful aircraft was designed orginally with slide-rules, pens and ink, because computers had yet to become available as an engineering tool. So those guys were PROPER engineers, who knew from experience exactly what to design and how to build it.

Noisy perhaps, but has the world ever seen a more beautiful aircraft?

Even now, I miss it flying in and out of Heathrow each day.

2007-09-07 00:04:51 · answer #2 · answered by musonic 4 · 4 0

Not absolutely certain but I believe that the Paris crash was the death knell. I remember the authorities saying that even though it had a flawless record up until the crash it highlighted the dangers and proved that it was an accident waiting to happen, the fuel tanks in the wings were easily punctured and sparks could have ignited the fuel any time. When the other concordes were checked after the crash they discovered that all the planes had the same flaw which was microscopic cracks in their wings.

I think the company said that the design had reached the end of its life and even if the crash had not happened it would have cost too much money to bring it up to safety specifications, also, it used too much fuel per passenger and given the environmental issues current, it had to reduce emissions as in comparison to other planes was way too high. A good yardstick is that none of the planes are even used by cheap airlines which most other out of date designs tend to do.

I think that is the gist, I'm sure that someone else will correct any mistakes or suppositions that I might have made.

2007-09-06 22:22:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

It wasn't banned. A tyre burst on one aircraft, causing the crash - it happens frequently with other planes, people died, people die in other crashes - why are all these other planes still flying? It was an economic decision to decomission and also a very sad day. Concorde did fly after the crash.

Fantastic plane, great experience to travel on it, until I did (prize) I'd never had any inclination, but it's something you'd never forget! It's quite noisy (compared to other planes) inside too!

2007-09-07 04:25:55 · answer #4 · answered by groovymaude 6 · 0 0

Concorde was state of the art in its day but as with most things it started to go wrong & became to Expensive to maintain, Plus it became obsolite as modern aircraft superceeded it. The CAA revocked its air worthyness after the spait of malfunctions & the Crash.
Branson offered to by Concorde but they refused.

Dispite the age concorde is still a masterpiece of technology & Engineering.

2007-09-06 22:05:42 · answer #5 · answered by Python 3 · 1 0

Renoir is correct in everything except Concorde being 'out of date' - it was before it's time if anything and couldn't be built these days any more than we can still get to the moon. Economics, not ability. Sad

2007-09-06 22:57:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It wasn't. But it wasn't an economic success with subsequent orders and spin-off improvements. This was because USA initially prevented it from landing at most of its airports. Never mind the excuses. The reason was because Boeing had a supersonic plane on the drawing board at the time and didn't want competition.

2007-09-07 02:50:20 · answer #7 · answered by man of kent 5 · 0 0

there were other contributing reasons but it was an economic loss. never made money. why? it carried far to few passengers and sucked up an immense amount of jet fuel. too expensive to continue crash or no crash. they were spewing money out the kazoo. it was continued as long as it was only for pr reasons. everybody thought it was cool. tickets were high but not high enouh to pay the fuel bills. that is the straight of it.

2007-09-07 00:24:03 · answer #8 · answered by JIM 4 · 0 0

It was not banned. They decided to stop because they would have lost money due to a crash in Paris and 9/11 in the U.S.

2007-09-06 22:08:33 · answer #9 · answered by StephenWeinstein 7 · 1 0

Probably because it was so noisy! The sonic booms that it created were horrendously awful. I had the great displeasure of experiencing a few of those. It probably interrupted the natural flight patterns of birds as well.

2007-09-06 22:01:00 · answer #10 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0 1

Because one of them crashed & the authorities overreacted.

2007-09-06 22:04:09 · answer #11 · answered by cafcnil 3 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers