slippy runway and dodgy reverse thrust….. could have been alot worse.
And finally the French Justice system does not recognise the concept of an accident………..Someone somewhere is responsible for any adverse occurrence …..that’s why the verdict has focused the engineer incorrectly embodying the thrust reverser mod.
Which is why the matter should have been delt with through competent AVIATION bodies, not through a flawed ‘justice’ system. Many people in many places making small errors combined in a freak accident. The whole concept of blaming a single person in a case like this is morally wrong.
Weeks has the majority of the Lanc in Florida. He has a replacement tail section for the original one at Doncaster alledgedly. One of the turrets was in NZ last year forthe Dambusters film.
Jay – I would like to think that I am an honest aircraft engineer, but my interest in this particular case is more academic than practical – I teach Human Factors, and to me the French investigation is undermining 30 years of HF learning. To be fair, engineers worldwide are not going to give this investigation the time of day, let alone ignore the HF training they are now following, but in the interests of a public discussion, I feel that the worst cae scenario hould be presented here (which is what I did in my previous post). I still feel that the entire focus of the investigation is Air France and the French authorities weaseling away from compensation claims – they can now file counter-claims against continental.
The photo is no more poignant than the DC10 HP compressor section in a field(Sioux City), or a short bolt found in a BAC 1-11 windscreen…
Flight Safety is everyone’s reponsibility. For example, you are at an airport as a passenger – if you see an aircraft with some damage and you say nothing, perhaps you are to blame as much as the mechanic who ‘fixed’ it (he was having a bad day), the engineer who over-signed him (he had a cold), the pilot who accepted it (He was running late), the ATC controller who cleared the aircraft for take-off (he didn’t look at it as it went past)….
There are so many variables in every crash that we cannot affix blame to a single person, and should not allow corporations to do just that.
My personal favourite is this one:
Back in the 1950’s, the factory producing Whirlwind Main rotor shafts had a power cut. The power on the milling machine was off for less than a second, but produced a microscopic stress raiser in the shaft. On completion, it was pased as servicable by three independant people and was eventually fitted to a Whirlwind. This aircraft was delivered to the Queen’s Flight and lasted for several years. After years of use, the crack developed and ended in the shaft shearing and the rotor head separating from the aircraft. Luckilly the crack was picked up on a routine inspection. Now – think of this… what if the crack had developed in flight and the Whirly had crashed whilst carrying Queeny? Would there be an almighty witch hunt to find the culprit? Who would it be:
The pilot who accepted it?
The Mechanic for missing it?
The Engineers who inspected and serviced it?
The factory worker for not scrapping it?
The factory foreman who was accountable for work produced?
The electricity company for allowing a power cut to happen?
The Crown for not funding its own electricity company correctly?
The short of the Concorde incident is this:
It happened, lets make sure it doesn’t happen again.
This was a huge tragedy, BUT….
Thanks to the French court we, as aircraft engineers, may think twice about owning up to errors we make (we are not perfect beings after all). In other words, as a direct result of this Gallic Witch-hunt, there will be mistakes made which will be covered up by those involved which will lead to further loss of life.
The blame culture should be killed off, especially in this industry, and we should be open and honest about the standard of work performed, which will lead to safer operating.
My personal opinion is that Air France are simply shifting the compensation claims from themselves to Continental. Poor Show. BOO….:(
There’s a compound on the southside with an old 737 in it… just do a quick switcheroo….. BA will never know 😛
Well if you’re that far over, talk to Classic Flight at Coventry. Their guys are well up on Doves and Herons…
location?
Thanks Homer..
For the first time, I actually wish I was at work!…..
Human Factors. Worth a study… especialy the Swiss Cheese model.
Looks more representative than the actual strip. AFAIK, the Continental Airlines Mechanic who was indicated in the report was a welder – that piece has clearly been riveted. If it had bee run over by 100 tonnes of Concorde, it would be somewhat flatter….
Sorry, but I don’t buy it.
True true. This is typical of educators… we will argue the same point and both agree we are right..:D
I believe the DC8 and jets of a similar vintage used water methanol during take-off. (but certainly not relevant to this discussion)
To be honest, given the choice, I’d avoid flying into known icing conditions if it could be avoided.
Whilst Galdri is right in what he says – snow = bad, here’s some variables to throw into the mix (in addition to the variables he mentions….)
Small amounts of water ingested into the intake, ie. snow, will aid an increase air density, and therefore INCREASE engine efficiency…
Snow occurs in cold air – which is better for the engine, ie. more dense, and will make the engine INCREASE efficiency…
Despite these MINOR factors, SNOW = icing = bad.
:DWe need photos from NCL…. how many times have we had 3 747s? PICTURES!!!!!!! 😀
A decent liney would only have one panel open at any one time -the one he has his head stuck in. You’ll upset every aircraft engineer who ever lived if you leave too many panels open……:D