Author Topic: Concorde crashes in Paris (Read 438 times)

Ripsnort · « **on:** July 25, 2000, 10:43:00 AM »

Early reports suggest it was on fire prior to going down.

Staga · « **Reply #1 on:** July 25, 2000, 10:47:00 AM »

Uh oh... 109 died

[This message has been edited by Staga (edited 07-25-2000).]

Torquila · « **Reply #2 on:** July 25, 2000, 11:08:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Early reports suggest it was on fire prior to going down.

More info here : http://www.newsday.com/ap/text/international/ap260.htm

Why would any airline use a concorde anyways?? they are 30 years old.

RAM · « **Reply #3 on:** July 25, 2000, 11:48:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Torquila:

Why would any airline use a concorde anyways?? they are 30 years old.

that 30 year old plane had, up to this day, the cleanest service record on any commercial aircraft in history.

So think before you talk, Torquila.

I'm sorry about the 109 people died, and I am sorry about the Concorde...I really hope this disgrace doesnt give this fine plane a coup-de-grace

Apache · « **Reply #4 on:** July 25, 2000, 11:50:00 AM »

Oh good grief, don't start arguing about an aircraft. 109 people just lost there lives

------------------
Apache
=XO= VMF-323 Death Rattlers
VMF 323 Death Rattlers Web Site

Udie · « **Reply #5 on:** July 25, 2000, 11:52:00 AM »

Just the other day there was a TV show on the Concorde. They said it had the best safety record of any commercial airplane.

Truely tragic

Hopefuly they went fast and painless...

Ripsnort · « **Reply #6 on:** July 25, 2000, 11:57:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Udie:
Just the other day there was a TV show on the Concorde. They said it had the best safety record of any commercial airplane.

Truely tragic Hopefuly they went fast and painless...

Yup, watched the same show and I thought about the odds...weird, huh?

Han Solo · « **Reply #7 on:** July 25, 2000, 11:57:00 AM »

Torquila · « **Reply #8 on:** July 25, 2000, 12:35:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RAM:
that 30 year old plane had, up to this day, the cleanest service record on any commercial aircraft in history.

So think before you talk, Torquila.

What i was trying to get across is that a plane no matter how good the record, how well build , and that travels 1,200 mph at high altitudes for 30 years will suffer alot of fatigue and should be retired. All im saying that things like this could of been prevented if profit wasnt the main concern.

[This message has been edited by Torquila (edited 07-25-2000).]

Karnak · « **Reply #9 on:** July 25, 2000, 12:50:00 PM »

BBCNews, ABC News and CNN are reporting that witnesses said one of the left engines appeared to be on fire before the crash. The pilot apparently tried valiantly to gain altitude and miss the hotel, but stalled and went down on an annex.

109 people in the Concorde died as well as 4 on the ground.

113

My condolences.

Sisu
-Karnak

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 07-25-2000).]

RAM · « **Reply #10 on:** July 25, 2000, 03:56:00 PM »

I just saw on TV a photo taken by a casual observer...it is really dramatic, there is a huge fire burning from its wing...

really dramatic...

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 07-25-2000).]

-duma- · « **Reply #11 on:** July 25, 2000, 04:41:00 PM »

Concordes aren't very profitable, Torquila, it's more of a flagship thing. I understand your point but they're extremely well maintained and the pilots are highly trained. They really ought to refit them for glass cockpits though IMO...

Concordes won't last much longer in any case. Sad but true.. they weren't even economical when they were first produced, now far less so.

av8or · « **Reply #12 on:** July 25, 2000, 10:26:00 PM »

its really sad that this had to happen. the talk around the aviation world is that the plane had just come out of inspection four days earlier.this type of plane practically lives in a hanger and british airways only flies two at a time while the others are being inspected.

i just can't believe the sight that the pictures show of it and i hope no one suffered and feel for the families of all who was aboard.i also know that the pilots probably did every thing possible in the alotted amount of time to get the plane back to the ground safely.

Maniac · « **Reply #13 on:** July 26, 2000, 02:06:00 AM »

Really sad

"Truely tragic Hopefuly they went fast and painless..."

Sorry to say that thats not the case

eye witnesses reports of horrible sights at the crash... (wont go into details)

Regards.

------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-

http://www.rsaf.org/osf/

funked · « **Reply #14 on:** July 26, 2000, 04:04:00 AM »

Torquila, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

1. F-BTSC, the aircraft in question, made its first flight in 1975. There are many commercial aircraft in service that are older than this.

2. F-BTSC had less than 12,000 hours on the airframe. Many commercial aircraft less than 10 years old have more hours than this.

3. No evidence that fatigue contributed to this accident.

4. Your insinuation that the manufacturers and operators of the aircraft would not or could not predict and inspect for fatigue damage is disgusting.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-26-2000).]