I like to read about a lot of random shit on Wikipedia when I get bored, and the other day I ended up researching the Concorde. Did you or anyone you know ever fly on it? I have an ex whose dad flew from London to New York on it, and he said it was pretty amazing. It bums me out that they retired them, though I would have never spent $6000+ on a plane ticket anyway.

I had an aging relative that flew on it on a trip around the world while she was in her 80's --- that was cool.


I also had a close associate in business who was flying on a Concorde from the states to Europe; one of the engines blew out over the pond and I think they descended well over ten thousand feet in a matter of seconds until the pilots regained control, then it happened again and they immediately diverted to Ireland and ultimately landed safely. Most aboard did not think they were going to make it. Needless to say, he never flew it again.

My future BIL works for British Airways, he was on the last Transatlantic flight of the Concorde. Pretty sweet. Has his ticket boarding pass and all that framed. The Airline had specials printed up.

Take a Laker......

/Gardens35

...My sister in law worked in the fashion industry for years and her company would fly her on the Concord to Europe rather than on commercial flights because they felt her time was more valuable making deals there rather than sitting in a plane for longer periods of time. She said the Concord was an incredible way to travel.

Seems relevant.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/aviation/boom-supersonic-plane-virgin-space-company/index.html?sr=twCNN032516boom-supersonic-plane-virgin-space-company1032PMStoryGalLink&linkId=22726865

Commander of Awesome;1788876 wrote:Seems relevant.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/aviation/boom-supersonic-plane-virgin-space-company/index.html?sr=twCNN032516boom-supersonic-plane-virgin-space-company1032PMStoryGalLink&linkId=22726865

Very. The whole time I was reading about it, I was thinking there has to be a way to make it better and cheaper 40 years later.

I hate flying..I don't trust any of those fuckers up in that cabin in charge of that plane!

I have the utmost trust in the pilots; it is maintenance where 99% of the issues arise.

QuakerOats;1789427 wrote:I have the utmost trust in the pilots; it is maintenance where 99% of the issues arise.

I checked planecrashinfo.com out of curiosity.

57 fatal accidents in the 2000s were attributed to pilot error (including 5 mechanical-related) vs only 22 for mechanical failure and 6 for "other human error".

Mulva;1789461 wrote:I checked planecrashinfo.com out of curiosity.

57 fatal accidents in the 2000s were attributed to pilot error (including 5 mechanical-related) vs only 22 for mechanical failure and 6 for "other human error".

/Quaker'd

Mulva;1789461 wrote:I checked planecrashinfo.com out of curiosity.

57 fatal accidents in the 2000s were attributed to pilot error (including 5 mechanical-related) vs only 22 for mechanical failure and 6 for "other human error".

The pilot error category totals 193 out of 1,015 (19%). Pilot error related to weather and mechanical is bs. In fact, I know several pilots who would easily dispute the 193 number for various classification reasons, which is why I made the post. Personal knowledge straight from the pilot ranks indicates far less than 10% is actual pilot error. Talk to pilots, they will tell you what really goes on.

As for overall safety which Old Rider was concerned with, these stats were listed on that same site:

Odds of being on an airline flight which results in at least one fatality	Odds of being killed on a single airline flight
78 major world airlines 1 in 3.4 million	78 major world airlines 1 in 4.7 million
Top 39 airlines with the best accident rates 1 in 10.0 million	Top 39 airlines with the best accident rates 1 in 19.8 million
Bottom 39 with the worst accident rates 1 in 1.5 million	Bottom 39 with the worst accident rates 1 in 2.0 million

I would think other pilots are somewhat more inclined to biases than the FAA.

The safety statistics kind of prove the maintenance point. Modern aircraft are built and maintained about as well as humanly possible. They generally don't just fall apart in midair.

Mulva;1789533 wrote:I would think other pilots are somewhat more inclined to biases than the FAA.

The safety statistics kind of prove the maintenance point. Modern aircraft are built and maintained about as well as humanly possible. They generally don't just fall apart in midair.

What? You're not 100% on board with the "Ask a pilot and they'll tell you that pilots are not usually the problem when a plane crashes!" line of reasoning?

Mulva;1789533 wrote:I would think other pilots are somewhat more inclined to biases than the FAA.

The safety statistics kind of prove the maintenance point. Modern aircraft are built and maintained about as well as humanly possible. They generally don't just fall apart in midair.

You would be speaking of commercial airliners it seems. Obviously they have very rigorous maintenance schedules at very frequent intervals, and thus they are a mere fraction of the accidents that occur annually. Include general aviation in the mix and you are talking about a lot of private aircraft that does not get the same level of attention etc...


PS -- generally speaking I would side with the practitioners not the bureaucrats, and similarly would agree for instance, that doctors and nurses know more about health care than an obamacare bureaucrat.