Go Back  British Expats > Usenet Groups > rec.travel.* > rec.travel.europe
Reload this Page >

Continental Airlines summonsed over Concorde crash

Wikiposts

Continental Airlines summonsed over Concorde crash

Thread Tools
 
Old Mar 13th 2005 | 4:32 am
  #31  
Tom Peel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Continental Airlines summonsed over Concorde crash

Air wrote:
    > The message <[email protected]>
    > from "Keith W" <[email protected]> contains these words:
    >
    >
    >
    >>Horsefeathers. Titanium is widely used in aircraft construction, indeed
    >>Comcorde used more than most as it was needed to resist the
    >>friction heat along the leading edges of wings and stabiliser.
    >
    >
    > AIUI the part which fell off, should not have been replaced with
    > titanium, but should have been stainless steel. It was also not made or
    > fitted correctly, and basically a 'bodge job'.
    >
    > http://www.bea-fr.org/docs/f-sc00072...c000725ae.html is old bit
    > has some interesting tit bits under section 16.6
    >
VERY interesting!! The report shows how badly Continental maintain their
aircraft. It makes you wonder just how safe their planes are.

T.
 
Old Mar 13th 2005 | 5:05 am
  #32  
Pooh Bear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Continental Airlines summonsed over Concorde crash

Keith W wrote:

    > "Air" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > AIUI the part which fell off, should not have been replaced with
    > > titanium, but should have been stainless steel. It was also not made or
    > > fitted correctly, and basically a 'bodge job'.
    > Titanium is more expensive than SS, not as readily available and is harder
    > to work. It seems an unlikely material to choose for a 'bodge job'
    > >
    > > http://www.bea-fr.org/docs/f-sc00072...c000725ae.html is old bit
    > > has some interesting tit bits under section 16.6
    > >
    > I didnt see anything in this to indicate the wrong materials were used and
    > it stated that the spacing and size of the attachment holes were correct.

Errrr.........

" In the position of the missing part, the fitting still had several rivets in
place;
the fitting was drilled with thirty-seven holes, some of which had spaces
less than twice their diameter between them. "

From the above link.

Just look at the pics too. It's a mess.


Graham
 
Old Mar 13th 2005 | 5:12 am
  #33  
Bertie the Bunyip
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Continental Airlines summonsed over Concorde crash

Tom Peel <[email protected]>
sednews:[email protected]:

    > Air wrote:
    >> The message <[email protected]>
    >> from "Keith W" <[email protected]> contains these words:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>Horsefeathers. Titanium is widely used in aircraft construction, indeed
    >>>Comcorde used more than most as it was needed to resist the
    >>>friction heat along the leading edges of wings and stabiliser.
    >>
    >>
    >> AIUI the part which fell off, should not have been replaced with
    >> titanium, but should have been stainless steel. It was also not made or
    >> fitted correctly, and basically a 'bodge job'.
    >>
    >> http://www.bea-fr.org/docs/f-sc00072...c000725ae.html is old bit
    >> has some interesting tit bits under section 16.6
    >>
    > VERY interesting!! The report shows how badly Continental maintain their
    > aircraft.

No it doesn't
 
Old Mar 13th 2005 | 5:13 am
  #34  
Bertie the Bunyip
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Continental Airlines summonsed over Concorde crash

Pooh Bear <[email protected]>
sednews:[email protected]:

    > Keith W wrote:
    >
    >> "Air" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >> >
    >> > AIUI the part which fell off, should not have been replaced with
    >> > titanium, but should have been stainless steel. It was also not
    >> > made or fitted correctly, and basically a 'bodge job'.
    >> Titanium is more expensive than SS, not as readily available and is
    >> harder to work. It seems an unlikely material to choose for a 'bodge
    >> job'
    >> >
    >> > http://www.bea-fr.org/docs/f-sc00072...c000725ae.html is
    >> > old bit has some interesting tit bits under section 16.6
    >> >
    >> I didnt see anything in this to indicate the wrong materials were
    >> used and it stated that the spacing and size of the attachment holes
    >> were correct.
    >
    > Errrr.........
    >
    > " In the position of the missing part, the fitting still had several
    > rivets in place;
    > the fitting was drilled with thirty-seven holes, some of which had
    > spaces
    > less than twice their diameter between them. "
    >
    > From the above link.
    >
    > Just look at the pics too. It's a mess.
    >

Like you'd now, planespotting fjukwit.


Bertie
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.