Discussion
http://heritageconcorde.com/?page_id=10055
A group who are trying to put life back into GBOAC at Manchester. They have powered up most of her systems, but have been bitten by Health & Safety nonsense.
Interesting reading
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.281883011...
A group who are trying to put life back into GBOAC at Manchester. They have powered up most of her systems, but have been bitten by Health & Safety nonsense.
Interesting reading
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.281883011...
Much as I love Concorde, I do feel that perhaps it should be left to retire in dignity. It was (still is??) one of the most complex aircraft ever to fly. 2 national carriers struggled to keep it flying. And now a small group of well meaning people want to try and get it flying again.
The Vulcan was bad enough, but that was nowhewre near as complex as Concorde. And the CAA has never allowed a supersonic aircraft to fly in civilian hands. Why would it change now?
The Vulcan was bad enough, but that was nowhewre near as complex as Concorde. And the CAA has never allowed a supersonic aircraft to fly in civilian hands. Why would it change now?
Naga said:
williamp said:
And the CAA has never allowed a supersonic aircraft to fly in civilian hands. Why would it change now?
errrr - because all its life it was flown by civilians.........!Naga said:
williamp said:
And the CAA has never allowed a supersonic aircraft to fly in civilian hands. Why would it change now?
errrr - because all its life it was flown by civilians.........!This topic crops up every couple of months. Concoerde will not fly again - ever.
However, I certainly would love to see one brought back to life so that it could be used for powered up ground runing and fast taxi demonstrations- such as at the demos performed at Bruntingthorpe.
williamp said:
Much as I love Concorde, I do feel that perhaps it should be left to retire in dignity. It was (still is??) one of the most complex aircraft ever to fly. 2 national carriers struggled to keep it flying. And now a small group of well meaning people want to try and get it flying again.
The Vulcan was bad enough, but that was nowhewre near as complex as Concorde. And the CAA has never allowed a supersonic aircraft to fly in civilian hands. Why would it change now?
BA were making money flying Concorde. Air France were not, and Airbus who supported the maintenance made the decision with AF that would not any longer.The Vulcan was bad enough, but that was nowhewre near as complex as Concorde. And the CAA has never allowed a supersonic aircraft to fly in civilian hands. Why would it change now?
There is a fascinating thread on PPRUNE, with a lot of input from an engineer who was involved from an early stage, and is involved with the latest project.
davidjpowell said:
williamp said:
Much as I love Concorde, I do feel that perhaps it should be left to retire in dignity. It was (still is??) one of the most complex aircraft ever to fly. 2 national carriers struggled to keep it flying. And now a small group of well meaning people want to try and get it flying again.
The Vulcan was bad enough, but that was nowhewre near as complex as Concorde. And the CAA has never allowed a supersonic aircraft to fly in civilian hands. Why would it change now?
BA were making money flying Concorde. Air France were not, and Airbus who supported the maintenance made the decision with AF that would not any longer.The Vulcan was bad enough, but that was nowhewre near as complex as Concorde. And the CAA has never allowed a supersonic aircraft to fly in civilian hands. Why would it change now?
There is a fascinating thread on PPRUNE, with a lot of input from an engineer who was involved from an early stage, and is involved with the latest project.
BA only made profits from the aircraft because they were never asked to actually buy them for a proper commercial price. With virtually no capital outlay, they only had to worry about covering their day to day operating costs and regular maintenance.
How Air France managed to lose money on their Concorde operations is a mystery. But then, they were French and state owned.
The thing is, why are the HSE so worried about having Concorde live. Even if the team weren't allowed to start engines, they should be allowed to keep her hydraulics and electrics up and running. After all I look after a Learjet inside our campus building at Uni alongside the A3 and the HSE don't mind it being live. Before anyone starts on me, yes I know it's a simpler aircraft, but the principles are the same.
I'd love to see one Concorde that could be kept alive, we should be encouraging this as long as it's done by the team that maintained them when they were running I'm not sure I see the issue.
Get it working and at least keep it in a flight ready state even if the bulls
t stops it flying.
Get it working and at least keep it in a flight ready state even if the bulls
t stops it flying.That is really pathetic that they can't complete the project. At least it shows there is life in the old girl yet. It would be nice if they could get one (hopefully G-BOAC) flying again, I'm sure there are some former concorde pilots who could get certification again, hell Martin Withers got certified on the Vulcan again and that had been retired for longer than concorde has.
Shar2 said:
The thing is, why are the HSE so worried about having Concorde live. Even if the team weren't allowed to start engines, they should be allowed to keep her hydraulics and electrics up and running. After all I look after a Learjet inside our campus building at Uni alongside the A3 and the HSE don't mind it being live. Before anyone starts on me, yes I know it's a simpler aircraft, but the principles are the same.
I doubt it has anything to do with HSE - citing "health and safety" rarely ever does.I believe it's mostly the insurance issue. The museum was insured for a 'dead' museum exhibit. A 'live' aircraft raises all sorts of risks - electrical fire, hydralic damage, etc - that could potentially damage or destroy the aircraft, the building and staff/visitors all with enormous liabilities. After all how can you replace Concorde? Couple that with the work being carried out by 'enthusiasts' (no matter how highly qualifed and experienced), probably without the full support of the CAA, Airbus and other parties (insurers tend to focus on that sort thing regardless of relevancy) and the insurers may just about had a heart attack when they found out - or quoted astronomical premiums beyond what the museum and its backers are prepared to pay.
It's also possible that the insurer was a museum specialist rather than one that deals with active aircraft so they wouldn't be willing to insure it as they don't understand the risks.
Other possible reasons may boil down to inappropriate facilities if say the hangar wasn't built with a live aircraft in mind (various environmental regulations for example) or lacks planning permission for use of live aircraft.
But HSE is almost certainly near the bottom of possible reasons IMO.
ninja-lewis said:
I doubt it has anything to do with HSE - citing "health and safety" rarely ever does.
I believe it's mostly the insurance issue. The museum was insured for a 'dead' museum exhibit. A 'live' aircraft raises all sorts of risks - electrical fire, hydralic damage, etc - that could potentially damage or destroy the aircraft, the building and staff/visitors all with enormous liabilities. After all how can you replace Concorde? Couple that with the work being carried out by 'enthusiasts' (no matter how highly qualifed and experienced), probably without the full support of the CAA, Airbus and other parties (insurers tend to focus on that sort thing regardless of relevancy) and the insurers may just about had a heart attack when they found out - or quoted astronomical premiums beyond what the museum and its backers are prepared to pay.
It's also possible that the insurer was a museum specialist rather than one that deals with active aircraft so they wouldn't be willing to insure it as they don't understand the risks.
Other possible reasons may boil down to inappropriate facilities if say the hangar wasn't built with a live aircraft in mind (various environmental regulations for example) or lacks planning permission for use of live aircraft.
But HSE is almost certainly near the bottom of possible reasons IMO.
+1I believe it's mostly the insurance issue. The museum was insured for a 'dead' museum exhibit. A 'live' aircraft raises all sorts of risks - electrical fire, hydralic damage, etc - that could potentially damage or destroy the aircraft, the building and staff/visitors all with enormous liabilities. After all how can you replace Concorde? Couple that with the work being carried out by 'enthusiasts' (no matter how highly qualifed and experienced), probably without the full support of the CAA, Airbus and other parties (insurers tend to focus on that sort thing regardless of relevancy) and the insurers may just about had a heart attack when they found out - or quoted astronomical premiums beyond what the museum and its backers are prepared to pay.
It's also possible that the insurer was a museum specialist rather than one that deals with active aircraft so they wouldn't be willing to insure it as they don't understand the risks.
Other possible reasons may boil down to inappropriate facilities if say the hangar wasn't built with a live aircraft in mind (various environmental regulations for example) or lacks planning permission for use of live aircraft.
But HSE is almost certainly near the bottom of possible reasons IMO.
It's the insurance, and the company that is refusing to extend the cover.
Shar2 said:
The thing is, why are the HSE so worried about having Concorde live. Even if the team weren't allowed to start engines, they should be allowed to keep her hydraulics and electrics up and running. After all I look after a Learjet inside our campus building at Uni alongside the A3 and the HSE don't mind it being live. Before anyone starts on me, yes I know it's a simpler aircraft, but the principles are the same.
The HSE aren't, it's the management of the site ...'Health and safety reasons' is a catch all used by the clueless to divert attention away from their inability to make decisions or follow a policy they don't want to (used innumberable times by a highly paid manager in a Charity I volunteer with as to why they won't provide proper training for a certain aspect of what we should do - but don't ... but don't tell the 'customers' ) ...
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff