Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob
I saw a programme, probably on Discovery, not that long ago that showed the development, testing and manufacture process of the Trent engines. Not only do they consider the reliability and efficiency, but considerable effort is taken over the safety of them should the worst happen. That the plane flew on fewer engines with no apparent significant issues, despite the visible damage is a testament to the safety standards of that design process.
Even so I suspect there will be many in the industry anxiously awaiting the findings of what went wrong.
|
Oh, there will. I have friends who advise and work with customers on safety in various situations. Customers including airliner manufacturers and airlines. I have been told on many occasions (and been shown video as proof) that airline safety is taken *very* seriously.
After all, if a plane goes down, with the loss of hundreds of lives, and there is any question whether the airline was negligent or even responsible, then the airline can (and probably will) be bankrupted by the accident.
Look at Pan Am.
Re: Concorde. Rather interestingly, from what I was told, the writing for Concorde was effectively on the wall before the disaster that was blamed for it's retirement. Apparently the problem was that it's safety systems, while legal in the 60s and quite effective in the event of disaster, were below legal minimum requirements after 2000.
The Airlines did discuss upgrading them, but it would have cost a lot of money to upgrade each plane, and with airlines like Ryan Air, EasyJet and BMI doing their utmost to drive ticket prices down, it was felt that BA and Air France would not be able to recoup the money invested in upgrading the safety systems.