Richard J. wrote:

And it's the least safe commercial airliner currently flying, in terms of
fatalities per million passenger miles.
Your valid points are let down by this one.

After all, one minute it was the safest airliner by your measure, and
the next it was the least safe.

Both claims would be suspect.

Once upon a time -- around about 10/22/03 19:27 -- possibly
wrote:

Richard J. wrote:

And it's the least safe commercial airliner currently flying, in terms of
fatalities per million passenger miles.
Your valid points are let down by this one.

After all, one minute it was the safest airliner by your measure, and
the next it was the least safe.

Both claims would be suspect.

Actually, if you take into account the accident was caused by debris on the
runway left by a CO DC-10, Concorde has never crashed due to any mechanical
issue /or/ pilot error.

Faulting Concorde for this is just silly. I would fly Concorde before any
other aircraft. I was on the Eastern Airlines 727 that crashed in
Washington, DC in the early 1980s.

-- E

--
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat
you with experience.

CMOT TMPV wrote:
Once upon a time -- around about 10/22/03 19:27 --
possibly wrote:

Richard J. wrote:

And it's the least safe commercial airliner currently flying, in
terms of fatalities per million passenger miles.
Your valid points are let down by this one.

After all, one minute it was the safest airliner by your measure, and
the next it was the least safe.

Both claims would be suspect.

Actually, if you take into account the accident was caused by debris
on the runway left by a CO DC-10, Concorde has never crashed due to
any mechanical issue /or/ pilot error.

But that debris would not have caused other types of airliner to crash. If
a plane can't withstand the destruction of one of its tyres without a
catastrophic fire, there are serious design problems with it. That's why its
C of A was suspended until it was modified.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)