Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
I think there's significant demand for it. Concorde was just too far ahead of its time. It had to run afterburners to take off, was incredible loud and finally had one bad accident. Even despite that there was demand. Branson wanted to keep Concorde flying on Virgin, but whatever agreement Air France and BA had didn't allow any of them to be sold.
I think there's significant demand for it. Concorde was just too far ahead of its time. It had to run afterburners to take off, was incredible loud and finally had one bad accident. Even despite that there was demand. Branson wanted to keep Concorde flying on Virgin, but whatever agreement Air France and BA had didn't allow any of them to be sold.
I think there's significant demand for it. Concorde was just too far ahead of its time. It had to run afterburners to take off, was incredible loud and finally had one bad accident. Even despite that there was demand. Branson wanted to keep Concorde flying on Virgin, but whatever agreement Air France and BA had didn't allow any of them to be sold.
Retirement
In 2003, Air France and British Airways announced the retirement of Concorde, due to rising maintenance costs, low passenger numbers following the 25 July 2000 crash, and the slump in air travel following the September 11 attacks.[156]
Air France flew its last commercial flight on 30 May 2003[157][158] with British Airways retiring its Concorde fleet on 24 October 2003
Ooh Hey hanging out in avionics.. These were really interesting because it is fascinating to see the amount of equipment and systems that are crammed onboard a plane to keep everyone safe in the air.
A preliminary report on the fatal Air India crash that killed 260 people in Ahmedabad last month says the plane engines' fuel switches had been shifted from run to cut-off within seconds of each other.
www.abc.net.au
an image searching indicates they're located below the throttles so definitely not in a position where they could have been flipped by accident.
the article is light on details at this point but wonder if there was an issue with the fuel flow so they tried to correct it with cycling but it strikes me a strange as one the engines are running the switches are only flipped on the ground to shutdown the engines down.
would have expect that your fuel pumps settings and the flow there would have been the first stop.
Tokyo, Japan (SPX) Jul 08, 2025 - A research team at Beihang University has unveiled a new artificial intelligence-based method that can quickly generate conceptual aircraft designs-potentially transforming how early-stage design is
So the current analysis exonerates the pilots of any wrong doing.
They're blaming the computer chip that controls fuel flow and says it has a 11,000 Thermal Cycle rating and needs to be replaced after that many cycles.
The FAA / GE let the Airliners know about this as a "Service Bulletin" in the past.
Why it wasn't issued as a AD (Air-worthiness Directive) is unknown.
They say, due to fuel flow chip's manufacture, it could start working intermittently if not properly replaced on schedule.
That would cause the fuel flow to stop and cause the engines to flame out for a few seconds before the computer chip comes back online, which is all that's needed to cause the accident.
I'm curious as to what kind of chip and process node are you using that only handles 11,000 Thermal Cycles.
That opens up A WHOLE can of worms as to who they were sourcing for the computer chip parts, what did they skimp out on, etc.
11,000 Thermal Cycles seems kind of low from my personal experience & understanding of modern Computer Chip manufacturing process.
So the current analysis exonerates the pilots of any wrong doing.
They're blaming the computer chip that controls fuel flow and says it has a 11,000 Thermal Cycle rating and needs to be replaced after that many cycles.
The FAA / GE let the Airliners know about this as a "Service Bulletin" in the past.
Why it wasn't issued as a AD (Air-worthiness Directive) is unknown.
They say, due to fuel flow chip's manufacture, it could start working intermittently if not properly replaced on schedule.
That would cause the fuel flow to stop and cause the engines to flame out for a few seconds before the computer chip comes back online, which is all that's needed to cause the accident.
I'm curious as to what kind of chip and process node are you using that only handles 11,000 Thermal Cycles.
That opens up A WHOLE can of worms as to who they were sourcing for the computer chip parts, what did they skimp out on, etc.
11,000 Thermal Cycles seems kind of low from my personal experience & understanding of modern Computer Chip manufacturing process.
That sounds like a recipe for disaster. I wonder if any other planes on other airlines of the same make and model are going to be affected in the same way.
That sounds like a recipe for disaster. I wonder if any other planes on other airlines of the same make and model are going to be affected in the same way.
Or any aircraft that uses that computer chip for Fuel Flow control.
11,000 Thermal Cycles is very low.
Assuming 365 Days of Operation while also assuming you fly at least once per day into a destination and out of said destination back to another one.
On Landing at Point A, you're Turning it off
On TakeOff at Point A, you're Turning it on
On Landing at Point B, you're Turning it off
On TakeOff at Point B, you're Turning it on.
That's 4x Thermal Cycles in 1x Day.
365*4 = 1460 Thermal Cycles per year.
11,000 / 1460 Thermal Cycles per year ≈ 7.5342465753424657534246575342466 years
This isn't counting any mid-stop refuels, any ground tests, any other reasons you would Power On/Off the Fuel Flow while on the ground or during maintainence checks.
This isn't counting Build Quality variation from the Chip Manufacturer.
Do they even keep track of "Thermal Cycles" of the chip?
If so, how are they counting it?
Does anybody read the logs counting said Thermal Cycles?
The 787-8 Dreamliner that Air India 171 was using is stated to be 11 y/o before the crash.
Assuming they've "Never Changed" the Fuel Control Chip since they got the plane, it's a miracle that the chip lasted as long as they did.
Or any aircraft that uses that computer chip for Fuel Flow control.
11,000 Thermal Cycles is very low.
Assuming 365 Days of Operation while also assuming you fly at least once per day into a destination and out of said destination back to another one.
On Landing at Point A, you're Turning it off
On TakeOff at Point A, you're Turning it on
On Landing at Point B, you're Turning it off
On TakeOff at Point B, you're Turning it on.
That's 4x Thermal Cycles in 1x Day.
365*4 = 1460 Thermal Cycles per year.
11,000 / 1460 Thermal Cycles per year ≈ 7.5342465753424657534246575342466 years
This isn't counting any mid-stop refuels, any ground tests, any other reasons you would Power On/Off the Fuel Flow while on the ground or during maintainence checks.
This isn't counting Build Quality variation from the Chip Manufacturer.
Do they even keep track of "Thermal Cycles" of the chip?
If so, how are they counting it?
Does anybody read the logs counting said Thermal Cycles?
The 787-8 Dreamliner that Air India 171 was using is stated to be 11 y/o before the crash.
Assuming they've "Never Changed" the Fuel Control Chip since they got the plane, it's a miracle that the chip lasted as long as they did.
www.abc.net.au
