AS THE first anniversary of the crash of Air France Flight AF4560 over Paris approaches, the famous airliner has made its way to the sky once more. On Tuesday, the Concorde made its first flight test since the fleet was grounded last August.
A yearlong grounding of a jet that has proved itself airworthy for 20 years is rare, to say the least. With a technologically complex airplane such as the Concorde, this can be understood.
Looking back, we can see that very little could have been done by the designers of this aircraft to prevent this tragedy. Britain's Civil Aeronautics Authority (CAA) confirmed this through its investigations. However, the sensationalist treatment of the crash by the press has unfairly tainted the reputation of a demonstrably safe airliner.
There's nothing wrong with fairly reporting the facts and developments in the Concorde crash. But as with most airplane crashes, many in the press raced to see who could jump to the fastest conclusion, which jades the facts with sensationalism.
Shortly after the crash, investigators unearthed the fact that the thrust reversers in the first engine to explode were replaced before the flight. Newspapers touted the discovery in typical alarmist fashion with headlines like: "INVESTIGATORS FIND (possible) CAUSE OF CONCORDE CRASH." Dawn.com opinion writer Omar Kureishi said, "Is it just a coincidence that it was the engine on which a part had been changed just before take-off that caught fire? Clearly, there has to be a connection..."
Cable news programs featured aerospace experts who commented on this development, with the transcripts often following this pattern:
Host: Now, professor, would a broken thrust reverser cause the Concorde to crash?
Expert: It could, but not...
Host: And how many of these planes have these "thrust reversers"?
Expert: Well, all of them, but...
Host: It sounds like this is a widespread problem then.
Expert: Uhhh, actually...
Host: That's all the time we have.
But after the media frenzy died down, the real cause of the crash was discovered. A strip of metal fell off a departing airliner, which blew out the tires on the Concorde, and sent debris into the engines. Although precautionary measures have been taken to prevent this in the future, this has never before posed a problem for the Concorde and so is not a design flaw. In short, it was not the Concorde's fault.
Despite this, the media still wants to blame the crash on the Concorde's design. An August 16, 2000 editorial by The Times of London admits that the odds of the Concorde crashing are slim, but still charges, "the fact that [the chances of a crash] exist at all is unacceptable."
The Concorde flew for more than twenty years without one fatal crash. Suddenly, after a crash that was caused by another airliner, the safety record of the Concorde is "unacceptable"?
The Concorde has the best safety record in the commercial aviation industry. While it is the only supersonic airliner, the lack of incidents is telling testimony to the plane's airworthiness.
The motives of the press are obvious. A headline that reads "Dangerous Supersonic Jet" sells more newspapers than one that says, "Part On Runway Caused Chain Reaction that Led To Crash." If the public thinks that there is something inherently wrong with the Concorde, they become more interested than if some one-in-a-billion chance incident led to the tragedy.
Look at the media circus that erupted to obtain pictures of the crash. When it came to light that several people had photographs of the doomed jet, news services from around the world clamored to get their hands on the pictures. According to The New York Times, a "frenetic" and "ghoulish" market for negotiations was created ("News Organizations Spar for the Rare Concorde Picture," July 31, 2000). Time Magazine managed to secure pictures of charred corpses strewn about the plane's wreckage.
In the quest to break the story first, the attitude of the press has been that of imprudence and recklessness.
The Concorde has never been a big breadwinner for the two airlines that fly it. The supersonic flights always have lost money, but Air France and British Airways have kept it flying for prestige.
Understandably so, the Concorde is a technological marvel. That one can fly comfortably and luxuriously, at two and a half times the speed of sound and a dozen miles above the earth, is awe-inspiring. But now there are rumors that the Concorde will be retired. "Will the Concorde ever fly again?," ran one prominent headline.
Seldom a day goes by when the media isn't charged with irresponsibility. But it would be a shame if the frenzied behavior of the press led to the demise of one of the most significant and technological advancements of our time.
(Brian Cook is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at bcook@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | YesterdayInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 3 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
