LinkedIn Prosecutors face a difficult task making 29 criminal charges stick against the semi driver involved in the deadly crash of the Humboldt Broncos team bus.
As it neared takeoff speed, the Concorde struck a thin metal strip on the runway, causing one of its tires to burst. The strip had fallen from the underside of a Continental Airlines DC that had departed minutes earlier, bound for Houston.
Gases from the engines then ignited leaking fuel, touching off a huge fire. The crew wrestled the crippled jet into the air, but lost control moments later, slamming into a hotel.
All passengers and crew perished, as did four people on the ground.
All along, conventional wisdom, bolstered by lethargic media coverage, has held that the fuel tank fire was the direct cause of the crash.
This from the Associated Press a few days ago, is a typical example of what the public has been reading and hearing: But while the fire was visually spectacular — caught on camera, it trails behind the plane in a hellish rooster tail — experts say that aside from damaging the number 2 engine, it was very much survivable, and likely would have burned itself out in a matter of a few minutes.
Not only was it survivable, but it was probably avoidable as well, had it not been for a chain of errors and oversights that, to date, nobody wants to talk about. The plane went down not because of any fire, directly, but because 1.
It was flying too slowly because the pilot at the controls, Christian Marty, had pulled the jet into the air to avoid skidding sideways off the runway and colliding with another plane. Under normal circumstances Marty still had enough speed to climb away safely; however, he no longer had enough power.
One engine had been badly damaged due to ingestion of foreign material — not only pieces of exploded tire, but debris from a runway edge light the jet had run over during the skid.
A second engine, meanwhile, was shut down completely by the cockpit flight engineer — at a time and altitude when he was not supposed to do this, when remaining thrust from that engine was desperately needed for survival. All the while, the plane was an estimated six tons above its maximum allowable weight based on wind conditions at the time of the crash.
At proper weight, the jet would have become airborne prior to the point when it ran over the metal strip. The November 29th verdict was, if nothing else, fair. All along, aviation safety specialists were highly critical of the suit, believing as I dothat such prosecutions set a dangerous and destructive precedent, undermining crash investigations and air safety in general.
Voss, president of the Flight Safety Foundation, speaking in the Times article. However, does the full and true story of the disaster remain untold?
I point you to a story that ran in the British newspaper The Observer in A link to the full article is here. In addition, below, is a version that I have edited and condensed for clarity… Doomed: The great white bird rears up over runway 26 at Charles de Gaulle, immediately after takeoff.
Already mortally wounded, flames bleed uncontrollably from beneath the left-hand wing. The official investigation has focused almost entirely on the fire.
According to the French accident investigation bureau, the BEA, it broke out when the plane passed over a strip of metal on the runway. A tyre burst; a chunk of rubber thudded into a fuel tank inside the wing; jet fuel poured out of a hole and ignited.
The hot gases caused two of the engines to falter, and despite a valiant struggle by Captain Christian Marty, a daredevil skier who once crossed the Atlantic on a windsurf board, the loss of thrust made the crash inevitable.
An investigation by The Observer suggests the truth is much more complicated. This appears to have been a crash with more than one contributing factor, most of which were avoidable. Go back to that photograph. Its passengers included Jacques Chirac and his wife, the President and first lady of France, returning from the G7 summit.
Concorde looks to be nearby because it had been close to hitting thean event which would have turned both aircraft into a giant fireball. But he had no choice:Crashing analyzes and categorizes activities based on the lowest crash cost per unit time.
Crashing only works for critical path activities where it is possible to shorten schedules. The project crashing results in a high direct cost to the project, but also gives clear identification for optimal time cost.
The critical path method is a step-by-step project management technique to identify activities on the critical path. It is an approach to project scheduling that breaks the project into several work tasks, displays them in a flow chart, and then calculates the project duration based on estimated durations for each task.
It is therefore important that the critical path is checked after each crash to ensure that it is still critical.
And if a parallel path becomes critical before the crash limit has been reached, then the process has to be repeated so that a new critical path can be identified.
Critical path is a term that has its origin in project management. It requires the manager to list the required tasks needed to complete a particular project, the time each will likely take and the dependencies between the activities.
Project Evaluation Review Technique (PERT) and Critical Path Method (CPM) Pert evaluation review technique (PERT) and critical path method (CPM) are two management techniques which are used to plan, schedule, budget and control different activities normally associated with a project.
Critical Path Analysis & PERT Charts (taken from rutadeltambor.com - Planning and scheduling more complex projects Critical Path Analysis and PERT are powerful tools .