Timeline for What would have happened when the Concorde's low-pressure emergency system brought it lower mid-flight?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 4, 2016 at 6:20 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAviation/status/705639101681180672 | ||
| Mar 3, 2016 at 3:03 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 3, 2016 at 8:18 | |||||
| S Feb 25, 2016 at 4:10 | history | suggested | Jojodmo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
spelling in title
|
| Feb 25, 2016 at 2:53 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 25, 2016 at 4:10 | |||||
| Feb 25, 2016 at 0:04 | comment | added | David Richerby | @abelenky I agree that the original question was lacking a question, too. But your comment was just that the original title wasn't a question. | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 23:57 | comment | added | abelenky | @DavidRicherby: As originally posted (although since edited), there was no question at all in the title or the text; just some rambling thoughts. StackExchange is a Question & Answer board, not a discussion board. | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 23:34 | comment | added | David Richerby | @abelenky A title is a title. Titles do not have to be questions, though there seems to be something of a fetish on this site for editing every question so that its title is a question. | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 23:25 | comment | added | Simon | You might find this technical explanation and this discussion interesting. The designers had to solve a lot of problems because a rapid decompression at 60,000 feet would only give you a few seconds useful conciousness. | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 22:31 | answer | added | Simon | timeline score: 9 | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 22:06 | comment | added | Simon | @mins. Wrong twice in one day. I'm going for a lie down. Thanks for the correction, I never knew that. | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 22:04 | comment | added | user13363 | @abelenky My bad, still familiarizing with this site. | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 21:58 | comment | added | abelenky | Your original title was "Loss of cabin pressure in Concorde", which is not a question. | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 21:56 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Feb 24, 2016 at 21:56 | comment | added | user13363 | @abelenky The title edit is precisely what I meant. I do not doubt at all that both manufacturer and airlines took all safety considerations into account, so I am sure the concorde had the legs to make it to a diversion airfield. I guess the answer to this question are the NATs showing that it never actually flew too far away from land. | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 21:47 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 24, 2016 at 22:59 | |||||
| Feb 24, 2016 at 21:35 | history | edited | SMS von der Tann | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 48 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| Feb 24, 2016 at 21:28 | comment | added | mins | @Simon: These 3 NATs were reserved to Concorde and, according to IVAO, they didn't change. | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 21:27 | comment | added | abelenky | Is there a question that can be answered? Or do you merely have concerns about the range of the aircraft? | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 21:22 | answer | added | Calchas | timeline score: 7 | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 21:22 | comment | added | Simon | Diversion planning in the event of a de-pressurisation is normal. It is calculated from the furthest point from a suitable diversion on the route. BA and AF would not have allowed Concorde to fly if it was not capable of reaching a diversion is this happened. | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 21:20 | comment | added | Simon | @mins. Of course the NATs change daily, but it's true that Concorde always took the northerly routes. | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 21:07 | comment | added | mins | The 3 NAT used by Concorde. You can see they are crossing the ocean by the North, closer to Greenland and Canada. | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 20:55 | comment | added | user13363 | It flew England-Miami/Barbados with flightpaths arguably farther away from the coast | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 20:46 | history | asked | user13363 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
