Good, because I fell asleep during the commercial and missed the last 20 minutes. However it seemed interesting. For those who did not see it, the program focused on the AA 587 crash, the Air Transat A300 which lost part of its rudder but made an emergency landing, and a A Fed Ex A300 which accidentally recieved some damage on the ground to its rudder. The accident which was not because of the rudder itself, revealed that the composite structure of the Fed Ex planes rudder was showing signs of corrosion or loss of integrity. The program then questioned the integrity of composites on airplanes over the long run. Again I will have to watch it over because I missed the end. I will check when there will be a re-run of the program.
Renfnl From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2505 times:
Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 3): Brutal recreations. Especially the AF 340 overrun in YYZ. The weather outside the windows made it look about 1000% worse than it was.
I think we are talking about different programs. I realize that program names often change from country to country...I think the one you are referring to is Air Emergency, and yes that really made it seem as if the AF plane landed in the middle of a hurricane. Although the facts are generally accurate, apparently even plane crashes need to be sensationalized for tv audiences..
Mikey711MN From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1397 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2475 times:
My first (and almost only) reaction to it was that it is nothing more than an alarmist piece to the use of composites. Granted, long-term durability issues may yet to be fully understood, which is a common occurrence for any new technology (material science or otherwise), but to end the show by saying that most planes in the future will use them as an exclamation point to the description of accidents/incidents where they were used left a poor taste in my mouth.