Passengers Evacuated From THAI Flight At Suvarnabhumi

[george]

Passengers evacuated from THAI flight at Suvarnabhumi

SUVARNABHUMI: -- Passengers were evacuated from a domestic flight of Thai Airways International Airport before it was about to take off from the Suvarnabhumi Airport.

Passengers were asked to leave the TG 106 flight, which was about to take off to Chiang Mai at 10:25 am.

Officials said the plane's engines had started but smoke was detected in the passenger compound so the flight was cancelled.

Officials said certain parts of the plane caught fire because they became overheated.

-- The Nation 2006-10-24

[Jai Dee]

Mystery smoke scrubs THAI flight

Bangkok - Thai Airways International (THAI) on Tuesday became the first airline to cancel a flight because of a mechanical mishap at Bangkok's brand-new Suvarnabhumi Airport, after passengers were evacuated from a smoke-filled aircraft.

A THAI spokesman confirmed that flight TG106, due to depart Bangkok at 10:20 a.m. for Thailand's northern city of Chiang Mai, had been cancelled.

More from the Bangkok Post here.

[tuky]

Officials said certain parts of the plane caught fire because they became overheated.

-- The Nation 2006-10-24

Nice.

I wonder how often this kind of thing happens.

[Asian Frog]

Such a technically stupid answer: overheating is a transitional state due to some other reasons.

Apparently from Bangkok Post, the cabin was filled with smoke just after starting up the engines, which may be the result of various issues as for example a faulty Air Conditioning pack, or a small oil leakage in a pneumatic pipe... plenty of possible hypothesis: once more this is a non event, exagerated by a journalist in search of sensational. I think it is a non responsible attitude to spread such information as the effects is to increase unecessarily the stresses of passengers. Is it useful to remind everybody that aviation is a lot safer than motor cars and none a journalists is making an article when smoke is invading the cabin of a bus?

Edited October 24, 2006 by Asian Frog

[taxexile]

I think it is a non responsible attitude to spread such information as the effects is to increase unecessarily the stresses of passengers.

the more that such incidents are publicised , the better for the passengers.

its too early to say what actually happened , but they mention smoke in the cabin , not condensation vapour from the airconditioners .

a small oil leakage from an pneumatic pipe ........ if there was any oil in a pneumatic pipe i would definately want the plane syopped. pneumatic systems work with air , not oil.

if you mean an oil leak from a hydraulic pipe , then thats just as bad , as that pipe might be controlling the flaps or the undercarriage.

your post is pure b0ll0cks.

[Rinrada]

Officials said certain parts of the plane caught fire because they became overheated.

-- The Nation 2006-10-24

Nice.

I wonder how often this kind of thing happens.

Overheated passengers...normal init..

[Jai Dee]

Thai Airways evacuates plane after hydraulic pipe leak, odor in cabin

BANGKOK, Thailand Thai Airways said it evacuated several passengers who had just boarded an airplane Tuesday at the new Bangkok airport after a hydraulic pipe leaked and the resulting odor seeped into the cabin.

Hydraulic oil leaked in the cargo section of flight TG106, an Airbus 300/600 scheduled to carry 203 passengers from Suvarnabhumi Airport in Bangkok to the northern city of Chiang Mai, a statement from the airline said.

The incident delayed the flight by about 80 minutes, and no injuries were reported, it said.

Source: Associated Press - 24 October 2006

[Jai Dee]

Rescheduled THAI flight lands in Chiang Mai after equipment mishap

BANGKOK, Oct 24 (TNA) - Thai Airways International (THAI) announced on Tuesday that its flight TG106 landed in Chiang Mai International Airport safely after a technical problem forced the airline to abort the flight and reassign its passengers to a new aircraft.

Flight TG106, due to depart Bangkok at 10:20am for the northern city of Chiang Mai, was cancelled but a new aircraft with all passengers on board left the airport at 11.45am to its northern destination, according to the THAI statement.

Investigators found oil leakage in the aircraft's hydraulic cargo door system, which sent fumes and smoke into the aircraft's passenger cabins.

No one was injured in the incident, but passengers were forced to evacuate the smoke-filled aircraft.

It was the first such incident reported at Suvarnabhumi Airport since it opened for commercial operations on September 28.

Source: TNA - 24 October 2006

[IMA_FARANG]

Such a technically stupid answer: overheating is a transitional state due to some other reasons.

Apparently from Bangkok Post, the cabin was filled with smoke just after starting up the engines, which may be the result of various issues as for example a faulty Air Conditioning pack, or a small oil leakage in a pneumatic pipe... plenty of possible hypothesis: once more this is a non event, exagerated by a journalist in search of sensational. I think it is a non responsible attitude to spread such information as the effects is to increase unecessarily the stresses of passengers. Is it useful to remind everybody that aviation is a lot safer than motor cars and none a journalists is making an article when smoke is invading the cabin of a bus?

Sorry to have to disagree, but if the cabin starts to fill with smoke, the first priority is to get the passengers out of the aircraft. It doesn't matter what the cause of the smoke is, the safety of the passengers is the first concern, If the problem turns out to a minor thing, that is better than a fire in the plane and 200 dead as the result. If it turns out to be nothing of importance, all you have is a good story to tell your friends later. That is a lot better than being dead.

[Nawtilus]

I am sorry...I was just smokin a joint in the dunny before the seat belts sign come on.

[Asian Frog]

Once more this is a Non Event which happens from time to time.

Yes the normal procedure is to evacuate the passengers before investigation, but a passenger evacuation is not an extreme event which needs to be in the newspaper. Every day worldwide this must happens several times!

For your information in air Air conditioning Circuit there is a water separator nicknamed " the sock", because it happens often after maintenance operation that some hydraulic liquid or oil, depends on the works done goes in this "sock" as it is at the lowest point of the structure. Fumes and smoke often come from this "sock" (you understand why this nickname).

And for your information Skydrol, the hydraulic fluid used on most aircraft is a phosphate ester non flammable but irritating for eyes: one good reason to evacuate the passengers.

And for information hydraulic circuits are tripled or quadrupled (with possibilities of isolation of part of a circuit it gives you a very high level of redundancy) but if you loose your hydraulic fluid, your circuit will be damaged seriously including probably the pumps which cost more than a Coupe Mercedes each. One more good reason to look after the issue.

Taxexile you have to be trained first to understand what we are talking about, I suggest you follow an aviation engineering course in order to be able to give your opinion. Then I suggest you check all the technical log books of all aircraft everyday, you will see that this was a quite small incident... For your information we have rules and laws which have to be enforced and particularly in maintenance.

Very minor incident, which has been treated correctly: the diffusion of information with an exagerate presentation in order to look like a scoop is vicious. The journalist by the exageration is a non responsible guy and should be given a reprimand by his hierarchy. I protest against this event distortion which unfortunately seems frequent.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Asian Frog

[taxexile]

Taxexile you have to be trained first to understand what we are talking about, I suggest you follow an aviation engineering course in order to be able to give your opinion.

i certainly dont need to be told to go on an aviation course by someone who doesnt know the difference between a pneumatic system and a hydraulic system.

smoke in the cabin means get out and quick.

if this was a cargo hold door problem , as has been suggested then an evacuation and a new plane was good advice.

i seem to remember reading about plane crashes due to improperly closed cargo hold doors.

and dont give me all that nonsense about skydrol and polyester socks , by reporting these incidents passengers will be more aware of them and will feel more confident about reporting them to cabin staff should they notice things that are amiss on their next flight.

[dotcom]

This is hugely important beacuse it was the first aborted flight. Airbus POC no doubt. With any luck the plane burned down & they can buy a Boeing.

[skippybangkok]

LOL.... Back in Oz was involved in the early ninety's to replace BCF extinguishers on board with CO2..... cause they were more environmentally friendly..... Department if Enviroment did not care if someone was at 30,000 feet with a CO2 extinguisher which was x times less effective in putting out fire as compared to BCF.

Took months of lobbying to make em see the light. Agreed with the other OP, fire on board is extremely dangerous and can be a big issue very quickly, so at the first sign of smoke, its all hands on deck.

In this case, maybe just burnt oil, so in hind site it was not an issue, but hind sight is always 20/20

[Asian Frog]

Taxexile you have to be trained first to understand what we are talking about, I suggest you follow an aviation engineering course in order to be able to give your opinion.

i certainly dont need to be told to go on an aviation course by someone who doesnt know the difference between a pneumatic system and a hydraulic system.

smoke in the cabin means get out and quick.

if this was a cargo hold door problem , as has been suggested then an evacuation and a new plane was good advice.

i seem to remember reading about plane crashes due to improperly closed cargo hold doors.

and dont give me all that nonsense about skydrol and polyester socks , by reporting these incidents passengers will be more aware of them and will feel more confident about reporting them to cabin staff should they notice things that are amiss on their next flight.

For your information I do know quite well the difference between a pneumatic and an hydraulic circuit because I am an experienced Professional Flight Engineer with thousand(s) hours of flight in a National European Carrier and 28 years of service. Now I am a lecturer teaching future Airlines Pilots (in Europe as in Asie to Major Airlines Cadets) (and particularly a topic named "Aircraft structure and systems"). For your information flight controls and flaps do not depend on only one circuit but are at least depending on tripled circuits.

When a door is closed and locked in general, the hydraulic circuit is "depressurised" on this part of the circuit. Failure in flight like DC10 was a mechanical issue of LOCKS (Turkish Flight- France Ermenonville), or unfortunately bombs in several other cases.

Cabin crew just report to the technical crew. Please read me more carefully, I have never said it was polyester sock but a nickname given to a filter located in the water separator on the Air Conditionning circuit, and as this filter is located in the lowest part of the fuselage, it may receive various fluids particularly after a maintenance operation. So often fumes, odors are coming from this component when we start the Air Conditioning.

The hydraulic fluid is a Phosphate Ester (Not Polyester) non flammable but irritative. Please do not amalgamate everything. Everybody has to comment on what he knows and avoid excessive opinion when he is ignorant....

About burning, I repeat skydrol which is used nowadays is a NON FLAMMABLE fluid (Phosphate Ester, density 1.09, irritative for the eyes). Some have to stop raving...

And now it has been rectified to "ODOR" we are no more talking about a fire. Hydraulic leakage send a very characteristic mist and smell quite different from a fire smoke.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Asian Frog

[Asian Frog]

And a depressurised hydraulic circuit means No hydraulic pressure in this circuit (Not the Aircraft depressurised as you can amalgamate...)

[taxexile]

I am an experienced Professional Flight Engineer with thousand(s) hours of flight in a National European Carrier and 28 years of service. Now I am a lecturer teaching future Airlines Pilots (in Europe as in Asie to Major Airlines Cadets) (and particularly a topic named "Aircraft structure and systems").

in that case you without a doubt know much more than me about planes and everything about them.

but i am an experienced passenger with hundreds of hours flying time and safety is as important to me as it is to you.

if there is any kind of emergency , whether it causes an accident or not , whether it happens in the air or on the ground i like to know about it , then i can form some opinion about how that airline reacts to that emergency.

that way i can make an informed choice as to who i buy my next ticket from.

i think that thai airways did the right thing in getting the passengers off the plane when the oil or the smoke was smelt , and the press were right to report it.

there was nothing sensational about it.

and perhaps now that this is public knowledge , the airline and the flight engineers that they employ will feel more inclined to improve maintenance procedures and inspections so that faulty systems can be detected and rectified before passengers board planes and then get frightened to death when they have to disembark.

Please read me more carefully, I have never said it was polyester sock

...... and i know you never called it a polyester sock !

[Asian Frog]

About BCF extinguishers, they are fantastic on a class B fire (Fuels), not homologated on class A fire (typical A fire= wood). However in an aircraft cabin as they are very easy to use by Cabin Crew and light (2.5 kg) it is a very good solution and due to the volume of a passenger cabin the dilution ratio give no concern.

However on the Flight deck it is an other issue:

-you have two products the Halon 1211 and the Halon 1301. The first one is more toxic at the concentration we can encounter in a limited space like an Aircraft flight Deck, we have to wear smoke hood or portable oxygen Equipment (PBE). More, there is a secondary effect which cannot be ignored, a slow corrosion effect on aluminium alloys and electrical circuits. This effect is underhand as it appears week after. It is the reason why CO2 extinguishers (Heavier) may be preferred on the Flight Deck as there is no corrosive effect.

Fire Laboratory of LAGNY (nearby PARIS) was testing BCF in the 80s on large computer rooms and they have experienced those issues (including some technicians hospitalised after utilisation of Halon 1211), issues which have been bring to surface of the Security Comittee of my Airlines. As representatives of the technical crew member, we have refused the Halon 1211 which is cheaper than the 1301 and get a CO2 extinguisher on the Flight Deck (Which is less toxic than Halon 1211 and non corrosive). I was personnally involved in the researches and discussions on this issue.

Nowadays after the accident of a VARIG Boeing 707, which crashes at 4km of the runway threshold, crew on the flight deck living but all the passengers dead due to Cabin Fire consequences (mostly by intoxication), Cabin materials are non flammable and such a scenario cannot happen again as we have campaigned and succeeded to forbid all the dangerous materials which were used in those times in spite it was an important price increase.

Security and safety on board aircraft are important issues which need accurate and weighted decisions. Certainly false alarms and over excitation are counter productive. Please talk about what you know.

[sting01]

From Asian frog :

Apparently from Bangkok Post, the cabin was filled with smoke just after starting up the engines, which may be the result of various issues as for example a faulty Air Conditioning pack, or a small oil leakage in a pneumatic pipe

And from the same :

For your information I do know quite well the difference between a pneumatic and an hydraulic circuit because I am an experienced Professional Flight Engineer with thousand(s) hours of flight in a National European Carrier and 28 years of service. Now I am a lecturer teaching future Airlines Pilots (in Europe as in Asie to Major Airlines Cadets) (and particularly a topic named "Aircraft structure and systems").

Please dear, communicate with us and tell what are the major companies in Europe and Asia who use your professional services to teach cadets. I will never ever use those companies, affraid the pilots would try to fill any pneumatic (including the plane wheels) with oil.

I confess my profond ignorance of a commercial plane, but obviously (and that is not the only quirk that appear in your various posts) you have hard time when it's about technology.

May I invite you to reformulate each and every of your post, maybe the help of the cadets you pretended to train. It will allow a good and technically accurate discussion between the parties

Allow me to finish by your own words :

Security and safety on board aircraft are important issues which need accurate and weighted decisions. Certainly false alarms and over excitation are counter productive. Please talk about what you know.

Edited October 24, 2006 by sting01

[taxexile]

asian frog

Certainly false alarms and over excitation are counter productive. Please talk about what you know.

airline report

Investigators found oil leakage in the aircraft's hydraulic cargo door system, which sent fumes and smoke into the aircraft's passenger cabins.

are you saying that fumes and smoke in the passenger cabin of an aircraft about to fly off should be ignored because it might be counter productive ?

counter productive to what exactly? your christmas bonus ?

they found a problem with a hydraulic cargo door system.

please answer this question for me .

have any planes ever crashed because of faulty cargo door systems ?

[Hermano Lobo]

Such a technically stupid answer: overheating is a transitional state due to some other reasons.

Apparently from Bangkok Post, the cabin was filled with smoke just after starting up the engines, which may be the result of various issues as for example a faulty Air Conditioning pack, or a small oil leakage in a pneumatic pipe... plenty of possible hypothesis: once more this is a non event, exagerated by a journalist in search of sensational. I think it is a non responsible attitude to spread such information as the effects is to increase unecessarily the stresses of passengers. Is it useful to remind everybody that aviation is a lot safer than motor cars and none a journalists is making an article when smoke is invading the cabin of a bus?

Correct.

The BAe -146 had a similar problem.

I know a little about aviation and I agree with Asian Frog entirely.

[taxexile]

I know a little about aviation and I agree with Asian Frog entirely.

a fault in a cargo door system is not a non event.

will this incident and the malfunction that was subsequently discovered have to be repoted to the faa or whatever authority keeps track of malfunctions in aircraft , or is it such a non event that it can just be repaired and forgotten about .

this is not sensational journalism , this was a report about an aircraft evacuated due to the smell of oil in the cabin.

[sting01]

Such a technically stupid answer: overheating is a transitional state due to some other reasons.

Apparently from Bangkok Post, the cabin was filled with smoke just after starting up the engines, which may be the result of various issues as for example a faulty Air Conditioning pack, or a small oil leakage in a pneumatic pipe... plenty of possible hypothesis: once more this is a non event, exagerated by a journalist in search of sensational. I think it is a non responsible attitude to spread such information as the effects is to increase unecessarily the stresses of passengers. Is it useful to remind everybody that aviation is a lot safer than motor cars and none a journalists is making an article when smoke is invading the cabin of a bus?

Correct.

The BAe -146 had a similar problem.

I know a little about aviation and I agree with Asian Frog entirely.

Even on the hydraulic/pneumatic case ???????????????

If any of you worked on Concorde I do understand why it crashed (the way things were explained later have always made me think it could have avoided IF the technical staff that is paid for overviewing the possible accidents simply did not thought this one could happend!!!!)

Counter productive = loss of money , do we agree on that?

So what is the cost of ONE human life lost , and does this cost is comparable with a fly delayed?

[Farma]

I think there are some people getting over excited about technicalities they know little about. I too have a little bit of aircraft knowledge.

The decision to abort and disembark the passengers was a valid one. Safety comes first.

Like Asian Frog mentioned there are multiple hydraulic systems providing good backups in the event of failure. Door locks and the like are designed to lock in the event of hydraulic failure, over centre mechanical linkages come into play. You’ve also got pneumatic blow down systems to release the undercarriage when needed.

Hydraulic rams have built in leakage rates, hydraulic pipes occasionally burst and hydraulic unions leak whenever they feel like it.

The BA 146 was a classic example of fumes in the cockpit. The fumes came from the air supply pick off point in the engine into the environmental system.

There are many ways for fuel and oil to enter the environmental system through heat exchangers etc. The “sock” dehumidifiers hopefully remove most of the contamination but not always.

BTW I’ve been on a flight that aborted takeoff just prior to rotation due to an “open cargo door”. The problem turned out to be a faulty micro switch giving the wrong indication. I was back in the air on the same aircraft within 1 hour of the aborted flight.

Was I worried, NO, once I knew the cause and the rectification I was fully satisfied with the repairs.

[Jing-jo]

Passengers evacuated from THAI flight at Suvarnabhumi

SUVARNABHUMI: -- Passengers were evacuated from a domestic flight of Thai Airways International Airport before it was about to take off from the Suvarnabhumi Airport.

Passengers were asked to leave the TG 106 flight, which was about to take off to Chiang Mai at 10:25 am.

Officials said the plane's engines had started but smoke was detected in the passenger compound so the flight was cancelled.

Officials said certain parts of the plane caught fire because they became overheated.

-- The Nation 2006-10-24

IMHO ( the little experience of aircraft their propulsion and associated support systems that i have is only a short 20 years working on military passenger,transport,fast jet and single/multi rotor helicopters).

The only people that should get a boll...ock..ing are the officials for saying certain parts of the plane caught fire, as if it has caught fire then you should in an effecient and safe airline get the passengers of sharpish ,stop the engines ,delay the flight and check for fire damage on any adjacent wiring piping or any systems near by a visual AND a set of laid down functional checks any airline that doesnt do this should not be operating.

I agree with the passenger safety first and need to know views of Taxexile,but agree also with the views of the "safety expert" Asian Frog. Because if anyone is teaching those sort of subjects then he/she should be competent and qualified to do so, if not he/she should not be doing so in any shape or form.

Asian Frogs only fault seems to be,that maybe he writes quicker than he think's, and should self edit by reading things twice before posting them.

Might also make him a better instructor too, in that people will switch off in a lecture/demonstration if the instructor appears to be tripping over himself verbally or not making him/herself as clearly understood as they could be,whereas they (the students/trainees) may listen better if someone has the facts readily available in thier heads ready for any challenging questions that may or may not be coming forth in an Asian teaching enviroment as students have been known not to ask questions lest they be deemed not able to understand what they are being taught.

and by default hopefully the students/trainees being taught go on to be better engineers and spread good teachings themselves thereby making the skies a safer place hopefully in the years to come

anyway it's quite amusing when a forum topic degenerates into a grammer/ spelling and writing competency sniping match but not when the there is safety involved and in fact all the views are valid in some measure

the airlines motto should be

the only thing about a flight that passengers should remember are the quality effiecency and smoothness of the plane its flight and the crew

if they remember anything other than good about the above then they need to fix it otherwise

the passenger will vote with thier wallets and worst of all tell others

a bad word spreads fast like wild fire

a good word spreads like a tree falling in a forest with no-one to hear it

just MHO

[Asian Frog]

It is really time to stop amalgamate everything.

I am not an english native and I may make mistake in grammar or english orthograph, I apologize for that. But English is an international vector and you have to accept some tolerances in the utilisation of your language, it is the price to pay.... Do not worry about my teaching, I have a very good contact and excellent results with my students (Irish, British included) and I have been checked and approved by UK-CAA several times

About Concorde accident, I have lost 3 friends in this accident, they were operating this aircraft. The Flight engineer was the instructor training me during my ab-initio training long time ago. The crew has done his job very correctly, they have been trapped by circumstances and something that nobody has foreseen: the tank bursting due to the shock of a metal piece lost by a previous aircraft. Unfortunately the fuel leakage was nearby engine 2 and caught fire triggering the fire alarm of engine 2. The crew has stopped engine 2 which was not involved directly in fact...Please, once more do not amalgamate everything.

One of the main reasons of fire in the Cabin was fire in the toilet as some people were trying to smoke there. We have pushed our airlines to install a small extinguisher over the bin and a sensitive smoke detector in the toilet. So nowadays, safety has improved a lot in the cabin.

Another reason has been insulation in Boeing wiring. Under the pressure Boeing has been obliged to modify hundred(s) of aircraft. Electric fire is certainly something we still have to look at.

A modern aircraft is very different from the first generation of jet and a lot safer. Maintenance procedures are very obliging nowadays.

Hydraulic leakages/ seepages are not rare: we have tolerances of leakage on some equipments. All the liquids are drained at the bottom of the fuselage and it may happen that those collected liquids penetrate the Air conditioning circuit as I have explained ..

I stop here because I am quite busy and have a lot of things to do..

Cheers

Edited October 25, 2006 by Asian Frog

[Soju]

Have to pretty much agree with Asian Frog that this was just another example of an overly sensationalized piece of journalism from one of the numerous irresponsible journalists that crowd today's news organizations who's only concern is to publish news that they think is interesting, regardless of how much they have to stretch the truth. How can anyone say that reporting "parts of the plane caught fire" is being responsible?

[Asian Frog]

One more thing...

Before Thai Group and other Airlines involved by this journalist call the Management of the concerned newspaper in order to suspend their advertising and to revise freight airfare conditions for this press group, I suggest more professionalism before writing anything about aviation ...because it is the usual way Airlines are reacting when Press is lacking to its obligation and when Airlines activity is concerned.

[Soju]

One more thing...

Before Thai Group and other Airlines involved by this journalist call the Management of the concerned newspaper in order to suspend their advertising and to revise freight airfare conditions for this press group, I suggest more professionalism before writing anything about aviation ...because it is the usual way Airlines are reacting when Press is lacking to its obligation and when Airlines activity is concerned.

Afraid it's not just about aviation. It's about anything. The typical journalist will sensationalize any news report they can just to up their readership. There are a few responsible journalists in the field, but sadly they're becoming rarer all the time. And don't think the managers really care either as they're probably the main reason for the huge increase in irresponsible journalism in the first place.

[sting01]

It is really time to stop amalgamate everything.

I am not an english native and I may make mistake in grammar or english orthograph, I apologize for that. But English is an international vector and you have to accept some tolerances in the utilisation of your language, it is the price to pay.... Do not worry about my teaching, I have a very good contact and excellent results with my students (Irish, British included) and I have been checked and approved by UK-CAA several times

About Concorde accident, I have lost 3 friends in this accident, they were operating this aircraft. The Flight engineer was the instructor training me during my ab-initio training long time ago. The crew has done his job very correctly, they have been trapped by circumstances and something that nobody has foreseen: the tank bursting due to the shock of a metal piece lost by a previous aircraft. Unfortunately the fuel leakage was nearby engine 2 and caught fire triggering the fire alarm of engine 2. The crew has stopped engine 2 which was not involved directly in fact...Please, once more do not amalgamate everything.

.....

Cheers

I was sure .... Funny how some habbits (cultural for exemple in my case, worker union culture in some other case) are so hard to die.

Being not a native english myself, I never tease people about grammar or spelling ... I am simply (as a tech person) how it's possible to mix/confuse hydros and pneumos. Asian frog should remenber what he learned while being in 4eme and after (assuming he is who I think he is). that is not a semantic point, but a tech point.

The use of Concorde accident was made to give an idea of what can ulmitately happend when all the possible cases are not overviewed. The main reason of the accident are well know, and do not involve the crew (here we have to reconise the hight professionalism of the aircraft crew, this trying to crash where the less casaluties will happend, rather than panic and explode in the middle of a town ... and it's how any crew react, not only the concorde one).I always felt bad that noone of the higly skilled ingeniors who worked during almost 40 years on the Concorde mantenance, I mean not the teams who were doing the maintenance, but the people behind those team who decide what, when, where and why (improvement, exchange old for new ....) never overviewed the case was becoming possible due the increase of traffic, the poor or deficient maintenance avalaible in some airports (heard about some baboushkas who clean the windshields of the planes in Moscou) ... So yes this kind ofaccident can still happend.

And it's somewhere related, or we use the max security law, it will imply an extra cost, but also an extra security for the passenger, or we use the odds, considering any way that everything on earth will die one day.

Just one question to Asian frog, I am assuming you have experience with the various Airbus (do you?), or as a crew member, or as maintenance member, maybe also as negociators btw the company and the crews. So what is you personal moto : 2 or 3 crew members? Does the question was not also btw to be economically productive (considering 2 members are enought in NORMAL conditions) and maximum security (shit can happend to resume the whole problem in few words)?