Back in the 1950s and early 1960s, aeroplane manufacturers designed a new product essentially because they could. They were pretty sure it would fly, but would it fly well and safely? When it proved it could fly, they started selling it, and began fixing all the fixable things they found that were wrong with it.
Designing the beginning with the end in view
By David Learmount on 31 January, 2013 in Uncategorised
My, how things have changed.
Now, on its maiden flight, the new aircraft is expected to perform to the specification against which hundreds have already been sold.
But much more is going on than that, as I learned recently on a visit to Bombardier at Montreal.
Now an aircraft is “designed for the environment”, on the grounds that decisions at the design stage “will affect the planet for 20-30 years”, as Bombardier puts it.
This is not entirely an altruistic aim, although clearly a responsible one.
Bombardier aims to ensure that “aviation does not become socially undesirable”, so that aeroplanes keep selling. Meanwhile, as the company points out, “aircraft that are recognised as environmentally friendly will be more highly valued”.
So much for the aeroplane’s life. But what of its death?
Bombardier has provided a CRJ100 approaching the end of its life to the Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal – specifically to its Research Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services. This academic institution will strip down the machine and assess, in minute detail, its recyclability. What they find, says Bombardier, will become part of the company’s design and manufacturing considerations for the future.
As the Ecole’s Prof Rejean Samson says: “We can’t afford to make mistakes any more. The stakes are too high. We’re facing depletion of natural resources and dramatic climate change. Sustainable development is the only way to slow these trends, and the life-cycle assessment approach is so far the best tool to make wise investment decisions for the future.”
About David Learmount
Cookies & Privacy
- Grubbie on Where’s the safety incentive when accidents don’t happen?
- Prasanta Chattopadhyay on Where’s the safety incentive when accidents don’t happen?
- Rajnikant on Why MH370 probably won’t be found
- Michel Masson on Where’s the safety incentive when accidents don’t happen?
- Wayne on Lateral thinking for simulators
A320 A350XWB AAIB Airbus airline pilot training airline safety autopilot mode AVOID BA Boeing 737-500 Boeing 777 British Airways Cambeltown Cat IIIB Consumer Superbrand CPL delay EasyJet Elstree aerodrome Eurocontrol FAA Heathrow Heathrow airport ICAO Kazan air crash Kirkwall Lidar Loganair MH370 Michael O'Leary MPL PF Philip Adrian pilot contracts pilot flying pilot monitoring pilot training PM RAeS RAF Aerobatic Team Ryanair safety oversight single-pilot airliners Tiree Turkish Airlines