PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Concorde crash: Continental Airlines cleared by France court
Old 4th Dec 2012, 11:40
  #70 (permalink)  
AlphaZuluRomeo
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
AZR - no Zero Growth tyre, but an inmproved design over that then still being used by AF. But that's not the real reason I'd say BA was safe.
OK thanks

Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
The real reasons I think a BA Concorde running over the strip would have (probably - we can't be sure) have survived is because:

They'd have used an into-wind runway
Granted, that's more than probable. But it won't have prevented the crash.

Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
The undercarriage would not be missing a vital component
As demonstrated above, not vital. Argument dismissed.

Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
It would not have been overweight
Granted, that's probable. But it won't have prevented the crash.

Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
Most important of all, the tanks would not have been over-full (with no air gap to compress!)
I agree that this is the most important of all.
That leaves my question unanswered: what is the "normal" fullness of tank 5 on that phase of flight?
- if less than 94% (estimation of AF accident Concorde) then I'll accept that a BA Concorde (or any not "over-filled" Concorde) would have been safe;
- OTOH, if this tank was meant to be that full on perfectly normal operations, then the argument must be dismissed, and one can only conclude a BA (or any not "over-filled" Concorde) would not have been safe.
My understanding of BEA's final report §1.6.3 is that the "overfill" was in tanks 1, 2, 3 and 4. Not in tank 5.
The same § indicate there was a procedure for overfill, allowing up to 1630 liters. The accident aircraft used "only" 300 liters, less than 20% of the total overfill capacity.

Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
In the event of engine damage, the FE would not have closed down a power-producing engine at that stage of flight
Granted, that's more than probable. But it won't have prevented the crash.


Now, my point is: as soon as the massive leak occured and took fire, the aircraft was doomed. No matter what the crew could do right or wrong (and AF personnal certainly did a number of mistakes on that day/a little before).
Then a BA Concorde rolling on the strip, if subject to the same "tank #5 fullness", would not have been safer than its AF counterpart.
Why? Because of the intensity of the fire, which was quickly destroying the left wing and its flight control surfaces. See chapter 1.12 of the final report, and particularly §1.12.2 (debris between the RWY and the crash site) and §1.12.4.6 (study: structure vs fire).

All that is by no mean an excuse for AF people mistakes (even if, of course, their lawyers will try to push that way), but what is important (IMO) is that the aircraft itself (and not AF aircrafts only) was subject to a high risk from specific FODs.
Such risk was assessed after the crash (new tyres "NZG" + liner in tanks), and I think Concorde was safer after 2003, and that the grounding of both fleets was the correct thing to do (another interim solution would have been to make runway inspection mandatory before each take-off, but I'm not sure it would have been practical?)
AlphaZuluRomeo is offline