Euravia First
11th Jun 2006, 09:19
At an interesting and very well presented lecture at the Cheltenham Festival of Science, the speaker [an ex Concorde Captain] seemed to be saying that:-
{a} If an engine failed it was standard practice to assume that the [very]adjacent one would soon also fail
{b} With the lower flight levels necessitated by having two engines out, Concorde would not always have the range required to cross the Atlantic Ocean and touch down somewhere on land
{c} Despite the brilliance/superb engineering of Concorde, its sheer complexity meant that systems failures of one kind or another were by no means uncommon during a flight
Am I to understand from the foregoing that pilots and flight engineers routinely flew Concorde knowing that if one of the engines failed there was a very real chance of having to ditch in the Atlantic ? If this is so, perhaps the current extended ETOPS debate is more understandable to one such as me who will always do what he can to avoid a twin engined flight over extensive distances of water. [ I have been flying as a passenger for 44 years now ]
P.S. On a different subject it was notable how much recognition and praise was given by the speaking Captain to the contribution of the Flight Engineer. I think he said Concorde might have been better if there had been two seats for Flight Engineers and only one for a pilot! Even though this was probably a little tongue in cheek, it was nice to hear.
I always regretted the day the Flight Engineer was deemed superfluous by the vast majority of airlines and I always felt that little bit safer when in days of old I was taking an early series 747 than I do now when for leisure purposes I regularly take the "engineerless" 400 series.
{a} If an engine failed it was standard practice to assume that the [very]adjacent one would soon also fail
{b} With the lower flight levels necessitated by having two engines out, Concorde would not always have the range required to cross the Atlantic Ocean and touch down somewhere on land
{c} Despite the brilliance/superb engineering of Concorde, its sheer complexity meant that systems failures of one kind or another were by no means uncommon during a flight
Am I to understand from the foregoing that pilots and flight engineers routinely flew Concorde knowing that if one of the engines failed there was a very real chance of having to ditch in the Atlantic ? If this is so, perhaps the current extended ETOPS debate is more understandable to one such as me who will always do what he can to avoid a twin engined flight over extensive distances of water. [ I have been flying as a passenger for 44 years now ]
P.S. On a different subject it was notable how much recognition and praise was given by the speaking Captain to the contribution of the Flight Engineer. I think he said Concorde might have been better if there had been two seats for Flight Engineers and only one for a pilot! Even though this was probably a little tongue in cheek, it was nice to hear.
I always regretted the day the Flight Engineer was deemed superfluous by the vast majority of airlines and I always felt that little bit safer when in days of old I was taking an early series 747 than I do now when for leisure purposes I regularly take the "engineerless" 400 series.