PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 5th Dec 2012, 00:25   #81 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 432
Straw man argument, jcjeant.
I would appreciate that you do not stretch what I wrote until the point of putting words in my mouth that aren't mine. Thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcjeant View Post
Leaks of fuel are unkown risk ?
Fuel is not a combustible ?
Fuel can't burn ?
Can't planes crash? It's a known risk, after all.
Should we ground them all and drive/sail instead?
Oh, wait, aren't car and boat also prone to accidents, sometimes?


I'm certainly not kidding, simply recalling that the BEA indicates that the leak was so massive in Gonesse that It was unheard of. You may check this by comparing the description of the 2000 accident and the list of previous tyre-related events, also available in the 2000 accident report.

Now, is that to say I think the actions taken after Washington (and other occurences, some of them concerning BA planes) were enough? Of course not: Gonesse sadly proved that. But my judgment is biased here, because I know about Gonesse, as we all do. That's my point: it's a bit easier to say "I was sure about that"... afterwards.

Is that to say that I pretend Concorde's Achilles heel (the tyres, indeed) was unknown? Of course not. Best proof of that is that the solutions implemented between 2000 and 2003 weren't "discovered" after Gonesse: The kevlar liner had been studied years before. The reinforced tyres too (even if NZG technology perhaps wasn't available at the time).

I too, presented with the facts, first ask myself "why wasn't anything done?"
Then I check, and discover that recommendations were made, implemented (and I assume: deemed sufficient, even if history prooved otherwise) on both sides of the Channel, despite the fact that the severity of some (if not many) events had been reduced/hidden at first for "political" reasons.
-> It's wrong to pretend nothing was done (as in so many media reports).
-> It's wrong to pretend only one side of the Channel was at risk in 2000, even given the fact that safety records (accidents & incidents) show that AF was (and sadly surely still is) far more casual, even laxist, about flight safety than BA.

Exemple: Yes, it took AF 15 more years than BA (1981->1996) to stop using retread tyres. No, I'm not satisfied to learn that (among other things). But stopping using them in '96 didn't prevent Gonesse accident 4 years later.
AlphaZuluRomeo is offline   Reply
Old 5th Dec 2012, 00:49   #82 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
From BEA

"• During the takeoff run, the aircraft would have had a tendency to deviate to the left if the left main landing gear had created abnormally high drag. However, its track was straight before the loss of thrust on engines 1 and 2 and there are no observable right rudder inputs. On the contrary, some slight (rudder) actions to the left are even noticeable before V1."



If the spacer was responsible for alignment and bearing, its absence would initially create less rolling drag on the left side of the a/c; this would explain the left ruddering on the initial roll..... Seemingly innocuous, this may have set up an uncoordinated ruddering later, after the carriage problem was enhanced by the loss of the tire. Any slewing would have exacerbated the tire damage. Was this addressed? Was there no evidence of axle slop causing shimmy in the tire/hub? Prior to blowout?

Last edited by Lyman; 5th Dec 2012 at 00:53.
Lyman is offline   Reply
Old 5th Dec 2012, 03:32   #83 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 56
The question should not be who dropped the titanium, but rather if it was reasonable to expect that the concord would never come in contact with such materials on the runway given their use in aviation, and how the design was built to survive such a contact or procedures to avoid such events occurring.

A critical question seems to be if the aircraft was so susceptible to debris on the runway then why was an inspection not mandated before each movement. This was not the first time material had caused issues for the aircraft, and other factors combined did push it beyond the limits.

To believe that a commonly used metal would not appear on a runway during the life time of the use of this aircraft was a massive assumption. Many aircraft in the past have impacted such objects.

Last edited by Phalanger; 5th Dec 2012 at 03:34.
Phalanger is offline   Reply
Old 5th Dec 2012, 03:38   #84 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
The strip was not commonly used, it was a scrap piece sculpted to replace a piece of metal with more forgiving wear characteristics. It is extremely important who dropped it, how it came to be affixed to the DC -10, and how its sloppy work as a certified repair was passed, for flight.

Imho.

Last edited by Lyman; 5th Dec 2012 at 03:40.
Lyman is offline   Reply
Old 5th Dec 2012, 03:40   #85 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 56
That does not answer if one can assume that a material of that type will never appear on the runway.
Phalanger is offline   Reply
Old 5th Dec 2012, 03:46   #86 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
It was attached with rivets, I believe, and sloppily done. The aluminum ordinarily used would almost certainly not have pierced Concorde's tire. A certified part would have performed to an expectation. The pirated Titanium was not suitable.

That leaves everyone involved in its attachment liable for a portion of responsibility in the crash. Regardless when, or even IF, it pierced the tire.

Wrong means wrong, and carelessness and shortcuts never ever pay.
Lyman is offline   Reply
Old 5th Dec 2012, 03:52   #87 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 56
The question is still not answered. It does not matter if it came from this mistake, an engine defect, another vehicle around the airport, blown into the grounds etc. The designers of the aircraft and the operating procedure for the aircraft must take into account the chance of the occurrence. Materials of this type have been, and will be, found on the runway. The aircraft must be designed to either survive such occurrences or methods implemented to stop them occuring.

This was not the first time the tyres of the Concorde has damage from impact, nor the first time this type of metal had been found on a runway. It was not unreasonable for them to foresee such an occurrence. It was negilant to operate an aircraft in such a manner knowing it was susceptible to this issue but not take action to avoid it.
Phalanger is offline   Reply
Old 5th Dec 2012, 03:55   #88 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
The question is answered. What lacks is a judgment call.

BTW, I am in complete agreement:

"This was not the first time the tyres of the Concorde has damage from impact, nor the first time this type of metal had been found on a runway. It was not unreasonable for them to foresee such an occurrence. It was negilant to operate an aircraft in such a manner knowing it was susceptible to this issue but not take action to avoid it."
Lyman is offline   Reply
Old 5th Dec 2012, 06:30   #89 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 57
Posts: 1,682
Cool

Hi,

Quote:
Now, is that to say I think the actions taken after Washington (and other occurences, some of them concerning BA planes) were enough? Of course not: Gonesse sadly proved that. But my judgment is biased here, because I know about Gonesse, as we all do. That's my point: it's a bit easier to say "I was sure about that"... afterwards.
Have you seen the state of the Concorde after the Washington incident ?
Photos are available
Check the state of the wing ....
He was so damaged that it was decided not to fix it !
There was no need to know the Gonesse accident to determine what to do immediately
In fact after Washington .. it was made nothing for avoid that the next time it was a gear problem .. the wings (and more important .. the F.O tanks) be pierced
The Washington event is pierced F.O tank and fuel leak and no fire and no victims (good luck)
The Gonesse event is pierced F.O tank and fuel leak and fire and victims (bad luck)
Before Gonesse ... Concorde was a lucky plane
Luck is not a safety factor .. and this was "discovered" !!! at Gonesse !
After Gonesse .. they put Kevlar in place
Maybe some have misinterpreted the first part of this Amundsen quote
Victory awaits him,who as everythings in order.
Luck we call it.
Defeats is definitely due for him,who has neglected to take the necessary precautions.
Bad luck we call it.

Last edited by jcjeant; 5th Dec 2012 at 06:40.
jcjeant is offline   Reply
Old 5th Dec 2012, 06:59   #90 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 78
Posts: 257
Quote:
Have you seen the state of the Concorde after the Washington incident ?
Photos are available
Check the state of the wing ....
He was so damaged that it was decided not to fix it !
Not true - it (#209) was repaired and flew back to Paris three months later and remained in service until 2003.
CliveL is offline   Reply
Old 5th Dec 2012, 08:46   #91 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanger View Post
The question is still not answered. It does not matter if it came from this mistake, an engine defect, another vehicle around the airport, blown into the grounds etc. The designers of the aircraft and the operating procedure for the aircraft must take into account the chance of the occurrence. Materials of this type have been, and will be, found on the runway. The aircraft must be designed to either survive such occurrences or methods implemented to stop them occuring.
100% agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanger View Post
This was not the first time the tyres of the Concorde has damage from impact, nor the first time this type of metal had been found on a runway. It was not unreasonable for them to foresee such an occurrence. It was negilant to operate an aircraft in such a manner knowing it was susceptible to this issue but not take action to avoid it.
Yes.
But as I noticed in my previous posts, "Not taking action to avoid it" is not what occured.
"Not taking action efficient enough about the whole problem" would be a correct/honnest description about what occured.
It's not a judgement. It's facts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jcjeant View Post
The Washington event is pierced F.O tank and fuel leak and no fire and no victims (good luck)
The Gonesse event is pierced F.O tank and fuel leak and fire and victims (bad luck)
Good luck/Bad luck: Yes.

Is that all? Are you sure the analysis should stop here? In the next Café du Commerce, maybe.
I for myself feel more confortable with a more torough analysis. And I'm not trying to find "excuses" for AF/French by doing so, whatever you may (seem to) think. It's of no use to try to convince me that AF/French side did wrong, I'm already convinced of that, thank you
What about other incidents/accidents from both AF & BA planes, involving tyres events & fuel leakages? Why "only" concentrate on Washington '79? Because it was the first/most impressive? Or because it suits the view that (all) the wrong doings lie on only the east side of some narrow sea?

"It's not me, it the other". Oh yeah. Sure. (that partly true; but partly only).
AlphaZuluRomeo is offline   Reply
Old 5th Dec 2012, 08:57   #92 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 56
Quote:
But as I noticed in my previous posts, "Not taking action to avoid it" is not what occured.
"Not taking action efficient enough about the whole problem" would be a correct/honnest description about what occured.
I understand this view, but I would class it as not taking action to avoid it if it did not rectify the issue. Illusionary solutions are not actions to avoid it.
Phalanger is offline   Reply
Old 5th Dec 2012, 09:15   #93 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 432
I understand your view, too.
But without hindsight, how can one judge a solution as efficient or illusionary?
AlphaZuluRomeo is offline   Reply
Old 5th Dec 2012, 12:39   #94 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 56
It would be from the view point of a reasonable person in that situation with those expertise. So if they could reasonable see that something else could be done without an excessive burden, like a runway inspection, lining the tanks, not filling too high then that would be an example. But that's common law examples.

Last edited by Phalanger; 5th Dec 2012 at 12:40.
Phalanger is offline   Reply
Old 5th Dec 2012, 12:55   #95 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 57
Posts: 1,682
Quote:
not trying to find "excuses" for AF/French by doing so
Nothing to do with AF or BA
AF will make nothing (as other) if they are not constrained by the demands of regulators
Quote:
Why "only" concentrate on Washington '79? Because it was the first/most impressive? Or because it suits the view that (all) the wrong doings lie on only the east side of some narrow sea?
Because BEA produced a report about this event .. and some recommendations .. but certainly not enough (they don't bother of the wings F.O tanks fragility and exposure)
http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/1979/f-...f-fc790614.pdf
BEA - DGAC - and other regulators involved have not enacted binding recommendations
They introduced thus the luck as safety factor
Luck work fine ... for a limited time gap .. you can not always win the lotto
At Gonesse they no longer had the winning numbers
Nevertheless, all were cleared by the justice
Encouragement to continue business as usual

Last edited by jcjeant; 5th Dec 2012 at 13:28.
jcjeant is offline   Reply
Old 5th Dec 2012, 13:57   #96 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcjeant View Post
Nothing to do with AF or BA
AF will make nothing (as other) if they are not constrained by the demands of regulators
Two points:
1/ I didn't wrote "AF", I wrote "AF/French". That was meant to include the french part of the manufacturer, the french regulator, the french accident board...
2/ Doesn't AF publicly say that flight safety is their highest priority? In the discourse at least, they are concerned, and should therefore self-constrain.

In general, jcjeant, you seem to miss my point(s), therefore making the conversation digress/diverge. I cannot see how to explain it better. Perhaps would it be better if I posted it in french? I can do that (by MP), feel free to ask

Last edited by AlphaZuluRomeo; 5th Dec 2012 at 15:34.
AlphaZuluRomeo is offline   Reply
Old 6th Dec 2012, 18:24   #97 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZR
Yep, I know that last quote too. What about the entire chapter?
The entire chapter is eloquent ...
  • The AAIB was kept away from the evidences
  • The judicial affected the technical
  • But the BEA still pretends everything is normal

Quote:
The French judicial authorities did not allow the AAIB Investigators to examine all items of the wreckage or to participate in component examinations.
Quote:
The section “AAIB Participation in the Investigation” reflects the concerns with the manner in which the French judicial authorities affected the technical investigation.
Quote:
The constraints of this procedure did not, however, prevent the BEA from carrying out a full investigation, in association with its foreign counterparts.
CONF iture is offline   Reply
Old 6th Dec 2012, 22:13   #98 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 432
I agree with your first two points.
Not with your third, for 2 reasons:
- a quote from the BEA: "The BEA nevertheless regrets the difficulties encountered by the AAIB investigators and their advisers." => That doesn't feel like "all is normal" to me.
- two quotes from the AAIB: "Co-operation between the BEA and the AAIB enabled the AAIB to make an effective contribution to the investigation."
"In other areas [than the judicial 'blockade'], whilst the UK Accredited Representative and his Advisors agree with the evidence presented in the BEA report, the comments represent differences in the weighting of the conclusions."

Conclusions?
- The implementation of the French system of "2 parallel inquiries" was (far) too rigourous and inappropriate in 2000. This implementation was in contradition with international agreements. Clearly, that left room for improvment regarding full cooperation with foreign technical teams. Such improvments will show more transparency and consenquently less room for critics/accusations of partiality. (*)
- Now, was the situation so dark, in 2000, that the BEA report should be discarted as incorrect/partial in its entirety? (**) The AAIB didn't go that far, quite the contrary. On some specific points, the view of the AAIB differs from the view of the BEA. Those differences have been dully reported by the BEA. As such, the public has access to those comments (transparency: here at least, it's good), and is able to find that the AAIB agrees with the general scenario, e.g.: "This made it clear that the tank rupture had resulted from the effects of the tyre rupture." and "The evidence presented in the BEA report makes it clear that the fuel release, initiated when Fuel Tank 5 ruptured, had ignited within about 1 second of the rupture."

(*) It is my belief that improvments regarding transparency was notable since then (e.g. AF447). Kudos on that point: lesson was learned.

(**) It is legitimate to ask the question: after all, there certainly was a lot of tentation for some people/organisations to be interested only in covering their a**es, as is always the case in such events.


In short: My position?
- Transparency is the best cure against skepticism.
- Impartiality is the best course to counter partiality.
AlphaZuluRomeo is offline   Reply
Old 8th Dec 2012, 00:10   #99 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaZuluRomeo View Post
In short: My position?
- Transparency is the best cure against skepticism.
- Impartiality is the best course to counter partiality.
Agree totally (and with the rest of your post)

Quote:
- a quote from the BEA: "The BEA nevertheless regrets the difficulties encountered by the AAIB investigators and their advisers." => That doesn't feel like "all is normal" to me.
Well, quite! And publishing that remark was about the limit of what they could do. Their remit is strictly defined in terms of technical/human factors accident investigation - neither does it extend to passing public comment on other (e.g. judicial) aspects of the case (unless explicitly asked to do so), nor should it.

Quote:
- two quotes from the AAIB: "Co-operation between the BEA and the AAIB enabled the AAIB to make an effective contribution to the investigation."
"In other areas [than the judicial 'blockade'], whilst the UK Accredited Representative and his Advisors agree with the evidence presented in the BEA report, the comments represent differences in the weighting of the conclusions."
Again - like the BEA, the AAIB are essentially a branch of the civil service and would have been well aware that their Gallic colleagues' hands were tied on the matter - just as it would have been had the roles been reversed.

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 8th Dec 2012 at 00:12.
DozyWannabe is online now   Reply
Old 8th Dec 2012, 01:46   #100 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: England
Age: 16
Posts: 17
Something does not look right, if there was a scrap of titanium regardless of where it came from there should have been a quick runway check as is now a common practice in airport's today if this had been carried out then could it still be possible that the concorde would remain in the skies to day? I don't know about you all but when a fully laden fuel chugging aircraft capable of going-over the speed barrier is taking off on constant acceleration maybe some extra precautions would have helped. Anyway most aircraft incidents start off as small mistakes on the ground.
HumaidDaPlane is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 00:44.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network