There are a number of key phrases in the transcript of the VCR. The detail is buried in the report which you can find at
http://www.bea-fr.org/docs/f-sc00072...c000725e2.html .
The full report spends about three paragraphs discussing how the wind was generally variable and less than ten knots. Only in the interim report does the erratum give the surface wind as 080/08. The rest is 15k, NIL, FEW018,FEW023,BKN033,19/--, H1008
BEagle asked what was the actual take-off weight:
14 h 13 min 13 s, OMN « alors jauge total carburant moi j'ai quatre-vingt-seize quatre avec quatre-vingt-seize trois pour quatre-vingt-quinze à bord ».
gauges total fuel I have 96.4 with 96.3, for 95 on board
14 h 14 min 04 s, OPL « ZFWZFCG », OMN « alors j'ai quatre-vingt-onze neuf et cinquante-deux deux ».
ZFW and ZFW Cof G I have 91.9 and 59.2
I assume that the three fuel figures are ramp/taxi/take-off fuel so I calculate that the a/c left the stand at ZFW + taxi fuel = 91.9 + 96.3 = 188.2 tonnes
14 h 40 min 19 s, commandant de bord « on a consommé combien ? », OMN « là on a huit cents kilos ».
How much have we used? .. There you had 800kgs
14 h 42 min 31 s, commandant de bord « top ».
Go
So 2 min 12 sec before the start of take-off they had used 800kgs of their 96.3 giving 95.5 tonnes remaining, lets be kind and give them another 200kgs up to the start of the take-off roll ie 95.3 tonnes. Therefore the weight at the start of the take-off roll was ZFW + take-off fuel = 91.9 + 95.3 =
187.2 tonnes, which is 2.13 tonnes above the structural limit.
Cousin Nigel and I guestimated a max take-off weight for that runway in those conditions
with a tailwind of 7kts of something like 176 tonnes. You make up your own mind.
You can visit the report to look at how they accounted for the passengers, but let’s face it, it was full of people going on a cruise holiday with luggage for a cruise holiday. What weight do you think they should have used?
The latest report addresses the consequences of the missing spacer in the left gear. They do allow that the missing spacer would allow the axle to skew through about 3-5º. The assertion is that with a large downforce on the bogie, the misalignment of the wheels would be resisted by the weight of the aircraft pushing the axle into the top of the ‘tube’ as you will. Clearly then, by the same assertion, with the weight of the aircraft lifting off the wheels at rotation, the axle would have slid to the ‘back of the tube’, skewing the wheels, creating a significant drag and causing the aircraft to veer to the left at the point of rotation. Consistent with the evidence.
The metal strip? A good theory to cling to, but how’s this? The report describes the piece of metal as titanium alloy, 435x31x1.4mm. With the density of titanium as about 4510kg/m3, that comes out as 85g. What fate do you think a bit of metal weighing 85g would suffer behind a DC10 at take-off power/speed? Where would you look for such a piece of metal? The middle of the runway? More likely the edge if you ask me.
She rolled, very overweight for the conditions prevailing, as she rotated the missing spacer dragged the aircraft to the left of the runway where it ingested an edge light, hit the metal strip. The Captain, concerned that the aircraft was about to leave the runway and hit the 747-400 rotated and became airborne way out side the aircraft’s performance capabilities with the inevitable result.
”Rafistolage Français” – a classic French fudge.
