PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Five people to face Concorde crash trial
View Single Post
Old 6th Feb 2010, 13:45
  #213 (permalink)  
lomapaseo
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
M2dude


1. The aircraft was highly over weight, taking off with a tailwind. The CG was way beyond the ABSOLUTE maximum for T/O of 54%, reduci9ng the effectiveness of nose wheel steering. (Particularly during the initial phase of the T/O roll).

2. An ommited spacer on the front L/H bogie had resulted in massive distortion in the geometry of the front wheels on this U/C. (Borne out by large amounts of R/H rudder application from the early to the very last satages of the T/O roll, with very little or no heading change. The trauma on the U/C was mitigated by rolling over an initial very rough runway surface, awaiting repair.

3. Eye witnesses (including 2 French airport firefighters, the closest of all to the A/C) categorilcaly stated that they saw smoke and flames eminating from the L/H U/C long before 'the titanium strip'.

The hydro-dynamics of the rupturing of the wing panel were like nothing ever experienced before, adding to the theory that this never was a simple tyre blowout,. There is an additional theory, not accepted by all that fuel tank #5 was being pressurised due to an illegal switch position. As tank 5 was directly feeding the ruptured #2 tank, the additional pressure of head plus pump pressure contributed to the hydo-dynamics of the event. This additional point however is not pivotal.

The A/C never achieved safe flying speed, on a day when the V2 was 220KTS, takeoff was at 201 knots, the maximum achieved IAS was 211 KTS. When the A/C was only running on 3 full thrust producing engines (#1 being seriously damaged by a runway light) #2 engine was shut down by the F/E strictly against SOPs. It was impossible for the A/C to remain flying after this.
Typical legal postulations (my bold above) that will be defeated immediately by expert witnesses. In the long run additional evidence beyond the BEA report may be introduced if supported by vetted experts. Then the case will be simplified down to non-expert judges interpreting the applicable law as it applies to fact vs opinion.

Much of what I read above is opinion and certainly the bolded words are only opinion by a non-expert
lomapaseo is offline