Concorde 4590
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London UK
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde 4590
What specifically caused the Concorde to go out of control when it did?
I've heard 3 versions. That it was barely at flying speed when it took off and there was a further loss of engine power. That the fire from the front fuel tank move the C of G (already a bit too far back) to move even further. Or that the fire burned through the hydraulics.
The third one sounds most plausible to me but opinions vary.
I've heard 3 versions. That it was barely at flying speed when it took off and there was a further loss of engine power. That the fire from the front fuel tank move the C of G (already a bit too far back) to move even further. Or that the fire burned through the hydraulics.
The third one sounds most plausible to me but opinions vary.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 3,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What specifically caused the Concorde to go out of control when it did?
I've heard 3 versions. That it was barely at flying speed when it took off and there was a further loss of engine power. That the fire from the front fuel tank move the C of G (already a bit too far back) to move even further. Or that the fire burned through the hydraulics.
The third one sounds most plausible to me but opinions vary.
I've heard 3 versions. That it was barely at flying speed when it took off and there was a further loss of engine power. That the fire from the front fuel tank move the C of G (already a bit too far back) to move even further. Or that the fire burned through the hydraulics.
The third one sounds most plausible to me but opinions vary.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's easy to find, but if you want to save yourself a ton of reading...
..through no fault of their own the crew took an uncontained fire into the air with the inevitable consequences...
/thread
..through no fault of their own the crew took an uncontained fire into the air with the inevitable consequences...
/thread
To be honest once that fire started they were all pretty much doomed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London UK
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate that, but I was curious as to what exactly caused the loss of control. The report (thanks Buster15) suggests it was the control surfaces being burned away. There was a suggestion in some quarters that the airspeed being low and/or the C of G issues meant it would not have made Le Bourget even without the fire.
I don't think you will ever get a definitive answer to that.
They were flying too slow a burning aircraft with insufficient thrust, degrading aerodynamics, failing hydraulics and deforming control surfaces with uncontrolable CoG. Take your pick....
They were flying too slow a burning aircraft with insufficient thrust, degrading aerodynamics, failing hydraulics and deforming control surfaces with uncontrolable CoG. Take your pick....
Last edited by atakacs; 6th Nov 2017 at 20:39.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extract from the official report:
"In these extreme conditions (engines 1 and 2 producing no thrust), the combination of lateral and thrust asymmetry and the major thrust/drag imbalance, which could not be compensated for by a descent, led to a loss of control. This loss of control was probably accelerated by the structural damage caused by the fire.
In any event, even if all four engines had been operating, the serious damage caused by
the intensity of the fire to the structure of the wing and to some of the flight controls would have led to the rapid loss of the aircraft."
The evidence points to extreme low airspeed combined with two engines not producing thrust that caused the actual loss of control, but the fire would have caused it eventually.
At MTOW Concorde needs an absolute minimum of 206kts to climb away on 3 engines....263kts and gear up to climb away on 2 engines. They managed 211kts after engine 2 was shut down but at that point engine 1 stopped producing thrust and that was that.
The BEA calculated that had they performed a RTO at the time of realising something bad was happening, they would have gone off the end of the runway doing at least 74kts........atakacs was right when he said they were doomed as soon as the fire started.
"In these extreme conditions (engines 1 and 2 producing no thrust), the combination of lateral and thrust asymmetry and the major thrust/drag imbalance, which could not be compensated for by a descent, led to a loss of control. This loss of control was probably accelerated by the structural damage caused by the fire.
In any event, even if all four engines had been operating, the serious damage caused by
the intensity of the fire to the structure of the wing and to some of the flight controls would have led to the rapid loss of the aircraft."
The evidence points to extreme low airspeed combined with two engines not producing thrust that caused the actual loss of control, but the fire would have caused it eventually.
At MTOW Concorde needs an absolute minimum of 206kts to climb away on 3 engines....263kts and gear up to climb away on 2 engines. They managed 211kts after engine 2 was shut down but at that point engine 1 stopped producing thrust and that was that.
The BEA calculated that had they performed a RTO at the time of realising something bad was happening, they would have gone off the end of the runway doing at least 74kts........atakacs was right when he said they were doomed as soon as the fire started.
Once the tank was ruptured (for whatever reason, I am personally not fully convinced about that titanium piece) and the fuel ignited their fate was sealed.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with atakacs.......the report focused too much on the titanium strip, and not enough on the missing spacer on the landing gear....causing the actual tyre that burst to shimmy around on the axle. The aircraft was also overweight by 0.7 - 1.2 tonnes, which it pretty shocking practice from a national carrier IMHO.
atakacs I'd be interested to hear your doubts on the titanium piece.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqOcYhzWUZY
Join Date: May 2011
Location: France
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite the case..... I will leave it to the expert to explain..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqOcYhzWUZY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqOcYhzWUZY
DW
I was working as a global tv news producer at Reuters HQ in London the day of the accident.
Reuters bought this famous footage for £1200.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3rPz6hwDgh0
Reuters bought this famous footage for £1200.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3rPz6hwDgh0
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if the fact that the captain overloaded the aircraft and took off with a tailwind is true, it would seem that was one of the greatest factors in explaining why the aircraft crashed.
the aircraft was overloaded by something like 3 tons under the captain's authority with additional bags and fuel, and was taking off with a tailwind, presumably without recalculating the v speeds for that runway. the fire and the FE shutting down the engine was the icing on the cake.
other contributing factors included the fire, which could have been avoided if the airlines had followed recommendations by safety organizations to reinforce the tanks near the landing gear, as this was not the first time the concorde had an explosive gear failure incident leading to wing damage. in fact it had happened quite a few times throughout the 70's and 80's including several fairly severe wing damage incidents. the airlines elected to ignore the report and operate the aircraft as they were for almost a decade before the final accident. if the tank had not been full it probably would not have exploded as there would have been a small yet important gap between the fuel surface and the tank skin, allowing the empty space to absorb some of the shockwave that resulted from debris hitting the bottom of the wing.
a lot of things contributed to that accident. the dc-10 part lying on the runway was a big catalyst but certainly not the only thing that caused the end result. the whole takeoff was a mess of bad decision making.
the aircraft was overloaded by something like 3 tons under the captain's authority with additional bags and fuel, and was taking off with a tailwind, presumably without recalculating the v speeds for that runway. the fire and the FE shutting down the engine was the icing on the cake.
other contributing factors included the fire, which could have been avoided if the airlines had followed recommendations by safety organizations to reinforce the tanks near the landing gear, as this was not the first time the concorde had an explosive gear failure incident leading to wing damage. in fact it had happened quite a few times throughout the 70's and 80's including several fairly severe wing damage incidents. the airlines elected to ignore the report and operate the aircraft as they were for almost a decade before the final accident. if the tank had not been full it probably would not have exploded as there would have been a small yet important gap between the fuel surface and the tank skin, allowing the empty space to absorb some of the shockwave that resulted from debris hitting the bottom of the wing.
a lot of things contributed to that accident. the dc-10 part lying on the runway was a big catalyst but certainly not the only thing that caused the end result. the whole takeoff was a mess of bad decision making.
This accident has been discussed ad nauseum at the time and I think there is pretty much a consensus that once the massive leak ignited it was game over: they couldn't stop, they couldn't fly.
As for engine 2 shut down I agree that the lack of communication is surprising and didn't help, although it was the "right" thing to do given the circumstances. They had clear engine fire alarms, engine surge indication and ATC screaming the same. How could they guess that it was not actually an engine fire (which no one suspected until much latter) ? But in any case it didn't change the eventual outcome - except maybe for the victims on the ground.
atakacs I'd be interested to hear your doubts on the titanium piece.
As for engine 2 shut down I agree that the lack of communication is surprising and didn't help, although it was the "right" thing to do given the circumstances. They had clear engine fire alarms, engine surge indication and ATC screaming the same. How could they guess that it was not actually an engine fire (which no one suspected until much latter) ? But in any case it didn't change the eventual outcome - except maybe for the victims on the ground.
I shall listen to his video but given the information they were presented with I will not fault them on that point. In any case pretty academic and assuredly irelavant. Even if André Turcat would resurrect and come to tell me otherwise I would not believe that flight could be saved.
I am not privy to any "inside" information but I muss say that despite knowing the huge loads on Concorde tires at takeoff and the simulation by the BEA I have a hard time to believe that strip really destroyed the tire. To be honest, very, very convenient. And even if it did, the missing spacer on the landing gear was pretty much overlooked in the report whereas it was designed to precisely help in such circumstances. Overall I would say the Concorde operation at AF did not look as professional as it should in 2000.[/QUOTE].
Don't forget that AF had been using re-treaded tyres which BA had not.
It was believed that the strip cut across the tyre and at that speed in excess of 4kg of rubber hit the underside of the wing exactly at a point of a thick and thinner section causing the rupture.
The missing wheel spacer was causing the aircraft to track off the runway c/l. This meant that additional rudder was needed.
The investigation was extremely comprehensive.
Don't forget that AF had been using re-treaded tyres which BA had not.
It was believed that the strip cut across the tyre and at that speed in excess of 4kg of rubber hit the underside of the wing exactly at a point of a thick and thinner section causing the rupture.
The missing wheel spacer was causing the aircraft to track off the runway c/l. This meant that additional rudder was needed.
The investigation was extremely comprehensive.
And what other course of action was possible? Deploy ejection seats? Fire the JATO rockets?
I shall listen to his video but given the information they were presented with I will not fault them on that point. In any case pretty academic and assuredly irelavant. Even if André Turcat would resurrect and come to tell me otherwise I would not believe that flight could be saved.
I shall listen to his video but given the information they were presented with I will not fault them on that point. In any case pretty academic and assuredly irelavant. Even if André Turcat would resurrect and come to tell me otherwise I would not believe that flight could be saved.
