Aborted BA Concorde T/O today?

[simbad3000]

Anyone know anything about this?

[suction]

The BBC have it:

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1663000/1663075.stm)

-S

[NW1]

Got this from the BBC website:
A British Airways Concorde bound for New York's JFK airport was forced to abort its take-off after concerns about a possible engine problem.

The plane, carrying around 60 people, was travelling at a "very low speed" on the Heathrow runway when the flight was aborted, according to a BA spokeswoman.

The captain had become concerned about a possible technical problem with the "engine reheats" on the aircraft.

Once additional safety checks were carried out, the airliner took off at 1128 GMT and is expected to land, on time, in New York at 0920 local time (1420 GMT)

Looks to me like a reheat failed to light. Depending on weight, either 3 or all 4 reheats need to be lit by 100kts. A low-speed reject is not a problem, just an inconvenience - a check by engineering on the undercarriage is required as a precaution - and the odds are the reheat will light next time.

If one fails to light initially they usually light after a quick reselection on the switch. They are reliable in service, and a reject for a reheat failure is more inconvenience than anything else.

But I suppose the press will turn a very minor event into a drama... :rolleyes:

[eyeinthesky]

Didn't one also return to LHR last week due to 'problems maintaining height and speed at supersonic levels'?

[NW1]

eyeinthesky,

No, I don't think so, the reason you quote is almost certainly bogus. I'm off to work tommorrow so I'll ask around and get back to you. It sounds to me like an exaggerated mis-quote from some other incident-ette?

High temperatures over ISA during the acceleration can prolong the need for afterburners, but I've never heard of a turn-back for that reason (and I've seem some pretty high temps), and in the current climate a turn-back would be all over the news.

Cheers

[gordonroxburgh]

Air France had one (possibly 2) turn back(s) last week to CDG.

The reason for one of these that is circulating is that fuel flow was restricted to the No2 engine as one of the liners had moved and was stopping fuel getting to the feed lines.

[jongar]

It cant have been delayed much. I was woken up by concorde at about 11.45 - quite happy to be woken by the old bird

[TwoTun]

Gordo, you said:

<The reason for one of these that is circulating is that fuel flow was restricted to the No2 engine as one of the liners had moved and was stopping fuel getting to the feed lines.>

Don't know where you got that explanation from, but it's very implausible. The liners can't move at all. Lots of brackets and stuff.

A better explanation might be that the engine may have had it's intake airflow disrupted by, possibly, a malfunctioning ramp.

regards

[gordonroxburgh]

TwoTun

The info I got from a source inside AF was that F-BFVB had to turn back as engine no2 was not developing sufficent thrust and the aircraft only reach M1.6.

Initial reports put this down to "a piece of liner that prevented fuel reaching the engine"

but as you say at that sort of speed region an intake problem may seem more likely.

[eyeinthesky]

I've rechecked my sources: It was indeed an AFR which went back to CDG on 14/11 after passing about FL400. Sorry for the confusion.

[bertram]

My boss was on the flight ..... apparently the delay after the abort was less than 5 minutes just off the side of the main runway and attributed to a blown circuit breaker causing an engine warning light to come on!!

[fergineer]

MMMMMMMMM CB blows on a circuit that warrants a TO to be abandoned, CB reset obviously after the two minutes that it says in my BA manual, albeit not for Conc, TO carried out MMMMMMMMMM Wonder what might have happened if they lost another engine then the CB popped again MMMMMMMMM However Conc got off only 5 mins late MMMMMMMMM Rules for one eh!!!!!!!! Lets not let the side down keep the pax happy and get them there on time, is that all that matters. Now I wonder what the truth to it all really is.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ 20 November 2001: Message edited by: fergineer ]

[Heliport]

fergineer
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm ..... What an excellent idea!
Let's start/fuel a conspiracy/scandal/cover-up scare-mongering theory on a public forum which we know is read by the public and the Press.
Let's be completely irresponsible, make soemthing out of nothing, and to hell with the consequences.
What fantastic fun!

:mad: :rolleyes: :mad: :rolleyes:

[Bellerophon]

Strange coincidence bertram, one of my bosses was also aboard that BA Concorde. :D

I remain confident therefore, that the flight was conducted properly and safely.

[fergineer]

Heliport, hit a nerve did I, lets look at your reply and see who suggested
Let's start/fuel a conspiracy/scandal/cover-up scare-mongering theory on a public forum which we know is read by the public and the Press.
and the answer is YOU. Don't start preaching here mate we are all entitled to our opinions and that was mine :mad: :mad:

[virgin]

Well said Heliport.
Shame Fregineer seems unable to understand your point! :rolleyes:

[NW1]

MMMMMMMMM CB blows on a circuit that warrants a TO to be abandoned
No. A reheat failed to light, weight was just above that required to go with 3, so reject at only 70kts - no drama.

MMMMMMMMMM Wonder what might have happened if they lost another engine then the CB popped again
Why run critical scenarios based on false assumptions when you don't know what happened in the first place? For the record no engines were lost, and no CBs popped

MMMMMMMMM However Conc got off only 5 mins late MMMMMMMMM Rules for one eh!!!!!!!!
What are you trying to imply? There was no technical reason for a return to stand - the 001 rejoined the departure queue and left in sequence. Just like a 747 with a similar non-critical low-speed reject would - atc are usually sympathetic to an a/c which has had a reject and is subsequently able to depart (this does happen, y'know, its not a big cover up MMMMM) - irrespective of type or company.

Lets not let the side down keep the pax happy and get them there on time, is that all that matters. Now I wonder what the truth to it all really is.
Don't be so ridiculous. The truth is that a perfectly standard operation with a very minor technical problem was handled very properly and efficiently and in total accordance with the SOPs, and following a very low speed reject the flight left in accordance with the flying manual.

No fuss, no drama, no conspiracy theory, emphasis on safety first. Sorry to disappoint. MMMMMMM :rolleyes:

[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: NW1 ]

[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: NW1 ]

[Lunar Landing]

In the case you very well mentioned above, why does concorde not take-off on only 2 re-heats to save fuel? I spose that is a question forum question, so if it gets moved there, appolgies, but anyhow...it may seem a rather 'child like' question, but just wondering.
Smooth skies,
Dan :) :cool:

[John Farley]

Lunar Landing

Brain on go. Would you attempt a take off at very much reduced power in your aeroplane? (You are a PPL holder after all)

[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: John Farley ]

[NW1]

Hi "Lunar"

Its not a "child-like" question if you don't know the aeroplane - its a perfectly reasonable question.

The simple answer is it wouldn't save fuel. The acceleration would be slower, and therefore drag after takeoff higher (more fuel burned), performance (weight)limits more restrictive and runway length required longer.

Just because a 747 can safely continue its takeoff on 3 engines after V1, it doesn't attempt to go on 3 from the start.

The reheats are a little more complex performance-wise because they are merely thrust augmenters - not whole engines. We have weights below which we can still go if one reheat doesn't light at all (in fact, after 100kts we can always go if a reheat goes out - in practice this is very rare: once they're lit they stay lit), but never with a complete engine failed. Two reheats failed is equivalent to an engine failure in this respect, and takeoff would only be continued if V1 had been achieved - like a conventional jet with an engine failed - and rejected (or not attempted - to answer your question) before V1.

Hope this helps.

[John Farley]

NW1

Thanks. Its been a bad day

Lunar

Sorry!

[WOK]

And while we are all in the classroom, let's answer the next question before it's asked!:

Why always full power? Other a/c are almost invariably using derates/graduations off a 10000' sea-level runway.

At normal weights Vmd (and best L/D) are in excess of 400kts IAS after take off - you are a LONG way the wrong side down the drag curve (John F will be able to speak as authoritatively as any on this subject), therefore the faster the speed you attain on the runway the better the performance after lift-off.

Thus,max power take off ensures LOWER fuel burn for the sector and LESS noise after take off due greater overflight altitude achieved.

For those with Perf A:

Obviously off a short runway, Vr will be lower. The weird thing is that, because you are so far below Vimd/best L/D you are more likely to be WAT limited.Off a long runway the tyre speed is the limit and WAT isn't a factor til you are at a very high density alt. It's not really an aeroplane until it's accelerating through 350kts, then you get largely back to the rules you learnt for your licence!