Concorde rudder problem

[calmdown]

Reports that part of the rudder fell apart whilst en-route to JFK

Happened sometime last week

[Wedge]

BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2541405.stm)

[Monkey C]

Apparently there's a bloke who lives in Staines that has built a full size concorde replica, entirely out of bits he's found in his back garden. ;)

M.C.

[timmcat]

Vibration felt on route, landed safely. BA saying investigation to take place, but Concorde to remain in service.

Anyone know what part 'fell off', and what implications it would have on aircraft handling / performance?

[Dufwer]

A previous occurance of a rudder problem on Concorde

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/dec00/gboac2.htm

[yak-yak]

This is not the first time that it has happened. BA has a very intensive inspection program in place to check for delamination of the internal honeycombe structure from the external skin. A number of years ago BA requested BAe to build both Upper and lower rudders so as to reduce the risk of this kind of failure.

The first time this kind of failure happened was on the round the world trip (I think). They landed in Australia (sydney) and ATC informed them that they were missing a section of there rudder. The crew were unaware until informed.

[newswatcher]

Why is it that, whenever an incident like this occurs, the media wheel out an expert who says something like - "the part wasn't important, the aircraft can fly safely without it"!

I am sorry to sound naive but, if that is the case, why not save cost and weight by not putting it there in the first place?

I suppose it depends largely on the meaning of the word "safely". For example, whilst a twin-engine aircraft can fly on one working engine, that would not be as "safely" as if it still had two.

:confused: :confused:

[NW1]

I think what you'll find is said is more along the lines of "the part WAS important, BUT the aircraft can fly safely without it." (That's why they fitted more than one - safety through redundancy). Subtle but clear difference from your inference.

Incidentally, the rudder didn't fall off - a small section at the trailing edge was lost with no effect on handling - and nothing LIKE as serious as a single engine failure on a twin (which events very rarely make it into the news), but no doubt we'll be treated to the usual dramatic overstatement from the media circusmasters over the next 24 hours.

[False Capture]

According to the BBC, Jock Lowe said "the affected panel only comes into use for steering during take-off and if there is an engine failure or if there is a cross-wind, so for most flights it is not needed at all".

Don't most flights inolve a take-off!!?:D

[The African Dude]

Well,

Concorde's getting quite a bit of focus for these bit's which have a habit of coming lose occasionally;

What's the relative danger? I mean, how often does something like this happen on your average 747? (just for nearest age, obviously there are design differences!!!!)

Can't be all that bad or else BA wouldn't let it fly.
But is no.1's structural probs. per flight figure greater than an average airliner? Significantly so?

Anybody here honestly want to pin a value on years until retirement?!?! (of Concorde :D)

Andy

[newswatcher]

Thanks NW1, I had considered your point before I posted, but couldn't quite remember the actual words used.

That's not my name you've shortened, I hope?

[Max Angle]

It is rather worrying I think. I thought that BA and AF fitted new rudders to the aircraft after the Sydney incident so the piece that fell off is part of a fairly new control surface albeit of the same design as the old ones.

[Flightmech]

No control problems, slight vibration. Maybe BA should consider adding the rudder sections to the CDL! Who needs them. Sorry, poor humour but the media seem to have gone mad again?

[arcniz]

Stiff upper lip notwithstanding, rudders are balanced control surfaces, and random self-dissasembly of their skins has some potential to provoke flutter modes that could do nasty things to the whole bird, in short order.

[WOK]

Theoretically true, arcniz, but like most large commercial jets Concorde's rudders are neither aerodynamically balanced nor significantly mass-balanced and are driven by non-reversible (at any survivable speed) hydraulic PFCUs, so the chance of a change of mass/shape of this order causing destructive flutter is effectively zero.

That's not to belittle the significance the issue, which is taken as seriously by the airlines and manufacturers as the regulatory bodies, but just to underline that the lack of panic on their part is due to the minimal hazard rather than a cavalier attitude.

[Select Zone Five]

What's the relative danger? I mean, how often does something like this happen on your average 747?An interesting question when you consider that it was a shed part from a COA DC-10 that eventually brought F-BTSC down.

[Localiser Green]

That's quite a chunk they have missing! :eek:

http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1112309.jpg

(Forgot - Copyright Sky News)

[stormin norman]

On the concorde subject, rumour has it they have 22 flight engineers for 5 a/c operating 2 services a day six days a week.
Is that the same for pilots, if so any vacancies ?

[Ailing Bob]

I know that statistically speaking, unless your a rock star, film star or multi millionaire etc your more likely to be killed or injured by a Concorde (or a piece of it!) falling on you than being in one if it crashes, but...
I found this thread over on Airmech (a bulletin board for aircraft engineers). Its an old one started last august but still running.
Its mostly Concorde engineers contributing.
At the beginning their enthusiasm for working on ithem is quite evident and refreshing, but midway through this thread they were put through some sort of managment restructuring or reorganisation. The nose dive in morale is quite clear to be seen. On the second page they complain that since this reorganisation they no longer have the right standard of equipment to do the job properly, they even mention "the crap equipment used to access the rudders", its interesting to note that these are the bits that fall off, and these guys don't have proper equipment to inspect them!
The threads here
http://www.airmech.co.uk/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=39;t=000281

Their moans don't appear to be the standard BA anti management diatribes that appear on the other BA forums, just exaspiration. (No I don't work there)

[M.Mouse]

Their moans don't appear to be the standard BA anti management diatribes that appear on the other BA forums, just exaspiration.

Yes they do.

If things are so terrible and they are not tied in to a seniority system why do they not leave. If there really is such a shortage of engineers that would force the issue to be addressed.

[Anti Skid On]

Various bits have been falling off Air NZ's fleet of Boeings in recent months, mainly flaps and panels that hadn't been screwed back on!

[Hartington]

I remember talking to a Concorde pilot about a previous occasion. If my memory serves me right this was an occasions when the aircraft lost part of the top of the tail in the cruise. The first the crew knew was vibration. They came back to subsonic and during deceleration the vibration largely ceased. When they put the power back on to maintain subsonic cruise it came back. Experimentation discovered that throttling one engine up (forget which) seemed to provoke vibration so they shut it down. On finals they had some problems with control (the comment "had to give the rudder a real boot to straighten it up" comes to mind) but put it down to the asymetric engine condtion.

As with this latest occasion the loss of rudder section was pointed out by tower on landing.

[Jet II]

M.Mouse

I fail to see how getting the concorde engineers to resign is going to sort out the problems with the manangement. There has been an ongoing row in that department over managers pressuring engineers to fit unserviceable parts.

BA senior management know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it. The engineers in that department may not agree or like it but until something serious happens it probably will not change.

That is no reason for the engineers to keep quite and not voice their concerns.