AF Concorde loses a piece of its rudder

[ghost-rider]

I see on Sky News that an AF Concorde lost part of it's rudder ( apparantly ) enroute NY.

David Learmount :yuk: is spouting on about something ( we've got the volume turned down ! ) no doubt the presenter is saying pax screaming for their lives etc etc.

The 'Breaking News' headline said 'Concorde lands safely and on time !' :rolleyes:

Don't you just love sensationalism ?!:*

[Danny]

ghost-rider, don't be so facetious and hypocritical. I have just watched the Sky News interview with David Learmount and he has put across in the most level headed and descriptive manner, the facts about what a non event this really was. The news presenter asking the most dumbed down questions was thwarted every time by sensible and easily understood explanations by David.

He has never launched into the tabloid sensationalism that you are accusing him of. If you are going to spout off such drivel, I suggest you try turning up the volume and report facts as they are instead of tabloid like sensationalism as in your post! :*

[Taildragger67]

Just reporting:
Air France Concorde Loses Piece of Rudder, Lands Safety at JFK

Paris, Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Air France SA, Europe's second-
largest airline, said a supersonic Concorde flying between Paris
and New York landed safely at John F. Kennedy Airport after losing
part of its rudder.
"Concorde F-BVFA flying Air France flight AF0002 from Paris
to New York lost one of the pieces that controls the plane's
direction,'' the carrier said in a statement sent by fax. "The
flight landed normally and on time at Kennedy airport.''
It said an inquiry has been opened. British Airways Plc also
flies Concordes between London and New York.


Well done to crew for getting (the rest of) her down in one piece.

Just give me a sec to step back before the yelling starts...

My 2 cents' worth: I was taken by my parents as a 10 year old, many years ago, IAD-LHR. Fell in love with it. As an American pilot said at LHR on 7 Nov 01: "Go, Concorde, go!!"

[ghost-rider]

Apologies ... my original post edited with the bits I meant to say added in bold.

I'm not a DL fan, but my post was written in haste and without a proof-read. That'll teach me ! :O

Sincere apologies !

[woodpecker]

The last time BA lost one they had to replace all of the fleets rudders at a cost of £1,00,000 each!

At the time the standard BA spokesperson suggested that there was no problem flying without one!! I seem to remember that the rudder comes in very handy on the simulator, but obviously not needed on the real thing!

[arcniz]

Woodpecker - excellent concept!

Since the rudder bits are pesky about coming off but otherwise so superfluous, the operators can simply remove most of the rudder sections from the fleet, auction them off to Concord nuts on EBAY, and use the rich proceeds to improve more important maintenance, such as lubricating the nose pivots.

[Kwasi_Mensa]

If flying is no problem without one, why bother the cost to replace them and why are they there at the first place?

[411A]

Needs to be retired...bits seem to be coming off with some regularity...third time for the rudder I believe, sucks up (really expensive now) fuel like a big Hoover, with STILL not all that many high rollers in attendence to pay the bills.
Suspect that BA has a few spots reserved in Mojave for the sleek birds, whose time has come...and went.:rolleyes:
Concorde...dead as a doornail.

[Tandemrotor]

Danny,

"He has never launched into the tabloid sensationalism that you are accusing him of"

I guess you don't have quite as long a memory as some of us!

He frequently speculates with the luxury of complete and utter ignorance!

It is his speciality!

I have warned my wife to look out for him if ever I have the misfortune to be involved in an accident.

I detest seeing him on TV. There must be somebody better. I would join ghost-rider in turning the volume off, or better still, turning over!

[Volume]

For those who are more interrested in technical details of concorde rudder losses, the following links to earlier rudder los events might be usefull :

AAIB Report 1 (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/dec00/gboac1.htm)

AAIB Report 2 (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/dec00/gboac2.htm)

And this is how a rudder looks like after such an event :
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/dec00/images/gboaca2.jpg

[Volume]

Found even better Pictures on www.concordesst.com :


http://www.concordesst.com/pictures/news/gboaecruddert.jpg

http://www.concordesst.com/pictures/gboafruddert.jpg

so Concorde rudder failures are a quite normal and uneventflull thing.
It´s not broken, it´s british.

[Raw Data]

Funny, then, how so many bits fall off American aircraft- from complete engines to flaps, slats, cargo hold doors, top halves of the fuselage, tail fins, etc etc etc. That's what happens when you build to a price- something no British (or Anglo/French) aircraft could ever be accused of.

Of course if you want to see true parts-shedding, follow any Russian-built aircraft down the runway... ;)

[LRdriver]

what ticks me off is that other ac (non british) manufacturers go thru alot of useless grief to try to get their airplanes certified (for safety reasons)..ie Falcon2000 needed a stickpuller/shaker/pusher thing, the GV needed to beef up the wing design to live up to "highest standards" and the Learjet 60 isn't certified in the UK due to the TRs.. yet they let the concorde keep flying even as it drops bits on a regular basis.. smells a bit rotten to me.

I'm not taking sides as the FAAs claim to fame is ignoring the rudder issues on the 737..

again it comes down to the "tombstone-factor" and politics/money.:yuk:

[lomapaseo]

There is a difference between the certification process and the Continued Airworthiness process.

The former presumes permancy in the acceptability of a problem design after introduction into service, without limits on the total exposure, while the latter, assumes that there will be an adequate corrective action and limited exposure to risk.

In the case of the Concorde the risk exposure is at least limited as retrofits/inspections are taking place.

Typically the public and the airlines tolerate the fundamentals of Continued Airworthiness, but have little tolerance for experimental flight testing of faulted designs with paying passengers.

[411A]

RawData,

Yes, bits do indeed fall off American designs.
OTOH, would rather have a few bits fall off rather than having a compromised design, one in which it was possible to retract the leading edge devices independently of the trailing edge flaps....called ARB asleep at the switch......:eek:

IF BA/AF want to keep the old bird flying, looks like they need to pay attention to continued serviceability.....at the back end especially.:rolleyes:

[Raw Data]

Well, maybe, but I think the main point here is that a Concorde sans rudder will safely arrive at its destination, assuming all the Olympii keep running...

But yes, there will need to be an expenditure of money to sort this out.

It pains me that the world has so lost its sense of wonder and adventure in aviation. Concorde was the product of brave, original thinking ands cutting-edge research. More than can be said for any airliner design in the last 30 years.

It may or may not be economically viable (depending on who you listen to), but in my humble opinion, it should be kept flying simply as a reminder of what we can do when we set our minds to it...

[arcniz]

Raw Data - One needs to distinguish between the desire of the operators to keep aircraft flying without incident and their ability to actually do so.

Certainly the loss of airfoil surfaces was not intended or desired on this or prior occasions, so one must observe that the failures are a result of the operators' inability to properly maintain the aircraft - at least in this specific narrow regard.

Aviation has long been fertile ground for the proliferation of "advanced" technologies in construction, design, materials and concepts. Success of application of any technology depends on its ability to perform when designed (i.e. certification) and also to perform throughout a reliable working life.

Even pampered aircraft lead rough lives in their service as beasts of burden. The postcard view of sunlight glinting off a polished wing suffers slightly with greater proximity where one can see the dings and patches and wrinkles on most seasoned aerial workhorses. The good news is that the art and science of maintenance keep most aircraft safe and serviceable for a long time, even if not as pretty as on day 1.

So, the rub is that sometimes maintenance and diagnostic methods do not fully keep up with the "advanced" failure modes of advanced technologies. That seems to be the case here.

We know that the resourcefulness of aircrews can rescue aircraft from mechanical failures that leave them seriously impaired. We also know that a bit of masking tape or chewing gum in the wrong place can occasionally lead to serious consequences. I interpret this to mean that anything which ain't right is potentially serious.

The aircraft industry is (or was, until recently) busy laminating, bonding, & computerizing aircraft systems, parts and pieces at a great rate. The new methods associated with each of these have been 'perfected' for production, but in some cases seem to not be totally thought through for the full life cycle of use, diagnosis, and repair in the gritty world of commerce.

Perhaps the big C - always a trendsetter - is revealing a phenomenon - of insufficient means for fault anticipation in certain manufactured assemblies - that will more broadly affect the industry in time future?

[Raw Data]

A chap by the name of Fletcher (designer of the aircraft that bear his name) once said that the way you design an aircraft is to first make the structure just strong enough to keep the rain out- then test it, re-inforce it where it breaks, test it again, etc... Eventually you end up with a strong structure (that may nevertheless look insubstantial).

In the case of Concorde, I think it is less a matter of the airlines' "inability to properly maintain the aircraft", but more a natural consequence of old parts failing in new ways, and quite unpredictably.

In other words, it's a learning curve, even now. This is the way it has always been, and always will be, no matter how modern or complex the structure is.

Going back to your opening statement, it is a given that all operators want to keep their aircraft flying without incident. All realise, however, that they can never fully predict or prevent failure- not even with a structure as meticulously designed, constructed, tested and maintained as a space shuttle.

Flying is inherently risky, as the consequences of a failure are frequently catastrophic. What airlines do is manage the risk through good maintainance and so on. In this case, I doubt that the failure will be attributed to poor maintainance.

[arcniz]

RD: After 4 decades at it, I am personally very familiar with the "inherently risky' concept. The issue is whether one minimizes that risk proactively or lamely waits for a given problem to progress to unpleasant proportions.

Note that I specifically did not suggest "poor maintenance", because that was not the idea intended.

You, in fact, have seconded in your rebuttal just exactly what I was attempting to communicate - with your remarks about the problem being ".. more a natural consequence of old parts failing in new ways, and quite unpredictably. "

Me point is that a priority part of the job oughta be making damn sure this doesn't happen "quite unpredictably". The way that result comes to be is that the operators have to demand improvements in diagnostic technology that will keep apace with or even anticipate the propensity of aircraft builders & the workings of time to create new failure mechanisms that are not diagnosable with vintage PM methods.

This is sort of a high-stakes version of "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

It's not a maintenance problem so much as a management problem. If we were smart enough to get them in the air, we ought to be smart enough to keep them in the air without important-looking bits drifting off, even if this occasionally requires solving some NEW problems.

[Stearperson]

Raw Data, The Airbus that lost its vertical stabilizer while departing JFK was built where...........?

[Raw Data]

arcniz

Wasn't really a rebuttal, more of an additional thought on my part. I don't particularly disagree with you. Sorry you took it to be such.

Stearperson

Jumping to conclusions, I see. I wasn't thinking about the Airbus (built, or should I say assembled, in Toulouse), but the B52 bomber that lost its tail over the Rockies 15 or so years ago... it landed safely. There is a picture of it about somewhere, if you can't find it I think I have a copy from an old magazine.

[Stearperson]

Raw data: I did not jump to any conclusion. I was just surprised be your previous post that made it sound like parts would not fall off Engligh or French aircraft.
The fact is aircraft made in all counties do from time to time shed important parts
Take Care, Stearperson

[Raw Data]

Well OK then.

Have to say, though, that from what I have been able to find out, parts fall off American aircraft far more regularly than was the case with Brit designs. They build 'em strong in the UK, which of course means heavy.

I remember a few years back, based in Brussels, noticing that every time a certain Aeroflot flight departed, it was followed immediately by a runway inspection. I thought it was co-incidence, but an Ops guy later showed me the collection of bits they had picked up from the runway after these flights departed- gear doors, access hatches and flaps, bits of brake unit, bits of tyre, all sorts of stuff...

[arcniz]

I know a few cases where duct tape has served well to aviod such embarassments - but am not sure one can purchase mach-rated DT anymore.

One or the other of the AAIB reports (cited above) points out the desirability of doing an inferential pattern analysis of the elevon and rudder segment bond integrity by correlating data from the available measurement methods and comparing the values for similar components across all measured samples and spares in the fleet. Some kind of predictive pattern would surely emerge from such elevated (yes) attention.

Would be interesting to know if this remedial testing was actually done, and if so, whether done for more than one testing methodology. Given the value of getting it right and the downside of getting it wrong on an unlucky day, I would think that threee or four different test methods applied with some frequency and compared point for point across the fleet would be a MINIMUM level of competent response to the observed component failures.

On the flip side, it might well be actionable as a notable breach of care if those who could do so failed to.