Concorde - a question from a VFR private pilot
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde - a question from a VFR private pilot
If the unlucky Air France Concorde had been a BA one, would the outcome have been the same in terms of damage sustained? Did we really need to modify the Concordes to such an extent or was it a Political decision?
Aviate1138 - mourning the passing of a great aeroplane.
Aviate1138 - mourning the passing of a great aeroplane.
Shining Example, apparently...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lone Star State
Age: 50
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure if you're trying to make a point. I hope you're not.
Look at it from an engineering perspective: A (tragic) incident occurred. Investigation revealed an unforseen failure mode, which was researched and a solution proposed. This was cost-justified - at the time - so was carried out, to enable Concorde to resume flying.
Alas, in the meantime, the economics flew even further south than the Great Lady, which is why I'll be profoundly miserable as 1500Z draws closer. A sad day indeed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crepello said......
I'm not sure if you're trying to make a point. I hope you're not.
Aviate says....
Well I am, because BA operated the Concorde for 3 weeks after the tragic accident [ with microscopic CAA observation] and as they had already modified the wheel guards and other bits as a result of a tyre burst some years earlier, it seemed to me to be a decision made to justify the French embarrassment of it being their Concorde that crashed. Especially as I gather Air France did not incorporate the BA changes. Am I misinformed or is that a fact? Came from a BA Flight Engineers mouth.
_I would simply point out that if it serves French politics then certain actions are taken and everybody elses view is ignored. Examples would be... Welsh lamb set on fire in lorries, farm subsidies for small French Farmers increased to the rest of European farmers detriment. French refusal to eat British Beef after EU Directives clearing the meat. French arrogance about Champagne which can be made anywhere just as well. Indian Champagne is particularly good! At a fraction of the French price. I could go on at length.
Just pi**ed off that an icon of top class Brit and French engineering has been stopped with plenty of Mach 2 revenue flying left.
Aviate 1138 - 43 Concorde UK-US-UK flights in seats 10A and 10D. One JFK-LHR flight in 2hrs 57minutes and some seconds. Every flight a blast!
I'm not sure if you're trying to make a point. I hope you're not.
Aviate says....
Well I am, because BA operated the Concorde for 3 weeks after the tragic accident [ with microscopic CAA observation] and as they had already modified the wheel guards and other bits as a result of a tyre burst some years earlier, it seemed to me to be a decision made to justify the French embarrassment of it being their Concorde that crashed. Especially as I gather Air France did not incorporate the BA changes. Am I misinformed or is that a fact? Came from a BA Flight Engineers mouth.
_I would simply point out that if it serves French politics then certain actions are taken and everybody elses view is ignored. Examples would be... Welsh lamb set on fire in lorries, farm subsidies for small French Farmers increased to the rest of European farmers detriment. French refusal to eat British Beef after EU Directives clearing the meat. French arrogance about Champagne which can be made anywhere just as well. Indian Champagne is particularly good! At a fraction of the French price. I could go on at length.
Just pi**ed off that an icon of top class Brit and French engineering has been stopped with plenty of Mach 2 revenue flying left.
Aviate 1138 - 43 Concorde UK-US-UK flights in seats 10A and 10D. One JFK-LHR flight in 2hrs 57minutes and some seconds. Every flight a blast!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ook at it from an engineering perspective: A (tragic) incident occurred. Investigation revealed an unforseen failure mode, which was researched and a solution proposed.
ENTREPPRUNEUR
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 60s
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's quite possible that the French canned Concorde (via Airbus charges) because no-one was flying in theirs and they couldn't abide BA carrying on after they had stopped. Having said that, BA didn't seem to complain too much.
Slag the French off if you like. At least they tried hard to avoid war in Iraq. A few years Concorde flights versus 10,000 murdered innocent souls in Iraq. Now, who's the good-guy and who's the bad-guy?
Slag the French off if you like. At least they tried hard to avoid war in Iraq. A few years Concorde flights versus 10,000 murdered innocent souls in Iraq. Now, who's the good-guy and who's the bad-guy?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Near an airport
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't post much. just like to read.
But do you have to drag your views on the Iraq war into this topic.
In my view it is a valid question. Aviate has left himself open to be corected if he is wrong about the tyre burst.
While the Iraq war contributed to the demise of Concorde due to the lack of people travelling. It is not IMHO the sole reason why.
There are many reasons why, alot of which i probably am not party to.
This is a topic about concorde.
Keep it interesting and relevant.
But do you have to drag your views on the Iraq war into this topic.
In my view it is a valid question. Aviate has left himself open to be corected if he is wrong about the tyre burst.
While the Iraq war contributed to the demise of Concorde due to the lack of people travelling. It is not IMHO the sole reason why.
There are many reasons why, alot of which i probably am not party to.
This is a topic about concorde.
Keep it interesting and relevant.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On your right..
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently...
Apparantly BA had already done some modifications on their fleet which Air France had not! Im unsure if this is true! Also some people say it wasnt the piece of debris on the runway that caused the plane to rupture the fuel tank. It was that a part the undercarriage wasnt alligned in the right way and it hit a runway light! I dont know how true these stories are but it was still a tragic event that has effected air travel forever. 
thankyou for reading
Dave
thankyou for reading
Dave
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Outlawed
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NotsoFantastic - it sounded like nonsense to me too, but on another Concorde thread it's attributed to a direct quote from Jock Lowe.
Perhaps Human Factor can explain further...
Perhaps Human Factor can explain further...
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of thoughts...
First, if we were to address hazards at equivalent levels of probability to that pertaining in the AF crash, we would all stop flying. Considering that we use statistics to prove safety throughout aviation, we ought to have got beyond the knee-jerk reaction to one-off event chains. The response should have been along the lines of: 'It was a tragedy, but is so unlikely to happen again, that we just keep flying'.
Second, bearing in mind that terrorists are able, with relative ease, to get their hands on some pretty basic SLAAMs, many of which target best on very powerful heat sources, should we consider the fact that Concorde constituted a combination of exceptionally-high-value asset and exceptionally high IR signature, and consider that it is the easiest civil airliner to shoot down, and also the most valuable target for a terrorist to hit, and that the risks just got too great for the operators and/or insurers? (Most fan-jets are not easy to target).
First, if we were to address hazards at equivalent levels of probability to that pertaining in the AF crash, we would all stop flying. Considering that we use statistics to prove safety throughout aviation, we ought to have got beyond the knee-jerk reaction to one-off event chains. The response should have been along the lines of: 'It was a tragedy, but is so unlikely to happen again, that we just keep flying'.
Second, bearing in mind that terrorists are able, with relative ease, to get their hands on some pretty basic SLAAMs, many of which target best on very powerful heat sources, should we consider the fact that Concorde constituted a combination of exceptionally-high-value asset and exceptionally high IR signature, and consider that it is the easiest civil airliner to shoot down, and also the most valuable target for a terrorist to hit, and that the risks just got too great for the operators and/or insurers? (Most fan-jets are not easy to target).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More thoughts....
We are told how a ruptured tyre caused the whole sequence of events, however has human error ever been thoroughly investigated and ruled out?
Forgive me if I'm wrong but the disaster was entirely attributed to design faults, but the version I have been told by a BA engineer tells an entirely different story. Apparently during the maintenance checks on the aircraft beforehand the tyre in question was replaced, although during the refit they failed to replace a tyre spacer. Subsequently it was this extra movement in the wheel that caused the tyre to rupture.
So was the need for all these refits a complete necessity or just a cover up?
We are told how a ruptured tyre caused the whole sequence of events, however has human error ever been thoroughly investigated and ruled out?
Forgive me if I'm wrong but the disaster was entirely attributed to design faults, but the version I have been told by a BA engineer tells an entirely different story. Apparently during the maintenance checks on the aircraft beforehand the tyre in question was replaced, although during the refit they failed to replace a tyre spacer. Subsequently it was this extra movement in the wheel that caused the tyre to rupture.
So was the need for all these refits a complete necessity or just a cover up?
Last edited by SkyRocket10; 3rd Nov 2003 at 07:45.
GrantT
"...the flight that day was 50 tons overweight making it over the MTOW..."
Rubbish!
To read the official accident report, click here
According to the BEA, the aircraft was estimated to have commenced take-off at either 186,251 kgs or 185,757 kgs, depending on what assumptions are made about passenger weights.
The BEA calculate therefore that she was either +1,181 kgs or +687 kgs over her maximum authorised takeoff weight of 185,070 kgs, and in their report they admit this and comment, quite fairly, that:
"...it appears that the aircraft was slightly overloaded on takeoff, regardless of the hypotheses used to make the calculation..."
They attribute this "slight overload" to two main reasons.
Firstly, they now believe that 1,000 kgs less taxy fuel was used during the taxy-out than had been forecast.
Secondly, they now know, which the flight crew at the time did not, that 19 extra passenger bags (weighing 393 kgs) were onboard the aircraft, but not accounted for on the loadsheet.
They go on to make the point that at take-off the aircraft weight, whilst over MATOW, was still below the calculated performance weight of 186,700 kgs.
Under these circumstances, their subsequent finding that "...any effect on takeoff performance from this excess weight was negligible... seems well researched, well argued and quite reasonable.
Regards
Bellerophon
Excerpts from Accident Report F-SC000725A are by courtesy of, and copyright to, the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile - France.
"...the flight that day was 50 tons overweight making it over the MTOW..."
Rubbish!
To read the official accident report, click here
According to the BEA, the aircraft was estimated to have commenced take-off at either 186,251 kgs or 185,757 kgs, depending on what assumptions are made about passenger weights.
The BEA calculate therefore that she was either +1,181 kgs or +687 kgs over her maximum authorised takeoff weight of 185,070 kgs, and in their report they admit this and comment, quite fairly, that:
"...it appears that the aircraft was slightly overloaded on takeoff, regardless of the hypotheses used to make the calculation..."
They attribute this "slight overload" to two main reasons.
Firstly, they now believe that 1,000 kgs less taxy fuel was used during the taxy-out than had been forecast.
Secondly, they now know, which the flight crew at the time did not, that 19 extra passenger bags (weighing 393 kgs) were onboard the aircraft, but not accounted for on the loadsheet.
They go on to make the point that at take-off the aircraft weight, whilst over MATOW, was still below the calculated performance weight of 186,700 kgs.
Under these circumstances, their subsequent finding that "...any effect on takeoff performance from this excess weight was negligible... seems well researched, well argued and quite reasonable.
Regards
Bellerophon
Excerpts from Accident Report F-SC000725A are by courtesy of, and copyright to, the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile - France.
Interesting comment from Notso. I do clearly recall that a recent BBC Concorde documentary did claim that some forty of BA's most regular Concorde passengers were killed in the WTC tragedy. Predominantly senior company executives, not only had they regularly flown Concorde themselves, but were also in a position to authorise other employees to fly on Concorde, when deemed appropriate. This was given as one reason why scheduled BA Concorde passenger figures never recovered.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA did use different tyres to the French. Whether that would have given a different result when the tyre hit the bit of titanium debris which had fallen off a DC10 is anybody's guess. It is certainly true that there had been previous tyre/wheel rim incidents which in retrospect could easily have been nastier. Concorde tyres are pretty meaty bits of kit and the crash tyre destroyed itself comprehensively. That said, the pressures etc are not that much higher than those of the subsonic jets and I imagine Boeing and Airbus will have been taking a hard look at the areas above the tyres on their existing jets.
The fact that the crash jet was right up at max weight didn't help on the day, but if it was slightly overweight that wasn't a significant factor. Similarly, the missing spacer on one wheel bogie wouldn't have helped but the result would have been no different if it had been there. The aircraft was designed to climb at 4% gradient on 3 engines with the gear up. (In this respect it was safer than subsonic 4-engined jets which have to climb at 3.2%) On the day it had 2.5 engines running, an undercarriage that didn't retract fully and the afterbody drag of the plume of flame at the back, which is perceived by the passing air as part of the aircraft. There was no way it was going to be able to maintain altitude.
Ultimately it was Air France and Airbus who killed the project. AF were haemoraging (spelling?) money and had to cut something. France Inc could not bear to see the Brits carrying on where they had given up so they applied pressure on the French parts of Airbus to make continued support look ultra expensive.
I am as sad as anyone to see the aircraft go out of service as I worked on it for 4 years at the beginning of my career. However, the fact is that it has had its day and we have to move on. It was a unique achievement of the last century, and they can't take that away from us.
The fact that the crash jet was right up at max weight didn't help on the day, but if it was slightly overweight that wasn't a significant factor. Similarly, the missing spacer on one wheel bogie wouldn't have helped but the result would have been no different if it had been there. The aircraft was designed to climb at 4% gradient on 3 engines with the gear up. (In this respect it was safer than subsonic 4-engined jets which have to climb at 3.2%) On the day it had 2.5 engines running, an undercarriage that didn't retract fully and the afterbody drag of the plume of flame at the back, which is perceived by the passing air as part of the aircraft. There was no way it was going to be able to maintain altitude.
Ultimately it was Air France and Airbus who killed the project. AF were haemoraging (spelling?) money and had to cut something. France Inc could not bear to see the Brits carrying on where they had given up so they applied pressure on the French parts of Airbus to make continued support look ultra expensive.
I am as sad as anyone to see the aircraft go out of service as I worked on it for 4 years at the beginning of my career. However, the fact is that it has had its day and we have to move on. It was a unique achievement of the last century, and they can't take that away from us.
