Crash Concorde 'almost killed Chirac'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mackay North Queensland Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash Concorde 'almost killed Chirac'
Crash Concorde 'almost killed Chirac'
A new book claims French president Jacques Chirac was almost killed in the Concorde crash in Paris in July 2000.
On that day, the burning Air France Concorde passed within about seven metres of an Air France Boeing 747 on which President Chirac was travelling and which had just landed.
The 747's proximity to the incident was not recorded in the official accident report into the crash which claimed 113 lives, according to the book Supersonic Secrets, written by broadcaster and journalist Rob Lewis.
Lewis wrote: "The French nation was left blissfully unaware of another key fact: how close they had come to losing their president.
"The final accident report diagram of the runway had been carefully drawn. While detailed, the choice of scale meant that Chirac's endangered 747 was just off the page - and did not have to be pictured.
"So how close had it been? According to those present on the day, the burning Concorde had come within seven metres of a deadly collision."
The book also made the following claims:
* There was a catalogue of operational and cockpit errors on the day of the fatal Concorde crash - July 25, 2000;
* The crew took off with an overweight plane;
* Because of this, the crew should have taken off into the wind but failed to do so;
* Even then, they might have been able to save the plane if they had operated the rudder fully and not turned one of the engines off so soon;
* The UK's Air Accidents Investigation Branch felt it had been hampered by the French in its efforts to investigate the crash;
* British Airways attempted to keep Concorde flying for future generations through a new company - to be called the Concorde Alliance - but was prevented from doing so by manufacturers Airbus; and
* An Air France Concorde with 59 passengers and crew on board came within minutes of running out of fuel and crashing earlier this year - due to operational errors.
"As Concorde spare parts go on sale, it is fitting that the public get to discover the real facts as to why this supersonic marvel is being grounded," Mr Lewis said.
A new book claims French president Jacques Chirac was almost killed in the Concorde crash in Paris in July 2000.
On that day, the burning Air France Concorde passed within about seven metres of an Air France Boeing 747 on which President Chirac was travelling and which had just landed.
The 747's proximity to the incident was not recorded in the official accident report into the crash which claimed 113 lives, according to the book Supersonic Secrets, written by broadcaster and journalist Rob Lewis.
Lewis wrote: "The French nation was left blissfully unaware of another key fact: how close they had come to losing their president.
"The final accident report diagram of the runway had been carefully drawn. While detailed, the choice of scale meant that Chirac's endangered 747 was just off the page - and did not have to be pictured.
"So how close had it been? According to those present on the day, the burning Concorde had come within seven metres of a deadly collision."
The book also made the following claims:
* There was a catalogue of operational and cockpit errors on the day of the fatal Concorde crash - July 25, 2000;
* The crew took off with an overweight plane;
* Because of this, the crew should have taken off into the wind but failed to do so;
* Even then, they might have been able to save the plane if they had operated the rudder fully and not turned one of the engines off so soon;
* The UK's Air Accidents Investigation Branch felt it had been hampered by the French in its efforts to investigate the crash;
* British Airways attempted to keep Concorde flying for future generations through a new company - to be called the Concorde Alliance - but was prevented from doing so by manufacturers Airbus; and
* An Air France Concorde with 59 passengers and crew on board came within minutes of running out of fuel and crashing earlier this year - due to operational errors.
"As Concorde spare parts go on sale, it is fitting that the public get to discover the real facts as to why this supersonic marvel is being grounded," Mr Lewis said.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The scale of the map must be almost 1:1 then.....if an aicraft only 7m away wasnt depicted. Sounds like 1. a croc of sh1t or 2. an exaggeration to me
Ref you 4th *: - I note "..... they MIGHT have been able to control the plane....." - basically its a whole lot of speculation (again). Sadly the only folks that really know are DEAD.
RIP.
Ref you 4th *: - I note "..... they MIGHT have been able to control the plane....." - basically its a whole lot of speculation (again). Sadly the only folks that really know are DEAD.
RIP.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've not found anything of substance - either on pprune or the web generally - regarding the incident at Halifax. As such that one does not appear to be "story closed", at least for outsiders.
Who would have has jurisdiction for that case? There's nothing in the NTSB database I can find.
Who would have has jurisdiction for that case? There's nothing in the NTSB database I can find.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Greater London
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde is being grounded because Air France are an unsafe, incompetent, GROSSLY inefficient and cash burning protected monopoly.
Retreaded tyres.
No cowcutter change to new design.
No tyre pressure monitors.
Brussels/Strasbourg ought to be investigating them as well as Rynoair [sic].
Airbus is in France and is dominated by the French...
Retreaded tyres.
No cowcutter change to new design.
No tyre pressure monitors.
Brussels/Strasbourg ought to be investigating them as well as Rynoair [sic].
Airbus is in France and is dominated by the French...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This topic was covered on one of Sky's digital channels recently (Concorde-Anatomy of a Disaster or some similar title.) It alleged that the 747 with President Chirac onboard was at a holding point roughly at the Concordes rotation point. It also alleged the wheel failure was nothing to do with "that" piece of metal on the runway, but by a missing wheel spacer (later found in a maintenance hangar) that caused severe oscilations of the wheel on the take-off run which subsequently failed way before the location of the metal FOD. It also covered the overweight condition due to excess fuel and baggage.
Again, this is not my opinion, but just reporting what the programme covered!!
Again, this is not my opinion, but just reporting what the programme covered!!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oop north
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw the last half or so of that Sky programme. The points were well made so i'm undecided on my view of what happened but I seem to remember that someone on the 747 took a photo of concorde just before it passed in front and unless thay had a fish eye lens attached that aircraft was a lot more then 7m away.
I wouldn't be suprised if it did indeed come close to the 747 but I believe 7m would probably be an exageration.
I'm no crash investigator though so I may well be talking out my ar##
CBK
I wouldn't be suprised if it did indeed come close to the 747 but I believe 7m would probably be an exageration.
I'm no crash investigator though so I may well be talking out my ar##
CBK
Pegase Driver
I did not know the French had black helicopters too.
It will be laughable if over a hundred people had not die.
Before making more comments I would urge anyone to first read the report of the crash , ( avail in English on the BEA web site ) check the evidence, especially on the overweight, read the CVR , and then come back here.
Conspiracies theories are very good paper sellers...
It will be laughable if over a hundred people had not die.
Before making more comments I would urge anyone to first read the report of the crash , ( avail in English on the BEA web site ) check the evidence, especially on the overweight, read the CVR , and then come back here.
Conspiracies theories are very good paper sellers...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watcher... unless you were personally on the investigation team (unlikely - the Brits weren't given the best of access)... I'm not so sure you know any more than anyone else on this one.
Questions...
(a) Was the spacer fitted or not? Was it significant?
(b) Why were the most immediate witnessess (3 x airport fire crew, watching the roll) observations discounted?
(c) Was the runway condition a factor?
(d) Given the above, esp. the witnesses, did the burst happen before or after the FOD strike?
(e) Probably unrelated, but what happened at Halifax?
I'm not a big one for conspiracy theories either, but at least some of these questions should have transparent answers from somewhere.
Questions...
(a) Was the spacer fitted or not? Was it significant?
(b) Why were the most immediate witnessess (3 x airport fire crew, watching the roll) observations discounted?
(c) Was the runway condition a factor?
(d) Given the above, esp. the witnesses, did the burst happen before or after the FOD strike?
(e) Probably unrelated, but what happened at Halifax?
I'm not a big one for conspiracy theories either, but at least some of these questions should have transparent answers from somewhere.
Pegase Driver
Paulo, no I was not a part or even involved in the Investigation team , (and BTW I am not a Brit either but I rather take that as compliment )
I just know some people around and know how to read an accident report ( part of my job).
The original post started with :
quote :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crash Concorde 'almost killed Chirac'
A new book claims French president Jacques Chirac was almost killed in the Concorde crash in Paris in July 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With such a start allow me some doubts as to the rest of the claims in that book.
The ( minimal ) overweight take off is well documented in the report. It had no influence on the crash. Wind or no wind .We are talking a supersonic aircraft with re-heat , not about a 737.
The missing spacer conspiracy is another story which I personally do not believe ( but I can be proven wrong of course ) for the simple reason that : if that was true the BEA guys would not have been developping the metal strip issue in that lengh . The words " possible" or " probable " would have been used far more ofen in that part of the report.
Lastly Air France is suing Continental for the missing DC10 strip, so either they are fools , as something could come out at the trial , big risk for both AFR and the credibility of the BEA, or they know something you and I don’t .
I do not think AFR would bother suing COA if they were not sure of their facts.
I just know some people around and know how to read an accident report ( part of my job).
The original post started with :
quote :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crash Concorde 'almost killed Chirac'
A new book claims French president Jacques Chirac was almost killed in the Concorde crash in Paris in July 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With such a start allow me some doubts as to the rest of the claims in that book.
The ( minimal ) overweight take off is well documented in the report. It had no influence on the crash. Wind or no wind .We are talking a supersonic aircraft with re-heat , not about a 737.
The missing spacer conspiracy is another story which I personally do not believe ( but I can be proven wrong of course ) for the simple reason that : if that was true the BEA guys would not have been developping the metal strip issue in that lengh . The words " possible" or " probable " would have been used far more ofen in that part of the report.
Lastly Air France is suing Continental for the missing DC10 strip, so either they are fools , as something could come out at the trial , big risk for both AFR and the credibility of the BEA, or they know something you and I don’t .
I do not think AFR would bother suing COA if they were not sure of their facts.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Normandy
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP Otelli wrote about the Chirac business 2 years ago ... What a breaking news !!
And the Concorde didn't miss Chirac's plane by 7 metres, but by 70 metres (Still close indeed )
As a matter of fact, one of the most famous (and tragic ) picture was taken by a japanese pax in the same plane.
If you accpet a factor 10 error (7 for 70 ) on this kind of fact, I guess you can accept the conspiracies theories as well.
Salut ATC !
And the Concorde didn't miss Chirac's plane by 7 metres, but by 70 metres (Still close indeed )
As a matter of fact, one of the most famous (and tragic ) picture was taken by a japanese pax in the same plane.
If you accpet a factor 10 error (7 for 70 ) on this kind of fact, I guess you can accept the conspiracies theories as well.
Salut ATC !
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear fellows,
I understand the interest in the Concorde crash.
However I think its of a BAD taste to speculate on dead highly professional and skilled pilots.
Wherever its their fault or not,I believe no one could ever say or imagine having dealt with the situation better than they did.
I am saddened about its retirement but every good thing has an end and if English wanted it to keep on flying,get to the drawing board and build a prototype like Airbus did for the Concorde.
Safe Flying,
M.85
considering Chirac near miss,believe me, he will soon enough join one of his jails...if french dont ever find anyone better to rule our country..
I understand the interest in the Concorde crash.
However I think its of a BAD taste to speculate on dead highly professional and skilled pilots.
Wherever its their fault or not,I believe no one could ever say or imagine having dealt with the situation better than they did.
I am saddened about its retirement but every good thing has an end and if English wanted it to keep on flying,get to the drawing board and build a prototype like Airbus did for the Concorde.
Safe Flying,
M.85
considering Chirac near miss,believe me, he will soon enough join one of his jails...if french dont ever find anyone better to rule our country..
"Lastly Air France is suing Continental for the missing DC10 strip, so either they are fools , as something could come out at the trial , big risk for both AFR and the credibility of the BEA, or they know something you and I don’t ."
At risk of sounding like a tiresome xenophobe, don't the french aviation authorities have something of a reputation for pinning the blame on the most convenient foreigner first and establishing the facts later? If memory serves me well, the surviving british pilot of the turboprop that got hit on the runway at CDG a few years ago got arrested in his hospital bed by the french police for manslaughter just a few hours after the accident.
At risk of sounding like a tiresome xenophobe, don't the french aviation authorities have something of a reputation for pinning the blame on the most convenient foreigner first and establishing the facts later? If memory serves me well, the surviving british pilot of the turboprop that got hit on the runway at CDG a few years ago got arrested in his hospital bed by the french police for manslaughter just a few hours after the accident.
Last edited by Andy_S; 17th Nov 2003 at 00:28.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M.85,
After every crash the crews actions are analized, that is why recorders are fitted to aircraft. As far as I can remember Airbus did not even exist when Concorde was being developed,and the drawings were drawn by both the French and the British. Only recently has Airbus become the design authority for Concorde and there are many in the UK regretting that that ever happened.
After every crash the crews actions are analized, that is why recorders are fitted to aircraft. As far as I can remember Airbus did not even exist when Concorde was being developed,and the drawings were drawn by both the French and the British. Only recently has Airbus become the design authority for Concorde and there are many in the UK regretting that that ever happened.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M85 posted:
I am saddened about its retirement but every good thing has an end and if English wanted it to keep on flying,get to the drawing board and build a prototype like Airbus did for the Concorde.
M85, Airbus didn't exist when Concorde was being designed. The aeoplane was a joint venture between the British at Filton and the French at Toulouse; an equal partnership with at least 50 percent and probably more of the technologiacl developments coming from the Brits (intake door computers for one).
Quite why Airbus has ended up as the design authority I don't know, but the French are past masters at national self-interest (an admirable trait BTW that I wish our gutless Brit politicos had) so I can guess. Perhaps if it was still a joint Anglo/French responsibility, we could be looking forward to many more years of Conc operations.
SSD
I am saddened about its retirement but every good thing has an end and if English wanted it to keep on flying,get to the drawing board and build a prototype like Airbus did for the Concorde.
M85, Airbus didn't exist when Concorde was being designed. The aeoplane was a joint venture between the British at Filton and the French at Toulouse; an equal partnership with at least 50 percent and probably more of the technologiacl developments coming from the Brits (intake door computers for one).
Quite why Airbus has ended up as the design authority I don't know, but the French are past masters at national self-interest (an admirable trait BTW that I wish our gutless Brit politicos had) so I can guess. Perhaps if it was still a joint Anglo/French responsibility, we could be looking forward to many more years of Conc operations.
SSD
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways could have made any future purchases of Airbus aircraft contingent upon support for concorde. In fact they should have. You have to be very uncomfortable with a manufacturer willing to pull support for one of their aircraft. They might do it again....
Cheers
Wino
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At risk of soundiing like a tiresome xenophobe, don't the french aviation authorities have something of a reputation for pinning the blame on the most convenient foreigner first and establishing the facts later? If memory serves me well, the surviving british pilot of the turboprop that got hit on the runway at CDG a few years ago got arrested in his hospital bed by the french police for manslaughter just a few hours after the accident.
Too true! It was actually ATC at fault. Doubly-so for using French instead of English RT to their national aircraft so the British pilots didn't have a mental picture of the ground movements and so were unable to deduce that ATC had cocked up big time.
And what about the stitch-up following the crash of the TU144 at the Paris Air Show according to a TV documentary a few years back? Wasn't there rumoured to have been a French Mirage in the air at the same time, and the Russian pilot (who had been assured he had the airspace to himself for his display) had to manouvre sharply to avoid a mid air, and the aeroplane broke up trying to avoid hitting the ground in the recovery?
SSD
Too true! It was actually ATC at fault. Doubly-so for using French instead of English RT to their national aircraft so the British pilots didn't have a mental picture of the ground movements and so were unable to deduce that ATC had cocked up big time.
And what about the stitch-up following the crash of the TU144 at the Paris Air Show according to a TV documentary a few years back? Wasn't there rumoured to have been a French Mirage in the air at the same time, and the Russian pilot (who had been assured he had the airspace to himself for his display) had to manouvre sharply to avoid a mid air, and the aeroplane broke up trying to avoid hitting the ground in the recovery?
SSD
ATCWatcher, you wrote:
"The ( minimal ) overweight take off is well documented in the report. It had no influence on the crash. Wind or no wind .We are talking a supersonic aircraft with re-heat , not about a 737."
You do understand the difference between RTOW and MTOW, don't you? The ac was substantially over RTOW, making it illegal even to let the brakes off at the beginning of the take-off roll. That is FACT.
Another 2 FACTS:
1. Rotation was initiated way below Vr, limiting the ac's ability to fly.
2. The FE deliberately cut off up to 25% of available thrust at a critical phase of flight by shutting down an engine still producing thrust - WITHOUT BEING ORDERED TO DO SO!
The Guardian article and John Hutchinson's expert analysis proved who caused the accident:
AIR FRANCE
"The ( minimal ) overweight take off is well documented in the report. It had no influence on the crash. Wind or no wind .We are talking a supersonic aircraft with re-heat , not about a 737."
You do understand the difference between RTOW and MTOW, don't you? The ac was substantially over RTOW, making it illegal even to let the brakes off at the beginning of the take-off roll. That is FACT.
Another 2 FACTS:
1. Rotation was initiated way below Vr, limiting the ac's ability to fly.
2. The FE deliberately cut off up to 25% of available thrust at a critical phase of flight by shutting down an engine still producing thrust - WITHOUT BEING ORDERED TO DO SO!
The Guardian article and John Hutchinson's expert analysis proved who caused the accident:
AIR FRANCE
