Continental may be charged for Concorde Crash (Press Report)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: By the Sea
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Airbus A380 Mega-liner - Weight Savings by Titanium:
So it's fairly obvious that titanium is common in the airport environment, and it's clear that like all metal it is subject to fatigue so it can crack and pieces can be dropped on runways. I don't see what the difference between a crash caused by an authorized piece of titanium versus an unauthorized piece of titanium, probably because I do not think like a lawyer does. In either case, the titanium is just as hard, and so severe tire damage must be dealt with. BA did so, by installing deflectors and by limiting tire wear. AF did nothing, even though it knew of tire damage had lead to fuel tank leaks in the past. The fixes applied after the crash are a tacit admission that FOD was not preventable and the Concorde needed strengthening.
Airbus aircraft has been using titanium alloys from the very beginning. Due to stringent weight considerations and increased performance requirements, the percentage of the titanium based alloys used in Airbus aircraft has raised from 5 % by weight in early models to about 9 % in the new A380 aircraft. These alloys are advantageous because of their unique combination of properties such as high strength-to-weight ratio and corrosion resistance, leading to applications in highly loaded areas, as, for example, wing sections, landing gear, flap track, and engine pylon. Their good corrosion resistance due to passivation, the stability at elevated temperatures and a good compatibility with carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) materials is positive, as well.
A variety of innovative applications in the A380 such as fitting bridges of the wing spoiler (Ti 10-2-3 plate material) will be manufactured of titanium alloys. The seat tracks in wet areas will probably be joined by laser beam welding of Ti 6-4 sheets and plates or, alternatively, be made of extruded profiles. The bleed air system will be manufactured of pure titanium sheets and partly of Ti 15-3-3-3 alloy as well. Thus, the maximum temperature will reach increased values of 245ÂC. The duct diameter will be enlarged to 230 mm.
A variety of innovative applications in the A380 such as fitting bridges of the wing spoiler (Ti 10-2-3 plate material) will be manufactured of titanium alloys. The seat tracks in wet areas will probably be joined by laser beam welding of Ti 6-4 sheets and plates or, alternatively, be made of extruded profiles. The bleed air system will be manufactured of pure titanium sheets and partly of Ti 15-3-3-3 alloy as well. Thus, the maximum temperature will reach increased values of 245ÂC. The duct diameter will be enlarged to 230 mm.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Austria
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ElectroVlasic
As i am doing my master thesis in alloy physic I feel obliged to post a reply.
There is are huge difference, between different alloys made with Titanium.
An alloy itself is a mixture of different metalls which but together have a totally different density and property, than every single component on its own.
You can get a huge amount of different titanium alloys which all have a totally different characteristc and density.
So even if airbus is using titanium alloys, it dosnt mean that its the same alloy that hit the concorde.
(Although given the lack of information that i have it could even be.)
Hope my message made sense and please excuse my english, it has been a long time since i last wrote something in english.
As i am doing my master thesis in alloy physic I feel obliged to post a reply.
There is are huge difference, between different alloys made with Titanium.
An alloy itself is a mixture of different metalls which but together have a totally different density and property, than every single component on its own.
You can get a huge amount of different titanium alloys which all have a totally different characteristc and density.
So even if airbus is using titanium alloys, it dosnt mean that its the same alloy that hit the concorde.
(Although given the lack of information that i have it could even be.)
Hope my message made sense and please excuse my english, it has been a long time since i last wrote something in english.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RTOW for that day with no wind was 185'070 kg.
The loadsheet TOW was 184'880 kg. This TOW was based on 2000 kg burn of taxi fuel.
1) Concorde on that day, according to BEA, burned 1000 kg on the taxiway. (800 Kg according to the F/E when challenged by the Captain as they line up on the runway)
2) 19 bags were missing on the loadsheet: an other 394 kg extra according to BEA
AF used the standard 84 kg weight for all pax, which was the most penalizing weight for that day. (Terrible safety culture...)
With these weight, and because of the bags error and the generous taxi fuel, Concorde was 1'181 kg overweight (0,6% of RTOW)
If you use the standard weight for male and female (88 and 70 kg) this will reduce the payload and the overweight was 687 kg. (0,35% of RTOW)
The wind at T/O time was 020/3 at the threshold 26 and 300/3 at the threshold 08. The tower mention 090/8 with the T/O clearance
I do believe that all these little errors were a contributing factors when you add them up.
AF or the arrogant French are not the only one in this world to play with taxi fuel to meet an RTOW or to make loadsheet errors on bags. My company, which is the second biggest British airline, is doing that everyday, (unintentionnaly of course)
"Take the plank out of thine own eyes" as somebody mention
The loadsheet TOW was 184'880 kg. This TOW was based on 2000 kg burn of taxi fuel.
1) Concorde on that day, according to BEA, burned 1000 kg on the taxiway. (800 Kg according to the F/E when challenged by the Captain as they line up on the runway)
2) 19 bags were missing on the loadsheet: an other 394 kg extra according to BEA
AF used the standard 84 kg weight for all pax, which was the most penalizing weight for that day. (Terrible safety culture...)
With these weight, and because of the bags error and the generous taxi fuel, Concorde was 1'181 kg overweight (0,6% of RTOW)
If you use the standard weight for male and female (88 and 70 kg) this will reduce the payload and the overweight was 687 kg. (0,35% of RTOW)
The wind at T/O time was 020/3 at the threshold 26 and 300/3 at the threshold 08. The tower mention 090/8 with the T/O clearance
I do believe that all these little errors were a contributing factors when you add them up.
AF or the arrogant French are not the only one in this world to play with taxi fuel to meet an RTOW or to make loadsheet errors on bags. My company, which is the second biggest British airline, is doing that everyday, (unintentionnaly of course)
"Take the plank out of thine own eyes" as somebody mention
A still air wind velocity was used to calculate a RTOW of 185070kg?
What would the real RTOW have been with a wind of 090/8 as passed by ATC?
What was the crew's reaction to the difference between these two values?
What would the real RTOW have been with a wind of 090/8 as passed by ATC?
What was the crew's reaction to the difference between these two values?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, RTOW was for no wind. The addition of tailwind, plus the slight overweight, plus the spacer missing were all contributing factors to the crash.
If you read the CVR, the Captain asked the F/E about taxi fuel used as they were lining up on the runway. The F/E answer was "800 KG", which means that the Captain was fully aware that they didn't burned as much as expected and consequently were slightly overweight. The First Officer answer was then: "No changes on 2nd segment limitation".
Obviously none of them mention anything about the tailwind condition.
Now, if they were 1000 kg less, with a 5kts headwind, would the outcome been different ? I don't think so.
Finally some people think that the F/E shutdown a good engine on his own: wrong. He said to the Captain:"engine failure number 2" and then he suggested "Shut down number 2". At that stage, number 2 N1 was 5% with a Fire Warning. The Captain then, instructed the F/E to carry on the Engine Fire drill, a bit too early according to AF procedure.
Expert like us can easyly find some little errors on the procedure, either fom the airline or the crew. We have hours and lot of information to look at while the pilot had much less info and more important only a few second to decide what to do.
The cause of the crash is the piece of metal AND a Concorde design problem and not the crew action or loading procedure, even if we can all learn from being complacent on numbers some time.
The problem with the Continental piece of metal is that it was an unapproved part unproperly fit. This is why AF had a good argument to sue.
If you read the CVR, the Captain asked the F/E about taxi fuel used as they were lining up on the runway. The F/E answer was "800 KG", which means that the Captain was fully aware that they didn't burned as much as expected and consequently were slightly overweight. The First Officer answer was then: "No changes on 2nd segment limitation".
Obviously none of them mention anything about the tailwind condition.
Now, if they were 1000 kg less, with a 5kts headwind, would the outcome been different ? I don't think so.
Finally some people think that the F/E shutdown a good engine on his own: wrong. He said to the Captain:"engine failure number 2" and then he suggested "Shut down number 2". At that stage, number 2 N1 was 5% with a Fire Warning. The Captain then, instructed the F/E to carry on the Engine Fire drill, a bit too early according to AF procedure.
Expert like us can easyly find some little errors on the procedure, either fom the airline or the crew. We have hours and lot of information to look at while the pilot had much less info and more important only a few second to decide what to do.
The cause of the crash is the piece of metal AND a Concorde design problem and not the crew action or loading procedure, even if we can all learn from being complacent on numbers some time.
The problem with the Continental piece of metal is that it was an unapproved part unproperly fit. This is why AF had a good argument to sue.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: By the Sea
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fear_not:
Your writing is excellent. Thanks for making the effort. I wish I could write in a second language.
It would be interesting to know if titianium strips could break off of other places on commercial jetliners. I quoted the article because it shows titanium is found on the exterior of the aircraft (tracks for flaps, landing gear parts, wing sections, etc). Presumably fatigue could cause strips to break off. It's also found in the fan blades for jet turbines, and these are known to break from time to time.
A lot has been made of the fact that the CON DC-10 had an unauthorized titanium wear strip installed. But even though it triggered the accident, it's really irrelevant. As I said in my previous post, I don't see what the difference between a crash caused by an authorized piece of titanium versus an unauthorized piece of titanium. The fact is that titanium is a common material used on aircraft and the engineers must prepare for FOD damage As you say, different alloys have different characteristics, so engineers must prepare for the worst case. BA understood the risk from tire bursts and installed deflectors to help mitigate it. AF chose to not do so.
--ev--
So even if airbus is using titanium alloys, it dosnt mean that its the same alloy that hit the concorde.
(Although given the lack of information that i have it could even be.)
Hope my message made sense and please excuse my english, it has been a long time since i last wrote something in english.
(Although given the lack of information that i have it could even be.)
Hope my message made sense and please excuse my english, it has been a long time since i last wrote something in english.
It would be interesting to know if titianium strips could break off of other places on commercial jetliners. I quoted the article because it shows titanium is found on the exterior of the aircraft (tracks for flaps, landing gear parts, wing sections, etc). Presumably fatigue could cause strips to break off. It's also found in the fan blades for jet turbines, and these are known to break from time to time.
A lot has been made of the fact that the CON DC-10 had an unauthorized titanium wear strip installed. But even though it triggered the accident, it's really irrelevant. As I said in my previous post, I don't see what the difference between a crash caused by an authorized piece of titanium versus an unauthorized piece of titanium. The fact is that titanium is a common material used on aircraft and the engineers must prepare for FOD damage As you say, different alloys have different characteristics, so engineers must prepare for the worst case. BA understood the risk from tire bursts and installed deflectors to help mitigate it. AF chose to not do so.
--ev--
Just a numbered other
acm,
None of your posts mention the incorrectly assembled main wheel bogey, which would have added rolling drag and heated the tyres.
Is this an inconvenience, because it might deflrct blame from CO to AF?
None of your posts mention the incorrectly assembled main wheel bogey, which would have added rolling drag and heated the tyres.
Is this an inconvenience, because it might deflrct blame from CO to AF?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t understand how some of you can say that Continental has no responsibility in this accident?
Every accident has a root cause and in this case it is the object that fell of the Continental plane. After the root cause is a number of other issues that:
a) Sadly made the effects of the root cause worse. (Overweight, spacer, etc)
Or b) Should have limited the effects of the root cause and following issues but where unable to do so. (tyre exploding in large pieces instead of small, tank leaking after being hit, etc)
Whoever is behind the a) and b) problems also share in the responsibility but they never free whoever was responsible for the root cause, not even when the root cause was unintentional and something that happens often.
Every accident has a root cause and in this case it is the object that fell of the Continental plane. After the root cause is a number of other issues that:
a) Sadly made the effects of the root cause worse. (Overweight, spacer, etc)
Or b) Should have limited the effects of the root cause and following issues but where unable to do so. (tyre exploding in large pieces instead of small, tank leaking after being hit, etc)
Whoever is behind the a) and b) problems also share in the responsibility but they never free whoever was responsible for the root cause, not even when the root cause was unintentional and something that happens often.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: By the Sea
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, no one argues about the root cause of the accident, but one can argue that the root cause should not have caused the accident.
I'll exaggerate to explain.
Suppose the Concorde wings fell off every time it rained. One could say to avoid an accident, never expose the Concorde to rain. But someone else could say that the Concorde should be able to fly through rain, and if it cannot, then it is not designed correctly.
Here I'm saying the Concorde needed to be tolerant of tire bursts, even from FOD as opposed to tire wear, regardless of the source of the FOD. FOD is a part of airline operations, much like rain is. BA knew previous tire bursts had punctured the fuel tanks and had fitted deflectors to mitigate this risk, but AF had not.
--ev--
I'll exaggerate to explain.
Suppose the Concorde wings fell off every time it rained. One could say to avoid an accident, never expose the Concorde to rain. But someone else could say that the Concorde should be able to fly through rain, and if it cannot, then it is not designed correctly.
Here I'm saying the Concorde needed to be tolerant of tire bursts, even from FOD as opposed to tire wear, regardless of the source of the FOD. FOD is a part of airline operations, much like rain is. BA knew previous tire bursts had punctured the fuel tanks and had fitted deflectors to mitigate this risk, but AF had not.
--ev--
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ergo....
Air France was grossly negligent in not fitting the deflectors, so as to avoid all forseen difficulties.
Not unforseen either, as BA clearly had forseen the likely problems, and did something about it, whereas Air France, with its head in the sand, turned a blind eye to the problem.
Case closed.
Not unforseen either, as BA clearly had forseen the likely problems, and did something about it, whereas Air France, with its head in the sand, turned a blind eye to the problem.
Case closed.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DingerX, I detect from your posting you have some experience in a 'certain' field!! Very nice summary put in laymans terms. First poster to hit the nail on the head, IMHO!! Maybe the others will talk 'percentages' now!!!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ElectroVlasic,
As you know there is no way to design a plane, or anything else, so it can withstand any kind of abuse you throw at it. You design it to handle all reasonable expectable abuse and then you add a safety margin on top of that.
Based on your reasoning the question then is if it was reasonable to expect there to be something that was strong enough to effectively scalp the tyre in to a 3 m piece of high speed debris instead of making it explode in to small pieces as they expected and Concorde had been designed (modified) to handle.
Since BA’s Concorde engineers seems to agree that their deflectors would not have been able to contain such a large piece and the outcome would have been the same even with them I find it hard to assign responsibility to AF for this.
You tried using a different case so let’s use the case when CX dropped a piece on a car in Bangkok earlier this month. Was it CX for dropping the piece, or the car manufacturer for not building a car strong enough to withstand something that heavy who was responsible?
I believe it was CX. May be some can be shared with one or more of Boeing, RR and any maintenance companies who had worked on it but it was CX who was in charge of maintaining it so that nothing got dropped and thus they are responsible.
I got in to this thread because there are a lot of people here that thinks Continental has no responsibility in what happened. Per the opening post Continental sad “We strongly disagree that anything Continental did was the cause of the Concorde accident……” thus not wanting to take any responsibility for what happened after they, very unfortunately, lost a part of questionable spec from one of their planes.
From what I have learned from reading and talking to people with an understanding of Concorde and the accident Continental played a very unfortunate but important role and should take their part of the responsibility. The other things that also failed may reduce their part but can never remove it.
As you know there is no way to design a plane, or anything else, so it can withstand any kind of abuse you throw at it. You design it to handle all reasonable expectable abuse and then you add a safety margin on top of that.
Based on your reasoning the question then is if it was reasonable to expect there to be something that was strong enough to effectively scalp the tyre in to a 3 m piece of high speed debris instead of making it explode in to small pieces as they expected and Concorde had been designed (modified) to handle.
Since BA’s Concorde engineers seems to agree that their deflectors would not have been able to contain such a large piece and the outcome would have been the same even with them I find it hard to assign responsibility to AF for this.
You tried using a different case so let’s use the case when CX dropped a piece on a car in Bangkok earlier this month. Was it CX for dropping the piece, or the car manufacturer for not building a car strong enough to withstand something that heavy who was responsible?
I believe it was CX. May be some can be shared with one or more of Boeing, RR and any maintenance companies who had worked on it but it was CX who was in charge of maintaining it so that nothing got dropped and thus they are responsible.
I got in to this thread because there are a lot of people here that thinks Continental has no responsibility in what happened. Per the opening post Continental sad “We strongly disagree that anything Continental did was the cause of the Concorde accident……” thus not wanting to take any responsibility for what happened after they, very unfortunately, lost a part of questionable spec from one of their planes.
From what I have learned from reading and talking to people with an understanding of Concorde and the accident Continental played a very unfortunate but important role and should take their part of the responsibility. The other things that also failed may reduce their part but can never remove it.
Just a numbered other
OK cmf, what if the spacer had been fitted, and RTOW had not been ignored. The piece of titanium would still be on the runway, but would concord have hit it? Had ADP checked the runway more often, and at a speed below their usual 60 mph plus, would it have been there.
You can't single out one root cause here, unless you have an agenda.
You can't single out one root cause here, unless you have an agenda.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ark royal,
I did mention the incorrect wheel assembly as "the missing spacer" in my post.
AF should not deflect the blame to CO, but should give CO a fair share of responsablity. If the metal strip would have been an approved part, fitted according approved maintenance procedure,
CO would have walk away "clean" from this accident.
AF will take the major part of the blame due to:
1) Failure to comply to the 1979 BEA recommendation to consolidated wings tank
2) Acft over weight for the condition of the day
3) Incorrect maintenance practice (wheel assembly)
4) F/E licence expired.
Even if the last 3 points had very little incidence on the crash it demonstrate poor standard practice.
AF choose not to installed the deflector on the main wheel for the following reason: in case of tyre burst these deflectors could broke apart and be a more serious hazard to wing tank than piece of rubber.
As cmf mention, even BA's engineer agree with the fact that deflector wouldn't contain large piece or tyre. BA fitted the deflectors with cables to prevent them to hit a wing tank in case of tyre burst. Nobody knows if these cables would have do the job.
To the attention of the few idiots on these forum, some technical choices had nothing to do with "French style" or "arrogance" or whatever. What would you say if a deflector was the cause of a crash by piercing the wing tank ?
AF took, what they believed, the safest decision regarding the deflectors.
As Danny mentionned in the beginning of this discussion, leave the xenophobic comment away from this forum, or we can start discussing about the British Railways system which kill people every year in crash, or the NHS who made the headline every week about terrible blunders. "Failure" had nothing to do with nationality ...
I did mention the incorrect wheel assembly as "the missing spacer" in my post.
AF should not deflect the blame to CO, but should give CO a fair share of responsablity. If the metal strip would have been an approved part, fitted according approved maintenance procedure,
CO would have walk away "clean" from this accident.
AF will take the major part of the blame due to:
1) Failure to comply to the 1979 BEA recommendation to consolidated wings tank
2) Acft over weight for the condition of the day
3) Incorrect maintenance practice (wheel assembly)
4) F/E licence expired.
Even if the last 3 points had very little incidence on the crash it demonstrate poor standard practice.
AF choose not to installed the deflector on the main wheel for the following reason: in case of tyre burst these deflectors could broke apart and be a more serious hazard to wing tank than piece of rubber.
As cmf mention, even BA's engineer agree with the fact that deflector wouldn't contain large piece or tyre. BA fitted the deflectors with cables to prevent them to hit a wing tank in case of tyre burst. Nobody knows if these cables would have do the job.
To the attention of the few idiots on these forum, some technical choices had nothing to do with "French style" or "arrogance" or whatever. What would you say if a deflector was the cause of a crash by piercing the wing tank ?
AF took, what they believed, the safest decision regarding the deflectors.
As Danny mentionned in the beginning of this discussion, leave the xenophobic comment away from this forum, or we can start discussing about the British Railways system which kill people every year in crash, or the NHS who made the headline every week about terrible blunders. "Failure" had nothing to do with nationality ...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, acm, let us for the moment agree with your comments re: the French and Air France.
On the other hand, BA decided that the deflectors were indeed a good idea, and fitted same to their Concorde aircraft.
What could have been the exact reason AF choose not to do so, when clearly the fitment of the deflectors enhanced safety to a rather large degree.
It is a bit like an airline not incorporating a service bulletin on an aircraft, then later having an incident...and the lawyers in court asking..."well then, just why did you not consider compliance, when other airlines clearly thought it was a good idea, and haven't had similar incidents as a result?"
Sadly, apparently the deflectors were not mandatory, so we can cast a few brickbats at the regulators as well...
IF there is any doubt, 'err on the side of safety...every damn time, IMO.
On the other hand, BA decided that the deflectors were indeed a good idea, and fitted same to their Concorde aircraft.
What could have been the exact reason AF choose not to do so, when clearly the fitment of the deflectors enhanced safety to a rather large degree.
It is a bit like an airline not incorporating a service bulletin on an aircraft, then later having an incident...and the lawyers in court asking..."well then, just why did you not consider compliance, when other airlines clearly thought it was a good idea, and haven't had similar incidents as a result?"
Sadly, apparently the deflectors were not mandatory, so we can cast a few brickbats at the regulators as well...
IF there is any doubt, 'err on the side of safety...every damn time, IMO.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arkroyal,
If that plane would have crashed that day even if the tyre had not been shredded by the titanium strip then Continental does not share in the responsibility.
From the reports I have seen the single event (root) that triggered all following events was the strip that should not have fallen off from the Continental plane. Had that strip not been on the runway then none would have happened and none of us would know that they took of a little bit overweight and with a spacer problem etc.
This is why Continental has a large responsibility and should earn up to what they, unintentionally and with large amounts of bad luck, triggered.
If that plane would have crashed that day even if the tyre had not been shredded by the titanium strip then Continental does not share in the responsibility.
From the reports I have seen the single event (root) that triggered all following events was the strip that should not have fallen off from the Continental plane. Had that strip not been on the runway then none would have happened and none of us would know that they took of a little bit overweight and with a spacer problem etc.
This is why Continental has a large responsibility and should earn up to what they, unintentionally and with large amounts of bad luck, triggered.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CMF,
You are right in saying that the inital trigger event was hitting the metal strip, but there are still other factors. It has been stated by some in this thread that the runway should have been inspected prior to departure, while others have said that such an inspection prior to every departure would have been problamatic, given the traffic out of CDG. Two points to be made:
1. Out of all of the aircraft that departed CDG, only one type was especially vunerable to tire failure, the Concorde. I would assume that Air France would do all that it could to ensure that the runway was clear of any debris, given the track record of the aircraft receiveing significant damage from tire failure.
2. I would be willing to bet that there were no more than 2 or 3 Concorde departures on any given day from any airport. Since schedules are known in advance, I do not see where scheduling an runway inspection immediately prior to a Concorde departure would have been that problamatic, and I wonder why it wasn't part of everyday airport operations.
Parts will always fall off airplanes, as well as any other vehicle that travels on the runways. I see the primary failure here as not recognizing that this aircraft represented significantly more risk during departures, and the airlines that operated it did not arrange for specific operational procedures to mitigate that risk at the airports they serviced.
You are right in saying that the inital trigger event was hitting the metal strip, but there are still other factors. It has been stated by some in this thread that the runway should have been inspected prior to departure, while others have said that such an inspection prior to every departure would have been problamatic, given the traffic out of CDG. Two points to be made:
1. Out of all of the aircraft that departed CDG, only one type was especially vunerable to tire failure, the Concorde. I would assume that Air France would do all that it could to ensure that the runway was clear of any debris, given the track record of the aircraft receiveing significant damage from tire failure.
2. I would be willing to bet that there were no more than 2 or 3 Concorde departures on any given day from any airport. Since schedules are known in advance, I do not see where scheduling an runway inspection immediately prior to a Concorde departure would have been that problamatic, and I wonder why it wasn't part of everyday airport operations.
Parts will always fall off airplanes, as well as any other vehicle that travels on the runways. I see the primary failure here as not recognizing that this aircraft represented significantly more risk during departures, and the airlines that operated it did not arrange for specific operational procedures to mitigate that risk at the airports they serviced.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, cmf, it is a known fact that bits and pieces fall off aeroplanes from time to time, whether properly engineered and fit, or not.
So, why not paint all airlines with the same broad brush, and find 'em guilty because...sh!t happens.
Bits came off the Concorde rudder, on several occasions, and could well have hit a ship at sea, injuring a few, yet I see no concerted attack on Concorde operators about this.
Clearly the Commander of the concerned aircraft departed slightly overweight, considering the prevailing wind conditions, with a wheel spacer improperly fitted (altho he would have no idea about this), yet somehow Continental is responsible for the whole shebang because a small bit fell off their previously departing aircraft, on the day in question.
Phooey, I say, because IF this is all it took to bring the big delta-winged bird down, than just as clearly, the original design was deficient to begin with...at least BA did something to alliviate the potential problem (deflectors), yet AF chose not to do so.
AF is guilty as hell, make no mistake.
Of course, the French authorties may well have a different idea about all this.......what a surprise.
PS:
I can well remember BOAC sitting at the end of 25L in LAX so many years ago, with their 707 conway powered machine (enroute LHR) mentioning...'ah, we will have to delay takeoff just a bit, due to a short taxy...sorry'.
Clearly these folks had the right idea, what's Air France's excuse?
So, why not paint all airlines with the same broad brush, and find 'em guilty because...sh!t happens.
Bits came off the Concorde rudder, on several occasions, and could well have hit a ship at sea, injuring a few, yet I see no concerted attack on Concorde operators about this.
Clearly the Commander of the concerned aircraft departed slightly overweight, considering the prevailing wind conditions, with a wheel spacer improperly fitted (altho he would have no idea about this), yet somehow Continental is responsible for the whole shebang because a small bit fell off their previously departing aircraft, on the day in question.
Phooey, I say, because IF this is all it took to bring the big delta-winged bird down, than just as clearly, the original design was deficient to begin with...at least BA did something to alliviate the potential problem (deflectors), yet AF chose not to do so.
AF is guilty as hell, make no mistake.
Of course, the French authorties may well have a different idea about all this.......what a surprise.
PS:
I can well remember BOAC sitting at the end of 25L in LAX so many years ago, with their 707 conway powered machine (enroute LHR) mentioning...'ah, we will have to delay takeoff just a bit, due to a short taxy...sorry'.
Clearly these folks had the right idea, what's Air France's excuse?
Last edited by 411A; 17th Dec 2004 at 20:02.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is also a known fact that a lot of drivers in Miami drive against red lights, does that mean that the driver having the green light is responsible? Does it matter if the car having the green light was overloaded or had one bad break pad?
No, it will be the driver who didn’t stop for the red light that will be paying for the damages. If he is lucky no-one got hurt but if he is very unfortunate and someone got killed then the consequences will be dramatically more severe for the same mistake.
BA / AF where lucky that nothing got hit when pieces of Concorde fell off. Can you imagine what demands they would face if it hit a couple of kids in NY?
No, it will be the driver who didn’t stop for the red light that will be paying for the damages. If he is lucky no-one got hurt but if he is very unfortunate and someone got killed then the consequences will be dramatically more severe for the same mistake.
BA / AF where lucky that nothing got hit when pieces of Concorde fell off. Can you imagine what demands they would face if it hit a couple of kids in NY?