Did the pilot originally scheduled to fly [i]that[/i] Concorde refuse?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Tamarama beach
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But let's keep an open mind. Let's ask the questions and wait for the answers. There's no need for pre-judgement or insult.
Nor should this become an anti-French/anti-English issue.
This is however exactly what it has become, so do be a blessed puppy and give me a break.
Emotional post ?? Beg pardon !!!??
You can't have it both ways gents, clearly cross the line of decency ( I'm not only refering to this thread ) and change the rules reversing to the tight upper lip attitude when it suites you. I have seen far more abusing posts on this forum in all the time I've been watching it. By the look of it, no one on this forum can claim the medal of verbal restrain. Your culture doesn't own the quality of having the control of oneself and the scores of football supporters that you are kind enough to send out to our shores are a loud example. So sorry if I've hurt your sensitivity but I'll react in the very same way every time I see the need to.
I just cannot obide Christian Marty being compared to this KLM guy all those years ago as well as the smirk behind the " super hero within his compagny " remark.
Now I'll answer WHAT I KNOW and will not pretend I was on the board of investigation.
Capt Marty was the rostered skipper and no one chickened out. The initially rostered F/O however called in sick ( welllllll before sign on ) that day and F/O Marcot replaced him coming from Haut de Savoie where he lived.
May I just remind you that however slacky you would like to portray us, Air France didn't pull out this fuelling procedure out of its sleeve but with the Aircraft maker's blessing. Might I be as bold as trying to wisper British Aerospace ??? and yes Aerospatiale. Wether on this particular flight or others, this is the way it has always been done not implying in any way an overweight take off.
Is it a culture to encourage breaking the rules ??
Well, if you stick to the " Allo, Allo " picture of the french, then most certainly yes. If you're talking real world, which I trust you are, then bloody oath no !
Does this mean that, as I am typing someone is not breaking some rules and getting away with it, I'm not taking the bet.
Sorry to hit below the belt, but what about this BA crew who was caught on candid camera pissed out of their brain in Barcelona at 5 am just before operating a flight ? In my wildest dreams I would never imagine that this is compagny policy to have its pilot have a little drink before sunrise. Was worth mentioning I think.
All I know is what I see, every day. The pressure of ontime, maxload etc is there and beyhond compagny policy it's up to every Captain to take his reponsability knowing what he'll have to face if things go wrong.
Christian Marty would have faced his responsabilities hadn't he died. I have no clue as to wether he knew about those ( 200 kg ??? )overweight.
What caused the fire ? Well, you know, according to the official report a piece of a possibly Continental DC10 that had taken off minutes before. The runway had been inspected routinely like it should have that day. Why did it take fire that time and not the other time in 1976 ? Probably because we were lucky then and had it caught fire you very well know that in the context of the time ( taking off from Washington ) it would have meant the end of Concorde.
Why did the F/E shut number 2 without being asked ? I don't know. Is this standard AF CRM ? Nope, it is not.
Why did capt Marty try to gain altitude against speed ? What do you do when you lose an engine, actually 2, can't retract your gear and are awfully close to the ground ? My bet would be that he tried to stick to V2.
Why didn't he make it to le Bourget ?
How many of you take off from 26 L ??
Going off to England you always get the northern runway so I don't think you really get a clear picture. To think that anyone could make it to le Bourget at the kind of speed they were and barely manoeuvering is ludicrous. I leave from that runway 80 % of the time and even with my " fly by wire " wheelbarrow I would have a lot of trouble making it at max weight.
Why didn't Air France retro fitted the landing gear with that protection panel ?
Most possibly to either save money or because they didn't think it necessary and in both cases, if proven, they were wrong.
Guvernor
I praise your " compagny " patriotism, but didn't you people smash an aircraft because the F/O retracted the flaps witout being asked ? It must have been around your time.
Only arrogant fools can think and be sure they belong to the ultimate flawless outfit
I would hate to know one of them is at the helm when going on holliday.
Spare me the " Lordy Lord " shocked tone of voice when you're caught playing dirty. Most of your posts so far have rather been on the pompous and xenophobic side of the fence.
Have a nice one mate.
Nor should this become an anti-French/anti-English issue.
This is however exactly what it has become, so do be a blessed puppy and give me a break.
Emotional post ?? Beg pardon !!!??
You can't have it both ways gents, clearly cross the line of decency ( I'm not only refering to this thread ) and change the rules reversing to the tight upper lip attitude when it suites you. I have seen far more abusing posts on this forum in all the time I've been watching it. By the look of it, no one on this forum can claim the medal of verbal restrain. Your culture doesn't own the quality of having the control of oneself and the scores of football supporters that you are kind enough to send out to our shores are a loud example. So sorry if I've hurt your sensitivity but I'll react in the very same way every time I see the need to.
I just cannot obide Christian Marty being compared to this KLM guy all those years ago as well as the smirk behind the " super hero within his compagny " remark.
Now I'll answer WHAT I KNOW and will not pretend I was on the board of investigation.
Capt Marty was the rostered skipper and no one chickened out. The initially rostered F/O however called in sick ( welllllll before sign on ) that day and F/O Marcot replaced him coming from Haut de Savoie where he lived.
May I just remind you that however slacky you would like to portray us, Air France didn't pull out this fuelling procedure out of its sleeve but with the Aircraft maker's blessing. Might I be as bold as trying to wisper British Aerospace ??? and yes Aerospatiale. Wether on this particular flight or others, this is the way it has always been done not implying in any way an overweight take off.
Is it a culture to encourage breaking the rules ??
Well, if you stick to the " Allo, Allo " picture of the french, then most certainly yes. If you're talking real world, which I trust you are, then bloody oath no !
Does this mean that, as I am typing someone is not breaking some rules and getting away with it, I'm not taking the bet.
Sorry to hit below the belt, but what about this BA crew who was caught on candid camera pissed out of their brain in Barcelona at 5 am just before operating a flight ? In my wildest dreams I would never imagine that this is compagny policy to have its pilot have a little drink before sunrise. Was worth mentioning I think.
All I know is what I see, every day. The pressure of ontime, maxload etc is there and beyhond compagny policy it's up to every Captain to take his reponsability knowing what he'll have to face if things go wrong.
Christian Marty would have faced his responsabilities hadn't he died. I have no clue as to wether he knew about those ( 200 kg ??? )overweight.
What caused the fire ? Well, you know, according to the official report a piece of a possibly Continental DC10 that had taken off minutes before. The runway had been inspected routinely like it should have that day. Why did it take fire that time and not the other time in 1976 ? Probably because we were lucky then and had it caught fire you very well know that in the context of the time ( taking off from Washington ) it would have meant the end of Concorde.
Why did the F/E shut number 2 without being asked ? I don't know. Is this standard AF CRM ? Nope, it is not.
Why did capt Marty try to gain altitude against speed ? What do you do when you lose an engine, actually 2, can't retract your gear and are awfully close to the ground ? My bet would be that he tried to stick to V2.
Why didn't he make it to le Bourget ?
How many of you take off from 26 L ??
Going off to England you always get the northern runway so I don't think you really get a clear picture. To think that anyone could make it to le Bourget at the kind of speed they were and barely manoeuvering is ludicrous. I leave from that runway 80 % of the time and even with my " fly by wire " wheelbarrow I would have a lot of trouble making it at max weight.
Why didn't Air France retro fitted the landing gear with that protection panel ?
Most possibly to either save money or because they didn't think it necessary and in both cases, if proven, they were wrong.
Guvernor
I praise your " compagny " patriotism, but didn't you people smash an aircraft because the F/O retracted the flaps witout being asked ? It must have been around your time.
Only arrogant fools can think and be sure they belong to the ultimate flawless outfit
I would hate to know one of them is at the helm when going on holliday.
Spare me the " Lordy Lord " shocked tone of voice when you're caught playing dirty. Most of your posts so far have rather been on the pompous and xenophobic side of the fence.
Have a nice one mate.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hallo!
This thread has been very interesting so far and even the over-emotional contribution(s) contain valuable information. By the way: Around Christmas a German magazine published a long and very personal article on behalf of Captain Marty that in essence contained the same observations as those described by 'wallabie'.
I have just a few observations / remarks / questions however:
1.) Only one hour before takeoff, a thrust reverser was repaired hurriedly. To me it seems logical therefore, that the F/E shut down the burning engine so quickly: He may have assumed (as did all the mass media and 'experts' in the first hours afer the crash) that the problem was originating from a badly repaired reverser. In this case, an immediate(!!!) shutdown of the affected engine would have been the only sensible option! Maybe the crew even discussed and briefed this point while the repairs were executed? At least my experience after ten years of commercial flying is that the most dangerous aeroplanes are those that come right out of the maintenance hangar (and this in one of the most regulated countries in the world).
2.) I read the CVR transcripts several times but did find nothing related to stall warning or stickshaker noises. The only aural warnings (apart from the fire horns) were, on the contrary, 'pull up' prompts from the GPWS. Why then should the captain have pushed the nose down? I do not fly jets myself but in his situation - without a clear stall warning - I think I would have acted exactly the way he did. Pushing the nose down in this situation is a final decision after which the only option is a crash landing between the fields, highways and houses. As long as he had some control left and no clear indication of an imminent stall, he had no reason to take this decision.
3.) I strongly doubt that the Concorde could have been evacuated after whatever landing it may have made. The rear end was already burning - all exits would have led directly into the flames - and the front end would probably have sustained heavy damages on impact or during the collapse of the half-retracted landing gear.
4.) I think, that their CRM was not so bad after all. The roles were clearly distributed and everybody performed his task as good as he could. There simply wasn't enough time for double-checking and discussions. Especially the F/O as non-handling pilot did exactly what I learned in my CRM course: He handled communications, decided upon the landing site, monitored the instruments. Maybe better communications before takeoff could have saved them, but recalculating the v-speeds and required field length in respect to the tailwind would not have prevented them from taking off, I suppose.
Thanks for listening, max
This thread has been very interesting so far and even the over-emotional contribution(s) contain valuable information. By the way: Around Christmas a German magazine published a long and very personal article on behalf of Captain Marty that in essence contained the same observations as those described by 'wallabie'.
I have just a few observations / remarks / questions however:
1.) Only one hour before takeoff, a thrust reverser was repaired hurriedly. To me it seems logical therefore, that the F/E shut down the burning engine so quickly: He may have assumed (as did all the mass media and 'experts' in the first hours afer the crash) that the problem was originating from a badly repaired reverser. In this case, an immediate(!!!) shutdown of the affected engine would have been the only sensible option! Maybe the crew even discussed and briefed this point while the repairs were executed? At least my experience after ten years of commercial flying is that the most dangerous aeroplanes are those that come right out of the maintenance hangar (and this in one of the most regulated countries in the world).
2.) I read the CVR transcripts several times but did find nothing related to stall warning or stickshaker noises. The only aural warnings (apart from the fire horns) were, on the contrary, 'pull up' prompts from the GPWS. Why then should the captain have pushed the nose down? I do not fly jets myself but in his situation - without a clear stall warning - I think I would have acted exactly the way he did. Pushing the nose down in this situation is a final decision after which the only option is a crash landing between the fields, highways and houses. As long as he had some control left and no clear indication of an imminent stall, he had no reason to take this decision.
3.) I strongly doubt that the Concorde could have been evacuated after whatever landing it may have made. The rear end was already burning - all exits would have led directly into the flames - and the front end would probably have sustained heavy damages on impact or during the collapse of the half-retracted landing gear.
4.) I think, that their CRM was not so bad after all. The roles were clearly distributed and everybody performed his task as good as he could. There simply wasn't enough time for double-checking and discussions. Especially the F/O as non-handling pilot did exactly what I learned in my CRM course: He handled communications, decided upon the landing site, monitored the instruments. Maybe better communications before takeoff could have saved them, but recalculating the v-speeds and required field length in respect to the tailwind would not have prevented them from taking off, I suppose.
Thanks for listening, max
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wallabie - actually, it was an overrun and the point with that episode was that the crew landed heavy without flaps ... which caused the overrun. It was, however, an extremely good example of poor CRM.
The rules are there for a reason, otherwise everyone would be operating on gut instinct as to allowable weights - and that just isn't acceptable. I saw it many times in my African days - there were some highly skilled pilots who really pushed the envelope ... and some pushed it too far. When you're doing that with other people's lives it is not acceptable. This is clearly what happened on this occasion.
As you say, Air France were wrong not to have fitted the protective panel to the landing gear - not just because they probably didn't want to save money, but because it was an Airworthiness Directive.
And finally, he wasn't "200kgs" overweight. He was 2,130kgs over the MTOW and 6,000kgs over the RTOW. That's clearly unacceptable, in anyone's eyes.
The rules are there for a reason, otherwise everyone would be operating on gut instinct as to allowable weights - and that just isn't acceptable. I saw it many times in my African days - there were some highly skilled pilots who really pushed the envelope ... and some pushed it too far. When you're doing that with other people's lives it is not acceptable. This is clearly what happened on this occasion.
As you say, Air France were wrong not to have fitted the protective panel to the landing gear - not just because they probably didn't want to save money, but because it was an Airworthiness Directive.
And finally, he wasn't "200kgs" overweight. He was 2,130kgs over the MTOW and 6,000kgs over the RTOW. That's clearly unacceptable, in anyone's eyes.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all this talk of why did the FE shut the engine down without comformation have you considered that with all that was going on at the time that the command to shut the engine down was visual ?.
I know that this is not SOP but when the pressure is on some times these things happen ,ask your selfs how often have you raised the flaps on a visual signal because the PF could see that you are talking to ATC at the time ?
I know that this is not SOP but when the pressure is on some times these things happen ,ask your selfs how often have you raised the flaps on a visual signal because the PF could see that you are talking to ATC at the time ?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So when can we look forward to reading about it ?
As they do things their way in France we do things our way in the UK.
With all the stick that BA got originally for initially continuing services, and the millions they have spent in the meantime armouring the fuel tanks - There is still no protection against ingesting a runway edge light that you just trashed....
Rock on Citzen Kane.
As they do things their way in France we do things our way in the UK.
With all the stick that BA got originally for initially continuing services, and the millions they have spent in the meantime armouring the fuel tanks - There is still no protection against ingesting a runway edge light that you just trashed....
Rock on Citzen Kane.
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: err, *******, we have a problem
Age: 58
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, maybe "best" wasn't the word to use... I meant moving, as I was deeply affected by the sentiment behind Wallabies words and rattled that post off.
You can criticise me all you like, read bias into my words, even call me fool, won't change the fact that it moved me... I may have to act impartialy most of the time, but certainly never feel that way. We can all make mistakes.
£6
Edit- 30th August 2001 1530Z
This thread was closed (NOT by me, I hasten to add) because it had reached the 100-post limit. This lessens server load by reducing the number of long threads on the BB.
The debate continues, after a brief false start, HERE-Concorde Accident Part 2, hopefully without the rancour that tainted this thread somewhat.
£6
[ 30 August 2001: Message edited by: Sick Squid ]
You can criticise me all you like, read bias into my words, even call me fool, won't change the fact that it moved me... I may have to act impartialy most of the time, but certainly never feel that way. We can all make mistakes.
£6
Edit- 30th August 2001 1530Z
This thread was closed (NOT by me, I hasten to add) because it had reached the 100-post limit. This lessens server load by reducing the number of long threads on the BB.
The debate continues, after a brief false start, HERE-Concorde Accident Part 2, hopefully without the rancour that tainted this thread somewhat.
£6
[ 30 August 2001: Message edited by: Sick Squid ]
