Aborted BA Concorde T/O today?
Aborted BA Concorde T/O today?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got this from the BBC website:
Looks to me like a reheat failed to light. Depending on weight, either 3 or all 4 reheats need to be lit by 100kts. A low-speed reject is not a problem, just an inconvenience - a check by engineering on the undercarriage is required as a precaution - and the odds are the reheat will light next time.
If one fails to light initially they usually light after a quick reselection on the switch. They are reliable in service, and a reject for a reheat failure is more inconvenience than anything else.
But I suppose the press will turn a very minor event into a drama...
A British Airways Concorde bound for New York's JFK airport was forced to abort its take-off after concerns about a possible engine problem.
The plane, carrying around 60 people, was travelling at a "very low speed" on the Heathrow runway when the flight was aborted, according to a BA spokeswoman.
The captain had become concerned about a possible technical problem with the "engine reheats" on the aircraft.
Once additional safety checks were carried out, the airliner took off at 1128 GMT and is expected to land, on time, in New York at 0920 local time (1420 GMT)
The plane, carrying around 60 people, was travelling at a "very low speed" on the Heathrow runway when the flight was aborted, according to a BA spokeswoman.
The captain had become concerned about a possible technical problem with the "engine reheats" on the aircraft.
Once additional safety checks were carried out, the airliner took off at 1128 GMT and is expected to land, on time, in New York at 0920 local time (1420 GMT)
If one fails to light initially they usually light after a quick reselection on the switch. They are reliable in service, and a reject for a reheat failure is more inconvenience than anything else.
But I suppose the press will turn a very minor event into a drama...
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eyeinthesky,
No, I don't think so, the reason you quote is almost certainly bogus. I'm off to work tommorrow so I'll ask around and get back to you. It sounds to me like an exaggerated mis-quote from some other incident-ette?
High temperatures over ISA during the acceleration can prolong the need for afterburners, but I've never heard of a turn-back for that reason (and I've seem some pretty high temps), and in the current climate a turn-back would be all over the news.
Cheers
No, I don't think so, the reason you quote is almost certainly bogus. I'm off to work tommorrow so I'll ask around and get back to you. It sounds to me like an exaggerated mis-quote from some other incident-ette?
High temperatures over ISA during the acceleration can prolong the need for afterburners, but I've never heard of a turn-back for that reason (and I've seem some pretty high temps), and in the current climate a turn-back would be all over the news.
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air France had one (possibly 2) turn back(s) last week to CDG.
The reason for one of these that is circulating is that fuel flow was restricted to the No2 engine as one of the liners had moved and was stopping fuel getting to the feed lines.
The reason for one of these that is circulating is that fuel flow was restricted to the No2 engine as one of the liners had moved and was stopping fuel getting to the feed lines.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: England
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gordo, you said:
<The reason for one of these that is circulating is that fuel flow was restricted to the No2 engine as one of the liners had moved and was stopping fuel getting to the feed lines.>
Don't know where you got that explanation from, but it's very implausible. The liners can't move at all. Lots of brackets and stuff.
A better explanation might be that the engine may have had it's intake airflow disrupted by, possibly, a malfunctioning ramp.
regards
<The reason for one of these that is circulating is that fuel flow was restricted to the No2 engine as one of the liners had moved and was stopping fuel getting to the feed lines.>
Don't know where you got that explanation from, but it's very implausible. The liners can't move at all. Lots of brackets and stuff.
A better explanation might be that the engine may have had it's intake airflow disrupted by, possibly, a malfunctioning ramp.
regards
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TwoTun
The info I got from a source inside AF was that F-BFVB had to turn back as engine no2 was not developing sufficent thrust and the aircraft only reach M1.6.
Initial reports put this down to "a piece of liner that prevented fuel reaching the engine"
but as you say at that sort of speed region an intake problem may seem more likely.
The info I got from a source inside AF was that F-BFVB had to turn back as engine no2 was not developing sufficent thrust and the aircraft only reach M1.6.
Initial reports put this down to "a piece of liner that prevented fuel reaching the engine"
but as you say at that sort of speed region an intake problem may seem more likely.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My boss was on the flight ..... apparently the delay after the abort was less than 5 minutes just off the side of the main runway and attributed to a blown circuit breaker causing an engine warning light to come on!!
MMMMMMMMM CB blows on a circuit that warrants a TO to be abandoned, CB reset obviously after the two minutes that it says in my BA manual, albeit not for Conc, TO carried out MMMMMMMMMM Wonder what might have happened if they lost another engine then the CB popped again MMMMMMMMM However Conc got off only 5 mins late MMMMMMMMM Rules for one eh!!!!!!!! Lets not let the side down keep the pax happy and get them there on time, is that all that matters. Now I wonder what the truth to it all really is.
[ 20 November 2001: Message edited by: fergineer ]
[ 20 November 2001: Message edited by: fergineer ]
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fergineer
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm ..... What an excellent idea!
Let's start/fuel a conspiracy/scandal/cover-up scare-mongering theory on a public forum which we know is read by the public and the Press.
Let's be completely irresponsible, make soemthing out of nothing, and to hell with the consequences.
What fantastic fun!
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm ..... What an excellent idea!
Let's start/fuel a conspiracy/scandal/cover-up scare-mongering theory on a public forum which we know is read by the public and the Press.
Let's be completely irresponsible, make soemthing out of nothing, and to hell with the consequences.
What fantastic fun!
Heliport, hit a nerve did I, lets look at your reply and see who suggested
Let's start/fuel a conspiracy/scandal/cover-up scare-mongering theory on a public forum which we know is read by the public and the Press.
and the answer is YOU. Don't start preaching here mate we are all entitled to our opinions and that was mine
Let's start/fuel a conspiracy/scandal/cover-up scare-mongering theory on a public forum which we know is read by the public and the Press.
and the answer is YOU. Don't start preaching here mate we are all entitled to our opinions and that was mine
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MMMMMMMMM CB blows on a circuit that warrants a TO to be abandoned
MMMMMMMMMM Wonder what might have happened if they lost another engine then the CB popped again
MMMMMMMMM However Conc got off only 5 mins late MMMMMMMMM Rules for one eh!!!!!!!!
Lets not let the side down keep the pax happy and get them there on time, is that all that matters. Now I wonder what the truth to it all really is.
No fuss, no drama, no conspiracy theory, emphasis on safety first. Sorry to disappoint. MMMMMMM
[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: NW1 ]
[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: NW1 ]
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the case you very well mentioned above, why does concorde not take-off on only 2 re-heats to save fuel? I spose that is a question forum question, so if it gets moved there, appolgies, but anyhow...it may seem a rather 'child like' question, but just wondering.
Smooth skies,
Dan
Smooth skies,
Dan
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lunar Landing
Brain on go. Would you attempt a take off at very much reduced power in your aeroplane? (You are a PPL holder after all)
[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: John Farley ]
Brain on go. Would you attempt a take off at very much reduced power in your aeroplane? (You are a PPL holder after all)
[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: John Farley ]
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi "Lunar"
Its not a "child-like" question if you don't know the aeroplane - its a perfectly reasonable question.
The simple answer is it wouldn't save fuel. The acceleration would be slower, and therefore drag after takeoff higher (more fuel burned), performance (weight)limits more restrictive and runway length required longer.
Just because a 747 can safely continue its takeoff on 3 engines after V1, it doesn't attempt to go on 3 from the start.
The reheats are a little more complex performance-wise because they are merely thrust augmenters - not whole engines. We have weights below which we can still go if one reheat doesn't light at all (in fact, after 100kts we can always go if a reheat goes out - in practice this is very rare: once they're lit they stay lit), but never with a complete engine failed. Two reheats failed is equivalent to an engine failure in this respect, and takeoff would only be continued if V1 had been achieved - like a conventional jet with an engine failed - and rejected (or not attempted - to answer your question) before V1.
Hope this helps.
Its not a "child-like" question if you don't know the aeroplane - its a perfectly reasonable question.
The simple answer is it wouldn't save fuel. The acceleration would be slower, and therefore drag after takeoff higher (more fuel burned), performance (weight)limits more restrictive and runway length required longer.
Just because a 747 can safely continue its takeoff on 3 engines after V1, it doesn't attempt to go on 3 from the start.
The reheats are a little more complex performance-wise because they are merely thrust augmenters - not whole engines. We have weights below which we can still go if one reheat doesn't light at all (in fact, after 100kts we can always go if a reheat goes out - in practice this is very rare: once they're lit they stay lit), but never with a complete engine failed. Two reheats failed is equivalent to an engine failure in this respect, and takeoff would only be continued if V1 had been achieved - like a conventional jet with an engine failed - and rejected (or not attempted - to answer your question) before V1.
Hope this helps.