French Concorde crash
Yeah, AA proceedures caused damage to the fusible pylon pins. Bet they would have used butal force to fit them. Failure of them caused the accident. The pylon was never designed to be taken off with the engine on it.
I think not
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a part fell off the Continental 'plane and was not spotted or cleared off the runway it only burst the tire? What happened after the bursting of the tire is down to the design of the aeroplane?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fire...
If you think Reheat can not ignite a massive fuel leak....
Mr Aussie Aardvark will show you how it can...
If you think Reheat can not ignite a massive fuel leak....
Mr Aussie Aardvark will show you how it can...
The fuel (from the fuel jettison) is of course lit behind the aircraft.
If you look at the report, you will see that the reheat is mentioned as one of the possible sources of ignition.
However, the aircraft was moving at roughly 100 m/sec, while propagation of a turbulent flame is only about 20 m/sec.
Whether the flame could still have "crept" forward along the nacelle or the fuselage until it reached the wheel well, remains an open question.
The report says, that the experts did not come to a clear conclusion, so all three theories are listed, with the electric arc as the most plausible one.
CJ
Last edited by ChristiaanJ; 11th Dec 2010 at 16:24. Reason: fingertrouble
Thanks for the reply about the strip and the tire.
So - had there not been that strip, causing that damage - the rest of the domino effect, the cumulative list of failures and circumstances doesn't happen and the 'plane is safe?
So - had there not been that strip, causing that damage - the rest of the domino effect, the cumulative list of failures and circumstances doesn't happen and the 'plane is safe?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, you are wrong. The situations are not comparable.
In America the standard is whether a consequence is foreseeable or not. That's what establishes liability.
In America the standard is whether a consequence is foreseeable or not. That's what establishes liability.
And all along I thought that Concorde had come down near to Paris, France, not Paris Texas. I must really read the news more carefully.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Load Toad,
The strip should have been made of stainless steel and NOT of aluminium as a lot of people ignorantly claims.
Had it been made of stainless steel, as it should, the effects on the tire would still have been the same.
The strip should have been made of stainless steel and NOT of aluminium as a lot of people ignorantly claims.
Had it been made of stainless steel, as it should, the effects on the tire would still have been the same.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fascinating. And all along I thought that Concorde had come down near to Paris, France, not Paris Texas. I must really read the news more carefully.
I never said that the decision in France was legally wrong. If Continental wishes to operate in France they have to play by the French rules. Some way when Air France operates in America.
However, I think it's philosophically wrong. As I said, from my perspective it doesn't pass the smell test. And you'd realize, if you were actually French rather than French-flavored troll, that to be wrong philosophically is a much greater error than being wrong legally.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mountain bear
How do you know what my nationality is?
What is it? You seem so sure, so go ahead and tell me what my nationality is.
Having done so,what is the relevance?
What is a French flavored troll?
What is wrong with my legal analysis of French procedure?
And you'd realize, if you were actually French rather than French-flavored troll, that to be wrong philosophically is a much greater error than being wrong legally
What is it? You seem so sure, so go ahead and tell me what my nationality is.
Having done so,what is the relevance?
What is a French flavored troll?
What is wrong with my legal analysis of French procedure?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I contributed to this thread near the beginning, lost interest last week, and came back because I needed to edit a post to correct a mistake I had made. And I ended up reading it.
Let me first make a point about dealing with tire-burst events.
I have particular sympathy with the Concorde engineers, who worked, for over two decades, on tire bursts, their consequences, and prophylaxis, and who (I speak from personal knowledge) were very sensitive to all the possible things that could go wrong, and dealt with them continually, setting new standards for the state of that art as they did so. Those people are not here. Some people who are here write as if none of that had ever happened, as if no one had really thought about what can happen with tire bursts. That is just not the case.
That thought and effort went into thinking about tire bursts because, as some have said, a tire burst should not be a catastrophic event, or even a hazardous one (for the meanings of these words, I refer to the regulations).
And then came Gonesse.
Was Gonesse foreseeable?
Besides my recent commentary, at http://www.abnormaldistribution.org/...-ten-years-on/, which repeats some points I made earlier in this forum, I have (re)addressed this question of foreseeability in http://www.abnormaldistribution.org/...ars-on-part-2/. In my opinion, as one may read, along with the reasons for it, it was a freak accident. Let me assure readers that this opinion is shared by eminent former Concorde engineers, some of whom have read my note.
PBL
Let me first make a point about dealing with tire-burst events.
I have particular sympathy with the Concorde engineers, who worked, for over two decades, on tire bursts, their consequences, and prophylaxis, and who (I speak from personal knowledge) were very sensitive to all the possible things that could go wrong, and dealt with them continually, setting new standards for the state of that art as they did so. Those people are not here. Some people who are here write as if none of that had ever happened, as if no one had really thought about what can happen with tire bursts. That is just not the case.
That thought and effort went into thinking about tire bursts because, as some have said, a tire burst should not be a catastrophic event, or even a hazardous one (for the meanings of these words, I refer to the regulations).
And then came Gonesse.
Was Gonesse foreseeable?
Besides my recent commentary, at http://www.abnormaldistribution.org/...-ten-years-on/, which repeats some points I made earlier in this forum, I have (re)addressed this question of foreseeability in http://www.abnormaldistribution.org/...ars-on-part-2/. In my opinion, as one may read, along with the reasons for it, it was a freak accident. Let me assure readers that this opinion is shared by eminent former Concorde engineers, some of whom have read my note.
PBL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that we are repeating ourselves to such an extent we overlook a few basics.
We have a familiar theme here. You know the one most of you wish to ignore. Just as in the Spanair, Turkish, Korean 747, Excel, Easyjet, basic maintenance wasn't performed. On the face of it initially for different reasons however the common denominator was that all the fatal decisions were commercially based.
Continental did not maintain their aircraft as per the book. Had they had done so this would never have happened. It isn't even so much about the titanium being used, it is more about whatever drove that individual to perform a task to such a shocking level of incompetence. Where was the quality control?
If we can't get the basics right we have no hope. We are not getting the basics right because aviation is on a race to the bottom as far as standards go.
That is the real basic truth. Doing the job properly won't bring a company or an aircraft down, cutting corners will.
It is a tragedy of huge proportions that not only did people die needlessly but that an icon of technical innovation was grounded as a result.
The whole thing was avoidable just like many others. The days of the unpredictable accident are pretty much gone. Most of today's accidents have their roots firmly in the stupidity of not doing what you are supposed to do. We know what causes most accidents so why do you still cut corners?
We have a familiar theme here. You know the one most of you wish to ignore. Just as in the Spanair, Turkish, Korean 747, Excel, Easyjet, basic maintenance wasn't performed. On the face of it initially for different reasons however the common denominator was that all the fatal decisions were commercially based.
Continental did not maintain their aircraft as per the book. Had they had done so this would never have happened. It isn't even so much about the titanium being used, it is more about whatever drove that individual to perform a task to such a shocking level of incompetence. Where was the quality control?
If we can't get the basics right we have no hope. We are not getting the basics right because aviation is on a race to the bottom as far as standards go.
That is the real basic truth. Doing the job properly won't bring a company or an aircraft down, cutting corners will.
It is a tragedy of huge proportions that not only did people die needlessly but that an icon of technical innovation was grounded as a result.
The whole thing was avoidable just like many others. The days of the unpredictable accident are pretty much gone. Most of today's accidents have their roots firmly in the stupidity of not doing what you are supposed to do. We know what causes most accidents so why do you still cut corners?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike-wsm...
Some people do call the hollow shear pins used as fusible.. They are the fail link, like the bolts in the wheels stopping dangerous overtemps and the Hydraulic check valves stopping loss of system fluid.. They are Fuses/fusible and other engineers use that term for them..
Some people do call the hollow shear pins used as fusible.. They are the fail link, like the bolts in the wheels stopping dangerous overtemps and the Hydraulic check valves stopping loss of system fluid.. They are Fuses/fusible and other engineers use that term for them..
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Alber Ratman
.. the hollow shear pins used as fusible.... are Fuses/fusible and other engineers use that term for them..
PBL
Tell Boeing that about Hydraulic Fuses.. They don't melt!
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, for goodness sake! "Fusible" means capable of being fused or melted by heating. People using that term for engine-pylon attachment bolts are misusing it.
FAA accelerates 747 fuse-pin inspections-23/07/1997-Flight International
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, for goodness sake, doubled!
I did a search on ADs on the EASA site for "fuse pin" and there are four US ADs on engine/pylon "fuse pins" for Boeing aircraft.
I didn't say anything about the term "fuse pin". A fuse pin isn't fusible.
There is no mention in the AD, nor in the article which forget referenced, for any use of the term "fusible" other than what I mentioned.
This is a good example of why I don't read such threads for a week, even those about topics which interest me greatly.
PBL
I did a search on ADs on the EASA site for "fuse pin" and there are four US ADs on engine/pylon "fuse pins" for Boeing aircraft.
I didn't say anything about the term "fuse pin". A fuse pin isn't fusible.
There is no mention in the AD, nor in the article which forget referenced, for any use of the term "fusible" other than what I mentioned.
This is a good example of why I don't read such threads for a week, even those about topics which interest me greatly.
PBL
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBL et al
We know that Boeing uses "fuse pins". We know that Airbus doesn't use them.
As this started as a discussion of a DC-10, does anyone know whether McDo did?
As this started as a discussion of a DC-10, does anyone know whether McDo did?