French Concorde crash
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Appeal from Continental
Google Vertaling
Original link:
Crash du Concorde: Continental fait appel de sa condamnation - Yahoo! Actualités
Appeal from Continental
Google Vertaling
Original link:
Crash du Concorde: Continental fait appel de sa condamnation - Yahoo! Actualités
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, the Ti is in a most (in)convenient place - a foot or so either way and no accident (at least not to Concorde, maybe some other a/c...). But then, sat at the end of the runway at max weight, hear that it's shifted to an 8 knot tailwind... merde, all the way down to the other end to takeoff the other way... and again, no accident. Procurring cause ?
And then again, if the Ti strip was found but remained as "unidentified part of another a/c" then it is all too convenient and suspiciously so... but forensically matched to the bodged Ti repair to the a/c that took off 5mins before ? How to arrange that ? - unless it is the improbable truth.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Implacable logic .... ?
In its ruling, the Court asserts that the tinker could not ignore "potentially catastrophic consequences of the bursting of a tire"
Also J. Taylor could ignorerles Risk-protection in the presence of objects (FOD) on the slopes and it can be validly argued by his counsel that he could not imagine that a tire burst on a FOD or causing a chain of events like those that occurred July 25, 2000 provided he could not ignore the potentially catastrophic consequences of the bursting of a tire.
This is a serious mistake because, as the BEA page 177 of his report, it is precisely the accident July 25, 2000 which showed that the destruction of tires could be catastrophic!
The accident of July 25, 2000 has shown that the destruction of a single tire event which can not be said that it could happen has had catastrophic consequences in a very short time while the crew is able to restore the situation.
Consequently and without prejudice to additional elements that might appear during the BEA survey and AAIB recommend to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation and the French Civil Aviation Authority of United Unique:
Certificates of airworthiness of Concorde be suspended pending may have been put in place appropriate measures to ensure a satisfactory level of safety regarding the risk the destruction of Tyre.
How Mr. Taylor would have known it when all the players of prevention were unaware of it ?
Comment:
If the President of the Tribunal is satisfied that the bursting of a tire could have catastrophic consequences for Concorde, she joined the camp of those who expose the bankruptcy of feedback in the drama of July 25, 2000.
This now includes all stakeholders unambiguous monitoring of the airworthiness of the aircraft.
Source:
Concorde : la grave erreur des juges ! : Les dossiers noirs du transport aérien
Implacable logic .... ?
In its ruling, the Court asserts that the tinker could not ignore "potentially catastrophic consequences of the bursting of a tire"
Also J. Taylor could ignorerles Risk-protection in the presence of objects (FOD) on the slopes and it can be validly argued by his counsel that he could not imagine that a tire burst on a FOD or causing a chain of events like those that occurred July 25, 2000 provided he could not ignore the potentially catastrophic consequences of the bursting of a tire.
This is a serious mistake because, as the BEA page 177 of his report, it is precisely the accident July 25, 2000 which showed that the destruction of tires could be catastrophic!
The accident of July 25, 2000 has shown that the destruction of a single tire event which can not be said that it could happen has had catastrophic consequences in a very short time while the crew is able to restore the situation.
Consequently and without prejudice to additional elements that might appear during the BEA survey and AAIB recommend to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation and the French Civil Aviation Authority of United Unique:
Certificates of airworthiness of Concorde be suspended pending may have been put in place appropriate measures to ensure a satisfactory level of safety regarding the risk the destruction of Tyre.
How Mr. Taylor would have known it when all the players of prevention were unaware of it ?
Comment:
If the President of the Tribunal is satisfied that the bursting of a tire could have catastrophic consequences for Concorde, she joined the camp of those who expose the bankruptcy of feedback in the drama of July 25, 2000.
This now includes all stakeholders unambiguous monitoring of the airworthiness of the aircraft.
Source:
Concorde : la grave erreur des juges ! : Les dossiers noirs du transport aérien
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tyre overspeed
IF they were at MDTOW and...
Was an 8 kt tailwind (Tower, but denied by Meteo France) then...
They were several tonnes above the tyre speed limited permissible take-off weight.
Was an 8 kt tailwind (Tower, but denied by Meteo France) then...
They were several tonnes above the tyre speed limited permissible take-off weight.
Last edited by oldchina; 14th Dec 2010 at 19:24.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jcjeant,
Mr. Taylor was simply the victim of his gross incompetence 'en l'excercise de son métier', leading to involuntary homicide through a chain of events he indeed cannot have envisaged.
"The dumb shall rule the Earth"... or maybe they already do... ?
Much like a car mechanic totally botching a brake repair, leading to a multiple pile-up on a motorway killing several people?
He got off with a suspended sentence.
oldchina,
Please could you stop regurgitating this nonsense?
They were at just as nearly at MTOW as not to matter, and actual wind was as near zero knots as not to matter.
Neither had any impact on the way the accident happened.
CJ
Mr. Taylor was simply the victim of his gross incompetence 'en l'excercise de son métier', leading to involuntary homicide through a chain of events he indeed cannot have envisaged.
"The dumb shall rule the Earth"... or maybe they already do... ?
Much like a car mechanic totally botching a brake repair, leading to a multiple pile-up on a motorway killing several people?
He got off with a suspended sentence.
oldchina,
Please could you stop regurgitating this nonsense?
They were at just as nearly at MTOW as not to matter, and actual wind was as near zero knots as not to matter.
Neither had any impact on the way the accident happened.
CJ
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Methink it's not exactly the same.
One side .. we have a judge telling (verdict) that the mechanic as to be aware (before the 25 July 2000) that a tyre blow can have catastrophic consequences.
On the other side we have the BEA (after the 25 July 2000) telling that a tyre blow can have catastrophic consequences and so ask the Concorde be grounded until technical services find a remedy for have (again?) a safe plane regarding consequences of blow tyre (s)
How one can ask to the mechanic to be aware of a thing the BEA and AAIB were not aware despite the many accidents involving blow tyres who occured during the commercial service of the Concorde.
Methink the BEA and AAIB had better insights than the mechanic for see a possible catastrophe unfolding.
The BEA and AAIB got off without sentence
Off course we can argue on this for years
We have now to rest and wait what will be the verdict of the appeal ...
The dumb shall rule the Earth"... or maybe they already do... ?
Much like a car mechanic totally botching a brake repair, leading to a multiple pile-up on a motorway killing several people?
Much like a car mechanic totally botching a brake repair, leading to a multiple pile-up on a motorway killing several people?
One side .. we have a judge telling (verdict) that the mechanic as to be aware (before the 25 July 2000) that a tyre blow can have catastrophic consequences.
On the other side we have the BEA (after the 25 July 2000) telling that a tyre blow can have catastrophic consequences and so ask the Concorde be grounded until technical services find a remedy for have (again?) a safe plane regarding consequences of blow tyre (s)
How one can ask to the mechanic to be aware of a thing the BEA and AAIB were not aware despite the many accidents involving blow tyres who occured during the commercial service of the Concorde.
Methink the BEA and AAIB had better insights than the mechanic for see a possible catastrophe unfolding.
He got off with a suspended sentence.
Off course we can argue on this for years
We have now to rest and wait what will be the verdict of the appeal ...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Methink it's not exactly the same.
One side .. we have a judge telling (verdict) that the mechanic as to be aware (before the 25 July 2000) that a tyre blow can have catastrophic consequences.
On the other side we have the BEA (after the 25 July 2000) telling that a tyre blow can have catastrophic consequences and so ask the Concorde be grounded until technical services find a remedy for have (again?) a safe plane regarding consequences of blow tyre (s)
How one can ask to the mechanic to be aware of a thing the BEA and AAIB were not aware
Methink it's not exactly the same.
One side .. we have a judge telling (verdict) that the mechanic as to be aware (before the 25 July 2000) that a tyre blow can have catastrophic consequences.
On the other side we have the BEA (after the 25 July 2000) telling that a tyre blow can have catastrophic consequences and so ask the Concorde be grounded until technical services find a remedy for have (again?) a safe plane regarding consequences of blow tyre (s)
How one can ask to the mechanic to be aware of a thing the BEA and AAIB were not aware
The legal test (I believe, although may not be exactly the same in French law) for the mechanics actions is "forseeable harm". Not forseeable death, and not the actual death that occurred being forseeable - simply that the action was dangerous and could cause (non-trivial) harm. The court decided yes.
For an aircraft mechanic, I would say that a tyre burst causing harm should be obvious. They have killed before Concorde, and since, and no doubt will again.
They have also caused hull losses before, and since, although it is rare - but hull loss is not required to be forseeable, only some harm.
For the regulator (not actually BEA), on the other hand, the question you are asking (and the court too) is should they have forseen that a burst tyre could cause massive fuel tank hole and consequent fatal fire risk, and as a result required tyre and/or tank modifications. The court decided no. I would agree. Unprecedented - see PBLs articles for far better explanation than I could write.
So, two different decisions - but the questions were not actually the same, so no contradiction.
[ Also note that whilst one might believe the court decision to be correct, that does not mean that one has to also believe that a manslaughter prosecution is the right thing for aviation safety. ]
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Can you tell me from who or from where the regulator can have or receive informations (in this case DGAC ) ?
Methink is from the BEA (recommandations after end of investigations or as the case of Concorde .. during the investigation)
Unprecedented ?
Only the fire and crash was ... fuel leak was not.... (Washington-aircraft scrapped)
What was the recommandations from the BEA to the regulator ?
Why not make the recommandations made in 2000 ? cause no victims ?
When you have fuel leak ... risk of fire is obvious
But not should be obvious for the experts of the BEA or AAIB ?
Well .. they have seen and investigate some tyres blows on the Concorde before the year 2000 and some were scaring.....
For the regulator (not actually BEA), on the other hand, the question you are asking (and the court too) is should they have forseen that a burst tyre could cause massive fuel tank hole and consequent fatal fire risk, and as a result required tyre and/or tank modifications. The court decided no. I would agree. Unprecedented - see PBLs articles for far better explanation than I could write
Methink is from the BEA (recommandations after end of investigations or as the case of Concorde .. during the investigation)
Unprecedented ?
Only the fire and crash was ... fuel leak was not.... (Washington-aircraft scrapped)
What was the recommandations from the BEA to the regulator ?
Why not make the recommandations made in 2000 ? cause no victims ?
When you have fuel leak ... risk of fire is obvious
For an aircraft mechanic, I would say that a tyre burst causing harm should be obvious
Well .. they have seen and investigate some tyres blows on the Concorde before the year 2000 and some were scaring.....
Last edited by jcjeant; 15th Dec 2010 at 01:34.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong...
The aircraft was F-BVFC, not only not scrapped, but even the last Air France Concorde to fly *) .
Read the report.
File f-fc790614.pdf on the BEA site.
Whether these recommandations were all applied to the letter is of course not mentioned in the report itself.
CJ
*) It was F-BVFD that was scrapped.
Damaged during a hard landing in Dakar and repaired.
Stayed in service, but continued to suffer from increased fuel consumption, hence first candidate when Air France withdraw one of the aircraft from service.
Remained in storage for years, and was finally scrapped when serious corrosion was found.
The aircraft was F-BVFC, not only not scrapped, but even the last Air France Concorde to fly *) .
What was the recommandations from the BEA to the regulator ?
File f-fc790614.pdf on the BEA site.
Whether these recommandations were all applied to the letter is of course not mentioned in the report itself.
CJ
*) It was F-BVFD that was scrapped.
Damaged during a hard landing in Dakar and repaired.
Stayed in service, but continued to suffer from increased fuel consumption, hence first candidate when Air France withdraw one of the aircraft from service.
Remained in storage for years, and was finally scrapped when serious corrosion was found.
Guest
Posts: n/a
F-BVFD
How long was she allowed to fly seriously "out of rig"? Not especially comforting re: BEA and its decisions?? The pursuit of money at the expense of safety constantly "Corrodes" the Industry's "Badge" ?? The history of Concorde is replete with corner cutting, and a general disrespect for the aircraft itself and the people who flew her. IMO.
At the risk of descending into the more "fundamental", aren't we entertaining the effects of "sloppy maintenance" around?? Even a long established "Non-Fix" of tyre problems. Again, my point is to draw attention to those who "Game" the Process of safe flight, not the relative aspects of culpability for an accident seemingly caused by crap maintenance. It is this inclination to be satisfied with "Blame" as a conclusion rather than fixing systemic problems that engendered the tragedy, that baffles me.
How long was she allowed to fly seriously "out of rig"? Not especially comforting re: BEA and its decisions?? The pursuit of money at the expense of safety constantly "Corrodes" the Industry's "Badge" ?? The history of Concorde is replete with corner cutting, and a general disrespect for the aircraft itself and the people who flew her. IMO.
At the risk of descending into the more "fundamental", aren't we entertaining the effects of "sloppy maintenance" around?? Even a long established "Non-Fix" of tyre problems. Again, my point is to draw attention to those who "Game" the Process of safe flight, not the relative aspects of culpability for an accident seemingly caused by crap maintenance. It is this inclination to be satisfied with "Blame" as a conclusion rather than fixing systemic problems that engendered the tragedy, that baffles me.
Last edited by bearfoil; 15th Dec 2010 at 14:34.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but it wasn't "seriously out of rig" (where did you get that?).
'FD was delivered to AF in March 1977, and Dakar happened in November 1977.
Even before the incident, 'FD was already known as a gas guzzler ... don't forget those aircraft were still all pretty well hand-built.
The added weight from the repairs, and the residual distortion of the airframe, obviously didn't improve that.
Nevertheless, 'FD stayed in regular service until May 1982, when it was withdrawn when the Paris-Dakar-Rio route was closed down.
It wasn't scrapped until 1994.
There was never any question of the aircraft not being airworthy after the (approved) repairs. The increase in fuel consumption (hence limited range) was an operational problem, not an airworthiness problem.
CJ
'FD was delivered to AF in March 1977, and Dakar happened in November 1977.
Even before the incident, 'FD was already known as a gas guzzler ... don't forget those aircraft were still all pretty well hand-built.
The added weight from the repairs, and the residual distortion of the airframe, obviously didn't improve that.
Nevertheless, 'FD stayed in regular service until May 1982, when it was withdrawn when the Paris-Dakar-Rio route was closed down.
It wasn't scrapped until 1994.
There was never any question of the aircraft not being airworthy after the (approved) repairs. The increase in fuel consumption (hence limited range) was an operational problem, not an airworthiness problem.
CJ
Guest
Posts: n/a
Love is blind? An a/c at Mach two that is hobbled in any area by being "Hand Built", or out of rig noticeably, and demonstrably gets my attention and raises the same questions as above. I consider this a friendly disagreement, ChristiaanJ, and I am in awe of this a/c no less than anyone.
She was a modern day "Cinderella" in many ways, forced to do duty on short, dirty runways, prevented from making money by idiotic Boom Laws, and forced to wear shoes that were too loose, or tight, as the case may be. She was abused, rather than exalted, by the operators, and the Regulators. IMO.
Thanks for responding.
bear
She was a modern day "Cinderella" in many ways, forced to do duty on short, dirty runways, prevented from making money by idiotic Boom Laws, and forced to wear shoes that were too loose, or tight, as the case may be. She was abused, rather than exalted, by the operators, and the Regulators. IMO.
Thanks for responding.
bear
Why do you keep claiming that it was?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
forget, bearfoil,
Before this gets out of proportion....
Don't forget, that the aircraft did not just get about a foot longer at Mach 2, but it also changed shape, due both through the aerodynamic heating, and the various forces.
IIRC during the test flying there were various tweaks to the leading edge and the wing shape to fully account for those effects.
And go and have a look inside the wing, and you'll find a multitude of adjustable rods, that determined the final wing shape during production, and afterwards.
Small differences between aircraft could have disproportionate effects.
CJ
Before this gets out of proportion....
Don't forget, that the aircraft did not just get about a foot longer at Mach 2, but it also changed shape, due both through the aerodynamic heating, and the various forces.
IIRC during the test flying there were various tweaks to the leading edge and the wing shape to fully account for those effects.
And go and have a look inside the wing, and you'll find a multitude of adjustable rods, that determined the final wing shape during production, and afterwards.
Small differences between aircraft could have disproportionate effects.
CJ
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Blackbird had corrugated skin, the first since the Ford Trimotor. It flew at M3, and made no attempt to conserve fuel. My point is that when "Distortion" gets to be quantifiable, some thing might be considered other than lamenting poor SFC??
What was the difference prior/post Dakar??
What was the difference prior/post Dakar??
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Blackbird was a military aircraft, and flew from one flying 'gas station' to the next. It didn't ever bother to tank up properly when taking off... first job was getting to 30,000ft and "fill 'er up".
On Concorde it was only during the flight testing that the distortion became fully quantifiable (of course we had a good idea beforehand), and we then tweaked that to get those extra few percent in SFC.
What was the difference prior/post Dakar??
Post-Dakar, CDG-JFK was supposedly "on the edge".
CJ
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why all this argument about an airplane that should never have been built? Concord (proper spelling) was a schoolboy's and housewives' dream, wow, the world's fastest, but had no range and no payload and was so utterly uneconomic that nobody bought it. The two governments who were daft enough to fund it had to provide free aircraft to their national airlines to get anywhere near to an 'operating profit'. There was an enormous waste of national engineering resources that would have been much better directed to a reasoned commercially viable project.
Apologies to all the good people who put so much of their working lives into the design and fabrication of Concord (proper spelling) but even they were fully aware they were getting off on technology and being paid to go in completey the wrong direction.
Apologies to all the good people who put so much of their working lives into the design and fabrication of Concord (proper spelling) but even they were fully aware they were getting off on technology and being paid to go in completey the wrong direction.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stay on the beach
Oh dear. Just when I thought that this thread had heard from just about every walk of aviation life and opinion, we now have this drivel from the totally mis-informed, totally biased, totally inflamitory and totally wrong, idiotic posting moron. CORRECT SPELLING!!!!
Dude
Dude
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dude - Thanks for that, gives me the opportunity to tell the tale. It was my school-chum Nobby Clark who dreamed up the name Concord and his Dad who worked at Filton suggested it to the management. They thought it was a really good name, because, as Nobby explained, Concord means the same thing in English and French - agreement. Alas it turned out anything but. The French insisted on spelling it Concorde, and we stuck to the original Concord, for our plane which was after all designed at Filton with engines designed just down the road at Patchway. It became a major political issue, and the British government, anxious to maintain cooperation between Bristol and Toulouse on this very prestigious project, gave in and adopted the French spelling, saving face by saying how charmingly quaint it was. All because my school-chum Nobby Clarke had a Good Idea. Sorry, Nobby, is it Clark or Clarke? San fairy Anne. Ca ne fait rien.