BBC Concorde Incompetence
Effendi, yes but how can an in flight shutdown of an engine whilst enroute which is handled and managed in a routne manner be classified as being close to a "tragedy"?
The media reports tend to be based on emotion rather than facts.
The media reports tend to be based on emotion rather than facts.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: nr Farnborough, England
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde
Fireflybob,
You miss the point.
I obviously agree with you that an in flight shutdown is fairly routine.
But it comes in the wake of a tragedy that makes Concorde newsworthy.
I'm just suggesting that if the press had headlined the original Concorde incident, it might have been a good thing. But I have to say that I believe pprune would have dismissed it as press speculation and hype.
You miss the point.
I obviously agree with you that an in flight shutdown is fairly routine.
But it comes in the wake of a tragedy that makes Concorde newsworthy.
I'm just suggesting that if the press had headlined the original Concorde incident, it might have been a good thing. But I have to say that I believe pprune would have dismissed it as press speculation and hype.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's just stop this one here...........
The first incident to which you refer was caused by a WHEEL rim failure, the WHEEL debris punctured the wing. As a result new wheels ("blue" wheels, in SSC parlance) were developed and became standard fit years before the AF accident.
So - no connection. Any amount of media histrionics would have made no difference.
The first incident to which you refer was caused by a WHEEL rim failure, the WHEEL debris punctured the wing. As a result new wheels ("blue" wheels, in SSC parlance) were developed and became standard fit years before the AF accident.
So - no connection. Any amount of media histrionics would have made no difference.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least there were three donks still pushing. Elderly ones but still three 
Doesn't bother me too much flying on 777s though as the BA wines are keeping me fuzzy - not to mention that the engines aren't half French
Doesn't bother me too much flying on 777s though as the BA wines are keeping me fuzzy - not to mention that the engines aren't half French
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: nr Farnborough, England
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde
Ok WOK, so the problem of foreign body penetration of the fuel tank - be it a Concorde wheel rim or debris - and the resultant fuel mist with an afterburner nearby, had been recognised and cured by the aviation industry prior to the fatal Paris disaster. I accept your word for it. But if I were a journalist, I'd immediately look up the definition of two words - staggering and complacency. As I said, it's possible........
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 449
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NW1, thanks for the description.
Reading it was a pleasure, I especially liked "reduced range d/t subsonic cruise".
I hope this grand a/c will be flying for a long time, giving me a chance to get to ride it as a pax.
I wonder if any replacement will ever come up.
Reading it was a pleasure, I especially liked "reduced range d/t subsonic cruise".
I hope this grand a/c will be flying for a long time, giving me a chance to get to ride it as a pax.
I wonder if any replacement will ever come up.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NW1
Thanks for putting some facts in print. Bet the papers don't print them!
As many of us assumed a non event in a four engined aeroplane.
Had a couple of in flight shut downs myself, first was an RB211 and the second was a P&W, they were not half french either MarkD! 
Thanks for putting some facts in print. Bet the papers don't print them!
As many of us assumed a non event in a four engined aeroplane.
Had a couple of in flight shut downs myself, first was an RB211 and the second was a P&W, they were not half french either MarkD!
Food for thought for anyone interested.
The current state of Concordes in the BA fleet may be the result of some pretty drastic cuts in the BA engineering section as highlighted on the BA forum of AIRMECH. Have a look and make your own mind up, especially the thread referring directly to concorde. If you can cut through all the union/management bashing and look at the underlying trend it does not inspire confidence.
The current state of Concordes in the BA fleet may be the result of some pretty drastic cuts in the BA engineering section as highlighted on the BA forum of AIRMECH. Have a look and make your own mind up, especially the thread referring directly to concorde. If you can cut through all the union/management bashing and look at the underlying trend it does not inspire confidence.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a couple of thoughts in response to comments here. Oneworld22 - you discuss statistics, but it is difficult to draw conclusions either way with such a small fleet using statistics. Statistical analysis becomes more and more irrelevant as the population sample reduces. Some bloke won £9.8M on the lottery the other day with his first ever ticket - that does not indicate that the odds of winning the lottery are 100%. One problem may appear a few times in succession before resolution by engineering (as on any other type) - but with only 5 a/c on the fleet, you cannot extrapolate and and label the aircraft unreliable just because there aren't many of them.
The Olympus engine is a small diameter zero bypass pure jet and its rugged simplicity has proved itself many times in service, it can swallow massive amounts of debris before showing any distress (the testing which followed Gonesse proved the engine beyond any doubt - one engine was induced to a Hiroshima of a surge by injecting massive amounts of JetA into its throat at max. reheated thrust and it went on to perform dozens of start/flight/shutdown cycles under test in spite of significant internal damage). I believe it is the most rugged jet engine in airline service today. There have been a couple of shutdowns recently due to an indication error elsewhere. It has been resolved now, but when you have 4 engines it is better to err on the safe side (as I pointed out earlier, a shutdown is no big deal) even though it turned out to be fine. Just because this occurred on a very small fleet flying only one return service a day does not imply massive unreliablility, whatever the statistics can be made to extrapolate.
Effendi - you talk about fuel mist and afterburners, but it has been proved that the afterburners are not an ignition source. To emphasise the point - the fuel jettison pipe has a single outlet on the port side of the tail cone, in between and close to the engine exhaust assemblies, and we can actually jettison fuel safely with the afterburners going as a standard procudure - they do not ignite the misted fuel stream. The reason the Gonesse aircraft fuel leak was ignited was because the hole was massive and the leak rate enormous (hundreds of litres per *second*). A part of the return to service work done was to make sure that a hole and leak of such massive, unique proportions could not happen again, even though it was extruciatingly improbable in the first place (the mechanism leading to the tank rupture was not penetration by debris). There had been a couple of incidences of fuel tank penetration years ago but the leaks formed from such minor leaks did not present anything like the same situation as Gonesse (this a/c fuel tanks were not penetrated from outside by anything) - or the risk of ignition.
And Hovis - when engineering becomes under-resourced, you get aircraft late out of check - not under-checked. Our jets are looked after better and more thoroughly than any other type in service. They are very young in terms of use, hours and cycles, and are looked after by a band of very knowlegable enthusiasts. I'm not interested in putting my own life at risk, and I intend to fly them for as long as they're there......
The Olympus engine is a small diameter zero bypass pure jet and its rugged simplicity has proved itself many times in service, it can swallow massive amounts of debris before showing any distress (the testing which followed Gonesse proved the engine beyond any doubt - one engine was induced to a Hiroshima of a surge by injecting massive amounts of JetA into its throat at max. reheated thrust and it went on to perform dozens of start/flight/shutdown cycles under test in spite of significant internal damage). I believe it is the most rugged jet engine in airline service today. There have been a couple of shutdowns recently due to an indication error elsewhere. It has been resolved now, but when you have 4 engines it is better to err on the safe side (as I pointed out earlier, a shutdown is no big deal) even though it turned out to be fine. Just because this occurred on a very small fleet flying only one return service a day does not imply massive unreliablility, whatever the statistics can be made to extrapolate.
Effendi - you talk about fuel mist and afterburners, but it has been proved that the afterburners are not an ignition source. To emphasise the point - the fuel jettison pipe has a single outlet on the port side of the tail cone, in between and close to the engine exhaust assemblies, and we can actually jettison fuel safely with the afterburners going as a standard procudure - they do not ignite the misted fuel stream. The reason the Gonesse aircraft fuel leak was ignited was because the hole was massive and the leak rate enormous (hundreds of litres per *second*). A part of the return to service work done was to make sure that a hole and leak of such massive, unique proportions could not happen again, even though it was extruciatingly improbable in the first place (the mechanism leading to the tank rupture was not penetration by debris). There had been a couple of incidences of fuel tank penetration years ago but the leaks formed from such minor leaks did not present anything like the same situation as Gonesse (this a/c fuel tanks were not penetrated from outside by anything) - or the risk of ignition.
And Hovis - when engineering becomes under-resourced, you get aircraft late out of check - not under-checked. Our jets are looked after better and more thoroughly than any other type in service. They are very young in terms of use, hours and cycles, and are looked after by a band of very knowlegable enthusiasts. I'm not interested in putting my own life at risk, and I intend to fly them for as long as they're there......
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: nr Farnborough, England
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
concorde
NW1,
Thanks for your post - two or three things if I may.
The tail cone jettison pipe is designed for exactly that and works well. But no one could or should design for a chunk of metal to cause a large leak in a wing fuel tank - far forward of the cone. If the afterburner was not the source of ignition, what was? An electrical short? Friction? Far more likely a two foot flame.
Secondly, you talk of minor leaks. I though the NY incident was very major.
Thirdly, you say of Gonesse that "the mechanism leading to the tank rupture was not penetration by debris". Don't understand that.
Lastly, you say of Gonesse that "this a/c fuel tanks were not penetrated by anything from outside". Please explain.
Thanks for your post - two or three things if I may.
The tail cone jettison pipe is designed for exactly that and works well. But no one could or should design for a chunk of metal to cause a large leak in a wing fuel tank - far forward of the cone. If the afterburner was not the source of ignition, what was? An electrical short? Friction? Far more likely a two foot flame.
Secondly, you talk of minor leaks. I though the NY incident was very major.
Thirdly, you say of Gonesse that "the mechanism leading to the tank rupture was not penetration by debris". Don't understand that.
Lastly, you say of Gonesse that "this a/c fuel tanks were not penetrated by anything from outside". Please explain.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since I'm here I'll try to do so in NW1's absence.
No Concorde fuel tank has ever been penetrated by tyre debris.
There were early incidents, as I have already stated, where WHEELs failed and debris punctured the tanks, resulting in small holes and leaks - orders of magnitude smaller than the Gonesse a/c. Also as previously related, the WHEELS were changed to prevent reoccurrence, successfully.
In the Gonesse accident the tank blew OUT, the mechanism being a hydraulically transmitted shock initiated by a very large piece of tyre rubber slapping the tank, precipitated by a hitherto unkown tyre failure mode. This created a massive fuek leak, VASTLY bigger than the early rim debris incidents. The rate allowed for the formation of an aerosol of kerosene which was capable of causing a massive fire......we know the rest.
The source of ignition has never been absolutely determined, but the reheats were ruled out. This was a bit of a surprise, initially, to all, but reasonably early in the investigation enough evidence, experimental and documentary, was put forward to prove this was the case. In the absence of an absolute answer all other conceivable sources were examined and several airframe and operational changes made to eliminate all feasible scenarios.
The only limitations on fuel jettison with reheats engaged is on which tanks you jettison from, in order to maintain fuel flow to the engines and reheats. I would have no problem with dumping while reheats are lit if circumstances require. (Again).
All of the above is in the public domain, mostly in the accident report.
To go back to my otiginal posting, a media frenzy wrt the initial wheel failures would no more have prevented Gonesse than the worldwide interest in the Comet 1 breakups prevented the JAL 747 disaster. (And, possibly it would seem, the recent Korean loss).
No Concorde fuel tank has ever been penetrated by tyre debris.
There were early incidents, as I have already stated, where WHEELs failed and debris punctured the tanks, resulting in small holes and leaks - orders of magnitude smaller than the Gonesse a/c. Also as previously related, the WHEELS were changed to prevent reoccurrence, successfully.
In the Gonesse accident the tank blew OUT, the mechanism being a hydraulically transmitted shock initiated by a very large piece of tyre rubber slapping the tank, precipitated by a hitherto unkown tyre failure mode. This created a massive fuek leak, VASTLY bigger than the early rim debris incidents. The rate allowed for the formation of an aerosol of kerosene which was capable of causing a massive fire......we know the rest.
The source of ignition has never been absolutely determined, but the reheats were ruled out. This was a bit of a surprise, initially, to all, but reasonably early in the investigation enough evidence, experimental and documentary, was put forward to prove this was the case. In the absence of an absolute answer all other conceivable sources were examined and several airframe and operational changes made to eliminate all feasible scenarios.
The only limitations on fuel jettison with reheats engaged is on which tanks you jettison from, in order to maintain fuel flow to the engines and reheats. I would have no problem with dumping while reheats are lit if circumstances require. (Again).
All of the above is in the public domain, mostly in the accident report.
To go back to my otiginal posting, a media frenzy wrt the initial wheel failures would no more have prevented Gonesse than the worldwide interest in the Comet 1 breakups prevented the JAL 747 disaster. (And, possibly it would seem, the recent Korean loss).
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
To return to the original theme, may I compliment AW & ST who have reported the incident as follows.
"An Air France Concorde landed safely at Paris-CDG airport on Nov. 5 after suffering an engine failure at supersonic speed over the North Atlantic. The transport was cruising at 60,000 ft. en route to France, when one of its four Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593s had to be shut down. The aircraft rapidly descended to about 33,000 ft., at subsonic speed, and continued its flight to its destination".
"An Air France Concorde landed safely at Paris-CDG airport on Nov. 5 after suffering an engine failure at supersonic speed over the North Atlantic. The transport was cruising at 60,000 ft. en route to France, when one of its four Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593s had to be shut down. The aircraft rapidly descended to about 33,000 ft., at subsonic speed, and continued its flight to its destination".
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Effendi,
The point is that the aircraft is designed to deliberately squirt fuel vapour between the afterburner exhausts - without incident. Your comment <<no one could or should design for a chunk of metal to cause a large leak in a wing fuel tank>> is facile - any aircraft suffering a high energy impact of debris on the wing under surface will leak fuel. Even if the afterburners could ignite a fuel leak (they cannot), the flame propagation speed would not result in the ignition reaching the leak source. And for the record - F-BTSC did not suffer a fuel tank penetration from an external source.
The problem was contained - the aircraft design proved itself capable of coping with this incident safely - and steps were taken to prevent recourrence. Effectively. Shame this cannot be said of many other types.
The accident report is in the public domain.
F-BTSC's fuel tank was ruptured from the inside by a freak chain of events which was unique in aviation history. Not only was it an incredibaly improbable event - many millions of pounds and many thousands of man-hours were spent making sure those tiny odds became zero before return to service. This cannot be said of any other jet transport in service today which has suffered a fatal accident.
The tail cone jettison pipe is designed for exactly that and works well. But no one could or should design for a chunk of metal to cause a large leak in a wing fuel tank
Secondly, you talk of minor leaks. I though the NY incident was very major.
Thirdly, you say of Gonesse that "the mechanism leading to the tank rupture was not penetration by debris". Don't understand that.
Lastly, you say of Gonesse that "this a/c fuel tanks were not penetrated by anything from outside". Please explain.
Last edited by NW1; 11th Nov 2002 at 23:12.
Effendi
It would appear from remarks such as
....the mechanism leading to the tank rupture was not penetration by debris...Don't understand that....
and
....this a/c fuel tanks were not penetrated by anything from outside...Please explain....
that there are some significant gaps in your understanding of the Gonesse accident, and when you go on to say
...if the afterburner was not the source of ignition, what was? An electrical short? Friction? Far more likely a two foot flame...
you appear not to have read the findings of the French accident investigators, the BEA.
No real reason at all why you should have done, but it might be wise, before commenting further in public, to read the conclusions and findings that trained accident investigators came to over many months.
Who knows, you may just change some of your opinions!
The report is available, in English, by clicking here courtesy of, and copyright to, the BEA.
Regards
Bellerophon
It would appear from remarks such as
....the mechanism leading to the tank rupture was not penetration by debris...Don't understand that....
and
....this a/c fuel tanks were not penetrated by anything from outside...Please explain....
that there are some significant gaps in your understanding of the Gonesse accident, and when you go on to say
...if the afterburner was not the source of ignition, what was? An electrical short? Friction? Far more likely a two foot flame...
you appear not to have read the findings of the French accident investigators, the BEA.
No real reason at all why you should have done, but it might be wise, before commenting further in public, to read the conclusions and findings that trained accident investigators came to over many months.
Who knows, you may just change some of your opinions!
The report is available, in English, by clicking here courtesy of, and copyright to, the BEA.
Regards
Bellerophon
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC:
Quite!
Alpine Flyer & Kinsman: Thanks for your support. AF: I think we'll be the last generation to enjoy high speed atmospheric public transport. Maybe we'll see extra-atmospheric vehicles one day, but I fear that'll be a generation or two away..... and maybe one day it will be truely appreciated what those people achived back in the 1960's. They got it right at the first attempt, and it still does exactly what it says on the tin some 3 decades later with almost no development at all....... those were the days.
Quite!
Alpine Flyer & Kinsman: Thanks for your support. AF: I think we'll be the last generation to enjoy high speed atmospheric public transport. Maybe we'll see extra-atmospheric vehicles one day, but I fear that'll be a generation or two away..... and maybe one day it will be truely appreciated what those people achived back in the 1960's. They got it right at the first attempt, and it still does exactly what it says on the tin some 3 decades later with almost no development at all....... those were the days.
Last edited by NW1; 11th Nov 2002 at 23:40.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I arrived at LHR on Saturday just in time to see, hear and feel Concorde takeoff...It's a truly amazing aircraft and as NW1 points out, a "freak chain of events" was found to be the cause of the accident and this is true of many incidents in life.
I still get goose bumps from watching the takeoff. I hope she continues to fly a long way into the future and that I will one day be able to afford a ride!
I still get goose bumps from watching the takeoff. I hope she continues to fly a long way into the future and that I will one day be able to afford a ride!
