Concorde rudder problem
...the thin end thereof
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice-but-dim
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Rural Yorkshire
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vibration felt on route, landed safely. BA saying investigation to take place, but Concorde to remain in service.
Anyone know what part 'fell off', and what implications it would have on aircraft handling / performance?
Anyone know what part 'fell off', and what implications it would have on aircraft handling / performance?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A previous occurance of a rudder problem on Concorde
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/dec00/gboac2.htm
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/dec00/gboac2.htm
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Out of a Suitcase
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not the first time that it has happened. BA has a very intensive inspection program in place to check for delamination of the internal honeycombe structure from the external skin. A number of years ago BA requested BAe to build both Upper and lower rudders so as to reduce the risk of this kind of failure.
The first time this kind of failure happened was on the round the world trip (I think). They landed in Australia (sydney) and ATC informed them that they were missing a section of there rudder. The crew were unaware until informed.
The first time this kind of failure happened was on the round the world trip (I think). They landed in Australia (sydney) and ATC informed them that they were missing a section of there rudder. The crew were unaware until informed.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it that, whenever an incident like this occurs, the media wheel out an expert who says something like - "the part wasn't important, the aircraft can fly safely without it"!
I am sorry to sound naive but, if that is the case, why not save cost and weight by not putting it there in the first place?
I suppose it depends largely on the meaning of the word "safely". For example, whilst a twin-engine aircraft can fly on one working engine, that would not be as "safely" as if it still had two.
I am sorry to sound naive but, if that is the case, why not save cost and weight by not putting it there in the first place?
I suppose it depends largely on the meaning of the word "safely". For example, whilst a twin-engine aircraft can fly on one working engine, that would not be as "safely" as if it still had two.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
newswatcher
I think what you'll find is said is more along the lines of "the part WAS important, BUT the aircraft can fly safely without it." (That's why they fitted more than one - safety through redundancy). Subtle but clear difference from your inference.
Incidentally, the rudder didn't fall off - a small section at the trailing edge was lost with no effect on handling - and nothing LIKE as serious as a single engine failure on a twin (which events very rarely make it into the news), but no doubt we'll be treated to the usual dramatic overstatement from the media circusmasters over the next 24 hours.
Incidentally, the rudder didn't fall off - a small section at the trailing edge was lost with no effect on handling - and nothing LIKE as serious as a single engine failure on a twin (which events very rarely make it into the news), but no doubt we'll be treated to the usual dramatic overstatement from the media circusmasters over the next 24 hours.
Last edited by NW1; 4th Dec 2002 at 10:23.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: down-route
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the BBC, Jock Lowe said "the affected panel only comes into use for steering during take-off and if there is an engine failure or if there is a cross-wind, so for most flights it is not needed at all".
Don't most flights inolve a take-off!!?
Don't most flights inolve a take-off!!?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well,
Concorde's getting quite a bit of focus for these bit's which have a habit of coming lose occasionally;
What's the relative danger? I mean, how often does something like this happen on your average 747? (just for nearest age, obviously there are design differences!!!!)
Can't be all that bad or else BA wouldn't let it fly.
But is no.1's structural probs. per flight figure greater than an average airliner? Significantly so?
Anybody here honestly want to pin a value on years until retirement?!?! (of Concorde)
Andy
Concorde's getting quite a bit of focus for these bit's which have a habit of coming lose occasionally;
What's the relative danger? I mean, how often does something like this happen on your average 747? (just for nearest age, obviously there are design differences!!!!)
Can't be all that bad or else BA wouldn't let it fly.
But is no.1's structural probs. per flight figure greater than an average airliner? Significantly so?
Anybody here honestly want to pin a value on years until retirement?!?! (of Concorde
)Andy
It is rather worrying I think. I thought that BA and AF fitted new rudders to the aircraft after the Sydney incident so the piece that fell off is part of a fairly new control surface albeit of the same design as the old ones.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stiff upper lip notwithstanding, rudders are balanced control surfaces, and random self-dissasembly of their skins has some potential to provoke flutter modes that could do nasty things to the whole bird, in short order.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theoretically true, arcniz, but like most large commercial jets Concorde's rudders are neither aerodynamically balanced nor significantly mass-balanced and are driven by non-reversible (at any survivable speed) hydraulic PFCUs, so the chance of a change of mass/shape of this order causing destructive flutter is effectively zero.
That's not to belittle the significance the issue, which is taken as seriously by the airlines and manufacturers as the regulatory bodies, but just to underline that the lack of panic on their part is due to the minimal hazard rather than a cavalier attitude.
That's not to belittle the significance the issue, which is taken as seriously by the airlines and manufacturers as the regulatory bodies, but just to underline that the lack of panic on their part is due to the minimal hazard rather than a cavalier attitude.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hounslow
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde safe to fly????
I know that statistically speaking, unless your a rock star, film star or multi millionaire etc your more likely to be killed or injured by a Concorde (or a piece of it!) falling on you than being in one if it crashes, but...
I found this thread over on Airmech (a bulletin board for aircraft engineers). Its an old one started last august but still running.
Its mostly Concorde engineers contributing.
At the beginning their enthusiasm for working on ithem is quite evident and refreshing, but midway through this thread they were put through some sort of managment restructuring or reorganisation. The nose dive in morale is quite clear to be seen. On the second page they complain that since this reorganisation they no longer have the right standard of equipment to do the job properly, they even mention "the crap equipment used to access the rudders", its interesting to note that these are the bits that fall off, and these guys don't have proper equipment to inspect them!
The threads here
http://www.airmech.co.uk/ubb/ultimat...;f=39;t=000281
Their moans don't appear to be the standard BA anti management diatribes that appear on the other BA forums, just exaspiration. (No I don't work there)
I found this thread over on Airmech (a bulletin board for aircraft engineers). Its an old one started last august but still running.
Its mostly Concorde engineers contributing.
At the beginning their enthusiasm for working on ithem is quite evident and refreshing, but midway through this thread they were put through some sort of managment restructuring or reorganisation. The nose dive in morale is quite clear to be seen. On the second page they complain that since this reorganisation they no longer have the right standard of equipment to do the job properly, they even mention "the crap equipment used to access the rudders", its interesting to note that these are the bits that fall off, and these guys don't have proper equipment to inspect them!
The threads here
http://www.airmech.co.uk/ubb/ultimat...;f=39;t=000281
Their moans don't appear to be the standard BA anti management diatribes that appear on the other BA forums, just exaspiration. (No I don't work there)
Controversial, moi?
Their moans don't appear to be the standard BA anti management diatribes that appear on the other BA forums, just exaspiration.
If things are so terrible and they are not tied in to a seniority system why do they not leave. If there really is such a shortage of engineers that would force the issue to be addressed.