Concorde question

[spfoster]

Exwok,

Thanks for explaning that, makes perfect sense to me now. I thought it was some sort of Standard Procedure as opposed to an Irregular Ops Procedure.

Regards,

Steve.

[Bellerophon]

Fuel Saving Landing

Requirements:

• Manual landing, at VREF, only
• Minimum of one autothrottle operative at start of approach
• Contingency power available
• Specific fuel distribution achieved
• Record in Maintenance Log

Not permitted with:

• Slippery runway
• Precipitation covered runway
• 3-engine ferry
• 2-engine approach and landing
• Reduced noise approach
• Fuelled with wide-cut fuel
• Secondary nozzle locked out
• Brake unit isolated
• Total loss of Electric Trim
• Total loss of Pitch Stab
• Total loss of Electrical Signalling
• Suspected tyre failure

Notes

3-engine landings were permitted. For all landings the landing gear would be lowered earlier than normal to ensure the brakes were stone cold to start with, maximum reverse thrust would be used on landing, and braking modulated so as to use (nearly) all of the full length of the runway. Landing performance figures at 130,000 kgs were in the performance manual for most runways. Any runway for which this procedure had not been pre-authorised required some rather tedious calculations, using the generalised basic data and graphs found in the performance manual.

If manual performance calculations were necessary, the F/E and I usually seemed to find that another problem that required our urgent and undivided attention had come up, and we would reluctantly be compelled to hand over all the manuals, charts and graphs for the F/O to perform the calculations!

If the aircraft had an AFT ZFW CG (perhaps loaded with a lot of heavy bags in the rear hold), and given the specific fuel distribution requirements for a fuel saving landing, it was possible that the landing weight might have to be reduced below 130,000 kgs, in order to achieve a landing CG of 53.5%.

After landing, record the actual landing weight in the Maintenance Log using code 2899XXOO, sign it, and then leg it swiftly, to avoid M2Dude and the boys, who somehow always managed to imply that you were responsible for anything that had gone wrong with their pride and joy since they last handed her over to you!

Reasons

The clue is in the name! A possible saving of roughly 5,200 gallons of fuel, nearly 19,000 kgs, which need not be jettisoned, thus reducing the time spent in the air before re-landing, fuel costs and pollution.


Best Regards

Bellerophon

[jodeliste]

Engines

My physics has pretty much rusted away so can anyone help me with this, The frequent statement that the intakes accounted for approx 80% of the engine power when supersonic. I quite understand that the intake air has to be slowed to subsonic before it meets the first compressor disk but saying that the intake produces 80% of the power almost implies that you could turn off the fires and still have 80% power. Obviously that cant be right! and another thing I dont understand is how shock waves slow down the intake flow, so any help with that would be useful to me. Any aerodymicist/physicists out there?

Thanks and keep up the super remeniscences
rod

[ChristiaanJ]

jodeliste,
That question already ended up in a separate TechLog thread... LOL.

Concorde engine intake "Thrust"

Have a look there first, then if things still aren't quite clear, feel free to ask more questions!

CJ

[M2dude]

Bellerophon

After landing, record the actual landing weight in the Maintenance Log using code 2899XXOO, sign it, and then leg it swiftly, to avoid M2Dude and the boys, who somehow always managed to imply that you were responsible for anything that had gone wrong with their pride and joy since they last handed her over to you!

There were no specific airframe inspections associated with a fuel saving landing (the possibility of which EXWOK eluded to) ; the 2899XX00 log code would however trip a flag that required the landing vertical and longitudinal accelerations to be analysed on the QAR readout. (The vertical G was also locked into the memory of the AIDS management panel, and was there until the next landing). And would I or anyone within Concorde engineering blame you guys for 'bending it'?....
(Only joking everybody, the most important thing after any minor incident was for us all to sit down and have a thorough post landing chat, so that everyone was clear as to what happened, and the cause of the 'bump in the night' could be nailed and remedied ASAP).
Leg it indeed.. (chuckle).

Dude

[NW1]

M2Dude & Brit312:

FWIW the LP Cock to shutoff was added to the precautionary engine shutdown C/L - but I think this was after (and because of) the AF inceident.

But I had understood that their engine failure that day had been due to a problem with the engine which caused enough vibration to damage the fuel pipe leading to the leak. I don't know if they ran the Fire / Severe Damage C/L, but that C/L always involved shutting the LP Cock as part of the Cleanup Items. Maybe they did "only" run the Precautionary Shutdown C/L - I have no idea, but the LP Cock position (which turned out to be key to the near loss of the a/c) would depend on it prior to the addition of that step in that latter drill.

I do remember there was always controversy in training circles about the Cleanup Items and when or where (or even "IF"?) they should be run: but IF the AF flight had run the Fire / Severe Damage drill and IF they had run the Cleanup Items soon afterwards, then their situation would not have been so dire.

No critisism of anyone intended (AF crew or forum posters), it's all such a long time ago now, but the nuances involved in Precautionary Shutdown / Fire - Severe Damage / Cleanup Drills were far from clear-cut...

[M2dude]

NW1

I do remember there was always controversy in training circles about the Cleanup Items and when or where (or even "IF"?) they should be run: but IF the AF flight had run the Fire / Severe Damage drill and IF they had run the Cleanup Items soon afterwards, then their situation would not have been so dire.

I do remember well that the AF incident was as a result of severe vibration, that was what I was (not very elequently) eluding to in my previous post. The engine shut down was due to these vibrations, not because of any fuel loss. According to Rolls Royce the fuel pipe fracture ended up being as a result of an engine build failure, on the part of the AF sub-contractors. However my 'eyes closed' comment still holds here I'm afraid, it's basic situational awareness folks. And I'm not jumping to any conclusions here , I helped investigate the first of the serious errors (the experimental c/b tripping/overfuel surge incident) when I was still at British Aerospace in early 1977 and learned long ago to get my facts straight as far as possible in these things.
As a grotty old engineer I tend to lack the subtlety and diplomatic skills of you guys, but this coming at the end of such a long catalogue of gross errors, this possibly last straw in the life of Concorde was in my view also the very last straw in terms of these serious procedural failures too.
There are so many events in Concorde's history that we would like to 'roll back the clock' on, but this extremely pivotal one has to be just about at the top of a very big pile (save of course for the Gonesse tragedy).

Dude

[NW1]

Sorry M2Dude, but although I agree that the reasons for the premature withdrawal from service lay south of La Manche, the AF incident we're talking about was not due to "forgetting to select the LP cock to shutoff" in your quote
<<What was required in the case of this failure was a precautionary engine shut-down, closing off the fuel supply to the engine totally, and a descent/deceleration to subsonic speed, carefully monitoring fuel consumption all the time. Unfortunately the crew 'forgot' to shut down the fuel LP valve>>
At that time the Precautionary Engine Shutdown C/L did not call for the LP cock to be selected to shutoff (that stable door was subsequently closed). So no procedural errors there.

You could argue that the severe vibration which kicked off the incident should have called for the Engine Fire / Severe Damage C/L in which case the Cleanup C/L would have seen the LP Cock closed - but when? And was this the drill called? IF the Precautionary Shutdown drill was used then it is not surprising that the LP cock was not closed. That's all.

Easy when looked at through a retrospectoscope....

And for what it's worth I think AM and CF were a pair of [edited to say: "allegedly not supportive of the Concorde operation"] who should not have been allowed any authority at all over this precious project....

[M2dude]

NW1
I agree that my wording regarding precautionary engine shut-down was not quite correct my friend ; with WW3 going on out there under the wing I think we can both agree that that check list ddi not in any shape or form cover the events ensuing.
And as for the AM/CF dynamic duo; I could not agree more; these two wankers/toss-pots/cretins etc (being a gentleman forbids me from printing here my real thoughts on these veritable slime buckets) I would not place them in charge of a broken down manure truck.. One had the avowed aim of destroying Concorde and the other, in a position to do some good did his master's bidding and was party in no small way to this madness. Pity 'skippy' did not have some balls too!!
Best Regards

Dude

[Feathers McGraw]

Hmm, Dude, don't hold back on what you think of them, tell it like it is!

[Pax-man]

I've been following this fantastic thread since day 1 - what a tremendous source of information and inspiration!

Was fortunate to have a look around G-BOAC in Manchester today, and she's being looked after extremely well. There are a few photos here if anybody would like to take a look... and I'm more than happy to share them so feel free to download if you wish.

MobileMe Gallery

Thanks for a truly fantastic thread, all!

[landlady]

Landlady returns from the land of the pirate

Hello again chaps and chapesses,

Having consumed enough rum punch to ensure that the guys at the Mount Gay distillery in Barbados stay in business for a long while yet, I was very pleased to return from holiday to see the thread still going and of course, still very interesting.

The photos from pax-man, (thank you!), brought back my own memories of AC, for that was the Concorde on which I did a round-the-world trip in 1988 with the lovely Captain Jeremy Rendell at the controls.

They also reminded me - since she is at Manchester - of taking her up to Ringway a few times when BA would surprise shuttle pax by putting a Concorde on the route as a last minute a/c change.... sheer delight and 100 Concorde grins every time! I sat on the f/d a couple of times going in to Manchester as I am a northern lass and began my flying career there, so the place holds a lot of fond memories for me. On the approach, you could see cars parked everywhere, all the roads and motorways jammed with spectators. It seemed like the whole of the north of England were there to welcome her in.

I realise that I did promise - a while ago now - a bit more information with regard to the RTW trips, so I am off to dig out some old diaries in the hope that I can relate some yarns for you all.

Whilst in BGI I was offered the opportunity to see Connie in the special hangar which they have for her over there, but I simply didn't have time this trip. Maybe I am putting it off... I know that it will be a very emotional experience to touch the galley tops again.... I am back in Barbados again next March, so I will go then..... although I know I will be crying when I have to say goodbye to her.

Happy to be back on line (I don't go in for all this keeping up with forums/facebook/e-mails whilst on holiday!) and happy to answer any cabin-related questions you may have.

Warm regards,
LL x

[davydine]

Thanks for this amazing thread

Hi All, just wanted to say thank you to everyone that has posted in this thread. I am just humble SLF with a little bit of gliding experience who never had the privilige of flying on Concorde and only ever saw her flying once (in the seventies I saw her take off from Heathrow when she was painted in BA and SIA colours... I was very young!) Thank you all for sharing your passion with us all and keeping this thread so gripping.

I did once meet a Concorde Pilot, it was in about 2003 shortly after the end of her service had been announced. It was on a motorboat somewhere in the solent (Bembridge on the isle of Wight springs to mind) and he politely listened to me rabbit on about my gliding experience and my hopes to get an NPPL one day (Still haven't managed!) I knew that he was a pilot and when I asked what he flew he just quietly said, "Concorde". I nearly fell of my perch. Anyway a couple of minutes later I acidentally spilled a glass of wine down his trousers and I have never forgotten it - my wife tells me it was deliberate because i was jealous! It wasn't I promise. Anyway, sorry for waffling on, but if that pilot is one of the contributors here - I really am sorry about spilling that drink!

Thanks again for an amazing thread
D

[forget]

I knew that he was a pilot and when I asked what he flew he just quietly said, "Concorde".

You obviously weren't listening when he introduced himself.

(It's a joke guys - a joke.)

[Feathers McGraw]

I'm sure there are plenty of self-effacing pilots, but maybe they don't post on PPRuNe....

And they're not from Yorkshire.... (that's a joke as well )

[ChristiaanJ]

Originally Posted by landlady

I know that it will be a very emotional experience to touch the galley tops again....

Landlady,
I know this will sadden you... but better forewarned than discovering it on the day, no?

When they set up the Barbados 'Concorde Experience' on G-BOAE, they decided it would work far better if people could move one way, from the back to the front, rather than continuously getting in each others way.
Now, the two little service doors in the rear galley are not really suited as entrances for the public.
You should know!
Hence the decision was made to remove the rear galley (which they undoubtely kept in storage somewhere, if not actually on display) and to have people enter through the rear baggage hold door, through the baggage hold, and from there into the rear cabin.
(Much the same was done on Delta Golf, the Concorde now at the Brooklands, Weybridge museum.)

So, the only galley tops will be those in the forward galley. Snif....

CJ

[Mike-Bracknell]

Originally Posted by landlady

They also reminded me - since she is at Manchester - of taking her up to Ringway a few times when BA would surprise shuttle pax by putting a Concorde on the route as a last minute a/c change.... sheer delight and 100 Concorde grins every time!

Welcome back Landlady

Here's a question for you - how often did they surprise shuttle pax with Concorde as a replacement?

...and for the rest of you, roughly how much in terms of fuel would a shuttle flight in Concorde cost BA versus say a B737 or A320?

(i.e. it was obviously done for PR sakes as much as anything, but was it really costly?)

[davydine]

I seem to remember a time when there had been a 737 related incident and all 737's were grounded or need some specific check to be done and Concorde was being used quite regularly. It might have been after the Manchester British Airtours disaster or possibly Kegworth... Apologies if this is wrong but it is in my mind from somewhere...

[Nick Thomas]

Flight Directors

I have read somewhere (could be on this thread) that Concorde's flight directors were only used in the climb above a certain altitude.
If that was the case, what was the reason? and was there a specific altitude above which the FDs would be used?
I presume that on the descent they could be used all the way down to the landing as they would be linked to the ILS.
Regards
Nick

[EXWOK]

They weren't used for take off because there was no relevant mode. The initial climb was to hold 250kts after takeoff until a predetermined time for noise abatement (a little over a minute ex-LHR, less ex-JFK) and then start to accelerate after the NA thrust reduction.

It was a balancing act and different for each departure - the RoC actually went up the faster you went so you were easing up, maximising the acceleration, while ensuring you (just) made the SID alt requirements.

So, apart from a few seconds holding 250kts, there really wasn't a mode that would work in pitch; you would have to take vert speed and be constantly asking the NHP to select different VS's and HDGs and they had quite enough to do already. No benefit, so don't use it.

Once you'd got to Vmo during the SID (it was 400kts at that point) you could use Max Climb mode (see earlier discussions) and that was generally when the FD was engaged.

It was permissable to engage the AP at an early stage, in which case HDG mode and Pitch Hold would be used, but it was more effort than hand-flying, less accurate and less fun so that was a rare event.

On approach, if an ILS was being flown, you are correct that the FD could be used, although for a typical approach it needed to be off at 300'. This was because wherever possible we flew a 'Reduced Noise Approach' (again, see earlier comments) which consisted of holding 190kts to 800' then reducing to final speed to be stable by 300'. AP/FD had to out by 300' in this case, owing to the very tight pitch control required for which it wasn't certificated (although it could carry out a very good coupled approach and landing if given a more stable approach).

In summary - a very 'hands-on' aeroplane. And all the better for it