Concorde Paris crash, questions, facts, opinions
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Deep South, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJ
"let's not forget the judicial enquiry had less to do with establishing the most probably cause"
I take your point
It would be interesting to hear where you differ from the official report in terms of probability
I take your point
It would be interesting to hear where you differ from the official report in terms of probability
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Sorry it's again in french (Concorde oblige .. lol)
Interesting third party complete analyse (with some graphics)
Crash du Concorde: la loi de Murphy
Sorry it's again in french (Concorde oblige .. lol)
Interesting third party complete analyse (with some graphics)
Crash du Concorde: la loi de Murphy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-BTSC
Sorry, if it has been posted before!
Sorry, if it has been posted before!
It's probably been posted dozens of times before, but not in this thread, so thanks !
I intended to look it up again myself to have the link at hand.
CJ
questions...questions...all very sad!
Lots of questions, sorry...
Any truth in the story that the runway was resurfaced shortly after the crash?
All possible clues, ie scrape or tire marks on the runway were thus covered up?
Also was an AF747 with a very important French Politician on board on a taxiway waiting to cross the runway & saw the Concorde coming its way?
Any truth in the story that the runway was resurfaced shortly after the crash?
All possible clues, ie scrape or tire marks on the runway were thus covered up?
Also was an AF747 with a very important French Politician on board on a taxiway waiting to cross the runway & saw the Concorde coming its way?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problem in my case....
Interesting, yes, and well written. unfortunately not signed by anybody, which is no problem in itself, but it makes it difficult to judge the 'expertise' of the person writing the blog.
CJ
Interesting third party complete analyse (with some graphics)
Crash du Concorde: la loi de Murphy
Crash du Concorde: la loi de Murphy
CJ
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need for apologies, that's what this thread is for.
Quite likely, to repair some of the damage.
Forget the conspiracy theories.... All scrapes and tyre marks were recorded in great detail very shortly after the accident (check the BEA report). After that, the runway was back in use, so most marks would have been obliterated by other take-offs and landings soon afterwards, anyway.
Yes.
The "very important French Politician" was the French president, Jacques Chirac.
Also, IIRC, there are a few snatches of video and some photos taken by passengers of that 747, that were helpful for the investigation. None were spectacular enough to make it into the press, it ssems.
CJ
Any truth in the story that the runway was resurfaced shortly after the crash?
All possible clues, ie scrape or tire marks on the runway were thus covered up?
Also was an AF747 with a very important French Politician on board on a taxiway waiting to cross the runway & saw the Concorde coming its way?
The "very important French Politician" was the French president, Jacques Chirac.
Also, IIRC, there are a few snatches of video and some photos taken by passengers of that 747, that were helpful for the investigation. None were spectacular enough to make it into the press, it ssems.
CJ
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
CH ... so maybe Cornus Henri ??
Crash du Concorde: Documentation
but it makes it difficult to judge the 'expertise' of the person writing the blog.
Crash du Concorde: Documentation
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The video shows the plane on fire before rotation. > the crew decided to continue the flight > The plane was too heavy > couldn't fly on the remaining engines > crashed.
It's not rocket science....
It's a tragedy for the passengers and their families. It's a tragedy for the pilots...in that we will be stuck flying subsonic planes for the near future because everyone is too stupid to put decent pilots in the seats up front...
So instead of making faster planes, let's just continue making planes that go that same speed, but go farther, and add more automation so that we can stuff the front seats with less qualified pilots...
Yep...now that's really moving forward....
It's not rocket science....
It's a tragedy for the passengers and their families. It's a tragedy for the pilots...in that we will be stuck flying subsonic planes for the near future because everyone is too stupid to put decent pilots in the seats up front...
So instead of making faster planes, let's just continue making planes that go that same speed, but go farther, and add more automation so that we can stuff the front seats with less qualified pilots...
Yep...now that's really moving forward....
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The video shows the plane on fire before rotation. > the crew decided to continue the flight > The plane was too heavy > couldn't fly on the remaining engines > crashed.
It's not rocket science....
It's a tragedy for the passengers and their families. It's a tragedy for the pilots...in that we will be stuck flying subsonic planes for the near future because everyone is too stupid to put decent pilots in the seats up front...
It's not rocket science....
It's a tragedy for the passengers and their families. It's a tragedy for the pilots...in that we will be stuck flying subsonic planes for the near future because everyone is too stupid to put decent pilots in the seats up front...
Had they rejected they would have gone off the end doing some 100 kts, with a plane that was already on fire, with nothing but grass to brake on and with the cargo village at the other end. It is extremely unlikely that anyone onboard would have survived the reject.
This was not a human error or human factors accident, but one of those rare purely technical events. The crash happened because a mechanism existed by which a tyre failure after V1 could render the plane unable to fly at a stage where it was too late to safely reject, leaving no sure options to avoid a disaster, and because FOD triggered that mechanism.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was not a human error or human factors accident
The mind boggles.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ex Cargo Clown,
None of the items you mention was at the origin of the chain of events.
Some if not all had an effect on the sequence of events after the fire started.
But at that point the aircraft was doomed, even if none of the factors you mention had come into play.
CJ
None of the items you mention was at the origin of the chain of events.
Some if not all had an effect on the sequence of events after the fire started.
But at that point the aircraft was doomed, even if none of the factors you mention had come into play.
CJ
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the BEA report - numerous pieces of aircraft were found between the end of the runway and the crash site, including; access panels, fuel tank fragments, tail cone structural parts and anti-collision light, ducting, hydraulic lines and shut-off valves, and parts of the left wing and fuselage structure. Many of these parts were damaged by fire.
Put simply, as ChristiannJ says, the aircraft was doomed from the moment an uncontrolled fire broke out. It is highly questionable whether they could ever have made it to Le Bourget – regardless of the number of functioning engines or the position of the landing gear.
Put simply, as ChristiannJ says, the aircraft was doomed from the moment an uncontrolled fire broke out. It is highly questionable whether they could ever have made it to Le Bourget – regardless of the number of functioning engines or the position of the landing gear.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: reading uk
Age: 77
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
downwind concord
Well, as a flight deck visitor (air traffic controller, ppl) I remember we took off from Washington with a 5 knt tailwind component. Used every inch of the runway !!
The bigger problem was retraction of the gear with extremely high brake temperatures. After V2 we dropped the gear again to cool off the brakes.
Dave
The bigger problem was retraction of the gear with extremely high brake temperatures. After V2 we dropped the gear again to cool off the brakes.
Dave
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was a technical marvel but a total commercial failure. Why?
Many in the TV series said if the crash did not happen that the Concordes would still be flying today. I'm not sure on this one.
- Sonic booms cannot be tolerated over land, so the flights were largely restricted to oceans
- The range was limited to shorter routes such as crossing the Atlantic
- Fuel useage is very high compared with sub-sonic flights
- Maintenance costs were very high
Many in the TV series said if the crash did not happen that the Concordes would still be flying today. I'm not sure on this one.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robert,
This thread is meant to talk about the Concorde crash, not to kick in open doors. Please ?
Well .... what do you expect from a "TV series" ?
If the crash hadn't happened, BA and AF wouldn't have needed to do the 'return-to-service' modifications.
That's all.
The rest of the world would have gone on turning, "9/11", SARS, the Iraq war, the economic crisis, etc. would still have happened, and the reasons for ending the service in 2003 would have been unxchanged.
In an alternative universe, with the same or a better economy as in 2000, Concorde would have remained in service.
We were looking at keeping Concorde flying until about 2010 or maybe even 2013....
There were no technical obstacles that could not have been overcome.
CJ
This thread is meant to talk about the Concorde crash, not to kick in open doors. Please ?
Many in the TV series said if the crash did not happen that the Concordes would still be flying today. I'm not sure on this one.
If the crash hadn't happened, BA and AF wouldn't have needed to do the 'return-to-service' modifications.
That's all.
The rest of the world would have gone on turning, "9/11", SARS, the Iraq war, the economic crisis, etc. would still have happened, and the reasons for ending the service in 2003 would have been unxchanged.
In an alternative universe, with the same or a better economy as in 2000, Concorde would have remained in service.
We were looking at keeping Concorde flying until about 2010 or maybe even 2013....
There were no technical obstacles that could not have been overcome.
CJ
Bjornhall
I agree with the tone of your post above.
However I'm not sure that I agree with you that the fire would have been catastrophic to the ability to land.
The flames were certainly spectacular but it appears to me that the fire was entirely outside the structural interior and streaming in the slipstream.
I haven't seen any photos of the immediate area in the fire plume to tell if there is any metalization beyond the obvious post ground fire. If this was mentioned in the BEA report it would be significant, else to me the major issue was the shutdown of two engines.
I agree with the tone of your post above.
However I'm not sure that I agree with you that the fire would have been catastrophic to the ability to land.
The flames were certainly spectacular but it appears to me that the fire was entirely outside the structural interior and streaming in the slipstream.
I haven't seen any photos of the immediate area in the fire plume to tell if there is any metalization beyond the obvious post ground fire. If this was mentioned in the BEA report it would be significant, else to me the major issue was the shutdown of two engines.
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They shut down the no. 2 engine only. The no. 1 lost thrust due to multiple surges, due most likely to ingestion of hot gases and/or tyre debris, and/or pieces of aircraft structure. Even if no. 2 had not been shut down, it is not unreasonable to surmise that it would have continued to suffer similar surging and loss of thrust to the no. 1.
Once again, and quoting directly from the BEA report:
"In any event, even if all four engines had been operating, the serious damage caused by the intensity of the fire to the structure of the wing and to some of the flight controls would have led to the rapid loss of the aircraft."
Once again, and quoting directly from the BEA report:
"In any event, even if all four engines had been operating, the serious damage caused by the intensity of the fire to the structure of the wing and to some of the flight controls would have led to the rapid loss of the aircraft."