Lordg From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 31 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5202 times:
I read in yesterday's times and is now on the BBC w.site (vid) http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/u...s&mediaformat=bb_wm_&start=&order= that AF is maintaining their concordes for airworthiness, wheras BA arn't, as it will be near impossibile since all the hydrolics were drained and elctrics dissconnected after retirement.
is there any good reason for disabling it, even if they wouldn't have been able to give it the necc. attn it needs perhaps one day in the future somone somwhere would've wanted to finance such a proj.?
Let's see... One crashed, the other one never did...
Perhaps Air France should have looked after their Concordes more when they were in service (like installing the upgrades and safety measures that BA did) and less now that AIRBUS has said they are no longer provide parts and support to keep Concorde flying.
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6873 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4756 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 5): Yes... they'll never fly again, so why spend the money to keep it airworthy. Sorry dreamers... the Concorde is grounded.
For now There are numerous classic old planes out there still flying. From countless DC-3's, to a few Lockeed Constellations, to John Travolta's 707. No reason to think the Concord won't be flying in some air show sometime in the future.
Jdevora From Spain, joined Aug 2006, 350 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4679 times:
Quoting AlanUK (Reply 6): Perhaps Air France should have looked after their Concordes more when they were in service (like installing the upgrades and safety measures that BA did)
My understanding was that those upgrades came out as consequence of the crash
FlySSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7313 posts, RR: 61 Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4562 times:
Quoting AlanUK (Reply 9): Some of the safety upgrades that BA did (like the metallic bar attached to the front of the undercarriage) came before the AF crash.
And what is that ? a BA Concorde in the AF livery ?
AlanUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4536 times:
Quoting FlySSC (Reply 10): And what is that ? a BA Concorde in the AF livery ?
And the photographer rightly quotes:
"Investigations tend to prove that the culprit of the disaster on July 25, 2000, could be an alien piece of metal which made the tyres burst and broke the deflector just in front of the wheels, and not the engine as once considered. It seems British Airways installed stronger deflectors, do they actually look very different?"
It's not just the deflector I was referer to, the final enquiry of the AF Concorde crash was very much damaging for Air France maintenance, and overall practise (overweight loading, wrong procedures...).
Extract:
"French investigators have issued their final report into the causes of the July 2000 Concorde air disaster, reaffirming their previous conclusions that the crash was triggered by a burst tyre.
The full text of the findings by the BEA aviation security body also noted various failings by Concorde operator Air France, while stressing these were not related to the crash.
The BEA noted "several dysfunctions" in Air France's operation of the aircraft, "for example the use of certain outdated data in the initial phase of flight preparation and incomplete baggage handling".
After a meticulous investigation, BEA said it had identified shortcomings in baggage handling, a failure to archive certain documents and a conflict between take-off emergency procedures as outlined in Concorde's flight manual and Air France's own operations guide.
It noted that in some of Concorde's systems and equipment ''the rate of malfunction was greater than current rates on other aircraft.''
A component in the doomed plane's landing gear had not been replaced after a check carried out between July 17-21, 2000, revealing ``a failure to respect established procedures and the non-use of appropriate tools.''
As a result, BEA recommended regulations should be reviewed and, if necessary, tightened and that France's air industry regulator DGAC should carry out an audit of the state of flight and maintenance operations at Air France.
It said anomalies in safety procedure should be ironed out and that Air France's Concordes, which automatically monitor their engines every four seconds, should be upgraded to make the checks every second, as British Airways' Concordes do."
FlySSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7313 posts, RR: 61 Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4496 times:
Quoting AlanUK (Reply 11): It seems British Airways installed stronger deflectors, do they actually look very different?"
They don't look different because they were the same.
All the rest you mention is already known, well known, was discused endeless 10.000 times and has nothing to do with this topic.
What are looking for ? bashing again Air France ?
There is a new topic almost every week on this forum where you could practice your favourite "sport".
Falstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 5671 posts, RR: 29 Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4394 times:
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 7): For now There are numerous classic old planes out there still flying. From countless DC-3's, to a few Lockeed Constellations, to John Travolta's 707.
A DC-3 is a lot easier and cheaper to maintain than a Concorde. JT's 707 may be a classic, but there are still 707s and their Air force brothers, out there still earning a living. Boeing still supports them too.
If you want to talk classics you can't forget the gobs of DC-8s and 9s out there too.
I would like to see a Concorde fly again too, I think it is a long shot, but you never know.
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9213 posts, RR: 42 Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4315 times:
Quoting FlySSC (Reply 12): All the rest you mention is already known, well known, was discused endeless 10.000 times and has nothing to do with this topic.
Very true. I don't think the spray deflectors played any part in the accident. The whole thing was extremely unusual and not as predictable as many think.
Quoting FlySSC (Reply 12):
They don't look different because they were the same.
Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure BA fitted reinforcements before the accident and before AF did. However, as mentioned that didn't contribute to the crash.
AF Cabin Crew From French Polynesia, joined Sep 1999, 1036 posts, RR: 38 Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4291 times:
Ia Orana All !
Falstaff, Braniff never flew the Concorde in its colour or owned one.
They used Air France and British Airways Concordes on IAD-DFW flights using Braniff crews on the european airlines aircraft. Upon return to Washington, the BA or AF crew took over to take the aircraft home.
You can check all of this here http://www.braniffinternational.org/aircraft/concorde.htm
And as you can read, the Concorde never wore the Braniff livery. Only Air France, British Airways and Singapore Airlines liveries graced that stunning plane plus the Pepsi add aircraft !
Tmatt95 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 489 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4234 times:
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 7): Quoting EMBQA (Reply 5):
Yes... they'll never fly again, so why spend the money to keep it airworthy. Sorry dreamers... the Concorde is grounded.
For now Smile There are numerous classic old planes out there still flying. From countless DC-3's, to a few Lockheed Constellations, to John Travolta's 707. No reason to think the Concord won't be flying in some air show sometime in the future.
I agree with EMBQA. Without dreams, nothing will ever be done. Concorde will only ever be sentenced to sitting on the ground when, everyone gets the no go mindset. I think it should be given a shot. Better to have tried and failed, than never tried at all,
Matt
TheCheese From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 172 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4001 times:
Largely, the reasoning behind the draining and removal of some of the hydraulic and electrical systems was to prevent these systems from deteriorating uncontrollably while the airframes are on display.
Over time, the hydraulic fluid that has pooled in lines, reservoirs and actuators as well as the volatile chemicals in some electrical components (things that are checked regularly with standard maintenance) will decompose, and cause further damage if not isolated.
Removing these components will assure that they won't damage the structure of the plane over time, while Concorde is on display.
The reality is, by removing components of these systems from the preserved aircraft, the likelihood that they could be returned to flying condition sometime in the future becomes greater.
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3978 times:
Quoting AlanUK (Reply 11): while stressing these were not related to the crash.
You defeat your own argument. What is your motive in posting slabs of off topic criticism of AF, which you yourself state is "not related to the crash"?
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
Legoguy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 3301 posts, RR: 44 Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3906 times:
Quoting AlanUK (Reply 9): Some of the safety upgrades that BA did (like the metallic bar attached to the front of the undercarriage) came before the AF crash.
IIRC the Air France mechanics forgot to install the metallic bar after doing maintence to the left rear under carriage, thus causing the plane to move to the left side of the runway during take off. However, as mentioned, has been discussed many times.
I would love to see this aircraft flying once again and I honestly believe we will see it in the air, even if it is just for one more time.
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9213 posts, RR: 42 Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3858 times:
Quoting Legoguy (Reply 20): IIRC the Air France mechanics forgot to install the metallic bar after doing maintence to the left rear under carriage
It was a spacer rather than anything to do with the spray deflector. It caused some wobble in the gear but others more qualified than I am don't seem to be convinced it played a major part, either. The bottom line is that a huge, 2m section of tyre smashed up against the underside of the wing, causing a shockwave that ruptured the fuel tank from within.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12707 posts, RR: 80 Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3804 times:
The AF aircraft concerned, has been decommissioned, but not in the same way as BA aircraft.
So there are certain hydraulic functions still operable.
But, it's 213, in the rather wonderful museum at Orly-still a grounded museum exhibit.
Not to fly again-no manufactuer support, no C of A.
The media have, not for the first time, added two and two and got 10.
VC10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1381 posts, RR: 17 Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3779 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 19): M-O-N-E-Y.....!! The Concorde burns more fuel in its take off roll then John Travlota's 707 does in a cross country flight.
I am not sure about your comparison but to give you some figures then :-
Normal taxi fuel----------------1400kgs
T/off fuel @ 22500kgs per hour per engine until noise throttling that comes to
90000kgs divided by 60 [as noise abatment was about 1 minute]
is----------------------------1500kgs
so roughly 3000kgs just to get to noise abatement throttling point
I remember watching a programme where they claimed that without the spacer, there was a wobble like you mentioned, causing it to move slightly left of the centerline and straight into the piece of metal. Some people believe that had the spacer been installed, the aircraft would have remained on top of the centre line, missing the piece of metal.
However every programme I watched came up with near different storylines up to the piece piercing the wing. I still remember the day I heard about the crash
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9213 posts, RR: 42 Reply 25, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3701 times:
Quoting Legoguy (Reply 24): without the spacer, there was a wobble like you mentioned, causing it to move slightly left of the centerline and straight into the piece of metal.
I thought it hit the titanium strip at a point where it might have hit it even if it wasn't being dragged to the left, i.e. not far from the centreline. I'll need to take another look... but not tonight.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 31 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From France, joined May 2001, 3667 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9286 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Spain, joined Aug 2006, 350 posts, 
From French Polynesia, joined Sep 1999, 1036 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
