That said, I would have had no more hesitation boarding one than any other commercial aircraft. Fatal events are so uncommon and so unlikely and almost always the result of a complex chain of unpredictable events. The chances of one affecting you personally are slim to say the least. Plus, Concorde has/had the virtue of truly top-flight flight crews, maintenance programs and personnel.
New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
Sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5088 posts, RR: 28 Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3155 times:
Perfect record - apart from a bit of debris left on the runway by another carrier!
Concorde was (and still is) a technological masterpiece, and the successful operation of the aircraft in revenue service by BA and AF (and Braniff International) is a testament to the aircrafts generally good design.
But to attribute the AF crash to "runway debris" is nonsense.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
GoldenTale737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3055 times:
Username: Carduelis:....and I quote:
"Perfect record - apart from a bit of debris left on the runway by another carrier!"
Well, at least you know your English. Congrats on getting through that sentence without a grammatical nightmare. On a side note -- The Concorde does not and never will have a perfect record. You need to say that over and over. There was a design flaw in the airplane.....There was a design flaw in the airplane.
I don't care what kind of crap was littered on the runway, that accident should never have happened. Let me ask you something. What kind of things were done after the acciedent to get Concorde back into the air? Did they redesign all OTHER airplanes to ensure that parts NEVER fall off??? or did they make, in part, the fuel tanks in the wings of the Concorde a little less vulnerable?
I understand that you are passionate about your Condorde, but come on. Why blame the other guy? Please tell me you don't see this as entirely someone else's fault?
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11350 posts, RR: 50 Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2933 times:
Well IMHO, in terms of safety, it was a bit of a nightmare. The AF crash was not the first time a burst tyre punctured the wing. Bits were always falling off - especially round the tail and rudder if I'm not mistaken. That there was only one fatal crash is probably down to luck as much as judgment.
It was though, the only plane that absolutely 'forced' people to watch it as it flew overhead.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2818 times:
you would not have crashed on it unless you happened to be on that one flight
That couldnt be further from the truth
As much as I love Concorde, she was (in her past state) one enormous disaster waiting for a time to happen.... and that time was July 25, 2000
Have a look at F-BVFC's wing* in 1979, two decades before the crash:
Two tires blew into the wing and tore it, it's hydraulic lines, and its circuitry to shreds. Fuel streamed out in gushes... only by the grace of God did the wires/thrust not ignite it, and bring about the end of supersonic flight twentyfour years before its time
VS340 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2709 times:
Perfect record - apart from a bit of debris left on the runway by another carrier!
Fair enough, if they hadn't run over that piece of metal then they wouldn't have crashed.
However if the wing hadn't been so susceptible damage, as it was, then they wouldn't have crashed.
And if AF maintenance had properly installed the seperator in the left main landing gear after the last maintenance check, then the aircraft wouldn't have so easily veered off the runway causing an abnormally slow take off which thus caused the aircraft to become extremely difficult to control. If this hadn't happened then they probably wouldn't have crashed.
And if the ground crews had properly loaded the plane and not overloaded it like they had, then you wouldn't have a second factor contributing to the abnormally slow takeoff, and then the plane probably wouldnt have crashed.
And if the flight engineer hadn't shut down the number 2 engine then they may have had enough power to pull out and they probably wouldn't have crashed.
There were numerous factors that led to the crash of F-BTSC. The piece of metal that came off of the CO DC-10 was simply "the straw that broke the camels back". This was an accident waiting to happen and AF is as much to blame for this as CO is for leaving the piece of metal on the runway and Aerospatiale's design flaw in the wing.
FLYSSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7312 posts, RR: 61 Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2707 times:
Tyres have always been a problem for Concorde, from the very begening, especially because of the high speed of Concorde during the T-O roll (most of the incident occured during T-O ) AF and BA changed the manufacturer of Concorde tyres during the 80's from Dunlop to GoodYear but the problem was never really solved until 2001 after AF crash, with the new Michelin NZG tyre.
All aircraft burst typres. It is true that it was something more frequent on Concorde, but no one could imagine that it could have these terrible consequencies on F-BTSC in July 2000, even if a similar incident occured in IAD in 1979, on Air France F-BVFC.
B2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1350 posts, RR: 60 Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2584 times:
I wouldn't say Concorde was ever "unsafe," but as ConcordeBoy points out, the tire issue was a serious design flaw not truly corrected until after AF4590. Pictures such as the one above show that a frightening degree of damage could be and was inflicted by bursting tires, and it's a little disconcerting if the good people at BAe and Aerospatiale could not imagine a major incident resulting from such damage. Continental was negligent with their faulty repair work, but past tire busts showed that Concorde didn't need runway debris to get into trouble. All aircraft, especially one so revolutionary, have design problems; it's just that this particular problem should have been fixed years before the crash.
Despite the highly inaccurate and sensationalistic Discovery "Anatomy of a Disaster" program, which apparently did not consider that simultaneous loss of two engines on one side of the aircraft could case a yaw, the official report concluded the spacer absence and slightly overweight takeoff condition did not materially affect the results of the accident. The report states "In theory, the absence of the spacer could have instigated an asymmetrical trajectory, tyre overheating, and slower acceleration than normal. Study of the marks on the runway as well as calculations of the trajectory and accleration made on the basis of the data from the flight recorders show that this was not the case" (18.104.22.168). Several evidentiary facts are presented, including that the aircraft stayed on the runway centerline until after the tire burst and thrust loss. Absence of the spacer constituted negligence on the part of AF maintenance, but it did not contribute to the crash.
At maximum gross weight (408,000 lbs.), V1=139-162 kt (150 kt was selected), Vr=199 kt, and V2=220 kt. The report found that "For all these values, the influence of an increase in weight of one ton was examined and found to be negligible." In any case, Vzrc with two engines out and gear extended was more than 300 knots; with three good engines, it was 205 kts. Given the condition of the aircraft, with one failed engine and one intermittant engine and the gear stuck down, there was no way stable flight could have been maintained.
They key factors were loss of thrust due to FOD and hot gas ingestion and damage to control surfaces and airframe components due to fire. Even if engine two had not been shut down, the aircraft probably would have been lost because it become uncontrollable.
FLYSSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7312 posts, RR: 61 Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2570 times:
I've been flying Concorde for years until July 25th 2000.
My last flight on duty on Concorde was AF001 JFK-CDG on F-BTSC, on July 22nd 2000.
On July 25th 2000 I greet the Crew of F-BTSC leaving AF Building to go to prepare the plane for their flight. Of course I knew all of them (we were only 90 Flight Attendant to work on Concorde).Some of them were good friends.
Concorde is a passion. I love Concorde more than anybody else on this forum. Concorde brought me the biggest happiness and pride in my career, but also the biggest sorrow and pain.
But my love is not blind. And it is not insulting anybody to say that Concorde was not perfect, and always had recurrent problems with tyres, and engines, though Concorde was a safe plane.
Concerning the Concorde crash, please, stop with all these insane rumors, hidden proof, delirious scenarii, putting the blame on this, or that, just because it seems too simple that a piece a metal, lost by a DC10 could cause such a disaster.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2513 times:
a piece a metal, lost by a DC10 could cause such a disaster
...when combined with: a tailwind, missing spacer, roughly paved runway, premature/drifting rotation, and a plane nearly 2tons overweight attempting to climb out on three engines while a fire is melting its airfoil-- of course
FLYSSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7312 posts, RR: 61 Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2454 times:
- Roughly paved runway ??? : Where did you get that !? Hey, I know we are the "old Europe" but CDG is one of the busiest airport in the world and its runways are certainly in better conditions than many "BIG" US hubs ...
All the rest are exactly the kind of "sensational" but also insane and defamatory arguments people just keep on mentioning all the time, without bringing up any new proof...
Just like the "missile" that destroyed TWA B747, or the "assassination" of this poor Lady Diana...
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2398 times:
Roughly paved runway ??? : Where did you get that !?
just found it interesting how 26R was initially labled as not in need of resurfacing... only to be promptly resurfaced once the first two (unofficial) independent releases claiming that the tire blew before FOD contact were released
its runways are certainly in better conditions than many "BIG" US hubs
why said they weren't?
insane and defamatory arguments people just keep on mentioning all the time
...all of which also happen to be in BEA's final report
VS340 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2365 times:
Concerning the Concorde crash, please, stop with all these insane rumors, hidden proof, delirious scenarii, putting the blame on this, or that, just because it seems too simple that a piece a metal, lost by a DC10 could cause such a disaster
As with most all accidents there are a number of factors that lead up to the end result. Accidents are rarely the result of a single incident, but rather the result of numerous incidents falling into a chain of events which eventually lead up to the catastrophic final one. It is foolish to believe that a single incident was the one and only reason for the demise of an aircraft. All parties responsible for any occurence relating to a final catastrophic incident, no matter how minor they may seem, must be investigated, and those who, in some way, contributed, must be held responsible. Wether the accident results from several poor decisions by FO's, to shotty maintenance practices or any number of other possiblities, you would be hard pressed to find any accident that didn't involve more than one mistake being made. Concorde was no different.
VS340 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2343 times:
In defense of ConcordeBoy's statement, I refer you to my earlier post where i placed a link to the BEA report which mentioned all of these findings in its investigation. If you don't feel like going back to look, here it is again.