This one is taken at Paris CDG, two months before a sistership crashed in Gonesse. What makes it special to me is the fact that there's a Continental DC-10 in the background. It was a strip of metal lost by this aircraft (maybe not exactly this particular one, but who knows) that later turned out to be the cause of the crash. And eventually set in the end of the the wonderful age of Concordes.
Maybe it's just me being melancholic, but I always find these kind of pics very interesting. In retrospect they capture much more than what's just seen by the eye.
What goes up, must come down. Let's hope the sky never went up.
Kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 14 Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13915 times:
Quoting Airforum (Thread starter): It was a strip of metal lost by this aircraft (maybe not exactly this particular one, but who knows) that later turned out to be the cause of the crash
I think 'a contributing factor' would be more accurate than 'the cause of the crash' - lots of a/c can take an FOD-caused tyreburst without crashing - from my understanding it wasn't so much the tyreburst that caused the crash , as the secondary damage that the tyreburst did to the wing/fuel tanks. A different a/c type would probably have run over the debris , burst a couple of tyres , carried on with an otherwise uneventful take off and come back for a safe landing which might have warranted no more than a couple of lines on page 27 of the newspaper ( and then only if it was a slow news day )
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
EGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1686 posts, RR: 14 Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13791 times:
Quoting EI747SYDNEY (Reply 2): Just like all those photos of aircraft flying past the World Trade Centre pre 9/11
Airforum From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 176 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13742 times:
Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 1): A different a/c type would probably have run over the debris , burst a couple of tyres , carried on with an otherwise uneventful take off and come back for a safe landing which might have warranted no more than a couple of lines on page 27 of the newspaper ( and then only if it was a slow news day )
Perhaps, but in this case it all started with that strip. I think it is safe to say that the Concorde wouldnt have crashed when the metal part wasnt lost by the CO plane.
Quoting EI747SYDNEY (Reply 2): Just like all those photos of aircraft flying past the World Trade Centre pre 9/11
Naah, that would be a little too sombre.
In the picture above you find the drama of time (two months before the crash) and the presence of the main characters (CO DC-10 and AF Concorde).
What goes up, must come down. Let's hope the sky never went up.
Kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13716 times:
Quoting Airforum (Reply 4): aps, but in this case it all started with that strip
or started with a poorly designed fuel tank that was unusually vulnerable to damage from a tyreburst , something which after all can be expected to happen from time to time .
Quoting Airforum (Reply 4): I think it is safe to say that the Concorde wouldnt have crashed when the metal part wasnt lost by the CO plane.
I think that it is also safe to say that an A330 or B747 or L-1011 or MD-11 or virtually any other large a/c wouldn't have crashed under the same set of circumstances .
edited to correct typo
[Edited 2005-12-09 12:34:01]
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
Jeffry747 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 961 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13446 times:
This one is interesting as well. Look closely at the pic and read the caption.
Airforum From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 176 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13281 times:
Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 5): think that it is also safe to say that an A330 or B747 or L-1011 or MD-11 or virtually any other large a/c wouldn't have crashed under the same set of circumstances .
Kiwi, I got your point. But I am not talking about 747s, A330s or Tristars. In this case it's about a Concorde. And it went down because of a strip of metal.
I am not saying that this strip would have caused any Boeing or Airbus aircraft to crash as well.
What goes up, must come down. Let's hope the sky never went up.
Kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 14 Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13244 times:
Quoting Airforum (Reply 11): In this case it's about a Concorde. And it went down because of a strip of metal.
yes , I agree that a strip of metal was one in a chain of factors ( a chain which stretches back to the design process way back in the '60s - a design flaw which was serious enough to have the type certificate withdrawn ) - my point is that the original poster said it was 'the cause' as if it was the only cause - on that basis you could equally say that the bomb scare which caused flights to be diverted was 'the cause' of the KL/PA Tenerife disaster because if that hadn't happened then neither would the collision.
[Edited 2005-12-09 15:53:26]
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
Access-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 15 Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 13142 times:
Actually,
Not for one minute do I believe that a strip of metal brought this plane down on its own....I believe the other finding that is being "hushed" and that is that the spacers were not put back in the offending wheel bogies and thereforre it caused the offending where to wobble itself into shrapnel and THAT is what helped to bring this plane down....
Have any of you had a tyre on your car unaligned? it kinda pulls to one side or the other. The resulting sweeping motion of the tyre across the pavement esp at high speeds not only pulls the car in the direction of that tyre but it also wears away the tyre and tread. Think of how fast it would take for that to happn at near the takeoff speed of the Concorde.
If on your car this situation was to be left unchecked you'd eventually have bald spots or the steel belts showing thru on your car tyre. I had a Ford Escourt that unknown to me came with a broken Ball joint in the front right wheel section and it made that front tyre wobble continually even tho the tyres were pefectly alighned. The result was a prematurely worn out tyre...
And yes it pulled my car over to the right all the time.....
Just maybe these "Spacers" in the Concorde's wheel bogie had just been forgotten. Maybe these tyres were for a change in short order. Whos to say how long this plane could have been flying around without the spacers. You would have to check the Pilots logs to see if the reported any pulling to the left like what happened to this plane on it takeoff run. Was this problem something started a couple flights before or was this flight the last in a chain of events, one that started as an undetectable problem that balloned into a major problem all at once?
If we go with the DC10 idea, I think you would also have to take alook at the location of the Main Bogie on the Concorde vs the position of the engine as it is hangs on the DC10's wing. You have to look at when and at what speed the Concorde's tyre started pulling the plane to the left and what made it do that and did the wobbling tyres actually pull the Concorde into the path of the DC10 metal which may have been the proverbial "needle" that popped the fatigued "balloon" ???
Had the Concorde NOT been pulled to the left and accelerated normally and ent straight down the runway would it even had hit the Offending DC10 metal???
Titanium or not I still dont believe that one peice of engine cowling cover could bring down such a plane all by itself with out some other contributing factors.
Does this make any sense?????
The only facts that I have on this were two apposing Television programs on why the Cocnorde crashed and the Spacer explanation or the lack of the spacers was more logical. Something prior to the Piece of metal had to bring a tyre of that strength to its knees in a few seconds and I dont think it was a strip of metal. The metal might have popped the already fatigued tyre but that would be all...
C680 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 531 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 13060 times:
Quoting Airforum (Thread starter): It was a strip of metal lost by this aircraft (maybe not exactly this particular one, but who knows) that later turned out to be the cause of the crash
French investigators started pointing the blame at CO very soon after the accident. There were even calls for the CO captian to be arrested for murder. From a French public relations and national image point of view, it was a good tactical maneuver. Questioning the FOD from the DC-10 early in the process inserted the thought in many minds that the "strip of metal" caused the Concorde crash.
What if the headlines had read: "Concorde Crashes - Faulty design unable to withstand minimal runway debris"
EGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1686 posts, RR: 14 Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12987 times:
Bit extreme, isn't it? I'm sure this is not the only crash due to FOD there's ever been. Media coverage was so immense just because it was Concorde.
I'll agree the modifications made ultimately meant she was a safer aircraft, but I don't believe she was unsafe to begin with. You can't forsee when you're designing an aircraft such an unfortunate CHAIN OF EVENTS that may bring her down, same as the WTC builders couldn't forsee TWO fully laden jet aircraft being flown at very high speed into the towers.
I think a lot of people were very quick to condemn a superlative aircraft after one very unfortunate incident. I think they were wrong to withdraw the CofA after the accident as the aircraft were perfectly flyable providing they were maintained properly (AF left out a spacer that should have been there). 24 years of service had already proved that. What should have happened is the changes should have been recommended at the next check of any kind on each aircraft. I firmly believe if that had happened, she might well still be flying.
Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12952 times:
Quoting Airforum (Reply 11): And it went down because of a strip of metal.
No, it went down because it's fuel tanks couldn't withstand a tire burst on takeoff, due to a faulty design. That, and the fact that shoddy maintenance on the landing gear caused the plane to veer severely off track on the takeoff roll, and hit the piece on the edge of the runway.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12713 posts, RR: 80 Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12927 times:
Access-Air, BS.
I saw all this at close hand, you are talking of what you clearly do not know.
(The curse of our age perhaps?)
The joint investigation by French AND UK authorities was open, detailed, intensive.
Guess what? The shape of the strip exactly matched damage on the tyre, molecular tests confirmed this. Explain that away then, think up something silly to account for it.
This is all in the public domain, why not check it out, instead of thinking up bizarre conspiracies?
(I think the onus should be on conspiracy nuts to do all the explaining, not the other away around).
Can you really give one sane, informed, reason why a cover would happen, just hate the French perhaps?
Well the UK authorities were fully involved too, as was industry on both sides of the channel, as BA was, including colleagues of mine, the FAA were also in the loop.
We knew it was the strip by Sept 2000, we also knew that it's inappropriate fabrication of titanium, not aluminum, was a very important factor, (a much harder material).
Leading to a type of type destruction (not burst), with much larger, heavier lumps of carcass, (the lethal one was 5 ft long), that had not been seen in over 40 years of military and civil jet aviation, this was researched and checked.
That rub strip had to be aluminum, as it was a part far more likely to come off than usual, due to it's role and position (part of the thrust reverser).
Also, I know of 2 727's lost to tyre bursts, a DC-8-60, a very near loss of a PA DC-10 in 1980, at LHR.
Plenty of threads on this here, some fairly recent, go search.
I've had enough of this most ill-informed, partisan, discussed subject on here, I saw enough of it in 2000-2001, every working day.
Devil505x From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 232 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12897 times:
Quoting Airforum (Reply 4): Perhaps, but in this case it all started with that strip. I think it is safe to say that the Concorde wouldnt have crashed when the metal part wasnt lost by the CO plane
Everybody's (in general terms) an expert. It amazes me that nobody saw this coming.
Dogfighter2111 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1968 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12868 times:
Actually, it wasn't the strip fo metal that 'caused' the crash. Let me explain:
The tyre burst BEFORE the aircraft hit the strip of metal, the aircraft started to veer off the runway and then the aircraft hit the strip of metal which caused part of the tyre to rip off an hit the fuel tank.
Whilst i am explaing, the main reason that the Captain lifted off the RWY too early was because there was a B744 carrying the French Prime Minister on the taxiway directly ahead of the flaming concorde. There are many pics taken from the B744 that shows it flying over her.
So, i think it really should be AF that are blamed for the tyre bursting. The tyre could've been replaced.
Anyway, when i saw this pic i immediatly thought that it was the AF Concorde that crashed and the DC-10 that left the strip of metal.
Amy From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 1150 posts, RR: 9 Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12830 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 17): I've had enough of this most ill-informed, partisan, discussed subject on here, I saw enough of it in 2000-2001, every working day.
Yet another example of a.netters thinking they know better than the air crash investigators and other officials working on the incident.
Fact of the matter is, like most aviation distasters, there was a sequence of events that led to the crash, and if any of them had been 'as they should have been' it wouldn't have happened.
Concorde is resting quietly. Please let the subject do the same.
Having said that, it is a poinient shot. Thanks for pointing it out Airforum.
CHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 63 Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12777 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 17): a very near loss of a PA DC-10 in 1980, at LHR.
GDB - would you mind telling us more about this incident? I'd love to hear about it.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
25 GDB: Chris, multi tyre bursts, fire, the A/C came very close to running off the end of the runway, this was an incident on take off. Dogfighter, sorry, but
26 EGTESkyGod: You were in Paris and saw Concorde in trouble? What went through your mind?
27 N328KF: Are you kidding? As a white elephant, the type was doomed from the start.
28 GDB: No, I was at LHR and saw the aftermath, the hunt for information, the effort to run the fleet under massive, largely ill-informed, media pressure, (th
29 GQfluffy: Negative Again, Negative. Copied from Richard's Link: "- failure in fueltank occured much further forward than the dent made by the tyre chunk - fail
30 Morvious: This is what I can remember of reports and television. Aircraft did run over the metal strip Tire exploded and damaged the wing and fuel tanks Leaking
31 Slider: I know it is safe to say that had the CDG airport authority conducted their runway inspection prior to departure as per Concorde SOP that it wouldn't
32 Dogfighter2111: Well, you never actually saw the incident happen where as there are people who did and have told me. My uncle used to be a firefighter in CDG at the
33 Stitch: There are few things more unreliable then an "eyewitness" according to many investigators. Especially days or weeks after the event they witnessed. I
34 RichardPrice: It wasnt SOP for a runway sweep before a Concorde take off for either AF or BA. The tyre fragments and the titanium strip matched up in both shape an
35 VC10: Morvious, Just a little correction to your posting, Now the engine might have been shut down earlier than was ideal, but as the aircraft was only airb
36 Joness0154: And how did your uncle know exactly when it hit the piece of metal, if he was not standing right by it? Saying the Concorde crashed because it hit the
37 TJCAB: Yes, what what started the series? The part was not supposed to be titanium. The part should never have fallen off. There should have been a FOB scan
38 RichardPrice: No, there shouldnt have. How many times does this have to be repeated?! Neither AF or BA required FOD scans before all Concorde departures until afte
39 Access-Air: You are right Im not an expert...but I felt I was just as qualified to say something as much as anyone else, based on the information I had at my dis
41 RichardPrice: GDB was a Concorde engineer with BA and was heavily involved in the aftermath of the crash at BA, including investigations into how susceptable the a
42 IAH744: i dont seem to remember that [i mean the plane, not whats near the tail]
43 GDB: With respect Access-Air, you are NOT informed on this at all, otherwise you would not have written that nonsense post. OK, not a nationalistic thing w
44 RichardPrice: Consider this, if you think there was a coverup - Air France had been wanting to retire their Concorde fleet for a number of years, it wasnt as operat
45 Jeffry747: http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/v...=9V-SPK&airline=Singapore+Airlines The details about the fate of SQ006 and B747-400 9V-SPK.
46 Aeroflot777: I don't get it. I understand that the plane was lost, but what "else" is lost in the photo? Something about the scenery? Pardon my ignorance... Aerof
47 RichardPrice: To the very left, just above the truck, you can make out the Twin Towers of the WTC. Tenuous link....
48 FlySSC: Wrong. Wrong again. The overall Concorde activity was profitable. The regular route CDG-JFK-CDG was profitable, though AF001 JFK-CDG never made money
49 Coa747: To say the titanium stip was the cause is not accurate. The strip from the CO DC-10 was a part of the accident sequence but it wasn't even the proxima
50 Dogfighter2111: No, it was just before the Fire Station. Before it hit the metal strip. And to all who disagree, think about this: Did YOU actaully go out and invest
51 GDB: The sequence of events was started by the strip, remedial action WAS taken after events in 1979-81, (to deny this is either through ignorance or lying
52 Access-Air: To Richard Price and GDB: My apologies for saying anything on this subject. I guess I over stepped my scope of knowledge by stating what I did..... Pl
53 GDB: No worries Access Air, I never take anything personally on here, I used harsh terms too, my only excuse is the repetition of this subject, I prefer to
54 Sevenforeseven: A silly picture, although in good faith lets get it off a/net!!!!!!!!!!!1
55 Aileron11: ARGinLON, show us proof, just because you read it does not mean it is true. We need undisputed facts.
56 TomTurner: Well, stop to consider if Concordes were as common as 737s are now, one would crash every week or two due to runway debris. If a 737 crashed every we
57 Ikramerica: Why you have a big grin while discussing 9/11 I can't even imagine to know... This is common knowledge to everyone but GDB it seems. Why? As someone
58 Scotland1979: Rest in Peace F-BTSC We all are thinking of victims and their families/friends etc... http://myaviation.net/?pid=00411409
59 ComeAndGo: Well, well, see there our British friends are at it again ! Congrats to all …
60 EGTESkyGod: FlySSC, What went through your mind when you saw the flames? Then by your logic, a CO DC-10 would drop titanium debris on the runway every week. You
61 SKA380: Very nice picture indeed! One thing i've always wondered, although i've never read any reports on this regarding this tragic accident. I know that one
62 FlySSC: Really ? a "common knowledge" among A.net 's genius experts maybe ... All the investigations, not only the French ones, prove that everything was abs
63 Lehpron: Did you know that in 1999, two NASA missions were lost on their way to Mars because engineers screwed up on translating data from metric to english u
64 Vc10: SKA380, I will say just one more time that prior to the crash it was not standard practice anywhere including New York to do a runway inspection prior
65 SKA380: Vc10: Its always nice to hear when people who werent there knows better then you isnt it? They did use the active runway, and thats where we did the "
66 FlySSC: True. Absolutely wrong. As VC10 said, there has NEVER been any special Rwy inspection before a Concorde take off, anywhere in the world. ADP in Paris
67 SKA380: Then why was i in a car when the order came from the Concorde pilot, via the ATC, and he wanted a runway inspection prior to the Concorde take-off? I
68 TomTurner: Unfortunately, you don't understand. Why do you think the modifications had to be done?
69 VC10: SKA380 My apologies for doubting what happened as I should always remember that there are exceptions to any rule and your case might have been one, bu
70 GDB: ComeAndGo, nothing informative or sensible to add? Thought not. One last time, No cover up. I said to Access Air that I didn't take stuff personally o
71 Airforum: Hmmm I have been away the past two days and wasn't able to comment on this thread I started last week. I am quite surprised to see that the discussion
72 FlySSC: Don't worry, Airforum, it not a question of picking the "right words"... Unfortunately, each and every thread about Concorde, whatever the subject ca
73 GDB: Airforum, I don't doubt you posted that pic with only good intentions in mind. I raised a topic very recently that was blown off course with political
75 Airforum: Well that's a relieve It's indeed stunning to see how many discussions fall back into political and irrational bashing. You talk about a pictured Con
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 176 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Oct 2005, 687 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1686 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Jun 2005, 614 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 961 posts, 
From France, joined Aug 2003, 7313 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
