Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
TAP A32x Incident: Concorde Accident Resemblence  
User currently offlineRyaneverest From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (15 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1811 times:

Yesterday a TAP A320 took off from Funchal, but suffered a bird strike when it started climbing. It set engine #2 on fire, and as a precaution it was shut down. The A320 headed for Porto Santo nearby, and landed there with a single engine. The time was 2100Z.

An hour later, a TAP A319 flown from Lisbon to Funchal made a stop at Porto Santo to fetch the passengers on the previous flight. Everything worked fine until the A319 started rolling down the runway, one of its tyres suddenly burst. Fortunately the takeoff could be aborted before the A319 zooms out the far end of the runway. No injuries in both incidents.

Anyhow, don't you think that these two incidents closely resemble the Concorde accident some days ago?

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineAgrodemm From Greece, joined Apr 2000, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (15 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1766 times:

Very interesting.
I guess the A320/319 is more handy and easier to control than the Concorde.
By the way ... how did the passengers felt about those two incedents? I mean 2 incedents in the same day... that's scary...


User currently offlineB737-700 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (15 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1763 times:

These passengers are probably gonna wait a while till they'll board another airplane I guess.

User currently offlineXXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 779 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (15 years 10 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1751 times:

I think the main difference is the fact that the tyre/engine failure was not contained and looks like it ruptured a fuel tank. If that happens I don't think there is anything you can do no matter what aircraft your in.

User currently offlineRyaneverest From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (15 years 10 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1735 times:

I haven't heard from anyone aboard yet, but I haven't seen this news anywhere. Not even in the news section of airliners.net... the Portuguese newspapers should already have been published...  

User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (15 years 10 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1729 times:

I saw it on the TV news here but I understood this was with 2 different A319's. One suffered a bird strike on take off, the pilot had to land the plane in the closest airport wich is in Porto Santo, a small island just a few kilometers from Funchal.

The other incident was the tyre blow during the take off roll wich led to an aborted take off.

Luis, Faro, Portugal

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8360 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (15 years 10 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1725 times:

I think people forget that FAA and JAA requirements for twin-engine jetliners is that they must be able to takeoff and be controllable fully-loaded on one engine. That's why when the TAP airplane had that birdstrike on the engine they were able to quickly control the plane for a non-eventful touchdown.

User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 7137 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (15 years 10 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1693 times:

Those two incidents are unfortunately quite common, but all airliners are made to cope with these incidents.
The Concorde suffered:
1. engine #2 out
2. angine #1 out
3. a massive fuel leak on port wing
4. a yet not well communicated landing gear problem.
What doomed the Concorde was most likely the combination of TWO engines out and a terrible imballance due to the port wing fuel leak, making the plane uncontrolable at low speed. The fact that the landing gear could not be retracted added to the insufficient power problem, but was hardly a deciding factor.
What scares me somewhat about the Concorde accident is that it may have started as just one fault. Debris from the landing gear may have been swollowed by #2 engine and caused an uncontained engine failure, which put out #1 engine and ruptured the port wing fuel tank.
Due to the different overall configuration such a sequence is hardly thinkable on any Airbus or Boeing plane.
If only the Concorde had kept #1 engine running, then it would most likely have gained speed and altitude, have dumped fuel from starboard wing and landed safely on its cripled landing gear with a line of fire trucks on its tail. Not a comfortable situation, but something which it was designed to cope with, and which its crew was trained to handle.
Preben Norholm

Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
An Article Explaining An Incident Vs Accident posted Tue Jun 8 2004 00:53:04 by Mirrodie
Concorde Accident posted Wed Aug 22 2001 05:51:03 by Baldguy
Concorde Accident- This Annoys Me posted Thu Jul 5 2001 02:22:28 by SKYSERVICE_330
AF Concorde Accident posted Sun May 27 2001 01:57:05 by 3green
Concorde Accident - Latest Information posted Fri Jul 28 2000 06:21:10 by Jet Setter
Concorde Accident Photo Links... posted Fri Jul 28 2000 00:48:03 by JETPILOT
If The Concorde Accident Had Been A 747. posted Tue Jul 25 2000 23:32:35 by VC-10
FAA: Incident Vs Accident? posted Mon Mar 6 2000 06:34:35 by UAL-Fan
Ground Incident/Accident Statistics posted Thu Dec 9 2004 16:50:31 by Corey07850
Concorde Incident Near Hit At JFK? posted Tue Jun 22 2004 15:15:50 by Mirrodie