Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air France Concorde Crash Documentary  
User currently offlineDeC From Greece, joined Aug 2005, 616 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 10185 times:

Hey all,

Sorry if it's been posted before, but i searched and couldn't find anything. Anyway, here's a very good 22-minute documentary on the crash of flight 4590 (Air France / Concorde), July the 25th, 2000.

More info on the crash:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000725-0&lang=en

Video link:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/197035/air_france_concord_documentary/


DEC
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLawnDart From United States of America, joined May 2005, 970 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10135 times:

I hadn't seen it before - very interesting, if tragic. Thanks for posting.

User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10084 times:

I haven't seen it either, thanks for posting the link.

I figured they'd go the path of the "official" explanation (which is fiction IMO). I think the preceeding DC-10 was completely innocent. According to Time magazine's aviation reporter, the French authorities mentioned the day of the accident that the runway was literally littered with engine parts. Think about that for a moment.....engine parts everywhere. I can only presume they meant "Concorde" engine parts since the preceeding DC-10 managed to make it to it's destination.

http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/2000/072500crash.html

Take the known circumstances into account, and utilize a little of Occam's razor. After the loud bang heard on the CVR, engines 1 and 2 were both providing only a small fraction of their normal power, so much that the Flight Engineer was heard reminding the FO several times to watch the airspeed.

Concorde was veering left down the runway, the official story blames a missing spacer that supposedly caused drag and pulled the aircraft to the left. But wouldn't a catastrophic twin engine failure on the left side of Concorde, in the latter portions of the takeoff sequence, do exactly the same thing, push the aircraft left? Look where the Concorde is relative to the runway in this shot. Winds that day were runway heading @ 3kts (no significant crosswinds).



You can see just how far off runway heading that stricken bird was flying when it was photographed by the taxiing 747 pax as it passed by. The perspective of the pax's last image clearly displays the Concorde not far from directly above the 747 on the taxiway, the pax was barely able to get the shot I imagine.



In his image you can pretty easily see all the oddly symmetrical cuts to the bottom of the wing with fuel pouring out of them. Those aren't holes from chunks of rubber....how ridiculous. Could those be caused by detached compressor blades? We have seen this kind of thing before. Occam's razor dictates the least complex occurance as the most likely cause.

We have the "a wear-strip burst a tire leading to fuel tank penetration by rubber tire parts, leading to massive fuel loss causing engine failure culminating in a loss-of-control crash" vs. "uncontained twin engine failure" on a seriously high-performance afterburning mach 2.3 experimental aircraft. What is the most likely explanation? A catastrophic uncontained engine failure can certainly and more than likely burst a tire with the ejection of high speed compressor blades.

The problem is if the Concorde was found to have suffered twin engine failure on the same side of the plane...leading directly to a stall/loss-of-control, chances are quite high that it would have lost the certification needed to fly transatlantic. What then?

I think the "meat" of the whole story lies in what the authorities said the day of the accident, that engine parts were littering the runway. The official explanation does not mention these engine parts as being found, and it sure does not jive with the Concorde managing to run over a solitary detached DC-10 engine wear strip lying on the runway amidst a littering of engine parts that the Concorde managed to miss entirely.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 10013 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 2):

Yet another person off the internet trying to second guess an expensive and drawn out investigation by professionals.

Sorry, the official explanation makes more sense than yours does.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 2):
According to Time magazine's aviation reporter, the French authorities mentioned the day of the accident that the runway was literally littered with engine parts.

That transcript doesnt mention anything about the authorities mentioning it, it simply says 'the French'. That transcript also goes on to say the left hand engines were on fire according to eye witnesses - they werent, as your photos quite elloquently show.

Put simply, that transcript was done on the day of the crash, noone had any information at all and news sites were going with anything in order to get air time.


User currently offlinePanAmOldDC8 From Barbados, joined Dec 2006, 960 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9985 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 3):
That transcript doesnt mention anything about the authorities mentioning it, it simply says 'the French'. That transcript also goes on to say the left hand engines were on fire according to eye witnesses - they werent, as your photos quite elloquently show.

One of the best aircraft ever made. And I agree after all the investigations it is not for us to judge the experts. Had it not run into the "Green" people in the US there would have been a lot more of them flying. Tragic day for aviation and tragic day for the families May they all R.I.P



Barbados, CWC soon, can't wait
User currently offlineDeC From Greece, joined Aug 2005, 616 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9935 times:

Sorry but the official explanation (As can be read here http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000725-0&lang=en and seen in the documentary) makes perfect sense to me. The small metal strip the DC-10 lost from one of its engines was too insignificant to bring that plane down; what damage could cause to the following Concorde however is another issue.


DEC
User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7415 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9904 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 2):
I think the preceeding DC-10 was completely innocent



Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 2):
the runway was literally littered with engine parts

This poor DC10 is innocent.
One of the World's busiest airport's Runways are used to be littered by engines parts.

And I am the next Queen of England.

 sarcastic 


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9869 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 2):
The perspective of the pax's last image clearly displays the Concorde not far from directly above the 747 on the taxiway, the pax was barely able to get the shot

What do you expect? The 747 was "not far" from the runway.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 3):
That transcript also goes on to say the left hand engines were on fire according to eye witnesses - they werent, as your photos quite elloquently show.

Well said. That's so often conveniently ignored.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 2):
and it sure does not jive with the Concorde managing to run over a solitary detached DC-10 engine wear strip lying on the runway

I.e. a titanium blade-like object. Those who believe other types wouldn't even have noticed if they'd had a tyre sliced into 2m chunks at near take-off speed need to have a look at other accidents where "normal" types were brought to grief by tyre failure.

In any case, can you find any other examples of aircraft running over a titanium blade at near take-off speed? So why so sure it couldn't be a significant contributing cause?

Yeah, it's a conspiracy.  sarcastic 


User currently offlinePanAmOldDC8 From Barbados, joined Dec 2006, 960 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9820 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 7):
Yeah, it's a conspiracy.

Everything these days is a conspiracy. No one wants to believe the hard cold facts. It was a tragic accident



Barbados, CWC soon, can't wait
User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 9757 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 2):
In his image you can pretty easily see all the oddly symmetrical cuts to the bottom of the wing with fuel pouring out of them. Those aren't holes from chunks of rubber....how ridiculous

No, they're not. The fuel tank ruptures resulted from shock waves caused by the impact of tire fragments. These shocks bounced around the inside of the tank, rebounding and focusing on the weakest patches of skin section until they ruptured. The skin failures exhibit a regular pattern because the breaches occured between regularly-spaced structural supports.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 2):
The problem is if the Concorde was found to have suffered twin engine failure on the same side of the plane...leading directly to a stall/loss-of-control, chances are quite high that it would have lost the certification needed to fly transatlantic. What then?

Concorde lost its Certificate of Airworthiness anyway and required a long and expensive retrofit process to return to service. It was very well known ahead of time that a two-engine failure on takeoff would not be survivable. This is true for almost any other four-engine aircraft, but especially so for Concorde given its low L/D at takeoff and landing speeds and the large amount of thrust needed to get "on top of" the drag curve.

IIRC, the engine bays had titanium firewalls separating the engines, and I assume that stopping an uncontained blade failure was a design consideration and certification requirement. GDB would know more.

The official explanation that engines 1 and 2 lost power due to FOD damage is perfectly sensible. Turbojets do not handle debris well because anything ingested passes directly into the core, whereas the bypass fan on a turbofan physically makes up a much larger proportion of total engine face area and also tends to sling debris into the bypass duct through centrifugal force.

One other interesting note: when you take the official report's estimates of the fuel spillage rate and the capacity of the affected tanks into account, it seems like the fire probably would have exhausted itself not long after the aircraft crashed as the tanks emptied. Unfortunately, the flight engineer's uncommanded shutdown of engine 2 may have been a factor in the loss of the aircraft, since it may have been able to provide some extra power and keep them in the air longer, perhaps long enough to reach Le Bourget. Even a controlled crash there could not have had a much worse outcome.

--B2707SST

[Edited 2007-01-13 17:07:18]


Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
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...
Air France Concorde Photo JFK posted Fri Jul 15 2005 23:50:03 by Carledwards
Air France Concorde Vandalised... posted Mon May 2 2005 15:19:24 by Gkirk
Air France Concorde Reg Wanted posted Mon Nov 24 2003 19:06:44 by Olympus69
Air France Concorde Flight No.s posted Tue Jul 8 2003 21:59:54 by 747-600X
Last Air France Concorde Landed At Toulouse posted Fri Jun 27 2003 14:53:44 by B727-100
When Does Air France Concorde Arr. IAD posted Thu Jun 12 2003 03:22:56 by Soundtrack
Air France Concorde F-BVFD posted Fri Jul 6 2001 21:44:25 by AFa340-300E
Air France Concorde Flight On Wednesday posted Tue May 29 2001 01:18:07 by Gordonroxburgh
Possible Air France Concorde Flight posted Tue Apr 10 2001 13:30:15 by Gordonroxburgh
Air France Concorde To Return To Paris, Thursday posted Tue Sep 19 2000 22:42:16 by Gordonroxburgh