Some pax were pissed, others were not, the forum on http://www.concordesst.com/
shows that, some posted what happened to them on there rather than cry to the media.
B2707SST, you are right, however BA
practice is to decelerate if you have a bad surge.
Here is the REAL story of what happened.
A no.1 reheat failure caused a RTO on G-BOAG at JFK
, deciding to try again they requested a longer runway, in case the reheat failed again.
Well moving a crane from said runway caused a delay of around an hour, all the time the engines were idling burning fuel, on a full aircraft.
But the crew calculated it would be OK
, computers that are part of the fuel management system aid in this.
The second T/O was OK
, of course later in the flight the surge on no.2 engine, keeping to procedure the aircraft slowed down, increasing fuel burn a lot.
So the diversion into CWL
, no emergency, not an emergency landing, just good solid procedure that has served us well over 27 years.
The next day, checks on the engines (both no.1 and no.2) and the intakes, using both visual and NDT.
As OAG was to return to LHR
, why not take a supersonic diversion as engineers with test equipment could monitor the intake system to see if the problem re-occurred?
The near empty aircraft, taking off with a relatively light fuel load, going straight over the Severn Estuary near CWL
, got to Mach 1 / 29,000 feet in 4 minutes!
But the test was inconclusive, so some components on the no.2 intake were changed today at LHR
, we make no apologies for being so cautious, intake problems are not common, but they can be lengthy to solve.