dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Mon Jul 26, 2004 10:52 am

It was 25 July 2000 that Concorde F-TBSC crashed after takeoff from CDG. This tragedy was the beginning of the end for Concorde as a revenue earning airliner, and a blow to Air France that went beyond just losing the prestige of it's highest and fastest flier.

However, in a rather cavalier manner, the authorities responsible for finding out what happened have found a way to blame someone else for the accident. It seems that people are focussing on the composition of a part that was on the Continental DC-10 and caused the blowout that was initiated the horrible series of events that ended with COncorde impacting in front of that small hotel.

I was, and still am not, aware of all the facts, but even a common enthusiast knew that a multiplicity of factors led to the accident. I have included the AFP report that identifies only the foreign (to France) part that was dropped from the aircraft. I will also include some facts that Air France knew about and the magistrates investigating the affair certainly know about so that we can see where the causes of this accident truly are.

(Thanks to my anonymous but highly regarded research department for the facts, and, yes, these are all verifiable with at least two independent sources....go look if you question the facts).

Much about the accident was definitely preventable, and it's surprising that responsible parties at AF were not fired for negligence!

EXAMPLES OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF INCLUDE:

1) NEVER ADDRESSING THE ~29~ PREVIOUS CONCORDE FUEL TANK BREECHES
CAUSED BY TIRE DEBRIS

2) ALLOWING SIERRA CHARLIE TO OPERATE REVENUE SERVICE ~KNOWING~ THAT THE AUTOALIGNMENT SPACER WAS MISSING

3) LOADING THE AIRCRAFT WITH A TON MORE FUEL THAN WAS REQUIRED FOR TAXI

4) LOADING THE AIRCRAFT WITH 1900 ADDITIONAL POUNDS OF LUGGAGE ~AFTER THE CoG HAD ALREADY BEEN CALCULATED AND DETERMINED~

5) MARTY DECIDING TO TAKEOFF FROM RUNWAY 24R, ~AFTER THE TOWER ADVISED HIM OF A STRONG TAILWIND~ WITH MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME TO TAXI TO ANOTHER RUNWAY.

6) JARDINAUD SHUTTING DOWN THE #2 ENGINE (a) WITHOUT ASKING FOR
PERMISSION NOR INFORMING THE CAPTAIN UNTIL ASKED AND (b) WELL BELOW
THE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED AIRSPEED AT WHICH IT IS SAFE TO DO SO... THUS ENSURING IMPACT WITH TERRAIN


...All six of the above items (which all contributed to the end result were completely preventable..

If any one of the items had not occured, the lives of the 113 victims, both in the aircraft and on the ground, could have possibly been spared as an accident is a series of highly improbable events taking place in a nearly impossible sequence that leads to human and or equipment failure and destruction. Here there was a good bit of negligence that contributed to the accident and could have been prevented if complacency and arrogance had not played their roles.

I made the comment that this was the first time that Concorde had been put in this type of danger and the accident could not have been forseen, and was made aware of the following facts.
Concorde suffered 29 separate incidents involving fuel tank punctures from tire debris
THE MOST STARTLING EXAMPLE WAS F-BVFC, WHOSE 1979 TIRE BLOWOUT (DO), Angola">DUE TO DEBRIS) WAS SO VIOLENT THAT IT BLEW A 6ft. CHUNK OF WING COMPLETELY OFF OF THE CENTER OF THE AIRCRAFT... FUEL SPILLED OUT FROM BOTH THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE WING AT A RATE NEARLY 4 TIMES MORE VOLUMINOUS THAN THE FUEL LEAK DURING THE DOOMED AF4590.
FORTUNATELY FOR F-BVFC, THE FUEL NEVER IGNITED, AND THE PILOTS WERE
ABLE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE RADICAL SHIFT IN CoG LONG ENOUGH TO GET
BACK TO DULLES. THE FOLLOWING LINK IS A PICTURE OF THAT ACCIDENT
AFTER THE SAFE LANDING:

http://concordesst.com/accident/pictures/wing.jpg

All of these facts are verifiable, all I want to know is this...who believes that the French authorities are going to do the right thing here, and who thinks they will take the easy way to salve national pride and lay blame outside France?
Here is a link to the story that set me off (again after a previously deleted post made me wonder) and got me looking for facts.
http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10210331%255E401,00.html
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12361
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Mon Jul 26, 2004 11:26 am

It was recently reported that the piece that fell off the CO DC-10, was made of titanium, not stainless steel, and it is believed that the hardness of this piece of metal contributed to the damage to the tire on the Concord in this crash. The tires were a major area of risk on all of the Concords, due the very high take off and landing speeds. While the above items noted in the first post may have compounded this tragedy, the damage to the tire was the initial event that led to this accident. No two accidents or the reactions of the pilots and crew are the same despite some similar factual details. The alleged load on the a/c still didn't lead to the failure itself, but may have affected the ability to escape it. There is no doubt that AF knew shortly after this accident was the beginning of the end for them with the Concord, especially given the time age of the aircraft and support for it and they were fearful of it's affects to French pride. Still, pride shouldn't affect the investigations, but there is millions in compensation involved here and possibly deep issues with AF.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Mon Jul 26, 2004 11:35 am

Yes, there are deep issues for AF, and the compensation issues will compound the desire to deflect blame, but lessons need to be learned about actions taken that affect other types of A/C being flown today.
The truth needs to be illustrated, not necessarily for blame, but to make things safer for the rest of us.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
SafetyDude
Posts: 3654
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 10:02 am

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Mon Jul 26, 2004 12:11 pm

The truth needs to be illustrated, not necessarily for blame, but to make things safer for the rest of us.
I agree, and I would really like to see the aviation world accept the crash, and not try to point fingers at everyone.  Insane

-Will
"She Flew For What We Stand For"
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Mon Jul 26, 2004 12:15 pm

Concorde suffered 29 separate incidents involving fuel tank punctures from tire debris

Not exactly.

29 in-use tire deflations, 22 of them disruptions causing structural damage to their respective airframes/engines/airfoils. Not sure how many specifically punctured a fuel tank.




I agree, and I would really like to see the aviation world accept the crash, and not try to point fingers at everyone.

Wait, we talking about Concorde.... or MS990?  Nuts

[Edited 2004-07-26 05:25:29]
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
richierich
Posts: 3282
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Mon Jul 26, 2004 11:47 pm

I know I am going to wake up the morbid police but I am curious if there is any type of memorial at the crash site? Or at the terminal?

Did they rebuild the hotel that F-BTSC crashed into? That must be a weird place to stay.
None shall pass!!!!
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Mon Jul 26, 2004 11:53 pm

I agree with all the bold type points in the first post, but for 1) I have to say that remedial action was taken, including better tyres, anti skid systems, changes to procedures, in the 1979-81 timeframe, as a result such incidents became rarer and less severe.

The last one to my knowledge that caused any damage was to G-BOAB in October 1993, double burst causing the water deflector to detach and bury itself in the wing.
The deflector was supposed to shatter on impact with a hard object to prevent damage, it did not.
Subsequently, BA fitted a retaining strap to prevent a recurrence, this was typical of actions taken after an incident, they were never ignored, no matter what the press say, as happens with any aircraft.
For some reason the authorities did not make the retaining strip mandatory, so AF did not do the mod.
Though this was not seen as being a factor in AF4590.

I have to suppress a smirk at these 'new' revelations, we knew the material off the DC-10 was not supposed to be titanium by late 2000, BA even made a mock up of it, the way it was shaped, the bloody thing was almost like a knife, but then F-BTSC should not have been in a position to overrun it, though some witnesses seem to recall smoke from the L/H gear tyres before the impact point with the object.

Where there has been some cross Channel disagreement is with the effect of the missing spacer, DGAC reckon it would not have affected the take off roll, everyone I spoke to on this, including flight crews, engineers with 25+ years experience on the type, think the DGAC's stance on this issue is astounding.

A few days before the accident, I remember a conversation at work, about what if one was lost, it was thought that even something like a mid air collision, i.e. something not the fault of the aircraft, would be the end, because we knew that Concorde's high profile was a double edged sword.

Though of course I wish this tragic accident had never happened, had it not, AF's reaction to Sept 11th might well have been to stop Concorde anyway, they had fewer flights, lower loads, less profit, so less to buttress them against a very severe and rapid downturn.
AF stopping for any reason would always be a terminal event for BA, and visa versa.
But in reality, with the C of A returned on 5th Sept 2001, after all the hard work, it was felt that we should carry on, hope that the market recovered fairly quickly, but make no mistake, on Sept 11th 2001 I and probably most of my colleagues thought that the events in NY would do for us, sooner rather than later.
 
knoxibus
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:59 pm

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:02 am

I have read part of the report, and I do not see where the truth really is apart that this metal band was the MAIN cause of the accident.

3) In the report, it is clearly stated that the added ton of fuel did NOT have an incidence on this. Having the aircraft with one ton less of fuel would surely have saved those people.....I am sure

5) I have the audio transcription prior to take-off. 40 minutes before, the crew asked the ATC to use runway 26R, ATC agreed. And that day, it was the only runway available for Concorde to use, since the equivalent northern runway was undergoing works. Runway 26L was too small. (So it is not 24R)
ATC states that wind was 090 8kt, and authorized the take-off....so where do you get your BS?

2) No technical tolerances were issued prior to the flight, so I do not know what your Autoalignement Spacer (or its absence) was supposed to cause, but surely not the incident. I might know a lot about aircraft but definitely not everything, I clearly admit it. So if any charitable soul would like to explain me what this spacer is...because I looked everywhere and couldn't find anything about it, thanks in advance.

6) At 14h43 20.4s, the flight engineer says "engine 2 failure" and two seconds later, advises the pilot to shut it down.
At 14h43 46.3s, after two unsuccesfull attemps to extinguish the fire, the captain asks the flight engineer "Are you shutting the n°2 engine down?"
at 48.2s, he says "I shut it". So where do you see that he shut it without asking or informing the pilot? Unless this big machiavelous scheme also enabled the BEA to lie in his report????

"the authorities responsible for finding out what happened have found a way to blame someone else for the accident". Well guess what, the NTSB was in the loop and did the investigation on the Continental aircraft, and concurred.

And in the other hand, someone at British Airways should also be blamed for not taking proper actions regarding those 29 (lol) punctured tanks incidents!

Onr thing I have to give you credit for, is that the A/C was indeed slightly overloaded, but it still managed to take off with one engine failure....which is the requisite...

This slight overload is also clearly listed in the final report, so no lies or hidding about that.

In brief, you are saying that complete everyday actions are the cause of this incident whereas the presence of this metal strip, that punctured the tyre and led to the accident, has nothing to do with it....BRAVO!

Well you are a champion on your own kind.

Please provide us with your sources, because I'd like to verify that right now!



[Edited 2004-07-26 21:05:35]
No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:23 am

Having the aircraft with one ton less of fuel would surely have saved those people.....I am sure

...good chance it would have, were it combined with a structurally stable gear system; a headwind not a tailwind; the absense of a luggage overload; and protocol in engine operation.... as opposed to the exact opposite of each  Yeah sure
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
knoxibus
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:59 pm

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:34 am

Well, the metal strip is then out of cause, thanks to you experts....which I am not by the way, I was just putting facts (from the report) in front of this thread first statements, I guess my anger towards this post lead me to write this line about the fuel load. But you've got to admit, this is one wrongly directed thread......the pride of the French.

I do not care about that, I am the first one to admit we are big arrogant people, but to state that all those lives might have been saved because of ALL these actions being not taken, I seriously doubt it....

But at least you had the decency of putting all elements together.

In the BEA report, nothing indicates that the spacer was not there, but then again I did not read it entirely, but at least I started to read, and I did not get stupid statements from whichever reliable sources.

Once again ,the NTSB and the CAA have been far deep in the investigation, and yet they conclude the same thing (or at leat did not make counter statements....three big players in the history of aviation investigation being wrong, whowwwwwww...)






[Edited 2004-07-26 21:45:48]
No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2788
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:39 am

It was recently reported that the piece that fell off the CO DC-10, was made of titanium, not stainless steel, and it is believed that the hardness of this piece of metal contributed to the damage to the tire on the Concord in this crash.

I call shenannigans on this. A Concorde rolling at 200mph doesn't care if it runs over a chunk of steel or a chunk of titanium - the result will be the same. I read the same article you did about this and I had to roll my eyes at the obvious buck-passing going on when I read it.

No two accidents or the reactions of the pilots and crew are the same despite some similar factual details.

Well, that's funny, because airlines, manufacturers and international regulatory agencies have procedures and requirements in place to ensure that a pilots' reaction will be the same as any other pilots' reaction in an emergency.

All pilots are trained in what to do with an engine fire, with an engine failure, with loss of hydraulic power, and with blown tires. These procedures are taught to all pilots and are repeatedly drilled. The pilots in this crash did not follow the proper procedures that they were taught.

When procedures are not followed and that directly leads to an accident, we usually call the cause of the crash "pilot error". This is the cause of most airline accidents, because human beings make mistakes and there's no way around that. The pilots in this accident made several mistakes. The problem is AF refuses to admit this and instead is trying to pass off the fact that this piece of metal was made of titanium instead of steel as some sort of causal event to this accident, which to any sane person would sound completely ludicrous.

Concordes have had blown tires and have even had punctured wings because of them, before this accident. It was a known problem and both AF and BA should have taken the precautions they ended up being required to take after the accident before it happened. But they didn't. They also should have trained their pilots properly to know how to handle such a situation, given that similar things have happened before and the potential for disaster was known. But apparently their pilots either were not trained well or simply lost their cool and made mistakes. So, admit your company screwed up, pay the price for it, and move on.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:41 am

Well, the metal strip is then out of cause, thanks to you experts....

...you like mean Jean-Marie Chauve, Michel Suaud, GDB's fellow employees, or any of the other 24 qualified experts who filed formal (dismissed  Yeah sure) complaints stating that the BEA report was a crock o' squat aimed at protecting a fellow government entity?  Insane
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
knoxibus
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:59 pm

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:48 am

"admit your company screwed up, pay the price for it, and move on"


Lol, I hate AF  Smile
No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
 
knoxibus
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:59 pm

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:56 am

Well I guess I am pretty quick at learning my lessons (and I guess that makes a stand about French people being arrogant and..stupid...)

This what I got from AW&ST's web site:

Although the four Olympus 593 engines delivered full thrust with reheat, Flight 4590's takeoff roll was not nominal, acceleration was lower than prescribed and, shortly after brake release, the pilot-in-command began encountering difficulties in maintaining the aircraft on Runway 26R's centerline, according to former Concorde Capt. Jean-Marie Chauve and flight engineer Michel Suaud. "Although it was operating slightly above its 408,000-lb.-maximum takeoff weight, the aircraft should have left the ground 35 sec. after brake release, Chauve told Aviation Week & Space Technology. If Concorde's liftoff had been nominal, it would have been in the air an estimated 300 ft. before reaching the point where a wear strip laying on the runway provoked a tire blowout, Chauve claimed. He added that these figures were verified by aerospace experts.

This sounds clear to me. I guess DIO21 was not "right" in the sense that it did nit "talk" to me in the way ConcordeBoy or the extract from the article above did.

My mistake, i guess next time I'll shut up first, do my research on the net, and try to bring constructive arguments about such subjects....

Mea Culpa, and respect to some of you...
No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

As stated before, remedial action WAS taken, on several occasions, as mandated by the airworthiness authorities, it did not make the problem go away, it did lessen it, until a pretty extraordinary sequence of events in July 2000.
 
gonzot
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:10 pm

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 6:51 am

We just had a "special investigations" show yesterday on french TV. In all this kind of shows, it is very difficult to find the truth... (some are closer to romance...)

According to the journalists and some people interviewed, firemen at CDG "saw a big flame and smelt burn odor far before the DC10 strip zone".

I'm very suspicious with this testimony because I can't imagine the burn odor being smelt at the fire station in a so short lapse of time...

So one thing is clear to me : the official investigation is not clear !

On the other hand, the Michelin Radial tire should have been built before the crash... but I know it's always easier to say things after than before.

Anyway, may the peoples who died in this terrible crash rest in peace.
Before dreams come true, one must first dream...
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 7:07 am

The ability to smell burnt odors at great distances is pretty rare, I imagine. I am not one to question the courage fo firefighters, but is their sense of time perhaps off? I am still convinced that the biggest cause of this accident, the one that struck the match so to speak, was the poor FOD policing. How long was this piece of metal on the runway? I wonder if it could have been seen in time or was the DC-10 just ahead in the queue?
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
henpol747
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2001 5:53 am

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 7:17 am

Excuse me for asking this, but... what kind a piece of metal did the continental DC-10 leave on the runway?
Vive la France! ¡Viva México!
 
airsicknessbag
Posts: 4626
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 7:17 am

>>>I know I am going to wake up the morbid police but I am curious if there is any type of memorial at the crash site? Or at the terminal?
Did they rebuild the hotel that F-BTSC crashed into? That must be a weird place to stay.

I passed by the crash site a couple of hours before my own Concorde flight - that was a ghoulish feeling I can tell you...

There´s supposed to be a little commemorative plaque at CDG (have not personally seen it), but nothing at the site itself. There´s a very high fence around the the crash site, including those parts of the hotel that still stand. The hotel itself is derelict.

There might as well be a memorial site in the village where most of the victims came from, I believe I vaguely remember something to that extent.

Daniel
 
pizzaandplanes
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 10:17 am

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 7:21 am

That flight had an equipment change from a 777 to a dc-10.
A real man lands where he wants to
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 7:30 am

what kind a piece of metal did the continental DC-10 leave on the runway?

16inch long thin strip which lined the interior of the #1 engine near where the cowling opens.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
henpol747
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2001 5:53 am

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 9:14 am


Thanks,

Is this a regular event? didn´t it jeopardise the safety of the DC-10?
Vive la France! ¡Viva México!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 9:25 am

didn´t it jeopardise the safety of the DC-10?

If you're thinking along the lines of AA191, the answer's no, not in the least.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
kl911
Posts: 3979
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:10 am

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 9:29 am

Yesterday French television showed a documentary about he crash again, and even them showed the part where many witnesses told them that the plane was already on fire about 160 yards before the metal strip of the DC10 hit it.
It surely was an AF maintenance issue, but since AF was still a government owned airline, the government ofcourse wanted to cover up as much as possible. Besides, the fact that the French President was in a B747 on the other end of the runway is to much a coincidence to me.........
 
knoxibus
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:59 pm

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Jul 27, 2004 2:09 pm

"was the poor FOD policing"

Now that's one thing I both agree and disagree. In the BEA report, it is stated that the runway should have benn inspected at 7.00 am, which was done, and around 2.00 pm and 5.00 pm I believe.

They say that due to fire training, the 2.00 pm inspection was cancelled...so bad RWY inspection policy indeed. But I heard it takes up to 45 minutes to do such a thing, is this true?

Hoping the Qinetiq made radar will help in the future with these issue!

But in the other hand, I think the DC-10 was just in front in the queue...any one can confirm that?

But again, if the metal strip had nothing to do with it...

The French president using a 747 while at the time being they had 2 governmental A310??? Unless they were both in maintenance or being stored waiting for the A319CJs, I doubt it. Unless he had lotsssss of people with him.
No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
 
airsicknessbag
Posts: 4626
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Mon Aug 02, 2004 7:40 am

>>>The French president using a 747 while at the time being they had 2 governmental A310??? Unless they were both in maintenance or being stored waiting for the A319CJs, I doubt it. Unless he had lotsssss of people with him.

From

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/concordespacer.html:

(The pic the author is referring to is the famous one with SC on fire just after rotating; to be seen for example here: http://www.concordesst.com/accident/accidentindex.html )

"Go back to that photograph. An amazing picture: but where was it taken? The answer is: inside an Air France Boeing 747 which had just landed from Japan, and was waiting to cross Concorde's runway on its way back to the terminal. Its passengers included Jacques Chirac and his wife, the President and first lady of France, returning from the G7 summit.

"Concorde looks to be nearby because it had been close to hitting the 747, an event which would have turned both aircraft into a giant fireball. Veering wildly to the left, like a recalcitrant supermarket trolley with a jammed wheel, Concorde's undercarriage had locked askew.

"When Marty pulled back on the control column to raise the nose and take to the air - the process pilots call 'rotation' - the plane's airspeed was only 188 knots, 11 knots below the minimum recommended velocity (VR) required for this manoeuvre.

"But he had no choice: the plane was about to leave the tarmac altogether and plough into the soft and bumpy grass at its side. That might have ripped off the landing gear, leaving Concorde to overturn and blow up on its own. If not, the 747 lay straight ahead. So he took to the air, although he knew he was travelling too slowly, which would impair the damaged plane's chances of survival.

"The BEA's interim report, published last January, notes that according to the cockpit voice record, the instant before Marty rotated, Jean Marcot, his co-pilot, screamed: 'Watch out!' The report states: 'At this stage it is not possible to explain this exclamation.' Marcot was at the front of a Concorde thundering off a runway at 200mph towards a 747 carrying his head of state: his exclamation seems reasonably explicable."



 
CON207
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2003 4:33 am

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Aug 03, 2004 1:13 am

No matter what evidence comes along it will never change history. Always those words "if only" come too late for all those that died. No one world-wide will forget those last few seconds caught on film.  Sad
One fact was clear enough to me. 113 people ( not sure if that figure is correct) died that day and nothing can bring them back!
Fingers can be pointed at who may be responsible and facts can be presented as long as this issue goes on. But in aid of what?
Its been Four Years since it happened. Concorde is no longer in the skies.
The aviation industry has to move forward . No one can keep dwelling on the past.

CON207

Concorde You graced our skies with elegance!  Smile




Being ill sucks. Never take life for granted!!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Aug 03, 2004 3:07 am

The aviation industry has to move forward

Never have more true words been spoken... the aviation world began its regression that day  Crying
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2391
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Concorde Crash 4 Years Later

Tue Aug 03, 2004 9:40 am

"That flight had an equipment change from a 777 to a dc-10."

How eerie it must have been for you, John and John Jr. to have been on that DC-10, having that seminal connection to this high profile tragedy. I know I'd be unsettled from time to time thinking about it, of course, that's just fate. Sad as this tragedy was, it's even sadder in retrospect, now knowing it was the beginning of the end for Concorde. At this point, there's no sense trying to keep assigning blame for it; it was an act of God, an incredibly freak accident. What more can one say?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], BobPatterson, BreninTW, ChristopherS, CONTACREW, D328, flyDTW1992, frequentpete, GloomyDe, Google [Bot], Miami, SpeedYellow, stevend08, yendig, Ytraveller and 226 guests