Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
rideforever
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:06 pm

Concorde 4590: Could It Have Landed?

Sat Oct 03, 2020 7:04 pm

I read some interesting new ideas of how the Titanic after striking the iceberg could have been managed to save everyone.

And I always wondered about the Concorde crash. I read that the engines that were on fire were throttle down, and so plane didn't have enough speed to maintain flight. But what if the engines hadn't been throttled down and the pilot makes a turn over the good wing and goes straight back down the runway he took off from.
Could it have been landed?
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2787
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sat Oct 03, 2020 7:07 pm

No. To land at LBG would have taken too much time, the fire would have fatally damaged the plane before it could land.
 
horsepowerchef
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2017 4:55 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sat Oct 03, 2020 8:48 pm

The pilots pulled the power back on the engine on the side that had damage because they were surging, and they were getting fire alarms for those engines...Given the information that they had, pulling the power back on those engines is pretty much the only option...because of the asymmetrical thrust from the 2 good engines (probably on full afterburn...) the plane was pushed into ~90deg bank...to keep the plane from completely inverting, in the last moments, the pilots retarded the throttles to level out and hopefully save some lives...The plane essentially fell out of the sky with very little airspeed. So, no if thye had kept the power on the plane probably would have crashed broken up or burned faster and then crashed...IMO, the pilots did all that they possibly could to save everyone.
 
FlyingMSY
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:06 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:39 pm

The fire was also consuming the aerilons, they were a ticking time bomb already. Just look at Nigeria Airways 2120, but this time the fire is asymmetric. Given the low speed it was a matter of time before Concorde flipped over midair.
Not to mention they were already heading to an airport that did not involve a wide U-turn.
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4547
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sat Oct 03, 2020 11:42 pm

I have doubts. The time it would have taken to get the aircraft turned to any runway was nearly impossible. That fire was raging, and they had less than a minute before that fire would have ignited the fuel tank. Of course just my opinion. The workload they faced when it hit the fan was extreme. I'm sure if that plane could have been saved, the crew flying that plane could have. Very sad.
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sat Oct 03, 2020 11:58 pm

I doubt it. That fire was so intense, I think it would have burned through the wing and caused it to lose control and crash. They were doomed once that fire started.

FlyingMSY wrote:
The fire was also consuming the aerilons, they were a ticking time bomb already. Just look at Nigeria Airways 2120, but this time the fire is asymmetric. Given the low speed it was a matter of time before Concorde flipped over midair.
Not to mention they were already heading to an airport that did not involve a wide U-turn.


No, she didn't flip over, she stalled in a nose high attitude and hit the ground tail first.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
trnswrld
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 2:19 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 1:59 am

Another thing that comes to mind to complicate things even further. Ok, say the pilots were able to put the plane down in one piece, or mostly one piece whether it be in a field or back at an airport. The fire was already so intense while airborne that I think if this airplane actually landed, people would have a very limited time to get off if any at all. Not only that, but I can only imagine Concorde might be a little more complicated getting off being so high and having wings that take up almost the entire fuselage.
Just more things to consider in an already bad situation.
 
FlyingMSY
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:06 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 2:05 am

garpd wrote:
I doubt it. That fire was so intense, I think it would have burned through the wing and caused it to lose control and crash. They were doomed once that fire started.

FlyingMSY wrote:
The fire was also consuming the aerilons, they were a ticking time bomb already. Just look at Nigeria Airways 2120, but this time the fire is asymmetric. Given the low speed it was a matter of time before Concorde flipped over midair.
Not to mention they were already heading to an airport that did not involve a wide U-turn.


No, she didn't flip over, she stalled in a nose high attitude and hit the ground tail first.


I meant had they continued flying, the aircraft would've flipped over with the loss of a whole control surface. Whoops.
 
dtwpilot225
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:31 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 2:39 am

There is absolutely no way in hell this aircraft Could have been landed given what happened to them.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 2:42 am

Image

I actually think all of the fire was outside of the aircraft like a dump and burn. The pilots should have kept all engines going and continued to climb. The roll, stall and crash was caused by both engines on one side being throttled back. That is pilot error.

I highly doubt the fire would have consumed the aircraft in the air. The fire would not have been inside the fuselage or fuel tank as there is no oxygen. The ignition point is where the fuel leaks out of the underside. The flames and heat are then after this point. All of the electronics and control surfaces would have been fine for many minutes.

The reports of engine surging is the only unusual factor. They had a clear air intake. It is unkown if the FOD hit the fuel supply or electronics to the engines.

If it did manage to land the fire would have taken over the aircraft as soon as it slowed down.
 
Gangurru
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:30 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 7:30 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The fire would not have been inside the fuselage or fuel tank as there is no oxygen. The ignition point is where the fuel leaks out of the underside. The flames and heat are then after this point. All of the electronics and control surfaces would have been fine for many minutes.

The reports of engine surging is the only unusual factor. They had a clear air intake. It is unkown if the FOD hit the fuel supply or electronics to the engines.


Whilst the flames were outside, there was smoke inside Concorde. Sadly, the CVR recorded the sounds of toilet smoke alarms going off quite early in the accident sequence. It’s horrid the think that passengers and cabin crew were breathing smoke for nearly two minutes.

Other crashes have shown aircraft structures can survive flames longer than people can survive smoke. The cabin conditions could well be the ultimate factor when conjecturing how much longer Concorde could have flown and what the outcome could have been.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:13 am

Was there no emergency oxygen system deployed? Surely Concorde would have had an impressive emergency oxygen system considering how it flew at such high altitude.
 
BlueberryWheats
Posts: 750
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:46 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:23 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Was there no emergency oxygen system deployed? Surely Concorde would have had an impressive emergency oxygen system considering how it flew at such high altitude.


I don't think that would have helped here...
The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut.
 
BAeRJ100
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:49 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:26 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Was there no emergency oxygen system deployed? Surely Concorde would have had an impressive emergency oxygen system considering how it flew at such high altitude.


What does this have to do with anything? The oxygen system is for an emergency at high altitude, it isn't there to assist people in breathing if there is smoke in the cabin (in case you're not aware, smoke commonly means fire, and no way in hell do you want an oxygen supply operating if you think there's fire).
B737/738/739/744ER/752/753/763/77L/77W/788/789
A223/320/321/332/333/346/359/388
MD82/MD88/717/F100/RJ85/RJ100/146-100/200/300
E175/190/CRJ700/900
 
trent772
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:08 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:31 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Image
The roll, stall and crash was caused by both engines on one side being throttled back. That is pilot error.


Please do elaborate on this "pilot error" and enlighten us on how you came up with this judgment of a cockpit crew that was one of the most experienced within a world renowned airline and thoroughly trained on an airplane few people were qualified to operate.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2405
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:58 am

Going back to the topic. It could not land. It crashed on the way to the runway of LeBourget, which is almost next door ahead and perfectly positioned for some immediate emergency landing. With a pro fire brigade and all the equipment.
I wonder how the weight and balance and controllability got affected by losing all the fuel weight of the burning tanks so fast?
 
arcticcruiser
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:16 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:33 am

I think a lot of people do not realize Le Bourget is only 5nm from CDG. 2-3 minutes flying time. They could not make that. I have been to the crashsite memorial, and read the report. It was unsurvivable in every respect.
 
User avatar
vhtje
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:40 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:55 am

trent772 wrote:
Please do elaborate on this "pilot error" and enlighten us on how you came up with this judgment of a cockpit crew that was one of the most experienced within a world renowned airline and thoroughly trained on an airplane few people were qualified to operate.


John Hutchinson, a former BA Concorde captain for over 15 years, has some interesting things to say about this crash, and about the BEA's investigation.

Basically he thinks it should have been survivable - that is, the pilots should have been able to fly out of trouble,. The reason why they failed to do so, Hutchinson believes, was a lethal combination of operational error and negligence. This appears to have been a crash with more than one contributing factor, most of which were avoidable.

Some key points which affected events that day:

- the proximity of the AF 747 with Jaques Chirac onboard. After the blowout, the proximity of the 747 caused the Concorde crew to take evasive action; in short, to avoid the 747, they took off too soon for the weight of the aircraft, with too low an airspeed
- a missing spacer in the nose landing gear made the aircraft difficult to control
- the aircraft was six tonnes overweight for its given conditions, and indeed, a tonne above the aircraft’s certified maximum structural weight.
- the flight engineer shut down no 2 engine when the aircraft was barely 25 feet off the ground. He did this without any command: the Captain and the co-pilot didn't know it had been done. (Another AF incident displaying poor CRM?)
- there is more....

Read more here: https://askthepilot.com/untold-concorde-story/
I only turn left when boarding aircraft. Well, mostly. All right, sometimes. OH OKAY - rarely.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2405
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:34 am

It burned like a torch. Practically there was no way it could land again even with a good runway ahead of them. It literally burned up.
The unfortunate history before is long and known by now.
 
phugoid1982
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:02 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:46 am

vhtje wrote:
trent772 wrote:
Please do elaborate on this "pilot error" and enlighten us on how you came up with this judgment of a cockpit crew that was one of the most experienced within a world renowned airline and thoroughly trained on an airplane few people were qualified to operate.


John Hutchinson, a former BA Concorde captain for over 15 years, has some interesting things to say about this crash, and about the BEA's investigation.

Basically he thinks it should have been survivable - that is, the pilots should have been able to fly out of trouble,. The reason why they failed to do so, Hutchinson believes, was a lethal combination of operational error and negligence. This appears to have been a crash with more than one contributing factor, most of which were avoidable.

Some key points which affected events that day:

- the proximity of the AF 747 with Jaques Chirac onboard. After the blowout, the proximity of the 747 caused the Concorde crew to take evasive action; in short, to avoid the 747, they took off too soon for the weight of the aircraft, with too low an airspeed
- a missing spacer in the nose landing gear made the aircraft difficult to control
- the aircraft was six tonnes overweight for its given conditions, and indeed, a tonne above the aircraft’s certified maximum structural weight.
- the flight engineer shut down no 2 engine when the aircraft was barely 25 feet off the ground. He did this without any command: the Captain and the co-pilot didn't know it had been done. (Another AF incident displaying poor CRM?)
- there is more....

Read more here: https://askthepilot.com/untold-concorde-story/


Ha. You beat me to it! just saw this thread and was immediately going to post the link to the Huthinson video and how the FE erroneously shut down No. 2 engine when in fact it wasn't a true engine fire and there was still some power coming from it. Also, he also wonders why the Captain did not select "contingency" power in the reheats providing the 8% boost upon take/off which was standard procedure in this event. Now, despite this maybe helping to keep aircraft aloft I can't see how even a controlled landing would've prevented that fire from gutting the aircraft or passengers dying of smoke inhalation even having survived the landing.

Here is the YouTube link to John Huthinson's take on the incident

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fqOcYhzWUZY
 
Strato2
Posts: 605
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 1:05 pm

If they tried to stop on the runway in any case after the fire started how high speed would the runway excursion have been?
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 1:30 pm

It was a thin aluminium can, and it was in engulfed massive fire. There's no way it could have survived even the short time needed to reach Le Bourget.

And yes, the fire was sufficiently around the aircraft structure to cause a major problem:

Image
 
giblets
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:34 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:27 pm

It’s one of those events that theoretically could have landed... but with a great deal of hindsight. Knowing exactly what is happening at the time (and without the issues mentioned above?), increases the chances considerably.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
146, ATR72, Q400, Saab 340, PA-46 Jetprop, Jetstream, E175/195, 707/727/737/747/757/767/777, DC-3/9/10, MD-11/80, A300/310/319/320/321/330/340/350/380 Tristar, BAC 1-11, Trident, Chipmunk, Bell 206/222, Chinook, Puma, Cessna 172, Fokker 70, 100, SRN4!
 
FGITD
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:52 pm

giblets wrote:
It’s one of those events that theoretically could have landed... but with a great deal of hindsight. Knowing exactly what is happening at the time (and without the issues mentioned above?), increases the chances considerably.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This is the reason I’ve never been a fan of the BA captain proclaiming they should have done better. Very easy to say that when you aren't in the cockpit with failures left and right and ATC telling you that you're trailing a huge plume of fire.

I'm curious what may have happened if they kept her on the ground. A very high speed runway excursion, and a massive fire no doubt. But would anyone have been able to get out? I believe the official report concluded that the landing gear would have likely collapsed, exacerbating the issue. Unfortunately it seems like there was just no winning for that flight
 
User avatar
vhtje
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:40 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:16 pm

FGITD wrote:
This is the reason I’ve never been a fan of the BA captain proclaiming they should have done better. Very easy to say that when you aren't in the cockpit with failures left and right and ATC telling you that you're trailing a huge plume of fire.



...except that, if you read the AskthePilot.com story I linked, it states:

AskThePilot.com wrote:
The Observer has spoken to five former and serving Concorde captains and flying officers. All have repeatedly experienced the loss of an engine shortly before takeoff in the computerised Concorde training simulator; one of them, twice, has done so for real. All agree, in John Hutchinson’s words, “It’s no big deal at all. You’re not using anything like the full amount of rudder to keep the plane straight; the yaw is totally containable.”


That, along with the weight and wind errors we know the Captain made, are pretty damning about his performance that day, no? I fully respect John Hutchinson's views on this incident. He has no agenda that I can see at all, except to be truthful.
I only turn left when boarding aircraft. Well, mostly. All right, sometimes. OH OKAY - rarely.
 
Antarius
Posts: 3436
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:23 pm

giblets wrote:
It’s one of those events that theoretically could have landed... but with a great deal of hindsight. Knowing exactly what is happening at the time (and without the issues mentioned above?), increases the chances considerably.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This is key. In the US Air a320 in the Hudson incident, the aircraft was also capable of landing in an airport. However this was predicated on immediately reacting to a situation and acting appropriately; and expectation that is impossible.
Militant Centrist
Let's all just use some common sense
 
AeroMatt7e7
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 1:13 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:35 pm

I remember seeing one of the tests performed by the BAE Systems at Warton, in support of the AAIB and BEA. A glorified steel shipping container representing the Concorde wing, gear bay and engine pods had been rigged with cameras and spark plugs local to the potential ignition sources, so that the flame pattern could be matched to the picture shown above of the aircraft at takeoff.
The test was run by discharging the supersonic wind tunnel through a diffuser into the "wing" and as the flow stabilised, popping open the hole in the wing and letting a single steel drum barrel (45gal?) of fuel fall through the hole into the airflow. The test ignition source would then ignite the fuel the cameras could record the results.
The sides of the test chamber contained blow-out panels to avoid destroying the test rig, and at the end of the chamber there was a 90degree bend into a short chimney.
When witnessing the test, we stood on an embankment about 100m away from the tunnel. As the test ran I was astonished at the power I witnessed, since the steel blowout panel was propelled off the chamber like a fence panel in a winter storm. The heat of the flame hit me in the face like when you bend over a barbeque and feels like it will sear your skin. I remember suddenly realising that if that was the power of the fire, the aluminium wing would just melt & burn away in very little time.
It became a finding and change for return to service, to restrict the fuel flow if the wing was ever breached in future by a tire carcass fragment. This was achieved by installing carbon "tea trays" into each vulnerable bay of the lower skin panel inside the wing between the spars & stringers.
 
User avatar
armagnac2010
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:45 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:31 pm

trent772 wrote:
Please do elaborate on this "pilot error" and enlighten us on how you came up with this judgment of a cockpit crew that was one of the most experienced within a world renowned airline and thoroughly trained on an airplane few people were qualified to operate.


John Hutchinson, a former BA Concorde captain for over 15 years, has some interesting things to say about this crash, and about the BEA's investigation.

Basically he thinks it should have been survivable - that is, the pilots should have been able to fly out of trouble,. The reason why they failed to do so, Hutchinson believes, was a lethal combination of operational error and negligence. This appears to have been a crash with more than one contributing factor, most of which were avoidable.

Some key points which affected events that day:

- the proximity of the AF 747 with Jaques Chirac onboard. After the blowout, the proximity of the 747 caused the Concorde crew to take evasive action; in short, to avoid the 747, they took off too soon for the weight of the aircraft, with too low an airspeed
- a missing spacer in the nose landing gear made the aircraft difficult to control
- the aircraft was six tonnes overweight for its given conditions, and indeed, a tonne above the aircraft’s certified maximum structural weight.
- the flight engineer shut down no 2 engine when the aircraft was barely 25 feet off the ground. He did this without any command: the Captain and the co-pilot didn't know it had been done. (Another AF incident displaying poor CRM?)
- there is more....

Read more here: https://askthepilot.com/untold-concorde-story/


This is first class rubbish, sorry to be blunt.

Which evasive action? The Concorde crew was not aware even Jacques Chirac was on board another aircraft, operating as a normal commercial flight.

The take-off trajectory is related to the startling effect of the fire, which was perceived in the cockpit. This also explains the flight mechanic action. When his action (shutting down an engine with a fire warning, confirmed by audio and/or visual clues) was discussed in meeting rooms during the investigation and return to service activities, there was no consensus in one direction or the other among engineers and flights crews (BA or AF alike). The only damning act was the lack of annunciation (we can only guess the reasons), but it will not have changed the outcome. Please bear in mind that on modern designs with flight phase inhibition logics, the engine fire warning is one of the very few - even possibly the only one - still displayed during the take-off phase, as en engine fire may cause some pretty serious damages owing to the energy involved.

The missing spacer had negligible effect on the handling on the airframe, it was confirmed by flight test in Toulouse after the aircraft was retired from service ( a rare case of flight test after retirement). Those flight test were performed with the fully migrated bogie, whereas it is not even sure the bogie had moved before the event.

The aircraft was 1 tonne overweight, i.e. about 0,5% above the maximum weight. It had no effect on the acceleration, based upon the DFDR analysis.

Those are facts, not xenophobic rant by some senile and very possibly incontinent retirees.

To come back to the original question, the aircraft took off with a raging fire attached to the main landing gear, slightly in front of the engine air intakes; it impacted the ground due to loss of control. Had it flown longer, loss of structural integrity or complete loss of hydraulic power were the next likely developments, with a similar end result. The only way the aircraft could have been saved would be taking the bet to reject the take-off well above V1. Which is against all published procedures, and uncertain outcome.
 
Theseus
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:50 pm

Besides the discussion whether it could have been landed or not, even if it had, it is very unclear a good outcome was possible: massive over-weight landing (I see MTOW 185T and maximum landing weight 111T, so even with some fuel on board consumed by the fire it was not possible to bring it down to landing weight), damaged landing gear (blown tire, fire damage), asymetric weight and thrust issues, likely structural damage...
 
phugoid1982
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:02 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 7:09 pm

armagnac2010 wrote:
trent772 wrote:
Please do elaborate on this "pilot error" and enlighten us on how you came up with this judgment of a cockpit crew that was one of the most experienced within a world renowned airline and thoroughly trained on an airplane few people were qualified to operate.


John Hutchinson, a former BA Concorde captain for over 15 years, has some interesting things to say about this crash, and about the BEA's investigation.

Basically he thinks it should have been survivable - that is, the pilots should have been able to fly out of trouble,. The reason why they failed to do so, Hutchinson believes, was a lethal combination of operational error and negligence. This appears to have been a crash with more than one contributing factor, most of which were avoidable.

Some key points which affected events that day:

- the proximity of the AF 747 with Jaques Chirac onboard. After the blowout, the proximity of the 747 caused the Concorde crew to take evasive action; in short, to avoid the 747, they took off too soon for the weight of the aircraft, with too low an airspeed
- a missing spacer in the nose landing gear made the aircraft difficult to control
- the aircraft was six tonnes overweight for its given conditions, and indeed, a tonne above the aircraft’s certified maximum structural weight.
- the flight engineer shut down no 2 engine when the aircraft was barely 25 feet off the ground. He did this without any command: the Captain and the co-pilot didn't know it had been done. (Another AF incident displaying poor CRM?)
- there is more....

Read more here: https://askthepilot.com/untold-concorde-story/


This is first class rubbish, sorry to be blunt.

Which evasive action? The Concorde crew was not aware even Jacques Chirac was on board another aircraft, operating as a normal commercial flight.

The take-off trajectory is related to the startling effect of the fire, which was perceived in the cockpit. This also explains the flight mechanic action. When his action (shutting down an engine with a fire warning, confirmed by audio and/or visual clues) was discussed in meeting rooms during the investigation and return to service activities, there was no consensus in one direction or the other among engineers and flights crews (BA or AF alike). The only damning act was the lack of annunciation (we can only guess the reasons), but it will not have changed the outcome. Please bear in mind that on modern designs with flight phase inhibition logics, the engine fire warning is one of the very few - even possibly the only one - still displayed during the take-off phase, as en engine fire may cause some pretty serious damages owing to the energy involved.

The missing spacer had negligible effect on the handling on the airframe, it was confirmed by flight test in Toulouse after the aircraft was retired from service ( a rare case of flight test after retirement). Those flight test were performed with the fully migrated bogie, whereas it is not even sure the bogie had moved before the event.

The aircraft was 1 tonne overweight, i.e. about 0,5% above the maximum weight. It had no effect on the acceleration, based upon the DFDR analysis.

Those are facts, not xenophobic rant by some senile and very possibly incontinent retirees.

To come back to the original question, the aircraft took off with a raging fire attached to the main landing gear, slightly in front of the engine air intakes; it impacted the ground due to loss of control. Had it flown longer, loss of structural integrity or complete loss of hydraulic power were the next likely developments, with a similar end result. The only way the aircraft could have been saved would be taking the bet to reject the take-off well above V1. Which is against all published procedures, and uncertain outcome.


But again as is the case many times most aicraft accidents are the result of a a chain of events. Was it legal, in terms of Air France operating procedure for Captain Marty to take off with a tailwind, overweight because of a decision that premium passengers baggage could not be offloaded, with a runway whose full length was unavailable? Also,I posted about the co tingecy thrust available earlier. Why was that not engaged? Not trying to be Captain hindsight as I know it is 20/20.

As for the missing spacer, regardless of the electrical arcing from the brake fans I would think the added friction from the shimmying of the bogey would add a non significant distance to the take off roll.

I have no dog in this fight but from the interviews with Captain Hutchinson it seems Air France were reluctant to share a lot of expertise, operation issues, etc with Air France.
Last edited by phugoid1982 on Sun Oct 04, 2020 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1632
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 7:13 pm

This whole thread is rubbish!! A discussion about an accident that a crew had seconds or mins to deal with and yet the Airliners experts are dissecting it with 20 years of information from the investigation. The crew did everything they could to save the aircraft with the information they had presented to them in the flightdeck.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 930
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 8:00 pm

There is evidence available to suggest new design SSTs will improve upon older design SSTs.

The engine location of the Boom Overture, should alleviate some the
• asymmetric thrust issues with an engine out in contrast to first gen SSTs
• trijet design improves upon engine shrapnel or “a hot gas event” affecting the engine performance in a similar way to the AF Concorde.
• I would assume brake, “spacer,” and tire technology and design has improved substantially since the Concorde tragedy.
• fuel containment caused by foreign object damage and a subsequent pressure wave will now be factored into future SST designs to meet passenger carrying certification requirements.

Just some quick observations.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
phugoid1982
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:02 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:09 pm

FGITD wrote:
giblets wrote:
It’s one of those events that theoretically could have landed... but with a great deal of hindsight. Knowing exactly what is happening at the time (and without the issues mentioned above?), increases the chances considerably.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This is the reason I’ve never been a fan of the BA captain proclaiming they should have done better. Very easy to say that when you aren't in the cockpit with failures left and right and ATC telling you that you're trailing a huge plume of fire.

I'm curious what may have happened if they kept her on the ground. A very high speed runway excursion, and a massive fire no doubt. But would anyone have been able to get out? I believe the official report concluded that the landing gear would have likely collapsed, exacerbating the issue. Unfortunately it seems like there was just no winning for that flight


Have wondered this myself but as they were passed V1 a moot point. Either way, I remember being a senior about to go to college coming home and watching this on the news. I still remember that sick feeling I had as if it was beyond comprehension for my favorite A/C to have gone down.
Last edited by phugoid1982 on Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:35 pm

Whiteguy wrote:
This whole thread is rubbish!! A discussion about an accident that a crew had seconds or mins to deal with and yet the Airliners experts are dissecting it with 20 years of information from the investigation. The crew did everything they could to save the aircraft with the information they had presented to them in the flightdeck.


Hear hear.

Many years ago, I was able to attend the investigation of the loss of an Air Canada DC-9-32 at YYZ on June 26, 1978. Briefly, the aircraft left the runway as a result of a very high speed reject. They fell down the very same cliff visited by an Air France A340 many years later. Two passengers were lost.

A lot of the investigation centred on the Captain’s delay in rejecting. About 6 months into the investigation, one of the investigators stood up and stated, very self satisfied and smugly that with the information they had collected so far, the aircraft should have been safely stopped. (Transport Canada, or may have been the DOT at the time, was trying to justify the existence of that cliff).

The president of CALPA, stood up and said, yes, after six months of looking at the data, and knowing exactly what the problem was, it appeared so ...... six months ..... then asked, tell me again how much time the Captain had?
If you respond with a two page answer, obviously pre-prepared, I’m not going to bother reading it. Odds are, no one else is either!
 
FGITD
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:13 pm

Theseus wrote:
Besides the discussion whether it could have been landed or not, even if it had, it is very unclear a good outcome was possible: massive over-weight landing (I see MTOW 185T and maximum landing weight 111T, so even with some fuel on board consumed by the fire it was not possible to bring it down to landing weight), damaged landing gear (blown tire, fire damage), asymetric weight and thrust issues, likely structural damage...


I think it's likely that even if they managed to put her down at le bourget, the aircraft would have crumpled into a heap of wreckage. Extremely overweight, most likely struggling to maintain any speed/altitude, and having suffered massive damage to the wing and undercarriage...does not bode well.

I mean, better than rolling it into a hotel, but still.

As others have stated, it's like the Hudson landing. Sure, you can land it. In a sim, after the investigation; when you know exactly what, and precisely when, everything is going to go wrong.
 
phugoid1982
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:02 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:23 pm

Yes but AF reticence towards the matter as evident during the relatively more recent AF 447 might indicate a more systemic problem with regards to CRM as others have stated and political considerations superceding objective determination of cause/effect.

Don't forget when the Soviet Tu-144 SST crashed at Le Boueget in 1973 the French and Soviets colluded to save face after a Mirage was sent to surreptitiously photograph the tu-144 causing the rapid execution of a high g maneuver exceeding the load factor of the aircraft to avoid the invading aircraft.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8923
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Mon Oct 05, 2020 12:25 am

With a competent crew the accident wouldn’t have happened in the first place. The fuel tank exploded because it was over fuelled, no airspace for a shockwave to go. Also they took off 8T overweight with the CoG out of limits aft, with a tailwind. Prudent move would have been to taxi to the other end of the field and takeoff in the opposite direction, which would both give a nice headwind and burn off the weight of the excess taxi fuel.

There’s a lot of blame to go around — not only command decisions by the captain were bad but the first officer should have spoken up, the FO’s role in part is to be the captain’s conscience.

Flight engineer shutting down engine number two uncommanded and unannounced doomed them. And shocking CRM. On any jet, the only thing you do with an engine fire warning on takeoff is cancel the fire bell until you’ve reached a certain altitude (typically 1 or 2,000 feet). You don’t start monkeying around shutting down engines without discussion in a critical phase of flight. For one thing, an engine on fire might still be developing power, in Concorde’s case it was generating 80% of the thrust commanded.

They could still have had a catastrophic structural failure before touchdown at Le Bourget but to recap, wouldn’t have happened at all if they had been abiding by the norms of good airmanship. If it had to happen the way it did, the flight engineer robbed them of any chance that remained. Very poor show.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
reltney
Posts: 700
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Mon Oct 05, 2020 2:47 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Image

I actually think all of the fire was outside of the aircraft like a dump and burn. The pilots should have kept all engines going and continued to climb. The roll, stall and crash was caused by both engines on one side being throttled back. That is pilot error.

I highly doubt the fire would have consumed the aircraft in the air. The fire would not have been inside the fuselage or fuel tank as there is no oxygen. The ignition point is where the fuel leaks out of the underside. The flames and heat are then after this point. All of the electronics and control surfaces would have been fine for many minutes.

The reports of engine surging is the only unusual factor. They had a clear air intake. It is unkown if the FOD hit the fuel supply or electronics to the engines.

If it did manage to land the fire would have taken over the aircraft as soon as it slowed down.



This is the only sane comment . Good on you!

The engineer shut down a good engine and doomed the flight. READ THE ACCIDENT REPORT. Fire was behind the plane and Le Bourget was in front of them a few miles. Once they landed it would have been a nightmare but we will never know.

Every time I takeoff out of CDG on that runway, I look out the cockpit and see the hotel and path. I believe they could have got it on the ground but who knows in what condition.

Cheers
Knives don't kill people. People with knives kill people.
OUTLAW KNIVES.

I am a pilot, therefore I envy no one...
 
USTraveler
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:37 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:02 am

Just watch "John Hutchinson on Air France Flight 4590" on YouTube.

It was a long chain of events.

1. AF forgot to put a spacer on the left mains. It was later discovered sitting on a shelf during the investigation.

2. The captain over-filled the fuel tanks past the limit. Not supposed to go over 83% full in number 5 tank. This left no air space. Also took more baggage making the plane overweight and out of balance (against dispatchers warnings)

3. Copilot and flight engineer never questioned any of the captain's decisions. Then take off with a tail wind which wasn't in the calculations.

4. Runway used was being resurfaced for first 200-400 meters and that part was was technically closed, and had a displaced threshold takeoff point. Was granted permission to use entire length because he knew he was overweight and had bad center of gravity. Between resurfacing area and normal area was a small "ledge" of maybe a few inches causing defective wheel(s) to come out of alignment. Another AF pilot reported that the tires were smoking during the rollout. There were skid-marks all down the runway severely affecting take-off performance and dragging plane to the left... Two former AF Concorde flight deck crewmen, Jean-Marie Chauve and Michel Suaud, believe the wheels were already out of alignment at start of takeoff roll due to abnormally slow acceleration.

5. Took off way later and off-center of where it should have, and this is where it struck the metal debris puncturing tire(s). Although metal debris shouldn't have been there, plane would have already been airborne before reaching metal strip.
The 4kg piece cut-out of tire hits number 5 fuel tank causing shockwave. Fuel actually ruptured out of the wing, was not punctured. Again, fuel tanks were filled above limits by captain's improper actions.

6. Missed french president's plane by 20-30 feet because takeoff was so off centerline and late already. Even hit a runway light before finally getting airborne.

7. It was so rear-heavy that fuel tank number 11 pump was running, which kept feeding the flame... Supposed to be off during takeoff.

8. Fuel shooting out of tank gets ignited by damaged wiring from undercarriage. Number 2 engine overheats due to passing flame causing fire warning in cockpit.

9. Flight engineer conducts fire-drill shutting off number 2 engine without captains knowledge, captain does not add contingency extra power to remaining engines like supposed to, probably would have been too late for any recovery anyways. But who knows what would happen if fuel wasn't continuously being pumped into that tank.

But, it was all that strip of metals fault to most people here, because that's what tv told them. That was just another factor in a long chain of events that were all preventable acts.

Former Concorde captains John Hutchinson or Mike Bannister on Youtube will tell you a lot about Concorde.

RIP
 
User avatar
vhtje
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:40 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:47 am

armagnac2010 wrote:

This is first class rubbish, sorry to be blunt.



armagnac2010 wrote:

not xenophobic rant by some senile and very possibly incontinent retirees



So tell me, precisely what Concorde piloting experience do you have? When you have over 15 years' experience as a Concorde pilot, you'll be in a position to challenge John Hutchinson's viewpoint.

Using repugnant and baseless insults adds nothing to your argument, it merely tars you as an extremely rude individual.
I only turn left when boarding aircraft. Well, mostly. All right, sometimes. OH OKAY - rarely.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15919
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:28 am

rideforever wrote:
But what if the engines hadn't been throttled down and the pilot makes a turn over the good wing and goes straight back down the runway he took off from.
Could it have been landed?


My personal view is the aircraft appeared to be controllable by the way they were able to fly it off the runway and initially climb, the engine surges on 1&2 resulted in loss of speed, which the pilots then had to increase AOA, the AOA then caused further surge on #1. Not being able to retract the gear was an issue, if they had kept #2 running instead of using the fire handle they may have been able to make Paris–Le Bourget Airport, they crashed very close to Le Bourget.

Aircraft engines should be on fire, that is a fire on the inside, what the fire loops detect is either a heat source or a cut in the sensor loop on the outside of the engine. I do not know if the fire detected was an actual engine issue, or it was being caused by the fuel from the punctured tank. If it was not an actual engine issue, they potentially shut down a good engine for a false engine fire.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
Virtual737
Posts: 1040
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Mon Oct 05, 2020 12:29 pm

armagnac2010 wrote:
This is first class rubbish, sorry to be blunt.

Which evasive action? The Concorde crew was not aware even Jacques Chirac was on board another aircraft, operating as a normal commercial flight.


To be fair, I think a high speed collision with a 747 is best avoided whether Jacques Chirac is on it or not.

vhtje wrote:
I fully respect John Hutchinson's views on this incident. He has no agenda that I can see at all, except to be truthful.


I almost fully agree with everything you write, although John was massively pissed that this crash was a major factor in Concorde's demise. Hard to be totally unbiased there, even though he does pretty well.
 
phugoid1982
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:02 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:40 pm

Air France was happy to see Concorde go. Even pre 9/11 and the advent of the internet enabling virtual conferencing as well as reducing the need for the core clientele to travel it was a God's send to them to end service. BA was making a profit with Concorde, neglecting acquisitions costs at least pre 9/11. AF never did
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1073
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:16 pm

phugoid1982 wrote:
Air France was happy to see Concorde go. Even pre 9/11 and the advent of the internet enabling virtual conferencing as well as reducing the need for the core clientele to travel it was a God's send to them to end service. BA was making a profit with Concorde, neglecting acquisitions costs at least pre 9/11. AF never did


Yeah, pretty sure Air France didn’t see any other chance of getting rid of Concorde than using this god sent present of killing quite a few of their passengers.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
phugoid1982
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:02 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Mon Oct 05, 2020 7:09 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:
phugoid1982 wrote:
Air France was happy to see Concorde go. Even pre 9/11 and the advent of the internet enabling virtual conferencing as well as reducing the need for the core clientele to travel it was a God's send to them to end service. BA was making a profit with Concorde, neglecting acquisitions costs at least pre 9/11. AF never did


Yeah, pretty sure Air France didn’t see any other chance of getting rid of Concorde than using this god sent present of killing quite a few of their passengers.


C'mon dude. Play nice.I meant the downturn in air travel due to 9/11, as well as the multiple modifications needed to return Concorde to service including the Kevlar lined fuel tanks as well as continued unfprofitability of Concorde operations at AF. I was in no way disparaging the tragic loss of life.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1073
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:16 pm

phugoid1982 wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
phugoid1982 wrote:
Air France was happy to see Concorde go. Even pre 9/11 and the advent of the internet enabling virtual conferencing as well as reducing the need for the core clientele to travel it was a God's send to them to end service. BA was making a profit with Concorde, neglecting acquisitions costs at least pre 9/11. AF never did


Yeah, pretty sure Air France didn’t see any other chance of getting rid of Concorde than using this god sent present of killing quite a few of their passengers.


C'mon dude. Play nice.I meant the downturn in air travel due to 9/11, as well as the multiple modifications needed to return Concorde to service including the Kevlar lined fuel tanks as well as continued unfprofitability of Concorde operations at AF. I was in no way disparaging the tragic loss of life.


I know you weren’t. You were implying AF wasn’t able to make a decision to get rid of the loss maker Concorde without flying, well burn-stalling, one into a hotel.
And I am just not sure that’s correct. But well, not the most important question nowadays anyway.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
TUSAirliner
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:33 am

USTraveler wrote:
Just watch "John Hutchinson on Air France Flight 4590" on YouTube.

It was a long chain of events.

1. AF forgot to put a spacer on the left mains. It was later discovered sitting on a shelf during the investigation.

2. The captain over-filled the fuel tanks past the limit. Not supposed to go over 83% full in number 5 tank. This left no air space. Also took more baggage making the plane overweight and out of balance (against dispatchers warnings)

3. Copilot and flight engineer never questioned any of the captain's decisions. Then take off with a tail wind which wasn't in the calculations.

4. Runway used was being resurfaced for first 200-400 meters and that part was was technically closed, and had a displaced threshold takeoff point. Was granted permission to use entire length because he knew he was overweight and had bad center of gravity. Between resurfacing area and normal area was a small "ledge" of maybe a few inches causing defective wheel(s) to come out of alignment. Another AF pilot reported that the tires were smoking during the rollout. There were skid-marks all down the runway severely affecting take-off performance and dragging plane to the left... Two former AF Concorde flight deck crewmen, Jean-Marie Chauve and Michel Suaud, believe the wheels were already out of alignment at start of takeoff roll due to abnormally slow acceleration.

5. Took off way later and off-center of where it should have, and this is where it struck the metal debris puncturing tire(s). Although metal debris shouldn't have been there, plane would have already been airborne before reaching metal strip.
The 4kg piece cut-out of tire hits number 5 fuel tank causing shockwave. Fuel actually ruptured out of the wing, was not punctured. Again, fuel tanks were filled above limits by captain's improper actions.

6. Missed french president's plane by 20-30 feet because takeoff was so off centerline and late already. Even hit a runway light before finally getting airborne.

7. It was so rear-heavy that fuel tank number 11 pump was running, which kept feeding the flame... Supposed to be off during takeoff.

8. Fuel shooting out of tank gets ignited by damaged wiring from undercarriage. Number 2 engine overheats due to passing flame causing fire warning in cockpit.

9. Flight engineer conducts fire-drill shutting off number 2 engine without captains knowledge, captain does not add contingency extra power to remaining engines like supposed to, probably would have been too late for any recovery anyways. But who knows what would happen if fuel wasn't continuously being pumped into that tank.

But, it was all that strip of metals fault to most people here, because that's what tv told them. That was just another factor in a long chain of events that were all preventable acts.

Former Concorde captains John Hutchinson or Mike Bannister on Youtube will tell you a lot about Concorde.

RIP


Bear with me regarding editing quotes

Thank you and the others that offered factual information to bring credibility to the thread.

Questions: Considering the pull to the left, likely tire issues starting at takeoff roll, the slower than normal acceleration, seeing a ground conflict with another aircraft, why wasn’t this aborted much sooner than V1? Did these factors contribute to pilot error?

2) while the most experienced pilots were Concorde, in flying a machine that requires constant hand flying, is it Pilot error for ignoring the various issues known preflight yet still continuing? As mentioned, they could have burned off a bit more fuel even with a delayed taxi, even if they still had the tail wind.
 
reltney
Posts: 700
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:53 am

USTraveler wrote:
Just watch "John Hutchinson on Air France Flight 4590" on YouTube.

It was a long chain of events.

1. AF forgot to put a spacer on the left mains. It was later discovered sitting on a shelf during the investigation.

2. The captain over-filled the fuel tanks past the limit. Not supposed to go over 83% full in number 5 tank. This left no air space. Also took more baggage making the plane overweight and out of balance (against dispatchers warnings)

3. Copilot and flight engineer never questioned any of the captain's decisions. Then take off with a tail wind which wasn't in the calculations.

4. Runway used was being resurfaced for first 200-400 meters and that part was was technically closed, and had a displaced threshold takeoff point. Was granted permission to use entire length because he knew he was overweight and had bad center of gravity. Between resurfacing area and normal area was a small "ledge" of maybe a few inches causing defective wheel(s) to come out of alignment. Another AF pilot reported that the tires were smoking during the rollout. There were skid-marks all down the runway severely affecting take-off performance and dragging plane to the left... Two former AF Concorde flight deck crewmen, Jean-Marie Chauve and Michel Suaud, believe the wheels were already out of alignment at start of takeoff roll due to abnormally slow acceleration.

5. Took off way later and off-center of where it should have, and this is where it struck the metal debris puncturing tire(s). Although metal debris shouldn't have been there, plane would have already been airborne before reaching metal strip.
The 4kg piece cut-out of tire hits number 5 fuel tank causing shockwave. Fuel actually ruptured out of the wing, was not punctured. Again, fuel tanks were filled above limits by captain's improper actions.

6. Missed french president's plane by 20-30 feet because takeoff was so off centerline and late already. Even hit a runway light before finally getting airborne.

7. It was so rear-heavy that fuel tank number 11 pump was running, which kept feeding the flame... Supposed to be off during takeoff.

8. Fuel shooting out of tank gets ignited by damaged wiring from undercarriage. Number 2 engine overheats due to passing flame causing fire warning in cockpit.

9. Flight engineer conducts fire-drill shutting off number 2 engine without captains knowledge, captain does not add contingency extra power to remaining engines like supposed to, probably would have been too late for any recovery anyways. But who knows what would happen if fuel wasn't continuously being pumped into that tank.

But, it was all that strip of metals fault to most people here, because that's what tv told them. That was just another factor in a long chain of events that were all preventQable acts.

Former Concorde captains John Hutchinson or Mike Bannister on Youtube will tell you a lot about Concorde.

RIP


SPOT ON...It is a great video. The plane actually went into the grass as it lifted off. Good photos out there. The bogie without the spacer left tire marks from the gate to the liftoff point....great photos on that too.

Sad chain of events...

Cheers
Knives don't kill people. People with knives kill people.
OUTLAW KNIVES.

I am a pilot, therefore I envy no one...
 
reltney
Posts: 700
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:57 am

TUSAirliner wrote:
USTraveler wrote:
Just watch "John Hutchinson on Air France Flight 4590" on YouTube.

It was a long chain of events.

1. AF forgot to put a spacer on the left mains. It was later discovered sitting on a shelf during the investigation.

2. The captain over-filled the fuel tanks past the limit. Not supposed to go over 83% full in number 5 tank. This left no air space. Also took more baggage making the plane overweight and out of balance (against dispatchers warnings)

3. Copilot and flight engineer never questioned any of the captain's decisions. Then take off with a tail wind which wasn't in the calculations.

4. Runway used was being resurfaced for first 200-400 meters and that part was was technically closed, and had a displaced threshold takeoff point. Was granted permission to use entire length because he knew he was overweight and had bad center of gravity. Between resurfacing area and normal area was a small "ledge" of maybe a few inches causing defective wheel(s) to come out of alignment. Another AF pilot reported that the tires were smoking during the rollout. There were skid-marks all down the runway severely affecting take-off performance and dragging plane to the left... Two former AF Concorde flight deck crewmen, Jean-Marie Chauve and Michel Suaud, believe the wheels were already out of alignment at start of takeoff roll due to abnormally slow acceleration.

5. Took off way later and off-center of where it should have, and this is where it struck the metal debris puncturing tire(s). Although metal debris shouldn't have been there, plane would have already been airborne before reaching metal strip.
The 4kg piece cut-out of tire hits number 5 fuel tank causing shockwave. Fuel actually ruptured out of the wing, was not punctured. Again, fuel tanks were filled above limits by captain's improper actions.

6. Missed french president's plane by 20-30 feet because takeoff was so off centerline and late already. Even hit a runway light before finally getting airborne.

7. It was so rear-heavy that fuel tank number 11 pump was running, which kept feeding the flame... Supposed to be off during takeoff.

8. Fuel shooting out of tank gets ignited by damaged wiring from undercarriage. Number 2 engine overheats due to passing flame causing fire warning in cockpit.

9. Flight engineer conducts fire-drill shutting off number 2 engine without captains knowledge, captain does not add contingency extra power to remaining engines like supposed to, probably would have been too late for any recovery anyways. But who knows what would happen if fuel wasn't continuously being pumped into that tank.

But, it was all that strip of metals fault to most people here, because that's what tv told them. That was just another factor in a long chain of events that were all preventable acts.

Former Concorde captains John Hutchinson or Mike Bannister on Youtube will tell you a lot about Concorde.

RIP


Bear with me regarding editing quotes

Thank you and the others that offered factual information to bring credibility to the thread.

Questions: Considering the pull to the left, likely tire issues starting at takeoff roll, the slower than normal acceleration, seeing a ground conflict with another aircraft, why wasn’t this aborted much sooner than V1? Did these factors contribute to pilot error?

2) while the most experienced pilots were Concorde, in flying a machine that requires constant hand flying, is it Pilot error for ignoring the various issues known preflight yet still continuing? As mentioned, they could have burned off a bit more fuel even with a delayed taxi, even if they still had the tail wind.



Well, the #2 isn’t really true. The BA Concorde was bid by junior captains as the schedules were so bad, no one wanted them. Not the most senior pilots flew it in the end... and what is the most experienced ? Age, hours, many types of planes...hard to judge..... I get what you say, but not a true statement that the Concorde pilots were the most experienced .
Knives don't kill people. People with knives kill people.
OUTLAW KNIVES.

I am a pilot, therefore I envy no one...
 
N292UX
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 7:08 pm

Re: Concorde 4590 : Could It Have Been Landed ?

Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:12 pm

My take: Could the plane have possibly landed at Le Bourget? Yes, it could have had the pilots not throttled down two engines. From there, there's really only two likely scenarios:

1. Concorde successfully lands at Le Bourget, but overshoots the runway and is destroyed, with total loss of life on the plane, as well as more on the ground. The longest runway at Le Bourget is 9,843 feet (3,000 meters) and Concorde would've been landing at maximum weight with possible engine damage. Take into account that Concorde needs about 11,000 feet (3,600 meters) with a full load, so imagine it trying to land on a 9,800 foot runway with a full load and a damaged wing.

2. Concorde does land and doesn't overshoot the runway. The fire would quickly consume the plane and it is likely most passengers wouldn't make it out before it was too late. Some would probably survive in this scenario, but I imagine most wouldn't make it out. The plane would still be destroyed (see Air Canada 797 as a similar example)

So in my opinion, I think it is extremely likely the Concorde would've overshot the runway at Le Bourget had they been able to get the plane on the ground.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos