|Quoting reltney (Reply 8):|
Add to that, the Plane was 6000lbs over its takeoff weight for the runway(not a big deal) but the flight engineer shut down an engine producing thrust which left them with 2 engines
I've tried to avoid mentioning the crew, as I know people who knew Capt. Marty, and every single one of them agrees that he was a class act, and among the best of his kind.
But since it's been brought up now: yes, there was a complete breakdown of CRM, and the planning and mtx of this flight were **highly** questionable.
Two things you didn't mention:
Not only was it several tons
overweight, but it also took off into a (IINM) 14kt tailwind, which further exacerbated that situation.
And on top of that, the aircraft had been missing its auto-alignment spacer on that landing gear bogie for more than a month!
Was it illegal? No. Was it unreasonable, irrational, and plain goddamn STUPID? Yes.
I mean, it's not illegal to drive your car without changing the oil for a year, but it ain't wise!
......and the craziest thing of all? The BEA found that all of the above was not contributory to the incident. WTF?? There went its credibility.
|Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 10):|
The post-Concorde era is the first time that aviation deliberately moved backwards and stayed there. Absent Concorde, cruising speeds halved, altitudes were cut by one third and flight times doubled. It is the same as if the jet age had faltered and we went back to piston powered flight.
|Quoting diverted (Reply 11):|
Look at military aviation as well...SR-71 first flew over 50 years ago.
As an aviation fan, I hate to say this.... but those perspectives are in a vacuum.
Yes they're true, so far as aviation is concerned; but unfortunately, both Concorde and the SR71 were the answers to questions that we no longer had.
Just like aircraft had replaced ships as the optimum and economic choice for crossing the Atlantic; the internet
replaced the need for an SST, and spy satellites
replaced the need for an ultra-fast spy plane.
Concorde and SR71's speed was untouchable by other mechanical objects, but it was holistically dwarfed
by the speed of an electronic signal.
No longer was a courier with a stack of contracts aboard Concorde, the only way to get documents signed on both side of the Atlantic within a single day. A simple PDF can do that now, at 1/100,000th of the cost, and several million times the speed.
Why bother losing a spy plane over the USSR
, when you could position a few satellites and snap pics all day long as they go by?
|Quoting trnswrld (Reply 13):|
I have not read any reports, but the actual crash of that airplane was the lack of power because of a shut down engine (or two) correct?
Yup. The aircraft stalled, and fell straight down, almost inverted and upside down to the left.
The irony of Concorde (and anything with an ogival-delta wing with no slats) is that the slower it goes, the more it needs to pitch up in order to generate lift. Immediately before F-BTSC stalled, it was pointing almost straight up to the sky... they would've need a significant increase in air speed in order get the nose down and even see where they were going, much less navigate properly to the airfield.
The aircraft never really had a safe speed throughout the entire doomed flight. I remember an interview with Capt Hutchinson where he stated the speed they took off at was only 15kt above Vmu for the aircraft, and two reasons cited for this are 1) it was already veering off the runway due to the blowout, and 2) it was headed straight for a 744 that had landed as was waiting to cross the runway.
The aircraft's trajectory on the runway can be seen here, it had already left the pavement before liftoff:
This famous picture was taken from a Japanese passenger on that 744.
IINM, French President Chirac was aboard that aircraft as well.
[Edited 2015-07-25 13:33:55]
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil