There is also criticism by the UK AAIB of the French judicial enquiry hampering them doing their part of the investigation as well as a couple of area of technical disagreement. Copyright © 2011 Patrick Smith / Aerophilia Enterprises, LLCSite developed by LeandroArts. It is a real thrill to make the mistake of landing or taking off with only a few knots of wind. The reputation was down. Well a recent Concorde documentary ‘Triumph and Tragedy’ on Channel 5 the explanation published by the Observer was used. The accident report also clearly show the aircraft tracking straight up until after the tyre burst and shows more left rudder input required rather than right rudder to keep it straight- showing that the missing spacer had no effect on the aircraft’s directional control. It might have been non profitable but it brought so much satisfaction to both charter and regular airline passengers and it was a great experience to fly on it. Mis à jour le 01 Novembre 2019. The flight was doomed the moment the captain attempted a tail wind takeoff. Commercial service was resumed in November 2001 after a £17m safety improvement service, until the remaining aircraft were retired in 2003. The plane managed to stop well before the end of the runway and all passengers were disembarked. Co-Pilot’s Conversation Before Dana Plane Crash. It has been evident for a long time that the judicial process (not just in France) is slow and cumbersome and may inhibit witnesses from speaking out at an early stage, thus compromising the investigation and, most importantly, the prompt dissemination of safety information. “the U.S. government’s HSCA essentially agreed in 1979”. Why it was skidding has been the subject of contention, but as we’ll see in a minute, many believe the skid was caused by an improperly repaired landing gear. to John kind regards and best wishes,and if would like to join us please do not hesitate to contact me, The Discovery has a show, “Chaos in the Skies”, that features major air plane accidents and this was one of them. A 16 heures locales, les portes du Concorde se sont refermées et le pilote demande à la tour de contrôle de lui assigner la piste 26R pour un départ imminent. It had been still. The great white bird rears up over runway 26 at Charles de Gaulle, immediately after takeoff. At 14.45 the control tower informed the fire and emergency services that the flight, carrying 100 mainly German passengers and nine crew, had crashed near Le Bourget. The spacer seems significant in that it caused loss of control on the runway, but the aircraft did get airborne and start climbing away, even if at too slow a speed. How do you know this would be likely? I have to take issue with this statement: “those who fly the plane say that a loss of engine power will not cause an uncontrollable yaw.”. The Concorde fleet was grounded after the crash, but started to fly again 15 months after the crash. Then BA ran it at a profit until the crash and grounding. Once again we learn accidents are caused by several factors, instead of just one major event! “Sit on your hands” until you reach a certain altitude! The Air Accidents Investigations Branch documented a fire on G-BOAC fed by fuel leaking from crack(s) in fuel tank expansion joints. More important is the light this throws on the French approach to the investigation of air accidents. First, as the BEA’s own published data reveals, the thrust from engine one was almost normal until the end of the skid, when it took in the parts of the landing light. As to the list above… the idea the JFK assassination WASN’T a conspiracy is utterly laughable (the U.S. government’s HSCA essentially agreed in 1979). A look back at 2020 in Bracknell. I think the tyre disintegrated itself, strip or no strip, I see no evidence that metal strip was run over at all. According to the French accident investigation bureau, the BEA, it broke out when the plane passed over a strip of metal on the runway. Here’s the thing though (and sorry for a year late reply), the gear was locked. So, if it was, then what caused the fire in the first place – rumour has it the flight was delayed whilst one of the reverse thrusts on one of the engines was being checked or worked on. It is clear the aircraft was improperly prepared for flight, being both overweight and incorrectly trimmed. It wasn’t the 1920s. September 22nd 2009 The French Cassation Court (US Supreme) closed the case. The fuel tank fire was visually spectacular (and terrifying), but experts say its direct effects on the actual crash were minimal, aside from damage caused to the number 2 engine, and it likely would have burned itself out in a matter of a few minutes. It was the first crash of a Concorde since the world's first supersonic passenger plane went into commercial operation in 1976. The primary cause of the “accident” was the omission by mechanics of the undercarriage spacer on the port wheels assembly. Not a critical circumstance in itself perhaps, but the failure of the tyre and the rupture of the tank was. […] bold; } My bad looks like the giant ball of fire had little to do with the crash Untold Story of the Concorde Disaster Reply With […]. Chaîne officielle. The film says that, less than a week after the crash, Aeroports de Paris (owners of CDG) re-surfaced that runway. That’s an excellent read, and exactly what I’ve come to expect of you, Patrick . Below is the word-for-word account of the conversation between the crew of the ill-fated plane and the ATC on duty. You’d get intermittent blobs from flapping rubber, but these are very clearly skids.”. They made heavy profits in the final months with almost all the flights fully booked. I flew it to NYC and found the trip itself a let-down: small aisle, cramped economy seats, continual parade of food carts as there was insufficient time to serve properly, and most of the passengers arriving at JFK around 08:00AM plastered on expensive wine & cognac… Short 3 1/2 hour flight, only to wait for lugage and then sit for another 2-3hours in NYCs morning rush hour. ie. I believe I watched this on You-tube a couple of years after the accident. However, a blow-out of this kind has never before led to a fuel fire.". It wouldn’t have been the Captain’s hat, but the Flight Engineer’s. It was caused by Continental leaving its rubbish on the ground and the sooner the Americans stop their incessant, anti-French ranting and raving, the better for all concerned. Thank you for an excellent article and comments. Airbus A320 is fitted at the time with Collins VOR LOC DME – whose readings are unreliable –due to misplacement of antennas nearby the thunderbolt protectors. I agree that delay’s and bureaucratic pressure can give safety a back seat. 31yrs. To be honest, the design was a marvel of British (not French) engineering. According to Jack Lowe, a Concorde pilot, up until the crash of Air France Flight 4590 at Paris, the British Airways Concorde operation made a net average profit of about £30m a year. It’s pretty horrible to imagine what it must have been like for the passengers involved. It may be that the choice of a different runway will lead to a delay or even, as might have been the case here, a need to load more fuel to allow for the extra taxying time, but this is a safety issue and as such is entirely up to the pilot. By the day of the crash, it had moved about seven inches, until the two washers were almost touching. Anyhow they re-boarded the flight about 3 hours later and on they went. Maybe reading the full BEA report would shed light onto some of this. It took off in blue – not a problem. The fact that the plane was overweight AND the pilots did not respond to the “wind comment” to adjust their settings due to the shift in wind, in my mind, are the real factors that caused the plane not to “rotate” appropriately, before it hit the metal strip. Also found it in Russian — and, here it is in Spanish:, it was actually a severed wire that started the fire. I am regular reader, how are you everybody? To quick to be ethically correct. However, we dont know if this is really true as we dont know how the calculations work. A good reaction is the best action to solve a complication, even one as drastic as this one was. I guess your comment ties in with what I was told about tyre bursts which had occurred prior to the Paris accident and the lack of effective action to prevent another incident of the same kind. However, let’s go through some of the evidence. The control tower had given the pilot permission to take off before signalling less than a minute later that the plane was on fire at the rear, said Elisabeth Senot, a deputy prosecutor heading the inquiry. There are other choices, a different configuration of flap, a different (possibly longer) runway, offloading baggage or fuel or both. The wheel space bearing is another issue that did not come out of the initial investigation and may have been added through UK pressure. But in over 100 reports over the years, I have found only one mention of the officially discounted evidence of three fire engine crews, who maintained that the tyre broke up closer to the start of the take off where the runway surface was badly worn due to landing aircraft. UAL Ret. Agreed with your assertion of the possibility of survivors had the pilots made Le Bourget or de Gaulle. There is a word in the Aviation World that is slowly being forgotten call Airmanship! (Usually 400′ AGL for most multi engine commercial jets.) Remove other pieces of information you consider to be factual and ask yourself the same question. ", 14:44.14 - Co-pilot: "Le Bourget, Le Bourget. When the undercarriage bogeys are taken apart and reassembled, the work must be done according to a rigid formula, and rigorously inspected and assessed. But in all those incidents it was a piece of flying metal - from the undercarriage or water deflectors - that caused the damage, not tyre rubber itself. Both French and British pilots say it was another disastrous mistake, which breached all set procedures. Having flown in it myself, I, too, regret its passing. The nose wheel forces become overwhelmed by the rudder at speeds above V1 (the commitment point to take off instead of abort.) The USA aircraft industry saw no profit in it and declined to make their own or even buy a single one. I am reminded also of the all-too-quick arrest of the 2 American pilots whose private plane collided with a Brazilian airliner over the rainforest. Concorde was a very different aircraft to operate in comparison to a subsonic aeroplane. Former Concorde pilot discusses his theories on the crash: PRINT FRIENDLY: EMAIL STORY: PM Archive - Wednesday, 26 July , 2000 00:00:00 … God nah sleep!!! The Tupolev design bureau was unable to duplicate the complex shape of the Concorde wings in the TU-144 “Concordski,” despite having a set of purloined plans. 14.43.25 - Pilot: "Engine fire procedure; (sound of switch, end of ringing). Without visual reference the side slip indicator becomes the reference. The point is exactly the opposite. When the Air France Concorde crashed outside Paris in July 2000, it looked like the end for the world's most famous airliner. I had spent 8 years in shorthaul and the call was always V1 – engine failure – rotate. Without the fire at all, but with the other factors still present (two failed or failing engines, the weight issue, etc. Earlier this week the transport minister, Jean-Claude Gayssot, held out hope that the planes might fly again. Would they have made it if #2 was not shut down? They have spent the past six months preparing a 60-page report on the crash. The Capt. How do you know this would be likely? etc…, Unless there is a re-opening of the official enquiry I would suggest the doom and gloom mongerers and finger pointers go and turn their attention to something more useful. Concorde, as you may or may not know, was not the only supersonic passenger aircraft. best regards, The November 29th verdict was, if nothing else, fair. 14.44.26 - Fire service leader: "De Gaulle tower from fire service leader, can you give me the situation of the Concorde; (two gongs and sound of switch, followed by another switch and sounds likened to objects being moved). The time and distance to Gonesse, where the airplane fell, was less than a go-around. When the time came they were glad to get rid of them. This criminal case should never have been brought. If blame had been properly placed, the Concorde fleet might have continued in service and we might now be in the supersonic age. 13.58 Crew contacts control tower to plan pre-flight sequence. In this updated edition, former British chief test pilot Brian Trubshaw gives his opinions about the causes of the Paris crash, the resulting enquiry and Concorde's future. I get that it was made of titanium but geesh , the ant that tripped up the elephant. The aircraft wasnt overweight when the take-off calculations were done by the crew (if I read the full article correctly) What had changed was the surface wind, such that if the calculations had been done again it may have been six tonnes overweight. […]. "Air France 4590, runway 26 right, wind zero 90 knots, authorized takeoff.". All the best! In a comment which might be applied to the whole unfolding tragedy, John Hutchinson said: “Discipline had broken down. The type of wing design used on the aircraft meant it had to fly faster to gain lift – the basic principle of flight. This was the first accident of Concorde but not the first in aviation history. Why did they not redesign and install a solid and strong protection to prevent 100% any cut in the tank, should any tyre burst.And on top,also reenforce the rubber tank skin. Seems to me that BA and AF were shortsighted in terminating the program early and without a passenger SST replacement. Whether or not this is because they didn’t have the technology is a matter of debate. The memory is seared into my brain. (Right after the first incident! Sadly, the trial is not yet over and one man, a “Chief Designer” appointed long after the original teams had been disbanded, is still under sentence. Published 3 April 2019. We have one (Alpha Echo) in a museum here at Barbados, since we were only one of 3 scheduled destinations it flew to. WRT comments about the flames not causing structural damage, being aft of the craft or likely to burn out soon… LONDON -- A British Airways Concorde took off from London's Heathrow airport on Tuesday on a safety test flight, roaring out over the Atlantic for the first time since last year's Air France crash If you remove one link, the chain is broken, and most likely you do not have a catastrophic result. Nobody mentions those people who acted to ground Concorde for good. It seems like the tires were a vulnerable part of the airplane during take off and an NTSB concern. of the Concorde Disaster Untold Story Have attended lectures about this air crash, and read the accompanying guide, and talked at length to an aircraft enthusiast who has studied the available information. You must creates layers of truth. There had been Concordes that had tire failures on takeoff from USA airports. . ``TOO LATE . Fortunate me I discovered your site unintentionally, and I am stunned why this coincidence did not came about earlier! Did the Airline Safety System function well enough ? Apparently the runway was resurfaced very soon after the incident. Third – Another aircraft passed along the runway between the DC-10 losing the strip and Concorde’s take-off roll. Something doesn’t sit right with me… How many millimetres thick is this strip of metal? This from the Associated Press a few days ago, is a typical example of what the public has been reading and hearing: “The burst tire sent bits of rubber flying, puncturing the fuel tanks, which started the fire that brought down the plane.”.