I see today that a French court has quite rightly overturned the finding of an earlier French court that Continetal were to blame for the Paris accident by leaving a bit of metal on the runway.
That kind of narrows it down to who the real culprits were.....
That kind of narrows it down to who the real culprits were.....
Indeed. I think it's a combination of the Air France engineering department and the missing wheel spacer. The captain for choosing to take off with a tailwind and for commanding an overweight aircraft, and the flight engineer for fuel mismanagement and shutting down the wrong engine after a fire was detected. It is claimed on one of the the documentaries, that the runway the captain chose was very rough at the beginning, and that put additional pressure on the wheels with the missing spacer, and that the plane was careering off the runway even before they saw President Chirac's plane right near the edge and had to rotate quickly to avoid it.
All highly debatable, and there are no doubt opposing views. I wonder if we really will know. It wont bring Concorde back, whoever or whatever is blamed.
On a posiive note, I landed on Runway 27 at Bristol Filton this afternoon. Although Airbus security wouldnt let me near the Concorde there, I got a few pictures from a distance.
Some updates on the Concorde at Bristol Filton
Perhaps a little UK-centric, but an interesting and at time humorous documentary. I apologize if this is something that most or all of you have already seen.
Isn’t it just an amazing machine.
Super movie – thanks for posting it. I’ve just watched it whole.
I was privileged to be on one of the last flights, in 2003.
VinceC wrote:
That kind of narrows it down to who the real culprits were…..
If Air France or any French made airplane or interests is involved, don’t belive one word of any report the BEA might release.
Air France to me is a total no-go unless I am in a position where I have no choice, I won’t fly them out of principle. Their track record may be above some African or Asian operators, but the accidents they have caused always showed a complete lack of respect and skill operating airplanes the way they should be. And that is only what made it past the political players at the BEA and the government.
- Crashlanding a Concorde in Dakar and not telling anyone about it, flying it home and once they found that it was actually unairworthy destroying the airframe before anyone could find out what they had done…
- keeping quiet about the findings of the Concorde incident at Dulles, which was a carbon copy of the Paris one with the difference that the initial damage was less and allowed them to return
- Gonesse, where a Concorde was crashed due to sheer disregard for just about any good flying practice and massive crew and technical error
- Habsheim….
- AF447, does anyone really need a more incapable crew?
- Toronto
- can’t remember where that 747 was destroyed by an overrun
and so on…
I don’t think the Soviets were much more secretive and manipulative about their accidents… but at least they kept their pilots at a very high standard (which they needed in that environment).
While I share your views about the poor safety record of Air France and the likely cultural issues in that airline that might be the cause, I don’t think you have your facts straight.
You say they were “destroying the airframe […after an incident…] before anyone could find out what they had done”. Not true. The incident happened in 1979, F-BVFD was withdrawn in 1982 and dismantled only 10 years later. The damage history may have been the reason that this particular aircraft was chosen to be retired, though.
You say they kept quiet about the Dulles tyre burst incident which was the first one where a tyre burst caused damage to fuel tanks. Not true. It was reported to the BEA, and led to serveral AD’s related to the tyres.
Cobalt wrote:
The incident happened in 1979, F-BVFD was withdrawn in 1982 and dismantled only 10 years later. The damage history may have been the reason that this particular aircraft was chosen to be retired, though.
You are right, which I suppose makes it worse. I did not realize it took 3 years for them to realize that the airplane was not airworthy after they initially repaired it. Need to talk to some folks about this one, basically what I was told by people involved with Concorde on the British side was that after the accident it was flown and in a subsequent check found not repairable and scrapped without much ado. Did not realize the time frame involved. Apparently after they discovered the full extent in 1982 it was stored and used for spare parts until it was eventually scrapped, which, given it is a Concorde, is also quite weird as many museums would have killed to have whatever was left of it. My contacts in Britain suggested that it was scrapped so that nobody could have a closer look at it anymore.
Cobalt wrote:
You say they kept quiet about the Dulles tyre burst incident
Not about the incident itself but about the extent of the damage. Again the information I had from the British side is that they knew nothing about that until after Gonesse other than there had been a leak caused by tyres. They assumed it was minor, how major it had been they were gobsmacked when that came to light.
The question then also is that if there were already AD’s about the tyres why they did not prevent Gonesse from happening. Obviously nobody had thought that anyone would try to take off the way that crew did nor had any idea about the consequences.
Personally I take everything which comes out of BEA these days with a bucket of salt particularly if it concerns any French made airplane or French airline. I guess they did learn some things from those accidents and quietly implemented changes where neccessary but it appears quite clear to me that not everything which should have has been brought to light
In that case, I call BS on your “British Source”. They did indeed fly back with an aircraft that was not airworthy (in the sense that it had uninspected/unrepaired damage). But the retirement three years later was because they shut down the route because of lack of demand. And when they then tried to part it out for spares, it was TEN years later, the issues that made that difficult was extensive corrosion. And anyone who thinks that a puncture and subsequent leak in a tank is minor has no clue.
I recommend you apply the same caution, to your “British Source” that you apply to the BEA as a source.
If you want to read up on the history of tyre incidents and how they wear dealt with, I recommend you read….. the BEA report, pages 95 and following.
If you read it, it will also debunk a lot of other nonsense spouted about this. People say the “crew shut down the wrong engine”… technically yes, engine 1 was surging, but engine 2 started surging and the engine 2 fire alarm went off. Which engine should they have shut down?
You will also see that the BEA made negative comments on the state of the gear, the decision to take off with being overweight for the prevailing tailwind, so this was hardly a whitewash / cover-up, although disagreements about the relevance of these items varies.
Which engine should they have shut down?
Below safe flying speed, the answer is None 
The fact that the plane is on fire is irrelevant.
