The media has adopted a new and novel approach, running an airport pick-up truck along an empty runway at Charles de Gaulle to show us all where the latest "cause of the crash" was found. No real investigators were present on camera please note.
The media is insisting investigators are insisting (?) Concorde was a victim of pure chance, an innocent bystander who simply slipped on a chunk of metal found on the runway. And was this metal from Concorde? Ingeniously, apparently not, though no warnings have been sent out to airlines using the active runway earlier that day. So somewhere out there is a commercial aircraft with a gaping 40 cm hole no-one has noticed...
It seems the media is groping its way towards a "consensus", in other words a story good enough to shut us all up. The truth is not important of course, but then it hasn't been for years. Knowing the Japanese photo and the wreckage found at the crash site prove no tyres were missing, the media is leading us gently towards a "single" tyre that was unfortunately "slashed" by a "piece of metal" left behind by another (anonymous) negligent aircraft. Not just that, but naughty Air France was allegedly running on retread tyres (on what?), while BA was paying for the real thing.
The "retread" story has not been published yet but is likely to surface soon, providing the essential "difference" between the grounded Air France Concordes and their hyperactive British Airways cousins still merrily blasting their way across the Atlantic. In theory Air France can then be slapped gently across the wrist, and told to buy new tyres instead of those unsafe retreads they've allegedly been using. Having thus evened the score, Air France Concordes will be allowed to fly again.
All this should neatly deflect public opinion away from the real cause of the crash, but is unlikely to fool aviation pros. Only an idiot would believe a loose piece of tyre tread punched a hole in Concorde's wing, resulting in a trail of high flashpoint kerosine, which in turn was lit by two afterburners which had already failed. So much for "Air Safety"!
http://vialls.homestead.com/concordenews.html
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: Attn - Admin
Joe, you're destroying any credibility you ever managed to garner with trash like this. Give it a rest. Your facts are nothing, and I mean Nothing more than idle conjecture and conjured imagination.
Sorry Johan.
Sorry Johan.
-
- Guest
RE: Concorde "Running On Retreads"!
Buff,
Don't waste your breath - The best way to respond to a thread like this is silence.
(Yes, I'm aware of the irony of that advice, given that I just replied to it
)
Would have dropped you an email, but can't, for obvious reasons!
James
Don't waste your breath - The best way to respond to a thread like this is silence.
(Yes, I'm aware of the irony of that advice, given that I just replied to it
)
Would have dropped you an email, but can't, for obvious reasons!
James
RE: Concorde
Hey Jet Setter:
I wanted to say something as Joe was a new poster and seemed to have his/her wits about him/herself for the first few posts on this topic. Unfortunately things went into the toilet real fast. Oh well.
The Event is tragedy enough. And one that is shaping up to be a true accident, albeit one propagated by cost cutting (runway inspection).
You get your handle from Air 2000?
Best Regards,
Buff
I wanted to say something as Joe was a new poster and seemed to have his/her wits about him/herself for the first few posts on this topic. Unfortunately things went into the toilet real fast. Oh well.
The Event is tragedy enough. And one that is shaping up to be a true accident, albeit one propagated by cost cutting (runway inspection).
You get your handle from Air 2000?
Best Regards,
Buff
-
- Guest
RE: Concorde "Running On Retreads"!
Sorry, forgot in last post that someone round here wanted the full Concorde line drawing. Click on the link below and "Save Picture As".
http://vialls.homestead.com/files/concorde11.jpg
Joe
http://vialls.homestead.com/files/concorde11.jpg
Joe
RE: Concorde "Running On Retreads"!
Joe,
If you are to retain any credability please answer the following, instead of ignoring the questions I have posed previously.
1. Why do you express surprise at the use of re-tread tyres, it is common practise for airlines to use such tyres ? As an ex - F/E you should be aware of this.
2. What is so unreasonable about a tyre throwing up a piece of FOD into the wing ? Especially when it is documented that it has happened before.
3. On your Concorde AF4390 at T.O. page you say the No. 2 Engine couldn't have started the fire because it had already failed. Yet on the Location Seat of Fire page you say the #2 failed AFTER the fire started. Which is it Joe ? It can't be both.
4. Ref the Schematic page, if you have that illustration you will know the fuel jettison line terminates in the fuselage tail cone & not out of the back of the wing as you suggest on your Seat of Fire page, but that doesn't suit your argument does it ? It seems to me you are doing exactly what you accuse the media of doing.
5. On your Stress Cracks page you refer to an incident that you experienced nearly 30 years ago on the Comet 2. The Comet 2 went out of service in 1962 that's nearly 40 years ago.
6. Finally, lets's see a few more details in your profile, such as a list of the a/c you flew.
If you are to retain any credability please answer the following, instead of ignoring the questions I have posed previously.
1. Why do you express surprise at the use of re-tread tyres, it is common practise for airlines to use such tyres ? As an ex - F/E you should be aware of this.
2. What is so unreasonable about a tyre throwing up a piece of FOD into the wing ? Especially when it is documented that it has happened before.
3. On your Concorde AF4390 at T.O. page you say the No. 2 Engine couldn't have started the fire because it had already failed. Yet on the Location Seat of Fire page you say the #2 failed AFTER the fire started. Which is it Joe ? It can't be both.
4. Ref the Schematic page, if you have that illustration you will know the fuel jettison line terminates in the fuselage tail cone & not out of the back of the wing as you suggest on your Seat of Fire page, but that doesn't suit your argument does it ? It seems to me you are doing exactly what you accuse the media of doing.
5. On your Stress Cracks page you refer to an incident that you experienced nearly 30 years ago on the Comet 2. The Comet 2 went out of service in 1962 that's nearly 40 years ago.
6. Finally, lets's see a few more details in your profile, such as a list of the a/c you flew.
-
- Guest
RE: Concorde "Running On Retreads"!
Buddy (VC-10),
Before you go ripping away at this guy's jugular - for all the world to see - you need to read his message more carefully. He isn't surprised that the Concorde may or may not have been using re-treads. He's telling you it will probably be used as a scapegoat (if they can prove it) because most people don't know that re-treads are common in commercial aviation.
Cut him some slack, at least he's trying to formulate some idea of what happened to bring that aircraft down, the rest of you are like vultures sitting around waiting for him to trip up.
If you don't buy it, then don't. There's no need to publicly castrate the poor SOB. What the h*ll is wrong with you people?
Before you go ripping away at this guy's jugular - for all the world to see - you need to read his message more carefully. He isn't surprised that the Concorde may or may not have been using re-treads. He's telling you it will probably be used as a scapegoat (if they can prove it) because most people don't know that re-treads are common in commercial aviation.
Cut him some slack, at least he's trying to formulate some idea of what happened to bring that aircraft down, the rest of you are like vultures sitting around waiting for him to trip up.
If you don't buy it, then don't. There's no need to publicly castrate the poor SOB. What the h*ll is wrong with you people?
-
- BigGiraffe
- Posts: 256
- Joined:
RE: Concorde
All of VC-10's questions are valid. This is about the third post on this subject by the same person, but none of those points are answered. It isn't too hard to see that several of us working in the industry are tired of speculations being represented as truth.
An7x: "What is the matter with you people?" -- The answer to that lies within yourself; not in the people around you. YOU are the problem - just read the spitefulness in your own message. Nobody is going to take your "advice" to change toward the better until you mend your own attitude.
An7x: "What is the matter with you people?" -- The answer to that lies within yourself; not in the people around you. YOU are the problem - just read the spitefulness in your own message. Nobody is going to take your "advice" to change toward the better until you mend your own attitude.
RE: Concorde "Running On Retreads"!
An7X,
I suggest you review Joe's website, and form you own opinion on Joe's data.
To begin with I treated Joe with an open mind. I have posed some of the above question's before and also asked him to us some idea of his non media sources to give authority to his post's, but all questions go unanswered. If I were in his place and someone was going for my "jugular" I would answer any questions promptly & put the questioner back in his place. Joe however remains strangely silent. To me that say's a lot.
I suggest you review Joe's website, and form you own opinion on Joe's data.
To begin with I treated Joe with an open mind. I have posed some of the above question's before and also asked him to us some idea of his non media sources to give authority to his post's, but all questions go unanswered. If I were in his place and someone was going for my "jugular" I would answer any questions promptly & put the questioner back in his place. Joe however remains strangely silent. To me that say's a lot.
-
- Guest
RE: Concorde "Running On Retreads"!
Air France Concordes use only new tyres.
Nobody I know has said the debris found on the runway caused any damage to the doomed aircraft.The media are jumping on it,not the investigators.
Nobody to this day has the full explanation of the event.
What we know is that the freakiest succession of events caused the loss of the aircraft.
The rest is pure speculation,although every pilot I know has his/her own explanation and the majority probably has it close to the actual event.But just probably.
May I say that I find Joe's french bashing in this case obscene?
Nobody I know has said the debris found on the runway caused any damage to the doomed aircraft.The media are jumping on it,not the investigators.
Nobody to this day has the full explanation of the event.
What we know is that the freakiest succession of events caused the loss of the aircraft.
The rest is pure speculation,although every pilot I know has his/her own explanation and the majority probably has it close to the actual event.But just probably.
May I say that I find Joe's french bashing in this case obscene?
-
- Guest
RE: Concorde "Running On Retreads"!
I still say, cut him some slack.
The guy's just a hardcore cynic (you can't really blame him, I mean, the press can screw up a wet dream).
I'd like to see some productive conversation on this too, but I guarantee you won't get it coming at him like that.
Bottom line - I don't like to see anyone getting torn apart like that. Whether you're right or wrong, it doesn't matter man, it's just not cool.
The guy's just a hardcore cynic (you can't really blame him, I mean, the press can screw up a wet dream).
I'd like to see some productive conversation on this too, but I guarantee you won't get it coming at him like that.
Bottom line - I don't like to see anyone getting torn apart like that. Whether you're right or wrong, it doesn't matter man, it's just not cool.
RE: Concorde "Running On Retreads"!
I wonder if Concordes tyres are covered by that Firestone truck tire recall that will be announced tomorrow
RE: Concorde
Looks like Joe has finally given up on 'airliners', I see his website has an update, but nothing here.
He still dosen't seem to have grasped the idea that the reheat is the most likely source of the fire's ignition.
He still dosen't seem to have grasped the idea that the reheat is the most likely source of the fire's ignition.
RE: Concorde
Or maybe he's just tired of getting the third degree...
As for the post-combustion ignition theory, there's no doubt that throwing the afterburner into the equation would be a bad idea if you knew that one or more of your tires were going to blown out after running over a 16" peice of metal on your take-off roll. But that still doesn't solve your fuel source problem.
I think it started off like any other take-off roll, the tires are at max stiffness (highest degree of vulnerability) in response to the pressure of the afterburner, they ran over the metal which blew one or more tires - jerking the rear of the a/c slightly to the left. The trajectory of larger debris is aimed right into the bay containing numerous fuel tank transfer and jettison lines.
In all likelihood either the metal or a heavier chunk of tire ricocheted into that bay and punched through the lines, the afterburner provided the ready igniton which forces the engines to cough out because the fuel and oxygen is being consumed in the bay. The rest, as they say, is history.
This will probably turn out to be one of those "what are the odds?" investigations, like the debis tearing through the empinage and severing all of the hydraulic lines of the DC-10 that crashed in Iowa.
Yeah, yeah...I know - what do I know???
Whatever!
XOXO
Mriya225
As for the post-combustion ignition theory, there's no doubt that throwing the afterburner into the equation would be a bad idea if you knew that one or more of your tires were going to blown out after running over a 16" peice of metal on your take-off roll. But that still doesn't solve your fuel source problem.
I think it started off like any other take-off roll, the tires are at max stiffness (highest degree of vulnerability) in response to the pressure of the afterburner, they ran over the metal which blew one or more tires - jerking the rear of the a/c slightly to the left. The trajectory of larger debris is aimed right into the bay containing numerous fuel tank transfer and jettison lines.
In all likelihood either the metal or a heavier chunk of tire ricocheted into that bay and punched through the lines, the afterburner provided the ready igniton which forces the engines to cough out because the fuel and oxygen is being consumed in the bay. The rest, as they say, is history.
This will probably turn out to be one of those "what are the odds?" investigations, like the debis tearing through the empinage and severing all of the hydraulic lines of the DC-10 that crashed in Iowa.
Yeah, yeah...I know - what do I know???
Whatever!
XOXO
Mriya225
RE: Concorde
On airliners all fuel lines are contained within the integral fuel tanks (excepting the eng feed where it leaves the tank) so the only way they are going to get damaged is if the wing skin is punctured, in which case you have a fuel leak without any fractured lines.
I would remind you that there has already been an incident, some years ago at IAD, where the wing skin was punctured.
I cannot be accused of giving Joe the third degree as he has NEVER answered a single question. It's all very well expressing opinions but you have to be able to back them up. This is a discussion forum, not a bulletin board. If Joe had the courage of his convictions he would answer my questions and put me in my place if I am so out of line.
I would remind you that there has already been an incident, some years ago at IAD, where the wing skin was punctured.
I cannot be accused of giving Joe the third degree as he has NEVER answered a single question. It's all very well expressing opinions but you have to be able to back them up. This is a discussion forum, not a bulletin board. If Joe had the courage of his convictions he would answer my questions and put me in my place if I am so out of line.
RE: Concorde "Running On Retreads"!
Remember that 737 at Manchester, England too. Although that was a peice off the engine not FOD that puncured that aircraft.
RE: Concorde
If I understand the diagrams correctly, there are a total of eight tanks (two at approximately mid-fuselage, leading edge of the wing, another just forward of the intake, and yet another directly outboard of the engines, in each wing). I wasn't able find a definitive schematic for the fuel or hydraulic plumbing on that a/c, so I've been trying to make heads or tails out of the diagram that Joe provided (can you say EYESTRAIN). To be honest, I don't even know if that aft-most tank is actually storing fuel or if it's used more as a staging gallery for jettison. But either way, there has to be plumbing leading not only to and away from that tank (maybe running primarily along the leading edge of the wing?) but also to the engines. So they're close by. And, if there are tank transfer or jettison lines running through that bay, my money's on that being the fuel source.
Still, it isn't difficult to imagine a scenario where one of the aft-most tanks is punctured instead. My only problem with that theory is the fact that the flightcrew reported problems retracting their landing gears - and I know there have to be hydraulic lines running through that area. Now, maybe I have this screwed up in my head - but, I thought that each system's plumbing ran through the frame of the a/c in relatively close proximity to each other. So, I figured that it was likely that the hydraulic lines servicing the landing gear were lost at the same time, and in the same way.
Do any of you know where I might be able to find reliable schematics/diagrams for this aircraft online? I've searched for maintenance manuals, M.E.L.s, anything substantive...to no avail.
As an aside, I don't think "lack of conviction" is one of Joe's problems. I think he just got tired of fighting about it. I mean, there's debate... and then there's insult. It's like he told me in an email - "with friends like this, who needs enemies?" Or maybe, he was just trying to pick up a few extra hits on his site - who knows.
Still, it isn't difficult to imagine a scenario where one of the aft-most tanks is punctured instead. My only problem with that theory is the fact that the flightcrew reported problems retracting their landing gears - and I know there have to be hydraulic lines running through that area. Now, maybe I have this screwed up in my head - but, I thought that each system's plumbing ran through the frame of the a/c in relatively close proximity to each other. So, I figured that it was likely that the hydraulic lines servicing the landing gear were lost at the same time, and in the same way.
Do any of you know where I might be able to find reliable schematics/diagrams for this aircraft online? I've searched for maintenance manuals, M.E.L.s, anything substantive...to no avail.
As an aside, I don't think "lack of conviction" is one of Joe's problems. I think he just got tired of fighting about it. I mean, there's debate... and then there's insult. It's like he told me in an email - "with friends like this, who needs enemies?" Or maybe, he was just trying to pick up a few extra hits on his site - who knows.
RE: Concorde
Mriya225,
" He just got tired of fighting about it" sorry, but I must have missed his replies. As far as I am concerned there has been no debate as Joe has not answered a single question. It's all very well making statements but you have to be willing to back them up.
" He just got tired of fighting about it" sorry, but I must have missed his replies. As far as I am concerned there has been no debate as Joe has not answered a single question. It's all very well making statements but you have to be willing to back them up.
RE: Concorde "Running On Retreads"!
VC-10,
Fair enough, he's the only person who can say for sure why he refuses to justify himself for your benefit.
As you know, I'm still learning; I don't know how it works in the U.K. - but here, schooling takes place on a component by component basis (until @ the last fifteen weeks). There is an obvious bent towards general aviation, they are loathe to discuss anything larger than a Cessna 172 - and hell - the smallest aircraft I've ever dealt with was a 727, so I think of the smaller a/c's as something more akin to complicated mopeds. I understand that in theory, they are similar and that my ticket is (in essence) a license to learn but I find our discussions in school painfully outdated and dull.
I attend one of the top A&P schools in the U.S., pull 90 + hour weeks between school and work and still manage to maintain a 98.9 gpa. These forums are the only resource I have for discussions about larger aircraft - and I'll be frank with you - I'm aching for some intelligent exchange about their systems and operation. Now, I realize that this isn't your problem - but I would think that even you (prior to your experience with larger jets) you can remember a time when you were eager to learn more, and how frustrating that can be when you're told you're wrong - but no mention is made as to why or where you can find the kinds of reliable resources you can use to get your facts straight.
Until, I can find either the resources I can trust or a crowd less hostile towards my lack of expertise - I guess I'm just going to have to be satisfied with slamming my head against the proverbial brick wall.
Trust me when I tell you that I'm so used to it - I don't even feel it anymore.
Fair enough, he's the only person who can say for sure why he refuses to justify himself for your benefit.
As you know, I'm still learning; I don't know how it works in the U.K. - but here, schooling takes place on a component by component basis (until @ the last fifteen weeks). There is an obvious bent towards general aviation, they are loathe to discuss anything larger than a Cessna 172 - and hell - the smallest aircraft I've ever dealt with was a 727, so I think of the smaller a/c's as something more akin to complicated mopeds. I understand that in theory, they are similar and that my ticket is (in essence) a license to learn but I find our discussions in school painfully outdated and dull.
I attend one of the top A&P schools in the U.S., pull 90 + hour weeks between school and work and still manage to maintain a 98.9 gpa. These forums are the only resource I have for discussions about larger aircraft - and I'll be frank with you - I'm aching for some intelligent exchange about their systems and operation. Now, I realize that this isn't your problem - but I would think that even you (prior to your experience with larger jets) you can remember a time when you were eager to learn more, and how frustrating that can be when you're told you're wrong - but no mention is made as to why or where you can find the kinds of reliable resources you can use to get your facts straight.
Until, I can find either the resources I can trust or a crowd less hostile towards my lack of expertise - I guess I'm just going to have to be satisfied with slamming my head against the proverbial brick wall.
Trust me when I tell you that I'm so used to it - I don't even feel it anymore.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: GalaxyFlyer, Ruddman and 42 guests