A poignant strip of metal

…the Viscount also had a pressure cabin, ff 1948.
Vickers was concerned enough about fatigue to even make their doors rounded.

Maybe Vickers wasn’t on friendly company-technology-swapping terms with De Havilland?
Same era, competing companies/aircraft.

And finally the French Justice system does not recognise the concept of an accident………..Someone somewhere is responsible for any adverse occurrence …..that’s why the verdict has focused the engineer incorrectly embodying the thrust reverser mod.

Which is why the matter should have been delt with through competent AVIATION bodies, not through a flawed ‘justice’ system. Many people in many places making small errors combined in a freak accident. The whole concept of blaming a single person in a case like this is morally wrong.

Comet was the very first pressurised airframe – brand spanking new technology with not a lot in the way of lessons (much like the all new 787!) – and previous designs were all going towards square windows for new realms of comfort in the bright new world of the late 40’s.

Anyone can make mistakes.

I thought the Locheed XC-35 was…ff in 1937.
Back to airliners…the Viscount also had a pressure cabin, ff 1948.
Vickers was concerned enough about fatigue to even make their doors rounded.

The Comet deserves full marks for being the first commercial jet, but it’s fuselage was very much conventional.

Again, commercial aircraft designers need to be a bit psychic when designing an aircraft. I’m just saying some things, like a burst tyre…should be easier to predict than others.
And the game of “what if…” is much better now than it was 60 years ago.

[QUOTE=Bmused55;1679032]dismissed the missing wheel spacer which BA concorde techs and pilots all stated would cause the affected wheels to wobble like those on a supermarket trolly, increasing the stress on the wheels.[QUOTE]

What utter rubbish you talk. The ability to understand and correctly predict the complex airframe to Landing Gear structural dynamics is well beyond you, BA Concorde tech and especially Concorde line pilots. In fact the number of engineers with this capability in Europe can be counted on one pair of hands. I know, and worked with the chap, who contributed to this part of the enquire…..A very high integrity individual with 40 years of Landing Gear engineering experience (starting with BAC111). His analysis indicated the missing spacer had no impact on the overall outcome.

Please tell, to the nearest whole number, just how many years of Landing Gear structural dynamic engineering experience you have based your claims on?

[QUOTE=Bmused55;1679032] There is also the well documented and widely known fact that Concorde was extremely susceptible to damage from a blown tyre. (as are most aircraft, but Concorde more so due to the higher T/O speed required). Nothing was done about this.[QUOTE]

More utter rubbish. Go and read the previous incident reports, Concorde mod record, and (relating to the “as are most aircraft”) how about CS25.729(f) & CS25.936(g). The debris itself did not penetrate the skin, it was the reflected shock wave that opened up the tank……… I think a first ever occurrence, and hence completely new design phenomena.

[QUOTE=Bmused55;1679032]And the final nail in the coffin; The crew took off while on fire. An understandable decision given the circumstances, one does not want to judge the crew. However this was the final link in the chain and another matter not processed by the courts.[QUOTE]

More utter rubbish – Above V1 you must fly because its catastrophic to do anything else.

And finally the French Justice system does not recognise the concept of an accident………..Someone somewhere is responsible for any adverse occurrence …..that’s why the verdict has focused the engineer incorrectly embodying the thrust reverser mod.

Sorry mate – I dont know when Gunston wrote his wise words or if his catalogues are on many design company’s reading lists. I would assume neither answers are very positive.

Comet was the very first pressurised airframe – brand spanking new technology with not a lot in the way of lessons (much like the all new 787!) – and previous designs were all going towards square windows for new realms of comfort in the bright new world of the late 40’s.

Anyone can make mistakes.

Aviation safety, like medicine and surgery, is mainly reactionary in its development.

Agreed, but some things should have been avoided.
For everytime there is a discovery of an unknown phenomenon, just as often it’s a matter of no one thinking about a real (and known) possibility.
Bill Gunston wrote an essay reminding us that textbooks in the 1800s warned against making square holes in a pressurized cylinder (think about steam boiler inspection holes) yet, it was overlooked when the Comets were built.

Engineers are paid to thing about what might happen as opposed to what should happen.
Same reason why they test Volvos in the desert (even thought they’re made in chilly Sweden) or why Holden had to use different interior plastics in cars going to the US where they might be subjected to extreme cold.

Although most of the designers and engineers employ most, if not all, the latest techniques and strategies for their new designs to prevent many difficulties from happening; Most accidents are the result of what was not done at all, not done correctly, not seen, not believed, not understood or not even thought about.

Aviation safety, like medicine and surgery, is mainly reactionary in its development.

Maybe I’m asking too much, but to me I’ve have reservations about any aircraft whose fuel tank can be ruptured by a burst tyre.
My time in the USAF and the countless “hot brakes” or burst tyre fire crew call outs made it clear that the undercarriage is a rather sensitive spot on fast jets.

Or a jet where the fin came fail if the rudders are used too much…

While neither of these faults are up there with the Comet One structural issues, you’d think that someone would have noticed them.

Rather like the Comet (CF-CUN) which failed to become airborne at Karachi on March 3, 1953 when the pilot over-rotated which led to a wing stall. You’d think that test pilots would have guessed that somewhere, somehow an inexperienced (and this was a delivery flight, so the crew was new to the type) crew would do something like that and designed a preventative measure or increased take-off training.

Likewise, the lack of radar helped doom G-ALYV when it broke up in a severe thunderstorm while taking off from Calcutta on May 2, 1953.
Poking around at 5000 ft in at 200 kts in a Viking or DC-3 without weather radar is one thing, but a plane flying “blind” going twice as fast twice as high is another.
Grantded weather radar was fairly new at the time, but it was available. the Comet was top-drawer stuff, operated by first-rate airlines, hardly a povererty case.

Again, what were people thinking?

And These are just the cases I can think of off the top of my head. I’m sure there are many more from every nation which ever produced an airplane.

The wobbly bit of Titanium in the last pic was indeed the bit that matched the cut in the Concorde tyre that started the tyre disintegration.
Large lumps of tyre hit and punctured the lower surface of the Wing and created a Shock Wave in the tank (no Baffles) resulting in a severe fuel leak.

The Titanium was:
a. incorrect material for the repair
b. incorrectly approved for use by Continental’s Maintrol
c. badly installed using rivets of an incorrect length – too short

Given that very short list of really bad practices the engineer was always on a hiding to nothing, His Maintrol contact was always going to be second.

..and it always seems to be little things that bring aircraft down.

And there is another theory that, if AF Workshops had done their MLG overhaul properly, the Concorde would not have been on that part/side of the runway anyway.

This whole subject enrages me simply because from the absolute beginning, while the wreckage was still smoldering, the authorities have focused all the attention on that one strip of metal. One can be forgiven for thinking the whole excercise has been engineered to keep as much blame from Air France as possible.

If dropping a bit of metal on the ground with questionable involvement in an incident is enough to be found guilty of causing an accident, not contributing, they said caused, then why has AF not been dragged into court for negligently operating an aircraft?
Why has the Airport not been pulled up leaving the metal strip on an active runway?
And why hasn’t EADS/Airbus been charged with failing to rectify known issues on a model of aircraft they are responsible for?

The whole investigation reminded me of the A320 Habsheim crash which presented flight recorders as evidence that were completely different to the ones photographed being taken away by a man positively identified as an AF employee!
Misdirection at every corner.

The investigation briefly mentions then dismissed expert eye witness statements from Airport Fire staff and dispatchers that the aircraft was on fire before the official stated position of the metal strip and dismissed the missing wheel spacer which BA concorde techs and pilots all stated would cause the affected wheels to wobble like those on a supermarket trolly, increasing the stress on the wheels.
Instead, the investigation relies on calculations of position relative to speed by people who were nowhere near the runway at the time of the incident. These calculations are educated guesses seeing as we are not in the world of star trek and cannot determin the absolute position of an aircraft at an absolute time without extremely accurate video footage from several angles with the recording equipment time keeping calibrated to the hundredths of a second to the equipment onboard the aircraft.

The aircraft was also rushed into service as a replacent for another concorde that when tech. It was not prepped properly as evidenced by the missing spacer.

On the day, the aircraft was over weight due to too much fuel being loaded and extra baggage not added to the load sheets.

There is also the well documented and widely known fact that Concorde was extremely susceptible to damage from a blown tyre. (as are most aircraft, but Concorde more so due to the higher T/O speed required). Nothing was done about this. The simplest measure such as a runway inspection before EACH Concorde take off could well have prevented this incident, if indeed the infamous metal strip was such a single point of failure.

And the final nail in the coffin; The crew took off while on fire. An understandable decision given the circumstances, one does not want to judge the crew. However this was the final link in the chain and another matter not processed by the courts.

And despite all of the contributing factors above, CO and their Engineer are farcically announced as the main perpetrators.
I could accept the investigation and its findings if they did not focus all the blame on one piece of metal.

Jay – I would like to think that I am an honest aircraft engineer,……..
….Flight Safety is everyone’s reponsibility. ….. Concorde …
It happened, lets make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Hi JT442
I am indeed extremely pleased to hear that you aren’t throwing all professional working principles to the winds simply on this judicial verdict.

Everything you have said is true in your second post and not just with respect to flight safety but all safety involving human beings is the responsibility of everyone including themselves (if able).

Your closing statement is what most on this forum are hoping will never happen again, – cowards and scapegoats is no way forward.

I too found the BEA pic you posted amongst my own posts in this forum

Below is the well known pic of the metal strip that was circulated just after the crash, at first it looks quite different to the one in the Getty image, but on closer inspection it appears to be the same piece.

That is definitely the case, and in my air safety related job I have seen many negative changes in the last few years, it seems it does take an accident like this to push things the right way – sadly. There seems to be many land mark accidents which have brought in changes to safety procedures, but as things improve things get forgotten and the cycle has to repeat itself.

I kind of agree with JB aswel, I was surprised that the whole event could be pinned to Continental Airlines and the poor engineer John Taylor, it seems too simple a way of porportioning blame and wrapping up the case without dropping Air France in it aswel.
Taylor must have to live with the awful consequences of his actions for the rest of his life anyway, but the stigma of jail and fines must make it even worse.

It is a difficult case for outsiders to comment on, but the whole premise of this thread is that the metal strip caused the accident, it just might not have.

Hi pagen01

The likely original piece of metal is in the pics in the BEA report which I have referenced on this forum some time back and I too today found the pic you have posted above within those reports.

The date of the pic in the BEA report is very likely very soon after the crash in 2000, and the displayed images in the ‘gettyimages’ set are much more recent photographs after much forensic work has been done on it. The angle the two different photographs have been taken from and the backgrounds they are on contribute to a perception of them possibly not being the same.

Many other pictures in the BEA report/s have the piece of metal matched to tyre fracture and a lot more sad but interesting forensics.

I still think that the original piece of metal shown in the report will be available to Continental should they wish to file a counter claim.
Even if the one in the ‘gettyimages’ is a look alike copy made for safety – yet I still think this unlikely as the other pics including all the very emotional/graphic ones are authentic.

Jay – I would like to think that I am an honest aircraft engineer, but my interest in this particular case is more academic than practical – I teach Human Factors, and to me the French investigation is undermining 30 years of HF learning. To be fair, engineers worldwide are not going to give this investigation the time of day, let alone ignore the HF training they are now following, but in the interests of a public discussion, I feel that the worst cae scenario hould be presented here (which is what I did in my previous post). I still feel that the entire focus of the investigation is Air France and the French authorities weaseling away from compensation claims – they can now file counter-claims against continental.

The photo is no more poignant than the DC10 HP compressor section in a field(Sioux City), or a short bolt found in a BAC 1-11 windscreen…

Flight Safety is everyone’s reponsibility. For example, you are at an airport as a passenger – if you see an aircraft with some damage and you say nothing, perhaps you are to blame as much as the mechanic who ‘fixed’ it (he was having a bad day), the engineer who over-signed him (he had a cold), the pilot who accepted it (He was running late), the ATC controller who cleared the aircraft for take-off (he didn’t look at it as it went past)….

There are so many variables in every crash that we cannot affix blame to a single person, and should not allow corporations to do just that.

My personal favourite is this one:

Back in the 1950’s, the factory producing Whirlwind Main rotor shafts had a power cut. The power on the milling machine was off for less than a second, but produced a microscopic stress raiser in the shaft. On completion, it was pased as servicable by three independant people and was eventually fitted to a Whirlwind. This aircraft was delivered to the Queen’s Flight and lasted for several years. After years of use, the crack developed and ended in the shaft shearing and the rotor head separating from the aircraft. Luckilly the crack was picked up on a routine inspection. Now – think of this… what if the crack had developed in flight and the Whirly had crashed whilst carrying Queeny? Would there be an almighty witch hunt to find the culprit? Who would it be:
The pilot who accepted it?
The Mechanic for missing it?
The Engineers who inspected and serviced it?
The factory worker for not scrapping it?
The factory foreman who was accountable for work produced?
The electricity company for allowing a power cut to happen?
The Crown for not funding its own electricity company correctly?

The short of the Concorde incident is this:

It happened, lets make sure it doesn’t happen again.

I think the photo must be assumed to be of the genuine part from the Continental jet. Too much at stake to have faked it and then gone public with the part. Continental’s lawyers and ‘counter’ forensics could have taken the French to the cleaners and won.

Below is the well known pic of the metal strip that was circulated just after the crash, at first it looks quite different to the one in the Getty image, but on closer inspection it appears to be the same piece.

Ironically it always is the case, people have to die sometimes before anyone improves things.

That is definitely the case, and in my air safety related job I have seen many negative changes in the last few years, it seems it does take an accident like this to push things the right way – sadly. There seems to be many land mark accidents which have brought in changes to safety procedures, but as things improve things get forgotten and the cycle has to repeat itself.

I kind of agree with JB aswel, I was surprised that the whole event could be pinned to Continental Airlines and the poor engineer John Taylor, it seems too simple a way of porportioning blame and wrapping up the case without dropping Air France in it aswel.
Taylor must have to live with the awful consequences of his actions for the rest of his life anyway, but the stigma of jail and fines must make it even worse.

It is a difficult case for outsiders to comment on, but the whole premise of this thread is that the metal strip caused the accident, it just might not have.

Such a shame…such a beautiful and elegant aircraft.

The criminalization of aircraft accidents is not a good thing.
It’s sad it has migrated from third-world countries to Europe.

If people are afraid of going to jail, they won’t come clean and there will be a massive search for scapegoats. In most accident situations, people get immunity for the simple reason that investigators want people to be honest during investigations.

A national status symbol flown by the national carrier goes down so someone must not only be blamed, but punished.

The poor Continental engineer had about as much chance at trial as one of Henry VIII’s wives.

The flight crew and passengers did nothing wrong, but they payed the price.
Nothing new in that…that’s the nature of disasters.

I’m still wondering how an uncontained tire failure can be allowed to bring down a jet.

The casuse may have been a strip of metal, but the reason why it crashed was decided decades ago in a design office…but no one spotted the danger until the crash.

I’d like to know if any other Concorde has similar tire blowouts and what damage it caused.

It sure has made accountability improve

Photos of the actual piece of metal were circulated to various airports and airfields, as part of a campaign to change and improve FOD spotting, recovery, and reporting techniques.

Yes pagen01 it has made things better at many developed country airport runways.

Ironically it always is the case, people have to die sometimes before anyone improves things.

Your welcome nJaym. And thanks to all for the comments.

Hi Wyvern

I didn’t look any further past this photo as it i think it says alot on its own.
At the end of the day alot of people lost their lives through very tragic circumstances, and whether you agree with the decision or not i find it so poignant that such an insignificant item can or could of contributed to such a major disaster.

RIP all.

Hi Wyvernfan

The photo with the model is very poignant and you are spot on with that.

I hope many on this thread do look through the entire 5 pages of pics, they are a tragic tribute to many good things that are no more including human lives.
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&language=en-GB&assetType=image&p=concorde+crash#2
(thanks to Wyvernfan for this URL)

I think the photo must be assumed to be of the genuine part from the Continental jet. Too much at stake to have faked it and then gone public with the part. Continental’s lawyers and ‘counter’ forensics could have taken the French to the cleaners and won.

In fact when you enlarge (not forensic) carefully there is in the reflection of the glass surface it is resting on, a visible curvature (whether original design or again impact with tyre/s) and on its edges are blackening (maybe impact with tyre/s, tarmac, etc)

I may try to read the technical French (very slow and painful for me) of the full and final BEA report relating to this particular part.

What everyone is upset about is that Continental is the only ‘public’ scapegoat.

Assuming the piece of metal (source Continental jet) fell on to the runway, it was more than likely NOT the ONLY cause of all that finally made Concorde catch fire, fail to abort a take-off and end in one of aviations greatest tragedies. There was a plane carrying France’s then President (near miss by the burning Concorde) and very high stakes possibly involved in France’s final judicial decision.

We may never know as too many turned ‘turncoat’ and saved their own ‘skins’. Even if Continental chose or choose to counter sue and re-open an international investigation (which they could), what psychological damage will it cause for loved ones of those bereaved ? Continental may have ‘swallowed the bitter pill” instead.

Photos of the actual piece of metal were circulated to various airports and airfields, as part of a campaign to change and improve FOD spotting, recovery, and reporting techniques.

Hi Wyvernfan,
Thanks for the URL.

There are some very graphic images on the 5 web pages.

Your welcome nJaym. And thanks to all for the comments.

I didn’t look any further past this photo as it i think it says alot on its own.
At the end of the day alot of people lost their lives through very tragic circumstances, and whether you agree with the decision or not i find it so poignant that such an insignificant item did or could of contributed to such a major disaster.

RIP all.