XH558 in trouble at Prestwick…

There are not any conspiracy theories regard the Concorde crash -the facts are out there . If the enquiry decided that various factors were of little significance that is their remit. Regards the extra weight -its not the issue of whether the aircraft can handle the weight -its where its positioned thats critical.

That’s what I thought; for it to have been over its structural weight limit would have been incredible!

The aircraft was not over its structural weight limit. It was estimated that is was approximately 800kg over the nominal limit for the circumstances. This was calculated by the investigators to have no significant affect on the takeoff performance (it is a big aeroplane after all). The official report makes quite interesting reading, but doesn’t give any reason (in my opinion) for invoking conspiracy theories. It is all about a variety of organisations trundling along and not doing quite as good a job as they might have done, as often happens in life. If you wanted to blame someone, you would have to blame everyone.

It was loaded with baggage at the last minute that wasn’t on the pilot’s manifest.

And that put it over its structural weight limit?

I’ve been ‘corrected’ by a Concorde conspiracy theorist on Facebook before today. Interesting stuff, if true. The display at East Fortune goes with the official story, that a piece of metal from another flame is wot did it. I’m not sure why EF would have to row an official line if the conspiracy theories were overwhelmingly plausible. The auld alliance?

The conspiracy stuff seems to originate from a single documentary. I’m not sure so many people, including accident investigators, would be so readily compliant to go along with a story that keeps Air France in the clear. No doubt the conspiracy theorists have a semi-plausible and convenient narrative for that part as well!

I think it was Prince Phillip in a white Fiat Uno, personally.

That’s about 40 extra pieces of luggage. Is that really true…?

It was loaded with baggage at the last minute that wasn’t on the pilot’s manifest.

The Concorde…..was a ton over its structural weight limit…

How exactly?

I do indeed, that’s why my next transatlantic flight in a few days is going to be 1) by Virgin and 2) in a 747

Bon voyage.
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/virgin-atlantic-flight-north-wales-10054498
(point being that no aircraft or operator is immune from technical hitches)

I fall into the ‘certain individuals’ category certainly ! My interest has always been in her long term – twenty million plus down the road I still don’t feel that many of the people who see her fly give a stuff what happens to her afterwards ! Very sad!

There are certain individuals on here who never wanted the Vulcan to fly .

Yes, you are entirely correct some did not want her to fly. Others will be relieved when she is finally grounded. Not necessarily the same people.

There are certain individuals on here who never wanted the Vulcan to fly .

The French report is very clear in putting the blame on Continental. It doesn’t think the fact that part of the undercarriage was missing – that the aircraft was veering sideways to the degree that it nearly hit a 747 -or that trying to take off at the wrong speed with too much weight in wrong place is that significant !

There is plenty on the internet about the various factors that came into play that day -I have spoke to two former BA Concorde engineers -neither of who blamed the aircraft.

Whether it brought concorde down or not is not relevant to the point I was making. MikeJ posted that the Vulcan should be grounded before a bit fell off. I made the point that bits fall off modern aeroplanes and gave an example.

That I thought that the piece of metal caused the crash was based on the conclusions of the final report of BEA which can be found herehttp://www.concordesst.com/accident/report.html.

I certainly know nothing about it at all but from information within the conclusions of the report there was nothing to suggest that the plane would havery crashed if it had not hit the piece of metal. The report addresses some of the matters you mentire but state that these factors in themselves would not have resulted in a crash.

Clearly you have different information and I would be grateful if you would point me in the direction of it’s source so I can read up on it.

Thanks

The Concorde was more than 6 tons above MTOW for the conditions on the runway at the time. It was a ton over its structural weight limit. If it had been at a correct weight for conditions it would have been off the runway long before reaching the point where the piece of metal was. It was dangerously close to an aft CG configuration as it began its takeoff roll and once fuel began pouring out of the port wing tank it was rapidly becoming uncontrollable. Many things lined up that day to doom the Concorde, but the overweight condition was the first and foremost thing that led to the rest. The metal strip, the ruptured and exploding tire, and the damaged wing tank and engine #1 were all contributing factors but would not have doomed a Concorde at proper takeoff weight. Add the extra drag on the left main gear due to improper servicing by Air France (the first time they had ever done that job at Toulouse) and the engine ingestion of metal fragments from a runway light fixture it struck on takeoff roll, as well as rotating at 11 knots below recommended Vr speed for conditions and you’re nearing the limits of survivability. But once they pulled power to a still working engine #2 during a critical period where the manual expressly forbids it, it was all too much.

Saying that a piece of metal that fell off of another aircraft brought down the Concorde is just not true.

Ok what ever you say that still wasn’t the point. The point was that a bit fell off a modern plane whether it caused an accident or not.

That’s not correct. Maintainance error meant that the Concorde was veering out of control on the runway. Air France had issues with tyres and the damage caused to the airframe from tyre bursts which hadn’t been addressed long before the accident

Add to that an aircraft that took off downwind with fuel in the wrong place -too much weight and it was doomed long before it hit anything.

It’s about time they parked the bloody thing for good, before something critical drops off and someone gets hurt.

And you are basing this on what exactly?

I do indeed, that’s why my next transatlantic flight in a few days is going to be 1) by Virgin and 2) in a 747

Just remind me now what brought the Concorde down?

I think the point being made about the Concorde accident was that it was “something critical” dropping off another aircraft which punctured the tyre. And the actual debris didn’t puncture the tank, it set up an internal shockwave which burst the tank in another place. But that’s nitpicking.

Lazy8 has it basically. My point was to Mikej that bits have fallen off of modern aircraft and caused a major accident. If that bit hadn’t fallen off then there would not have been any accident the sequence of events that followed is irrelevant to the point being made.

I think the point being made about the Concorde accident was that it was “something critical” dropping off another aircraft which punctured the tyre. And the actual debris didn’t puncture the tank, it set up an internal shockwave which burst the tank in another place. But that’s nitpicking.

Swiss cheese model did play a role. I was just keeping it short. I know what happened, I have read the report fully..

Both curvy deltas with four Olympus, I grant you, but aren’t we straying slightly off topic? 🙂