nJayMFirst off it wasn’t full of French passengers but 96 German , 1 American 2 Danish and 1 Austrian, not unless we are talking about another crash that’s been covered up
Apologies in not referring to the passenger list as Europeans, but the flight and cabin crew were French and so were those killed on the ground and the Concorde was French owned.
I hope you do not mean that the French are supposedly covering up because there were so few actual French nationals on board.
The crash occured in France and also within EU jurisdiction.
Tragic though the crash was it was somewhat a ‘gory blessing’ that it fell in Goness (relatively sparsely populated area near Hotel) and not a few kilometres further forward – which would have taken out a whole swathe of densely populated areas.
There is a much stronger case for the bereaved European relatives to have this referred to a higher court outside France within the EU if the ruling from the Palais du Justice does not open up all the creases.
I personally have never had any cause for concern if I have flown Air France when I am not on a convenient BA route.
nJayMNow here’s an interesting point !
another interesting fact
if you look on air safety network and search under countries, the uk listings are littered with minor concorde incidents, while the french have only a few for the operational period, do we the brits own up too easily, or is the network US based and wants to show concorde in a bad way?
You have raised one heck of an interesting point !
Let’s face it which nation stopped Concorde at the outset from proliferating sales and routes ?
The same nation scrapped it’s own SST programme and instead lauded and launched the ‘jumbo’ Boeing 747 (a very reliable workhorse – in fact excellent would be a sensible description).
Concorde too had the same longevity as the 747 and sadly it has been mothballed. With safety upgrades it may have gone on for another 20 years or more.
Let’s toast in sadness – Concorde – an aircraft with a magnificient design which included such futuristic engineering feats that it is a ‘technical wonder of the modern world’.
Concorde will never be forgotten.
nJayMPlease do not make too much heavy weather of purely ‘bashing’ the French
Have a heart guys and please don’t tar all French people with the same brush you are using on the results of the investigation.
It was primarily French passengers, a French Flight and Cabin Crew that perished in this tragic disaster.
For a moment do you not think that the bereaved French people and the wider French public would not wish justice – the truth?
Yesterday 14 July 2010 was Bastille Day – a French national holiday and history can repeat itself.
The Palais de Justice decision and the very eloquent and learned French lawyer representing Continental Airlines may force a decision to refer this on to a further re-investigation by a higher court in Brussels/Strassbourg.
Do not for a minute imagine that the French people aren’t concious of families, children, the elderly and all of their safety.
It is with very close French friends that I drove past Goness (the crash site) after the crash of AF4590. We all had lumps in our throats and tears in our eyes as we spoke afterwards.
What is evident from everything all of you are saying is that aircraft manufacturers, airline operators and airports authorities must prioritise putting essential safety first before profit.
Let’s put some faith in the Palais de Justice.
nJayMThe DVD of Farnborough 2010 should have any 787 display on it
The DVD produced of Farnborough 2010 is most likely to have the 787 fly in and display.
Not the same as seeing it for real though
nJayMYou may wish to read BEA English translation report
At the end of the day the Concorde disaster was caused by Air France and the French authorities at Charles de Gaul failing to comply with set procedures
Talking to a Concorde engineer and if the timings are correct then Concorde was well alight by the time it hit the metal strip , Before its departure Engineers had been working on the right hand Reverse thrusters, where the fire is reported to has started
I believe that these engineers also failed to comply with procedures yet again which caused the first fire , it then hit a piece of metal lying on the runway ,which if proper procedure had been carried out should have been located and removed ,
This piece of Metal punctured the tyre and threw Debris into the underside of the fuel tank causing the already overfilled tank to rupture and let fuel escape which was the ignited by the fire which had already started
THESE ARE MY OWN OPIONS based on what I have heard and have read about the disasterI say Again Airfrance and the French authorities were to blame, I have no doubt in my mind that they are to blame
You may wish to read the English translation of the BEA report http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2000/f-sc000725a/pdf/f-sc000725a.pdf
In particular sections 1.10.2.1 and 1.10.2.2 on runway inspections.
nJayMBEA Reports in French and English translation
BEA refers to The BEA (Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la sécurité de l’aviation civile)
For anyone interested and between knowing a little to enough French along with the universal technical jargon this is a technically interesting report.
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2000/f-sc000725p/htm/f-sc000725p.html
It has some photographs, diagrams, charts, maps and the entire ATC and AF4590 dialogue plus CVR (see section 9.2.2 to 9.2.4 and 11.2).
The English version is at http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2000/f-sc000725a/pdf/f-sc000725a.pdf
It has excellent content.
For ground radar AVISO system see section 1.9.1
For ATC and AF4590 dialogue see section 1.9.2.2 to 1.9.2.4
For CVR see section 1.11.1.1, 1.11.2.1, 1.11.2.2, 1.11.2.3, 1.11.2.3.3
For FDR see section 1.11.1.2, 1.11.3
Wreckage and impact information see section 1.12
nJayMStrong personal opinions
At the end of the day the Concorde disaster was caused by Air France and the French authorities at Charles de Gaul failing to comply with set procedures
Talking to a Concorde engineer and if the timings are correct then Concorde was well alight by the time it hit the metal strip , Before its departure Engineers had been working on the right hand Reverse thrusters, where the fire is reported to has started
I believe that these engineers also failed to comply with procedures yet again which caused the first fire , it then hit a piece of metal lying on the runway ,which if proper procedure had been carried out should have been located and removed ,
This piece of Metal punctured the tyre and threw Debris into the underside of the fuel tank causing the already overfilled tank to rupture and let fuel escape which was the ignited by the fire which had already started
THESE ARE MY OWN OPIONS based on what I have heard and have read about the disasterI say Again Airfrance and the French authorities were to blame, I have no doubt in my mind that they are to blame
Hi Kevinwm
Strong personal opinions, hope they will be justified in the verdict/s of the Palais du Justice
nJayMDon’t know as yet
interesting, whats the reason for its return before the public days?
Hi KabirT
I don’t know as yet but all reports so far indicate maximum 24-48 hours from 18 July with a quick return to US.
Visibility to the public alongside the Airbus A380 (now sort of ‘old hat’ in showing at Farnborough) would in my opinion stir hearts (the striking beauty of the 787’s lines) and often that drives sales of passenger tickets in the near future. The simple equation following that passengers = more flights = modern fuel efficient aircraft = dreamliner sales.
Wishful thinking on my part but a flying display of the Dreamliner would be the ideal for the public. Airbus A380 did it several times on public days Farnborough 2008 albeit 60% less internal weight (no passengers or seats) and she was being thrown around the skies like an aerobatic light aircraft. People gazed in sheer awe especially when they saw the size of the A380 on take off and landing and close up on display.
I canot get down to Farnborough before 24 July and have asked friends who live around the Farnborough area to try to get some pics of arrival, flying display if any and take off.
nJayMGreat shot
Great shot.
Have the stunt team asked for a publicity copy at commercially going rates of course?
nJayMBeer sales or no beer sales she’s only going to be at Farnborough 18-20 July
Beer sales or no beer sales the Dreamliner is supposedly arriving on the 18 July and showing to trade visitors on the 19 July and either departing 19th July itself or staying on until the 20th July and departing 20th July.
I have culled this from several well meaning but conflicting recent reports.
Tragedy is that she’ll be gone back to the US by the time the public days 24-25 July are on.
I have posted in Photographic-Airshow Photos in this forum making a polite request of those lucky invitees to take as many pics as possible and to please post.
nJayMDoes anyone recall which terminal or gate at CDG AF4590 left
Does anyone have on record or remember to 10 years ago which gate and/or terminal (with reference to current CDG layout) AF4590 used on that fateful day?
Location of runway 26R is simple on the currently available maps.
Distance of taxi would indicate why the fuel used was considerably less, or was it something related to the maintenence over the 2 hours previous to departure of the engine reverse thruster. The documentary also indicated that this was also an older standby Concorde that was used by Air France that day.
nJayMNot when said fuel tank is impacted with a heavy object and the shockwaves have no where to go.
This is exactly what the expert from the NTSB was suggesting that the shock wave in a full to capacity fuel tank caused a spark (loose or partly broken/sheered electrical cable) to ignite the fuel, and I guess what you have is a ‘fuel bomb’ exploding.
I still would like to see a definite timeline (down to milliseconds) based on absolute facts which proves which came first, fire or tyre burst.
Total time of AF4590 flight is reported to have been 90 seconds and achieving no higher than 200 feet altitude.
I think a very high precision timeline should be essential/possible given ATC visuals, fire fighters visuals, ATC voice recordings, ground radar, location of metal fragment on runway, tyre scorching on runway, and actaul FDR and CVR.
nJayMHave included a clarifying word in my post
I would hardly call this a crash though. It was an engine fire.
Crashing suggests out of control, hitting object, careening of the runway etc.
Hi Bemused55
I have included a clarifying word in my post above to include incidents, which you correctly identified the above as being a serious fire and not a crash.
nJayMDaylight tragedies at airports have a profound effect on all eye witnesses
Daylight incidents/crashes at airports especially those involving loss of lives have very profound effects on all eye witnesses.
They have a positive side too in that investigative evidence is easier to gather and is usually more accurate in the form of eye witness accounts.
nJayMPost 9/11 the passengers crossing the ‘pond’ dramatically reduced
Passenger numbers crossing the ‘pond’ dramatically reduced post 9/11.
Concorde did a dummy run from LHR half way to New York after a complete inside re-fit (Terence Conran design) and other engineering safety enhancements and on returning they discovered that New York WTC had been struck by two aircraft.
After 9/11 even conventional airlines flying transatlantic felt the squeeze as paranoia set in amongst the travelling public.
Air France was quoted in the documentary as once having as few as 6 passengers from CGD to New York post 9/11.
Also quoted was that many of Concorde’s regular transatlantic passengers perished in the WTC disaster.
The loss in revenue and proposed inevitable increased maintenence costs sealed the fate of Concorde for ever during that lean economic time frame.
Sign In
