nJayMUnfortunately they could not.
Airbus pulled their manufacturer support and the type certificate.
Without either one of these, the plane would be grounded.
Bmused55 is perfectly right here. BA could not have gone it alone even if their operational costs temporarily escalated as the manufacturer support of this original Anglo-French development was provided by Airbus Industrie who withdrew. With it went the type certification.
nJayMI dont think taking off downwind helped a lot either!
The reasons for this we hope will become evident in the court hearing and evidence.
I have as yet not looked at the CDG taxiway and runway layouts, but do not have to hand the terminal gate Concorde left from or the exact Runway it used.
This possibly may explain why less fuel was used during the taxi.
ATC can possibly explain why the downwind take off was adopted by Captain Marti.
Was it ATC induced/suggested? Captain Marti could have declined ofcourse and opted for the safer take off direction.
Ofcourse Captain Marti nor any of the flight crew on AF4590 weren’t aware of the excess baggage greatly increasing take off load.
No facts have been stated if Captain Marti was also immediately aware of the excess fuel on board not used during taxiing. His flight engineer may have been from the fuel tank gauges but also failed to realise (due to being unaware) as well that they also had excess baggage making the increased load at take off way too high.
Was there a changing wind direction at the time?
The direction of take off by the Continental Airlines was reported to be 5 minutes prior to the Concorde’s.
Was it also a downwind take off ? Were there any other flights, (take offs or landings) on that same runway between the Continental Airlines and Concorde and if so they too may have used a downwind take off or approach ?
5 minutes is a very long time at a very busy CDG.
Was the downwind takeoff for Concorde advised by ATC possibly related to President Chirac’s concurrent landing and in an effort not to delay the President any further than was absolutely necessary?
nJayMHi Bemused55
I have attempted to highlight that the vital evidence is a (down to milliseconds accurate) timeline of AF4590 leaving the terminal building to crashing.It is what the courts needs as vital evidence to agree on what came first fire or tyre burst ?
The reasons for evidence not being provided or not being made available I prefer not to comment on as this sort of thing happens in all business spheres and although I don’t condone such things they happen all over the world.
The ball is firmly in the court of the Palais de Justice to bring possible closure to many bereaved relatives.
The Autumn isn’t far away for the supposed verdict.
nJayMThat’s quite a leap of faith there considering their is no indication this UCAV will ever reach production, and also none that any thought has been given in the design of it for operating off of CVF.
Maybe a leap of faith, but ideally if funding is available all authorised scientific dreams, drawings and prototypes can be tested and refined and the one’s that aren’t viable discarded or re-designed.
Why not a Taranis variant doing exactly what the US X-45 and the X-47B are being tested for?
The Taranis so far is smaller and lighter and ideal for all three of the UK’s armed forces.
nJayMWe must await with respect the verdict of the Palais de Justice
A very emotional programme. Emotions don’t and should not sway facts in an investigation based court hearing though.
Driving past Goness on the way to Chantilly brings a huge lump to one’s throat as it is still a shrine to a terrible human tragedy.
A sad unwarranted statement in the documentary – “Concorde was a tragedy waiting to happen” – in my opinion not true and shouldn’t be stated in retrospect so vehemently as this can be said of any aircraft in flight today (given certain circumstances coming together).
The verdict from the Palais de Justice is due soon. We must respect it’s verdict/s.
There are some conflicting pieces within the documentary.
The CGI depicting the burst tyre caused very likely by contact with the metal fragment being the attributable cause of the fire in the port wing tank. The impact of tyre fragment/s on the bottom outer surface of the port fuel tank causing impact energy transfer to within the restricted confines of “the full to capacity/overfilled” fuel tank, generating spark/s causing a fire/s.
The fact that fuel was transferred from rear fuel tank/s to forward fuel tanks to balance load.
The fuel transfer switch left on during take off/on crashing. Yet other informed sources stating that there is an automatic cut off preventing overfilling of any recipient fuel tank. Therefore the switch position wasn’t a significantly attributable cause of the fire of the crash.
The fact that the usual estimated fuel consumption during taxi was not achieved in this instance. Did the flight crew know and was this significant ?
The excess baggage not being on the mainfest.
The veering to port off the main centre line of the runway during takeoff. Supposedly narrowly missing by 30 feet the holding on the near right angled taxiway the Air France ‘Jumbo’ carrying former President Jacques Chirac.
There is the picture from a passenger in the Air France ‘Jumbo’ carrying former President Jacques Chirac which shows the Concorde on fire but this picture is taken after Concorde has taken off and appears to have been taken from a starboard window of the Air France ‘Jumbo’.
That means that the Concorde on fire was technically airborne before it was anywhere near the Air France ‘Jumbo’.
The controversy comes in though with fire-fighters and a maintenance crew member stating that the Concorde was on fire before it reached the metal fragment left supposedly by a previously departing Continental Airlines flight.
The most vital statements and visual evidence lies with ATC staff who would know at what moment they saw flames coming from the Concorde.There will be ATC voice recordings giving accurate time-stamping
This evidence may be reserved for the court and isn’t given fully in the documentary.
This evidence can if made available prove what came first fire or tyre burst?
If the fire on the port side preceded the tyre bursting then that could have also caused the veering to port off centre line of runway compounded as well by the tyre bursting.
Or was there reduced efficiency from port engine/s due to the fire and/or controlled actions by Captain Marti on realising/being told by ATC that there was/were an port engine/s and fuel tank/s on fire?
The timeline of Concorde AF4590 from leaving the terminal building to crashing, down to milliseconds is the vital evidence that must be produced to assist the Palais de Justice in a final verdict.
Was the excess weight on board at the moment of take off(unused fuel during taxiing and excess baggage supposedly unknown to flight crew) coupled with the fire and possible failure and subsequent shut down by Captain Marti of the engine/s on the port side the main reason for the Concorde being unable to sustain a safe flight height after take off to try to reach a point of safety (possibly Le Bourget or return to Charles De Gaulle)?
Aviation safety has gained much from this and other tragedies.
Would I fly Concorde if it flew again or a new still to fly Supersonic/Hypersonic ? Ofcourse I would if I could afford it.
We must await the verdict from the Palais de Justice.
nJayMEvery failure or tragedy in Aviation has a learning aspect
From every aviation tragedy, incident, near miss or crew error should and in many cases do come learning aspects.
The important thing is that logs, incident reporting documents must be completed accurately even when the problem/incident is minor as on another future occasion the problem may manifest under different conditions and the impact be far, far worse.
These reports often develop into safety enhancements whether in product design/re-design, better training or operational instructions.
No enhancements to existing operational aircraft or new production aircraft come cheap though, as all aspects of changes have to assessed, documented and tested thoroughly before implementation.
In developed countries aviation safety is taken very seriously and many of us must be grateful to be part of this safety concious society.
nJayMIf this UCAV reaches full production there will be carrier variants for the Royal Navy (on the 2 proposed new Royal navy Aircraft Carriers) and the British Army could be interested too for advanced stealth reconnaisance, therefore it’s not the just the RAF but all British Armed forces that will have vested interests in this all British development succeeding
nJayMhttp://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19850822-0
“Immediately after the ‘thud’ an intense fire developed on the left-hand side of the plane, causing some cracking and melting of windows with some associated smoke in the aft cabin. This caused some passengers to stand up in alarm and move into the aisle. Immediately after coming to a halt the purser tried to open the right front door (R1) but the escape slide container jammed on the doorframe, preventing further movement of the door. He then crossed to the L1 door and opened it (25 seconds had passed since the aircraft had stopped). The purser then returned to the R1 door and managed to clear the obstruction and was able to open the door 85 seconds after the aircraft had stopped. Meanwhile passengers had managed to open the right hand overwing exit. The R2 (right rear) door had also been opened but no one escaped through this exit. In total 17 surviving passengers escaped through the L1 door, 34 through R1 and 27 through the overwing exit.”
Also see AAIB Report and especially Appendices 1 to 3 at http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/8_1988_g_bgjl.cfm
It is well documented as it all happened on the ground at Manchester Airport and evidence was available. Ofcourse 25 years have passed since and we know a lot more about safety and this tragic accident has contributed to our knowledge of aircraft operational safety.
nJayM
I have read some of the other news reports and in fact the reported female voice of the bomb hoaxer belongs to a very sick person indeed.The temporarily grounded AF443 flight was flying the same route as the crashed AF447.
For the bereaved relatives of crashed AF447 this is a very, very sick joke.
Given that Air France is desperately along with many other interested oraganisations trying to accurately locate and recover the FDR and CVR from the crashed AF447 wreckage on the ocean floor it makes it even more sick. http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=100096
The Brazillian authorities should make every effort to locate the hoaxer and jail them.
nJayMIt’s good to see that Britain has all the knowledge and industrial capability to make an indigenous UAV from A to Z. That’s something precious for us Europeans.
Kudos to them!
Britain has always had leading aeronautical R&D skills and nurturing it recently has been a problem due to lack of investment. This does not decry other nations’ efforts but it’s good to see that an all UK UCAV prototype is ready for going forward to testing and trials within 12 months.
nJayM$210million is it not to little money for such a big project ?
Ehm the economy of the UK surely don’t depend on such “small” projects…
This is and will be the start of many other projects on UAVs and UCAVs and certainly at this stage the UK economy is not being identified as dependent on this stage of the project.
The revenue earned in the future of many variants sold and in the process the long term jobs created in R&D, manufacturing, training, operations, servicing and maintenence will eventually boost the UK economy.
It may also keep more graduate scientists and professional engineers in the UK.
nJayMI tried finding other pics but the few (2/3) I located on the Web all seem to show the same strange colour randomly on the aircraft. They may in fact be taken by the same photographer using the same camera, just slight variations in the angles taken.
Strange as any filter over the camera lens would give the effect all over the aircraft.
Interesting to read if anyone ever finds out as de-icing fluid in the humidity and heat of Brazil would be very strange, as PMN already comments.
nJayMQuite good….
Hi Yippekaya
Great Video of a great product as well as a very well established airline customer – thanks for sharing it.
nJayMIt’s here, it’s British and let’s raise a toast to it
It’s gone ‘public’ – let’s raise a ‘glass’. It’s British, it’s exactly the boost the UK research, designers and engineers need.
Something to get their teeth into, fly the flag and make some money for the flailing UK economy and more importantly create some good jobs.
Sure some of the investment came from the US so what? If the US wants to buy the platforms then we win finally.
Lack of RAF decals may at this stage be deliberate as it will not only be purchased for/by the RAF but by other friendly nations as well.
Not surprising the metal like triangles seen in Lincolnshire skies and similar test sightings at Wooemera. They were all probably very early test platform prototypes (cannot do it all in wind tunnels or under wraps) but this is the real Mcoy that is worthy of public acclaim.
In time for Farnborough although sadly not flying. Hopefully there will be some CGI video publicity and mock ups or miniature models.
I await real news and progress reports with pride to be alive when this sort of progress is made.
nJayMPutting aside the technicalities of C of G where can we direct this mad marketing ploy driven horse manure filled MOL brain?
Ah! so we have standee passengers. Well why not offer them foot massagers (15 ball foot roller variety) to use while standing stapped in. Of course you charge them Euros for it by the hour. Advantage to passenger, relaxing and therapeutic.
Advantage to MOL’s RyanAir, secret connection to circuitry that converts movement of foot massager (15 ball foot roller) into electricity that powers the single chargeable toilet.
Sign In
