Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on July 25, 2000, 10:43:00 AM
-
Early reports suggest it was on fire prior to going down.
-
Uh oh... 109 died (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
[This message has been edited by Staga (edited 07-25-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Early reports suggest it was on fire prior to going down.
More info here : http://www.newsday.com/ap/text/international/ap260.htm (http://www.newsday.com/ap/text/international/ap260.htm)
Why would any airline use a concorde anyways?? they are 30 years old.
-
Originally posted by Torquila:
Why would any airline use a concorde anyways?? they are 30 years old.
that 30 year old plane had, up to this day, the cleanest service record on any commercial aircraft in history.
So think before you talk, Torquila.
I'm sorry about the 109 people died, and I am sorry about the Concorde...I really hope this disgrace doesnt give this fine plane a coup-de-grace (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
Oh good grief, don't start arguing about an aircraft. 109 people just lost there lives (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
------------------
Apache
=XO= VMF-323 Death Rattlers
VMF 323 Death Rattlers Web Site (http://home.earthlink.net/~bkapache)
-
Just the other day there was a TV show on the Concorde. They said it had the best safety record of any commercial airplane.
Truely tragic (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) Hopefuly they went fast and painless...
-
Originally posted by Udie:
Just the other day there was a TV show on the Concorde. They said it had the best safety record of any commercial airplane.
Truely tragic (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) Hopefuly they went fast and painless...
Yup, watched the same show and I thought about the odds...weird, huh?
-
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
Originally posted by RAM:
that 30 year old plane had, up to this day, the cleanest service record on any commercial aircraft in history.
So think before you talk, Torquila.
What i was trying to get across is that a plane no matter how good the record, how well build , and that travels 1,200 mph at high altitudes for 30 years will suffer alot of fatigue and should be retired. All im saying that things like this could of been prevented if profit wasnt the main concern.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
[This message has been edited by Torquila (edited 07-25-2000).]
-
BBCNews, ABC News and CNN are reporting that witnesses said one of the left engines appeared to be on fire before the crash. The pilot apparently tried valiantly to gain altitude and miss the hotel, but stalled and went down on an annex.
109 people in the Concorde died as well as 4 on the ground.
113 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
My condolences.
Sisu
-Karnak
[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 07-25-2000).]
-
I just saw on TV a photo taken by a casual observer...it is really dramatic, there is a huge fire burning from its wing...
(http://www.airtel.net/hosting/0003d/ebringas/concordecrash3.jpg)
really dramatic...
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 07-25-2000).]
-
Concordes aren't very profitable, Torquila, it's more of a flagship thing. I understand your point but they're extremely well maintained and the pilots are highly trained. They really ought to refit them for glass cockpits though IMO...
Concordes won't last much longer in any case. Sad but true.. they weren't even economical when they were first produced, now far less so.
-
its really sad that this had to happen. the talk around the aviation world is that the plane had just come out of inspection four days earlier.this type of plane practically lives in a hanger and british airways only flies two at a time while the others are being inspected.
i just can't believe the sight that the pictures show of it and i hope no one suffered and feel for the families of all who was aboard.i also know that the pilots probably did every thing possible in the alotted amount of time to get the plane back to the ground safely.
-
Really sad (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
"Truely tragic Hopefuly they went fast and painless..."
Sorry to say that thats not the case (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) eye witnesses reports of horrible sights at the crash... (wont go into details)
Regards.
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
(http://www.rsaf.org/osf/images/osf_inga.gif)
http://www.rsaf.org/osf/ (http://www.rsaf.org/osf/)
-
Torquila, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
1. F-BTSC, the aircraft in question, made its first flight in 1975. There are many commercial aircraft in service that are older than this.
2. F-BTSC had less than 12,000 hours on the airframe. Many commercial aircraft less than 10 years old have more hours than this.
3. No evidence that fatigue contributed to this accident.
4. Your insinuation that the manufacturers and operators of the aircraft would not or could not predict and inspect for fatigue damage is disgusting.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-26-2000).]
-
Djust read an story about an 21 yo girl who was in the hotel when the Concorde came right for it, she had djust opened her window an couple of minutes before the crash and without thinking she djust jumped out the window when she saw the disaster aproching fast...(dont know what story but it was not ground level)
Her decicion to jump saved her life....
Regards
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
(http://www.rsaf.org/osf/images/osf_inga.gif)
http://www.rsaf.org/osf/ (http://www.rsaf.org/osf/)
-
Originally posted by funked:
Torquila, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
1. F-BTSC, the aircraft in question, made its first flight in 1975. There are many commercial aircraft in service that are older than this.
2. F-BTSC had less than 12,000 hours on the airframe. Many commercial aircraft less than 10 years old have more hours than this.
3. No evidence that fatigue contributed to this accident.
4. Your insinuation that the manufacturers and operators of the aircraft would not or could not predict and inspect for fatigue damage is disgusting.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-26-2000).]
Funked, RAM i really don't appreciate being flamed ASAP. I dont think that this is the appropriate topic for that childish stuff. BTW my view would be quite flawed because of my lack of knowlege of the commercial aviation buisness. Something 30 years or more seems pretty damed old to me (no offence to you middle-aged people out there). Also i dont really want to think about this accident to much (Is flying from Malaga- Zurich on the 31st)
*shivers*
[This message has been edited by Torquila (edited 07-26-2000).]
-
Some British Airways Concorde's were refitted a few years ago with replacing sections of the wings, fusilage and main joists (I think that just one being done at a go and not sure if they've gone through them all yet). The BA Concorde's should be pretty good on fatigue. I have no idea of the refitting programme for Air France Concorde's.
I do believe Indian Airways owned a Concorde too, but I don't think this flies anymore.
'Nexx'
-
Sorry Torquila, I'm very sensitive to criticism of aerospace engineering issues by the media and other uninformed people. Your foolish speculation that the age of the aircraft had something to do with this accident hit a raw nerve.
Furthermore the bit about profit was irritating. They charge about $10,000 US per passenger per flight, but you seem to think they are cutting corners? If profit wasn't a concern... we wouldn't have supersonic transports in the first place.
Good luck on your trip. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-26-2000).]
-
Saying "you don't know what you're talking about", isn't a flame, nor is it authorization to be pedantic and accuse others of flaming you. In this case, it's a statement of fact. Hell, even "think before you talk" is an adequate admonishment. Saying, "you are a x", or "I can't believe that even a idiot/fascist/gun-toter/nazi/tree-hugger/republican such as X would hold such a position" is a flame.
It's the difference between attacking someone's argumentation (or basis for arguing) and the person himself. So you can't escape that way. After all you've been through lately, you should be able to recognize a hardcore flame from someone telling you you're full of it.
The fatigue of sitting in a hangar can't compare with that of wicked temperature gradients and pressure differences at twice the speed o' sound. And don't go thinking that the engine is the same one from 75.
-
Agree with Funked and Dinger.
Not a personal attack there, Torquila, but a simple fact: before even serious data was known about the crash, before the engine failure was evident for everyone, you already were here saying that a 30 year old plane cant be in service (BTW NO concorde is 30 years old, and ALL of them have passed through an EXTENSIVE overhaul. The one crashed was, in effect, a 2 year old airframe after its overhaul).
AS Funked said, your assumption of the incident caused by the plane's age is, at least, disgusting. Concorde has been for 2 decades the most reliable in-service aircraft. A disgrace like this doesnt change that, all other models of commercial aircraft have had way more problems and crashes than Concorde.
So, as I said, think before you talk. Or at least next time wait until some official data is of public knowledge before making assumptions.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 07-27-2000).]
-
Your absolutly right dinger, so is funked and RAM, I never think before i talk. Also I know funked's comments were not a flame, i just didnt want another topic directed towards me again. I was hoping we could just forget about my idoicy and lack of knowlege and talk about the topic at hand.
-
Hehe <S> Torquila.
-
I work in the aerospace industry, and was talking over the accident. I learned the following:
1 - Because Concorde is so fast, it isn't subject to the water damage that affects other planes.
2 - UK Concordes fly approx 1/3 the hours that other planes do, and is molly-coddled to boot.
3 - Concorde was profitable within 5 years.
-
Torquila's statement has some substance to it, lets read:
From Aviation Weekly:
The Olympus 593 engine, made jointly by
Rolls-Royce of the U.K. and France’s Snecma,
is a derivative of a Bristol-Siddley engine that
was conceived for the British Vulcan bomber. It
uses 1950s engine technology. Rolls-Royce
bought Bristol-Siddley in the 1960s.
Rolls had a 60% share of the Olympus program
and was responsible for the hot section. Snecma
made only non-moving parts on the engine.
Because only 14 Concordes entered revenue
service and the Olympus partners had stockpiled
a large supply of spares, no parts have been
made for years. So although the Concorde’s
engines are carefully maintained and inspected,
there have been no improvements to their
technology. In addition, the spares are aging
even as they sit on a shelf.
As engine-related scenarios take center stage
among the list of possibilities, investigators will
want to determine if the crash was caused by a
single engine failure or whether the initial
failure damaged the adjacent powerplant.
John Wiley, a USAirways captain and training
pilot who recently “flew” British Airways’
Concorde simulator, wrote in Aviation Week’s
Show News that he doubted a single engine
failure was responsible. “It is always dangerous
to speculate about air crashes from the 2.5 hr. I
had in the simulator, (but) I doubt it. We were
able to sample the handling with various engine
failures from single engine failures at V 1 to dual
engine failure at Mach 2.0. With the V 1 engine
failure, the Concorde showed better than
average manners.”
When the captain for Monday’s flight reported
the thrust reverser problem, Air France found the
spare parts weren’t available in the parts
warehouse. But “given the technical tolerance
authorized by the manufacturer, the aircraft could
take off again without being repaired,” the
airline said today in a prepared statement. Flight
4590’s captain, however, chose to go ahead with
the repair anyway, so mechanics found the parts
on “another spare Concorde,” the airline said.
The repairs took 30 minutes.
Neither engine maker would discuss the accident
yesterday.
“We have started gathering the known facts of
the incident,” said Christopher Springham,
Rolls-Royce director of media relations. “We
will not speculate on the facts of the crash
because it’s premature. A board of inquiry has
been established, and we cannot give out any
information on the status or history of the engine
or airframe.”
Parallel investigations will be conducted in
France. The French accident investigation
bureau, or BEA, will search for the technical
causes of the accident. British accident
investigators also will join the probe under
terms of an agreement between the two
countries. The second probe will be a judicial
one that will attempt to determine who is
responsible for the accident.
Because the flight carried German tourists on a
charter flight bound for New York, investigators
from Germany and the U.S. National
Transportation
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 07-28-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 07-28-2000).]
-
Rip YES the engine design is old.
NO there is no evidence that the age of the engine design (or any other aspect of the engine design) had anything to do with this accident.
An engine failure by itself is not enough to bring this plane down - as the pilot in your quote makes clear. An engine failure would only be a safety problem if it were an uncontained failure, causing collateral damage. But there is no record of past uncontained failures on the Concorde's engines, nor do the engines recovered from the crash site show signs of such a failure.
To reiterate, there are plenty of planes with older designs, more years in service, and more hours than the Concordes. The age theory is pure crap.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-28-2000).]
-
I'm speaking along the lines of the "age theory" in regards to what happens to old metal parts used for engines when they sit on a shelf....
-
Arent they saying it was a blown tire anyway? Saw a pic on CNN earlier, looks like 2 shredded tires on the left side slung into in the wing causing the fuel leaks and god knows what else.
I saw the other day where they said the concorde's takeoff speed is 250 mph. Thats a lot to ask out of a tire. How much does a fully loaded concorde weigh anyway?
-
remember when this happened?
HARRRRRRRR!!
-
wtf Coolridr? You must be really bored...
-
HAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRR!!
-
what?!?!?1 again?!?!?!?!1
take that plane out of service already
-
Originally posted by JB73
what?!?!?1 again?!?!?!?!1
take that plane out of service already
Check the Dates 73
-
Originally posted by DieAz
Check the Dates 73
check for concordes flying low over your head LOL phhhhpt
-
If the Concord was so ahead of it's time and so economically viable, why not build more?
:cool:
-
What's the point of digging this back up?
-
Originally posted by JB73
check for concordes flying low over your head LOL phhhhpt
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by NUKE
If the Concord was so ahead of it's time and so economically viable, why not build more?
Indeed, one could say the same about the Space Shuttle.
-
you suck coolridr, why bring this back up? Its kinda like bumping sept 11th or shuttle disaster threads.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Indeed, one could say the same about the Space Shuttle.
or the VW beetle!
...oh wait a sec