PeterRS

Once cute young Japanese guide is all it will take. I remember my first ever visit. I had arrived on a Friday afternoon, jet-lagged after a few days in New York and then two in Los Angeles, knew no-one, spoke only a few words of the language and had a week-end to kill before meetings the following Monday. On Saturday morning, after doing a little sightseeing, I got off the subway to look at another area. As I was walking up the long steps into the summer sunlight along with seemingly half of the city, I noticed a tall guy in a bright white shirt going down along with the other half of the city. For a second our eyes locked. A couple of seconds later I turned to look down. He was doing the same looking at me. The crowds were such that we could not change direction. Once at the top I assumed he would have disappeared into the station. But from the top I could just make out that white shirt in the darkness. He was looking up. So what was I to do? I went down again. We chatted even though his English was not very good. We then met a few hours later, had dinner, he showed me where the ni-chome bars were, came back to my hotel and then spent the rest of the week end with me. Thereafter I loved the city, even though I never saw my first guide again. Simple!

I have no idea what you mean about my having put too much emphasis on the tyres. That information is provided in the Experts Report that I mention in the OP, it is included in Captain Hutchison's comments on the attached video and is further included in the official BEA Report. The tyre shredding was a vital reason for that particular crash. May I direct you to page 93 of the BEA Report (as linked in the OP) which points out that prior to the 2000 crash, there had been no less than 57 incidents involving Concorde tyre bursts - 30 on Air France aircraft and 27 on BA aircraft. Twelve of these bursts had resulted in "structural consequences on the wings and/or the tanks, of which six led to penetration of the tanks." A further 21 incidents were noted. Despite all this, neither airline had decided to change the type of tyres used on Concorde. This only occurred after the 2000 crash when stronger tyres less capable of shredding were designed and added. I am well aware of the Sydney incident. Exactly the same was to occur 3 years later on BA001 en route to New York on 19 March 1992. Below are photos of the structural damage to both from which it is easy to see that the breakage was to the upper rudders and virtually identical on both flights - 1989 Photo at Sydney airport after charter flight from Christchurch following in flight loss of rudder part 1992 Photo of BA001 on arrival in New York following in flight loss of rudder part Rudder failure or breakage played zero part in the 2000 AF crash. The important point here I suggest is that neither one of the above two rudder incidents involved loss of life. Even after the parts broke off, the flights carried on as normal with the crew unaware of what had happened and both landed safely at their destinations. We remember the 2000 crash simply because it caused a total loss of life and total destruction of the aircraft. With all respect, nothing that I have read indicates that either 'breakage' could have led to severing of fuel lines. As noted in the fuel tank locations in the OP, there is only one small fuel tank at the back of the aircraft - Tank #11. The Sydney bound aircraft was not over Sydney when the breakage occurred. Both accident reports make it clear the aircraft were in fact travelling over sea at supersonic speed when the rudder parts broke off. At that speed it would have been impossible for the broken parts to drop down and tear open the aft of the aircraft's structure. The parts themselves had a honeycomb structure and were relatively light in weight. The massive speed of the wind flowing off the wings would unquestionably have propelled them backwards at very considerable velocity. This from the NZ/Sydney accident report - "failure had been limited to the upper part of the rudder which is constructed from skin panels bonded to a honeycomb core." But I think the surprising issue in your post is that both rudder accidents were on BA aircraft. Whatever repairs BA made after the Tasman Sea incident were not sufficient to stop the same fault occurring a second time. Mercifully neither involved damage to a structurally essential part of the aircraft for the upper and lower rudders could operate independently if absolutely necessary.

Perhaps a cheap, trashy Barbara Cartland romance novel will help while away your time and dispel any fears. "The Wings of Ecstacy" sounds ideal LOL

With new threads about boys and sex a bit thin on the ground, perhaps one focusing on at least one of these topics might be of interest. Less about sex, though. From the time I was at school, I have been sort of obsessed with the male body. At first it was faces and I had my first 'crush' at the age of 12. Naturally nothing came of it as I was too backward in coming forward and the object of my desire seemed to have no interest. I was even seated next to him at the end of term Prize-giving. Oh, what might have been! It was not long before my eyes were gazing downwards, particularly on the sports fields - well, in the changing rooms - and at the school's pool. The length of some of those cocks was a constant joy, the more so when quite a few of the guys seemed to enjoy being gazed at while they played with them. Having made my first tentative rather furtive steps in gay sex, my twenties were hardly a riot as I was still in the closet. Then the riot started in my early 30s. I could not get enough of it and there were always plenty of young men around who felt the same way. My first ventures into a gay sauna were a revelation for all the sex that was available. I have written somewhere about visiting Night Thermos (correct name?) in Amsterdam, a very large one in New York and, best of all, the equally large Le Continental in Paris. I suppose it was really in Le Continental that my desire for Asian boys was sparked for there were many Vietnamese living in Paris, quite a number of whom were at the sauna. I think it was less the sex and more the sight of such beautifully smooth-skinned young Asian boys who were perfectly happy to walk around almost totally naked. That Paris experience came home to me when I visited central Vietnam early last year before borders were closed. With my partner unable to get time off, I was on my own. Almost as soon as I had reached Hoi An, a quite lovely mid 20s guy clicked me on one of the apps. He was in Danang, about 30 minutes away, but I had not intended sex to be any part of that trip. After Hoi An I was going up to the old Imperial capital of Hue or a few days before spending my last three days in Danang. So we arranged to meet up for a dinner when I got there. He was perfectly delightful. He became a sort of tour guide. On my last night I invited him to the hotel for a drink. Cocktails in the rooftop bar then morphed into a shower in my room. The ensuing 40 minutes or so all in the shower were amazing! Belatedly I have realised there is something about Vietnamese boys which is very special. But it was my first experience of an Asian sauna that really opened my eyes. On a business trip to Tokyo, a Japanese friend took me to Oban sauna in the Kabuki-cho district in Shinjuku. This still is a rather sleazy nightlife area, not gay, but right there was Oban, which I think was one of Tokyo's first gay saunas. It was relatively small inside but spotlessly clean. Walking up one floor after disrobing, I was amazed to find that most of the boys were walking around totally naked. A few had small towels that they held in front but they were in a small minority. It felt like I had arrived in heaven! After the ritual washing and a spell in a hot pool, I wandered around. Coming out of the steam room I bumped into a very handsome boy who featured in several gay magazines. I was even surprised that sex took place not in private cabins but in quite large open rooms with long mattresses on two sides. These were understandably dark but still light enough to see what was going on and who was doing what to whom! Sitting and just watching some action seemed to be very popular! Those entwined in sex had no problem with that. Over several decades I have attended other Japanese saunas, apart from the years when foreigners were forbidden, a belated attempt by the owners to keep HIV from spreading. My memory tells me that the sex was rarely great, with just two instantly stunning exceptions. It was the sight of so many absolutely wondrous beautiful bodies in glorious nudity that has stayed with me. There is always something more fascinating about a cute glistening slim body that has just emerged from a hot pool or from the steam room than the boys I used to see naked all those years ago in Bangkok's go-go bars. Stripping away the sex, it was always possible to see naked boys in the onsen dotted all around Japan. But you could rarely be sure they would only be young guys for attending an onsen is a Japanese ritual and all ages attend. I was not interested in looking at a bunch of older men! If there were onsen exclusively for young people, I never found them. In Taipei, on the other hand, there is at least one hot spring on the outskirts of the city which attracts mostly young guys, most of them gay. Here again sex is not part of the experience, although there may be a little hanky panky in the steam room despite the notice outside saying no playing around. Even though I am now in that much older group which I disliked in Japanese onsen, in Taipei there seems no discrimination about age. Indeed, the one I always attend is rather like a social club. Everyone is there for an enjoyable time drifting between the five pools of differing temperatures. There are parts of each where it is easy to see who has just entered and goes to the shower area. It's also easy to see which pool they enter. More than once I have zeroed in on a young guy I have found particularly attractive and gone to sit next to him. After a reasonable pause, I will even start to chat. Most Taiwanese can speak at least a little English and I have rarely found any not prepared to chat if only for a little while. One guy I met and the partner he was later to find have become very good friends. If particularly attracted to a guy and that attraction is mutual, it is easy to swap phone numbers to arrange to return to your hotel or hook up on another day. Or even just to discover a new restaurant and enjoy a meal sitting next to the nearest thing to a demi-god! Not that sex is always out of my mind nowadays. Far from it. t's just that there is no need to go to a hot spring for sex because there is so much available elsewhere. As in every city, you only have to know where to look! Now if only borders would open again soon, I will very quickly be on a plane first to Taipei and then to Vietnam. No need to guess why!

Happy landings - the proper ones!! Many years ago, being aware that in aircraft accidents involving fire a majority of victims die from smoke inhalation before they can get to the exits, I did some research and found a company which specialised in manufacturing proper smoke hoods. These provided up to 15 minutes of breathable air, time enough to escape from a burning plane. The equipment was called Evac-U-8 manufactured by a Canadian company. So I purchased two, one for my apartment and one for flying. They were cylindrical, about the size of an old Coca Cola can. Slightly bulky but I felt they could save my life if ever I found myself in a fire. When I stupidly left one on a plane, I purchased another. They did make me feel safer and fortunately I did not have to use one. In fact, I was doubly fortunate. After I had been carrying one around for about 5 years, the product was found to have a defect and recalled. Refunds were promised but the manufacturer went bust. At one time there was a discussion somewhere about the desire for all passenger aircraft to have smoke hoods in every seat. This was ditched due to cost.

It was indeed a horrible accident that, like the Concorde crash, did not need to happen. To give a bit more of the background than on that short video, most of the planes at Tenerife airport that afternoon were not supposed to be there. Their destination had been Gran Canaria about 100 kms away. But a terrorist bomb had gone off at Gran Canaria airport around 1:00 pm. As a result, the airport was closed. The nearest airport was Tenerife, a much smaller airport cut out of a hillside that was not really equipped to handle 747 aircraft but the runway was just long enough for them to land and take off. So most of the aircraft destined for Gran Canaria were diverted there. These included five wide body aircraft including the Pan Am and KLM 747s. Apart from its runway, Tenerife had just one taxiway from the Terminal with 4 linking off ramps from the main runway. With limited parking facilities, Tenerife's apron quickly became saturated and could take no more aircraft. Pan Am had arrived first. KLM a little later. The KLM 747 was parked behind the Pan Am aircraft. So Pan Am could only move once the KLM flight had moved away from its position. As the delay got longer and longer, many passengers and aircraft crew became visibly pissed off. Then cloud started coming down from the hill in front of the airport, basically ensuring no aircraft could take off until it at least partially cleared. Not to scale map of Tenerife airport from wikipedia with the crash point marked with the red star Once Gran Canaria had reopened, the Tenerife controllers tried to get the delayed planes away as quickly as possible. But the airport had no ground radar. Worse, the pilots had no experience of the airport. Pan Am was all set to go, but was stuck behind the KLM 747 whose captain had decided to save time at Gran Canaria by refuelling at Tenerife. So Pan Am had to wait an extra 30 minutes before the refuelling truck was out of the way and KLM ready to taxi to the end of the runway. With part of the taxiway also blocked, KLM had to use the main runway for taxing before turning at the end and standing by. Just before then, Pan Am was also given instructions to taxi on the main runway and then turn off at Exit No. 3. To be certain, they asked the controller for confirmation, He very clearly said "number three - one, two three." By a stroke of terrible luck, there was still fog, the runway exits were not marked and the Pan Am crew became disorientated. They passed Exits 1 and 2 but then seemed to become confused. They missed Exit 3 and so continued taxiing expecting to find it quickly. Because of the lack of ground radar, air traffic control had little idea where the 747s were. Juggling so many aircraft, the controller also seemed to become unsure of his instructions. Once at the end of the runway and ready to take off, the highly experienced KLM captain said he was ready for take off. The controller confirmed this and his message included "stand by, I will call you." But due to bad maintenance of the radio equipment, part of the full message was garbled. The controller then instructed Pan Am to report when he was clear of the runway. The KLM flight crew heard this exchange but interpreted it to mean that Pan Am was already clear of the runway. So the KLM captain, despite some concerns raised by his co-pilot, decided to take off. As is shown in the vdo, Pan Am had only just reached Exit 4. Seeing the KLM plane bearing down on them out of the fog, the crew added full throttle. But this takes about six seconds to have an effect. Even though the KLM captain attempted to take off well before he had reached his scheduled take off speed, the two 747s inevitably collided. The Accident Report found that the primary cause was the KLM captain taking off without formal clearance. It was suggested that he was extremely anxious to do so because of new maximum duty hours recently put in place by KLM. He was afraid his crew and the aircraft might end up being stuck at Gran Canaria overnight. Other factors played into the accident including the fog, the extra delay caused by the KLM captain's decision to refuel at Tenerife to save time and incorrect communications to and from air traffic control. As Captain Hutchinson says in the Concorde vdo, most aircraft accidents result from a combination fo circumstances. This was certainly true with what is still the world's deadliest passenger aircraft accident.

Astonishingly, although the aircraft was flying low to the ground to demonstrate its agility, it was carrying 136 passengers and crew, 3 of whom died. It was supposed to fly at 100 ft. above the runway with undercarriage down. In fact, reports say it was only at 30 ft. and then could not climb fast enough to avoid the trees. The official BEA Report is also controversial as it maintained flying at 30 ft off the ground was not a deliberate action of the pilot. However, he was found guilty along with others and sentenced to 10 months in prison. There were also reports that the flight recorder might have been tampered with and 4 seconds cut from the tape. This reminds me of a Cathay Pacific 777 pilot who was fired 3 years ago. He was at Boeing's Paine Field to pick up a new 777ER and fly it to Hong Kong. On board were 60 VIPs including Cathay Pacific's Chairman. Apparently it is not uncommon for pilots picking up new aircraft to buzz the ground after departure as a way of saying goodbye to the airport staff. This pilot did the stunt at only 30 feet off the ground without the undercarriage down. Such flybys require approval from the airline and air traffic control. It is believed neither had been obtained. Looking at this short, vdo, I'm not sure I would like to have been on that plane!

I am not sure to which priest you night be referring. There was one English gay bar owner in the early 2000s who had been a lay member of the Church of England with, I believe, some title or other. But I do not think he had ever been outed. He lived in Bangkok running his X-treme bar in Soi Twilight. I recall he had the most lovely student boyfriend.

Thank you. What makes this crash even more sad is that almost the same situation had occurred years earlier - and nothing had been done about it. An Air France Concorde was departing Dulles Airport in Washington on 14 June 1979. On the take-off roll two of its tyres burst. Part of the rubber actually pierced the wing and left a hole through the entire wing structure. Fuel leaked out. An airline pilot who happened to be sitting close to the point where the hole occurred drew the crew's attention to it. At first the response was, we're continuing to Paris! Only when the co-pilot actually came out of the cockpit to look at the damage did the captain reduce thrust and land back at Dulles. I do not know the cause of the tyre burst, but it would surely have reasonable to assume that the two Concorde operators might thereafter have at least considered fitting a more robust tyre. As another regular poster has frequently pointed out, Air France would not be his airline of choice. In addition to the Rio/Paris disaster, there was the August 2005 crash of an Airbus A340 on landing at Toronto. The aircraft overshot the runway and dropped into a ravine. Merciafully there were no fatalities but the A340 was totally destroyed by fire. The official Report put the blame on the pilots.

I reckon your guess is as good as mine. So I will not guess. But perhaps it might be timely to repeat the Beer Bar sub-head - "Open to general topics not covered elsewhere including Current Events, Politics, Religion, Movies and other topics. Discuss the topic, not the policy or personality. Have fun and enjoy!" As with quite an number of topics in the Beer Bar, there seems to be no requirement for any gay content.

Sunday marks the 21st anniversary of the horrific crash of an Air France supersonic Concorde just after take-off from Paris Charles de Gaulle airport. Not only were all 109 people on the aircraft killed, four employees of the hotel close to the airport also died. Arguably the most important result of the accident was that it created doubt about the integrity of the aircraft and its future. After all, Concorde had entered commercial service 25 years earlier, used 1950s and 60s technology, had a limited range mostly to the east coast of the United States and required an immense amount of increasingly expensive fuel. I have had a strange fascination with aircraft crashes ever since a Turkish Air DC10 crashed outside Paris in early 1974. I had known someone on that flight. She had been booked on a British European Airways flight to London that was cancelled due to a strike. Since the Turkish plane was usually pretty empty for its last sector, most of the BEA passengers were transferred on to the DC10. The aft cargo door had been badly designed and then badly closed by a ground handler in Paris. As the aircraft pressurised, the door was blown open, the floor of the passenger cabin collapsed and severed hydraulic lines. It crashed into a wood with the loss of 346 lives. Thereafter there was the dreadful series of errors that led to the collision of two 747s at Tenerife, the loss of a DC10 just after take-off at O’Hare when the left engine flew off, the Japan Airlines 747 which crashed into the woods following the aft bulkhead being blown out and taking the tail with it – the result of faulty maintenance 7 years earlier. But the crash the whole world remembers is surely that of the Air France Concorde. Although I only had one Concorde flight, I loved the entire experience. That and the AF crash have remained in my mind, the more so when I believe, as others appear to do, that the official French Accident Report contained major flaws, intent on ensuring as little blame as possible fell on then government-owned AF. Within minutes the crash became the subject of intense speculation. Even today, there remain several important unanswered questions. But let me start with a brief description of events. I apologise for the length but it is really not possible to explain even some of what happened without going into considerable detail. Background AF4590 had been chartered by a German tour company. The mostly German passengers would first fly to Paris where they would transfer to the Concorde lounge prior to a flight to New York. Once there they would be taken in coaches to a cruise terminal where they were to join a long cruise to the Caribbean and beyond starting that evening. The incoming flight from Dusseldorf was about 30 minutes late. Although this was not in itself an issue, any further major delay might create a problem in New York where their cruise liner had a specific departure time. But a last-minute technical fault was discovered on Concorde which had to be fixed. That resulted in yet another 30 – 40 minute delay. After the luggage and the passengers were on board, the aircraft taxied to the take-off runway. The captain started the take-off roll at 4:42pm local time. At some point roughly two thirds down the runway, air traffic control noticed heavy flames coming from the left side of the aircraft close to the No. 1 and No. 2 engines. Immediately the controller alerted the flight crew. They were then faced with two possibilities. The first was to abort take-off. But since the aircraft had already passed V1 - the point at which there would be no more runway left for a safe abort – the captain had no choice but to get the aircraft into the air. As was discovered by the official BEA Report, had take-off been aborted, it would have crashed through the end of the runway at approx. 78 knots. Given the fire at the back of the plane and all its 17 fuel tanks brimming with fuel, the resultant fireball would have killed everyone. The second was to get into the air and then find a way of getting back to a runway with emergency services as quickly as possible. As footage taken from the cabin of a truck passing near the airport shows, the Concorde never climbed higher than 60 meters. The pilots discussed going around to land back at Charles de Gaulle. ”No time” said the captain. They decided to try and land at the nearby Le Bourget airport. Within seconds, the same “no time” was repeated. Seconds later the aircraft became unflyable, pitched up and banked heavily to the left. It crashed into a nearby hotel. Photo:BEA/IGN/Fleximage The Official French Accident Report According to the January 2002 Report by the French Accident Investigation Bureau (BEA), the crash had a single cause. Concorde ran over a narrow strip of metal as it was about half way down the runway. This shredded the first inner tyre of the left-side undercarriage (each side had four wheels – two in front and two behind). A section of rubber was hurled at massive speed towards one of the 17 fuel tanks mounted in Concorde’s wings. These had been fuelled to the brim on the captain’s orders instead of, as was normal practice, leaving some air in each tank. The rubber did not puncture tank No. 5, but it set off a hydrodynamic surge inside that resulted in a shockwave and extreme pressure on the walls of the tank. With no air to absorb the shock, very quickly the fuel ruptured the tank outwards at its weakest point. The fuel quickly ignited. Concorde Fuel Tank Layout: BEA Report As a result, Engine No. 2 suffered an engine surge which reduced its efficiency. Around the same time, a similar surge resulted in a loss of efficiency in Engine No. 1. This required the captain to compensate for a leftwards droop. However, both engines quickly recovered, only for No. 2 to suffer a second surge during take off. Engines 3 and 4 operated normally. At the same time, the crew was unable to reduce drag when they could not retract the landing gear. Thus the aircraft suffered from insufficient power and a leftward yaw. The Metal Strip After investigating flights which had taken off prior to the Concorde, it was discovered that the strip came from a part of the engine cowling of a DC10 belonging to Continental Airlines. This had been replaced during a regular service in Houston on 9 July. But the mechanic had not replaced it with the part as specified in the maintenance manual. This required a steel strip to be affixed by a series of screws. Instead, the mechanic used a strip made mostly of titanium. Since the screw holes did not match, he drilled new holes. To further ensure the integrity of the new part, he glued it with a red glue prior to inserting the screws. It was this red glue on the strip found on the Paris runway that identified it as having come from the Continental flight. Over the next two weeks, the strip began to come loose, finally dropping off as the DC10 took-off from Paris. Alternative Theories I recall seeing a television documentary maybe two years or so after the crash which brought out a series of other causes which are either not included in the BEA Report or are dismissed as not material. I cannot find that particular video. But most of its conclusions were included in an investigation by The Observer newspaper and reported on 13 May 2001. It is important to realise that this news Report takes into account the views of seven Concorde pilots, six from BA and 1 from Air France, and one AF engineer, all with vast experience in flying the plane. One, John Hutchinson, had been piloting Concorde for 15 years. Their views are therefore more than important in trying to find the reasons for the crash. (I call this group the Expert Panel - EP). Delay in Departure Because the incoming flight from Dusseldorf had been delayed and the technical problem on the Concorde then had to be fixed, it was around 90 minutes behind schedule. Had it taken off even 10 minutes earlier, that Continental DC10 would likely still be at its gate and there would be no metal strip on the runway. Weight of the Aircraft The Observer EP agreed – as does the BEA Report – that the Concorde was overweight. 19 bags of luggage weighing 500 kgs had been added at the last minute and were not on the manifest that had been given to the cockpit crew. Although the baggage crew did not wish to load them, the captain ordered them to do so. With no room in the forward hold, they were crammed into the back hold. Earlier the captain had asked for extra fuel to be added beyond the usual limit for New York flights. Thus, this Concorde ended up six tonnes overweight. Flying just a tonne over maximum structural weight was theoretically illegal. With the addition of so much weight at the back, the plane’s centre of gravity had shifted “dangerously” towards the rear. The captain was pushing to the extreme the limits of safe flying as identified by the aircraft’s test pilots prior to the aircraft entering passenger service. Weather Between the time of their flight briefing and positioning the aircraft at the end of the runway, there had been a change from virtually no wind to an eight-knot wind. Instead of facing this wind, the captain had the wind behind him. That was a crucial error and as Hutchinson says ”an incredible revelation”. The captain now needed even more runway before he could get his aircraft into the air. Many Concorde pilots had found themselves in a similar situation. On those occasions they had insisted on taxiing back to take off from the other end of the runway to be against the wind. “They were already at the limits of the envelope. Once the wind changed, they were beyond it,” says Hutchinson Runway Inspection It was protocol at CFG airport for there always to be a full runway inspection prior to every Concorde departure. This was important because unlike conventional aircraft whose wing flaps and leading edge slats help to progressively reduce the weight of an aircraft as it speeds down the runway and the wings start to do their work, Concorde’s delta-shaped wings resulted in its extremely heavy weight remaining a constant until actually airborne. The stresses on its landing gear were therefore unusually severe. It was vital that any runway debris be cleared. Yet prior to the Concorde take-off roll on this afternoon, there had been no runway inspection. The Air France 747 As Concorde started its take-off roll, there was an AF Boeing 747 which had just arrived from Tokyo waiting on a taxi-way to the left of the runway and about three quarters of the way down. One of the passengers was the President of France returning from a G7 meeting. The pilots of the Concorde would have been well aware of this VVIP passenger. Also on that flight was a Japanese tourist who happened to have purchased an instant camera from a vending machine at the airport in Tokyo. The 747 captain had advised his passengers that a Concorde was about to take off. The Japanese had his camera at the ready. He had no idea his photo of Concorde taking off with a ball of fire behind it, would find its way on to the cover of many magazines around the world. Although lacking clarity, this photo shows that the source of the fire is not an engine but is located somewhere closer to the centre of the doomed aircraft. Concorde was veering to the left and getting close to the grass at the side of the runway. The co-pilot is then heard shouting, “Watch out!” No explanation has ever been put forward for this exclamation. The EP team believes it was to remind the captain that on its present track Concorde would come dangerously close to that 747. Also, if even one of its wheels was to hit the grass, the undercarriage would have been ripped off, Concorde would have flipped over and almost certainly ended up engulfing both planes in a fireball. In fact, the Concorde was even closer to the 747 than anyone believed. As it took off way left, the 747 captain would later say it soared above his stationary plane by less than 30 feet. It should have been nowhere near the 747. Another issue raised by the pilot of that 747 was his claim that there was smoke coming from the back of the Concorde before it reached the metal strip. This could have been a result of the wheels on the left undercarriage rubbing against each other. The Landing Gear Spacer Both BA and AF had very strict regulations for their ground crews when any work on the Concorde was required. One regular maintenance requirement was the time when various load-bearing components would have to be replaced. Given the stresses on the undercarriage, the “spacers” were one such component. These keep the two sets of tyres on each side of the landing gear in place to ensure there is always a fixed space between them. They are only 5 inches in diameter and 12 inches long. When this Concorde had had certain parts replaced a week prior to the accident, the mechanics had failed to replace the spacer in the left undercarriage. The aircraft then flew twice to and from New York. Each time it took off and the landing gear retracted, without the spacer two of the left wheels got closer to the other two. By 25 July there had been movement of about seven inches. As a result the ten wheels in the full undercarriage were out of alignment. The spacer was later discovered in the Air France Concorde workshop. As those on the EP claim, when Concorde started its take off roll it would have felt a little like a supermarket trolley with a slightly wobbly wheel. They further claim that the acceleration of the Concorde was slower than normal from the start as though something was holding the aircraft back. They suggest this was a result of friction from the undercarriage. Without that friction, they believe the plane should have taken off 1,694 meters from the start of the runway – before it had reached the metal strip. Take Off With the undercarriage out of alignment, it was inevitable that Concorde would veer to the left. The captain could only correct this to a certain extent by using the rudder. The EP believe that as this was happening, it hit a landing light. It adds this was rather like trying to take off in an exceptionally heavy cross-wind, a situation all Concorde pilots were trained to avoid at all costs. Should the captain have aborted take-off before reaching V1 to have this leftward movement checked? Almost certainly, yes. But he would have been aware of the resultant long delay and the relatively tight deadline for the passengers on arriving in New York. Might this have persuaded him that an abort was out of the question? We do not and cannot know. The BEA Report rejects this theory, suggesting instead that the leftward movement was a result of the failure of the engine, even though it accepts that the wheels were out of alignment. The EP then suggests that with the aircraft beyond V1 and veering very close to the grass on the left, the captain had no choice but to take off, even though he will have known he was well below the required 220-knot airspeed. Good Engine Shut Down after Take-off Having been told about the fire and as the aircraft had just left the ground, the two right engines were working as normal, the left side No. 2 was occasionally surging and the No. 1 also subject to surging. The flight engineer then inexplicably shut down the No. 2 engine. All experts agree this was a “disastrous mistake”. Only the captain can order an engine shut down. The engine was not on fire and standard engine fire procedures further mandated no engine should be shut down below 400 feet. As John Hutchinson says, “Discipline had broken down. The captain doesn’t know what’s happening; the co-pilot doesn’t know; it's a shambles. Once you deviate from procedures, it’s chaos.” Law Suits While acknowledging some of the above, the Final BEA Report all but dismissed them and placed the entire blame on Continental Airlines. This was perhaps inevitable. Air France and its insurers were facing a huge compensation bill. It had already offered each victim US$1 million. If their lawyers were to proceed with an action in New York, as was their right, this would be peanuts. Air France was initially successful in 2010 when a French Court ruled that Continental had been wholly responsible for manslaughter in respect of the crash. Continental was ordered to pay 70% of the damages to victims. But two years later a French Appeals Court overruled that judgement. Instead it ordered Continental to make a payment of around one million Euros to AF as civil damages. Conclusion John Hutchison believes the fire on its own should have been “eminently survivable: the pilot should have been able to fly himself out of trouble” as the fuel from that one tank would eventually have burned itself out. But the captain had broken rules one more time by giving an instruction to the engineer prior to take off to open Tank 11 by the tail so that it fed into Tank 5. This would ensure a constant supply of fuel to Tank 5 and help move the centre of gravity forward. But the effect was to make it impossible for him to fly himself out of trouble. Hutchinson believes the crash that resulted was a lethal combination of operational errors mostly by the cockpit crew and ‘negligence’ by the maintenance department of AF. 'Discipline had broken down, “says Hutchinson. Chillingly, he adds, “Most of the contributing factors were avoidable.” Sources https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/may/13/davidrose.focus BEA Accident Report - https://www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_elydbrapports/f-sc000725a.pdf Later TV Documentary by Captain Hutchinson About 15 years or so after the EP Report, this video was made of John Hutchinson in the captain’s seat of a Concorde. He explains in greater detail and with additional information, particularly about the Concorde being overweight, the distribution of the weight and the state of the runway. It is very clear from what he says that the AF captain, AF ground crew and AF maintenance were very much the primary causes of the accident.

Given the global extent of the pandemic and the spread of the Delta variant I wonder how easy it will be to get insurance for covid19. Those holding annual medical policies with worldwide or near worldwide cover may already find they are covered. I checked and my plan does cover the pandemic. Renewals of annual travel policies may also provide cover, although the one I used to have for several years had a pandemic exclusion clause. I wonder how many new policies will actually include cover and what the deductible will be in a pandemic. Merely curious.

I sometimes wonder who is to blame in such situations. If I as an individual post information about myself on Grindr or some other app, especially if there are photos or other information that could pinpoint me as the poster, I do not expect that to be kept a secret in this day and age. We have all seen plenty of examples where so called private information is revealed to others. There was one very similar situation 2 or 3 years back. Now 54, David Daniels was one of the finest opera singers in the world, having appeared in virtually all the major opera houses. He was a counter tenor with that high mostly developed falsetto range that has been coming back into fashion over the last 40 or so years, particularly in performance of barque operas. The US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had officiated when he married his partner. A tenured Professor of Vocal Studies at the University of Michigan, he was caught on one of the apps like Grindr where he had met up with several students who had each been asked to give him blow jobs for which they'd be paid something like $200. Sexual hook-ups with students is a no-no at almost all Universities. He was placed on Administrative leave. Soon he was being accused of drugging and raping of a young man whilst he was in Houston for a performance. That case is going to Court. Last year the University fired him. For anyone who does not know the counter tenor voice or David Daniels this is a short clip from a recording session about 10 years ago. A huge talent now all but destroyed, almost certainly through no one's fault but his own.

I wonder why? I doubt if any expat male could get into that dress. Maybe he likes the boys to dress up occasionally!

The "beginning" of the negotiation?? This third wave started in early April and was becoming serious in May. Why has the government sat on its collective ass and done nothing for more than two months? Oh, I forgot. "We have tried our hardest." When this government finally gets is comeuppance, I suspect that will be written on its gravestone.

This seems another case of bureaucratic madness. China already has 11 massive dams on its part of the Mekong river. According to a Bloomberg article in April last year, the effect of these dams is now being felt very seriously down stream in Laos and Cambodia. Although it refers primarily to China blocking water from flowing downstream, given the seemingly cavalier attitude of China to its neighbours, what if it suddenly let out a large amount of water which found its way to this new dam north of Luang Prabang? Could it withstand the increased pressure? What if this coincided with a period of massive flooding as seen recently in other countries, notably Germany? Luang Prabang is one of Asia's most beautiful old cities. It should be protected at all costs, not put a risk. "China considers water management data to be a state secret, and, barring new evidence, it has always been difficult to reach defensible conclusions about China’s management water levels in the Mekong River. That is, until this month, when remarkable new data became public. It shines a dramatic light on how much water China’s upstream dams have blocked—even as downstream countries suffered through unprecedented drought. "Every year, the Mekong River rises and falls in cycle with the rainy season, when a massive pulse of water driven by monsoon rains and Himalayan snow melt flows downstream. Yet along the Thai-Lao border between June and November of last year the mainstream of the Mekong ran dry, the river bed and shoals were exposed, and isolated pools of flopping fish were unable to reach their spawning grounds. "That July, as the mainstream’s level fell so far that irrigation pumps could not reach it, the Thai government mobilized its army to conduct relief efforts. In the fall, Tonle Sap Lake will typically fill with monsoon waters rushing in from the mainstream for five months, providing Cambodians with up to 70 percent of their protein. Last year, the expansion of the lake, often described as the Mekong’s heartbeat, lasted just five weeks, and reports suggest it produced a fraction of the normal 500,000 tons of food. "Observers, myself included, initially concluded that the abysmally low levels in the mainstream were due to low precipitation in the broad Mekong Basin. An El Niño weather pattern still today leaves most of the region suffering from its worst drought on record. In Vietnam’s Mekong Delta, millions of people are currently without access to freshwater. But a new study from the U.S-.based climate consultant Eyes on Earth provides us with a different reason: For six months in 2019, China’s dams blocked an unprecedented amount of water from entering the lower Mekong. The amount of water withheld was so large that, for the first time since modern records have been kept, there was no monsoon-driven rise in water levels just over the Chinese border in Chiang Saen, Thailand. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/22/science-shows-chinese-dams-devastating-mekong-river/ Note: Underlining is in the original article. Boldface is my addition.

Just out of curiosity, is there now much of a market for a website named "gaythailand"? I can understand that before the apps took off, domain names could have been extremely valuable. Has it now changed?

Apologies! An honest mistake due to a misunderstanding.

I may also have been less than 100% correct but all reports I have seen state that the first production roll out was on June 2. https://apnews.com/article/thailand-coronavirus-vaccine-coronavirus-pandemic-business-health-2bf0cf9f527908b214d32db3092edf89 Other reports indicate the number of doses was below the contracted amount. Yet another report states that 50,000 doses of the AZ vaccine arrived from overseas in February. Another 150,000 doses from overseas were due to arrive in March and April. https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2054799/astrazeneca-vaccine-approved-50-000-doses-due-in-february Then AZ itself said on its website on 28 April that the first batches would be ready for delivery "in June this year." https://www.astrazeneca.com/country-sites/thailand/press-release/thai20210428.html I have no idea how long it takes to produce a vaccine. The key issue for me is when it was rolled out as a finished product.

In the last sentence of the first link - immediately following what I wrote. https://london.thaiembassy.org/en/content/thailand-and-uk-signed-a-landmark-agreement-for-co?cate=5d6636c215e39c3bd0006cb5

For years Thailand has mandated a transmission delay of around 5 minutes for news programmes on CNN, BBC World News and presumably other channels. This is to give the censors time to blank screens whenever any issue about Thailand embarrassing to the government is aired. Today, though, the BBC News at 08:00 and 09:00 carried a reasonably long piece on the Bangkok protests yesterday which saw the police use of water canons, rubber bullets and tear gas. The demonstration was to protest the government's disastrous covid19 response and to seek the resignation of the Prime Minister. The rally was held despite the ban on assemblies of more than 5 people in Bangkok. https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/politics/2150783/police-fire-water-cannon-rubber-bullets-tear-gas-at-protesters I can't imagine that anyone seeing these scenes will be considering returning for visits to Thailand any time soon.

Damn it! I knew his name began with 'B'

When the deal with Astra Zeneca was first announced by the Thai Embassy in London, the Embassy's official report states, "It is expected that the manufacturing process in Thailand can start within the first quarter in 2021." This did not happen. https://london.thaiembassy.org/en/content/thailand-and-uk-signed-a-landmark-agreement-for-co?cate=5d6636c215e39c3bd0006cb5 A month later the Prime Minister reported that the contract was for the purchase of 26 million doses largely for over 60s. Given that Thailand still had not started its second small wave and had only had 3,961 confirmed cases, being fair this must have seemed a not unreasonable supply at that time. https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2026547/thailand-signs-deal-with-astrazeneca-for-covid-vaccine Then in March this year, before the massive third wave and a time when the country had still recorded a total on only 26,500 infections, the Health Ministry announced a delay because there had been reports of blood clots in some European countries. https://thethaiger.com/coronavirus/suspension-of-astrazeneca-jab-delays-thailands-planned-vaccination-drive As a result the Prime Minister and his cabinet delayed getting their vaccinations but quickly did so with doses from overseas. Since then, the entire situation has been a disaster. The PM went against all medical advice by allowing Songkran to go ahead with millions travelling around the country. By early June (at the latest) it was announced that the number of doses had been upped to 61 million. Then the local manufacturer of AZ announced production delays. Then just a few days ago it was finally announced that up to 60% of those 61 million doses are earmarked for other countries. The whole process is a disaster, clouded in the usual Thai secrecy and made worse by the ownership of the company which is the local AZ manufacturer - an issue the law does not allow us to discuss in this forum.

And that is surely a big, big problem for Thailand, especially with the local Astra Zeneca manufacturer having once again reduced the supply it was contracted to provide. Instead of 61 million doses by the end of this year, the company needs another 5 months until May before it fulfils its contractual commitment. But even at 61 million doses, that still only vaccinates 30.5 million people - less than half the country. Now the government is panicking and buying up as much Sinovac as it can while a charity is buying Sinopharm. Yet we know from the last few days that some people having had two Sinovac vaccinations now have tested positive for the virus again, including one medical professional who has died. With calls for those given Sinovac to be given a booster shot, the government is yet again in total disarray. Private hospitals are also waiting for approval for the numbers of Moderna vaccine they can purchase with planned commencement of vaccinations in October. i wish that everyone could be vaccinated by the end of the year. With less than 5% presently having been given the required two doses, my gut tells me getting anywhere near 50% by year end will be a massive exercise. Will the gates open in time for the main tourist season in the first six months of next year? My guess is as good as anyone's.

I am sure that is correct. And your overview is excellent. However, whilst there will always be gay men and the apps (and whatever succeeds them) will be there perhaps even in more abundance, I can not agree that change will not happen. It always does. Cities constantly change. But whereas the cities of the world know what made them successful in the past and will want to revert to something like that model, it absolutely does not follow that the commercial gay scene will remain as it was. The foreigner commercial gay scene is just a minuscule speck in the overall economy of Thailand. It's disappearance - or reappearance in an even more reduced form - will do virtually nothing for the overall economy. We know from other posters in this new Gay Guides forum that the commercial gay scenes in some European cities like Prague, Amsterdam and London are nothing like what they used to be some years ago. We know that here in Thailand Chiang Mai was once a gay haven. It certainly was in the mid-1980s and 1990s. But it has been dying for years with more than 50 gay venues of all kinds closed. I remember when Phuket was fun for gay men with lots of great times with the boys from Young Sharks, My Way and other gogo and beer bars. Now Phuket's gay scene is on life support. I remember having good times at gay saunas in Ubon Ratchanthani and Khon Kaen in the early 2000s. Are they still there? Even if they are, how many gay tourists primarily seeking sex venture out that far? As we know from past posts in other threads, there is an entire world of gay bars and places of gay entertainment for Thai gays of which western expats and tourists know nothing. And even if we did know about it, we would not be permitted to enter. So as far as gays not suddenly becoming non-gays, @readeris certainly correct. But this thread is primarily about western tourists. That is a very different kettle of tom yum goong! The fact is that almost all gay tourists will continue to seek happiness in Bangkok and Pattaya. So many of the gay venues have closed over the years and there are fewer and fewer in Bangkok's central tourist area. As mentioned in other threads, land in Bangkok's central area is becoming too expensive. In both cities many bars have closed. Some will hope to reopen eventually, perhaps a new one or two may appear, but others will be closed for good. In my thinking, the essential question that needs to be addressed is less how many will reopen and much more will a flood of new western visitors anxious to visit gay gogo bars, saunas, discos etc. arrive in time to make those who do actually reopen commercially viable? The gay tourist trade will certainly not return overnight. It may take some years before it returns even to 2019 levels. Can it ever return to 2000 levels? No! We know that the supply of western gay tourists has been drying up over the last dozen and more years. We know that the new breed of Asian gay tourist has more or less different ideas of fun compared to the westerners of old (many of whom are indeed now older) for whom gogo bars were vital to enjoyment. I know I will continue to be called a glass half empty type of guy. But I have witnessed the gay scene for four decades. In that time I have seen its steady and continuing decline. The decline is not merely limited to Thailand. Something is happening to change the commercial gay scene in other cities. Quite probably it is due to the rise in the popularity of the apps. In Tokyo we know that the area for gay bars in the Shinjuku-ni-chome area has been significantly reduced and something like a quarter of the bars (mostly those only for Japanese customers) have died. Bars in the next most popular district of Ueno are for Japanese only and so I have no information on that. Within Asia the one gay market that continues to expand is Taipei. Again, though, this is fed almost exclusively by locals and other Asians because westerners rarely consider Taiwan a vacation destination. When @readersays "Count on it", I believe he is correct in one respect. The commercial straight scene with the girlie bars, ping pong shows (do they still have these?) and nearly nude young ladies will still be around and is unlikely to change much. Sadly the commercial gay scene as we all used to know it will continue to decline. What remains will be geared very much to local Thais and Asian tourists.