Concorde Crash Trial Starts

[Guest fountainhall]

A court in Paris yesterday began an investigation into the Concorde crash almost ten years ago that killed all 109 souls on board and 4 on the ground. Lawyers for the US airline Continental say they'll dispute the official finding that a piece of metal which was lying on the runway after falling off one of their DC10s was to blame. The official theory goes that the metal shredded the Concorde's tyre sending debris upwards, puncturing the outer skin and fuel lines, thereby sparking the blaze. Continental and two of its technical employees are among those charged with manslaughter.

 

Others, however, strongly disagree, pointing to evidence that the fire started before the tyre shredded. I remember a documentary some years ago on, I believe, Discovery Channel which listed a whole series of issues which were never addressed at the official French enquiry and which more likely caused the crash. These included:

 

- As a result of poor maintenance, a spacer was missing from one of Concorde

[Guest fountainhall]

When I wrote the above post, I had no idea that the National Geographic Channel is showing what I believe is that documentary on the Concorde crash today! The second and last showing is in a few minutes at 6:00 pm.

[Guest fountainhall]

Apologies. That programme now on was based on the official enquiry to the disaster and was not the one I had seen. The latter was made, I believe, by a British documentary team and used a lot of evidence that had come to light since the one on National Geographic was completed.

[kokopelli]

I did see a recent showing of the investigation of this crash. The strip of metal from the Continental aircraft was an exact match to the slash in the tire of the Concorde. It does seem that this was the cause of the crash. Continental was so slip shod that they had not replaced the missing strip of metal on the engine even weeks after the crash of the Concorde.

[Guest fountainhall]

The strip of metal from the Continental aircraft was an exact match to the slash in the tire of the Concorde. It does seem that this was the cause of the crash

I think no-one doubts that the strip of metal played some role in the crash. Certainly Air France were determined to ensure that no blame was laid at this door. However, the other investigative programme I saw put forward several major issues which were all a result of either faulty maintenance or other Air France related problems - e.g. the plane having too much baggage and being over it's maximum take-off weight, and a take-off on the wrong runway. This is highlighted in the Wikipedia page on the crash which I quote below.

 

British investigators and former French Concorde pilots looked at several other possibilities that the report ignored, including an unbalanced weight distribution in the fuel tanks and loose landing gear. They came to the conclusion that the Concorde veered off course on the runway, which reduced take-off speed below the crucial minimum. The aircraft had passed close to a Boeing 747 known to be carrying French President Jacques Chirac who was returning from the 26th G8 summit meeting in Okinawa, Japan.

 

They argued that the Concorde was in trouble before takeoff, as it was overweight for the given conditions, with an excessively aft center of gravity and taking off downwind. They claim that when it stood at the end of the runway, ready to roll, it was more than six tonnes over its approved maximum takeoff weight for the given conditions.

 

Moreover, it was missing the crucial spacer from the left main landing-gear beam that would have made for a snug-fitting pivot. This compromised the alignment of the landing gear and the wobbling beam and gears allowing three degrees of movement possible in any direction. The uneven load on the left leg’s three remaining tyres skewed the landing gear disastrously, with the scuff marks of four tyres on the runway showing that the plane was skidding out of control.

 

Finally, Brian Trubshaw and John Cochrane, the Concorde's two test pilots when the aircraft was being developed in the early 1970s, set the aft operating limit at 54 per cent - beyond that, they found, it risked becoming uncontrollable, likely to rear up backwards and crash, exactly as Flight 4590 did in its final moments over Gonesse. However, Flight 4590's centre of gravity went beyond 54 per cent, with the BEA stating a figure of 54.2 per cent, while a senior industry source said that the true figure may have been worse: with the extra fuel and bags, it may have been up to 54.6 per cent.

 

These investigators were frustrated by the lack of cooperation from French authorities, including an unwillingness to share data and the immediate resurfacing of the Concorde's takeoff runway after the crash. They alleged that the BEA was determined to place the sole blame of the accident on the titanium strip to show that the Concorde itself was not at fault. The piece of metal from the DC-10 was found 7 meters forward, and 37 meters to the right of where the Concorde's tyre blew.

[kokopelli]

This should be an interesting investigation, no doubt everyone will point the finger elsewhere. As far as the plane being overloaded and in excess of it max take off weight, the fact is that the plane did take off and was airborne. From what I heard the pilots did cut power to two of the engines and the other two were insufficient to maintain airspeed. In all likelyhood it was "for the want of a nail, the ship was sunk" scenario.

 

Has anyone flown in the Concorde?? I did tour the interior of one at a museum and it was quite confining. Like a commuter aircraft.

[Guest fountainhall]

As far as the plane being overloaded and in excess of it max take off weight, the fact is that the plane did take off and was airborne. From what I heard the pilots did cut power to two of the engines and the other two were insufficient to maintain airspeed

The plane took off for the simple reason that it had reached take-off speed and had no alternative. At that point, there was not nearly enough runway left to try and slow it down and stop before it plunged off the end of that runway and crashed.

 

However, it's one thing to take off. It's quite another to stay in the air. If, as the alternative theory states, the plane was significantly overweight (and most of that overload was in the back half of the aircraft), if as all parties seem to agree there was a missing spacer resulting in a dodgy wheel dragging it increasingly to the left, and, more seriously, as it was taking off with the wind behind it - all aircraft should take-off into the wind, then there's no doubt it would not have been travelling fast enough to generate the lift necessary to get up higher than it did. The plane was doomed even before the captain switched off the left side engines.

 

Yes, I flew Concorde once about 15 years ago. Not because I paid for it but because I got an upgrade at Heathrow Airport for a flight to JFK! I was checking in and was told my flight was overbooked. Would I mind if I took a slightly later flight? I was about to explode when it was pointed out that the new flight would arrive long before my original flight. I then learned I'd be on Concorde!

 

Yes, it was very much like a stretched commuter aircraft. The seats were quite comfortable, but very narrow and did not recline much. Apart from the much better food, some excellent wines and impeccable service, there was nothing very special. The noise generated at take-off was very pronounced (and I was well in front of the engines in the 3rd row) and the ambient noise in-flight was higher than present day jumbos. There was a speed counter at the front of the two cabins which showed when you crossed the sound barrier and sped up to around Mach 1.4. Strangely I felt no acceleration at that point. I also felt somewhat deprived. Every article said you could see the curvature of the earth from 65,000 feet - but try as I did, I just could not see any curve!

 

Arriving at JFK was a breeze. Immigration formalities were completed prior to take-off in London. BA guaranteed that your bags would be on the carousel not less than 15 minutes after Concorde reached the gate, and all passengers had limousines waiting to whisk them into New York. But I rather wished it was back to the old days in the early -1980's when Pan Am and Northwest would give trans-Pacific business class passengers a free helicopter ride into Manhattan's East Side Terminal. Taking that helicopter at dusk with Manhattan all lit up was an etraordinary experience - it felt that the helicopter was not moving and instead it was the island of Manhattan rising up to meet you. Fabulous!

[kokopelli]

I do love these plane accident investigations and await the final results. One of my prized possesions is a wallet with the Concorde emblem, given to me by a friend who did fly the Concorde once from NYC. Oddly enough he had also been scheduled to fly TWA Flight 800 from NYC to Paris on July 17, 1996 which crashed shortly after take off. Luckily he missed this flight! Now that was a real investigation.

[Guest fountainhall]

he had also been scheduled to fly TWA Flight 800 from NYC to Paris on July 17, 1996 which crashed shortly after take off. Luckily he missed this flight! Now that was a real investigation

I think you and I like the gradual process of discovery and fault-finding in such accidents. I'm glad your friend was not on that TWA flight. It seems the explosion severed the forward part of the plane which quickly fell away, but the aft section with all the economy passengers continued to fly forwards for about 30 seconds before starting its horrific descent to the ocean. Can you imagine what that must have been like? I can't.

[kokopelli]

Since I fly Business Class I supposs that is comforting to some degree to be first in line at the "end" of the flight.