Secret Squirrel turns his attention to recent developments concerning the Concorde airliner incident of that great many years ago,the investigation of the root cause of it all, and the outcome and ruling of a french trial concerning that event of July 25,2000,the crash of the Air France, Concorde. Squirrel has pondered events,and here presents them all to you, but sees a great many responsible for the accident and sees the root cause of the event, and sees that there were and are a great many items,any one of which, could have prevented that tragic accident, any one of which, but not one thing was properly done.The crash was not the culmination of a single event, but the result of a great many events.Let us ponder then events
at hand,what we generally know.............
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590
A Continental Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-10 lost a titanium part, about 30 centimetres (12 in) wide and 43 centimetres (17 in) long, during a
takeoff from Charles de Gaulle Airport.(This strip was installed in violation of the manufacturer's rules on the thrust reverser cowl door of the
number 3 engine of the Continental Airlines DC-10.) During the Concorde's subsequent take-off run, (During takeoff from runway 26 right at Roissy
Charles de Gaulle Airport, shortly before rotation (take-off speed),)this piece of debris, still lying on the runway, ruptured a tyre which then burst. A large chunk of this (4.5 kilograms or 9.9 lb) struck the underside of the aircraft's wing structure at well over 300 kilometres per hour (190 mph). Although it did not directly puncture any of the fuel tanks, it sent out a pressure shockwave that eventually ruptured the number five fuel tank at the weakest point, just above the landing gear. Leaking fuel rushing over the top of the wing was ignited by an electric arc in the landing gear bay or through contact with severed electrical cables. At the point of ignition, engines one and two both surged and lost all power, but slowly recovered over the next few seconds. A large plume of flame developed; the Flight Engineer then shut down engine two, in response to a
fire warning and the Captain's command.
Having passed V1 speed, the crew continued the take-off (Aborting the take-off would have led to a high-speed runway excursion and collapse of the landing gear, which also would have caused the aircraft to crash. )but they could not gain enough airspeed on the three remaining engines, because the undercarriage could not be retracted due to the severed electrical cables. The aircraft was unable to climb or accelerate, and it maintained a speed of 200 knots (370 km/h; 230 mph) at an altitude of 60 metres (200 ft). The fire caused damage to the port wing, and it began to disintegrate - melting due to extremely high temperatures. Engine one surged again, but this time failed to recover. Due to the asymmetric thrust, the starboard wing lifted, banking the aircraft to over 100 degrees. The crew reduced the power on engines three and four to attempt to level the aircraft but with falling airspeed they lost control, crashing into the Hôtelissimo Les Relais Bleus Hotel near the airport.
The investigators concluded that:
* After reaching take-off speed, the tyre of the number 2 wheel was cut by a metal strip lying on the runway, which came from the thrust reverser cowl door of the number 3 engine of a Continental Airlines DC-10 that had taken off from the runway several minutes before. This strip was installed in violation of the manufacturer's rules.
* The aircraft was overloaded by about a ton.
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 carrying French President Jacques Chirac who was returning from the 26th G8 summit meeting in Okinawa, Japan, which was much further down the runway than the Concorde's usual take-off point; only then did it strike the metal strip from the DC-10.
The Concorde was overweight for the given conditions, with an excessively aft centre of gravity and taking off downwind. When it stood at the end of the runway, ready to roll, it was over its approved maximum take-off weight for the given conditions.The Concorde 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, with the scuff marks of four tyres on the runway showing that the plane was veering to the left.
(One interesting note about the main landing gear is that if both were to just swing up to be stowed away they would hit each other and jam. The combined length of both undercarriages is greater than the distance between both undercarriage roots. This problem required that the undercarriage be first retracted vertically and then swung inwards to be tucked in the wing and fuselage belly......http://heritageconcorde.com/?page_id=4356)
So generally it is known that the event was brought about by a tire,or two being blown,and resultant debris smashing in to, but it seems not actually penetrating,the wing, and fuel tank.Interesting,curious.There are mentioned many tire incidents involving Concord, and it's so-called special tires,which,it seems were especially failing.Ponder these events......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590
In November, 1981, the American NTSB sent a letter of concern, which included safety recommendations for the Concorde, to the French BEA. That
communiqué was the result of the NTSB's investigations of four Air France Concorde incidents, during a 20 month period, from July 1979, through February, 1981. The NTSB described those incidents as “potentially catastrophic,” because they were caused by blown tyres during take-off. The NTSB also expressed concern about the lack of adequate remedies, on the part of the French, as well as improper crew responses to those incidents.
* June 13, 1979: The number 5 and 6 tyres blew out during a take-off from Washington, DC Dulles Airport. Shrapnel thrown from the tyres and rims
damaged number 2 engine, punctured three fuel tanks, severed several hydraulic lines and electrical wires, in addition to tearing a large hole on the top of the wing, over the wheel well area.
* July 21, 1979: Another blown tyre incident, during take-off from Dulles Airport. After that second incident the “French director general of civil aviation issued an air worthiness directive and Air France issued a Technical Information Update, each calling for revised procedures. These included required inspection of each wheel and tyre for condition, pressure and temperature prior to each take-off. In addition, crews were advised that landing gear should not be raised when a wheel/tyre problem is suspected.”
* October, 1979: Tyres number 7 and 8 failed during a take-off from New York's JFK Airport. In spite of the well-publicized danger from the previous incidents, the crew ignored the new safety recommendations and raised the landing gear and continued to Paris. There was no subsequent investigation by the French BEA or the NTSB, of that incident.
In September 2005, Henri Perrier, the former head of the Concorde division at Aerospatiale, and Jacques Herubel, the Concorde chief engineer, came
under investigation for negligence: a report stated that the company had more than 70 incidents involving Concorde tyres between 1979 and 2000, but had failed to take appropriate steps based upon these incidents
* February, 1981: While en-route from Mexico City to Paris, Air France (F-BTSD) blew more tyres during another take-off at Dulles Airport. Once again, the crew disregarded the new procedures by raising the landing gear. The blown tyres caused engine damage which forced the flight to land at New York JFK Airport. The NTSB's investigation found that there had been no preparation of the passengers for a possible emergency landing and evacuation. The CVR was also found to have been inoperative for several flights, including one which followed a layover in Paris.
To save on weight, the Concorde was designed to take off without the assistance of flaps or slats. That required a significantly higher air and tyre speed, during the take-off roll, which imposed a much greater centripetal force load on the tyres. That higher speed increased the risk of tyre explosion during take-off. When the tyres did explode, much greater kinetic energy was carried by the resulting shrapnel travelling at great speeds tangentially from the rims (the kinetic energy of an object being directly proportional to the square of its speed), increasing the risk of serious damage to the aircraft. A thicker skin on the bottom side of the wings could have prevented serious damage from an exploding tyre, but that would have added too much weight, cancelling out most of the advantage of not having flaps or slats.
So the Air France Concord suffered a tire burst,
http://www.concordesst.com/latestnews.html
Mr Metzner.............(argued)..... that the Concorde's tyre burst because an important element of the undercarriage had been accidentally left out by Air France ground staff. As a result, too much weight was bearing on the tyres, one of which exploded when it hit a bump in the runway. Air France and the French air accident bureau admit that there was a mistake in repairing the Concorde's undercarriage but they insist that it could not have caused the tyre burst. However there is no factual evidence of any fire on the aircraft before it hit the piece of metal and the tyre burst from any marks observed on the runway. ...................
*Continental Airlines Accused of negligently allowing its staff to use banned titanium strips for aircraft repairs. If found guilty the company faces a fine of up to €375,000.
*John Taylor, 41, Continental Airlines mechanic He fitted the titanium strip which fell onto the runway before the doomed Concorde flight.
Henri Perrier, 80, head of the Concorde programme at Aerospatiale from 1978 to 1994 Accused of failing to respond to evidence of weakness in the aircraft's tyre and fuel tank designs..................
Events were even yet such that the British Concords were fitted with a special flap to deal with these events.Indeed here peruse this.......
http://articles.cnn.com/2000-08-03/world/crash.concorde.03_1_burst-tire-concordes-major-fuel-leak?_s=PM:WORLD
Air France confirms it did not make Concorde modification before crash
Air France officials Thursday acknowledged the airline had not made a design change intended to reduce the chance that tire blowouts on the Concorde would damage the supersonic aircraft.British Airways modified its Concordes in 1995; two years after a Concorde tire explosion sent a water deflector -- part of the landing gear --
soaring through a fuel tank. It was the second such time that a burst tire had dislodged a water deflector, documents show.But Air France said Thursday it opted not to modify the water deflector on its planes, saying the modification would simply ensure the deflector would remain in one piece, and would not prevent it from separating from the aircraft entirely.Air France was not legally required to make the modification, the airline noted.Concorde Flight 4590 departed that airport outside of Paris July 25, and crashed just minutes later, killing all 109 people on the plane and four on
the ground.......................Investigators say they know that one, possibly two, tires burst; that there was an intense fire caused by a major fuel leak; that the flight crew could not retract the landing gear; and that there were problems with two of the four engines.Speculation about the possible involvement of the water deflector came Thursday after French government officials confirmed they had discovered a piece of the water deflector on the runway at Charles de Gaulle Airport.U.S. and British government records show the Concorde has a history of
mishaps involving blown tires...............
Note, Air France did NOT modify it's aircraft after such a serious incident,an accident actually resulting in the wing AND the fuel tank, being actually penetrated,speared through.The British saw the clear and present danger, the French refused to heed it,nor acknowledge it.Clearly,negligence.
But we are looking at what is claimed to be debris on the runway have caused the tire(s) to burst,with the devastating events which came about,events the British Concorde escaped from.Continental claimed,though, that Concorde had not actually come to grief due to the debris on the runway left by it's DC-10, but rather had burst the tires and been on fire BEFORE it got to the debris.However events being what they are, runways are to be checked for debris, and the debris noted and cleared,and those who the debris is suspected of belonging to, informed of.And so too it was at Charles DeGaulle Airport, the runways were to be checked,regularly...but wouldn't you know it, all things being equal, at that French airport what kind of a situation do we have with respect to runway checks......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/906610.stm
Questions over Concorde runway
The plane crashed less than two minutes after take-off.French investigators have said that an inspection of the runway used by the Concorde that crashed near Paris in July had been postponed because of a fire drill.A preliminary report on the crash in which 113 people died, said that a metal strip found on the runway could have gashed one of the plane's tyres. This may have set off the catastrophic chain of events that led the plane to come down in a ball of flames shortly after take-off.However officials from the French Air Accident Investigation Bureau (BEA) said the delay in the runway inspection did not necessarily have a bearing on the presence of the 43cm (17 inch) metal strip..............
At a news conference to present the preliminary report, BEA director Paul Arslanian said airport employees routinely inspected the runway three times per day.Paul Arslanian said the metal strip resembled an aviation part.
On the day the Concorde crashed, the runway was inspected at 0430 (0230 GMT), and a partial inspection carried out at 1430 because a plane was believed to have collided with a bird.A second full inspection at 1500 was postponed because of a fire practice which started at 1435. The Concorde took off at 1643.The report shows, therefore, that the runway was not fully inspected for more than 12 hours before the doomed plane took off.However airport authority spokesman Didier Hamon said it was usual for Charles de Gaulle airport to carry out its three inspections a day at "relatively flexible" times."If anything wrong would have existed, it would have been noticed immediately," he said.
"We do believe that everything was done that day as it is normal to do. On that day, nothing abnormal, nothing exceptional was reported to the airport authority."Mr Arslanian cautioned against drawing hasty conclusions."We need to understand what was done during the fire drill," he said.
The BEA director said the metal strip thought to have burst one of the plane's tyres looked "very like an aviation part", although investigators had yet to establish how it had ended up on the runway.Chris Yates, security editor for Jane's Aviation, said an airport such as Charles de Gaulle would be required to check for runway debris several times a day.He said: "The French BEA's admittance that these basic safety procedures were not adhered to may have contributed to the crash."
The BEA's preliminary report into the fatal crash, released on Thursday night, stresses that it was the destruction of a forward tyre on the plane's left landing gear - probably torn by the metal strip - that set of a chain of events that brought the plane down.
Well now,imagine, no inspection for 12 hours, and the statement.......airport authority spokesman Didier Hamon said it was usual for Charles de Gaulle airport to carry out its three inspections a day at "relatively flexible" times."If anything wrong would have existed, it would have been noticed immediately," he said.Well, it wasn't was it?It couldn't have, it wouldn't have, and it wasn't noticed.Clearly negligence.
It's is also interesting to note, that the flight commenced abnormally,even yet from the loading of the baggage,it's weight distribution, and even yet,it resulted in an overload condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590
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 carrying French President Jacques Chirac who was returning from the 26th G8 summit meeting in Okinawa, Japan, which was much further down the runway than the Concorde's usual take-off point; only then did it strike the metal strip from the DC-10.The Concorde was overweight for the given conditions, with an excessively aft centre of gravity
and taking off downwind. When it stood at the end of the runway, ready to roll, it was over its approved maximum take-off weight for the given conditions.
The Concord started it's flight being overloaded,and not having proper weight distribution.Here clearly, the Airport Authority is responsible,and improperly loaded aircraft,improper with respect to both weight distribution, and also with respect to actual weight, one ton overloaded.Also, one must state, the pilot could not be aware of improper weight distribution, this being done by baggage handlers, but he was aware of the improper overweight condition and chose to ignore it. Here,clearly, we have negligence.
So now the pilot heads off down the runway he should never have entered,and there they say,they claim, that the strip,the part waits.....
http://www.concordesst.com/accident/stories/s28.html
Fatal Strip Fell from Continental DC10
Investigators looking into the Air France Concorde crash outside Paris on July 25 said yesterday that the 41cm (16in) strip of metal which almost certainly caused the accident seemed identical to one missing from a Continental Airlines DC-10 which took off minutes earlier. The French accident investigation bureau (BEA) said the strip found on the runway appeared to come from the cowling of the fan reverser on the DC-10's right engine.Continental said the twisted, epoxy-coated strip was the same shape as a piece missing from the engine of flight COA 55. It was not there when officials of the airline, the BEA, the US federal aviation administration and the national transportation and safety board inspected the plane in Houston on Saturday, it said.
The strip had been replaced on July 9 during a routine engine inspection. Because the investigation was continuing it was "inappropriate to comment further," the company added.
It has been said, that the use of the titanium strip was against airline practices,that such replacement had been banned, but a mechanic did perform
the replacement,the substitution, and it seem, most definitely, improperly so.So here Continental's maintenance procedures and the mechanic who did the job, are clearly negligent.Negligence........all round..what caused the Concord crash?ALL of these things, any one of which could have saved the Concord from coming to grief.
Causes:
1) Air France and Manufacturer(Sud Aviation)
For NOT carrying out the tire disintegration modification which was done on British Concords due to FACT that Concord tires were dangerously disintegrating, striking the wings,even yet resulting in piercing of the wings by tire boggie components.
2) Airport officials
Baggage handlers knowingly overloaded the aircraft, and placing the center of gravity in imbalance.
3) Airport Company which checks runway
For NOT properly checking runway.
4) Airport officials
Knowingly delaying and then not first proceeding with checking of the runway.(See also 2).
5) Pilot
For taking off with an overloaded aircraft,improper aircraft operation.
6) Continental
For improper aircraft maintenance,using banned techniques.
7) Maintenance Man
For improper maintenance procedure which failed.
8) Michelin
Concord had vast history of tire failures, special tires failed specially.
There we have it,we can conclude, eight causes, eight causes,count them, eight.But should any one of them have been properly done,Concord would not have come to
grief.There lies the cause,there lie the blame,and the passengers and crew lie in the earth,mangled,burned and roasted.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL.
No comments:
Post a Comment