In a message dated 2/26/2003 6:39:28 AM Central Standard Time, lafrance@verizon.net writes: > The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) and the Civil Aviation > Authority both say Concorde remains safe to fly. > The Paris crash was blamed on debris on the runway which punctured a > tyre. > Tyre fragments penetrated the fuel tank, leading to a catastrophic fire > which caused the aircraft to crash. > I know I've been quiet lately, sorry guys, been busy hauling the peeps around the midwest. Anway, after reading this, I thought I would post this excerpt that was posted in our lounge, I don't know who wrote it, sorry. Can anyone verify/backup this story? subject Concorde crash facts It is posted by on of our Line Pilots / ALPA Safety committee guys, contains some interesting facts on the Concorde crash: In recent weeks there has been some discussion regarding accident investigations on this board. One of the ten commandments of accident investigation is that you> never fall in love with a theory. We all know that the Emery crash in SAC was caused by cargo shift. Right? Wrong. Mechanical failure in a flight control. We all also know that the Concorde crashed because it hit a metal strip from a CAL DC-10 that was deposited on the runway. Right? Wrong. I prefer the Swiss cheese theory of accidents where the holes line up in the various barriers to prevent accidents and when they do line up there is the accident, over the Boeing chain of events but whichever you subscribe to this will follow either. Hole number one. The airplane had been in maintenance prior to this flight and maintenance kinda sorta forgot to put a critical spacer in the LMLG truck. (we will get to this later). Hole number two: The airplane is sitting at the gate. It is a few pounds over gross, roughly 16,000, and the CG is near the aft limit. Hole number three. The V1 speed for the weight is 199K. Now we get to the runway and off we go. As the airplane accelerates it begins pulling to the left, oh yes the spacer was there to keep the trucks from swiveling. Hole number four. As they barrel down the runway the airplane's LMLG hits a runway-edge light stanchion. Guess where the stanchion goes? You got it right into the left fuel cell and punctures it and starts a fire. Now you ask why didn't the captain just abort the takeoff? Hole number five. Sitting on a taxiway waiting to cross the runway is a 747 with the French president and his wife aboard. The captain now has a choice. He can try to abort and plow into the 747 or he can try to fly. Hole number six, he decides to fly and rotates at 188 knots, 11 knots below V1. So now you are having a really bad hair day. You are in an over gross airplane with the CG going farther aft by the second because of the fuel loss, you are behind the power curve big time. What can make the day worse? (By the way for all intents and purposes they were already dead before the next aw shit). Hole number seven, the friendly helpful flight engineer decides, on his own without consulting the captain, to shut down an engine he THOUGHT was on fire. Now your day really is as bad as it gets the airplane is behind the power curve anyway and now you have an engine shut down when you are below Vmcg Air. The airplane rolls over on its back and crashes into a hotel Jim Hann Waterski J-41 Captain Lambert-St. Louis Airport (STL/KSTL)