Question: I recall seeing a picture of the Concorde barreling down the runway with the wing spewing flame. It looked like it was rolling pretty much down the center of the runway. That punches a hole in hole no. 4. I'll have a look-see to see if I have that picture in my files or if I can find it on the 'net. Mike Gammon > > From: WaterskiPilot@aol.com > Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:11:10 EST > To: AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > Subject: Re: Concorde future 'under review' > > 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) >