"Concorde will fly again"

[BlackBird]

Read on BBC site:

Mr Gayssot (French Transport Minister) said:
"The Concorde is not finished. If you want my profound conviction - it will fly again".

I think these old planes should be grounded forever ... your opinion ??

[Kimberley]

Blackbird,
Without knowing why you feel Concordes should be banished to museums or boneyards, I have to say that there seems to be a market for SST's (not one that I'll ever be able to afford - but that's beside the point).
Aeronautical engineers have known for quite some time that advancements could, and should, be made in SST technology. Dryden research teams recently paired up with NASA, using a Tupolev (TU-144L, I believe) as their flying lab for just this purpose. Dryden announced their expectations for thier reseach to yield tangible results sometime between 2003 and 2005.
I make no apologies for being a Russian A/C Lover--in the extreme--and as far as I'm concerned, Tupolev should own the future of SST travel. http://www.crewstart.com/ubb/images/icons/grin.gif The Concorde may or may not have seen it's day - but commercial SST's are here to stay.




[This message has been edited by mriya225 (edited September 06, 2000).]

[Capt_Night_Freight]

BlackBird....... You wrote "I think these old planes should be grounded forever ... your opinion ??"....... Ok I take your point and that is your opinion but its not really an argument perhaps you could say why you think it should be grounded forever? http://www.crewstart.com/ubb/images/icons/confused.gif


------------------
When the weight of the paper equals the weight of the airplane, only then you can go flying.

[Capt_Night_Freight]

Whether or not the appropriate authorities deem the concorde to be safe sadley I think this is rather academic as the press have most likely sealed her fate?

------------------
When the weight of the paper equals the weight of the airplane, only then you can go flying.

[OldAg84]

Captain Night Freight,

Well the press aspect was, while obvious, one I failed to consider. One airframe loss among the small number (13? airframes) can be statistically strong when used a certian way ala lies, damn lies, and statistics. However, I believe Concorde's potential passengers value/enjoy/understand the aircraft and it's capabilities enough to know not to allow opinion molding by the media. Hopefully, PR won't be an uphill battle.

[This message has been edited by OldAg84 (edited September 07, 2000).]

[Kimberley]

In some ways this situation is reminiscent of the old DeHavilland Comet (except that several a/c "going convertible" is a bit different than tire/undercarriage issues). The Comet was also a forerunner, and was instrumental in the understanding the effects of pressurization, as well as the development of safer jetliners overall.
While commercial jetliners continued to thrive - the redesigned Comet died a horrible death. I think we may see the same thing happen with the Concorde. Public perception is of paramount importance...no public support, no tickets selling, therefore the Concorde will be retired, period.

[Melmac]

SORRY TO SAY BLACKBIRD, BUT IF EVERY A/C WITH AROUND 10.000 TO 15.000 FLTHRS HAD TO BE GROUNDED, I MIGHT AS WELL STOP WORKING!

[RiverCity]

Well, we "grounded" all the old sailing ships of years gone by. They are, rightfully, museum pieces because they are no longer modern technology.. But where did the modern ships come from? They are build on all these old gals now in museums. Unless the seed is put into the earth and dies, it bears no fruit [whoops -- religion].

With all the noise over the probable end of the Concorde, it might prove to be the nudge we needed to move beyond what (if I understand the Discovery Channel show) is old technology and start building something that has the latest and best.

As long as we have the Concorde flying, why do anything? Now that it's most likely grounded, perhaps the people who design this kind of thing can get rid of their drawing boards and use CAD technology to find a newer, and better, way.

Everything we invented had significant failures -- which led to more successful and better devices. I'm going on a cruise next month and you can be sure it's not going to be on the Mayflower ... or the Olympic ... but a ship that has incorporated all that we learned from those (and others).

RiverCity

------------------

My whole life is CFIT.

[OldAg84]

If the appropriate authorities and airlines deem the aircraft safe- then BA and AF will make the decision on a business basis. If it's safe and somebody wants to fly it ($$$) then it will fly. I think it would be sad to relegate it to the boneyard just yet, although it's day will eventually come just from use. Does anybody know, prior to the tragedy, what the proposed lifetime for the Concorde was/is? Thanks

[BlackBird]

Read on ananova.com:

Suspected Concorde crash airline has more runway trouble

The airline whose plane is suspected of starting a chain reaction that brought down Concorde in Paris has had more runway trouble.

Parts of a DC-10 Continental jetliner fell on the runway at Newark International Airport during an aborted take-off on Tuesday. No-one was injured, but 237 passengers had to leave the plane on the tarmac.

French investigators investigating the Concorde crash said that a 17-inch piece of metal gashed a tyre of the Concorde, leading to a fuel tank fire and dooming the flight. They said it probably came from a Continental Airlines plane that took off on the same runway four minutes earlier.

In the latest incident in Newark, severe engine trouble caused turbine blades and other metal debris to shoot from the rear of a Brussels-bound plane.

On April 25, another Continental DC-10 had "uncontained engine failure," meaning that parts and fragments burst through the engine casing. That plane returned to Newark 34 minutes after take-off with two of its three engines failing, blown tyres and ruptured hydraulic lines, authorities said.

Continental officials are co-operating with the Concorde investigation, but have not said that the metal part was from one of their DC-10s.

[Cb]

Hey mr. BlackBird,

Funny that someone who uses a name like blackbird, claims that the concorde should be grounded...
I thought the Blackbird was an aircraft that used to fly, then retired, and then flew again... Being of a respectable age ofcourse..

Cu, Cb

[Capt_Night_Freight]

River City ... New aircraft evolve and exsist alongside older aircraft and then the older aircraft are retired . It dose not need the demise of concorde to stimulate investment and research into a new SST aircraft ...

OldAg84...... Another point worthy of consideration I think is the insurance side of the argument the main people that travel on concorde are top executives from large companys all of these are required to carry insurance . With all the press coverage of the concorde accident and the digging up of past tyre incidents I feel that the preiums will far out way the costs in time of stoping 1 night in a hotel.

Dont get me wrong I do not want to see concorde grounded but alas I fear that she will be , and she will be sadley missed http://www.crewstart.com/ubb/images/icons/frown.gif



------------------
When the weight of the paper equals the weight of the airplane, only then you can go flying.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

you are right Melmac! once the changes are made wherever necessary on all the Concorde aircraft, then I can not see why shoud not fly again ? did we ground any 737? DC10?,etc...of course not so why should Concorde be an exception. The french ministry of transport has announced that Concorde may fly again in April next year and I shall hope so!!!! http://www.crewstart.com/ubb/images/icons/tongue.gif

[OldAg84]

Captain Night Freight,

Again the insurance is good point- operating costs, etc. Although it may prevent the Concorde's reintroduction, I would bet no more than a lunch for. Reason, I am assuming that the Concorde insurance is a small component overall of BA's or AF's insurance load.

Other aircraft, i.e. DC-10, Comet, Electra have had airframe challenges and returned to service and were commercially succesful in service, although they might not have been for the airframe mfr. So a single bad data point is not neccessarily going to ruin a on overall good track record.

OldAg84

[RiverCity]

Capt Night Freight...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana ">quote:<HR>New aircraft evolve and exist alongside older aircraft and then the older aircraft are retired. It does not need the demise of Concorde to stimulate investment and research into a new SST aircraft ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Generally, yes; almost always, that's how it works. But, given the unrealized potential of an SST (unrealized = "the general public doesn't know its real value," as well as "we never used it to its fullest"), we won't be prodded into continuing the SST development until it's gone -- an interesting experiment, to some, that never caught on.

Case in point: Penn Station (railroad) in New York City. It wasn't until the thing was torn down that we realized it was necessary to preserve such architecture. I realize that the continued existence of Grand Central Terminal makes the analogy limp a bit, but I think you know what I'm getting at.

We never realized what an SST could do. You probably do (and I can make a good guess), but the general public sees it only as an expensive way to get people across the ocean faster. Only when an admittedly aging fleet faces extinction will we start to think -- be forced to think -- about other uses, in addition to pax hauling.

Everyone on PPRuNe says the Concordes are magnificent aircraft; no problem. My maritime family says that the great clippers were maganificent ships. But, unless something prods us, we aren't going to continue this anymore than we will continue that interesting experiment (to some) of lunar flights.

Twenty years of low-cycle life means the planes are still in good shape. However, it might take nothing less than grounding the fleet to push us forward, to spend the money, to listen to the aerospace people.

RiverCity

------------------

My whole life is CFIT.

[Melmac]

Isn´t this an interesting discussion, because of the insurance they might not allow Concorde to fly again. What about the insurances on other a/c, B707/727/737/747/757/767, airbus family etc, they never crashed, or didn´t they?
I feel we shouldn´t have a discussion on will she, might she should she fly again, concorde.
But as we are all aviation enthousiasts here we should just say:

"CONCORDE MUST AND SHALL FLY AGAIN"

(rough translation from mr. Gayssot, French minister of transport)

[Kimberley]

Hmmm,
I don't know about all that emphatic "MUST.."
sludge.
The Concorde is a fine aircraft - but that doesn't mean she won't be crowned the new millenium's hangar queen...
Economics are a major factor in aviation, and incidentally - all of the other a/c you mentioned have been manufactured in significantly greater numbers than the Condorde; more operators are depending on those a/c to carry the loads in their fleets. The Concorde is what you might call a "luxury" item in a sea of work horses.
Luxuries are market driven. No CEO worth his/her job would insist on keeping the Concorde on the flightline, if she can't earn her upkeep, as a matter of principle!
And as far as technology goes - they've got some catching up to do if they ever hope to get her off the ground again for anything other than airshow or museum special appearances.
I think there are better prospects for supersonic travel out there anyway - I won't blow any tears if they retire her while she still has a shread of dignity left.

Let the hate mail commence...

------------------
The meek shall inherit the earth, but not the mineral rights. - J. Paul Getty

[RiverCity]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana ">quote:<HR>No CEO worth his/her job would insist on keeping the Concorde on the flightline, if she can't earn her upkeep, as a matter of principle!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Depends on the definition of "earn." The QE2 hasn't made a cent in ages, but it's been a good image for The Empire. SST's might be "loss leaders" for a while -- the company symbol that brings in the ordinary SLF to their row-after-row widebodies. That alone, just in a crass business environment, will justify their upkeep.

But there has to be another use for speed. The NYC-London turn is fine; as in the old days of transAtlantic liners, people will be willing to pay a premium for premium service. Perhaps, without making a flying gas tank, there's a way to build an aircraft that can take the edge off the endless US - Australia run.

And maybe there's a need for "things" to get there fast. The SST earns its keep with freight, its prestige with upper-crust passengers.

RiverCity

------------------

My whole life is CFIT.

[Jerm]

Forgive me if I sound ignorant on the subject, but I must be missing something. If the only Concord crash has been determined to be a result of FOD rather than a defect in the airframe or powerplant, why is there any talk at all of grounding the fleet? There are more factors to support grounding other than this one crash, right?

[Capt_Night_Freight]

Melmac
The insurance that I was refering to was the personal travel insurance for top CEO'S it is this insurance that could lead to the demise of the concorde as like it or not due to it's undercarriage design there will always be the chance of ,if a tyre blows out the fuel cells will puncture. And lets face it without CEO's flying then there is no need for concorde.

------------------
When the weight of the paper equals the weight of the airplane, only then you can go flying.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

what is the fuss about ? as Jerm clearly explained the Concorde did not crash because of any technical failure but because of an external object. this "economical" and "business" reasons are just rubbish in this matter. there will always be a demand for luxury transport. and by the way, mr Gayssot, French Minister of transport said that "Concorde will fly again" so come on guys, just give a GOOD reason why Concorde should be grounded forever and never be replaced instead of talking of irrelevant matters. no offence, but I tend to believe what real experts say, (such the investigation teams and the Mr Gayssot himself).however if any of you could think of something more convincing than what has been said up to now then by all means, say it!

[RiverCity]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana ">quote:<HR>just give a GOOD reason why Concorde should be grounded forever and never be replaced,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This corner has spoken in favor of "let the marketplace decide about grounding, but get the techs to start moving on a replacement."

We've got to have learned something about airframes, engines and pointy-end technology in the past 20 years. Let's put them all together and cater to at least the CEO types, if not reaching out to Joe and Jane Pax.

That's what airlines did back when only 2 percent of the population had flown; that's what the cruise ship industry has done in the past 15-20 years when it was a once-in-a-lifetime vacation.

RiverCity

------------------

My whole life is CFIT.

[This message has been edited by RiverCity (edited September 12, 2000).]

[Kimberley]

Look,
I don't want to burst anyone's bubble here, but we aren't talking about FOD being ingested into an engine. We're talking about running over something on the runway. What are the chances of something like that happening?? One helluva lot better than you might like to think.
This tragedy is part miserable misfortune and part poor design. The gut of that a/c could do with a bit of reinforcing (especially around fuel staging areas).
It would be reasonable to expect a blowout, maybe even to blow every tire on the the bogie, if you snagged that piece of metal on your takeoff roll.
It is ALSO reasonable to expect that if you were to experience a blowout of one or more tires - the structural design features have taken into consideration the proximity of that tremendous explosive discharge of both force and debris to the fuel holding galleries.
Vulnerabilities in the undercarriage design are not responsible for the accident--but those, otherwise minor, structural weaknesses did manage to exacerbate an already desperate situation.
This isn't meant to be particularly damning of the Concorde. In this industry, our ability to objectively assess the information is imperative; it is quite literally life and death.
There is no room in aviation safety for sentimental allegiance to any aircraft.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Mriya225. No disrespect but THE SPECIALISTS (like the whole team investigating the causes of the crash, A/C manufacturers, etc...) will make some changes on Concorde before it can fly again (April 2001 if all goes according to schedule) . these people are professionals, not sentimental, their life, like mine (and hopefully yours!...) does not depend on Concorde...I am sorry but once again, I asked for a GOOD reason to ground the A/C. Part of what you wrote is true and a fatal chain reaction seems to have been caused by a FOD. if the "Specialists" decide to ground Concorde forever then of course it would be because of potential danger but according, once again, to mr Gayssot, there is no reason yet to ground it for good, they will make some changes then Concorde will take off in April 2001 (quote from Mr Gayssot on French Radio RTL, friday the 08th of September 2000).
I trust that they do not want another fatal accident to happen and I am sure their judgement will come from facts and not from their hearts. WHICHEVER the decision they make(even if all of a sudden they would find a reason to change their minds and ground Concorde, who knows? after all...), their first concern will be the safety of this A/C and nothing else.

[Kimberley]

SKYCHICK-
No offense taken, however, I am a sort of "specialist" in my own right - in that, I have done structural composite repair layups, bucked rivets, yadda, yadda, yadda...
One thing I would like you to keep in mind is that I've never been a proponent of grounding the Concorde, but as SST's go--it is neither the safetest nor the most impressive product on the market.
To retrofit Concordes with the structural reinforcements they need cannot realistically be done by April 2001. If they're hell bent on pushing that kind of timeline - my advice is, don't bother; retire her with dignity. Would that it could be that simple, but you can't just throw a structural band-aid on an aircraft - especially not a supersonic airframe. I mean, my God, just the flex of that airfame in normal highspeed flight is enough to make you bite your nails (and I talking on a thoroughly tested structure).
It makes no sense to merely redistribute structural vulnerability, and then--as though that weren't foolhardy enough--put it back on the flightline untested.
First round testing on a structural retrofit alone should take a year - and that's just to understand how you've changed the dynamics of strain in that airframe. Maybe your "fix" does fine through the first one hundred and fifty cycles - but the airframe fails on the one hundred and fifty first; failure means people die in the triple digits...that "fix" won't work.
The last thing you want to do is cheer on the sidelines while these people pursue an unrealistic timeline for repair, thereby taking the Concorde from being a vulnerable structure into a potentially disasterous airframe.
And just incidentally, anyone who steps out of the huddle from AirFrance or Concorde on this one to beat their chest and pronounce that it "...WILL fly again" may have more than the proud heritage of the Concorde in mind as motivation.
Here's a cold hard fact to keep in mind: These people are facing future litigation behind this aircraft (regardless of the FOD), the quicker they can push that bird back into service...the better that plays for them in court, and don't think for one minute they don't know it!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Mriya225

what about the rudder problem on the B 737?
what about fuel tank problem on the B 747 ?
as a structure specialist any quick fixes on this ?

SKY CHICK (thanks for the tip! I prefer it! I'll see if my Username can be changed ! http://www.crewstart.com/ubb/images/icons/wink.gif)

[This message has been edited by Flying chick (edited September 16, 2000).]

[Kimberley]

Flying Chick,
How funny http://www.crewstart.com/ubb/images/icons/blush.gif Sorry, didn't even notice it 'til you pointed it out! Although, come to think of it, Skychick is a pretty cute moniker!

As for your question, what about them?
Both the 737 and the 747 are workhorses, as I stated earlier - tweeking them has to be done while they're in service because they are fundamental elements in so many fleets. If you were to ground either one of those aircraft, even temporarily, you'd bankrupt a lot of carriers overnight.
I don't think anyone's "in love" the idea of trying to remedy these problems while they're on the line, but the options are even less appealing.
Besides, there's still that tricky supersonic element thrown into the equation with the Concorde. And that particular element should demand a great deal of consideration - ignore it at your own peril, I suppose.

Like I said, I don't really care one way or the other if it flies again or not.

[Melmac]

Well mriya225, u seem to know your stuff http://www.crewstart.com/ubb/images/icons/rolleyes.gif
However i seem to remember a worldwide grounding of DC10´s. That solved the problem but also public faith in the good old ten.
There have been thousands of concorde flights, and yes every crash is a tragedy for those involved, but let us be realistic, isn´t the press killing concorde here?

[Kimberley]

Well Melmac http://www.crewstart.com/ubb/images/icons/rolleyes.gif ,

I know enough...

But, frankly, I don't think you don't need to be all that swift to recognize a dangerous idea when it rears it's ugly head.
I am, however, having a bit of trouble understanding how this "other aircraft have been grounded before" line of argument is supposed to be illustrating weaknesses in my logic. But then maybe I'm just not clever enough to put two and two together - and come up with five. http://www.crewstart.com/ubb/images/icons/rolleyes.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Mryia225,

how could anyone disagree with you?!!! http://www.crewstart.com/ubb/images/icons/rolleyes.gif of course you know better than anyone, your knowledge could be so precious to the investigators who don't seem to know anything!...when you grow up, you will learn that some people will disagree with you, and that you will have to accept that!...everybody has the freedom of opinion, you could learn from people, just like people can learn from you, and indeed you gave some good points in this discussion. I tell you what, there is no need to make any kind of speculation, personally, I will wait for the results of the investigation, it might a very long time before the final report is issued, but in the meantime, give me and everyone else a break!!!

SKY CHICK.

[Melmac]

My final words on the Concorde subject, in what I thought would be an open forum were that everybody could give his/here own opinion.

Sky Chick do I know you?
We are clearly tuned in at the same wave length.
Mrya I, as a simple peasant without any knowledge or aviation background, think that with your open minded reasoning and ability to understand other people, should apply to the NTSB, FAA, CAA, JAR or any other NAA in the world, and draw up some new regulations, so thanks to you this world would be a better place. http://www.crewstart.com/ubb/images/icons/grin.gif

Melmac

[Kimberley]

Gee kids,
No need to get thoroughly nasty about it - disagreement is what we had when each of you started to patronize me for asserting MY opinion based on MY experience. Or is that too far off to remember now?

Since it's my hide taking the tanning, maybe the two of you will suffer me patiently while I lend you some insight...

First there was the gentle wind up after an impassioned plea by Melmac, that we "...just say: 'CONCORDE MUST AND SHALL FLY AGAIN'
(rough translation from mr.Gayssot, French minister of transport)". Why the wind up? For exactly the reasons I mentioned in my post that followed.

Here's where things started to get a little flaky:

Flying Chick then makes her views known that, and again I quote, "[sic] This 'economical' and 'business' reasons are just rubbish in this matter". Now, I understand the intent behind this statement--that perhaps it shouldn't be, but the logic is falling down because never (not once, ever - ON or OFF the airfield) has making money NOT been the "name of the game" in my experience of commercial aviation. In fact, I would assert that it has been the PARAMOUNT concern of every single moment of my experience in this industry. I have my own thoughts and feelings about how cooth, or even ethical, that is - but it does appear to be a cardinal feature of standard operating procedure nonetheless.

Safety HAS been an important consideration - but NOT in principle. It is (more often than not) reluctantly, taken under advisement because it protects the long term prospects of an owner/operator's ability to thrive in an aggressively competitive market.

Flying Chick then adds: " [sic] No offence, but I tend to believe what real experts say, (such the investigation teams and the Mr Gayssot himself). [sic]However if any of you
could think of something more convincing than what has been said up to now then by all means, say it!"

Whereupon, she got precisely what she asked for...and replied: "Mriya225. No disrespect but THE SPECIALISTS..." Now, I'm no Mr. Gayssot (at least that what my honey tells me http://www.crewstart.com/ubb/images/icons/wink.gif) nor am I currently employed as a crash investigator - but I do happen to know a little bit about the matter from a "hands on" perspective (pun intended); and thought that sharing that, may help you understand that my OPINION is rooted in foundations other than "Gee, planes are nifty!" or "Read it in a business journal somewhere...".

Believing us all to be professionals in this industry; I take for granted that there is an, unspoken, but agreed upon mutual respect, regardless of disagreement--in this or any other forum.

You may disagree with MY OPINION - and as you so cooly point out - I have the right to that opinion..."in what I thought would be an open forum were that everybody could give his/here
own opinion". I blew the first bit of back-biting fron Flying Chick off, for the sake of peace (and because I'm well aware that without the benefit of gesture and intonation - it's all to easy to misjudge the true expression of a post). http://www.crewstart.com/ubb/images/icons/mad.gif But I'll be damned if I'm going to sit back quietly while the two of you form some sort of surreal alliance in the treatment of me, or my experience for that matter, like some kind of whipping boy.

PS: If you were standing within arms distance of me when you asked for that "break", Flying Chick... You'd have gotten that too.

------------------
The meek shall inherit the earth, but not the mineral rights. - J. Paul Getty

[This message has been edited by mriya225 (edited September 17, 2000).]

[OldAg84]

Earlier in the string I inquired as to the remaining life of the airframe. Does anybody have this info. It's gotta be a factor in the remaining lifecycle cost analysis.

[Kimberley]

Hi OldAg84,
I'm not sure what the certificated life of the airframe is - but I'll keep my eyes and ears open for reliable information about it. If you find out - please post it here, I'm curious too. Finding that kind of specific information has proven to be quite the challenge (for me anyway) hope you have better luck than I do. http://www.crewstart.com/ubb/images/icons/smile.gif

[Just_Another_Pilot]

Well the Concorde flew again...
What a sad story to read.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20000921/amdf112041.jpg


Lone Air France Concorde Flies Home

PARIS (Reuters) - An Air France Concorde stranded in New York since July flew back to Paris on Thursday, making what could prove to be the supersonic jet's final flight after a disastrous crash of another Concorde that killed 113 people.

The sleek, delta-winged jet roared into Paris's Charles de Gaulle airport around 5:45 p.m. (1530 GMT), some 3-1/2 hours after leaving John F. Kennedy International Airport.

A five-strong crew flew the plane home and no passengers were allowed on board for the flight.

Fire crews stood by on the tarmac as the elegant plane touched down and workers watched while ``the big white bird'' taxied to a hangar in a remote part of the airport complex.

Aviation authorities withdrew Concorde's airworthiness certificate after one of the planes crashed in flames on July 25 just outside Charles de Gaulle airport, killing 113 people.

One of Air France's remaining five needle-nosed planes had been left sitting on the tarmac at JFK airport and the company was eager to bring it back to Paris and put it under cover in a giant hangar which accommodates the company's Concorde fleet.

The French Civil Aviation Authority (DGAC) said on Wednesday it had granted Air France permission to repatriate the aircraft, and all countries whose airspace lay across the flight path -- the United States, Canada, Ireland and Britain -- were swift to allow the one-off voyage.

The right-to-fly certificate was withdrawn after accident investigators announced that a ruptured tire probably set off a swift, cataclysmic chain of events that led to the July crash.

Air France and British Airways were the only companies to operate the prestigious aircraft and French and British aviation experts are working together to see what measures would be needed to overcome the problem.

Given that the 12 remaining Concordes are aging and that any modifications to the structure of the aircraft would cost millions of euros (dollars) to implement, many experts believe that the legendary airliner will never resume service.

However, an Air France spokeswoman denied that Thursday's flight was necessarily Concorde's final farewell.

``It was just a technical flight,'' she said


------------------
I am not afraid of crashing, my secret is . . . just before we hit the ground, I jump as high as I can.

— Bill Cosby



[This message has been edited by Just Another Pilot (edited September 21, 2000).]

[Captain_Anonymous]

Probably you already read the latest developments in this matter??

"Air France Sues Airline
Over Concorde Disaster"


Air France and its insurers are suing Houston-based Continental Airlines over its possible role in the July Concorde disaster that killed 113 people, a spokeswoman for the French carrier said yesterday.

Investigators believe a strip of metal fell off a Continental DC-10 onto a Paris airport runway and punctured a wheel on the doomed Air France Concorde during takeoff, leading to the fiery crash.

"A piece from a Continental Airlines plane could have caused the Concorde accident, according to the [official] inquiry," the Air France spokeswoman said, adding that airlines are legally responsible for any parts that drop off their aircraft.


Investigators believe a tire punctured on the runway was responsible for the Concorde crash.
A lawyer representing relatives of 20 of the mostly German victims of the Concorde accident is planning similar legal action against Continental.

The airline maintains that the investigation has not yielded definite proof that its plane's part was linked to the crash.

The Air France Concorde burst into flames as it roared down the runway at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris. Unable to abort takeoff, the pilot struggled in vain to control the supersonic jet before it plunged into a nearby hotel, killing all on board and four people on the ground.

Investigators believe a thin metal strip lying on the runway punctured one of Concorde's tires, hurling chunks of rubber into its fuel tanks and sparking the catastrophic blaze.

French and British aviation authorities grounded their Concorde fleets last month, saying a burst tire should not be able to bring a plane down.

[Kimberley]

Ran into this very thorough and informative site on the Concorde, you can even review the original issue Certificate Data Sheet (nothing that would answer the question about airframe lifetime limitations I'm afraid)...
http://www.concordesst.com/techspec.html

Still, a good read.
m.

[flightdeck]

Concorde compensation deal 'unlikely'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/970000/images/_970636_concorde300.jpg

Concorde victims could sue Air France in the USA

A lawyer for the families of victims of the July Air France Concorde crash says he is not optimistic about reaching an out-of-court settlement with the company for compensation.
Gerhardt Baum told the BBC's The World Today programme that if such a settlement was not reached his clients would join a lawsuit filed by the son of one victim in Florida.

He said that Air France had a special responsibility to find a compromise solution as the prestige of the airline and of France itself was at stake.

The crash killed 96 German passengers

Baum and a group of colleagues representing the families of some of the German victims of the crash are due to hold talks with Air France representatives in Paris.

The families set 13 October as a deadline for Air France to come up with a figure for compensation.

Fully covered

AFP quoted Air France Managing Director Pierre-Henri Gourgeon as saying that the airline was fully covered by its insurers and would be able to pay full compensation to the victims.

"The limits of our coverage are such that we can meet without difficulty all the financial and economic consequences of this catastrophe," he said.

Martin Gulduer, son of victim William Gulduer, was awarded $75,000 in damages against Air France and America's Continental Airlines in a Miami federal court in September.

The victims are allowed to file suits in the US, where potential damages awards are far greater than in Europe, because the flight was bound for New York and several US companies were involved in the aircraft's construction.

Continental has been targeted because a metal strip left on the runway which is thought caused the accident is believed to have come from one of its aircraft.

The crash at Gonesse near Paris killed 113 people, 96 of whom were German.



------------------
If God had intended man to fly, He would not have invented Spanish Air Traffic Control.

— Lister, in the BBC TV series, 'Red Dwarf.'

[tuch767]

Hello eveyone!
I am AF ground mechanic on 767-747 and worked 2 years on Concorde. I just want you to know that they will fly again and as soon as possible. I think some test flights had to be done at Chateauroux (french Mojave).
CCD liftime limit was 2013-2015, and soit will.......
According to some informators BA changes it's CCD fleet interior (originaly planed next year) so do you think they do thant for some museums????????

Best regards from france. And don't forget:
IT WILL FLY AGAIN

[flightdeck]

Hi tuch767,

thanks for your info, always nice to hear from somebody who is close to the source. Please keep us informed as soon as you know anything further!

regards

------------------
If God had intended man to fly, He would not have invented Spanish Air Traffic Control.

— Lister, in the BBC TV series, 'Red Dwarf.'

[Captain_Anonymous]

Well it seems that Tuch767 is going to be right according to the following article:
Air France chief hopeful of Concorde return

The president of Air France says he remains hopeful about the future of Concorde and believes the jet may return to the skies in several months.

"I say this with much prudence but also with much hope," said Jean-Cyril Spinetta.

British Airways and Air France, the two airlines that offered Concorde flights until the Paris crash on July 25 that killed 113 people, want to restart flights as soon as possible, added Spinetta.

Air France suspended all Concorde flights immediately after the crash but British Airways kept its fleet in the air until shortly before its airworthiness certificate was withdrawn in mid-August.



------------------

[Airmile]

Welcome Tuch767! someone like you with such an experience obviously knows best, and it would be very pretentious to dare disagreeing with you. The non-sense I read in this forum, from people with more opinion than knowledge...I am really glad you came to give your opinion and please do keep us informed!

[Puertorrican_Dakota]

Guys did you ever heard that the American
Academy of english language going
to change the word "Old" for the word "Douglas".
If you really doubt about old aiplanes ask
a DC-3 pilot,check what they have to say.

I been flying DC-3 for 8Years a will love to
fly any other modern aircraft, but I will never complaint of the DC-3's.

[KLM_guy]

Oh yes, it will fly again: BA refuses to accept that Concorde might never fly again and is working to get the aircraft back in the air by next February. It is pushing the aircraft's two manufacturers, BAE Systems and European Aeronautic Space and Defence company, hard to have modifications in place by the end of the year!

------------------
It only takes five years to go from rumor to standard operating procedure.

— Dick Markgraf

[Melmac]

Sorry for those people I promised not to reply anymore on this topic, but I am like Concorde, you can ground me for a while, but I am back as Concorde will be as well.
Thanks Tuch767 for your common sense and clear view on this topic, also thank you other crewmembers who replied to tuch767.

All I can say is:

VIVE LE CONCORDE, IL REVOLERA

[Kimberley]

The latest from Yahoo Aviation News:

Tuesday October 24, 7:18 pm Eastern Time

CORRECTED - UPDATE
1-Article claims shoddy repair
crashed Concorde

In NEW YORK story headlined ``Article claims
shoddy U.S. repair crashed Concorde,'' please
read, in 6th paragraph, ``has not acknowledged,''
not ``has acknowledged.'' (corrects to show
Continental said it has not acknowledged debris came from its aircraft).

A corrected version follows:

NEW YORK, Oct 24 (Reuters) - The Concorde crash that killed 113 people on
July 25 outside of Paris may have been caused by a ``poorly executed'' repair to
an American passenger jet, London-based Flight International magazine said on
Tuesday.

The metal strip from a second aircraft which French investigators suspect led to
an explosion on the supersonic Air France airliner was made of titanium, and
not a soft alloy as originally thought, the aviation magazine said.

If true, the strip was therefore much more likely to cause the damage.

The strip, apparently run over by the Concorde during its takeoff acceleration, is
believed by investigators to have been part of a repaired thrust reverser on a
Continental Airlines Inc. (NYSE:CAL - news) McDonnell Douglas DC-10.

Flight International said the maker of the thrust reverser had reported the strip
was not an original part. But the magazine said who fitted the metal strip
remained a mystery.

Continental reacted with harsh words on Tuesday to suggestions that a part from
one of its jets caused the crash, calling the conclusions ``outrageously
irresponsible,'' and said it has not acknowledged the runway debris came from its
aircraft.

``We haven't been given access to the part or any information that would allow us
to make a determination,'' Continental said.

The Houston-based airline is being sued by Air France and lawyers representing
Concorde victims.

``The key fact in this investigation is that a blown tire caused the destruction of
the airplane. A tire burst alone should never cause the loss of an aircraft, and
there is a serious design flaw in the Air France Concorde if a blown tire can bring
it down,'' Continental said in a statement.

``This fact and the airplane's propensity for fuel tank penetrations, particularly in
tire failure situations, explains why it is not flying today.''

Concorde's airworthiness certificate was suspended in August after investigators
reported that a burst tire probably led to the crash.

that url: http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/001024/n24535332_2.html

[This message has been edited by mriya225 (edited October 25, 2000).]

[flightdeck]

British Airways may resume Concorde flights next spring, at least that's what the folloewing article is saying.....




The Associated Press

LONDON (October 29, 2000 9:41 a.m. EST - British Airways plans to resume Concorde flights as early as March or April, but the airline said no timetable had been set, a British newspaper reported Sunday.

The Concorde fleet was grounded after one of the needle-nosed jets crashed in July outside Paris, killing 113 people. But the Sunday Telegraph cited an unidentified British Airways official as saying the airline is confident that modifications being made to the supersonic aircraft would prompt authorities to restore its safety certificate soon.

The paper also cited the official as saying British Airways wants its Concordes to resume flights at the same time as those of Air France, but that the British airline is "prepared to go first" if there are delays on the French side.

British Airways would not confirm the report.

"We certainly feel confident that the Concorde will fly again in the not-too-distant future, but we are not able to specify a date," the airline said in a statement Sunday.

Investigators probing the July disaster believe a stray metal piece fell from an airliner that took off minutes before the Concorde, gashing a tire of the supersonic jet and setting off a chain of events that led to the fiery crash. Last week, investigators said their probe would likely last several more months.

[Kimberley]

The latest(from a friend):

The latest on the CONCORD:- as far as I am aware the CAA and DGAC (UK and
French version of the FAA)and BAe Systems(what was BAC), are recommending
more strengtherning on the under wing area and better design of "slush guard"
around the main gear.

------------------
Un diva très doué.

[exeng]

Myra stated,

&lt;are recommending
more strengtherning on the under wing area.

I'm told by a colleage who operates the A/C (or used to) that the intended mod is to place a kelvar based liner in the affected tanks. The effect of this will be to act as a kind of very crude non-return valve in the event of the under wing skin being punctured. Seemingly this method is used in certain military combat A/C, and is thought to be about 98% effective in terms of fuel loss.

Also some modification of the tyres is likely. The intent is to try to ensure that a tyre break up will occur in small pieces rather than large.

As for the 'slush guard' B.A.'s already have a modification which A.F.'s did not. That is a restraining cable built in to the guard to prevent it 'letting go'.

Thankfully it is now looking very positive for entry back into passenger service, probably for spring next year.


Regards
Exeng

[flightdeck]

Is there any news? I did not read anything the last weeks in the airline news. Has a decision been made yet?

------------------
If God had intended man to fly, He would not have invented Spanish Air Traffic Control.

— Lister, in the BBC TV series, 'Red Dwarf.'

[exeng]

Take a look at this. http://www.aviationnow.com/concorde


Regards
Exeng

[Melmac]

Check out the BBC news or the BBC website, WWW.bbc.co.uk. (http://WWW.bbc.co.uk.)
Good news for all you Concord fans.
She will fly again!

[Melmac]

Wasn´t it a great sight on the news last week, Concorde doing what see is best at:

FLYING!!!

It is a shame that MRIYA 225 isn´t around anymore would have been a oppertunity to have a nice discussion I think!

Melmac images/icons/tongue.gif images/icons/grin.gif images/icons/cool.gif images/icons/rolleyes.gif images/icons/smile.gif

[Airbus]

A picture can say more than a thousand words Melmac!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1640000/images/_1641729_newconcorde300.jpg

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Airbus ]

[Airbus]

Just a question melmac, who´s mriya225?