Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Concorde Bogey Spacer Theory

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Concorde Bogey Spacer Theory

    Hi my first post here. I made a video on my take on Concorde.


  • #2
    I couldn't keep watching (or listening at) it past 0:03.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      I couldn't keep watching (or listening at) it past 0:03.
      I'm sorry about that Gabriel, it was just the first song in my music library. I changed it now on YouTube to something more agreeable.

      Comment


      • #4
        Ok, now we have at 0:45 the picture masking half of the text explanation.

        In any event, I don't realize what's your point. It's like you are mentioning 2 unrelated events... it's seems that you are about to reveal the hidden connection between both... but you never do.

        You have:
        1- A missing spaccer that the investigators found unrelated with the accident (and that you don't deny it)
        2- A tire blown by a piece of metal that fell from a plane that took off before the Concord (and you don't dispute that).

        And then you ask why the French were so eager to blame the Americans when they themselves had forgotten an unrelated piece of hardware?

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #5
          Tangents. Concorde as designed was an accident waiting to happen. There were many warning signs, a high rate of damage from tire failure and most obviously, a near disaster when a tire fragment breeched a fuel tank in 1979. In 2001 the CAA issued an airworthiness directive effectively admitting that the aircraft was unsafe as originally designed.



          That AD should have been issued in 1979. The fault for the Concorde disaster falls squarely on the CAA (the British aviation authority) and the DGCA (French aviation authority). So why even go into the bogey-spacer issue, which has already been determined to be irrelevant to the crash? The issue here was unacceptable vulnerability to an expected operational hazard (high-speed tire failure, regardless of the reason for the failure). It was a design flaw and a lack of oversight action on the part of the French.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            Tangents. Concorde as designed was an accident waiting to happen. There were many warning signs, a high rate of damage from tire failure and most obviously, a near disaster when a tire fragment breeched a fuel tank in 1979. In 2001 the CAA issued an airworthiness directive effectively admitting that the aircraft was unsafe as originally designed.



            That AD should have been issued in 1979. The fault for the Concorde disaster falls squarely on the CAA (the British aviation authority) and the DGCA (French aviation authority). So why even go into the bogey-spacer issue, which has already been determined to be irrelevant to the crash? The issue here was unacceptable vulnerability to an expected operational hazard (high-speed tire failure, regardless of the reason for the failure). It was a design flaw and a lack of oversight action on the part of the French.

            You don't think the mechanics are also somewhat responsible? I mean to leave out such a large part...? Surely they are somewhat responsible for their actions and behaviors in this. As well as the Continental mechanics.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by newairbus View Post
              You don't think the mechanics are also somewhat responsible? I mean to leave out such a large part...? Surely they are somewhat responsible for their actions and behaviors in this. As well as the Continental mechanics.
              I think they were irresponsible... But unlike the Continental part that caused the tire to fail, the report says the missing Concorde part played no role in the crash, so how could they responsible for it?

              I also don't think the Continental team were responsible. Stuff is going to fall off. Tires are going to fail for a number of reasons. I already pointed out who is responsible for this crash.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                I think they were irresponsible... But unlike the Continental part that caused the tire to fail, the report says the missing Concorde part played no role in the crash, so how could they responsible for it?

                I also don't think the Continental team were responsible. Stuff is going to fall off. Tires are going to fail for a number of reasons. I already pointed out who is responsible for this crash.
                Right, but the words of the video are quotes from the BEA. The BEA claims that France is in no way responsible for the crash (i.e., the spacer was insignificant) and yet they impute the Continental mechanic for actually doing his job.

                I'm interested in how the French government has remembered this event -- it's weird how a socialist country goes after a mechanic like that.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by newairbus View Post
                  Right, but the words of the video are quotes from the BEA. The BEA claims that France is in no way responsible for the crash (i.e., the spacer was insignificant) and yet they impute the Continental mechanic for actually doing his job.

                  I'm interested in how the French government has remembered this event -- it's weird how a socialist country goes after a mechanic like that.
                  Bias and politics, something the French are known for. It is very clear that this crash was design-related and the design is no longer flying (although the AD requirements might have made it safe), so why even go into it? If you are trying to point out that the BEA might be a tad hypocritical, that is duly noted.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by newairbus View Post
                    Right, but the words of the video are quotes from the BEA. The BEA claims that France is in no way responsible for the crash (i.e., the spacer was insignificant) and yet they impute the Continental mechanic for actually doing his job.
                    Ok so, in your opinion, did the spacer have anything to do with the accident. In BEA's opinion not it didn't, and you didn't state otherwise so far.

                    The BEA is biased? Ok, we know. But it is not true that they claim that France is in no way responsible. The identified a design flaw and they identified previous incidents that should have triggered early action, and the design and continued airworthiness of the airplane type is the responsibility of the owner of the type certificate, which was Airbus, partly French company, and descendant of British Aerospace and Aerospatiale, the original designers and manufacturers of the plane. Also, given the issues identified during the investigation as unveiled by the BEA, the EASA grounded the plane until the design was fixed and the airplanes in service retrofitted with the improvements.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      Bias and politics, something the French are known for. It is very clear that this crash was design-related and the design is no longer flying (although the AD requirements might have made it safe), so why even go into it? If you are trying to point out that the BEA might be a tad hypocritical, that is duly noted.
                      Hm. I quite precisely know how to handle en wiki entries. There has to be somebody who feeds the entry. And I agree with you if you say, in contrast to newairbus,
                      Aviation Safety has NOTHING to do with politics.

                      Nevertheless, let me quote the infamous en wiki 'summary' in this case, 16 years ago: "Foreign object damage caused by mechanical failure on DC-10", end of the quotation.

                      I am happy that I wasn't present on that airport on that day. It's not so very uncommon for people with my home airport to use that airport.

                      What do I think about the background of that case? Well. Continental Airlines (CO) does no longer exist. And I am the wrong man to ask about DC-10 history, obviously. What was yet the three letter a/c code for a DC 10-30? Or did the DC 10 even see one of those 'improvements' to fit into a computer file? DC10, DC103, DC130, as you want it, it does not fit into the three letter code that we know today (e.g. 744).

                      I'd decide for CO-DC10, although that is not very precise. Since a few minutes I tried to find out,

                      when was the last flight of a CO-DC10? If you ask the jetphotos database, the first photo that is shown has been taken in 1999. But that can't be the last flight. So, let's say the CO-DC10 was abolished by CO somewhen between July 2000 and 2011 (the end of CO).

                      And I find it quite disgusting to talk bad about a dead aircraft that somewhen was flown by a dead airline. Imho that's not an attitude towards the dead.
                      There must be a reason why CO abolished the DC-10 before CO was abolished.
                      The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
                      The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
                      And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
                      This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        What?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                          What?
                          Just more of his nonsensical ramblings!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            Bias and politics, something the French are known for. It is very clear that this crash was design-related and the design is no longer flying (although the AD requirements might have made it safe), so why even go into it? If you are trying to point out that the BEA might be a tad hypocritical, that is duly noted.
                            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            Ok so, in your opinion, did the spacer have anything to do with the accident. In BEA's opinion not it didn't, and you didn't state otherwise so far.

                            The BEA is biased? Ok, we know. But it is not true that they claim that France is in no way responsible. The identified a design flaw and they identified previous incidents that should have triggered early action, and the design and continued airworthiness of the airplane type is the responsibility of the owner of the type certificate, which was Airbus, partly French company, and descendant of British Aerospace and Aerospatiale, the original designers and manufacturers of the plane. Also, given the issues identified during the investigation as unveiled by the BEA, the EASA grounded the plane until the design was fixed and the airplanes in service retrofitted with the improvements.
                            Originally posted by newairbus

                            Above my response

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Ma, I am on TV!!!

                              Man, you have a weird logic.

                              So because the Concord was designed with flaws and a French judge decided to pass criminal charges to a mechanic that did a mistake then supersonic flight in inherently dangerous? And more workers can be thrown out of the bus?

                              I guess that subsonic flight is inherently dangerous too. It is susceptible to rudder reversal.

                              (By the way, reinforcing the wing tanks above the tires was an action taken after the accident, the Concorde flew again, it was still supersonic)

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X