Seconds From Disaster - S01E01 - Crash of the Concorde

[calebZAFT]

I really do not understand why they had to get rid of Concordes. Dozens of 747s and 767s have crashed and experiences problems, but they are still flying.

[oke139]

And what the fuck is it with captain of the plane doing everything in this dramatiation, no offence to captain? He wasn't the only guy flying it, this shit doesnt even mention copilot/fo who probably also worked hes assoff to save that craft & people aboard it. Nice job on keeping that aircraft flying as long as it was while on 2 engines and with the added drag of landing gear.

[oke139]

The graphics are just AWESOME. I know it doesn't matter much but it's funny how they say they have so advanced equipment to reproduce the event but explosions look like doom 2 and airplane looks like its dragged across screen lol. No disrespect meant, i do feel sorry for the passengers, crew, people in the hotel and their families.

[TheWaluigiking]

Can i have a download link please?

[platinum243125]

How did an armrest make it out of the cabin? Wouldn't there have to be a break in the fuesalage?

[Chris17psi]

The take-off speed necessary to get airborne for the Concorde is NOT 300+ mph; it's 300+ KNOTS. They said 324 knots is the optimum speed, which is a little bit over 200 mph...a tad bit faster than my SR-22 ( Cirrus).

[PrisonFaces]

3 Continental Airlines maintenance employees disliked this.

[FANJG24]

Why ALWAYS Air France?

[brizihe]

How did a dc 10 manage to even fuck up other jets? Quite the achevement in failure

[perezcpt]

The Ultimate First World Problem.

[hormanchung]

Maybe we need longer runways!

[tedowen69]

DC-10 did it again!

[nipponcarisbestcar]

This episode is stupid. It implies the accident was caused by a design flaw with concorde and not the improper repair to the DC10 which was made using the wrong metal and causing it to come off on the runway.

[geko771]

@nipponcarisbestcar Well, it kind of is a design flaw in Concord. No other commercial airplane in the world (Excluding the Tupolev TU-144) would have had such an accident. They wouldn't make modifications to the fuel tanks of Concord if it didn't have a design flaw.

[chow202]

no plane in the world its 100% safe because nothing its 100% perfect..danger its everywhere ..anytime.

[chow202]

i don t think its nice the plane..its sharp and the wings make it look like a war plane not a passager jet..

[ZombineCia]

@chow202 You sound like an idiot saying such thing, it NEEDS to have that wings and sharp angles to be functional, not because it resembles a military plane. Think first

[chow202]

"behind the body of the aircraft " :)

[Rayna0758]

at 300 plus miles an hour ABORTING THE TAKE OFF was NOT an OPTION.. The plane was ALREADY PAST V1 When the ACCIDENT HAPPENED....

[CarGamePlayer]

FUCKING DC10 BLEW UP MY FAVORITE PLANE U FUCKING WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA­AAAAAAAAA

[ZombineCia]

@CarGamePlayer It's ironic because both the DC-10 and the Concorde are my favourite commercial airplanes...

[cingular656]

FUCKIN DC10's!! XO

[pandorakinkxxx]

I love this show! Thanks!

[thousandsunny627]

DC 9 DC10 SCREW EVERY ONE

[macinmiami]

Why didn't the pilot abort the landing? I know it needed more runway but even a crash at the end of a runway would have been better than falling out of the sky. just a thought and second guessing i know.

[MrsNorris55]

@macinmiami I think you mean abort the takeoff ... :-)

It sounds as if it wasn't just a matter of a few feet of runway -- if it had been, maybe he would've tried to abort the takeoff anyway. Given the speed of the plane by then, it sounds as if it would be like getting a mile-long freight train to stop on a dime -- just not possible. And I don't know what's at the other end of the runway ... maybe a busy highway? If so and if he'd slammed into that, the death toll would've been MUCH higher.

[geko771]

@macinmiami Because there were buildings within 1000' of the end of the runway, taking off was the ONLY option if you had any hope of saving the plane.

[medolin1976]

12:19 do you ear me??

[nhairnuattoa7]

Thats funny. British people, doing french translation XD

[daclao1]

The 46mins and 09secs video clip is incomplete. How or where do I

see/find the remainder of this video clip ?

Thank you.

[falldownhard]

Accidents happen - it's so easy to play doctor hindsight. But we all know what losing someone close to us is like and the people need to be remembered and honored. Aside from that - I think we're just as well off without Concorde in its old form. I'm not impressed with performance achieved by guzzling a finite, precious resource. That said, it was a beautiful plane and maybe someday we'll apply the designs to a more efficient powering system.

[zEclipzeeee2011]

Sick that you have uploaded full versions, instead of watching at like 7 parts that are around 8 minutes long ... :)

[LeedsLad1919]

theres probably some reason for this but why not make a tire with no air in it just total rubber/metal etc.

[Lengas32]

@LeedsLad1919 I think that's a good idea, but impossible to do for now.

[Kohdok]

@Lengas32 If a chunk of that tire is ripped out, it'll be a bumpy ride.

[Bazajt]

@LeedsLad1919 The air (nitrogen in plane tyres) inside the tyre acts as a cushion. if you had solid rubber tyres, you'd break a tie-rod and/or bend a wheel every time you landed. the air also provides a much smoother ride than a solid tire or one that's "internal mesh".

Also, solid rubber tyres would weigh a lot more than the current ones which adds demand on fuel at a time it is about cutting the use.

[oke139]

@Bazajt True that. Its just impractical for airplanes... BTW its tire lol.

[qazwsx2541]

@LeedsLad1919 it would be crazy expensive. there are flat-proof tires that is basically solid rubber with holes drilled in it to save weight and material.

[Defender78]

@LeedsLad1919 that would make the tire SUPER heavy and stronger landing gear and thus a reinforced vehicle structure making for a heavier aircraft that is slower and can carry fewer ppl

[tiagandremo]

@LeedsLad1919 because a solid tyre would not bounce, an inflated tyre is able to change shape because of the air inside, the tyre is squashed on touch down to an oval shape circle but returns to normal, if a solid tyre touched down it would not be able to change shape as much and because there is no air it would not return to normal so the plane would be bouncing because of the tyre and it would be ripped apart, common sense really that's why they don't have solid tyres.

[geko771]

@LeedsLad1919 It would weigh a ton, literally. Plus, the air in tires helps relieve the shock of landing an of course helps smooth the ride of taxi, takeoff, and landing.

[platinum243125]

@LeedsLad1919 That was actually the 1st tire design. But the problem is that the loads on tire went straight through it, resulting in a very bumpy ride, and they always needed to be replaced

[lifethelifetoday]

DC-10 is the worst, most unreliable plane in the world.

Concorde is one of the best, most reliable planes in the world. And faster.

Why did the Concorde never fly after this? And why DID the DC-10?

[GoldMindStudios]

@lifethelifetoday because there was a design flaw in the concorde jet and other of em. they really just didn't want to fix it. in fear of something like this happening again they stopped the program.

[nezdedumdum]

I hate u stupid fat DC- 10 x-(

[nezdedumdum]

why this happy trippy music in the bkgrnd? its so irritating... the concorde is crashing for gawd's sake...

[pop5678eye]

I can't help but notice that this documentary is a much altered version of the original documentary on the subject, and that it really glosses over the responsibility by Continental Airlines. The official report and subsequent courts found Continental to be primarily responsible, not the manufacturers of Concorde, and certainly not Air France.

[enorabv]

I understand that based on prior experience of the Concorde re-landing at Dulles International Airport in Washington DC this pilot thought he would be able to re-land that is why he didn't make a crash landing when the flames were reported to him by his controller.

[enorabv]

I saw one of the concordes in, I think it was, 1979. It landed at Halifax International Airport due to some in-flight problem. Those planes were exciting.

[austinlinjiajing]

Why is there a high-pitched noise at 3:35 to 3:37???

[fs10inator]

@austinlinjiajing It's part of the music.

[srubi74]

I don't get the whole committed to the take off thing. Ok so he couldn't stop safely, and the plane would overrun the runway and people on board may have been seriously injured or died. But if you do take off, the chances are that the people on board will be injured or die anyways, and perhaps people on the ground too. At least if the plane overshoots the runway, they are still on the ground.

[srubi74]

of course I mean in situations where there is water or empty land at the end of the runway, not if there is a highway or something.

[enorabv]

@srubi74 I was going to say the same thing. As well once it's in the air it's an uncontrolled landing, so it will likely damage additional people. However there is the fact that the pilots do what they are trained to do and they were trained for everything to keep the plane in the air.

[srubi74]

@enorabv Yes, and I also know that he only had 5 seconds to decide and so on. I think he made the right decision in this case- the only one he could considering there was a highway at the end of the runway. One thing I think would be useful to pilots in a lot of these incidents would be some sort of camera equipment outside the plane enabling pilots to see the wings and engines. But that is another story.

[SaintRowBestFlow]

chuck norris was not happy!

[IJeijo]

@SaintRowBestFlow

Fuck off.

[9ggraham]

I think your right, they didn't know the wing was melting,but they should have sensors on the wing to know the wing's temp.

[stewartx5]

@9ggraham To be brutality honest, with a fire severe enough to melt a wing while airborne, there's not much need for such warning since the pilot can do little about it. It takes several minutes to land, while an aircraft in that condition is going down (crashing) in mere seconds.

[9ggraham]

If the crew could STOP the plane,even if there was not enough runway, everyone would have been saved.

[qwerty112311]

@9ggraham not necessarily true. There are procedures, airplanes are designed to be able to fly with half thrust, there was no way of the pilots knowing that their engines were ablaze and the wings were melting.

[stewartx5]

@9ggraham

Video explains why Concorde couldn't stop. Aircraft was traveling at roughly 200mph (328kph) when fire was reported. At that speed, aircraft needed about 3000 feet to stop, while only about 2000 feet of runway remained. Even with reverse thrusters and severe braking, would have still been traveling at great speed at the end of that 2000 feet. Thus, the aircraft would have been ripped apart with massive fire. Few, if any, would have survived.

[XxMusashiYamatoxX]

@9ggraham - IF, IF, you jackass, they had seconds to react, what would you have done if you were the pilot of a aircraft that is severely damaged? Of course its easy for you to say moron, your watching a documentary about the tragedy.

[cedricmeallan]

Why the heck was Continental not sued for mass murder? Now that it's damn clear that the débris that brought down the Concorde was from a Continental DC-10, the relatives of the died people shpuld demand compensation!

[stewartx5]

@cedricmeallan

To support a charge of murder, you'd have to prove intent or negligence. Various debris (nuts, bolts, small parts, tire rubber, etc) is routinely breaking or falling off of large, complex, aircraft, so there was no negligence. And Continental certainly did not intend to murder those people.

[amiable519]

42:40, a very very solum moment, almost made me cry!

[terenas1986]

cutting down the last minutes of a video... how rude is that!!!!!!!!! :@

[amiable519]

@terenas1986 who was rude? might i ask.

[terenas1986]

@amiable519 does an episode end normally in the middle of a word? just watch the vid to the end....

[Frunkenstein]

poor people in the back, cooked alive.

[cedriclim2011]

I almost cried

[amiable519]

@cedriclim2011 me to!

[bogycraper]

Sad story

[miankd]

DC 10s are the source of all evil

[blueb0g]

@miankd Why attack the DC-10? Once the cargo door was fixed (which only resulted in 1 accident) it was as safe as any other airliner from its generation.

[miankd]

@blueb0g DC10s may have grown to be ok aricrafts, but they had the worst record ever in terms of accidents and incidents over many years following their launch.

[blueb0g]

@miankd No they really don't LOL. I'm not quite sure where you're getting this information from. Sure, she had a couple of crashes - many of them (e.g ANZ 901) could have happened to any other airliner though. Mostly, the accidents were not the fault of the aircraft.

[miankd]

@blueb0g I don't remember exactly where I read the information. But a quick look on wikipedia confirms what I said. I think you should check your own info.

[blueb0g]

@miankd The information on wikipedia confirms what I've been saying...

[miankd]

@blueb0g No it doesn't

[blueb0g]

@miankd Ahem. " The DC-10's lifetime safety record is comparable to similar second-generation passenger jets as of 2008.". Let's look at the evidence. The DC-10 had one fatal accident linked to its cargo door (which, I concede, never should have happened.) The second major, well known accident was Amiercan 191. This crashed due to AA's maintenance procedures. 232 was unforseeable, and 901 was caused by a flight plan switch. After this there were few major accidents. Case? Closed.

[Kohdok]

@blueb0g Say what you like, but I wouldn't let myself ride on a plane that sheds parts on the runway...

[blueb0g]

@Kohdok All aircraft shed FOD's from time to time, and it was a Continental Airlines maintenance fault, not a DC-10 fault. Anyway it was only a part of the reverser and didn't cause damage to the aircraft, only the Concorde following it - and the simple fact of the matter is that a small scrap of metal shouldn't have caused the Concorde to crash.

[steelermia]

@Kohdok you would never know that a plane sheds parts on the runaway smart one .. so I'm guessing you're not riding anymore planes ?

[Kohdok]

@steelermia Well, both the DC-10 and the Concorde are pretty much out of service, so I'm not that worried.

[rewindablender]

@Kohdok i believe the dc-10 is in service but not in production.

[AtheistBrit]

@blueb0g You say 191 wasn't MD's fault. However, that same Wikipedia article also says: "The Chicago accident also highlighted a major deficiency in the DC-10 design; its lack of a locking mechanism to maintain the position of the leading-edge slats in the event of a hydraulic or pneumatic failure." You also didn't mention any of the other 11 incidents involving DC-10s, 3 were caused by engine failures. Now I'm not saying that the DC-10s are bad planes, just showing the whole story. :)

[Paril101]

@AtheistBrit Even when it doesn't mean to, the DC planes are causing accidents! Regardless, I do agree that this is more MD's fault than Concorde's creators, but, FOUR coincidents at once lead to this planes' demise.

[atomicnortherner]

All them Boeing planes that have crashed, the DC9/10s the Airbusses.... they still fly all over just ONE Concorde and they are grounded its stupid

[Lukeno52]

@atomicnortherner there is a difference: far less Concordes in service/less hours made, and the planes were outdated by then anyway. And they were so much faster, wreckage would do more damage if one disintegrated ;)

[fredtvification]

still it was 1 of the safest olanes ever made...but the french killed...

[efesair]

@fredtvification well, i do not know what knowledge you have regarding aviation but let me tell you, any multiple engine aircraft must be able to climb and be controllable when only 1 engine (if a twin) or 2 engines (if 3 or 4 engines) is/are running. the Concorde could neither climb, maintain speed, not was under 100% control. therefore, the aircraft was a disaster in terms of safety. sad that people died, good that the Concorde is gone!

[DavidLarsenM1]

@efesair Planes are supposed to be able to take off with half of it's engines, but not with half of their wings. In this chase, it had nothing to do with lack of engine power. It was the loss of aerodynamics and controls.

[efesair]

@DavidLarsenM1 the only thing that was missing was the control surface (aileron) on one wing. that means there was limited control over the roll of the aircraft. the wing in terms of creating lift was intact. the fact that the plane stalled an crashed means it had not enough power to sustain flying speed. as a professional pilot for 20 years i do know a little about planes and aerodynamics.

[DavidLarsenM1]

@efesair To my knowledge, stalling doesn't necessarily have to do with engine power, but with turbulence above the wing canceling out the coanda effect - which is caused by a wrong combination of angle of attack and airspeed. This can be because of slow speed (and thereby lack of engine power), but also damage to the airfoil or pilot error. Every single source I've found, including this video, says that it was damage to the airfoil and lack of controls that brought the plane down.

[DavidLarsenM1]

@efesair I don't know that it was an unsafe plane, or that anything could have been done, but I haven't found any sources concluding that it was a flaw with engine power calculations that made it crash. Only that it was damage to the structure of the plane, in unlucky circumstances. I would love to see any sources that states otherwise, I might just have been looking the wrong places.

I don't doubt that you know about planes and aerodynamics.

[efesair]

@DavidLarsenM1 you are right, there are no sources that point to the engine issue. let me say it this way, when we see the aircraft flying level it is in balance but does not climb. it might be that the pilot does not want to climb. but it stalled and fell on its tail. that it typical for a stall. if the engines would have been providing enough power to keep the aircraft flying, there would not have been a stall. the engines were maybe perfect, but has the Concorde ever been tested on 2 engines?

[DavidLarsenM1]

@efesair I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the investigators do. And they came to another conclusion. The 2 engines are supposed to be able to keep the plane in the air, and even take off - and there's no reason to think that they couldn't. But there's a difference between 2 engines being able to lift plane, and 2 engines being able to lift a plane with severe structural damage and no controls on one of the wings, and that's what the conclusion of the investigation tells us too.

[efesair]

@DavidLarsenM1 of course the investigators do. but the story starts with the history of the Concorde. it is an aircraft that was designed during the cold war. it was a political project and had to fly at a deadline to prevail its Soviet counterpart the Tupolev TU-144. so, the tests etc that would be done in a normal development environment were simply not met. the Concorde had to fly, no matter what. it has never been a safe aircraft, just a lucky one.today it would not be certified.

[DavidLarsenM1]

@efesair I really don't see what this has to do with it. It's a simple matter of how much the engine power would matter. And the plane could have been made from toothpicks for all I care. You said that the Concorde was unsafe because two engines couldn't lift the plane and keep it in the air. I'm saying that there's no reason to think that they couldn't based on this accident. I don't know about other aspects of the safety of the Concorde, but I don't see the relevance either.

[efesair]

@DavidLarsenM1 it did not fall from the sky because of structural damage but because it could not maintain speed and stalled. hope that makes sense to understand why the engine thrust is an issue.

[DavidLarsenM1]

@efesair According to the investigators, it had more than sufficient engine power, and the crash was caused by lost control and stability of the plane, which caused the plane to angel up, roll left and stall - If you have any sources stating otherwise, I'd be happy to agree with you, but until then you're not going to convince me.

Stalling have to do with the relation of airspeed and angle of attack - or damage to the airfoil.

[M40A1Fubar]

@efesair The Concord was rated to slow climb under the power of just 2 of it's 4 RR Olympus engines. The problem was not power or airspeed itself but instead, the extreme angle of attack that the aircraft was positioned in leading up to the stall and subsequent crash. The damage cause by the metal picked up on the runway severed several lines that ran flight controls. It makes sense that the Concord pitched up violently after loss of hydraulic pressure as the Concord has an aft CG at takeoff

[M40A1Fubar]

I should clarify a bit of poor grammar usage on my part. I had indicated that the metal piece severed the flight controls which as we know, is not correct. The loss of flight controls was caused by the extreme fire caused by the rupture of the fuel tank because of the severe impact from that heavy tire piece. Like I said before, it had the power, just no controls.....

[efesair]

@M40A1Fubar yes, i agree but a high angle of attack is needed in order to keep the aircraft in the air. with more power less angle of attack is needed. so, if the would have been more power, less AOA. so, either a total design fault or weak engines...no matter how we look at it, both comes to what I say...

[M40A1Fubar]

@efesair You are correct, a high angel of attack would required at low speeds. However, I think you miss the point I made previously. Due to the damage caused by the fire, the flight controls and integrity of the left wings airfoil was compromised which resulted in a loss of control of the aircraft. Let's say that they just lost those two engines without any fire or damage, the aircraft would not have been lost. The fire and structural damage is what caused the HAOA to get to an extreme point.

[M40A1Fubar]

@efesair If you take a delta winged airfoil (say a paper airplane) and burn of the aft section of left airfoil, the result will be the exact same thing as what we see here in this accident. I slow and constant left roll and increased AOA until stall was reached. No amount of power in the world could have saved this aircraft in the end. Power could not overcome the amount of structural damage that was being caused by that extreme fire. Like I said before, the Concord has more than enough power

[M40A1Fubar]

@efesair To climb under just two engines (albiet rather slowly) in normal conditions. commercial aircraft are all actually designed to be able to operate safely with only half of their engines functioning and the Concord was not an exception. Example: The ATR and CRJ my father teaches on both can climb on one engine without a problem. Quite simply: this was extreme damage to flight controls, compromised airfoil, AND reduced maximum power that caused the accident.

[efesair]

@M40A1Fubar what you say is the same what i say. i do not dismiss the fact of damaged flight controls but the main issue was that not enough power was at hand. a minimum of 50 ft per minute of climb must be able for a multi-engine aircraft to perform when only flying on one (or two in case of a 4 engine aircraft) engine. the concord did not even manage 5 feet! with enough power the aircraft might have still crashed but in a very different way..or maybe not crashed, who knows?

[scottishastronomer]

@efesair I've been following the thread of your discussion about the 2 engines issue. I would've thought that the fire destroying the left wing would've made a difference. Planes are designed to take off and fly with 2 engines, are they designed to do it with (in effect) ONE wing? Wouldn't the fire have destroyed the lift from the left wing? Then however much thrust the engines are giving, the aircraft would stall and fall out of the sky. I would be interested on your thoughts on this.

[efesair]

@scottishastronomer Of course, the lower surface of one wing was damaged which will reduce the lift capability.However, the majority of lift is generated by the upper surface of the wing.A wing without lower surface (early aircraft and hang gliders) is still a perfectly flying wing.Yes, the wing damage has contributed to the disaster but it should not have effected it so bad that the aircraft was not even able to fly straight and level.

[scottishastronomer]

@efesair Wouldn't the escaping fuel disrupt the airflow in the same way that ice would? And surely the fire would disrupt the airflow? As these would both affect the upper wing airflow, wouldn't that destroy the effect that allows planes to fly? I seem to remember reading in my physics textbook that any contamination or damage would destroy the lift effect (can't remember the proper name!) Are there cases of other designs of aircraft having similar types of damage and managing to land?

[efesair]

@scottishastronomer Yes, it would effect the airflow and thus the lift. but as stated earlier, the lower surface has less lift (not to be mistaken with "its not needed") than the upper surface. therefore, the disruption of airflow on the lower surface should not have been enough to cause that disaster alone. but it would (and most likely) contributed.

[Wunderwaffen1946]

@scottishastronomer Your thinking of the A-10, the Concorde does not have that miracle the Thunderbolt II does.

[scottishastronomer]

@Wunderwaffen1946 Sorry, I wasn't saying that Concorde had one wing, just that with one wing being destroyed by the fire it only had one working wing, not two.