What a shame...beautiful plane and flying from Us into Europe in 3:30 hours not bad either. 9/11 screwed our lives in so many ways. Terrorists...does your god need your help to accomplish his will? To me sounds like a weak god, a real God needs nothing or no one to prove a point. And besides that truth proves itself to be truth so violence is not needed. Any idea imposed by violence is already a lie.
Once that plane get's moving halfway down the runway at speeds higher than a drag racer there is NO stopping that plane ! Even if all the engines shut down the plane would not be able to stop. It would have had to take off and land in the nearest airport. Concorde's are very safe but they are expensive to maintain and fly and have controversy with ozone damaging effects. This along with 9/11 basically sealed the fate for that plane.
It's a catalogue of errors. The plane was heavy as they were taking baggage that had been left from a previous flight. The pilot took off downwind not against the wind. The aircraft had been serviced the day before and they left out a spacer. The wheel started to wobble and the plane slewed left, taking out the runway lights. The pilot was forced to lift off early, but overweight, with the wind, and an engine burning he had no chance. (source: "Supersonic Secrets" by Rob Lewis)
This accident was not the main reason the concords were dropped out. It only added to other major financial problems their carriers had. Fockers are still flying and they had shit loads of accidents...
i read Concorde doesen't have flaps so the takeoff speed is much higher and they had tire failures before.They needed non inflatable tyres for this aircraft.The concorde still holds record as safest and the story with the metal strip should be a Soviet Russia joke, but its real US aircraft maintenance
as a mechanic for Continental/United, all I can say is if the Concorde was such a flimsy aircraft with such poor engineering and design, it should have never been certified to fly. I am very surprised that something like that hadn't happened before
@datzfast It's not really a design flaw the same thing could happen to many other types of aircraft. Its just there are tighter regulations now, but its still pot luck though
The tire blowout was cause by a missing piece in the landing gear assembly, which caused so much friction by letting the wheels twist that a tire wore down the the steel belt then burst. That piece of metal would not have burst the tire if the tire was not already in critically poor condition.
@BloodSplatter97 so basically what you mean is if the plane had turned around and made it ready for landing it wouldnt of landed anyways...wow no hope anyways :-(
C'est faux !! Le pneu gauche du concorde a éclaté parce qu'il a été soumis a un choc au début du décollage, à cause d'une jointure entre deux tronçons de la piste et du fait qu'il manquait un pièce dans le train d'atterissage.
Le pneu a éclaté et un morceau a été percer le récervoir, le kerozen a prit feu, la flamme est remontée et comme l'avion était déjà lancé, trop tard pour freiner !! -.-'
Paix à l'âme des défuns de ce monstrueux accident.
@TheDams2810 le choc a provoque une vibration au niveau de l aile l onde de choc etait ci violement a fait perce le reservoir les eclats de pneu ont coupe un cable electrique du train d atterrissage qui a provoque un court circuit qui a enflamme le kerozene de plus aile du concorde a fondu du a la temperature . le concorde a etait construie en alu
wrong i went on the concoard tour at brooklands and they said that some scrap metal was left on yhe runway and was not cleared up and it was ssucked up by one of the engines
j'aime bien la pauvre conne qui parle des stupid french, comme si son pays d'attardés avait pas eu son lot de catastrophe aérienne. ridicul. a part ça je trouve àa ahurissant qu'on enlève carrément un avion de la circulation à cause d'un seul crash. surtout que c'était un débris. dans ce cas il ne devrait plus y avoir de boeing ou d'airbus, ou on devrait carrément arreter de prendre l'avion puisque de toute façon tant que les avions voleront ils tomberont.
If the pilot would have rejected take-off as soon as he heard the boom many (or everyone) could have survived. maybe they had overshot they rwy but they would at least keep their lives. R.I.P.
Was there a french guy sitting on the runway to prove that he saw a Dc-10 loose a part and hit the Concorde???
I really do not get how they put the blame on Continental and there Maintenance crew??? Sitting there claiming that Continental Airlines intentionally killed all those people on that plane! Gosh I wish I was a lawyer and had that case!
See, the rubber from the wheels on the gear blew after it ran over the titanium, and the rubber didn't hit anything. The shockwave from the blown tire ruptured the tank, and it ignited.
Facts (taken from formal investigations) the plane was overweight, landing gear was missing stabilizing components, the plane went further down the runway beyond the typical takeoff point. To save of weight the plane does not have flaps so has to travel @ significant speed to take off. Various planes have had tires blown during take off & taken damage, but not catastrophic/fatal. Layers needed to sufficiently protect underside not added due to weight considerations.
Why is it that people with no knowledge of aeronautical engineering or of flying can so confidently express opinions on what should or shouldn't have happened.
To know that you don't know is a wonderful thing - but very rare in youtube comments.
the aircraft stalled also because it was overweight, due to too much baggage (misplaced + overweight ones) and a very short taxi phase (didn't burn enough of the fuel allocated for taxi)
@BloodSplatter97 that's what is shown, the cable is too small to be seen on this small size video and it's not clear if one or two pieces of tyre were involved.
what i dont get still is, why come the pilot didnt like land straight after? im sure there must be "some" warning signal that something's going on..
even tho that didnt happen, the tower only noticed 6 minutes later? how does it take 6 min to spot a plane bursting fire out of its wing while taking off?
im not dissing shiz but, it just doesnt rly make sence, and from my point of view, this accident could have been avoided if certain people where more carefull.
@jehera you can not land an aircraft during a take-off proceeder setting of the flaps, the engine speed and the angle of the plane are completely different attempting to land would have caused him to nosedive right into the ground
@1982FMJ they were fine, the flame may have looked bad but it was only a stream of fuel from the fuselage there would have bee no fire inside the craft, the main cause of the crash was that because the engine was on fire it was not getting the right oxygen/fuel mix in order to produce the thrust needed to keep the plane in the air and so it stalled, a plane can land on one engine but take off requires more power and they had not gained enough hight or speed.
@TheAtlantaparker yea, because stupid people dont care about what can happen after they do those selfish acts and kill innocent passengers. The FOD rule should be stricter than it is
@mytotallyawesomename If the plane were made in the US the executives would have stolen all the proceeds and the Concorde would have failed due to lack of maintenance. :)
@mytotallyawesomename If the american crew who fix the DC 10 with Titanium part were more smart, he would not use a such strong metal to do a "copy" of an original piece. +> the piece was too hard to be deformed and that do an pretty hole to the fuel tank.
@mytotallyawesomename Let me think? If your country was smart enough you would have made the plane but your not. And the main reason it crashed is because one of your AMERICAN planes debris fell off on to the runway! So thank you AMERICA for yet again destroying the best plane in the world because you were jelous of it!
Im thinking that the clean crew deserves to be fired for failing. and the pilot maybe could have reverse throttled with air brakes etc on and tried like hell to stop. then there at least would be some surviors
I don't believe a small piece of metal could cause a disaster of such magnitude. There was something wrong with Concorde's design. Enough with supersonic technology. I'm content with flying on a regular 747 jet.
@bonletrodriguez i don't understand why not, when all aircrafts are made ithe the thinest and weakest metal available. i was an aircraft mechanic for 4 years at detroit metro airport, and aircrafts are delicate mechines. if a belt loader runs into the plane a 5 miles an hour it's go through the planes body. i ran over some debris on the freeway at 80mph and it caused about 1000 bucks. deystroyed my catalytic converter and tore off the remaining exhaust and punctured my gas tank... it's plausible
he could have put his flaps down taken off at a much lower speed taken it over any buildings and landed the concorde much smoother in a field, but i guess he didnt think of that at the time...
@MartinNRgMacDougall Yeah since the Concorde doesnt have flaps should the pilot jump out of the airplane, quickly build some flaps in the shed next to the airport, run back to the Concorde and mount them, all in the 30seconds it took to crash? Nice ideá Einstein.
It was the most fast airplain in the world you can't imagine how many things you have to keep an eye the Pilot did his job, the insane thing is that any airport before giving you the go to land or yake off should check the airstrip.
If companies of planes are obblied to check them planes also airports should have some rules in my view.
@TopOfTheTech - the flaps were already down. the plane was in takeoff configuration. there is always a go/no go point where any crew is thinking "up, up" over "stop, stop".
@TopOfTheTech the pilot didnt know untill the nose had already lifted up, check footage. the tower only told him as he was about 6m off the runway lol, terrible tbh :/ ):
@bladedspokes I agree, but don't forget that a fiew minutes before the debris is not there, it's a plane that took off before and has dropped the debris, so I think the plane that takes off before a share of responsability.
it wasnt the O-ring Alone That Destroyed Challenger There Were 2 Key Elements Strong Jetstream Above And Cold The O-RIng was fine but due to the cold the o-ring failed it wasnt the o ring alone
A little "O" ring at the wrong temp blew the Space Shuttle Challenger apart...sometimes we look for the biggest fissure to spell disaster, and it only takes a crack, under the right pressure and circumstance to fell the strongest
So basically, it was Continental Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-10' fault for not keeping in check for any loose metal bit, and the ground crew's fault for not keeping a clear runway. everyones happy?
What happened to the footage taken from a plane waiting at right angle to join the runway behind the fatal Concorde that clearly showed the inboard port engine with flames pouring out of it before Concorde started its take off run ?.
Continental cannot be held responsible for that crash. A 17inch bit of metal and the bloody plane explodes? Forget about it, also the airport authority, or even the flight operator should take indiviidual responsibility before each take off to ensure the runway is clean. What is an extra 10 minutes for a flight, ghastly things are always delayed, it's not as if the passengers are catching a train or a bus whereby every minutes is crucial. Let's get the airport, Air France, in the dock!
A 17 inch (43cm) strip of titanium. Think steel knife, very strong, but a lot lighter. Think of driving your car at 200mph and a 17 inch knife hitting your tyre! Aircraft tyres are strong & will withstand a most punctures without causing a crash, but the tyre was litterally split through thanks to the length of the metal so the tyre came off the rim hitting the fuel tank with the force of a bullet at around 200mph.
The Continental mechanic was negligent for not fitting the strip properly.
@bendchod Are you a aeronautical legal expert ? If not make sure to add the following to your story: "This is my opinion. There are no legal grounds for my comment, nor do I have knowledge about procedures, regulations and protocols concerning airport/runway operations"
@bendchod , Actually I agree with you, but considering how the greedy airlines operate and the crowded flight patterns and schedule - they would never allow such a policy to pass. To them, whatever cost arises from lawsuits for accidentally killing a few hundred people is worth it, compared to the amount of profits they'd lose if they had to spend extra time to ensure runways were clean before each landing or take off, or maintain their planes the way they should.
@qwertdr , I don't agree. Why put the fuel tank in the wing. That means the whole wing was full of fuel?? When you're dealing with such machinery as aircraft, you don't have room for excuses in the way that you phrased it --> freak incident.
It's actually Continental Airlines fault, and they should be sued.
and i thought, finally getting over the fear, iloved flyingand now,it scares the shit out of me, as soon as those engines start, i am fucking want to get offffffffffffffff.and then , he goes down the runway ,gradually, love that, annd then they scream in your ear,and wow, you take off,,,,which is actuallythe scariest part to be continued
because at a certain speed you cannot brake anymore also when an engine had failed you must take off because the runway is too short to brake ( ~130 knots)
Why would they continue the takeoff when part of the plane was burning? Sure, the people INSIDE the plane can't see it, but there would be some kind of control tower to tell them about the flame.
I think that after a certain speed there's no option because there is not enough runway to stop. You have to take off, try to take a quick turn and then land.
They had reached V1, meaning they are at the speed where they have committed to take off. If they hadn't, it would have slid off the end of the runway and pretty much guarantee total destruction. Taking off, there was a chance they could turn around and land. They did not know the exact situation at the time, so it seemed their best chance.
Not a freak accident. It was failure of the airport ground crew to maintain a safe runway. The ground crew is solely responsible for keeping the runway clear of debris. The ground crew is responsible for this crash.
coz americans said they werent ecomomical even tho america spends millions of $ on weapon that they never use and them melt them down into rake so iraq people can use them but then they make tem back into weapons and they also said they are t dangerous becase like 2 crashed xD basical because america are jellous ;)
I think they should go back into service, but Airbus, who did all the maintainance and provided spare parts refused to do so after 2003, saying it would be too expensive to continue. Its such a shame.
@ReaLSiniisteR , the real reason it was shut down is because British Airways was losing massive amounts of money on this plane, even before the crash. They rarely, if ever, flew at full capacity. Each seat cost $10,000 or more.
@ReaLSiniisteR they cost a fortune to run and were only a novelty and could only hold a very small number of people. they were planning to dismiss the concorde before the crash and then when the crash happened, they decided right then that they had to stop it.
@TheSoggySausage If they were planning to stop why did they spend a fortune getting the planes back in the air. Ultimately it was airbus who stopped concorde because they didn't want to maintain it anymore.
@ReaLSiniisteR It's not efficient. Everything about this plane is costly. Maintenance was expensive. You can only imagine the cost of keeping the engines working properly. Plus, too fly on it was an easy way to kill your wallet. $10,000 one way? It just wasn't efficient. Maybe one day commercial supersonic travel will be feasible, but for the concord? No.
@ReaLSiniisteR It still was a dangerous airplane. They retired it once before this crash happened if I am not wrong also because of other technical problems.
Plus, with rising fuel costs, airilines understood that they weren't going to make $ with it....
It's the insurance money and stock market that was at play
Valient6 2 days ago
The terrorists are mislead by thier countries leaders the same way that our country lies to us.
Valient6 2 days ago
Sabotage!
What important person was on that flight?
macpduff 4 days ago
@7halos1 can you tell me a better place for a tank that size could go on a plane like that
MrAlanx1 1 week ago
What a shame...beautiful plane and flying from Us into Europe in 3:30 hours not bad either. 9/11 screwed our lives in so many ways. Terrorists...does your god need your help to accomplish his will? To me sounds like a weak god, a real God needs nothing or no one to prove a point. And besides that truth proves itself to be truth so violence is not needed. Any idea imposed by violence is already a lie.
veroho1 4 weeks ago
Once that plane get's moving halfway down the runway at speeds higher than a drag racer there is NO stopping that plane ! Even if all the engines shut down the plane would not be able to stop. It would have had to take off and land in the nearest airport. Concorde's are very safe but they are expensive to maintain and fly and have controversy with ozone damaging effects. This along with 9/11 basically sealed the fate for that plane.
toadtanker 1 month ago
@Flamorgan are you serious? Calm down.
TheJTSniper98 2 months ago
It's a catalogue of errors. The plane was heavy as they were taking baggage that had been left from a previous flight. The pilot took off downwind not against the wind. The aircraft had been serviced the day before and they left out a spacer. The wheel started to wobble and the plane slewed left, taking out the runway lights. The pilot was forced to lift off early, but overweight, with the wind, and an engine burning he had no chance. (source: "Supersonic Secrets" by Rob Lewis)
Vodkaboy02 6 months ago
The pilot also shut down the wrong engine
chemerich 6 months ago
That right ??????
onurinhow 7 months ago
This accident was not the main reason the concords were dropped out. It only added to other major financial problems their carriers had. Fockers are still flying and they had shit loads of accidents...
binhonz 7 months ago
the wheel didnt even fall, skid or something that was totally wrong
jordaan777 7 months ago
i read Concorde doesen't have flaps so the takeoff speed is much higher and they had tire failures before.They needed non inflatable tyres for this aircraft.The concorde still holds record as safest and the story with the metal strip should be a Soviet Russia joke, but its real US aircraft maintenance
Olengher 7 months ago
as a mechanic for Continental/United, all I can say is if the Concorde was such a flimsy aircraft with such poor engineering and design, it should have never been certified to fly. I am very surprised that something like that hadn't happened before
jettech6 8 months ago
y whould th e gas tank be there
7halos1 8 months ago
@7halos1 The fuel tanks are in the wings of pretty much all (if not all) commercial airliners.
Bungle2010 8 months ago
@7halos1 just think about it, if you've got the necessary hardware to do that. There are many many reasons why there is fuel there.
TheSimonHarris 8 months ago
no fixing this design flaw. its impossible to prevent the same from happing again. retirement was the only fix.
datzfast 9 months ago
@datzfast It's not really a design flaw the same thing could happen to many other types of aircraft. Its just there are tighter regulations now, but its still pot luck though
TheSimonHarris 8 months ago
how many concorde they built?
asrijas 9 months ago
@asrijas 16 odd
TheSimonHarris 8 months ago
It was a shame... sadly 1 engine wasn't enough to keep height and turn on to the landway.
JuglarEuskaldun 9 months ago
@JuglarEuskaldun Yeah especially because the pilots shut down the wrong engine
TheSimonHarris 8 months ago
shitty tire, make stronger! :D
95sorlag95 9 months ago
@95sorlag95 Uh the Concorde had tougher tires than most jets because of it's landing speed
TheSimonHarris 8 months ago
Those tires are built to withstand a shitstorm. A leather belt would not have blown out a tire
mercenary1121 10 months ago
dang that was on my birthday .... :(
VeronaTheEvilVampire 10 months ago
The tire blowout was cause by a missing piece in the landing gear assembly, which caused so much friction by letting the wheels twist that a tire wore down the the steel belt then burst. That piece of metal would not have burst the tire if the tire was not already in critically poor condition.
Dewmeister14 10 months ago 11
@Dewmeister14 nah da peace was left from another plane i think da 787 im not sure
skykid123400 5 days ago
@BloodSplatter97 and plus they were overwight on the left hand side
bellcheese1982 10 months ago
Literally a flying swan.
merdaporrenta 11 months ago
@BloodSplatter97 so basically what you mean is if the plane had turned around and made it ready for landing it wouldnt of landed anyways...wow no hope anyways :-(
loveherhotlegs 11 months ago
@Flamorgan Yeah. The DC10 had had a bad report from when it was first made.
alexgets98 11 months ago
@BloodSplatter97 I just watched about this crash on seconds from disaster lol. you nailed it:)
BallisticTip270WSM 11 months ago
i was just watching this on tv
joeldude76 11 months ago
are we being told the truth?
210482fmj 11 months ago
@210482fmj this video is true!
CODMODDERZ360 11 months ago
good hypothesis!
az0997711 1 year ago
C'est faux !! Le pneu gauche du concorde a éclaté parce qu'il a été soumis a un choc au début du décollage, à cause d'une jointure entre deux tronçons de la piste et du fait qu'il manquait un pièce dans le train d'atterissage.
Le pneu a éclaté et un morceau a été percer le récervoir, le kerozen a prit feu, la flamme est remontée et comme l'avion était déjà lancé, trop tard pour freiner !! -.-'
Paix à l'âme des défuns de ce monstrueux accident.
TheDams2810 1 year ago
@TheDams2810 C'est la version des avocats de Continental Airlines
ml750 1 year ago 6
@TheDams2810 le choc a provoque une vibration au niveau de l aile l onde de choc etait ci violement a fait perce le reservoir les eclats de pneu ont coupe un cable electrique du train d atterrissage qui a provoque un court circuit qui a enflamme le kerozene de plus aile du concorde a fondu du a la temperature . le concorde a etait construie en alu
mickaelkoziar 6 months ago
The plane had a missing part that kept the wheels together. It slid to the side and the tyre burst because of the friction. NOT BECAUSE OF THE METAL.
TheSGCGaming 1 year ago
wrong i went on the concoard tour at brooklands and they said that some scrap metal was left on yhe runway and was not cleared up and it was ssucked up by one of the engines
CHARLTON567 1 year ago
no good pilots if they stall their plane..
Nebelkrieg 1 year ago
j'aime bien la pauvre conne qui parle des stupid french, comme si son pays d'attardés avait pas eu son lot de catastrophe aérienne. ridicul. a part ça je trouve àa ahurissant qu'on enlève carrément un avion de la circulation à cause d'un seul crash. surtout que c'était un débris. dans ce cas il ne devrait plus y avoir de boeing ou d'airbus, ou on devrait carrément arreter de prendre l'avion puisque de toute façon tant que les avions voleront ils tomberont.
sixteenD 1 year ago
If the pilot would have rejected take-off as soon as he heard the boom many (or everyone) could have survived. maybe they had overshot they rwy but they would at least keep their lives. R.I.P.
Deltapilot96 1 year ago
@BloodSplatter97 you fool
SPECONE1ify 1 year ago
Was there a french guy sitting on the runway to prove that he saw a Dc-10 loose a part and hit the Concorde???
I really do not get how they put the blame on Continental and there Maintenance crew??? Sitting there claiming that Continental Airlines intentionally killed all those people on that plane! Gosh I wish I was a lawyer and had that case!
pianomanmaestro 1 year ago
Kevlar and self sealing tanks could have saved it. What a shame.
raptors222222 1 year ago
See, the rubber from the wheels on the gear blew after it ran over the titanium, and the rubber didn't hit anything. The shockwave from the blown tire ruptured the tank, and it ignited.
flightsimdude111 1 year ago
Facts (taken from formal investigations) the plane was overweight, landing gear was missing stabilizing components, the plane went further down the runway beyond the typical takeoff point. To save of weight the plane does not have flaps so has to travel @ significant speed to take off. Various planes have had tires blown during take off & taken damage, but not catastrophic/fatal. Layers needed to sufficiently protect underside not added due to weight considerations.
ckmost 1 year ago
Why is it that people with no knowledge of aeronautical engineering or of flying can so confidently express opinions on what should or shouldn't have happened.
To know that you don't know is a wonderful thing - but very rare in youtube comments.
dincz 1 year ago
@BloodSplatter97
the aircraft stalled also because it was overweight, due to too much baggage (misplaced + overweight ones) and a very short taxi phase (didn't burn enough of the fuel allocated for taxi)
csanden 1 year ago
@BloodSplatter97 Where you there?
Sniff34 1 year ago
WHY did they shutdown the concorde? It's a great aircraft! It was shit on the ground, every plane can have that!
CraHeX 1 year ago
@CraHeX because the accident proved an awful design flaw as well as peoples new found fear of the craft
KiithSomtaaw394 1 year ago
@BloodSplatter97 that's what is shown, the cable is too small to be seen on this small size video and it's not clear if one or two pieces of tyre were involved.
ml750 1 year ago 5
@ml750 exactly
SPECONE1ify 1 year ago
what i dont get still is, why come the pilot didnt like land straight after? im sure there must be "some" warning signal that something's going on..
even tho that didnt happen, the tower only noticed 6 minutes later? how does it take 6 min to spot a plane bursting fire out of its wing while taking off?
im not dissing shiz but, it just doesnt rly make sence, and from my point of view, this accident could have been avoided if certain people where more carefull.
jehera 1 year ago
@jehera you can not land an aircraft during a take-off proceeder setting of the flaps, the engine speed and the angle of the plane are completely different attempting to land would have caused him to nosedive right into the ground
KiithSomtaaw394 1 year ago
it's a joke
doomyman 1 year ago
Comment removed
Odsidin 1 year ago
it must of been horrible for the passengers on that aircraft. Many probably were burned to death before the impact. ITs one of the worst crashes ever
1982FMJ 1 year ago
@1982FMJ they were fine, the flame may have looked bad but it was only a stream of fuel from the fuselage there would have bee no fire inside the craft, the main cause of the crash was that because the engine was on fire it was not getting the right oxygen/fuel mix in order to produce the thrust needed to keep the plane in the air and so it stalled, a plane can land on one engine but take off requires more power and they had not gained enough hight or speed.
KiithSomtaaw394 1 year ago
This is stupid they could have just placed the tank into some other area, i mean if its too dangerous they can always modify it ....
maxime0999 1 year ago
this is what is called butterfly effect : a simple piece of metal turning into a disaster
glory5597 1 year ago
And this is why we need to pay attention to FOD prevention
TheAtlantaparker 1 year ago
@TheAtlantaparker yea, because stupid people dont care about what can happen after they do those selfish acts and kill innocent passengers. The FOD rule should be stricter than it is
riquelaboissiere 1 year ago
これって空港会社の過失じゃないの？？
metroprort2002 1 year ago
It was debris left behind from another plane that caused this whole ordeal.
nick15184 1 year ago
It wasn't Gonesse, it was Paris-Charles-de-Gaulle!
TheF1Freak96 1 year ago
@TheF1Freak96 Gonesse is a small town near Charles de Gaulle airport where Concorde crashed.
ml750 1 year ago
@ml750 Ahhh oke... thanks for helping :D
TheF1Freak96 1 year ago
Mariuszanna has a point. That could have happened to a 747 or an a380 but it had to happen to the worlds best plane the Concorde
Welshy2705 1 year ago
Shame that happened i'd love to fly in one! :(
mariuszanna 1 year ago
Stupid french people cant do anything propely if they were not blind the fantastic Concorde would have been still flying today!
mariuszanna 1 year ago
@mariuszanna wow u hipocrit! y dont u stop making acusations about people when u werent there!
Jacobobs1 1 year ago
pilot shouldn't of taken off..
piseth7 1 year ago
if the plane were made in the US then we would've reinforced the fuel tank.
mytotallyawesomename 1 year ago
@mytotallyawesomename If the plane were made in the US the executives would have stolen all the proceeds and the Concorde would have failed due to lack of maintenance. :)
OffRhodess 1 year ago
@mytotallyawesomename If the american crew who fix the DC 10 with Titanium part were more smart, he would not use a such strong metal to do a "copy" of an original piece. +> the piece was too hard to be deformed and that do an pretty hole to the fuel tank.
Shin0u 1 year ago
@mytotallyawesomename Let me think? If your country was smart enough you would have made the plane but your not. And the main reason it crashed is because one of your AMERICAN planes debris fell off on to the runway! So thank you AMERICA for yet again destroying the best plane in the world because you were jelous of it!
Jacobobs1 1 year ago
@Jacobobs1 Amazing, Somehow America is also blamed on the Concorde. Really?..........................
ottoramsaig 1 year ago
@ottoramsaig If you really think Continental Airlines is representing America, well then it's right.
Le457 11 months ago
What a bunch of crap. Are they going to blame the A380 slamming into a Delta jet on the ground at JFK on the Americans too?
macgriffyn 10 months ago
@macgriffyn Huh?????
TheSimonHarris 8 months ago
O.K. Heres my Opinion:
1. Why didn't the People in the Air Port LOOK at the Small Piece of Metal? They should of Taken it OUT of the runway.
2. WHY would the Small Piece of Metal cause that disaster?
Rotneybot 1 year ago
whats so special about the concord crash????? its just like any regular plane crash
flametiger2 1 year ago
@flametiger2 Because it was an iconic plane. And before this crash it had flown for years without a fatal accident.
Bungle2010 8 months ago
Im thinking that the clean crew deserves to be fired for failing. and the pilot maybe could have reverse throttled with air brakes etc on and tried like hell to stop. then there at least would be some surviors
zoeykjtaylor 1 year ago
The aircraft had taken off ,when the atc told them they had flames behind them,they would not have had time to lower the flaps
comanderoliverbuckle 1 year ago
I don't believe a small piece of metal could cause a disaster of such magnitude. There was something wrong with Concorde's design. Enough with supersonic technology. I'm content with flying on a regular 747 jet.
bonletrodriguez 1 year ago
@bonletrodriguez i don't understand why not, when all aircrafts are made ithe the thinest and weakest metal available. i was an aircraft mechanic for 4 years at detroit metro airport, and aircrafts are delicate mechines. if a belt loader runs into the plane a 5 miles an hour it's go through the planes body. i ran over some debris on the freeway at 80mph and it caused about 1000 bucks. deystroyed my catalytic converter and tore off the remaining exhaust and punctured my gas tank... it's plausible
Veechie4short 1 year ago
@bonletrodriguez a latch hook got sucked into the running engine of a CRJ-900 pulling into the gate and it blew the engine where i worked
Veechie4short 1 year ago
@bonletrodriguez I don't believe that a Small piece of Metal would cause that disaster too!
Rotneybot 1 year ago
@bonletrodriguez the problem is probably with the wheels
neoappolanair 1 year ago
That's why FOD is NO joke! Walks should be done everyday on the flight line.
LILBRAZ 1 year ago
airfrane did not desuve concord or a380 or to stay open they had oven 20 crashes
ringo8889 1 year ago
10 yrs Anniversary GOD BLESS THE FAMILY'S AND DECEASED R.I.P.
mavericklemieux 1 year ago 27
@mavericklemieux Agreed
Rotneybot 1 year ago
he could have put his flaps down taken off at a much lower speed taken it over any buildings and landed the concorde much smoother in a field, but i guess he didnt think of that at the time...
MartinNRgMacDougall 1 year ago
@MartinNRgMacDougall wow you are dumb.
DoogesR1 1 year ago
@MartinNRgMacDougall Yeah since the Concorde doesnt have flaps should the pilot jump out of the airplane, quickly build some flaps in the shed next to the airport, run back to the Concorde and mount them, all in the 30seconds it took to crash? Nice ideá Einstein.
JesperA86 1 year ago
But the aircraft was alite just as it set off down the runway.
GRAZIERS77 1 year ago
my god that take off was almost vertical
Hairboy01 1 year ago
What i don't get is why doesn't the pilot lower the flaps so they stay on the ground and then brake as fast as possible to evacuate?
TopOfTheTech 1 year ago
@TopOfTheTech it was too late, the speed was too high to stop before the end of the track.
ml750 1 year ago
@ml750 The speed was too high because of the burst tyre???
vinvinvin1337 1 year ago
@TopOfTheTech
It was the most fast airplain in the world you can't imagine how many things you have to keep an eye the Pilot did his job, the insane thing is that any airport before giving you the go to land or yake off should check the airstrip.
If companies of planes are obblied to check them planes also airports should have some rules in my view.
Sorry for english
kxjack 1 year ago
@TopOfTheTech Anyway, the concorde is a delta-winged plane and they cant have flaps. If the concorde had flaps, they wouldent've taken off
lotto77102 1 year ago
@TopOfTheTech - the flaps were already down. the plane was in takeoff configuration. there is always a go/no go point where any crew is thinking "up, up" over "stop, stop".
chavez9mm 1 year ago
@TopOfTheTech the pilot didnt know untill the nose had already lifted up, check footage. the tower only told him as he was about 6m off the runway lol, terrible tbh :/ ):
JsmArtistUK 1 year ago
@TopOfTheTech ha ha, wow so if you were flying the Concorde you would have saved the day then?
richarddowling11 1 year ago
@TopOfTheTech Concorde didn't have any flaps. And like ml750 said, they reached V1 speed.
osjcag 1 year ago
@TopOfTheTech doesnt quite have wing mirrors mate
blocki666 1 year ago
Airport mistake
Kzshifter 1 year ago
its the failure of the aircrafts engineers.they should have made the tank more resistant to impact knowing the tires are underneath it.
TheSamjulian 1 year ago
@TheSamjulian You are right bad design..this had happened before the tyres bursting and rupturing the tanks
bmwnasher 1 year ago
Very detail animation...
krisachar 1 year ago
its a shame though concorde was great and was so fast
iluvmusic152 1 year ago
Even though it was on fire it still took off? -_-
Skinnyboomer 1 year ago
@bladedspokes I agree, but don't forget that a fiew minutes before the debris is not there, it's a plane that took off before and has dropped the debris, so I think the plane that takes off before a share of responsability.
fouini94 1 year ago
They had to stop the take off
sigma6PinFloyd 1 year ago
damn, I've lost my girlfriend in this accident, I'm Thursty for justice
peperboy1000 1 year ago
:0 esta jenial :D
BlackFalcon120 1 year ago
it wasnt the O-ring Alone That Destroyed Challenger There Were 2 Key Elements Strong Jetstream Above And Cold The O-RIng was fine but due to the cold the o-ring failed it wasnt the o ring alone
scienceguy474 1 year ago
joaomario24 is definitely right
Salad107 1 year ago
a freakin dc-10 stoped concorde from flying omfg
scream18ify 1 year ago
Continental to blame, not McDonnell Douglas. CAL LIES
nc34135 2 years ago
A little "O" ring at the wrong temp blew the Space Shuttle Challenger apart...sometimes we look for the biggest fissure to spell disaster, and it only takes a crack, under the right pressure and circumstance to fell the strongest
Much like humans
BeccaGSD 2 years ago
So basically, it was Continental Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-10' fault for not keeping in check for any loose metal bit, and the ground crew's fault for not keeping a clear runway. everyones happy?
JoaoMario24 2 years ago
What happened to the footage taken from a plane waiting at right angle to join the runway behind the fatal Concorde that clearly showed the inboard port engine with flames pouring out of it before Concorde started its take off run ?.
381113DR 2 years ago
Continental cannot be held responsible for that crash. A 17inch bit of metal and the bloody plane explodes? Forget about it, also the airport authority, or even the flight operator should take indiviidual responsibility before each take off to ensure the runway is clean. What is an extra 10 minutes for a flight, ghastly things are always delayed, it's not as if the passengers are catching a train or a bus whereby every minutes is crucial. Let's get the airport, Air France, in the dock!
bendchod 2 years ago
A 17 inch (43cm) strip of titanium. Think steel knife, very strong, but a lot lighter. Think of driving your car at 200mph and a 17 inch knife hitting your tyre! Aircraft tyres are strong & will withstand a most punctures without causing a crash, but the tyre was litterally split through thanks to the length of the metal so the tyre came off the rim hitting the fuel tank with the force of a bullet at around 200mph.
The Continental mechanic was negligent for not fitting the strip properly.
wz4321 2 years ago
Comment removed
wz4321 2 years ago
@bendchod Are you a aeronautical legal expert ? If not make sure to add the following to your story: "This is my opinion. There are no legal grounds for my comment, nor do I have knowledge about procedures, regulations and protocols concerning airport/runway operations"
BasilHoneycup 2 years ago
@bendchod its the americans fault they case all problems in the world.
azarimanka 2 years ago
so true
adamkicksass08 1 year ago
@bendchod , Actually I agree with you, but considering how the greedy airlines operate and the crowded flight patterns and schedule - they would never allow such a policy to pass. To them, whatever cost arises from lawsuits for accidentally killing a few hundred people is worth it, compared to the amount of profits they'd lose if they had to spend extra time to ensure runways were clean before each landing or take off, or maintain their planes the way they should.
BlogShag 2 years ago
They should clean up the air landing ways. So they can clean the road!!
johnbarkvedleirvik 2 years ago
all from one tiny piece of metal.
dwaine111 2 years ago
dangerous place for a fuel tank
zainnnzy 2 years ago 4
No, it's fine. This was a freak and unique sequence of incidents.
Concorde is no more dangerous than any other aircraft.
qwertdr 2 years ago
@qwertdr , I don't agree. Why put the fuel tank in the wing. That means the whole wing was full of fuel?? When you're dealing with such machinery as aircraft, you don't have room for excuses in the way that you phrased it --> freak incident.
It's actually Continental Airlines fault, and they should be sued.
BlogShag 2 years ago
Every passenger plane has most of the fuel tanks in the wings. It is where it should be
joachim2464 2 years ago
there are some things on plane that cludnt be safer even because its degeurs (sry 4 eng)
patko1610 2 years ago
Runway`s be be made trip length for safety reasons.
New Law.
Plus build planes better with bollet proof tanks and hydrolics with double backups
Dorisequador 2 years ago 8
maybe even durasteel...
Adameastslapdawg 2 years ago
and i thought, finally getting over the fear, iloved flyingand now,it scares the shit out of me, as soon as those engines start, i am fucking want to get offffffffffffffff.and then , he goes down the runway ,gradually, love that, annd then they scream in your ear,and wow, you take off,,,,which is actuallythe scariest part to be continued
maidmoira 2 years ago
because at a certain speed you cannot brake anymore also when an engine had failed you must take off because the runway is too short to brake ( ~130 knots)
Knudelino 2 years ago 5
once u take off in a plane u can't land it cause your sppeds probly 200somethin mph and at that speed u can't slow down sumthin that big
brothers0fwar 2 years ago
Why would they continue the takeoff when part of the plane was burning? Sure, the people INSIDE the plane can't see it, but there would be some kind of control tower to tell them about the flame.
Ownage2themax3 2 years ago
I think that after a certain speed there's no option because there is not enough runway to stop. You have to take off, try to take a quick turn and then land.
DoRullings 2 years ago 4
They had reached V1, meaning they are at the speed where they have committed to take off. If they hadn't, it would have slid off the end of the runway and pretty much guarantee total destruction. Taking off, there was a chance they could turn around and land. They did not know the exact situation at the time, so it seemed their best chance.
qwertdr 2 years ago 4
was that really what happened?
Mxdude737 2 years ago
yes it was a freak accident
Lambodoors101 2 years ago
Not a freak accident. It was failure of the airport ground crew to maintain a safe runway. The ground crew is solely responsible for keeping the runway clear of debris. The ground crew is responsible for this crash.
bladedspokes 2 years ago 28
then y did they shut down the concords? they could easily go back into service
ReaLSiniisteR 2 years ago 26
coz americans said they werent ecomomical even tho america spends millions of $ on weapon that they never use and them melt them down into rake so iraq people can use them but then they make tem back into weapons and they also said they are t dangerous becase like 2 crashed xD basical because america are jellous ;)
BKsMassive 2 years ago
You are wrong. Look it up the betrayal of concorde in google for the best and most comprehensive documentation of the events.
Concorde is perfectly safe, and crashed once not twice. If it were unsafe, they wouldn't have given 6 months notice of it's retirement.
qwertdr 2 years ago
The piece of metal became from a Continental Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-10
Skybolter 2 years ago
cost alot to run airbus decided to go with a380 instead which earnes alot more money and costs less
streetlegals123 2 years ago 2
I think they should go back into service, but Airbus, who did all the maintainance and provided spare parts refused to do so after 2003, saying it would be too expensive to continue. Its such a shame.
dozytubaplayer 2 years ago
No they couldn't.
All have been decommissioned. No staff, no parts, no tooling, no infrastructure, no money.
Hard job, can be done, but would take a hell of a lot just to get one.
qwertdr 2 years ago
@ReaLSiniisteR , the real reason it was shut down is because British Airways was losing massive amounts of money on this plane, even before the crash. They rarely, if ever, flew at full capacity. Each seat cost $10,000 or more.
BlogShag 2 years ago
@ReaLSiniisteR :they shut concorde down because it was wasting too much money to run and it was kind of bad for the enviroment
edwardKindOfGirl 1 year ago
@ReaLSiniisteR they cost a fortune to run and were only a novelty and could only hold a very small number of people. they were planning to dismiss the concorde before the crash and then when the crash happened, they decided right then that they had to stop it.
TheSoggySausage 1 year ago
@TheSoggySausage If they were planning to stop why did they spend a fortune getting the planes back in the air. Ultimately it was airbus who stopped concorde because they didn't want to maintain it anymore.
roasthunter 1 year ago
@ReaLSiniisteR It's not efficient. Everything about this plane is costly. Maintenance was expensive. You can only imagine the cost of keeping the engines working properly. Plus, too fly on it was an easy way to kill your wallet. $10,000 one way? It just wasn't efficient. Maybe one day commercial supersonic travel will be feasible, but for the concord? No.
graysonator123 1 year ago
@ReaLSiniisteR Concorde Was Shut Down because of prices all this new saftey gear they were putting in was getting too expensive
scienceguy474 1 year ago
@ReaLSiniisteR It still was a dangerous airplane. They retired it once before this crash happened if I am not wrong also because of other technical problems.
Plus, with rising fuel costs, airilines understood that they weren't going to make $ with it....
marchesedesade89 1 year ago