Some of these comments would be good to put on an application to the Special Olympics... Listen, I totally feel that Concorde was one of the most inspiring and easily the most beautiful machine I've had the pleasure of beholding in my lifetime - but the fact is that both it's service and supersonic transport in general just never panned out they way the industry envisioned in the 60s. Neither this incident nor the DC-10 grounded them; they sadly just didn't make their carriers money anymore.
What makes me sick about this is that there was no one beforehand thinking "What could go wrong?" "How can we fix that, so it never happens?" People have to be burned to death before anybody wants to spend a penny to save their lives.
it makes me sad that these great machines that outpeformed all others in all areas are sitting in museums round the world.and take the 747 1 of the most popular planes of all time witch has had many crashes but people are still happy to fly in them but concord has 1 crash and thats it no more concord
@smurph1110 Its safety record was tarnished afterwards and that aircraft wouldn't make money unless it was full of people. With that accident, less and less people wanted pay high dollar to fly on this plane, so they were just rolled off.
@smurph1110 "and take the 747 1 of the most popular planes of all time witch has had many crashes but people are still happy to fly in them but concord has 1 crash and thats it no more concord" You've just reiterated the crucial point as to why Concorde is no more. The 747, even with it's incidents, satisfies the industry's need to put more asses in seats with less fuel per pax. There was a "fork in the road" in terms of design, and the industry chose bigger subsonic aircraft. End of story.
I worked on jets for 27 yrs and have replaced that metal strip on the 767-200 many times. I would check the area and this strip of metal was missing many times. During overhauls these strips were always changed. It is never 1 thing that causes a crash but a series of things. It's not the DC-10 that is to blame. These thing are very complicated machines and things go wrong and things fail. Machines fail. It's part of life.
The Concorde was a brilliant plane and I don't understand why it was blamed for the crash when it was actually a crappy DC10 which caused it, so thanks McDonnell douglas for grounding one of the best aircraft ever made
@DTl315 It just wasn't profitable enough anymore, they couldn't afford to keep flying and maintaining the Concorde. And it wasn't caused because of the "crappy DC-10," I know that it has a bad history, the DC-10, but it was the maintenance. The strip was never supposed to be installed, so technically it wasn't actually caused by the DC-10.
The Concorde came too early for it's time and technology, but even after she was grounded for almost 9 years the plane keeps a stunning beauty. No other plane beats the looks and the speed of this truly magnificent flying machine.
@dodgethehell I a not an engineer but I can say that they did NOT say that a piece of rubber pierced the whole thing. In fact that went out of it's way to say it did NOT pierce it. They said one piece of rubber that hit the wing, the shockwave then caused something else to break which then caused the puncture and the fuel to leak out, another rubber severed cables which caused sparked, which then ignited the fuel.
they said the thing that lit the fire was the sparks from the landing gear wires. tho the gear was not triggerd until in the air but the fire was there before take off. any one understand what i say? or have an explnation?
Thumbs up if you saw the rise and fall of Concorde. What iv'e heard from this show is that a witness saw the engine on fire before it took off, before it even reached the run way. but i could be wrong
What I really don't understand is why they didn't keep one Concorde (or one for each airline) in service for commemorance flights on special occasions (I guess by scrapping the rest of the fleet they would have gained enough spare parts to keep one plane going for ages). I would do anything to get a chance to fly concorde once in my life, and future generations should have that pleasure too. I heard the Americans are modifying a TU-144 for future use - Concorde would have deserved the same.
i would love to see a more streamlined concord made to deal with these problems and yet be even faster than its older sister that had to be put out of service
r.i.p concord and those who died on it and around it when it crashed
i would love to see a more streamlined concord made to deal with these problems and yet be even faster than its older sister that had to be put out of service
r.i.p concord and those who died on it and around it when it crashed
im actually happy to find out that it wassnt any fault of the concord or flight crew that ended its run....it was the hide of dodgy technicians that made that metal strip that should have the deaths of all those people feld on them for the rest of theyre lives
On 6 December 2010, Continental Airlines was found criminally responsible for the disaster by a Parisian court and was fined €200,000 ($271,628) and ordered to pay Air France €1 million. Continental mechanic John Taylor was given a 15-month suspended sentence.
The pilot elected to take off with a 10 knot tail wind. Engineers left a spacer off the left UC. Whitnesses saw the AC on fire at the start of takeoff. The pilot was committed because the AC was dragging left towards a 747 holding on a taxiway. Photos illistrate the fire was to the right of the engines and UC and heat ingestion surged the engines not fire. The metal strip was malleable to any shape with no marks or residue from rubber and was well in advance of the rotation point. What BS.
McDonnald Douglas builds crap airplanes. Everyone of them is a death trap. Couldn't pay me enough to get on one of those. Pieces fall off, engines fall off, wings fall off...they are just poorly constructed junk. They should take that piece of shit out of europ and fly it in there own country
@MrMarlon226 What does that have to do with the Concorde crash? Even though it involved a DC-10, the loss of the strip of metal was not directly caused by the design of the plane. McDonnell Douglas may have a troubled history, but their planes are still very much liked by pilots.
First era of supersonic travel? More like that last. There will be no other supersonic transport. The difference between 4 hours and 8 hours over the Atlantic just isn't enough to die for.
McDonnald Douglas builds crap airplanes. Everyone of them is a death trap. Couldn't pay me enough to get on one of those. Pieces fall off, engines fall off, wings fall off...they are just poorly constructed junk.
I guess I don't understand why the Concorde was scraped after just 1 fatal accident in 24 years of service. That's a safety record that's still standing. How many accidents have DC10's or the Airbus had, or any other make and model of plane. If every type of plane was scrapped when they'd had 1 fatal accident, the skies wouldn't have a single plane in them now.
@Marty933 They didn't stop it because of this accident. They stopped it because it was just too expensive. The planes were old and sucked down fuel. They just kept losing money trying to keep them flying.
@ebonyloveivory Than why did it have to go down because of a flat tire? If there was nothing wrong, than why the flames!? Why, wasn't there a security plan if bough left engines quit? Why did the pilots had to reduce throttle on the working right engines? Could not fly with 100% without banking to the left why, why??? In a situation like this you need thrust as much as possible. But If the fire and half power wasn't enough, pilots had to reduce thrust, to prevent banking. Than it was all over.
@Modellpecs With all due respect, though I think that what you said made sense, it is a fact that the Concorde flew safely for 31 years prior to the 4590 crash. You may call it luck or whatever but hey, Concorde flew safely for those 3 decades. There are always a string of events that culminate in the incident. It is no secret that the tire punctured because of the fallen part. The Concorde's fuel tank was not built to withstand the high pressure because it isn't the function of the tank.
@Modellpecs Furthermore, I said by standards. Which meant that in comparison to the other aircraft types, it was in relatively good standing. No accidents for years nor major incidents that compromised the safety of passengers. Which is more than what one can say for the DC -10 series, for example. Parts don't just fall off planes. Don't you think it is much more disturbing that the plane that took off before the Concorde had parts simply disengaging from it?
@ebonyloveivory I think I see your point. But. There whore serious accidents with Concorde before. But no one seems know about. Like partial separation of the lower rudder. Same happened a few times with the upper rudder. Also hidraulic failure, Also the very same thing happened before, that made Concorde go down. There was a hole big like a head. Fuel and hydraulic leak was present, and the landing gears unretractable. Scary, ha? And it was not the only time when a tire damaged the plane!
@Modellpecs Yes, those seem to be very serious accidents indeed. However, there doesn't seem to be a major problem in the design. Faulty gears and hydraulic failures are just as common on other aircraft types, may be even more so on others. For example, the fact that the DC- 10 series garnered so much media coverage with regards to their design and safety goes to show that their problems were much more serious and took paramount over Concorde's relatively undisturbed history.
@ebonyloveivory I have to admit that DC-10 was a really unreliable plane. Like the cargo door accident, the falling off engine, etc... Of course, it can't be compared to Concorde. I also admit, that Concorde had a real good safety record if you look at the disasters it was involved in. But i also think, that in a way Concorde was also a pretty lucky plane. The same could have happened many times before, like the last accident. And yes! I love Concorde! It is a beautiful plane! Should still be..
@Modellpecs Exactly the point I was trying to make. Concorde could be said to be lucky; pity the upkeep was far too costly for them to sustain. It is a profit making industry after all.
@LiLxBarrett Your CapsLock is on. ;) Also to answer your "reasoning"; No it is not. It was a technical problem on Concorde. DC-10 still have nothing to do with this. A flat tire should never ever kill a plane! Like if it was not Concordes fault, than why did they upgrade the fuel tanks after the crash?
@Modellpecs It was NOT a technical problem on Concorde....are you watching the video? The metal strip came from a Continental DC-10. That metal strip was poorly made by Continental engineers. In fact, a court ruled last year that Continental was responsible for the crash. Concorde's safety record was PERFECT before this crash. The fuel tanks were re-designed to stop something like this from happening again...NOT because there was a design flaw in the tanks. Check the accident report.
@dave46563 I see your point. But. A flat tire? Something is wrong here. You have to admit. Also there was a lot of problem with Concorde. The same thing happened before. Made a hole on the wing big like a head. It was luck only. Nothing else. There was also hydraulic error, and others like the rudder lower control surface separation in flight, etc, etc.... If you ask me, Concorde was lucky till.... Also I wrote before. Airplane parts on a runway is normal everyday thing. Tell me that i'am wrong.
@Modellpecs I understand what your saying. And your right that Concorde did have its fair share of problems. But I wouldnt put it down to luck. It was the skill of the flight crews and the fact that despite losing a rudder and other things, Concorde still kept flying. It just goes to show how well built Concorde was. Any aircraft can lose a control surface. Its down to the pilots to try and keep it under control. All airports have inspection teams to check for debris on a runway.
@Modellpecs The size of debris that Concorde encountered was not a normal everyday thing. Things can go onto a runway. I know someone who has found a pilots hat on a runway. Big pieces of metal are not a normal occurance. People are quick to blame the DC-10 but I actually think its a good plane. The ones at fault are the Continental maintenance people who did a poor job of fixing their aircraft. If they had done their job properly then that metal strip wouldnt have come off.
@dave46563 True that DC-10 left that... But if Concorde had fuel tank protection, and landing gear wiring protection than... But pls... A tire goes wrong.... So what? Should not kill the plane. What you are saying is right that this metal junk caused the crash. True. But i say it should not have. I hope you see my point now. I'am quite sure that the mechanics and the crews did well on Concorde. It was not their fault at all. Engineers should have taken care of this when it first happened.
@Modellpecs Exactly, I agree. Accidents don't happen for a single reason, everyone needs to realize that it wasn't just maintenance on a DC-10...it wasn't simply America's fault that Concorde crashed. And I know that someday, Concorde's legacy will open into a new SST era. R.I.P.
@Modellpecs My dad knows someone who used to work in British Airways Maintenance at Heathrow where the Concordes were kept. Trust me, the 7 Concorde's in BA's fleet were looked after like they were new born babies. They were treated better than some children are around the world.
It's so sad that Concorde practically died in public because of this crash, yet if it had been any other plane people would have said "shit happens" and continued to fly with it.
Wow, How could the engineers & designers of the Concord have designed this plane with exposed control wires in the landing wheel bay? & a flimsy "skin" between the wing & the Tanks, when they knew all along It Blew tires out on take offs & landings?...It's a miracle it had a 25 year safety record! This Thing was a "flying Bomb" from the word "GO!" Took them 25 years & a tragedy to Realize & correct the planes Flaws ....a tad bit too late! What a shame!
There cold be lots of things on all runways that should not be there. We could say that is is quite normal. I think Concords designers should have solved this way before, as it was a known problem. It is not the right thing to blame the DC-10. Not et all.... Accidents happen, they say, but this time, it really should not have.... :( It could have bean solved way before this.... Toes people should still be alive... :( :( :(
@Modellpecs Yes, I agree. Despite the DC-10's checkered history, it's terrible to thrust all the blame at one other aircraft...especially if it's just used as another excuse to look down on the country of America.
@rockymountainrandom All these comments acting like the DC-10 was the sole reason for "grounding the entire fleet" are hilariously asinine. I guess it is much more satisfying to have a revenge scapegoat than to admit that Concorde was grounded by spreadsheets, not sharp debris. I do sorely lament the fact that there isn't one flying now, though I certainly couldn't afford it's operating costs. It was always a "prestige" aircraft for the companies involved, hardly ever a money maker.
Am i the only one who thinks the pilot made the wrong call, he need 3000 feet to stop, he only had 2000, shit man, I'd have slammed on the breaks and chanced the other 1000 feet through trees n bushes, instead he made the call to put the plane in the air making it more vulnerable, not decreasing speed and ultimately had no choice in the matter and the plane crashed causing it and a hotel to turn to dust.
@scotty2707 it will be much worse if it goes on with your theory, because the fuel tank is ripped off, the fire is so big and the wing are disintegrated... you can cause chaos in the airport because of the leaking fuel and fire, and as soon as you overrun the runway you'll pretty much explode anyway... so to take off, fight our way to the nearest runway is the best option among the worst scenario... if the wing didn't disintegrate because of fire, maybe they'll actually make it...
I Agree that this was one of the most terrible of all air crash episodes. The moments before the crash must have been a living hell since the cabin was filled with smoke and people choking and suffocating and waiting for the inevitable. The Alaskan airlines disaster is still (in my opinion) the most terrible crash in the series. The length of their ordeal and people flipping around in the cabin was awful but the Concorde crash is right beside it because of it's hellish burning conditions.
So in many ways this is the saddest chapter in aviation. Something as stupid as a blown tire caused the horrible deaths of 113 people - and without even damaging the structure of the airplane! It pretended to be a queen of the skies, but in the end was just another cheap Pinto. The greatest irony - the first hydrogen-filled balloon crashed landed in Gonesse and was promptly attacked by the local farmers with pitchforks. A lot of history in a few acres.
@antimatterXXXIII I still go with Alaska Airlines Flight 261 as the saddest chapter. Alaska Airlines let people cut Corners and killed 88 people. It was also the most horrifing way to die. Though this does rank right up there with it.
@Epica124 Yeah that was bad, particularly since the ultimate loss of control was precipitated by aggressive troubleshooting by the crew. Had they just left the stabilizer alone and huffed in down with trim and muscle, they might have made it.
@antimatterXXXIII Problem there is they did not even know it was the stablizier and they were gonig by the book. Remember hindsight is 50/50. That one still lies total at the feet of Alaska Airlines. They should never have been put into a problem like that. That and it was any MD 80 yeah McDonnell Douglas was a really bad at making there planes.
Once the tank ruptured and caught fire, the passengers were dead. In hindsight their deaths this way may have been preferable to those they might have suffered had an aborted departure been attempted - the great amount of fuel gushing from the tank would have made survival impossible even had the jet been brought to a halt intact in the grass beyond the runway. The saddest thing is the people who died on the ground - because there were acres of open fields all around the hotel.
You do know that several pilots who were in waiting position for their own take off report flames coming from the engines long before concorde hit that metal pice, don't you? Search for it on the internet.
I was still wondering how this DC10's piece of metal could do such damage,
so if i understood well: if the tyre just blow up the piece of the tyre thrown away are too small to damage anything.
But because of thie piece of metal (that apperaed to be sharp) the piece of tyre were much bigger and much heavier and manage to cause the deadly shock wave...
The DC-10 was the most unreliable plane in that time. But they say that they fixed the problems that it had. But the DC-10 will never earn the respect as a good plane. It basically destroyed the Concord fleet by being a crapy airplane that has pieces that are not installed correctly and fall off!
@Burnoutwreck651 Well yeah I mean McDonnell Douglas rushed it. They wanted to be first with the bigger airlines ahead of Boeings 747 and Lockheeds L-1011. I miss the L-1011 and McDonnel Douglas was bought out by Boeing so we don't have to worry about the DC-10 being a crayp airplane.
@Burnoutwreck651 But Concorde wasn't protected enough against this kind of incident. A tire burst shouldn't product a leak in the fuel tank. Lessons of the first serious incident in Washington - same scenario ! - were not enough taken in account.
@nelietuoderswank.....sure you may not be able to fly it over the ocean, but it can be controlled in a stable descent, and landed with relative ease. There is more mass over a delta wing per weight ratio than say a 747. Both cannot FLY on 2 engines, but they can be controlled and landed safely.
Talking about risks, If there for every dead person in an accident, 1 person in 8 will die from air planes, while the rest is a car accident. However, most of the car accident is actually from drunk driving. Hardly safe as most people think. The risk is also accumulative, if you keep up with mileage, risk adds up too.
A few items left out of this documentary. First of all the plane was over loaded. It's briefly mentioned, but that's it. Second, the missing wheel spacer drifted the plane during takeoff. Lastly, the winds had changed before the flight took off. The pilot should have taken off from the other direction. I find it interesting that NONE of this was mentioned in this documentary. Take your pick. If ONE of those factors is changed, that plane lands safely in New York.
@iluvclubs The aircraft wouldn't have made it if even all those factors were removed. Concorde can only travel with two engines if they are on both sides, otherwise you go into yaw and roll instability and have to work the rudder and elevons to counter it, creating too much drag to keep it above stall speed. Not to mention the pitch instabilities of a delta winged aircraft, where it cant keep the nose level at those speeds.
Sure. Even without the changes. For me it is a matter of statistics. 1 accident in a million of hours of flight is OK. If somebody tells me that there's a 0.0002% chance that I will die during a two hours flight it it very good.
I ride bicycle every day in traffic. If my risk of death on such a ride is once in 100 years riding every day (which is _very_ optimistic here) it would be 0.003% pr. such trip. i.e. much larger.
I thought that they were grounded because of cracks in the fuselage caused by the rapid acceleration not because of one crash and a whole industry falling because of it.
>>>>I really don't get it. One accident, (not even caused by a concorde flaw) kills the entire concorde industry?<<<<
Concorde was a marvel, no doubt.
It was also a political project that took money from the masses and handed it to the rich so they could travel in style. always tax payer funded. Concorde was never going to continue, this crash just hastened the end.
Why not just cut throttle and stop as fast as possible? Surely better than taking off. Would have run off runway, but who knows how slow it could have gotten down to. Still better than taking off and falling from the sky, no one survives those crashes ever.
after V1 speed the aircraft no longer has enough runway to stop and therefore it MUST take off. or run the risk of running off the runway and crashing into water / buildings / what ever else at the end of the runway. The pilot was simply following procedures.
good question but there is good reasoning as to why it took off.
@cyclobs2 it was only going at about 350 km/h just before take-off, not nearly Mach 1. So there might have been the chance to stop it although the plane would've crashed either way.
@cyclobs2 it was only going at about 350 km/h just before take-off, not nearly Mach 1. So there might have been the chance to stop it although the plane would've crashed either way.
I remember that day. I was 19. I was listening "France Info" when they were interrupting all current news announcing the crash of the Concord. It was terrifying and unbelievable. Air France is one of the safest Airline compagny in the world. Yesterday I went to Charles de Gaulle airport to see a friend, she's flight intendant working for Air France. I passed just near Gonesse (the city he crashed), and i saw the Concord exposed near the airport. This airplane is still amazing even on the ground
@dadirtysoufbowss well why is their secrecy without any names and/or passenger list made available. And/or a website dedicated to the victims? Similar to the 9/11 memorials where one can express their condolences to the victims families? Seems odd to me? The families all received a million bucks each. Were the victims just dollars and cents in their eyes? Every tragedy this world has experienced dude usually has names associated with the tragedy. The Concorde was a popular airline at that time.
I don't fucking get it. If DC9 and DC10 are still flying out there carrying passengers, why did they ground Concorde? I still prefer Concorde over the Death Chambers (DC 9 and 10). At least, I will enjoy high speed before death!
@kozeel Death Chambers are flying because they are cheaper to maintain and use less fuel. Airline companies want profit even if it means forcing people to fly DC-10.
Actually, over time the DC-10's safety record actually exceeded that of the Boeing 747. The disaster and near disaster involving the cargo door locking mechanism were fixed due to an Airworthiness Directive issued after the Turkish Airlines crash in France. Pity it wasn't issued after the Windsor, Ontario incident. After all of this, the DC-10 was one of the safest planes in the air. I flew on them a number of times, no problems.
@BoyScout1960 Actually,DC-10 had two crashes btw plane taking off XD anyways DC-10 had two crashes of the cargo door not locking but the first time Mcdonnell They did not fix it because the DC-10 landed safely at the same airport and injured some people but the second time it actually crashed and killed everybody on the flight.Than they finally fixed it it leading to no more of those type of crashes.Like God was telling them to fix the door the second time or something bad will happed. THERE!!!
Can anyone here explain to me why there was never any names or a passenger list made public in this disaster? You'd figure at least one of the victims families members would have started a website dedicated to the deceased with names and photos so people could give their condolences at least! Considering they were all well compensated from the disaster were they all just dollars and cents in their families eyes? Pathetic! Every disaster out there has a website but not Concorde Air France 4590
@TheGeorgecostanza why the fuck does that matter at all? its their fuckin lost relatives they'll do what they want and i dont see how u can take issue with this.
seriously? are you idiot concorde people just gonna shut down concorde into a museum!?!?!? y cant they just use the planes till they crash or emergency land!!!
what the fuck? I do not understand how people really work. why do we always punish the wrong entities when a crime or accident of any sort occurs? shouldn't the maintenance people of Continental Airlines be blamed for their faulty repair work that caused that shity piece of DC-10 shit piece of metal to fallon the run way? after all, it was not really the concorde's design that killed evryone on board but it was that that debris that did.
@XLnotsofunny And what about the Airport Authority at Charles De Gaulle,who's job it was/is to make sure there is no debris on the runway!!If you look at it there are numerous parties that ARE ahead of Concorde in the whole 'blame' debate...but sadly all of that is a waste of time asa all the planes have been broken up into scrap metal...an inglorious end to a mighty legend!!
9-11-2001 killed Concorde, not the AirFrance crash. So many of her regular business passengers where killed in the WTC attack that neither BA or AF could justify continued service. Concorde never made money for either airline anyway! After 9-11 the losses became too great to sustain.
@longlakeshore Coincidentally, the Concorde completed its first Airworthiness test flight after the accident of Air France right before 9/11. There was much excitement over the Concorde's return until 9/11. It couldn't have come back at a worse time.
@theawanonymouscaller I know. Ironic, isn't it? That Concorde was back in the air on a demonstration flight on 9-11-2001 when the WTC was destroyed? Among the dead were the business customers who had kept Concorde flying.
@OhThatGuy9 Air France is one of the safest airlines in the world, do your research... I've been flying with them for 20 years and never had ANY problem whatsoever. Some middle-east companies are way more risky because they do not have as many flights a day as Air France. Imagine how many of their planes take off everyday in the world...now add two deadly crashes in the last 10 years (Concorde and Rio, if I am not mistaken), and do the math !
I find the closing of the concorde industry completly stupid. I mean, stuff like that happens to airplanes all the time but they're still in buisness. It's like this: a 20 year old kills someone. Then a 10 year old kills someone, but the consequences are not even close. And the 20 year old didn't even kill the person. It was a faulty plug or something. But I miss those beautiful concordes. Such a shame...
I think it was shut down because there was no way to save the plane if anything went wrong with the engines, wings, or fuel cell. I mean the wings literally melted, im not saying they shouldve been shut down or anything that bad, but the plane must have had durability issues with every single thing that failed.
so sad, i hate the fact that i never had the chance to fly in concorde, i also think that is is quite stupid to ground the entire fleet, just because of one accident. also it wasn't any manufacturer defect nor human mistake. very sad
they stopped the concorde becaus less people wanted to fly with concorde and because high maintanence costs they stopped the concorde program in 2003 3 years after accident search on wikipedia
its just like losing a great president of your country......you know he deserves it but you just can't do anything......it surely was the presidents of planes!!!!!!!!!!!
The person talking mentioned that the concorde was too expensive to maintain and passengers declined after the crash... I guess this accident and the expenses caused the concorde to retire. With the technology we have now, supersonic travel should be cheaper and safer. Aircraft companies should start again on this project.
@charger498 Thanks to Al Gore's Global Warming movement, airplane manufacturers now only focus on fuel efficiency and less emissions. Even with Global Warming, people still liked the Concorde, but new planes are only fuel efficient. Add turbojets and fuel efficiency together and you might have the first eco-friendly supersonic jet, or an extremely fast AND long range supersonic jet, that's what they should be researching.
i hope they bring them back but who knows perhaps we will have sublight by then, and wont be in need of sonic travel:p wed be in another part of the world in a hour,
Why do they blame Concorde? It is clearly Continental Airlines fault. Or maybe Americans wanted Boeing to be number one in the world, and they staged the accident? Anyways Airbus is now taking over the industry, so bye bye Boeing.
It's incredibly sad that an awesome, awesome, awesome plane was grounded by a single part failure that wasn't even related to the plane. I wish they could bring it back again, it was just so cool. I got to see it land at Boeing Field for the final time in 2003.
@dannykahun I think they should make a new Concorde. They should incorporate the designer's "Concorde B model" modifications and state of the art technology and make the best supersonic jet the world has ever seen.
It was probably cost as well, not just maintanence, but the fact that you had to practically be a millionaire just to fly on the thing, and after the crash they raised ticket prices, instead of lowering them, which would of made more sense.
Well, when all the airline corporations started to think about fuel economy issues seriously, concordes already had no reason to stay in their fleets......... Farewell, English pride in the sky.............
When I saw the scene of British Airways's concorde flying with Red Arrows, I just wanted to cry. Nobody could easily forget the glorious history of this elegant machinery but now we only have chance to travel at a much much much lower speed. Personally I was dreaming to experience its supersonic flight, scream out for reaching 1 Mach, just touch and feel the slightly warmed window glass...... Now everything is over.
Some of these comments would be good to put on an application to the Special Olympics... Listen, I totally feel that Concorde was one of the most inspiring and easily the most beautiful machine I've had the pleasure of beholding in my lifetime - but the fact is that both it's service and supersonic transport in general just never panned out they way the industry envisioned in the 60s. Neither this incident nor the DC-10 grounded them; they sadly just didn't make their carriers money anymore.
anomalousclouds 2 weeks ago
What makes me sick about this is that there was no one beforehand thinking "What could go wrong?" "How can we fix that, so it never happens?" People have to be burned to death before anybody wants to spend a penny to save their lives.
sunnchilde 3 weeks ago
it makes me sad that these great machines that outpeformed all others in all areas are sitting in museums round the world.and take the 747 1 of the most popular planes of all time witch has had many crashes but people are still happy to fly in them but concord has 1 crash and thats it no more concord
smurph1110 1 month ago
@smurph1110 Its safety record was tarnished afterwards and that aircraft wouldn't make money unless it was full of people. With that accident, less and less people wanted pay high dollar to fly on this plane, so they were just rolled off.
EddieLivesOnLincoln 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smurph1110 "and take the 747 1 of the most popular planes of all time witch has had many crashes but people are still happy to fly in them but concord has 1 crash and thats it no more concord" You've just reiterated the crucial point as to why Concorde is no more. The 747, even with it's incidents, satisfies the industry's need to put more asses in seats with less fuel per pax. There was a "fork in the road" in terms of design, and the industry chose bigger subsonic aircraft. End of story.
anomalousclouds 2 weeks ago
I worked on jets for 27 yrs and have replaced that metal strip on the 767-200 many times. I would check the area and this strip of metal was missing many times. During overhauls these strips were always changed. It is never 1 thing that causes a crash but a series of things. It's not the DC-10 that is to blame. These thing are very complicated machines and things go wrong and things fail. Machines fail. It's part of life.
canadianidiot1958 1 month ago
The Concorde was a brilliant plane and I don't understand why it was blamed for the crash when it was actually a crappy DC10 which caused it, so thanks McDonnell douglas for grounding one of the best aircraft ever made
DTl315 2 months ago
@DTl315 It just wasn't profitable enough anymore, they couldn't afford to keep flying and maintaining the Concorde. And it wasn't caused because of the "crappy DC-10," I know that it has a bad history, the DC-10, but it was the maintenance. The strip was never supposed to be installed, so technically it wasn't actually caused by the DC-10.
rockymountainrandom 1 month ago
The Concorde came too early for it's time and technology, but even after she was grounded for almost 9 years the plane keeps a stunning beauty. No other plane beats the looks and the speed of this truly magnificent flying machine.
GledeGaming 2 months ago
I am a mechanical engineer and I don't buy it that a piece of rubber caused a shock waver that pierced a hole in the wing? what bullshit explanation
dodgethehell 2 months ago
@dodgethehell I a not an engineer but I can say that they did NOT say that a piece of rubber pierced the whole thing. In fact that went out of it's way to say it did NOT pierce it. They said one piece of rubber that hit the wing, the shockwave then caused something else to break which then caused the puncture and the fuel to leak out, another rubber severed cables which caused sparked, which then ignited the fuel.
melodramatic7904 1 month ago
Thats a shame,continental is to blame! Because of them A-holes we don't have the concord anymore!
Crayjoey 2 months ago
Because of the fucking assholes who couldnt tighen the screws on the DC-10 115 people die.
policeboy0 2 months ago
@policeboy0 113.
rockymountainrandom 1 month ago
they said the thing that lit the fire was the sparks from the landing gear wires. tho the gear was not triggerd until in the air but the fire was there before take off. any one understand what i say? or have an explnation?
bigbadazza230 2 months ago in playlist Air Crash Investigation-2
why they put that kind of music.....looks like its a james bond movie....pathetic....:(
irkhan0160 2 months ago
Thumbs up if you saw the rise and fall of Concorde. What iv'e heard from this show is that a witness saw the engine on fire before it took off, before it even reached the run way. but i could be wrong
THESPARTAN4PROJECT 3 months ago 2
Good riddens
TheZongta 3 months ago
WTF , Its a DC-10 fault and they blam ethe concorde WTF ?????
971YOURMOM 3 months ago
What I really don't understand is why they didn't keep one Concorde (or one for each airline) in service for commemorance flights on special occasions (I guess by scrapping the rest of the fleet they would have gained enough spare parts to keep one plane going for ages). I would do anything to get a chance to fly concorde once in my life, and future generations should have that pleasure too. I heard the Americans are modifying a TU-144 for future use - Concorde would have deserved the same.
ThaIllestBro 3 months ago
ah concorde.. i still remember the super sonic boom above my city as concorde flew over.... and remember seeing one fly low in an air show....
what shame it had to come to an end :(
luvbodyboard 3 months ago
Comment removed
manjulajp 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i would love to see a more streamlined concord made to deal with these problems and yet be even faster than its older sister that had to be put out of service
r.i.p concord and those who died on it and around it when it crashed
ir8fkr 5 months ago
i would love to see a more streamlined concord made to deal with these problems and yet be even faster than its older sister that had to be put out of service
r.i.p concord and those who died on it and around it when it crashed
ir8fkr 5 months ago
@ir8fkr r.i.p concorde? u dumb fuck hu cares about the concorde go sleep.
yesimriaz17 3 months ago
im actually happy to find out that it wassnt any fault of the concord or flight crew that ended its run....it was the hide of dodgy technicians that made that metal strip that should have the deaths of all those people feld on them for the rest of theyre lives
ir8fkr 5 months ago
@ir8fkr It was a fault in Concorde design. A flat tire should never....
Modellpecs 4 months ago
I feel very sad when I think about captain Matry's fight - he was actually not left out with any option to fight with :(
sumittechkgp 5 months ago
sad to realise that it wasnt concorde's fault...
dimlivestrong 6 months ago
I feel so desperately sad for all the 113 people who died. So close to safety as well with the other runway being just 3 km away. RIP all of you.
SheffieldSteel1000 6 months ago
On 6 December 2010, Continental Airlines was found criminally responsible for the disaster by a Parisian court and was fined €200,000 ($271,628) and ordered to pay Air France €1 million. Continental mechanic John Taylor was given a 15-month suspended sentence.
TDEVOLI 6 months ago
The pilot elected to take off with a 10 knot tail wind. Engineers left a spacer off the left UC. Whitnesses saw the AC on fire at the start of takeoff. The pilot was committed because the AC was dragging left towards a 747 holding on a taxiway. Photos illistrate the fire was to the right of the engines and UC and heat ingestion surged the engines not fire. The metal strip was malleable to any shape with no marks or residue from rubber and was well in advance of the rotation point. What BS.
coffeecation 7 months ago
McDonnald Douglas builds crap airplanes. Everyone of them is a death trap. Couldn't pay me enough to get on one of those. Pieces fall off, engines fall off, wings fall off...they are just poorly constructed junk. They should take that piece of shit out of europ and fly it in there own country
MrMarlon226 7 months ago
@MrMarlon226 What does that have to do with the Concorde crash? Even though it involved a DC-10, the loss of the strip of metal was not directly caused by the design of the plane. McDonnell Douglas may have a troubled history, but their planes are still very much liked by pilots.
rockymountainrandom 1 month ago
First era of supersonic travel? More like that last. There will be no other supersonic transport. The difference between 4 hours and 8 hours over the Atlantic just isn't enough to die for.
oracle2world 7 months ago
*record
ebonyloveivory 7 months ago
McDonnald Douglas builds crap airplanes. Everyone of them is a death trap. Couldn't pay me enough to get on one of those. Pieces fall off, engines fall off, wings fall off...they are just poorly constructed junk.
edwardschlosser1 7 months ago
I guess I don't understand why the Concorde was scraped after just 1 fatal accident in 24 years of service. That's a safety record that's still standing. How many accidents have DC10's or the Airbus had, or any other make and model of plane. If every type of plane was scrapped when they'd had 1 fatal accident, the skies wouldn't have a single plane in them now.
Marty933 8 months ago
@Marty933 They didn't stop it because of this accident. They stopped it because it was just too expensive. The planes were old and sucked down fuel. They just kept losing money trying to keep them flying.
edwardschlosser1 7 months ago
@edwardschlosser1 thank you for clearing that up for me. It sure was a beautiful plane though.
Marty933 7 months ago
@Marty933 I fully agree :)) It was an excellent records by standards. There was nothing faulty in the design of the Concorde itself.
ebonyloveivory 7 months ago
@ebonyloveivory Than why did it have to go down because of a flat tire? If there was nothing wrong, than why the flames!? Why, wasn't there a security plan if bough left engines quit? Why did the pilots had to reduce throttle on the working right engines? Could not fly with 100% without banking to the left why, why??? In a situation like this you need thrust as much as possible. But If the fire and half power wasn't enough, pilots had to reduce thrust, to prevent banking. Than it was all over.
Modellpecs 7 months ago
@Modellpecs With all due respect, though I think that what you said made sense, it is a fact that the Concorde flew safely for 31 years prior to the 4590 crash. You may call it luck or whatever but hey, Concorde flew safely for those 3 decades. There are always a string of events that culminate in the incident. It is no secret that the tire punctured because of the fallen part. The Concorde's fuel tank was not built to withstand the high pressure because it isn't the function of the tank.
ebonyloveivory 7 months ago
@Modellpecs Furthermore, I said by standards. Which meant that in comparison to the other aircraft types, it was in relatively good standing. No accidents for years nor major incidents that compromised the safety of passengers. Which is more than what one can say for the DC -10 series, for example. Parts don't just fall off planes. Don't you think it is much more disturbing that the plane that took off before the Concorde had parts simply disengaging from it?
ebonyloveivory 7 months ago
@ebonyloveivory I think I see your point. But. There whore serious accidents with Concorde before. But no one seems know about. Like partial separation of the lower rudder. Same happened a few times with the upper rudder. Also hidraulic failure, Also the very same thing happened before, that made Concorde go down. There was a hole big like a head. Fuel and hydraulic leak was present, and the landing gears unretractable. Scary, ha? And it was not the only time when a tire damaged the plane!
Modellpecs 7 months ago
@Modellpecs Yes, those seem to be very serious accidents indeed. However, there doesn't seem to be a major problem in the design. Faulty gears and hydraulic failures are just as common on other aircraft types, may be even more so on others. For example, the fact that the DC- 10 series garnered so much media coverage with regards to their design and safety goes to show that their problems were much more serious and took paramount over Concorde's relatively undisturbed history.
ebonyloveivory 7 months ago
@ebonyloveivory I have to admit that DC-10 was a really unreliable plane. Like the cargo door accident, the falling off engine, etc... Of course, it can't be compared to Concorde. I also admit, that Concorde had a real good safety record if you look at the disasters it was involved in. But i also think, that in a way Concorde was also a pretty lucky plane. The same could have happened many times before, like the last accident. And yes! I love Concorde! It is a beautiful plane! Should still be..
Modellpecs 7 months ago
@Modellpecs Exactly the point I was trying to make. Concorde could be said to be lucky; pity the upkeep was far too costly for them to sustain. It is a profit making industry after all.
ebonyloveivory 7 months ago
@ebonyloveivory It should fly again somehow..... :) Hope it will!
Modellpecs 7 months ago
@Modellpecs Yes, I hope so too (: It is a pretty plane.
ebonyloveivory 7 months ago
2nd Generation ZEHST
tlai88 8 months ago
ITS THE DC10 FAULT SMART!! THE SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN AWAY CONCORD BECAUSE THE CONCORD DID NOT DO ANYTHING SO KISS YOUR ASS GOODBYE
LiLxBarrett 8 months ago
@LiLxBarrett Your CapsLock is on. ;) Also to answer your "reasoning"; No it is not. It was a technical problem on Concorde. DC-10 still have nothing to do with this. A flat tire should never ever kill a plane! Like if it was not Concordes fault, than why did they upgrade the fuel tanks after the crash?
Modellpecs 8 months ago
@Modellpecs It was NOT a technical problem on Concorde....are you watching the video? The metal strip came from a Continental DC-10. That metal strip was poorly made by Continental engineers. In fact, a court ruled last year that Continental was responsible for the crash. Concorde's safety record was PERFECT before this crash. The fuel tanks were re-designed to stop something like this from happening again...NOT because there was a design flaw in the tanks. Check the accident report.
dave46563 8 months ago
@dave46563 I see your point. But. A flat tire? Something is wrong here. You have to admit. Also there was a lot of problem with Concorde. The same thing happened before. Made a hole on the wing big like a head. It was luck only. Nothing else. There was also hydraulic error, and others like the rudder lower control surface separation in flight, etc, etc.... If you ask me, Concorde was lucky till.... Also I wrote before. Airplane parts on a runway is normal everyday thing. Tell me that i'am wrong.
Modellpecs 8 months ago
@Modellpecs I understand what your saying. And your right that Concorde did have its fair share of problems. But I wouldnt put it down to luck. It was the skill of the flight crews and the fact that despite losing a rudder and other things, Concorde still kept flying. It just goes to show how well built Concorde was. Any aircraft can lose a control surface. Its down to the pilots to try and keep it under control. All airports have inspection teams to check for debris on a runway.
dave46563 8 months ago
@Modellpecs The size of debris that Concorde encountered was not a normal everyday thing. Things can go onto a runway. I know someone who has found a pilots hat on a runway. Big pieces of metal are not a normal occurance. People are quick to blame the DC-10 but I actually think its a good plane. The ones at fault are the Continental maintenance people who did a poor job of fixing their aircraft. If they had done their job properly then that metal strip wouldnt have come off.
dave46563 8 months ago
@dave46563 True that DC-10 left that... But if Concorde had fuel tank protection, and landing gear wiring protection than... But pls... A tire goes wrong.... So what? Should not kill the plane. What you are saying is right that this metal junk caused the crash. True. But i say it should not have. I hope you see my point now. I'am quite sure that the mechanics and the crews did well on Concorde. It was not their fault at all. Engineers should have taken care of this when it first happened.
Modellpecs 8 months ago 19
@Modellpecs yeahh!! nice..
ladiesmanns217 1 month ago
@Modellpecs Exactly, I agree. Accidents don't happen for a single reason, everyone needs to realize that it wasn't just maintenance on a DC-10...it wasn't simply America's fault that Concorde crashed. And I know that someday, Concorde's legacy will open into a new SST era. R.I.P.
rockymountainrandom 1 month ago
@Modellpecs My dad knows someone who used to work in British Airways Maintenance at Heathrow where the Concordes were kept. Trust me, the 7 Concorde's in BA's fleet were looked after like they were new born babies. They were treated better than some children are around the world.
dave46563 8 months ago
Rest In Peace all those who died
jithization 8 months ago
all falut of deaths are of the stupid maintaince workers
davvvvo 8 months ago
It's so sad that Concorde practically died in public because of this crash, yet if it had been any other plane people would have said "shit happens" and continued to fly with it.
cjrondo888 8 months ago
hm my heart brookeswhen i si this video again .
lenie
salia20 9 months ago
Stupid DC-10.
desmond1906 9 months ago
@desmond1906 DC-10 have nothing to do with this. Concord had no fuel tank protection. That was the real problem. Blaming the DC-10 is misleading.
Modellpecs 9 months ago
Wow, How could the engineers & designers of the Concord have designed this plane with exposed control wires in the landing wheel bay? & a flimsy "skin" between the wing & the Tanks, when they knew all along It Blew tires out on take offs & landings?...It's a miracle it had a 25 year safety record! This Thing was a "flying Bomb" from the word "GO!" Took them 25 years & a tragedy to Realize & correct the planes Flaws ....a tad bit too late! What a shame!
01Chitoman 9 months ago 2
There cold be lots of things on all runways that should not be there. We could say that is is quite normal. I think Concords designers should have solved this way before, as it was a known problem. It is not the right thing to blame the DC-10. Not et all.... Accidents happen, they say, but this time, it really should not have.... :( It could have bean solved way before this.... Toes people should still be alive... :( :( :(
Modellpecs 9 months ago
@Modellpecs Yes, I agree. Despite the DC-10's checkered history, it's terrible to thrust all the blame at one other aircraft...especially if it's just used as another excuse to look down on the country of America.
rockymountainrandom 1 month ago 4
@rockymountainrandom All these comments acting like the DC-10 was the sole reason for "grounding the entire fleet" are hilariously asinine. I guess it is much more satisfying to have a revenge scapegoat than to admit that Concorde was grounded by spreadsheets, not sharp debris. I do sorely lament the fact that there isn't one flying now, though I certainly couldn't afford it's operating costs. It was always a "prestige" aircraft for the companies involved, hardly ever a money maker.
anomalousclouds 2 weeks ago
Am i the only one who thinks the pilot made the wrong call, he need 3000 feet to stop, he only had 2000, shit man, I'd have slammed on the breaks and chanced the other 1000 feet through trees n bushes, instead he made the call to put the plane in the air making it more vulnerable, not decreasing speed and ultimately had no choice in the matter and the plane crashed causing it and a hotel to turn to dust.
scotty2707 10 months ago
@scotty2707 it will be much worse if it goes on with your theory, because the fuel tank is ripped off, the fire is so big and the wing are disintegrated... you can cause chaos in the airport because of the leaking fuel and fire, and as soon as you overrun the runway you'll pretty much explode anyway... so to take off, fight our way to the nearest runway is the best option among the worst scenario... if the wing didn't disintegrate because of fire, maybe they'll actually make it...
AzureAlkaid 9 months ago
I Agree that this was one of the most terrible of all air crash episodes. The moments before the crash must have been a living hell since the cabin was filled with smoke and people choking and suffocating and waiting for the inevitable. The Alaskan airlines disaster is still (in my opinion) the most terrible crash in the series. The length of their ordeal and people flipping around in the cabin was awful but the Concorde crash is right beside it because of it's hellish burning conditions.
MrTheGrabber 11 months ago
@MrTheGrabber Yeah, Alaskan Airlines was really bad. Same with Panic over the Pacific.
whoohaaXL 10 months ago
@huntercross14 No, it smelled like horror. R.I.P.
noppesnada1 11 months ago
Its amazing what a small strip of twisted metal can do.....
wx351 11 months ago
does the burning flesh smell like barbecue?
huntercross14 11 months ago
@huntercross14
I love the smell of napalm in the morning!
hearts76100 10 months ago
Fuck The DC-10 aka Killer of concorde
MadeInLat1 1 year ago 5
all cause of one stupid meatal strip the coolest airplane ever is banned forever :(
ayazd3 1 year ago 2
@ayazd3 No, it was just too expensive to operate. If it were only caused by a metal strip, Concorde might still be flying today.
rockymountainrandom 1 month ago
So in many ways this is the saddest chapter in aviation. Something as stupid as a blown tire caused the horrible deaths of 113 people - and without even damaging the structure of the airplane! It pretended to be a queen of the skies, but in the end was just another cheap Pinto. The greatest irony - the first hydrogen-filled balloon crashed landed in Gonesse and was promptly attacked by the local farmers with pitchforks. A lot of history in a few acres.
antimatterXXXIII 1 year ago
@antimatterXXXIII I still go with Alaska Airlines Flight 261 as the saddest chapter. Alaska Airlines let people cut Corners and killed 88 people. It was also the most horrifing way to die. Though this does rank right up there with it.
Epica124 1 year ago
@Epica124 Yeah that was bad, particularly since the ultimate loss of control was precipitated by aggressive troubleshooting by the crew. Had they just left the stabilizer alone and huffed in down with trim and muscle, they might have made it.
antimatterXXXIII 1 year ago
@antimatterXXXIII Problem there is they did not even know it was the stablizier and they were gonig by the book. Remember hindsight is 50/50. That one still lies total at the feet of Alaska Airlines. They should never have been put into a problem like that. That and it was any MD 80 yeah McDonnell Douglas was a really bad at making there planes.
Epica124 1 year ago
Once the tank ruptured and caught fire, the passengers were dead. In hindsight their deaths this way may have been preferable to those they might have suffered had an aborted departure been attempted - the great amount of fuel gushing from the tank would have made survival impossible even had the jet been brought to a halt intact in the grass beyond the runway. The saddest thing is the people who died on the ground - because there were acres of open fields all around the hotel.
antimatterXXXIII 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DC-10: Ok lets go finally. Hey look concorde!
Piece of metal: Screw this im breaking off this plane
DC-10: Wot woz that?
Concorde: WOO HOO LETS GO TO JFKENNEDY YAYYYYY!!!!!
piece of metal: *GASP* Concorde on this runway! i'll move into position to pop his tyre!
5 miniutes later
piece of metal: TAKE THAT CONCORDE!!!!!!! Thats wot u get 4 being so expensive!!!!!!
Concorde: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHEELLPP MMEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!
StalleddragonX 1 year ago
@StalleddragonX
Theres something seriously wrong with you.
bestirishfirefighter 1 year ago 14
@StalleddragonX wat the fuck is wrong with you?
FIATF130DT 1 year ago 3
You do know that several pilots who were in waiting position for their own take off report flames coming from the engines long before concorde hit that metal pice, don't you? Search for it on the internet.
nocs111 1 year ago
very impressive,
I was still wondering how this DC10's piece of metal could do such damage,
so if i understood well: if the tyre just blow up the piece of the tyre thrown away are too small to damage anything.
But because of thie piece of metal (that apperaed to be sharp) the piece of tyre were much bigger and much heavier and manage to cause the deadly shock wave...
is this accurate ?
hogoijulien 1 year ago
The fault is Concorde's. No piece of metal so small should destroy so important an aircraft or its human cargo.
longlakeshore 1 year ago
The DC-10 was the most unreliable plane in that time. But they say that they fixed the problems that it had. But the DC-10 will never earn the respect as a good plane. It basically destroyed the Concord fleet by being a crapy airplane that has pieces that are not installed correctly and fall off!
Burnoutwreck651 1 year ago 21
@Burnoutwreck651 Well yeah I mean McDonnell Douglas rushed it. They wanted to be first with the bigger airlines ahead of Boeings 747 and Lockheeds L-1011. I miss the L-1011 and McDonnel Douglas was bought out by Boeing so we don't have to worry about the DC-10 being a crayp airplane.
Epica124 1 year ago
@Burnoutwreck651 But Concorde wasn't protected enough against this kind of incident. A tire burst shouldn't product a leak in the fuel tank. Lessons of the first serious incident in Washington - same scenario ! - were not enough taken in account.
AlainNaigeon 10 months ago
bring it back.......dam dc 10 ruined everything.
DevPack 1 year ago 2
DC 10 is for nothing
msounderson 1 year ago
F**k DC10
msounderson 1 year ago
@nelietuoderswank.....sure you may not be able to fly it over the ocean, but it can be controlled in a stable descent, and landed with relative ease. There is more mass over a delta wing per weight ratio than say a 747. Both cannot FLY on 2 engines, but they can be controlled and landed safely.
aobt1407 1 year ago
It was the maintenance crews fault, not Continental Airlines.
Airlinesguyrulz 1 year ago
all that piece of metal
mrhope1235 1 year ago
Talking about risks, If there for every dead person in an accident, 1 person in 8 will die from air planes, while the rest is a car accident. However, most of the car accident is actually from drunk driving. Hardly safe as most people think. The risk is also accumulative, if you keep up with mileage, risk adds up too.
blue1panther1 1 year ago
A few items left out of this documentary. First of all the plane was over loaded. It's briefly mentioned, but that's it. Second, the missing wheel spacer drifted the plane during takeoff. Lastly, the winds had changed before the flight took off. The pilot should have taken off from the other direction. I find it interesting that NONE of this was mentioned in this documentary. Take your pick. If ONE of those factors is changed, that plane lands safely in New York.
iluvclubs 1 year ago
@iluvclubs The aircraft wouldn't have made it if even all those factors were removed. Concorde can only travel with two engines if they are on both sides, otherwise you go into yaw and roll instability and have to work the rudder and elevons to counter it, creating too much drag to keep it above stall speed. Not to mention the pitch instabilities of a delta winged aircraft, where it cant keep the nose level at those speeds.
NelielTuOderswank 1 year ago
Had the pleasure of flying on concorde in 1996 from London To New York,was shocked when hearing about the crash only 4 years later.
TheCanoncam 1 year ago
@TheCanoncam ur a lucky man then, there are some experiences which are not meant for everyone. good to know that u had a safe travel
qazibasit 1 year ago
i would still ride a concorde...it had major modifications and much safer...i still salute concorde..
potpolima 1 year ago 3
@potpolima
Sure. Even without the changes. For me it is a matter of statistics. 1 accident in a million of hours of flight is OK. If somebody tells me that there's a 0.0002% chance that I will die during a two hours flight it it very good.
I ride bicycle every day in traffic. If my risk of death on such a ride is once in 100 years riding every day (which is _very_ optimistic here) it would be 0.003% pr. such trip. i.e. much larger.
sormu16 1 year ago
120sec that was.... 2 min rites ...
yichen100 1 year ago
@yichen100 no well duh its 60 plus 60 or 60x60=120
clubpenguin489 1 year ago
I thought that they were grounded because of cracks in the fuselage caused by the rapid acceleration not because of one crash and a whole industry falling because of it.
1malshanp 1 year ago
so who sued who?
figdmoney 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>>>>I really don't get it. One accident, (not even caused by a concorde flaw) kills the entire concorde industry?<<<<
Concorde was a marvel, no doubt.
It was also a political project that took money from the masses and handed it to the rich so they could travel in style. always tax payer funded. Concorde was never going to continue, this crash just hastened the end.
twohelmets 1 year ago
it was the DC-10 fault that asshole!
MRGRANDTHEFTAUTOROX 1 year ago
Why not just cut throttle and stop as fast as possible? Surely better than taking off. Would have run off runway, but who knows how slow it could have gotten down to. Still better than taking off and falling from the sky, no one survives those crashes ever.
Power5 1 year ago 2
@Power5 There have been many successful landings after an attempt to for the second time.
The pilot did what it was best to do. He simply did not expect the wings to deteriorate, or at least not so fast.
DivineAyumi 1 year ago
@Power5
after V1 speed the aircraft no longer has enough runway to stop and therefore it MUST take off. or run the risk of running off the runway and crashing into water / buildings / what ever else at the end of the runway. The pilot was simply following procedures.
good question but there is good reasoning as to why it took off.
cyclobs2 10 months ago
@cyclobs2 it was only going at about 350 km/h just before take-off, not nearly Mach 1. So there might have been the chance to stop it although the plane would've crashed either way.
101pwoods 9 months ago
@101pwoods
no dude march 1 is much faster then a plane taking off, the speed the concord took off would be barely march .05.
747's only travel at march .85
cyclobs2 9 months ago
@cyclobs2 it was only going at about 350 km/h just before take-off, not nearly Mach 1. So there might have been the chance to stop it although the plane would've crashed either way.
101pwoods 9 months ago
I remember that day. I was 19. I was listening "France Info" when they were interrupting all current news announcing the crash of the Concord. It was terrifying and unbelievable. Air France is one of the safest Airline compagny in the world. Yesterday I went to Charles de Gaulle airport to see a friend, she's flight intendant working for Air France. I passed just near Gonesse (the city he crashed), and i saw the Concord exposed near the airport. This airplane is still amazing even on the ground
Sygile 1 year ago
@dadirtysoufbowss well why is their secrecy without any names and/or passenger list made available. And/or a website dedicated to the victims? Similar to the 9/11 memorials where one can express their condolences to the victims families? Seems odd to me? The families all received a million bucks each. Were the victims just dollars and cents in their eyes? Every tragedy this world has experienced dude usually has names associated with the tragedy. The Concorde was a popular airline at that time.
TheGeorgecostanza 1 year ago
I don't fucking get it. If DC9 and DC10 are still flying out there carrying passengers, why did they ground Concorde? I still prefer Concorde over the Death Chambers (DC 9 and 10). At least, I will enjoy high speed before death!
kozeel 1 year ago
@kozeel Death Chambers are flying because they are cheaper to maintain and use less fuel. Airline companies want profit even if it means forcing people to fly DC-10.
ArmAFan 1 year ago
@ArmAFan Money talks .. bullshit flies .. that didn't make a good rhyme but made perfect sense.
kozeel 1 year ago
@kozeel
Actually, over time the DC-10's safety record actually exceeded that of the Boeing 747. The disaster and near disaster involving the cargo door locking mechanism were fixed due to an Airworthiness Directive issued after the Turkish Airlines crash in France. Pity it wasn't issued after the Windsor, Ontario incident. After all of this, the DC-10 was one of the safest planes in the air. I flew on them a number of times, no problems.
BoyScout1960 1 year ago
@BoyScout1960 Actually,DC-10 had two crashes btw plane taking off XD anyways DC-10 had two crashes of the cargo door not locking but the first time Mcdonnell They did not fix it because the DC-10 landed safely at the same airport and injured some people but the second time it actually crashed and killed everybody on the flight.Than they finally fixed it it leading to no more of those type of crashes.Like God was telling them to fix the door the second time or something bad will happed. THERE!!!
clubpenguin489 1 year ago
Can anyone here explain to me why there was never any names or a passenger list made public in this disaster? You'd figure at least one of the victims families members would have started a website dedicated to the deceased with names and photos so people could give their condolences at least! Considering they were all well compensated from the disaster were they all just dollars and cents in their families eyes? Pathetic! Every disaster out there has a website but not Concorde Air France 4590
TheGeorgecostanza 1 year ago
@TheGeorgecostanza why the fuck does that matter at all? its their fuckin lost relatives they'll do what they want and i dont see how u can take issue with this.
dadirtysoufbowss 1 year ago
today i just leaned Concorde didnt get shut down... it ran out of buisness
Teratorry 1 year ago
seriously? are you idiot concorde people just gonna shut down concorde into a museum!?!?!? y cant they just use the planes till they crash or emergency land!!!
Heatblast667 1 year ago
what the fuck? I do not understand how people really work. why do we always punish the wrong entities when a crime or accident of any sort occurs? shouldn't the maintenance people of Continental Airlines be blamed for their faulty repair work that caused that shity piece of DC-10 shit piece of metal to fallon the run way? after all, it was not really the concorde's design that killed evryone on board but it was that that debris that did.
XLnotsofunny 1 year ago
@XLnotsofunny And what about the Airport Authority at Charles De Gaulle,who's job it was/is to make sure there is no debris on the runway!!If you look at it there are numerous parties that ARE ahead of Concorde in the whole 'blame' debate...but sadly all of that is a waste of time asa all the planes have been broken up into scrap metal...an inglorious end to a mighty legend!!
TheMrMarilyn 1 year ago
@XLnotsofunny There are new reports that a faulty repair to the landing gear by Air France contributed to the crash.
theawanonymouscaller 1 year ago
9-11-2001 killed Concorde, not the AirFrance crash. So many of her regular business passengers where killed in the WTC attack that neither BA or AF could justify continued service. Concorde never made money for either airline anyway! After 9-11 the losses became too great to sustain.
longlakeshore 1 year ago
@longlakeshore Coincidentally, the Concorde completed its first Airworthiness test flight after the accident of Air France right before 9/11. There was much excitement over the Concorde's return until 9/11. It couldn't have come back at a worse time.
theawanonymouscaller 1 year ago
@theawanonymouscaller I know. Ironic, isn't it? That Concorde was back in the air on a demonstration flight on 9-11-2001 when the WTC was destroyed? Among the dead were the business customers who had kept Concorde flying.
longlakeshore 1 year ago
Why always accidents happen with Air France? I will never,ever fly with Air France.
OhThatGuy9 1 year ago
@OhThatGuy9 Air France is one of the safest airlines in the world, do your research... I've been flying with them for 20 years and never had ANY problem whatsoever. Some middle-east companies are way more risky because they do not have as many flights a day as Air France. Imagine how many of their planes take off everyday in the world...now add two deadly crashes in the last 10 years (Concorde and Rio, if I am not mistaken), and do the math !
Requin1989 1 year ago
I find the closing of the concorde industry completly stupid. I mean, stuff like that happens to airplanes all the time but they're still in buisness. It's like this: a 20 year old kills someone. Then a 10 year old kills someone, but the consequences are not even close. And the 20 year old didn't even kill the person. It was a faulty plug or something. But I miss those beautiful concordes. Such a shame...
ThorpePark1000 1 year ago
HORRIFIC
mrdukenukem1 1 year ago
why dont they make the safest plane not super sonic airliner
vkimdd683 1 year ago
@vkimdd683 Concorde had an impeccable safety record. This was the only fatal crash. But, you do have to remember the small amount of Concordes.
theawanonymouscaller 1 year ago
I think it was shut down because there was no way to save the plane if anything went wrong with the engines, wings, or fuel cell. I mean the wings literally melted, im not saying they shouldve been shut down or anything that bad, but the plane must have had durability issues with every single thing that failed.
acenace24 1 year ago
the truth is is that plane with the chunk of metal that fell fault
Sebsfish 1 year ago
so sad, i hate the fact that i never had the chance to fly in concorde, i also think that is is quite stupid to ground the entire fleet, just because of one accident. also it wasn't any manufacturer defect nor human mistake. very sad
xfernydrummerX 1 year ago
@xfernydrummerX This accident didn't bring down the Concorde
theawanonymouscaller 1 year ago
they stopped the concorde becaus less people wanted to fly with concorde and because high maintanence costs they stopped the concorde program in 2003 3 years after accident search on wikipedia
stuya9 1 year ago
I feel so bad for those people... they didn't deserve to die, but god had a place waiting for them.
BenFudge 1 year ago
its just like losing a great president of your country......you know he deserves it but you just can't do anything......it surely was the presidents of planes!!!!!!!!!!!
teemalhotra 1 year ago
I agree. There is no denying that this was a horrific event but the fact is it is because of shody repair work on other aircrafts that it crashed
eduern 1 year ago
The person talking mentioned that the concorde was too expensive to maintain and passengers declined after the crash... I guess this accident and the expenses caused the concorde to retire. With the technology we have now, supersonic travel should be cheaper and safer. Aircraft companies should start again on this project.
charger498 1 year ago
@charger498 Thanks to Al Gore's Global Warming movement, airplane manufacturers now only focus on fuel efficiency and less emissions. Even with Global Warming, people still liked the Concorde, but new planes are only fuel efficient. Add turbojets and fuel efficiency together and you might have the first eco-friendly supersonic jet, or an extremely fast AND long range supersonic jet, that's what they should be researching.
theawanonymouscaller 1 year ago
i hope they bring them back but who knows perhaps we will have sublight by then, and wont be in need of sonic travel:p wed be in another part of the world in a hour,
Stephen0Stevie0 1 year ago
This is sad. So their are no more super sonic jets for public transport?
Russkyi1 1 year ago
@Russkyi1 Not today, but there are some interesting concepts in the works. Today it's all about the cost.
featheredmusic 1 year ago
Why do they blame Concorde? It is clearly Continental Airlines fault. Or maybe Americans wanted Boeing to be number one in the world, and they staged the accident? Anyways Airbus is now taking over the industry, so bye bye Boeing.
23pokrzywa 1 year ago
@23pokrzywa No...just no...
icemann002 1 year ago
It's incredibly sad that an awesome, awesome, awesome plane was grounded by a single part failure that wasn't even related to the plane. I wish they could bring it back again, it was just so cool. I got to see it land at Boeing Field for the final time in 2003.
IntaminFanboy 1 year ago
I was at CDG when I saw the last concorde take off. Sad day. But it will come back I believe...
dannykahun 1 year ago
@dannykahun I think they should make a new Concorde. They should incorporate the designer's "Concorde B model" modifications and state of the art technology and make the best supersonic jet the world has ever seen.
theawanonymouscaller 1 year ago
It was probably cost as well, not just maintanence, but the fact that you had to practically be a millionaire just to fly on the thing, and after the crash they raised ticket prices, instead of lowering them, which would of made more sense.
Katt30 1 year ago
@Katt30 That, plus 9/11
theawanonymouscaller 1 year ago
Well, when all the airline corporations started to think about fuel economy issues seriously, concordes already had no reason to stay in their fleets......... Farewell, English pride in the sky.............
ChieftainPhoeniX 1 year ago
When I saw the scene of British Airways's concorde flying with Red Arrows, I just wanted to cry. Nobody could easily forget the glorious history of this elegant machinery but now we only have chance to travel at a much much much lower speed. Personally I was dreaming to experience its supersonic flight, scream out for reaching 1 Mach, just touch and feel the slightly warmed window glass...... Now everything is over.
ChieftainPhoeniX 1 year ago