Concorde...

[SteveC]

My sympathy goes out to the families of those 113 people killed this afternoon by the crash of Concorde in Paris. I hope no one here is a friend or family of anyone involved.

However, something's not quite right here -
If something like this happened here, I for one would be out there in a split second with a camera/camcorder. I bet others would too.
How comes that after this afternoon's crash, all we have is a blurred, pathetic picture which tells us nothing apart from fire from the engine(s).
We have NO amature camera footage or anything.
We have hear eye witness reports from TWO people over and over again which could be describing any crash anywhere.
Why have we not jad any reports from the hotel which must have had people in it?
The press haven't been allowed anywhere near the scene
Reports of casualties change by the minute - thw BBC can't make up their mind if it's 47 or 97 german passengers, and also whether an english woman has been killed, or has been let free from hospital. How difficult can it be to read a passenger list?
Also, when the accident first happened, of course the news were saying that the search is on for the 'black box recorder'. Now, they don't mention whether they found it or not, or even if they're searching!

The whole thing just doesn't seem right - stuff is being kept hush-hush.

I don't mean to sound out of order here, but thee are just my thoughts...

Of course I may just be jumping to conclusion too quickly and all the above info might come to light by the morning. If so, ignore me!

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

[This message has been edited by SteveC (edited 25 July 2000).]

[SteveC]

OK, a quick look at Reuter's site reveals more info...

---
The airliner crashed in fields between two hotels in Gonesse, where it tore into the wing of one of the buildings, the Hotelissimo.


PLANE TRIED TO TURN

"I thought it was going to land in my office. I saw it coming down in flames and I fled," the manager of the other hotel, told Europe 1 radio. "Instead, it passed a few metres from the building and crashed into the hotel next door."

Nathalie Wycisk, an office worker in a building that stands just beyond the airport runway, said the plane had tried to turn around before it keeled over and plunged to the ground.

"The pilot realised there was an enormous problem and tried to turn around but the plane fell straight down," she said.

"When it tried to accelerate it caught fire behind. It fell directly on its wing. It wanted to turn around and -- boom -- it just fell," she said. "Everything was shaking."

Local officials said 80 of the 109 bodies had been retrieved from the wreckage as darkness fell.


---

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

[Greebe]

and now 4 bodies have been recovered in the hotel.

Side note, Yesterday British Airways grounded a Concorde for a massive crack that was 2.5" (6.35cm) wide in the right wing... upon inspection of this and other aircraft they discovered many microfractures.
Air France claims that these fractures and cracks will not cause problems.

Tell that to the poor souls on that flight!
Like they say "when it rains, it pours"!

[Ali]

Did anybody else hear the news a couple of days ago about the cracks inthe wings?

There was something on the news about 1 concord being grounded, and all other ones had cracks in their wings. They were 'ok' though, cos the cracks were only at the back of the wings.

Makes you wonder if something more then a bird strike caused the crash

Ali

[Aerobed]

SteveC,

Having just seen a major disaster from up close (the explosion in Enschede in the Netherlands) I can tell you that the last priority of rescueworkers on the scene is to inform the press about what happened. They want to (and should) deal with the disaster first.
Furthermore I'm not sos sure having a bunch of amateurs with handheld cameras (if that's what you meant) at the scene is such a good idea. Any help by fellow Dutchmen in explaining the term "ramptoeristen" would be appreciated.

[Jorden]

Just as you said Aerobed, "disaster tourists", or guys and gals not there to help, but wanting to see the happening themselves, thereby hampering any help, and even going to the extremes as to wanting to go through the rubble to find something to show at home. "Look, I was there, when it happened"

Usefulness of Pauly's .45 comes to mind again

Jord, slaapt nooit meer op een luchtbed

[This message has been edited by Jorden (edited 26 July 2000).]

[dZeus]

I think they won't release the passenger list before they have informed all the relatives of all the passengers... just imagine hearing the name of a relative died in a plain-crash, on television, even before you've heard anything from the airport/charter company/etc.

[ahartman]

Having gone thru an apartment fire where the building burned half to the ground, I can tell you the people with cameras are NOT welcome.

As eager as we are to feed our voyeuristic needs, we have to realize that we're watching someone's LIFE (or death) - not a made-for-TV movie.

I know I had to be restrained when a local paper camera man started taking pictures of us while we stood there and watched our lives burn up. The funny thing is, the cops on the scene almost made me a path to the guy - my friends restrained me.

Also, from what I understand, they've recovered both boxes (data & voice) and will have them analyzed in the next 2-3 days. Most of the bodies were burned beyond recognition and will be identified by DNA or dental records.

(To be fair though, I've wondered the same thing - why haven't we seen a video yet?)

[Brian R.]

I heard somewhere they think the engine injested a bird. A more omminous fact is that an engine was touched my a mechanic just before the flight. I hope he adjusted or fixed a different one than the one that caused the crash. From the looks of that fireball trailing the airplane, a fuel pump or fuel line leaked or fuel connection came undone. A problem with a connection coming undone can be traced to the mechanic.

Didn't look like what you would see if it was a bird strike. I've never heard of a bird strike causing such a massive fuel leak. A fuel leak is the only way to have that much flame.

[This message has been edited by Brian R. (edited 26 July 2000).]

[The PIT]

Apparently the engine that failed was repaired prior to the flight. It failed and took the other engine out. This leaves one or two questions.
Anyway my sympathy is with the families who have lost love ones in this crash.

[Drizzt]

Official news are:

The engine had some kind of problem on some kind of aerodinamical extension.
The pilots refused to take off and some mechanic had to fix the problem, thus the 20 minutes late.
But it seems that the pieces used to replace the faulted ones where used...

This is somehow strange, however.
First, it is somehow obvious that the new pieces where used, because production of Concordes and relative parts has stopped just after the first 12(i cannot remember the right number, i remeber it was about 12).

Second, I seem to remember that the Concorde can take off, fly and land even without two engine.

Third, some people say that they have seen the Concorde flip. ??????????????????????
I think it's somehow impossible.
And the Concorde has double commands for each part of it, so if something broke the pilot can always direct the plane. And there is no computer on board, for security issue.

Boh.

[dZeus]

Of course there are on-board-computers, since the Concorde relies heavily on fly-by-wire (according to what I heard). You are not allowed to take computers and other electronical equipment with you during the flight, because of possible iterference with the plane's equipment.

From what I've heard, the Concorde needs an incredible amount of thrust to take off, and with 2 engines out (and so 2 left) it would not have enought thrust any more to gain any height.

The plain crashed topside-down, because it tried to turn immediately after the start, since the pilot tried to get back to the airfield ASAP.

[This message has been edited by dZeus (edited 26 July 2000).]

[SteveC]

Aha! I have just seen a video on the 9 oclock news on BBC1 - an ameture video by someone driving past. It was most definitely on fire when it took off.

Some reason the pilots were not notified of an engine fire - they should have cut fuel and extinguished the fire. It could have then flown with no problem on 2 engines to a local airport which is what the pilot tried to do.

Drizzt - delta wing planes can flip if they climb too quickly.

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

[Brian R.]

The portion of the engine affected was a thrust reverser. When activated, they change the direction of the engine exhaust from backward to foreward, causing braking. It is possible that one of the actuators was defective and was replaced. Being hydralic, the new one may have leaked, causing a fire. I still think the flame seen was from a fuel leak of some kind.

[Jorden]

The amateur movie of the Concorde's last can be found on CNN
(NS user do turn on javascript!)

Jord.

edit: what is a speed of 80 in the CNN movieplay download box??? You've got choice of 28.8 and 80 ... ???

[This message has been edited by Jorden (edited 27 July 2000).]