Concorde: Up in Flames 🔥✈️ Air Disasters: Full Episode | Smithsonian Channel
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- A Concorde jet erupts in flames seconds after lifting off the runway at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris. Most of the wreckage, from one of the world's fastest passenger planes, is consumed by fire. But three mysterious clues are found on the runway-a ruptured fuel tank, some torn pieces of tire, and a mysterious strip of metal. Now French investigators must figure out how this curious collection of leads is connected, and what could have caused the first fatal crash of Concorde jet.
#SmithsonianChannel #AirDisasters #concorde
Paramount+ is here! Stream all your favorite shows now on Paramount+. Try it FREE at bit.ly/3qyOeOf
Subscribe to The Smithsonian Aviation Channel: bit.ly/2UNavJO
Twitter: bit.ly/33lH712
Instagram: bit.ly/3iw9Iay
Facebook: bit.ly/3kkVOZp
![[FULL EP.73] เปิดบ้าน 70 ล้าน "แป้ง Zbing" ยกมาทั้งญี่ปุ่น l เคหสถานบานปลาย l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YBnJhTt07Pg/mqdefault.jpg)
The DC-10: a plane so deadly that you don’t even have to be on it to die.
lol heard
😯
The DC10 was truely a plane with a disastrous history.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
i was literally about to comment this xD
The DC-10 is a stone cold killer.
With a dangerous history
Agreed
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS HAS A HORRID HISTORY.
@@woodismusa *THY981 flashbacks*
I flew on them 10 times. Explain how we didn’t crash then.
I heard the hotel was expecting a large number of guests to arrive, but were late for some reason. Imagine their shock while attempting to process the tragedy.
That is a reason to not be afraid of being late
@Charlie Did he escape the rape charges?
Wouldn't lose any sleep I believe
They had an explosion of guests 😂
@@AhmedHussain-gv1plI don’t see anyone else laughing ):
This is so emotional. Sometimes it is really hard to believe that Concorde was from the 1960s 😢
80s
@@mmoarchives2542I meant it was built during that time
I know it was so sleek and fast it just seemed futuristic. I don’t know why I’m obsessed with plane crash videos. Do you ever get on a plane then start thinking about all the videos u have seen then your like no stop thinking that! we are ok ,we are gonna be ok.
@@MrKarmapolice97 I literally watched this while waiting for takeoff in a A321NEO 💀
@@freshpotatolikesaviation 😂
I remember reading extensively a few days after it happened! Most of the passengers were on their way to New York to join a cruise ship! A couple who were teachers were taking a trip of a lifetime, they had been saving for 20 years! Shocking to think that they'd actually been saving for their own demise 😔
ya 3 generations of a family was wiped out and those teachers saved up for 20 years to fly on Concorde
@@columnedfox5508 It's crazy to think! You couldn't imagine what they went through 😔
@@leetaylor5403 ikr
Kodėl noriu , kad kas blogi tiems kas sprogtų ir tie sprogsta sproginėja?Smagumėlis tai juk tai tada!
@@juratezukauskaite8749ka tu cia kalbi ?
A thing to note, the DC-10 involved was scrapped in 2012. So it did get punishment for its actions on that day.
Most old aircrafts get scrapped after their retirements
The mechanic that performed the unairworthy repair however has not been extradited for his part in the crash
@@sunnyfon9065true, But cargo airlines like FedEx still operates dc 10s in their fleet. At least that’s what they said on their website
@@SLR_6 USAF still use some for mid-air refuelling. The KC-10. FedEx mostly fly the updated version, the MD-11, although I think I did see a FedEx DC-10 on Flightradar a few months ago, so perhaps they do still have a few of the old ones left.
@@muttley8818 yeah but most of them will retire soon to be replaced by Md 11s
What an amazing video filled with sadness from all angles. 24 years ago and it only feels like yesterday. All those poor souls may they forever rest in the clouds. 😢
😔❤
I had the good fortune to see a Concorde in 1985 at JFK when we were taxiing for takeoff. I was a teen then, but I had been fascinated with the plane since I was a small child. It was so beautiful and I was wide eyed and almost speechless to really see one. I was so heartbroken when this crash occurred - really one of the first "disasters" that had some personal impact on me. It was so sad!
As an adult I realize this plane was rather obscene: in terms of how elite (or doggedly determined) one had to be to experience a flight, in terms of how insanely inefficient/fuel hungry it was, in terms of how the boom was so obnoxious on flyover, and in the end, it really filled no objectively useful purpose aside from allowing the megarich to fly NY to London in half the time while swaddled in the lap of luxury, which really...really?!
But it was so beautiful and special nonetheless. Perhaps *because* it was so pointless? I dunno. I'm just glad I saw one in its prime.
Technology masterpieces such as Concorde are the reason why today's average airplanes are so much more fuel-efficient and profitable. Because from such feat of engineering were born so many engineering techniques and ideas that are in use in todays average airplanes.
Same with sportscars. It's the sportscars engineers that enable the rest of the automobile production to excel in "lesser" everydays techniques.
Just like a great deal of progress is accomplished during wars, thank to the army needs which boost excellence in research and development.
How could a small child be infatuated with an airplane?
@@meghanmisaliar it's surprising you find that unusual. I was fascinated by the F-15 when I was like in Grade 1. I've had a lot of Matchbox-like toys of it, and I even bought a model kit of it when I was in first year high school (my very first model kit at that). Even now, I still regard it as the most beautiful fighter jet ever produced. I'm actually very happy we have the F-15EX.
@@iampoch01 I have no memory of writing that comment. I can definitely understand why a small kid would be infatuated with airplanes. Weird 🤷♀️
The thing was the crash was caused by debris, not the fault of the Concorde or its crew. I think ending it was something they had been looking for an excuse for and this was it.
Considering the high cost of operating such a plane (with how simply taxing consumed as much as a car in 6 months) it was pretty much a matter of time before it was retired.
It was that ah$tbox DC10. How many hundreds of lives were lost due to that plane type? Just tragic.
@@ritacal557 the ironic part is, when you look at the crashes of the DC10, you'll find out that pretty much all of them had something to do with either faulty maintenance (particularly Turkish Air 981 and Amirican Airlines 191) or pilot/ATC error (Western Airline 2605), the plane itself had nothing wrong in its design, but its reputation suffered heavily due to the human error factor.
@@ritacal557 Even if you're not aboard the DC-10, it's still out for blood.
Concorde was a failure: no airlines wanted to operate it because of the costs, airfrance was basically forced by the government to operate it
Also the noise was so bad, people living near the airport complained about it.
Also it's a massive fuel sink, which is not teally something you want while climate change is rapidly fucking up everything (unless you are the UEA government, and want to create more buyers for your oil)
Such a beautiful aeroplane, shame it had to end and obviously sad for what happened to cause the loss of lives also
6:40 If you look closely you can actually see the metal strip.
Such a sad ending to the one and only supersonic jet that took to the skies. I still remember till this day the unfortunate events that led to the crash of Air France Flight 4590 and I will never forget it. Rest In Peace to all 113 passengers and crew on board you'll never be forgotten and thanks to all the investigators for their extraordinary effort to find out why such an amazing supersonic jet came crashing out of the sky. CONCORDE WILL NEVER BE FORGOTTEN. 1976 - 2003.
Russia also had a supersonic jet, Concorde wasn't the only one.
Ummm yeaa leonid brezhnev have to disagree... tu 144.. that is the name.. a super noisy ussr concorde..
h zic
@TealBarbecue535_Gaming, the Concorde, took its first flight, in (1969). So, it flew from 1969-2003. It had a [perfect] safety record, for (31) years, before it crashed in (2000).
I still remember as a child on holiday in France watching the Concorde take off. It was so beautiful and graceful as it took flight.
ooooo, would love more full episodes. mayday is such a difficult show for me to find (it was recently removed from disney+ in my area for no reason) so this is very much welcome
Honestly I use Facebook for these eps bcuz there r so many air crash investigation channels to upload them
hi nine circles guy
Well! It is so overdramatizaed. So better look for a better shown. This is crap.
@AnjektusStudio I actually like the intensity of overdramatised docuseries like this. I grew up watching it and I've never disliked it, so i think I'll keep watching it
What a beauty the Concorde was. How sad that it crashed. 😢
lolw its a plane not a beauty contest l0lw
@@liukang3545it was a testament to aviation technology because of the feats it brought along like making international flights across the Atlantic twice as nearly twice as fast as any other plane.
It's such a shame that this beautiful aeroplane had to end its service on this one and only fatal accident. However, it's not the aeroplane that was important, rightly it was the loss of life. I had the pleasure of seeing it in the sky on several occasions. My chest would swell with pride for BAe, and I'm sure Aerospace employees and French men would halve felt the same on seeing this angel against a blue sky.
I sent this to Air France : Instead of deleting the engineering marvel from history and focusing on a stupid metal plate. Why did you not rather make the fuel tanks and surrounding fuselage 3 times thicker composed with stronger elements to withstand higher pressures. This will help prevent another occurrence of a fuel tank rupture. This metal plate was approximately 80-90% of the investigations time and focus. From the moment the disaster occurred you all knew the tire exploded. You already knew the fuel tank ruptured as you already had the fuel tank debris. Also why were you all surprised and confused that the fuel tank exploded with the release point outbound. Even though a tire triggered the rupture, the equalization of the pressure to reach an equilibrium state will naturally cause a convex curvature in the fuel tank. Why focus on useless elements. Example : discovering the source of a metal scrap in a DC10 in Houston Texas to which understanding every detail of it would not benefit the investigation whatsoever. Any fully loaded aircraft tire will rupture when undergoing such extreme forces. This was discovered in the replication event with the Concord tire and truck. Thus your main focus should've been how to improve the fuel tank Wall's durability. There is no elemental fix to prevent a tire from rupturing with those forces. Especially in an aircraft moving at 185knots weighing 135-185 tons. Why would the fuel tank not rupture on the thousands of flights with a record breaking safety record running for over 35 years. If you just spent all this time and effort improving the fuel tanks design, composition and durability there would still be concords flying today.
It was a little bit of a long time coming. By that point the concord was getting to be a little dated to maintain, not as profitable or efficient as alternatives, and due to sound restrictions put in place by airports, limited in the places it could fly into
@@JamieCrew there would not be a single Concorde flying commercially today. The only airliners that old that still fly commercial in 1st world countries, are 737s (highly popular and relatively cheap aircraft) DC10s in a cargo role, and a340 and a320s in a cargo role. By 03 (when the crash happened) Concorde was already starting to become dated and more expensive to maintain due to age.
@The Great Chicken Overlord I understand completely that it was not profitable, partially due to the horrendous cost of a ticket, just to fly one way. Had I won the Lottery, I would have thought seriously, about the ticket price. However, my heart would have ruled my head, and I would have bought one. Except for one thing. I have BiPolar which makes me rigid with fear about heights, speed and excessive noise!
I know that no aircraft is around forever, variants and new types take their places. I was just mourning the loss of a beautiful aeroplane ✈️
@@thegreatchickenoverlord5976 Added with 9/11 attack made flight demand so low at that time, which just worsen concorde's already low passenger number
Even though it made sense that the Concorde died out because it was not financially practical for both Airlines and Aérospatiale (Now Airbus), you can’t deny it is damn impressive, even today. Heck, it was so popular it has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary!
And designed on drawing boards and slide rules, no computers. So impressive indeed.
It was special - I did get the chance a few times.
However the best one was a charter flight into DTW in 85.
Flew from LHR-JFK(catering)-DTW and did a fly past and circled metro airport before landing with 8-10K ppl came to see her only appearance in Detroit.
I felt pretty special getting off and thru customs, the small Intl terminal was buzzing with news and press coverage.
26:01 the DC-10 flying taking off to the US in front of the investigator like a serial killer just escaping a detective
RIP to all, this airplane was like an extended family member to all nations, like it should be. The American SST missed being the one by that much. >< The guy who was ATC that day, it almost broke him, too.
It’s emotional to hear that “Concorde retires”😢…I request @Smithsonian Channel Aviation Nation to post such records of these kind of planes, which are actually a technologically advanced, so that it helps us even a common man to gain knowledge and know the reality for such fatal accidents in the field of aviation!
Thanks a lot for this amazing content. May the lost lives rest in peace.
"To go on to more modern things" Like What? Nothing we have today compares to The Concord.
Very Sad !! Sad for the families who lost loved ones in this horrible tragedy !! Also sad to see the end of the Concord. Kinda hard to believe that in all this time there has never been a replacement. There’s still only One Concord !!
Supersonic commercial services were simply a thing possible in the 60s due to heavy funding due to the cold war and fuel so cheap it didn't effect prices. It just isn't feasible in the modern day and itnwas barely feasible during it's hayday.
I’m more sorry for the poor people who lost their lives.😢
These pilots did everything they could. RIP for the lives that were lost
Mistakes were made by some people. For instance about 20 bags were put on board at the last minute, but weren't added to the official weight calculations of the plane, which meant it was over the maximum weight for taking off with the wind conditions present.
@@ajs41 Not saying it's okay to take off over maximum take off weight, but 20 luggage's is only about 6 meters more take off run.
Obviously, in hindsight, they should've aborted the takeoff. But you should only abort above V1 if the aircraft is incapable of flight, and that wasn't obvious with what seemed like one engine fire and a veer. So they did everything they could've been expected to do.
@@Owen_loves_Butters my dad was a pilot and actually said the same thing you just said.
@@Owen_loves_ButtersWell, you do know. It's a clear rule in aviation that you are above V1 which is sometimes referred to as "Velocity 1" is the decision speed. As soon this is called out by the Captain or First Officer. You cannot abort the takeoff. It is too dangerous to do so and you have to commit to the takeoff. As said in the investigation as soon as Concorde hits V1 it needs roughly a mile to stop. But there was only roughly 1000 ft of runway left.
Remarkable video. I travelled to Brighton England in 1966. At a local store there I bought a plastic model kit of Concorde. Then it was only a dream. I was eleven years old.
Sad day for aviation. Blessings 🙏 to the families of the deceased.
And the air traffic controllers, blessings 🙏 also.
I didn’t expect Smithsonian Channel to upload Air Crash Investigation’s full modern episode. ACI’s modern episodes are not free to watch except they may show up on National Geographic Channel on TV.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the aircraft lost was F-BTSC, the same aircraft used in the disaster movie "The Concorde - Airport '79"
i was looking for this comment
The Concorde was simply magnificent.
I think that like most people, i was heartbroken when this happened, having flown on her three times i couldn't believe what i was seeing in those shocking pictures of her on fire, i still have a little sob every now and then, call me stupid or sad, but i just miss her, RIP to all those poor people who lost their lives.
Was it worth every penny flying on her?
I was gutted when I heard the news. If I had access to the time travelling Delorean, I and my neighbour would go back to that day and drop a traffic cone next to the wear strip.
I would have picked up the wear strip and discarded it somewhere else instead of putting a cone next to it. (Jan Griffiths).
If only some of the workers noticed that there's a metal piece on the runway and removed it, then the concorde would've lift off safely.
It was the result of incredibly coincidental timing. Runways are regularly swept for debris, but this happened to be the plane that took off immediately before Concorde, the one plane that could not suffer a tyre blowout. So many factors had to align - the strip fell off in the first place, it fell far enough down the runway that Concorde could not abort takeoff, there was no runway sweep between the two takeoffs, Concorde hit the relatively small strip on the wide runway, Concorde was fully loaded with fuel (and even slightly overloaded) increasing the ground pressure and the strip had landed in such a manner that it punctured the tyre. It was such an absolutely perfect storm that it's honestly difficult to feel angry at the Continental mechanics despite their incorrect repair. Nobody could have foreseen this exact sequence of events - any one could be removed and the disaster would probably not have happened. Truly one of the saddest days in aviation.
In that time. The rules of the airport only made 2 inspection per day of the runway.
At major airports the runways are closed for a few minutes every few hours for a runway inspection.
The metal strip (40cm in length) was left on the strip 5 minutes before the Concorde took off.
@@Kmasse8 So! Did you miss my respond? Ae you just feeling to give a stupid comment? Or are you a yutubetroll. Becouse as Peter are explaining in the video so was the only 2 expecting per of the runway at the time for the accident. Nobody did the y see the metal pace on the runway.
Before people make comments about the DC-10, watch the entire video!!!
1- the piece of metal that fell off the DC-10 engine was NOT original to the plane, it was replaced a few weeks before the accident with a incorrect fitting part that was made to fit by attempting to glue it in place because the rivet holes did not line up. That glue fix lasted just 16 days before falling off.
2- the tires on the Concord had a long history of bursting for years before this accident and only after this accident were they redesigned. That redesign should have been done years before.
at 17:57 the guy says 135 thousand tons!?? A fully loaded Concorde is ~185tons!
The Concorde will always be one of the , if not the most beautiful plane to have ever graced the sky
SR-71: and I took it personally.
That is a jet not a plain
@@turnerj-hl8fw what do you mean jets and planes are the same thing
Really? It is one of the most ugly looking plane out there
Numerous times throughout this episode: “The Concorde is the world’s fastest/only supersonic airliner.”
Tupolev Tu-144: “Am I chopped liver to you?”
The Tupolev Tu-144 was a marvel, no doubt about that, but it was a prototype, it was not ready to fly in normal commercial conditions, with passengers calmly and safely enjoying lunch in a quiet noise environment while flying 2 times the speed of sound. Tu-144 came out too early (probably under political pressure) when it was not ready yet. Had it been given enough time to be completely developed and tested, it would have reached the same reputation of excellence as the Concorde.
Tu144 was fake anyway, a ripoff concorde.
The Tu144 was a stolen design of Concorde and the Ruskies did not have all the technology to build it available to them. It crashed at the Paris Airshow. The US abandoned the SST because it was both too expensive and it was found that the very nigh noise levels on take off would cause probably be a hard sell, not to mention the damage that could be caused by the shockwave when they went supersonic.
Concorde: "You're a knock-off of me, you barely even entered service and nobody remembers you, so yes, you are."
@@sakkra93 Tu-144: I'm still faster than you.
This is the official French version. But it ignores a lot of serious issues. The plane was overloaded and the weight and balance were too far aft, making the aircraft dangerously unstable. Also Air France had mistakenly left out a 30cm spacer from the left landing gear, causing it to be free to wobble. Skid marks on the runway show that the Concorde was not tracking straight on takeoff and it actually struck some landing lights before takeoff (further damaging the engines). The plane also took off with a tailwind, which no pilot wants to do. If the plane had been properly loaded with a proper landing gear, it would have taken off before even encountering the metal strip. So poor decisions by the pilots and faulty maintenance contributed greatly to the crash. Finally, the decision to shut down the #2 engine was probably a mistake and also contributed to the loss of control and crash. The fire would have burned out quickly, but the loss of the engine for the slow and overloaded plane was a critical problem.
It's often said that no one thing causes an air accident and this is clearly true here. Air France and the BEA were all too happy to absolve the French of any responsibility and shift blame to Continental and the American tire makers. But the truth is more complex.
This. MentourPilot has a great video that is more full picture and unbiased.
@@BoostChicken I'd politely disagree. Yes, MentourPilot is a great channel, but his coverage of the Concorde crash was absolutely not full-picture and totally ignored Air France's role is the Concorde crash, as well as the decision making of the Concorde's flight crew...... John Hutchinson, one of Concorde's most experienced pilots, probably gave the most detailed account of why the Concorde actually crashed and included a lot of important information that Air France and the French government managed to get removed from the final report.
@@grantchallinor5263 I am not sure what video you watched dude. It absolutely discusses the crews decision making on fuel, taxi time etc and plenty about Air France. Also, John Hutchinson was not there, anything he has to offer is heresy at best.
Also, what proof do you have that stuff was removed from the final report? That's a pretty big accusation.
The fire would have burned out quickly? I’m not tracking….no way that fire was going out until tank 5 was drained. Tire debris took out engine #1, as observed in the cockpit it was making zero thrust. The fire, smoke, hot gases and possibly tire debris caused engine #2 to compressor stall and surge, forcing it to make no and very low thrust. Engine #2 was not coming back on line until the fire went out. Actually, even if by some miracle the flames blew themselves out, engine 2 would still not work as raw and atomized fuel would flow into the compressor section at the calculated rate (via the blown-out piece of fuel tank) of 16kg/sec. Recall that #2 had lost power before the fuel met an ignition source, so logic dictates engine #2 would remain unusable if the fire miraculously went out. Besides, the FE believed engine #2 was on fire bc his instruments told him so; shutting it down (actually moving it to idle) was exactly the proper thing to do as it is required prior to engaging fire suppression - otherwise the engine would rapidly expunge the chemical suppression with incoming air, making it impossible to deprive the fire of oxygen as well as not chilling down the area. No one had any reason to believe the fire was actually external to the engine and therefore followed the correct procedures based on the limited information they had, information that was firehosed to them in around 30 seconds. Not only did they respond properly, they responded heroically. And regarding the overweight condition and cg concern, no one was particularly worried about it, certainly not the flight crew which had over 22,000 hours combined flight experience, and the investigation stated neither had any baring on the accident, although I admit I’d like to review how this was tested to learn how that conclusion was drawn. At any rate, given the professionalism the crew displayed during crisis along with the Air France Concorde pilots elite status, anyone showing concern over weight and balance where the flight crew had none is grasping at straws. Remember, the aircraft rotated properly and was just barely not able to climb with two engines out, no question it would safely fly on three, so obviously it wasn’t too heavy; also, the aircraft displayed no proclivity towards pitching up and in fact the nose actually dropped, so the idea that the CG was too far aft doesn’t seem to hold water. Finally, the flight crew had the same data the TH-cam calculators have, although I’ll grant they may not have known exactly how much the 19 extra bags weighed - but come on, they weren’t boxes of batteries, it was luggage! I trust the flight crew to make an intelligent and reasonable estimate of the total additional weight. The same was declared of the spacer, that is, not causal to the accident, the evidence being the left and right brake temperatures were the same..again, I’d like to see the methodology to support this claim as it feels a bit sketchy. After all, the spacer was there for a reason. I have heard of your claim of veering to the left off the runway and striking lights, but I’ve not heard the strike had caused engine damage; please provide your source as I’m interested in learning more about the taxi prior to engine runup. I’ve also heard of witnesses reporting seeing smoke before runup, and of a pilot who tried to radio to the Concorde crew he saw the landing gear shimmy. There are others but in all cases I’ve yet to find the source of these claims, and thus far have not been able to validate the truthfulness of these claims. Unfortunately, until that happens, the claims are just hearsay and conspiracy theories.
@BoostChicken, I too would like to hear who or what your source is, regarding the French falsifying the final report, please post. Also, it would be helpful if you could provide an original version of the report since they ought to be different according to you. Fantastic claims require very compelling evidence.
@@ronjon7942 Goddammit. Even though I didn't put in a proper link Fing TH-cam deleted my reply. I hate this platform.
You are minimzing a lot of these issues. With the tailwind, the plane was not a little overweight--it was six TONS overweight. John Hutchinson has already been mentioned. the concise version of his analysis is at (link split wildly) heritageconcorde slash 4590-theory
Hopefully, you'll be able to read this before TH-cam censors it again. Don't drink the French Kool-Aide.
Concorde stopped flying when I was one year old, yet I’ve spent my whole life captivated by this gorgeous aircraft. As long as I can remember, I’ve loved Concorde. I’d give almost anything to be able to fly on one! This accident was so horrific, my heart breaks for all involved. The crew did all they could, they were incredible. I still think though, if any one issue they had would have been different, could they have saved it?
@katiewennerberg210; I feel the same. I still wonder why the pilot lifted the Concorde into the air while it was on fire it was on the runway?
@@CVenzait was past aborting speed so they made a split second decision to lift up in hope something would go right. If they didn’t lift they would probably not stop in time.
@@CVenza There's good to high probability that all aborting take-off past the abort-take-off safe zone would have saved would be the 4 lives at the hotel crash site. At the speed the Concorde was running down the runway past the abort-take-off safe zone, aborting at that point would've resulted in it it's landing gear collapsing at the end of the runway and it pretty much crashing at that speed straight into the ground. With all that fuel on fire it would've engulfed the plane completely and nobody on the plane would've survived anyway.
Bro the DC-10 is the imposter among us💀
I wish they would bring back the Concorde and make it more fuel efficient. With today's technology I believe it can happen.
Still be as noisy, so it couldn't fly overland.
Unfortunately they can't as all the high rising fuel prices basically f*cked them as all concorde jets needed sh*t tons more fuel than any other passenger planes and with there being so many it would have been to much. Also ticket prices ain't great anymore with the prices these days no one would be able to afford a ticket so concorde would have no one be able to fly on it. Also with all the new rules to do with sound it would basically be an impossible return for the jet.
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx Fuel hog.
NASA's X-59 trying to tackle the noise issues of supersonic. If it works well, then something similar to Concorde might be appears again... with ability to fly overland
DC-10 living up to its reputation. This time takes out one of the best aircraft ever made.
Gilles Logelin is a legend. That guy makes me tear up every time he talks about the accident.
can you PLEASE show more FULL episodes
Desperately sad. It was such an iconic aircraft, but of course that's nothing to the death of all its passengers and crew. But I loved it as an aircraft, knew its test pilot Brian Trubshaw, good he wasn't around to see that it would have broken his heart.
If the Concorde was achievable way back in 1969 imagine what could be possible today if concerns about the sonic boom over populated areas were not an issue.
I can’t help wondering if the noise issue would have been so debilitating if Concorde had been created in the US.
@@Jack-bs6zbno. Actually it more or less US Government themselves that basically cause this in first place with supersonic experimental in the 60s over the densely populated area
The phenomenon described in the episode is probably what happened to the Royal Navy battlecruiser HMS Hood during the 2nd World War as that same phenomenon would easily explain the fire on the water that was seen as the Hood's forward half was sinking
Britain was probably shoock after HMS hoods sinking
My family used to have an album of the Battle of Jutland now in the Imperial War Museum. It was owned by our Great Uncle John Cliff Mc Culloch an officer on H.M.S Malaya. It had many photographs of H.M.S Hood,
H.M.S Renown and H.M.S Repulse being torpedoed. There is also a newspaper of clipping of S.M.S Seydlitz 'limping into port' very heavily damaged. The crew of H.M.S Malaya received inspections from Prince Albert(later King George the 6th) and Admiral David Beatty. There are photos of Norwegian female service officers(I can't quite remember rank) receiving medals on Malaya for bravery. Contact was made with
a Norwegian battleship en route to the Galapagos Islands. Also pictures taken with iguanas. There was also a picture of entertainment that had been put on on board by the crew. There are many photographs of my Great Uncle with
his fellow officers. And meeting Prince Albert and David Beatty. My Great Uncle survived the war and went on to marry and become a sheep farmer in New Zealand. He was highly decorated and was mentioned in Despaches.
I prefer the explanation of Mentour Pilot about this accident. He is a pilot and gets into the second by second account from the black box recordings. Very descriptive, whereas this feels rushed and over dramaticized
With the exception of the 747 Concorde there were both the queen of the Skies 20 years this year since the most beautiful aircraft retired so sad 😢❤
The 747 is done now too, last one left the factory not long ago.
@@RickL_was_here ano so sad the end of an era one of the finest aircrafts ever made
i do not know what the fuck this kid is saying
It was July 24, 2000 and I was in BA taxing to takeoff at Heathrow. I was nudged by the window passenger to view the takeoff
of a Concorde less than 70 meters from me. It was a breathtaking moment as this giant plane rocketed from 0 to over 100 miles an hour in just seconds. I decided that it would be worth the 10grand+ on my next flight to Europe on the Concorde. The next morning, watching the telly at home in SF I almost spilled my coffee. It was about the crash of Flight 4590 and what turn out to be the end of the supersonic era. The Concorde had a fatal design flaw that if the fornt tire blew, debris would enter the air intake of the engine.. Given the amount of fuel during takeoff, chance of survival is nil on impact. All's well that didn't end well.
The ‘fatal flaw’ was debris from an American plane which remained on the runway.
@@Jack-bs6zbStill most planes would be able to survive an impact with debris but sadly the Concord couldn't.
@sght6012
Your statement of facts here is not the case at all.
No design flaw
Features yes as is lots of other aircraft & more importantly other aircraft with flaws that had crashed causing fatalities also.
1st & ONLY loss of a Concorde which this series tells you why, engine’s unfortunately where ingesting fire which messed up the efficiency & caused fire alarms.
LH side engines were still producing some thrust but where not @level the Concorde needed for takeoff.
IMO this comes down to debris on the runway which was the reason it crashed on that awful day.
Many other operational flaws also played its part that day however the DC10 titanium strip was the reason for why AF4590 crashed.
Nothing more.
The DC 10 is a beautiful plane. While I’m aware of its history, it is overall a safe plane. In the episode, it’s clearly said that nonessential airplane parts do sometimes drop on the runway.
The DC-10 is a dangerous aircraft and unfortunately have the nickname death cruiser
Frankly the DC-10 should have died after the Paris Crash of 1974 frankly how did the Death Cruiser 10 survive after 2 accidents that should have destroyed its reputation like the De-Havilland Comet had in the 1950s
@@Knight6831 I blame McDonnell Douglas for that because they knew about the design flaw, but covered it up and risked people’s lives for the sake of money.
@@Knight6831 The 737 crashed more times than the DC-10
They don't explain it well here, but this was 100% the mechanics fault. He should not have used adhesive (not approved for that application at all) or drilled extra holes for the rivets (also not allowed). You do not ever at all under any circumstances make a repair that is not approved by the manual, Ac43.13, or a DER.
@@kateofone The 737 sold more... And had far less doors and engines fall off
Omgod yessss, this episode was deleted of Disney for some reason so now I can watch it here!
Certain air crash incidents, I always have a inauspicious feeling of the flight number and time. Concorde 4590 crashed at 4:42pm. France 447 stalled at 02:14am. May God bless us all!
🙇🏻♂️🤲🏼☘️🍀🙌🏼
This Smithsonian Channel documentary indicate that it was not the horrific crash that ended the Concord of Air France and British Airway. It was the rising cost of fuel and falling profits. Falling profits imply there just wasn't enough passengers who can afford the excessive high ticket price that ended Concorde supersonic flights. So it was trade the ended this type of travel for the very rich. There just aren't enough very rich people to make Concorde profitable for Air France and British Airway. I think it was also around this time that the American budget airlines like Southwest Airline became well established.
Air France made a series of unacceptable errors that led to this tragedy., the French gov did a dam good job of hiding these errors and blaming a DC10. @) the spacers on the landing gear was missing when repaired a few days before causing the plane to swerve left hitting the metal from dc10. 2) the plane was over it’s structural take weight limit, 3) the pilot took too much taxi fuel keeping it over weight, he also used a shortened runway taking off into the wind as it was being surfaced. 4) due to the excessive fuel the ran the fuel pumps for take off that move fuel from the front of the plane rear for supersonic flight, it was not allowed to have weight moving with fuel pumps for take off on Concorde. So as with most plane crashes a series of failures led to this
I remember watching the last fly by in the Uk. As Bristol airport is near to me, as a kid waving goodbye at school. I was too young to understand the disaster, my heart goes out to those who lost their life’s R.I.P. 🥀💐
FINALLY IT COME OUT
Yea I’ve been waiting a long time for this
Yessir
Yes -united airlines b787 pilot
I was in Paris on a business trip when it happened. Opposite side of the city, though. Still remember it as if it was yesterday.
On 25 July 2000, Air France Flight 4590, a Concorde passenger jet on an international charter flight from Paris to New York, crashed shortly after takeoff, killing all 109 people on board and four on the ground. It was the only fatal Concorde accident during its 27-year operational history.
Nice Wikipedia excerpt you copied
That's what this video is about. Duh!!
@@meghanmisaliarikr
Hada.kadaro.allah
And if it'd hadn't been for a rickety old, poorly-maintained DC-10 shaking itself apart on the runway Concorde would have had *0* fatal accidents.
Now, there is Son Of Concorde taking to the skies. Thank goodness that the DC-10 is no longer around.
TBH the accident actually wasn't the reason Concorde retired but the incident was the beginning of the end for Concorde.
Concorde despite trying so fast and offering passengers a luxurious experience was unfortunately unprofitable.
The money it made from passengers and companies for it's journeys had to be used towards things like fuel that could make it fly so fast. Concorde unlike normal airliners gobbled up hundreds of gallons of fuel in order to go supersonic and even taxing as well as take off used up a lot of fuel. And fuel during the life of Concorde was too expensive. And to make it worse the chief reason Concorde didn't make much money was because it flew either with a handful of passengers or half full because you had to be ridiculously rich to book a ticket. And naturally the less people Concorde flew, the more it struggled to keep going economically. And it was impossible for Concorde to sell tickets at normal prices due to fuel prices. And it was also the reason Concorde couldn't afford to upgrade and maintain it's aircrafts either.
Secondary reasons why it retired included the fact Concorde was very loud due to the sonic boom which was essential to fly fast and as a result it chiefly flew between London/Paris & New York/Washington over the Atlantic. And even it's noise did damage like breaking windows. And Concorde was poorly designed as people traveled in cramped conditions and even sitting in a cramped and noisy plane didn't suit everyone.
Imagine the guilt that mechanic must feel everyday who glued that strip on to the DC10.
$9000.00 a flight? I'm walking!
I wonder how many lotto winners flew on the Concorde probably a few. 😀
Thats actually the biggest problem the Concorde faced. It was just too expensive to be profitable
@@thegreatchickenoverlord5976 no it was its fuel ineffiency that was the biggest problem l0l
@@liukang3545 Her biggest problem was politics, and Airbus no longer wanting to support her so AF and BA would buy new airliners off them - more money for them than supporting Concorde.
@@thegreatchickenoverlord5976 I don't know how Air France operated Concorde, but British Airways (and BA Concorde pilots) claimed they made a profit and I'm inclined to agree with them. They had made plans to keep flying Concorde until 2010-2015. BA used their fleet differently. Charter flights also ensured Concorde wasn't limited to the fabulously wealthy. I actually flew on BA Concorde's twice, and I'm by no means rich. One supersonic flight on G-BOAD to JFK, and a subsonic flight to Aberdeen and back on G-BOAF.
Thank you to the pilots who tried there best to just do there job and trying to solve the crash but life doesn't give us the things we want when its time to go its time to go so just follow God and God plz send these pilots to heaven for trying there best Amen 🙏🏾 😢
If this plane didn’t crash, then I would not be flying 16 hours from Vancouver to Singapore on an A350-900. It would be more like 6 hours.
And a huge pay check
@@mannyw7256 😂
Ha no, concorde was well on its way out when they were retiree
Exactly. Was a cool plane but didn't make economic sense.
I still feel sad for something that caused the 2nd fastest ever passenger jet to go down. Sadly, I could never feel or see the aircraft. But I'm in love with it
2nd fastest passenger jet? What is faster?
@@juliemanarin4127 The Tupolev Tu-144 was faster, but it couldn't fly fast without afterburners. Concorde could fly over Mach 2 without afterburners for the entire flight time.
The Tupolev also was not comfortable and not safe, although it still was another great aviation achievement of this era.
Fastest passenger jet. Aeroflot only flew the TU-144 in mail/freight service regularly after offering intermittent passenger service for only a few months.
Smithsonian channel: Uploads a full episode of Air Disasters/Mayday/Air Crash Investigation/Whatever other names this show has
Me: Wait That's illegal
If this did not happen I think it will still be flying today.
The newest Concorde that was built was planned for retirement around year 2010 for ageing wear and tear after normal number of cycles lifespan.
Ya think??
Ya think??
To see all that open field around where they crashed its hard to not feel like they came close to a spot where they actually could have had a chance at landing
64 Boeing 747 crashes and 32 McDonnell Douglas DC10 crashes and but those planes were still put in the air, yet the Concorde only had ONE crash not even caused by a mechanical problem but was then canceled. Seems like such a waste of progress.
The concorde costed *far* more to operate and maintain, while carrying less people
So I could see the modifications made after this crash being introduced in the 1970s if the design flaw was caught but there is no guarantee that the crash could not still happen
you mean the design flaw of the DC-10...
For a more complete, accurate, indepth account of the accident, read Mike Bannister's book "Concorde". There's WAY more to the accident than is covered here.
I felt bad that Concorde had to end like this.
it would have ended a couple of years after this anyway even if it didnt happen. lmao
inefficient planes breaking the sound barrier, causing sonic booms, thats not something anyone wants in modern times, maybe in cucked braindead oldschool times but not in modern times l0lw
@@liukang3545 , glad your shitty attitude wasn`t around when Concorde was designed and built. ! Do you think you could do any better?
This was only the end of Concorde in France, the Paris crash barely affected the Concorde in Britain, 9/11 was the death knell for British Airways' Concorde, many stopped flying and the Concorde was retired in 2003 after being deemed unsustainable.
This supersonic jet looks like a true next generation of flying but since the technology was old then that makes sense to retire the aircraft. Maybe we could see another supersonic jet with the latest technology.
2:38 Why are they wearing navy captain/officer rank not airline?
Oops 🤣🤣🤣
Yup Smithsonian on a budget with the props
The God Squad strike again
Baaahaha....Ouch and well spotted 😂😂😂😂
@@theflightsimguy8513❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤9😅😊
SUCH A BEAUTIFUL AIRPLANE...LOOKING AT THE AIRPLANE DESIGN LOOKS JUST LIKE THE TOTAL PERFECTION AIRPLANE...OMG...RIP.
Ahhh yes the concord (gets sad) but there's a new once coming out yay :) also I've been waiting to see this -united airlines b787 pilot
@@muratveli yes its called boom from united airlines - united airlines b787 pilot
@@muratveli release date is unknown for now I can't wait to pilot the new version of the concord
@Saturated sausage why not :|
Do you think Greta Thunberg will let it fly? She has a way of ruining dreams of the entire world‼️
@@PAS_2020 who's this Greta Thunberg
Love how they actually do a Investigation instead of a 2 day “investigation” and decade long cover up like my country prefers when a disaster happens
MAY GOD BE WITH ALL OF THEM
31:41 "The only thing in the fuel tank, is the fuel." Sounds like a meme worthy
They should have stopped as per F.E suggestion because we have seen in the past that runway overruns are greatly survivable.
At slower speeds with less fuel and no active fuel tank fires yes
I understand why you say that, however a high speed abort is also extremely dangerous. I have flown planes that actually tell you to take the aircraft up in borderline situations right in the manual because experience showed it was better to takeoff than try and stop.
Obviously there are exceptions to this, (such as known loss of multiple engines) I was just pointing out it isn't necessarily better.
Another fact that contributed to the retirement of the Concorde was the events of 9/11.A large amount of the customer base for the Concorde worked at the world trade center.
Condolences 🙏🙏🙏
Concorde was designed nearly 60 years ago. What caused that aircraft to crash on that day was a series of bad luck, more than is usually reported. I have watched several documentaries on this, and a British Airways Concorde Captain did shed some light on it. Captain John Hutchinson. He knows this whole thing in minute detail. Yes, the tyre burst after running over a piece of metal, yes the impact on the wing caused the fuel tank to burst. Yes, the fuel caught fire. But it was more complicated. The aircraft was over-fueled. This contributed to the fuel tank bursting as it did. It wasn't a certainty the tank should burst. The engine registering as being on fire was not. It was breathing fire from the burning fuel. Another engine wasn't working due to fuel starvation. When the captain switched off the engine he thought was on fire, he was down to only two engines. This was made worse by excess weight of the excess fuel. It also had excess luggage. These 2 things made it 3 tonnes over weight. The weight was not evenly spread. It also had a tail wind. So many things were wrong, starting with the metal that should not have been there. The video you may be interested to watch is 'John Hutchinson on Air France Flight 4590'. He explains all these extra factors that made a bad situation much worse. Captain Marti was a top Concorde pilot, but it just did not go well.... to say the least. Captain John Hutchinson thinks if the fire alone was the problem, it could have been flown, but the combination of the additional factors led to the tragic outcome.
What I always asked myself and what was never discussed in the documentations, why was this metalpiece that twisted? If it had only fallen off the DC-10 engine, it should lie flat on the runway. So what twisted it that much that I could lie there with the sharp edge up? Had it been sucked through the engine of the DC-10 before?
The metal piece went around the engine, so it was curved to begin with.
That metal piece that was on the runway was from the DC-10 Engine that took of minutes earlier just before Concordes departure. Well that specific DC-10 where the metal piece fell off had maintenance done to fix that specific metal thing on the engine but the repair wasn't done fully properly so the piece ended up falling off again and unfortunately a faulty repair that wasn't done up to the standards ended up taking 113 lives. But to your question of did it go through the DC-10 engine no it did not if the piece had gone through the DC-10 engine it would have caught fire and completely destroyed the entire engine.
@@TealBarbecue535_Gaming But this still doesn't explane for me, how it was bent this way with the sharp edges upright.
@@jochemb.1748 the tyre of the concorde moved through it,thus the piece got bent
I really wish that i could fly with concorde one day but it sadly isnt possible
Finally
The Concorde was the type of plane where they were just waiting for an excuse to decommission it for its other shortcomings. This accident gave them that excuse. The absolute worst way to handle a problem.
I think that aborting the take off after V1 would have save lives, not all , but some. However, it would have required that pilots knew "immediately" the importance of the flames behind them.
How would it have saved some lives??
Probably right, but hindsight is always 20/20. Had to make the decision and they were too fast. Probably felt he could get it airborne and get in for an emergency landing right away
@@meghanmisaliarIt might have, they would’ve ran out of runway due to speed but wouldn’t have been in the air. Might have had a fighting chance for at least some lives.
That confirmed that the DC 10 is the most dangerous plane ever created in aviation history.
I still think they should make runways longer. If they doubled the length, then no matter what there would always be a point where you could abort takeoff. But my question is had they aborted the take-off, even though they would've gone off the runway, how fast would they be going? It seems like a better option would be to go off the runway going 60 or 70 mph, rather than falling from the sky going 140+ mph. At the end of most runways, you have nothing but flat lands. (obviously not all of them. Some runways immediately end in water, cliffs or buildings). But if you get airborne, you have no clue what you may be hitting, such as hitting a hotel. It just seems to me that aborting would've been the better option. I understand in this particular case, there's a good chance they would've perished in the fire regardless. But who knows. Maybe crashing thru the dirt may have extinguished much of the fire.
Edit: I just got to the part of the video where they say they are going way too fast to have aborted the take-off. All I can say to that is this, we can't say with 100% certainty what would've happened had they aborted the take-off. But we can say with 100% certainty what would happen when they didn't.
well in front of the runway that the concorde was using (runway 26R) are some buildings so the plane would've crashed and maybe even cause more ground casualties
@@captain_noo Well I'm not familiar with Charles De Gaulle airport, which is why I added the caveat that it certainly wouldn't work at all airport runways. But if you're correct then yeah, that would've been a bad option.
@@jeremybr2020 There is a book being written at the moment about this solution - aborting takeoff. John Stedman says otherwise. He states that there were enough grass flat land where F-BTSC would have ended without hitting any building, however he's not sure whether in one, two or three separate pieces (which still leaves a chance for some people to survive). You can follow him in the comments section of the Mentour Pilot video about Concorde crash. Very pro-British-anti-French biased long thorough comments, still very interesting and very useful comments, well worth the read.
@@captain_noo There is half a mile flat grass field between end of runway and the buildings. Quite a long distance in addition to the remaining portion of runway after DC-10 debris.
@@akseli9 I'll have to check that out. Thx.
I will never forget this sad day, I was stunned on hearing the terrible news, as was the whole world. R I P
If The DC-10 Couldn’t Crash Itself, It Was Going To Crash Another Aircraft; And The Most Prestigious One At The Fact
R.I.P Concorde And all Passengers who were on board that Flight That day.
4th to comment or 5th or 6th?
Idk maybe
4th
I think mostly rich and millionaires flew on the Concorde
I lost a menton and "idol" incl. his wife on this flight.. but.. still loves and adore the Concorde and Tupolev TU-144 for their speed - beauty and elegance.. rulers of the Sky,...
Do get this corrected. The DC10 metal strip actually had nothing to do with the damaged port bogie that had been misaligned due to the poor maintenance. Missing Spacer. The strip was found on the right side of the runway, and came from the starboard DC10 engine. Perfect coverup for the French mismanagement. See the 2012 legal appeals when the truth emerges.
I don't understand why the concorde was discontinued from one fatal crash when the other planes like the B747 has had 64 fatal crashes and the plane has been in service for 54 years, so why did concorde get stopped after one crash? 🧐
It wasn’t by a crash, maintance and fuel cost
I hope we get another one like it one day I wanted to fly on one ever since I was little and still want to ✈️🛫🛬🛩️
Erm Naval insignia?
Respect to the camera man the dont die ever
It’s still not the dc-10’s fault, it’s either poor maintenance or the engine’s manufacturer
It’s a shame that hundreds of people lost their lives because that DC 10 just wouldn’t die. ‘Oh it was fun to fly’. I’m guessing the 600 people who lost their lives in dec 10 related crashes PROBABLY don’t think so.