The Fatal Concorde Crash That Killed 109 Passengers | What Went Wrong | Spark
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- Delve into the gripping investigation of the Concorde crash in this episode of Countdown to Catastrophe. Uncover the chain of events, technical challenges, and legal aftermath that led to the tragic end of Air France Flight 4590.
---
Subscribe to Spark for more amazing science, tech & engineering videos: goo.gl/LIrlur 🚀
Join the Spark Channel Membership to get access to perks:
/ @sparkdocs
Find us on:
Facebook: / sparkdocs
Instagram: / spark_channel
Any queries, please contact us at: owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com
#Spark
The Concorde and the pilot are not to blame for this. It was the poor maintenance of continental airline's aircraft that departed just moments before the Concorde took to the skies. If it wasn't for the loose strip of titanium on the runway, that Concorde would have made made it to its destination just fine.
Totally agree.
This is why the Navy will shut down launches & recovery frequently so a line of sailors can walk the length of the flat top looking for anything on it. It doesn’t take much to turn an aircraft the cost millions into an expensive coffin.
100% facts.
Hence why even since WW2 a small crew walk line-abreast clearing the flight deck of an aircraft carrier like a forensic team, and that's not at battle stations. Be a bit hard doing that at a busy airport.
Sad end to a masterpiece. RIP to all aboard and on the ground.
It's a shame that the French didn't just turn the whole project over to the States and pay us to fine-tune their design and manufacture. With superior engineers and enough money to do things right, Concorde might still be in service. But alas, some truths are hard to admit and harder to accept. Bon Voyage!
It was the combination of over full fuel tanks, the extra taxi fuel that should have been burnt off or dumped, and the extra weight of the baggage in the aft hold that resulted in the the aircraft being grossly over its max take off weight, with the result that the CG was too far aft, outside of the design envelope, meaning it was too heavy to take off in the given flight conditions coupled with poor maintenance on the aircraft by Air France. This is the fault of the pilot and Air France, and had nothing to do with design or airworthiness of the aircraft. The initial reports said the fuel tanks had ruptured due to piece of tyre hitting the wing. The reality was that the over full fuel tank reacted to the impact by a hydraulic shockwave that blew out the bottom of the tank. The tanks were NEVER designed to be over filled for this very reason. There was a huge test rig built in the Bristol UK factory with a complete wing with fuel tanks. One of the test we subjected it to was direct impacts from both engine and undercarriage parts (not just tyres) to simulate both exploding tyres and major engines malfunction (such as turbines shedding blades). The underside of the wing was reinforced to protect against this. The wings were not made the conventional way with skins riveted to internal stringers. Rather they were machined from huge solid billets of alloy, so the wing surfaces were integral with the internal stringer structure. VERY, VERY strong! If i remember correctly, the skin was around 1.5” min thickness with 5” integral stringers, all made from one block of alloy.
When I drove to work on Long Island, I would see it coming into Kennedy Airport. What a beautiful plane.
But, if the pilots hadn't allowed the extra baggage and not over-filled the fuel-tanks, as well as not taken off with a 8 knot tailwind - all things within total control and purview of the commander in the cockpit - the flight might just have taken place without a hitch, or at least not resulted in a total hull loss and 113 lives? I think the pilots were totally over-confident and reckless - very possibly because of pressure from Air France, to perform these charter-fligths. Yes, every accident is a chain of f**k ups, but look at what was controllable vs. what is happenstance, and it so often turns out that the pilots (the ultimate last line of defence) were just not doing their jobs in a safety conscious way. Christian Marti was probably a cool guy and a great pilot, but he was also a risk-taker (surfing across the Atlantic....), and probably suffered from over-confidence in his own abilities. Sad, but a very common human truth.
Turbine heat burned rudder flap. Original footage shows both sets of tires in flames.. metal object on runway or design flaw.
I don't know how many times youtubers will make videos on the same topic again and again just to milk viewers.
You don’t have to watch it, you know that, right?
Fatalities 109
Survivors 0
Extra fuel....extra baggage....wow...
What a engineering marvel nonetheless
Its still so fascinating that in the 1970’s area a plane with unreal capabilities flying over 60K feet and cruising at mach 2 the engineering behind this has to unbelievable!!! The best Airplane ever !!!!❤ We miss u concorde 🛩️✈️
Fuel tanks - Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is to fill to 82-83% to allow for airspace.
Extra Taxi fuel was requested. SOP is I think 1 tonne.
Over half a tonne of baggage was placed in the rear hold.
Fuel pumps and transfer valves was pumping fuel forward. SOP is to have these switched off. Fuel transfer should never be on during the take off run.
Concorde was a tonne over its structural safety weight.
Taking off into a tailwind now made Concorde several tonnes over the maximum structural take off weight.
Because of the quiet time of day and a short taxi all the taxi fuel wasn’t burnt up. This now increased Concorde’s weight (it was already above it’s structural take off weight.)
Conncorde Centre of gravity was beyond rear (aft) limits, which was set at 54% by test pilots. (This is why the crew were transferring fuel during taxi and the take off run.)
The missing spacer in the left hand undercarriage retarded the aircraft during the take off run. Slowing the acceleration off the plane down. Air France pilots calculated that Concorde should have taken off 1500 meters before the metal strip.
When the tyre hit the wing there was no airspace in the tank. This set up a shockwave in the tank because there was no airspace. The tank blew from the inside out. The tank was not penetrated.
The missing spacer in the left landing gear and the missing tyre caused the left landing gear to skew to the left. Uncontrollably forcing Concorde off to the left-hand side of the runway.
Concorde hit a runway light and debris from this entered the number 1 engine and caused damage.
The plane took off avoiding a 747 by 7 meters.
At 24 feet the flight engineer shut down the number 2 engine. This is against SOP. The procedure is to stabilise flight at 400 feet and wait for the captain’s instruction.
The fuel tank would have been emptied before the Concorde crashed but fuel was still being pumped forward into the tank. Which meant that the tank was still 30% full.
A series of standard operating procedures which were not followed, and a maintenance error caused this crash. It wasn’t just a single piece of meal on the runway.
Take away the fault with the undercarriage gear - Concorde would have remained straight down the runway and engine number 1 would not have sustained damage. Concorde could have used the whole length off the runway and taken off at its v2 speed.
Take way the overfilling of the fuel tanks and the tank would have remained intact. Engine number 1 and 2 would not have lost power and fire warning would not have gone off prompting the flight engineer to wrongly carry out a fire drill at low altitude. This would have also solved the aft centre of gravity issue and the fuel pumps and transfer valves would have been switched off
2 tons of fuel for take off is colossal and the rest you can imagine over a 3 hour or so journey.This monstrosity cannot be allowed in the airspace.Enough is enough, we love the subsonic speeds, lets leave supersonic speeds to the demons.
The snoot drooped 😅
That is why in the aviation industry, both practical wise and technical wise, even a single missing screw is a factor. But in this case, how are we going to check the runway whenever a plane take off?
However, simply just look at the speed, the pressure, the impact, so on, immediately and instant catastrophic. May we are still alive and living, cherish every moment and simplicity. God bless us all!
🙇🏻♂️🤲🏼☘️🍀
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!
🙇🏻♂️🤲🏼☘️🍀🙌🏼
The Olympus engines were originally designed for the BAC TSR-2 supersonic bomber. The engines were virtually indestructible, on one of the early test flights in the UK, someone left a 3 ft wrench stuck in the engine intake doors. When theses reconfigured in flight, the wrench was released, and with a tremendous bang, shot straight through the engine. The pilots felt the impact, the engine cycled down to 90% power then recovered back to 100%, but the pilots chose to stop the engine and returned to the test airfield. When they stripped it down, apart from some slight damage to a few blades in the front compressor no further damage was found. I was working at BAC on Concorde at the time and was told this by one of the test pilots involved. Their were some other equally hair raising incidents in those days!
A wheel was changed in France an a spacer was left out in the repair shop a British mechanic pointed this out and the French hid the account .
because of the faulty part of metalic peace from another plain. it's just to unbelievable to shot down this piece of art from the air from someone else's mistake. 2:39
Great video why is not avaible to watch in the UK?
1:01
37:52
Yep first
$11,000 for a NY to London flight, what a stupid plane
I blame the snoop droop, who makes a snoop tha droops. anyways.
Interesting content💕