Hey Lou- I have a story for you. I heard this from the guy who was putting the new hardware into my computer (it was about his uncle, I believe):

This man's uncle served as a pilot in the Vietnam War. He (at least primarily) flew helicopters, and one day while sitting in the cockpit on the ground for whatever reason, happened upon a switch marked "Pressure Release Valve" or something of that nature. Not having been told what it did, he flipped it, causing a pop which damaged the rotor as pressurized gasses were propelled backwards out of the general area of the rotor. As soon as he realized the damage he had caused to the rotor, he quickly ran off, leaving the damage a mystery to his commanding officers.

At another point, later, his helicopter sustained damage from machine-gun fire while he was heading back from some assignment. The helicopter was quickly losing altitude and speed, and it looked as if they were going to crash into the trees of the Vietnamese jungle. There was a clearing not too far ahead, but, as the chopper was damaged, he could not make it there. As the copilot began to panic, he suddenly remembered the pressure release valve. He flipped it, releasing the pressurized gases, and the helicopter was propelled forwards like a jet, allowing him to gain enough speed to reach the clearing. While he was very lucky to be alive, as soon as he got back to camp and was debriefed on how he survived, he was immediately thrown in the brig as punishment--they had figured out who wrecked the first helicopter. 

I thought that was gusset chafing.   

Everybody touches you and never washes their hand?

And that is what fell off a Continental Airlines DC-10 at paris Charles-deGaulle that caused the Concorde to crash.




POST #757!!!

Best narrowbody ever!

StephenL wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 8:39pm:


Not exactly... the part was on the runway, it cut the Cncordes tire, the tire hit the fuel tank, wing caught fire.  Thats the short version, there is a LOT more to it.

The aircraft was also about 2,000lbs over MTOW and gear failed to retract.

Guys, concerning the Concorde crash, I really don't know where to start on correcting your (unmarked) assumptions and placing some facts.

Reading sentences like 'Since the engines are paired, if there's a fire in one, it takes of the second.' actually shows that you not only missed to read the official BEA report on this (yes, there's an English version too), but also lack of some knowledge about the construction of that airplane, e. g. when it comes to engine fires.
That's not a shame at all, but why state assumptions and strange theories as facts when there's an excellent read available?
It also shows which part actually fell of the DC-10.


I could offer you to upload the report or you maybe just do a simple Google search to read some 187 pages, which also acted as the basis for the trials and the sentencing.  

Everybody is free to assume things of course, but that report actually helps on the facts. Feel free to read, it even takes some conspiracy theories into account.
To sort of motivate you, even with four engines running, that AFR 4590 flight was doomed.

'During development, Aerospatiale-BAC knew that ruptured tires punctured the fuselage.'
Seems like this 'fact' is only known to some of us, or just is another assumption.  
Regarding the actual trial outcome, no manufacturer was sentenced (not plane, engine or tire for example).
Once again, enjoy the read on e. g. when and where punctures happened before, and please mark your own assumptions as such.  


Bruce, that flame thing sounds like unburned fuel (from the start attempts) finally getting burned after a successful engine start. This isn't dangerous at all, but a good reason to call ATC that you don't have an engine fire.
Now that really is an assumption of mine of course.
If they had a 'rubbing' fan right from the start, the thing would have a static damage, whereas Lou's example shows one which is load dependant.

You also can't punish McDonnell-Douglas for something that wasn't supposed to be on the plane, and these NTSB summaries show previous tire incidents:

13 June 1979: The number 5 and 6 tyres blew out during a take-off from Washington, D.C. Dulles Airport. Shrapnel thrown from the tyres and rims damaged number 2 engine, punctured three fuel tanks, severed several hydraulic lines and electrical wires, in addition to tearing a large hole on the top of the wing, over the wheel well area.
21 July 1979: Another blown tyre incident, during take-off from Dulles Airport. After that second incident the "French director general of civil aviation issued an air worthiness directive and Air France issued a Technical Information Update, each calling for revised procedures. These included required inspection of each wheel and tyre for condition, pressure and temperature prior to each take-off. In addition, crews were advised that landing gear should not be raised when a wheel/tyre problem is suspected."
October 1979: Tyres number 7 and 8 failed during a take-off from New York's JFK Airport. In spite of the well-publicized danger from the previous incidents, the crew ignored the new safety recommendations and raised the landing gear and continued to Paris. There was no subsequent investigation by the French BEA or the NTSB of that incident.
February 1981: While en-route from Mexico City to Paris, Air France (F-BTSD) blew more tyres during another take-off at Dulles Airport. Once again, the crew disregarded the new procedures by raising the landing gear. The blown tyres caused engine damage which forced the flight to land at New York JFK Airport. The NTSB's investigation found that there had been no preparation of the passengers for a possible emergency landing and evacuation. The CVR was also found to have been inoperative for several flights, including one which followed a layover in Paris.[