Posts about: "Air France" [Posts: 72 Pages: 4]

jodelistie
First of all Rod, welcome to our Concorde thread, and thank you very much for your kind words.
Now as far as the rumour goes, I'm afraid that it is nonsense, however the truth is an even more complex story of collusion, betrayal and intrigue. You may read that 'Concorde was retired by BA and Air France purely due to economic reasons', however that is not quite the case (and as far as THIS side of the English Puddle goes, is total poppycock!!). Now BA lost a huge amount of her regular traffic as a result of the 9/11 tragedy and also as a result of the 2003 Iraq war, but things were improving nicely. In her 27 years of operation, Concorde had survived countless dips in her traffic, only to return stronger as market conditions improved.
It is early 2003, and French Concorde traffic to the USA has almost vanished, down to single digit loads. This is due mainly to total French opposition the impending US/UK invasion of Iraq, and US businessmen using BA Concorde almost exclusively. (French business seems to be boycotting the US altogether, so their contribution to passenger loads virtually ceased). Due to the apalling loads, AF are losing absolutely MILLIONS of Euros, at a time when the carrier is trying to privatise itself ... but there is more:
In the same February, AF very nearly lost ANOTHER Concorde, yet again largely down to total incompetence and lack of adherence to established procedures. Aircraft F-BTSD was flying between CDG and JFK when there was a failure of the reheat delivery pipe that runs from the engine 1st stage fuel pump to the reheat shut-off valve. This failure, although not particularly serious, led to a chain of events that very nearly resulted in the loss of the aircraft, and all those onboard. (Air France engines were overhauled seperately to BA, who never experienced this particular failure). What was required in the case of this failure was a precautionary engine shut-down, closing off the fuel supply to the engine totally, and a descent/deceleration to subsonic speed, carefully monitoring fuel consumption all the time. Unfortunately the crew 'forgot' to shut down the fuel LP valve, and this resulted in the fuel continuing to gush out of the failed pipe at an alarming rate. (Oh, and also they forgot to monitor the fuel consumption). Only after the crew FINALLY noticed that they were still losing fuel did they remember to close the engine LP valve, but it was almost too late. The aircraft just managed to land in Halifax, with barely enough fuel left in the tanks to taxi!! So, herer we are, AF are horrified that they have come very close to yet another disaster, knowing full well that yet again human error was a major factor.
But there is more....
One week later another AF aircraft loses part of a rudder panel due to de-lamination of the honeycomb surface, not particularly serious in itself, but it put even more jitters up the trousers of AF. (Rudder failures had happened to BA aircraft many years previous to this, but BA had purchased brand new and improved rudders from Airbus UK in Filton, but Air France chose not too).
So it seems that the chairmen of both Air France and Airbus (who regards Concorde as a waste of its valuable resources) have a 'secret' meeting to plan what was effectively the murder of Concorde. There is no way that AF want BA to carry on flying Concorde while they have to cease operations, so the plan is for Airbus to make a huge hike in their product support costs; these costs would have to be borne by BA exclusively, which they both knew would not be possible. If these support costs were not met, there would be no manufacturers support, and without this there would be no type certificate, and without this, no more Concorde.
Their (AF & Airbus) hope was that BA would not challenge this move legally, and sadly for the world of aviation they did not. At a meeting, BA AND AIR FRANCE!!!! were told by Airbus about the hike in product support costs, and BA would also have to cease operations. BA were not even allowed to continue until March 2004 (the Barbados season was nearly fully booked already), and so would have to cease operations in October 2003.
But the British were far from blameless in all this; a now retired very senior British airline person had always obsessively HATED Concorde, so the French conspiracy was a very early Christmas present for him; he finally got what he had always wanted. The 'end of Concorde' anouncement by both airlines was made in April 2003; AF had got what their executives wanted and finished flying in May, reluctantly leaving BA to fly until late October. If you want a full (and extremely well informed) explanation of what happened in that whole debacle, the article by Don Pevsner is worth reading. It can be found at this website:
THE BETRAYAL OF CONCORDE
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that without the truly disgusting events in France in early 2003, Concorde would still be proudly flying for BA. (And with modifications and enhancements would fly safely for many more years).
quote** "in the hands of true professionals, Concorde was the safest aircraft that ever flew. and in the hands of BA crews at least, she was always just that..*

Oh and yes you were correct, the Olympus (the world's first ever 2 spool engine) was originally a 'Bristol-Siddeley' design, before BS were absorbed into Rolls-Royce. Stanley Hookers book is in my view totally superb, a true classic.

Dude

M2Dude & Brit312:

FWIW the LP Cock to shutoff was added to the precautionary engine shutdown C/L - but I think this was after (and because of) the AF inceident.

But I had understood that their engine failure that day had been due to a problem with the engine which caused enough vibration to damage the fuel pipe leading to the leak. I don't know if they ran the Fire / Severe Damage C/L, but that C/L always involved shutting the LP Cock as part of the Cleanup Items. Maybe they did "only" run the Precautionary Shutdown C/L - I have no idea, but the LP Cock position (which turned out to be key to the near loss of the a/c) would depend on it prior to the addition of that step in that latter drill.

I do remember there was always controversy in training circles about the Cleanup Items and when or where (or even "IF"?) they should be run: but IF the AF flight had run the Fire / Severe Damage drill and IF they had run the Cleanup Items soon afterwards, then their situation would not have been so dire.

No critisism of anyone intended (AF crew or forum posters), it's all such a long time ago now, but the nuances involved in Precautionary Shutdown / Fire - Severe Damage / Cleanup Drills were far from clear-cut...

NW1
I do remember well that the AF incident was as a result of severe vibration, that was what I was (not very elequently) eluding to in my previous post. The engine shut down was due to these vibrations, not because of any fuel loss. According to Rolls Royce the fuel pipe fracture ended up being as a result of an engine build failure, on the part of the AF sub-contractors. However my 'eyes closed' comment still holds here I'm afraid, it's basic situational awareness folks. And I'm not jumping to any conclusions here , I helped investigate the first of the serious errors (the experimental c/b tripping/overfuel surge incident) when I was still at British Aerospace in early 1977 and learned long ago to get my facts straight as far as possible in these things.
As a grotty old engineer I tend to lack the subtlety and diplomatic skills of you guys, but this coming at the end of such a long catalogue of gross errors, this possibly last straw in the life of Concorde was in my view also the very last straw in terms of these serious procedural failures too.
There are so many events in Concorde's history that we would like to 'roll back the clock' on, but this extremely pivotal one has to be just about at the top of a very big pile (save of course for the Gonesse tragedy).

Dude

Sorry M2Dude, but although I agree that the reasons for the premature withdrawal from service lay south of La Manche, the AF incident we're talking about was not due to "forgetting to select the LP cock to shutoff" in your quote
<<What was required in the case of this failure was a precautionary engine shut-down, closing off the fuel supply to the engine totally, and a descent/deceleration to subsonic speed, carefully monitoring fuel consumption all the time. Unfortunately the crew 'forgot' to shut down the fuel LP valve>>
At that time the Precautionary Engine Shutdown C/L did not call for the LP cock to be selected to shutoff (that stable door was subsequently closed). So no procedural errors there.

You could argue that the severe vibration which kicked off the incident should have called for the Engine Fire / Severe Damage C/L in which case the Cleanup C/L would have seen the LP Cock closed - but when? And was this the drill called? IF the Precautionary Shutdown drill was used then it is not surprising that the LP cock was not closed. That's all.

Easy when looked at through a retrospectoscope....

And for what it's worth I think AM and CF were a pair of [edited to say: "allegedly not supportive of the Concorde operation"] who should not have been allowed any authority at all over this precious project....

Nope.
I don't think this is the thread to discuss the F-104 story (I'll happily exchange some PMs, if you want. I was involved with the F-104 a long time ago, even if only on the sideline).
But in very brief, the German AF took on operating a bi g fleet of a new and not yet fully mature variant of the F-104, while lacking the needed maintenance competence, or enough pilots with the necessary skills.
The slow-speed characteristics had very little to do with it.

CJ

All due respect but this is the CONCORDE thread and it would be really nice if it could stay as such. If you wish to debate wing technology of other aeroplanes then please I would suggest a new thread be started on that subject. I daresay it would also make for an interesting discussion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LandLady said in a post many moons ago that there was a pool of some 240 "Concorde Ambassadors" (sorry but CC and FAs don't sound right for this aeroplane) for Her. What was the numbers of Captains, First Officers and the all important Flight Engineers (sucking up to M2 with that one )

Does anyone know how long did it take to fly from NZ (AKL if I remember correctly) to SYD (very early 90s I think). It is about the same distance at John O Groats to Lands End so I am guessing the 20 to 25 minute mark and how did the 2mt piece of rudder parting company with the fuselage at Mach 2.04 over the Tasman Sea affect or effect the handling characteristics? I remember the papers saying it was hardly a noticable event but I suspect the BA publicity department had a hand with that information.

I looked at the photos posted by a thoughtful member in an earlier post and wonder how former crew felt looking at them. The photos give the impression that you could kick the tyres and light the fires and they would be once again gracing the skies. Obviously they are unairworthy BUT the photos project a different image.

Final one for this post. If She was still flying, do you still think that BA (sorry but going to ignore AF on this one) would have sufficient patronage to keep Her as a going and profitable concern?

I would say that the SR-71, and the Tu-144, are in a way honorary members of the Concorde family, so I don't mind if they fly into the discussion every now and then.

The full list of names (up to 2002) for both BA and AF can be found in "The Concorde Story" by Chris Orlebar. For BA, a quick count shows about 170 names. That book also mentions, that the maximum number of crews qualified at any one time was 28, in 1980, and that the average was about 20 crews.

Photos can lie.... or rather, they are rarely close-up enough to show clearly where corrosion has set in.

As an example, F-BVFC at Toulouse, which was the last one to remain at least taxyable, now has some patches of corrosion starting to show, when you know where to look. Not to mention the nasty smell of damp and mould in the cockpit which bodes no good for what's going on underneath the floor.

And even F-BTSD, kept "live" to some extent at Le Bourget, leaks some hydraulic fluid (like all Concordes did on the ground), so it's easy to imagine the dried-out hydraulic and fuel seals on the other museum aircraft.




And yes, that's kitty litter...
The composite material of the floor and the hydraulic fluid don't agree too well.

I'll leave M2dude to answer that one.

CJ

Have a quick look here:
Concorde FAQ
(Scroll down to "How much does a Concorde cost?" and "Did Concorde make a profit for the airlines?".)
IIRC, break-even was slightly over 100 airframes.

You are making the usual mistake of confusing development costs and operating costs.

The development costs were covered by the governments, so it that respect, yes, Concorde was a commercial disaster. Even so, the Concorde project paid for much of the groundwork of what was later to become the European Airbus consortium, so it certainly wasn't all wasted money.

BA and AF bought their first aircraft, much like all those other airlines that chickened out would have done.
Maybe they got a bit of a discount as launch customers, but they certainly paid for them!
BA and AF were never expected to pay for the development costs... you could say that was not their problem!

BA's operations were in the beginning subsidised, until they "bought out" the government, and revised their cost and pricing structure.
After that, overall, the BA Concorde operation was profitable until the end. Maybe the bottom line of the operation wasn't huge, but it was certainly positive and no myth.

AF's operations, for various reasons, were less of a success story....

CJ

Biggles78
oooo that's a hard one to answer. The financial crisis that we are (I hope) clambering out of would almost certainly have impacted in a big way the load factors on the aeroplane. This almost certainly would have resulted in at least a severe curtailment in the operating schedule, but quite possibly now she would be absolutely THRIVING in the recovering world airline business. To answer your question fully, I think that there would at least NOW have been the willing and ability within the airline to keep her going in a big way, but there would be major expense over the last and next few years. The FAA SFAR88 directive would have already resulted in a major review of all fuel tank wiring and components. (However this appplies to any aircraft, ageing ones in particular). EGPWS would have been mandated by now, which means provision for at least one (probably two) GPS antennas. This upside of this would have meant the relative ease of incorporating a more accurate navigation system, the Litton LN93 system (Laser INS with GPS update) was already being looked at before retirement. A major structural modification to the fuselage crown area would certainly have been mandated under the FAA/EASA ageing aircraft programme, although the mods were pretty much drawn up before retirement (and would have been a permanent fix for the one chink in her supersonic armour). It is also probable that predictive windshear would have been activated. (The Bendix RDR4a had this capability but it was disabled in Concorde). I think that for PWS and RWS to operate correctly you'd need some sort of pilot display in any case.
Another seperate issue would be having sufficient 'O' licensed Engineering Officers in the airline; due to basic demographics there would be precious few left in the airline now. (My personal guess is that pilots would have to be trained as to qualify as P3's).
So although it would be far from easy to keep her going, if she was earning sufficient current and potential revenues, then I'd say yep!! (But this is just my humble opinion of course).

Dude

Cron

If you watch some of the more recent Concorde programmes, such as "Concorde's Last Flight", you'll hear and see the reaction of the various people (including our very own Dude) from the BA side of things as they talk about their charge. The AF crews also have that same look on their faces in the few programmes I've seen them in.

I think that Concorde was a running love affair for a lot of people, especially for those that flew her, looked after the passengers and maintained her but the effect of a Concorde pass on just about anyone was noticeable. Every head turned and looked skyward, and kept looking even after the aircraft was out of sight. People who lived below the regular flight paths, who might have been expected to be upset by the noise, used to come outside and watch on every occasion. I've seen almost a whole street appear a few minutes before a departing Concorde that passed over Reading and be rewarded with a great view in brilliant sunshine.

Not many aircraft have that kind of following....

Feathers,

"If you watch some of the more recent Concorde programmes, such as "Concorde's Last Flight", you'll hear and see the reaction of the various people (including our very own Dude) from the BA side of things as they talk about their charge. The AF crews also have that same look on their faces in the few programmes I've seen them in."

Is this a different show from the discovery programme - if so, is it available on DVD or is it 'streamable' somewhere ?

cheers,

d

I remember once decending into JFK, still at about M1.7ish on the 001 and the 002 was climbing out having just accelerated. Through disruption to schedules (this would not usually happen) the AF pair were in the same state (one in, one out, both supersonic). I asked the controller (I *think* it was NY centre) if that was the first time he'd ever had four supersonic airliners, simultaneously, on his watch - the reply was effusive and summed up the really positive reaction that aeroplane engendered in people working with it in any field...

Have read this thread now the last days with joy and thought long to put down a question if you may allow me.
When still in the skies us as operations loadcontroler on a different station but able to browse through the CDG passenger lists often checked for "the famous pax" on board the Lady (what was the nick for her at AF as someone (ChristiaanJ?) mentioned at AF the Concorde was a "he"?) I learned that a Concorde flight needed more than one loadsheet for the flight due to the complex fuelling system and the extreme move of the CG. Don't know if this is gossip or there's a true part in it. Did you get, except from the standard MACs for ZFW, TOW and LAW also a TOC MAC (maybe?).
Just wanted to say thanks to you all for the great time reading this thread.
Trabbi

You're right.

In French, it is ' un avion' (m.) and hence ' le Concorde' .... I repeatedly had to explain the use of "she" in English to French friends.

I don't think she really had a nickname within AF ; ' l'Oiseau Blanc ' (the White Bird) was/is a term more used by spotters and journos.

CJ

Thanks Dude. Age and time catching up, but probably mostly caused by having been awake for 24hrs when I posted!

Seemed a good idea at the time.

I echo your fears about AF - it would be nice to see some of the enthusiasts with wild ideas scale them down a bit and focus on saving AF rather than an impossible pipedream.

Has AF really accrued fewer hours than AG, with her time out of service?

Always my fave so I'm particularly keen she doesn't get butchered.

EXWOK
arghhhhhh.. age is catching up me ME
You are quite correct, Alpha Gulf accrued 2000 less airframe hours than Alpha Fox, mainly due to her protracted 'holiday' between 1982 and 1985.
Totally agree with you about not letting the scarebus b****s buther OAF. OAA became a truly pitiful sight when they chopped the wings off for transportation. (You can still see the massive 'cut lines' on the wings, the effect of this effectively in my view 'killing' the aeroplane).
It's all a little personal for me too; I did my very first LHR-JFK in OAF in September 1982, returning the following day in OAA . (Hutch, Chris Norris and Chopper Bill were the operating crew..... This old fart can still remember something I guess).

Regards
Dude

Did you ever wonder what happened when a British and French Concorde ended up at night in the same hangar, all by themselves?

Some of it can now be told.....

From the secret archives.



CJ

Landroger
The great thing about the OLY593 was the high specific thrust (in relative terms the Olympus is a tiny, compact design), it's growth potential/high potential mass flow. A bypass engine is not really ideal for supersonic cruise, and given what was available in terms of two-spool turbojets in the 1960s, the Olympus was the obvious choice for both the TSR-2 and Concorde alike. As far as for ships and power stations, well a turbojet is always going to be favourite, as all the gas energy is contained in the jet efflux; this can be efficiently transferred to the load in question by a gearbox coupled to the HP spool.

howiehowie93
Well the 593 did require a primary nozzle to match N1 against N2, bur apart from that she was a study of deceptive simplicity and elegance.
No mate, generally BI-HEX AF.
This really is fascinating stuff Howie, thank you. As I alluded to a few pages back, the primary nozzle on the OLY593 opened in response to the rising P7, kind of 'after the horse has bolted' in a way. To maintain the correct scheduled value of N1, the control system set, via a needle valve, a finite ratio between P7 and P3. As reheat lit as P7 attempted to rise it upset this ratio and the primary nozzle was opened in order to restore the aforementioned ratio. (Nozzle opens, P7 falls). When reheat was cancelled the opposite happened, and the nozzle closed sharply to prevent N1 overspeed.

Tom355UK
Glad you are enjoying our thread, and thank you for your kind words. (But apologies to your good lady wife though ).
Jeepers Tom that is one hell of a question. Assuming there was a market for such a venture (personally not sure right now) I think you are looking at BILLIONS of $, and for this reason alone I think you'd find that a multi-national/continental effort would be required. There is little doubt that technology is not the major barrier here, but economics and political will. (Nice thought though, I do agree).
As far as a powerplant goes, well the PW5000 is a really superb engine, although well down on the thrust requirement for an 'NG' SST. More likely I would have thought would be e development of the Olympus, there was/is still such an enormous amount of potential in this basic design. (But who knows, this is all pure speculation anyway).
And have no fears about posting here Tom, most of us are quite happy to answer away (We've said before that there is no such thing as a stupid question; you are most welcome here ).

DavvaP It really did not matter what airframe we used for the test flight; the sole purpose was just to find out just what effect (if any) the tank liners had on the performance of the fuel system. (The handsome chap who you see on TV most, installing the liners, Mr Marc Morley left BA and now resides in Australia).
I am honoured to say that I was lucky enough to be onboard G-BOAF for that flight from LHR-BZZ and as far as I could tell, the liners had no impact whatsoever. One amusing part of the flight was when we deliberately allowed tank 3 to run dry and see just what the indicated fuel quantity was as #3 engine flamed out (we were subsonic at this point of course). The gauge slowly crept down (in order for the tank to to run dry, the tank 7 & 8 transfer pumps were switched off) and we all watched in eager anticipation/dread....... as the counters reached zero weeeeeee... the engine flamed out. I am being completely honest here, the engine wound down EXACTLY at ZERO indicated contents).
Those 7 aircraft really did look magnificent I know, it was just sad as to the reason they were all lined up there.

Mr.Vortex
Well she was a delta without a tailplane, so the short answer is 'yes', but remember that we used fuel to move the CG backwards and forwards for long term trimming.
OK, this is a little complicated, so bear with me. The intake had a finite limit, in terms of the mass flow that it could deliver to the engine and so an automatic N1 limitation signal was transmitted from the intake 'box' (the AICU) to the engine 'box' (the ECU) full time above Mach 1.6. Now this limitation was referenced against TEMPERATURE compensated N1, ( N1/ \xd6 q) and at normal ISA temperatures this limit was above the 'normal' 101.5% N1 running line. (The lower the temperature, the lower the effective limit became). At ISA -7 the limit now became less than 101.5% N1, and so the demanded value of N1 was reduced to this value. But this limit signal was always there, it's just that at normal temperatures it was effectively ignored by the ECU. If this limitation signal failed for any reason, the AICU would detect this by way of the ramp angle becoming uncomfortably close to it's MINIMUM variable limit (this limit was scheduled as a function of intake local Mach number) and an amber light would illuminate on the associated N1 gauge, along with an amber INTAKE master warning would illuminate (plus an audible 'BONG' from the audio warning system). The only course of action was to manually reduce throttle setting away from the Mach 2 norm of maximum, in order to reduce N2, and consequently N1 and mass flow demand. There was in intake pressure ratio indicator at the top of the intake control panel that would show where the power setting would have to be set to. It was an indirect indication of intake shock geometry.
This manual N1 datum reset control was only used during flight test trials into just how much N1 would have to be controlled/reduced at low temperatures in order to give optimim intake geometry. It had absolutely nothing to do with afterburner/reheat and had no place in the production aircraft as all the research was complete

Best regards to all
Dude

Okay....couldn't wait until I had completed the thread review before posting a question (on Page 9 now ). One 'easy one':

I'm curious as to how difficult getting the C type rating was. Presumably only senior BA / AF people could apply but there must have been a huge learning curve involved, even for these experienced foiks.

Cheers - Keith

Great thread, its taken some time to read through
The anecdotes from landlady , m2dude and the others are great

My main recollections are after coming back from Detroit to LHR, sitting on the National Express bus at dusk as Concorde took off from the runway parallel to the road, the whole bus shaking and watching the 4 engines glowing blue as she took off - brilliant. Sadly after that the next experience was passing 4 of them parked up after the AF disaster

As an Engineer I love things that push the envelope and limits - Concorde is one of those
Having just returned from Chicago on a 767, as capable as it is, I know what I would prefer to be riding in

I sadly doubt that we will see these flying again but I really would like to see effort in the next supersonic airliner rather than A380's and the like