Posts about: "Cabin Crew" [Posts: 23 Pages: 2]

Point taken GF, but it was discovered during development flying that that the Olympus 593 could be relit, given sufficient IAS, at almost any altitude within the normal flight envelope. The variable inlet would even be automatically scheduled, as a funcion of N1, in order to improve relight performance at lower Mach numbers. I certainly agree that you would decelerate and lose altitude fairly quickly under these conditions, however a multiple flame out was never experienced during the entire 34 years of Concorde flight testing and airline operation. There was, as a matter of interest an un-commanded deployment of a Concorde RAT AT MACH 2!! (The first indications of the event were when the cabin crew complained about 'a loud propeller sound under the rear cabin floor'. A quick scan of the F/E's panel revealed the truth of the matter). The aircraft landed at JFK without incident, and the RAT itself, apart from a very small leak on one of the hydraulic pumps, was more or less un-phased by the event. Although it sounds horrific, a prop rotating in a Mach 2 airstream, the IAS it 'felt' would be no more than 530 KTS at any time. The RAT was of course replaced before the aircraft flew back to LHR.
Not quite sure about your reference to the RAT on an F16 being Hydrazine powered; a Ram Air Turbine is just that, using the freely rotatting propellor to power hydraulics, electrics or both. Or do you mean the the F16 has an emergency power unit? Either way, it's fascinating stuff.
Yes, I do remember that the Germans used Hydrazine as a fuel during WW2: The father of one of our Concorde pilots was on an air raid to destroy one o the production plants there, this aviation business is such a small world.

The deceleration would be like very hard braking after landing, so - yes.

The drag incurred flying supersonic was once described to me as like flying through wood, not air. The only times I ever closed all 4 throttles at M2 was dealing with surges (see earlier posts on the subject). While not quite like flying into teak, the decel was very impressive - it more than once resulted in a member of cabin crew appearing in the flt deck in a semi-seated position, grimly trying to stop a fully loaded galley cart.......

As for four-engine flameouts - perish the thought. The checklists, like many, depended on flight phase;

Above M1.2 it was expected that windmilling would provide adequate eletric and hydraulic power so the c/list aimed to start a fuel txfr forward, use the spare hydraulic system to drive half the PFCUs, ensure a fuel supply to the engs and ensure cooling to equipment.

Below M1.2 the RAT would be deployed, it was less likely that the standard means of fuel txfr would work so valves were overridden and the hydraulic fuel pumps brought into use, and the Mach fell further the PFCUs were put on half-body use only, using the stby hydraulic system.

You weren't far from the ground, in time, at this stage so it was a good time to get an engine relit!

Given the Olympus' auto-relight capability a four engine loss was going to be caused by something fairly drastic.

I have spent the early afternoon reading this wonderful thread. Thank you to all you guys, it has brought back so much that I had forgotten.

I was a stewardess on The Beautiful Bird for a few years, and I know first-hand the love that we all had for our beloved 'Connie'.

I started my flying carreer with Freddie Laker in the early 70's, and was on the inaugral SkyTrain to JFK on July 4th 1976.

I am still flying for BA,and over the years I have been honoured to fly with some amazing crew, and like others on here, I count myself truely lucky to have been part of the Concorde Family.

Thank you again for sharing your amazing knowledge.

LL

landlady
landlady you are so welcome here, I'm sure the great people reading and contributing to this wonderful thread would love to hear any anecdotes or recollections that you might have about your experiences on our wonderful aeroplane.
Again, I'm sure I speak for all our 'family' members when I say 'welcome landlady'

Dude

landlady ,

I've only been on a Concorde flight once, and since that was the last-but-one Air France "round-the-bay", it's fairly obvious the very special party atmosphere on that flight was not quite the same a on a regular flight.

But from what I've read from other "trip reports", even a regular Concorde flight was never quite like a flight on any other aircraft.

So, welcome, and if you have any CC stories to relate... yes, please !

CJ

PS -- Can you imagine anybody doing a "trip report" about the usual eight boring hours on a 777 flight from CDG to JFK ??
And I'm sure you've often have seen the "Concorde grin" during your flights ....

In my experience on the receiving end, the amount of personal attention they gave each and every passenger was truly amazing, particularly considering the very complicated meal service offered from a galley with minimal storage volume and a tiny working space

I very much doubt CC had any time available, even for snacking on the 3-4 hour flights.

The two galleys were a fairly cramped environment, and the forward galley in particular suffered by being an extremely hot place to work in. This heat came not from the ovens, Bev' makers or such, but kinetic heat from the area surrounding Door 1 Left. There was precious little air conditioning ducting in this area (no passengers sat there you see) and this door area really make one sweat a bit. Coupled to all this, because of the short flight time there was precious little time for the crews to achieve a full three course meal, including wine/Champagne sevice. Speaking for BA, these six crew worked their socks off at a truly astonishing pace, but sat in your airline seat, all you as a passenger ever saw was a truly superb cabin service from a truly professional group of people.
Oh, and the food was totally FIRST class, the wines even more so. (Hic! ).
So to any ex Concorde cabin crew reading this thread, a genuine and sincere 'well done guys', you did the fleet proud

Dude

EXWOK's superb post above really characterises what Concorde was all about; An aircraft with 100 Champagne sipping passengers sitting in total comfort, the aircraft sat at Mach 2 - 2.02, 60,000' and wanting really to both climb and accelerate, but having to be restrained to prevent this and the engines poodling along and nothing approaching their maximum power. Seven cabin crew happily looking after their one hundred charges and three VERY lucky guys, sat at the front of this wonderful aircraft in shirtsleeve comfort and having really the best time of anyone aboard.
ANY fighter of the time would have to have been on full afterburner with the pilot in a sweaty flying suit and bone dome and only able to stay at anything like this speed for a VERY few minutes.
To EXWOK and the other guys (and gal ) I take my hat off, because you made it happen. Because of all you guys BA had 27 years of highly successful and TOTALLY SAFE Concorde operation. In the VERY few times that things did not go to plan, your skill and professionalism made the hairiest of moments seem like total routine.
And stilton my friend, we are in debt to you for starting this thread in the first place. Keep asking away and we'll all do our best to give you as straight an answer as possible; it's really fun for us too.

Hello again all,

M2dude is quite right about the galleys being small. The crew on jets these days have far more space than we ever had, and the only galley smaller than Concorde in my opinion was that on the BAC1-ll.

As far as the service was concerned, there were actually three galleys involved. One at the front, (devilishly hot!!) one in the midships which was 'constructed' by means of fixing a table top between the bulkheads after the seat belt sign had been switched off, and of course, there was the rear galley. This could also prove to be a very hot place, especially on AF which we used to call the 'greenhouse' effect. (It was also the noisiest crew positions for the two at the back, especially on take-off, as you can imagine.)

The mid galley would be used simply as a replenishing station....a designated crew member would set it up at the begining of service with extra ice, water, glasses, lemon, wine, champagne etc., so the crew on the trolleys wouldn't have to waste precious time by going back to the galleys for these items during the meal service.

The crew member who took the forward galley position would be barricaded in by means of another table top at the begining of service, and stay there until the meal service was completed. They would have the responsibility of making up drinks orders, cooking the meals, (including F/D, cc meals and any pre-ordered special meals.) The galley person at the rear would be doing the same, but without having to be barricaded in as there was enough galley space there to work un-hindered. Unlike today, there would be no chance of the CSD or rear purser overseeing the service...they were on the trolleys!

That takes care of two crew members. The other four would be two at the front and two at the back, each having a side of the aircraft to look after. They would have memorised the names of each of thier pax, on a full flight that would be twenty-five each. (Not difficult as most of them would be familiar faces in one way or another!)(If not royalty, celebities , mps then regulars.) Because there were more pax in the rear cabin, the two crew in the forward cabin would take the first two rows in the rear cabin. (There was no row 13.)

We did have meals put on for us, but generally not the same as the pax. The F/D would have three different meals in case of food poisoning. (I have never known a case of F/D food poisoning in over 35 years of flying, but I do know it has happened.) We didn't have much time to eat, but we did throw a mouthful down, generally standing up in the galley! (How can you tell a cc member at a party? they are the ones wiping thier hands on the curtains.)

Pax meals were amazing: caviare boats, pate du fois gras, quails eggs were amongst favourite canapes; lobster curry another favourite main, a delicious pudding tray (served on a half tray after the mains tray had been cleared) and a selection of English cheeses served from the trolley, served with celery and fruit accompanied by claret and port. (The wines were exceptional - such as Krug, Chateu Talbot and Meursault.) The trays always looked exquisite with a pink carnation and a white box sporting the speedird livery containing two Thornton's chocolates.

By the time all this had been cleared in, imigration forms handed out and coats delivered back to their owners, it was seat-belts time again! Level flight was a rarity as we were climbing until half-way accross the pond and then on our way down, so the trolleys were hardly ever level.

It has been lovely remembering all these little details again. Every crew member knew their roles inside out, which created reassuringly calm atmosphere from the passengers point of view. If the system was followed to the letter, we always had time for a cup of tea before checking belts and securing the cabin!

I feel honoured to be regailing you all with these snippets of life on the Concorde fleet, especially as this thread is really concerned with the mechanics of the lady. There arn't too many crew left flying now, (it's just that I started when I was two!!!) I will try and persuade others, (retired), to help me jog my memory.

Kind regards.
Landlady.

landlady ,

Don't forget it was you and your colleagues that made the Concorde experience so special just as much as the three guys in the front office, or the ground staff, or the engineers, or us wavers of slide rules.
So yes, the experience from your side is as much part of the "Concorde Story" as ours !

Your description of a typical regular flight is much as I imagined it.

Did you ever do any of the BA 'round-the-Bay' charters?

My only flight was one of the last Air France 'round-the-Bay' flights.
Total duration from take-off to touchdown was only about 1h 50min, yet even so the CC managed to serve us all the classic glass of champagne, a three-course meal that we barely had time to finish, and of course the little box with two choccies... Fauchon in our case.

And all this notwithstanding the steady flow of pax down the aisle, first to have their photo taken next to the Mach meter at M 2.03, and then again for the cockpit visits.

How they managed it I will never know....

CJ

Remembering back to the day I operated my first flight on Concorde, (it was know as a supernumery.... anyone on their first trip was in fact an extra crew member.) I had been flying for over 10 years by the time I was selected for this amazing fleet, and of course as we ladies like to think, I knew everything there was to know. (Including men and the universe, but I digress.)

Two memorable things happened on this flight. (Apart from the obvious first take off, sitting in the back row pinned to the seat and whoosh! Blimey, nothing like it and I never tired of experiencing that feeling of really going somewhere. Fast. Made the Trident 1 look a little slow in comparison. Not the Trident 2 though, as that was a little quick over the ground, too.)

The lovely John Cleese was to be mine to take care of during the crossing, and I asked him (before departure) what drink he would like after take off. Poised with my pad and pencil, back came the reply, "I'll have my usual cocktail, please."
I scurried back to the galley to ask the hairy a**ed old galley steward (she wasn't too good looking , either,) what Mr. Cleese' usual drink was."How the bl@@dy h@ll do I know? I've never carried him before. Go and ask him."
Undaunted, I asked a couple of the other, nicer crew, (or so I thought), if they knew what John Cleese' usual drink was.
"Nope." "Go and ask him. It's the only way you'll find out".
How unprofessional would that be? We were supposed to second-guess what everyone wanted before they even knew themselves. So, cap in hand, I went back to Mr. Cleese, who by now had his head buried in a script, and asked him what his usual cocktail actually was.
The reaction was classic Basil Fawlty. He stood up, a huge 6ft 8 or something, stooping as the ceiling hit his head, and began an almighty rant.
"I've been travelling on this aircraft for God only knows how long, and every time I ask for my usual cocktail, no-one knows what it is. Bl@@dy typical! Can't you get anything right....." on and on...all the passengers around him staring in amazement. I was fronting it up, red-faced and shaking in my shoes and wishing I was anywhere else.

Eventually, he sat down and beckoned me to come close to him as he whispered in my ear, "I'm tee-total, which your collegues know very well, having asked me to participate in this little practical joke when I got on board. There is no usual," he winked at me and added, "now get on with your first flight and take the 'L' plate of your back." (I did indeed have an 'L' plate stuck to the back of my jacket, and had it there since checking in.....)

On my arrival in the rear galley, I was greeted by three crew who were literally crying with laughter, who turned out to be the nicest people I could have worked with on my first trip. It was a stroke of luck that John cleese was travelling that day, as it isn't every passenger who would have participated in such a thing. (I did it myself a few years later with a new stewardess with the help of Sir David frost, who was just as brilliant.) ( I carried my 'L' plate in my crew bag in case of emegencies. A couple of pilots and F/Es have had the pleasure of wearing it, too.)

I looked after John Cleese many times after that, and he always gave me a wry smile when I never asked him what he wanted, just delivered his sparkling water.

Part two of this later...the dog has his legs crossed....

Warm regards,
LL x

As promised here are the answers to our trivia quiz.
Actually there were 14 (but if you are not necessarily a Concorde person, 13 is acceptable). There were '13 fuel tanks, numbered 1 - 11' as we used to tell all the visitors to the aircraft, (The wingtip tanks 5A & 7A making up the extra 2) PLUS a single small scavenge tank at the rear of the aircraft that was used to remove fuel from the vent lines and return this fuel via a transfer pump back to tank 3. (A fuel level sensor would trigger the pump with only 1 US Gallon of fuel in the tank). If the trim gallery became over-pressurised (ie tank 3 already full to the brim) an overflow relief valve (ORV) underneath the rear of the aircraft would open and dump the contents of the tank overboard. There was a flight deck indication if the scavenge pump was running in flight to give the crew an indication that a tank somewhere was probably over-filling and to take the appropriate action. There was one added goody about the ORV; If you were on the ground with the refuel door open and due to a refuelling overfill anywhere, fuel entered the scavenge tank, at 7 gallons the ORV would open and rapidly dump the fuel on the floor. For this reason a vent pipe and fuel drum was often placed underneath the ORV during high load refuels. If this was not fitted and you just happened to walk underneath the aircraft at the wrong moment during fuelling........
As a total aside to all this (or me going off on a tangent yet again) the fuel tanks themselves were gently air pressurised above 44,000' to around 2.2 PSIA. This was to prevent the beginnings of any boiling of the fuel in the tanks, due to the low ambient pressure/high fuel temperatures, causing pump cavitation. (Boiling itself could not occur much below 65,000'). A small NACA duct at the right side of the fin was used to supply the ram air for tank pressurisation, the two vent valves in the tail cone, one per trim gallery, closing off automatically at around 44,000', the pressure being controlled by a pneumatic valve, with full automatic over-pressure protection. OK sorry guys and gals, back to the answers:
This is the stinker.... there were 114 (although at entry into service there were 115!!). 100 passenger seats + 6 cabin crew seats + 5 flight deck seats (including the fold up seat in the aisle at the rear) PLUS 3 LOO SEATS (Originally 4 loos, the fourth loo being removed in the early 1980's).
50,189' and 530 KEAS, but we'll settle for anything around FL500 being correct.
Aircraft 216, G-BOAF, the last Concorde ever built. When 216 first flew in 1979 she was a variant 192 'British Unsold Aircraft' and was registered as G-BFKX. In late 1979, BA purchased the aircraft and it was subsequently converted to a Type 102 British Airways variant, and after modifications were complete, test flights were carried out from Filton under the registration of G-N94AF. This registration was to enable the aircraft to participate in the Braniff interchange between IAD and DFW, but when the Braniff Concorde adventure unfortunately ended in 1980, she was again re-registered to G-BOAF, this is how she was delivered to BA later that year.
Easy one this I hope; 60.000'. (As we've said before this limitation was imposed because of the dual window failure / emergency descent time consideration, not as a performance issue. On test flights 63,000' was routinely attained, and altitudes of up to 68,000' were achieved during development flying. (On her maiden flight, G-BOAB achieved 65,000' and Mach 2.04; the first British constructed Concorde to achieve Mach 2 on her maiden flight, and the ONLY one of the original five BA aircraft to achieve this).
Hopefully an easy one... there were TWELVE: 2 nose wheels, 8 main wheels and 2 tail wheels. (No, even I'm not nasty enough to include the wheels on the bar trolleys ). Oh, and there were 9 wheel brakes, one for each main wheel and as was mentioned in a previous post, a single steel disc brake for the nose wheels (the nose having a live axle), for automatic use during gear retraction only.
Three modes; Blue electronic signalling, green electronic signalling and mechanical signalling. I suppose we COULD be pedantic here and include the Emergency Flight Control mode where even with a jammed control column/control wheel, strain gauges (and Safety Flight Control Computers of course) would still enable you to control the elevons.
OK, three basically. Up (Duh!), 5 degrees for taxi/take off and low speed flight and 12.5 degrees for landing. As ChristiaanJ quite rightly pointed out in an earlier post, the prototype (and pre-production) aircraft landing position was 17.5 degrees of droop. (In my view the nose of the aircraft looked a little like an armadillo in this extreme configuration).
In 1977 the new digital Plessey PVS 1580 Aircraft Integrated Data System was progressively fitted to the BA fleet, this being the first microprocessor application on Concorde, this application being followed in several other systems during the life of the aircraft. The 'final' applications being TCAS and the superb retrofitted Bendix RDR-4A weather radar system.
No we are not including torch batteries and emergency lights etc. There were a total of seven main power sources: 4 x 60KVA AC generators, one per engine, a single 40KVA hydraulically powered emergency generator and 2 lead acid (or ni-cad in the case of G-BOAG) main aircraft batteries. (Not a terribly Re-Volting question I hope).

I hope this quiz was fun and not too perplexing to any of you guys.

Dude

I copied this off M2dude's post a couple of days ago, and tried to answer it all offline without cheating by looking up the answers elsewhere.

1) How many fuel tanks were there on Concorde?
LOL... 13.
I suppose that, for the same reason there was no row 13 in the cabin, somebody decided to name two of the tanks "5A" and "7A", rather than call the tail trim tank (named no.11) number 13.
Yes, I forgot the scavenge tank.
And since it was "BA Concordes only" I didn't want to add the hydrazine tank on the two preprod and the two certification aircraft.

2) How many seats were there?
Good question.
As Nick asked, which seats?
Nominally there were 100 pax seats in the cabin, although originally up to 127 were certified.
Five (three plus two jump seats) in the cockpit.
Cabin seats for the cabin crew.... I honestly don't know. Seven?
Wrong twice... six cabin crew seats, AND I forgot to count the loos!

3) At what approximate altitude and KNOTS EAS was Mach 2 achieved?
Roughly, FL500 and 530 kts.
But not being a pilot I had to check an instant on my flight envelope crib sheet, which I have at hand all the time.....
It seemed pointless to be TOO precise, because that assumed ISA and creeping exactly up the right edge of the envelope.

4) Only one BA Concorde had three different registrations, what was it?
Without looking it up, no idea. My guess is G-BOAF, with a white-tail reg, a "British" reg, and a pseudo-American reg.
IIRC, G-BOAG never had a pseudo-American reg, but I'm not sure without looking it up.
Brain not completely addled, then.

5) What was the maximum permitted altitude in passenger service?
FL600, as certified.

6) How many wheels on the aircraft?
Twelve, if you count the two Spitfire wheels at the back

7) How many flying control modes were there?
Four. Blue, green, mechanical and ... what did we call it? Control jam, CWS?
Ah, thanks, Emergency Flight Control. I always considered it as a separate mode, even if it was virtually never used.

8) How many positions of nose droop were there?
Four. 0\xb0, 5\xb0, 12.5\xb0 and 17.5\xb0 (the latter only on the prototypes, and purely mechanically, after removing a stop, on the other aircraft).

9) What was the first microprocessor application on the aircraft?
No idea... you (M2dude) mentioned a Plessey data acquisition system?
It was after "my time"...

10) How many main electrical sources were there?
Again, not sure... You're presumably are talking about primary sources.
There was an AC constant-drive generator on each engine.
Then there were two DC batteries.
And IIRC there was an AC generator running off the RAT hydraulic generator when pillar came to post.
Reading M2dude's answer, I suppose the emergency generator just ran off the hydraulics, not specifically off the RAT. Far more logical.

Nice one, M2dude!
And certainly not all trivia!

CJ

I stumbled upon this thread late last night and thought "26 pages, I'll have to read that in the morning".

Well, I did read it in the morning, it's just that I did so before I took myself off to bed at shortly after 5am.

It's simply wonderful to read all of this information, anecdotes and see the sheer delight and fascination that flows from those associated with the aeroplane.

To the comment about having Concorde pass by twice daily and always looking up, I can only say that I've never been within sight of a Concorde in flight where everyone else as well as me have not been looking up! How many aircraft can you say that about?

Please keep the thread rolling, it's truly fascinating. And to Landlady, I was watching a recent programme about Concorde's life and operation and the ladies of the cabin crew commented that almost everyone that they had on board had a smile on their face for pretty much the whole flight. Again, how many other aircraft can do that? Thank you for your anecdotes, they're priceless.

Ah, the legendary "Concorde grin"......

CJ

I sort of have a galley story if you'll forgive the intrusion from a non crew member.

My routine was out on the 8pm LHR subby into JFK around 11pm and taxi down to stay in the Marriott World Trade Centre (I didn't take BA3 as you'd just end up sitting in the traffic on the Belt or Van W). Wake up early, take either the Path train to Exchange Plaza or (if weather nice) Ferry to Colgate Clock and in to the office for 8am. Whistle stop tour round all the staff I was supposed to see and out to the airport to catch the 1345 BA4. Land at 2225 and home by midnight.

Once Robert Ludlum was in the (JFK) Lounge with his new(ish) wife. I used to smoke so we were in the smoking section discussing various things. The Pilot (Terry someone I think), came to say hi and to see if My Ludlum wanted to be up front for take off. Needless to say he didn't although I would have liked to take his place.

Concorde had just gone non-smoking but this was obviously a hard habit for Mr Ludlum to break. There were only about 5 of us in the rear section (quite normal for BA4) and Mr Ludlum disappeared into the un-occupied rear galley and motioned to me to join him. A crew member noticed us and came down to see what we were after. Needless to say Mr Ludlum asked if there was anything he could use as an ashtray causing the now nervous stewardess to peer into the cabin, close the curtain and supervise us having a crafty smoke. I think as it was so soon after the ban we got away with it, that and the fact it was Mr Ludlum asking.

Other than that, I always enjoyed what I called the most expensive lucky dip in the sky, which was when we were handed our little thank you. If you were lucky, you got something useful or unique (pen, Concorde paper weight etc). If you were not you got a writing set (blue paper and envelopes) or decanter labels (yuk). I was very annoyed with the penny pinchers who removed these little gifts on Concorde\x92s return to service as it was another part of the experience not found anywhere else.

One very long winded piece of personal nostalgia, I hope you\x92ll all bear with me:
In 1994 a Concorde (can\x92t remember the registration) flew out to Oshkosh Wisconsin (OKS) for the bi-annual EAA fly in. The aircraft was scheduled to fly from LHR to YYZ via MAN, where it would pick up 100 charter passengers in Manchester for a five day holiday in Toronto. The aircraft would then fly empty from YYZ to Oshkosh for the five day air show, before returning to YYZ to bring home the passengers to MAN. At Manchester another 100 charter passengers were then carried subsonically back to London. While the aircraft was in Canada and the US, it would be looked after by two American BA engineers who were based at JFK. At least that was the plan, but the best laid plans of mice and men\x85.
The aircraft was catered for the MAN-YYZ sector in London, and flew up to Manchester with just the three flight deck crew but no cabin crew (no passengers, so no need). At Manchester there would be a change of crew, plus a full complement of cabin crew for the on-going sector to Toronto (Plus of course 100 passengers). This is where things started to go rather wrong; when the aircraft landed at Manchester one of the bar trolleys , which had not been correctly secured by the catering twits, broke loose and flew through the open flight deck door (pre-911 the door was usually always open anyway). The trolley hit the back of the E/O\x92s chair and subsequently damaged a couple of fuel transfer switches on his panel. You can imagine what the three crew thought; they were just landing the aircraft when a high speed trolley decides to join them on the flight deck in an extremely noisy and spectacular entrance. (The language went something like \x91what the ***** was that!!). The two switches, although damaged still operated normally, and so the crew taking the aircraft to YYZ decided to accept the aircraft with just a couple of ADDs for the broken but still funtional switches.
So the aircraft, plus FOUR flight crew (an extra crew member, a captain in this case, was taken along to do the PR over the PA, as was usual on charter operations). Everything seemed to be going smoothly, or so it seemed, when there was a warning that the number 2 secondary nozzle \x91buckets\x92 had travelled towards reverse (the blue transit light was flashing) although the indicator on the E/O\x92s panel still apparently showed the nozzle at the correct zero degree position for supersonic flight. As always (at least with BA!!) the correct drill was applied, and a precautionary engine shut down was carried out. This now meant that the aircraft would have to decelerate to subsonic speed, and as a consequence would not be able to reach YYZ safely, and so a technical diversion to YQX (Gander NFLD) was carried out, the aircraft and passengers having an unscheduled night stop there. (This eating into the first night of the passengers stay in Toronto). The two JFK engineers who had been waiting patiently in YYZ had to quickly jump on a Lear Jet to Gander, and on arrival there got on the phone to London, that\x92s where I come in. The nozzle itself had not run away at all, it was merely an indication problem, but we all decided that the best course of action for now was to have the secondary nozzle physically locked at the intermediate position of 10 degrees as a performance ADD. This would still allow supersonic operation (although from YQX to YYZ there would be precious little of that), but with a fuel penalty of at least 1.5 tonnes per supersonic sector, plus of course no reverser operation on that engine. I still had concerns about the aircraft being able to return on the YYZ to MAN sector with a bucket locked out, but at least the passengers could now start their delayed holiday in Toronto, and the aircraft could happily fly on to the wilds of Wisconsin.
Every day during the EAA fly in, Concorde would do some charter flying, and the JFK guys would be on the phone every day letting us know how things were going. It seemed now that the secondary nozzle defect had \x91cleared up\x92 on it\x92s own, and the guys had decided to reinstate the secondary nozzle air motor to its normal position. We were all very apprehensive about this, and started to think about what the possible cause of the original defect was and maybe see about provisioning a spare part if necessary. On the final day of the EAA event, the aircraft was taxying out when another warning light for the number 2 bucket illuminated. The aircraft returned to the ramp where the JFK engineers again locked out the air motor at 10 degrees before leaving on its charter. We had discussions over the phone as to what the symptoms were, and it looked like the culprit was the switch pack that lived underneath the bucket assembly. I spent several hours getting spare parts shipped via MAINTROL to YYZ, the idea being that the bits could be flown out to Toronto on the next scheduled subsonic flight. It was generally agreed that the aircraft could not fly the YYZ-MAN sector with a bucket locked out due to performance considerations and so a fix was essential. (The spare parts included by the way the two switches that had been broken on the first landing into Manchester).
I was at the airport until quite late that night making sure that from the information that we\x92d been given the correct course of action had been chosen, and I only got about four hours of sleep before I had to head back to Heathrow the following morning. I had a feeling that I\x92d be possibly be asked to fly out to Toronto (the JFK guys requested this also) , so I took my passport, a change of clothes etc. with me just in case. Sure enough before I knew it I was on the 10:30 BA001 Concorde to JFK, a Limo taking me immediately across town from JFK to La Guardia. From there I was put on an Air Canada A320 to Toronto, arriving there at about 14:30 local time. (19:30 \x91my\x92 time, I was knackered already). When I got to our Concorde the JFK guys told me that the bits I\x92d sent the previous evening were stuck in Canadian Customs, and it took another hour or so to get our hands on them. We proceeded to get her \x91fixed up\x92 between us, and by about 20:00 local we were serviceable. I phoned the crew at the hotel, telling them of the good news, and was told that as soon as I\x92d checked in and had a shower, we were all going out to dinner (my body clock was now at 02:00). Now the flight crew and cabin crew are well [FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']acclimatised, having been in Canada and the States for FIVE days, but I am now a total wreck, (more so than usual), and w hen I finally got to bed it was around midnight Toronto time (05:00 London time). Now no one (including me) expected to see me for the 07:30 pick up from the hotel in the morning, but somehow I miraculously made it. Because one passenger had gone home to Manchester early, there was a seat available for me on the aircraft (I\x92d expected to have had to fly home subsonic, due to the only other available seat being the flip down flight deck aisle seat; to have sat there for over four hours would have been less than pleasant). So all I now wanted to do was get on the aircraft, collapse into my seat and SLEEP, but I had to wait until all passengers had boarded before I was allocated my seat; 26B right at the back of the aircraft. So here I go, getting onto the aircraft in what I thought was total anonymity when as I get on board the purser in the fwd. galley announces that \x91this is Mr Dude who flew out yesterday from London especially to make sure we don\x92t have to divert again\x92. I just wanted to die as I have to walk the gauntlet of 99 passengers all clapping and cheering all the way to the back of the aircraft, my face as red as a beetroot, and when I finally get to my seat I find that I am sat next to this really lovely elderly lady who wanted a blow by blow account of what had gone on, as well as a running commentary on the flight itself. (Of course alll I wanted to do was sleep, I was totally exhausted, but this old lady was absolutely delightful). About an hour after take-off one of the stewardesses informs me that the crew want me up front urgently, so here I go again walking the length of the cabin up to the flight deck. As I go in the guys said \x91I thought you\x92d fixed the *** ing thing.\x92 \x91I did\x92 replies yours truly, and I took a look at the flight deck panels and everything is normal. The four guys are killing themselves laughing, \x91fooled you\x92 , the flight engineer chirps up with (everything was fine, the joke was on me yet again). I once more stagger back to my seat, and for the rest of the flight I keep my lady passenger friend entertained with Concorde stories all the way back to Manchester. At Manchester there is another few hours wait before we FINALLY fly back down to Heathrow, with yet another load of passengers and I finally go home to bed. In all of my Concorde years I\x92d had many exhausting episodes, but Toronto \x9294 really took the biscuit.

Dude

Ah, YYZ...

My one flight on Concorde was YYZ to LHR, as part of a birthday treat shared with my parents. They say that of all the things they decided to do and damn the cost, the Concorde trip was the one experience of their lives that far exceeded expectations. (My father is a retired vicar and a PPL, and there's never been a spare penny in the family - when they say that, they mean it.)

I can only agree. Flight of my life. It won't get better. I remember hearing over the PA that this particular leg involved the longest time that Concorde spent supersonic. It could get going before the ocean as there was nobody on the land below to complain about the noise. Is that true?

Anyway: what I remember about YYZ was that the runway was truly abysmal. I am one of those SLF who thoroughly enjoys things going a bit unusual in flight: turbulence, wonky weather, anything with a bit of g in an unexpected direction, all bonuses in the normally mundane business of flinging oneself about the sky in tubes. I trust the engineering, I trust the people, I know how exceptional aviation is as a human endeavour where safety is wired in at every level.

But that runway. Not only did it feel like rattling along a dirt track in a car with dodgy suspension, it went on for so long. Compared to the elegance of every subsequent second aloft, the time in motion before rotation was so unsettling that even my unflappability was flapping. That feeling was heightened by the transparent relief in the voice making the post-takeoff PA: "Now we've left Toronto behind, we can get on with business as usual" - and it's a decent enough city, so I don't think that was any commentary on the pleasures of the place outside the airport.

Was it really that bad, flying out? Or am I being too dramatic?

I have nothing to add about the rest of the flight that others haven't already said, except I'm sad my own son won't have the opportunity.

R

(Oh, one PS: I did hang out for a while with someone who was best friends with one of the Concorde cabin crew. I do hope that some of the stories she told me will one day see the light of day, although they might have to wait for a number of Serious Names -- and cabin crew -- to pass over to the other side, where even the draconian reach of the UK's libel laws have no power. She is a PR and I a journalist, but the British sense of fair play and mischief requests and requires that this teaser is all there is to be said on the matter. That and the law of libel.)

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