25th Aug 2010, 19:39
permalink Post: 117
A great thread and it only goes to show that you can always learn even about a subject that you thought you knew quite a lot about
As M2Dude described the rearwards transfer of fuel during acceleration was meant to be an automated process but in reality there was a lot of manual input. The first requirement of the F/E was to match the rearwards movement of the C of G to that of the ever increasing Mach number. If this was proving to be no problem he would take over the transfer manually by switching off the pumps on one side of tank 9 or 10 so as to pump only to either tank 5 or 7. This was because if you transferred evenly to these tanks due to their different shape size and position the aircraft would go out of trim laterally so the F/E would pump rearward just to one tank so as to keep the C of G going aft whilst maintaining lateral trim.
Being Concorde nothing was straight forward , which meant that when Tanks 5 and 7 ran out and you started using tanks 6 and 8, their size shape and position,was exactly opposite to that of tanks 5 and 7 so it now required the F/E to pump fuel the opposite way across the ship, using various valves and pumps, so as to keep the aircraft in trim laterally.
All the time he had to maintain the trim so as to keep an elevon trim of \xbd deg down, which as fuel was burnt required him to trickle fuel forward from tank 11. On the longer trips such as those to and from BGI the fuel towards the end of cruise became quite low and to stop fuel in the collectors from dropping below 1000kgs each, fuel would be transferred from tank 11 into the collectors until the
C of G had reached it's forward limit at Mach 2.0 of 57.5 %. If then the collectors dropped to 1000kgs the aircraft had to descend to subsonic heights and speed.
Surges
Surges were not an uncommon or common event on Concorde,but when they happened as they usually affected both engines on that side the aircraft would lurch /yaw and everybody on board would know about it as \x93Her In Doors\x94 would testify to that when glasses full and otherwise ended up in her lap during the meal service when a surge occurred.
The drill required all engines to be throttled to a predetermined position and the intake and engine control switches moved to their other position. If this stopped the surge then the throttles were restored to their cruise power a pair at a time and if no surge re-occured then the aircraft would return to cruise / climb
The crews post surge action was normally to have a cup of tea and light up a cigarette.
In the early days on a flight between London and Bahrain when the aircraft was in supersonic cruise the F/E who was a mature and refined gentleman, had to go to the toilet, which was just behind the front galley, and whilst there the engines surged. He was seen running from the toilet to the flight deck with his trousers around his ankles, which was a hell of shock to his refined nature
Enough for now sorry about the length
As M2Dude described the rearwards transfer of fuel during acceleration was meant to be an automated process but in reality there was a lot of manual input. The first requirement of the F/E was to match the rearwards movement of the C of G to that of the ever increasing Mach number. If this was proving to be no problem he would take over the transfer manually by switching off the pumps on one side of tank 9 or 10 so as to pump only to either tank 5 or 7. This was because if you transferred evenly to these tanks due to their different shape size and position the aircraft would go out of trim laterally so the F/E would pump rearward just to one tank so as to keep the C of G going aft whilst maintaining lateral trim.
Being Concorde nothing was straight forward , which meant that when Tanks 5 and 7 ran out and you started using tanks 6 and 8, their size shape and position,was exactly opposite to that of tanks 5 and 7 so it now required the F/E to pump fuel the opposite way across the ship, using various valves and pumps, so as to keep the aircraft in trim laterally.
All the time he had to maintain the trim so as to keep an elevon trim of \xbd deg down, which as fuel was burnt required him to trickle fuel forward from tank 11. On the longer trips such as those to and from BGI the fuel towards the end of cruise became quite low and to stop fuel in the collectors from dropping below 1000kgs each, fuel would be transferred from tank 11 into the collectors until the
C of G had reached it's forward limit at Mach 2.0 of 57.5 %. If then the collectors dropped to 1000kgs the aircraft had to descend to subsonic heights and speed.
Surges
Surges were not an uncommon or common event on Concorde,but when they happened as they usually affected both engines on that side the aircraft would lurch /yaw and everybody on board would know about it as \x93Her In Doors\x94 would testify to that when glasses full and otherwise ended up in her lap during the meal service when a surge occurred.
The drill required all engines to be throttled to a predetermined position and the intake and engine control switches moved to their other position. If this stopped the surge then the throttles were restored to their cruise power a pair at a time and if no surge re-occured then the aircraft would return to cruise / climb
The crews post surge action was normally to have a cup of tea and light up a cigarette.
In the early days on a flight between London and Bahrain when the aircraft was in supersonic cruise the F/E who was a mature and refined gentleman, had to go to the toilet, which was just behind the front galley, and whilst there the engines surged. He was seen running from the toilet to the flight deck with his trousers around his ankles, which was a hell of shock to his refined nature
Enough for now sorry about the length
27th Aug 2010, 19:42
permalink Post: 140
Yes we always started just the two inboard engines prior to push back and the outers when the push back was complete. This was for a number of reasons, but I do seem to remember it was not unheard of to break the tow bar shear pin on the initial push, so the less power the better
Remember that Concorde had no APU and no across the ship ducting for stating engines, therefore prior to push an air start unit was plugged into each pair of engines and the inboard engines would be started. This allowed, after push back, air from each inboard engine to be used to start it's outboard engine.
The other good reason for starting the inboards prior to push was that with no APU the cabin temp would rise quite quickly [specially in places like Bahrain in summer] and never mind the passengers
comfort, but some of M2dude and ChristiaanJ fancy electronic equipment was very temp sensitive , especially those intake control units down the rear galley. With Two engines running we could use their bleed air to at least try and hold the cabin air temp during the push back
When we first started LHR-IAD flights[ prior to thin lip///54% and other mods which improved our range] some thought was given to towing the aircraft to the taxi way near the end of the runway before starting engines so as to save fuel. I do not remember this actually ever being done though.
\
Remember that Concorde had no APU and no across the ship ducting for stating engines, therefore prior to push an air start unit was plugged into each pair of engines and the inboard engines would be started. This allowed, after push back, air from each inboard engine to be used to start it's outboard engine.
The other good reason for starting the inboards prior to push was that with no APU the cabin temp would rise quite quickly [specially in places like Bahrain in summer] and never mind the passengers
comfort, but some of M2dude and ChristiaanJ fancy electronic equipment was very temp sensitive , especially those intake control units down the rear galley. With Two engines running we could use their bleed air to at least try and hold the cabin air temp during the push back
When we first started LHR-IAD flights[ prior to thin lip///54% and other mods which improved our range] some thought was given to towing the aircraft to the taxi way near the end of the runway before starting engines so as to save fuel. I do not remember this actually ever being done though.
\
2nd Sep 2010, 23:55
permalink Post: 192
Hi canuck slf, Your incident was not the hydraulic contamination one, I'll describe that one in a minute or so below.
As far as your adventure goes, in the early days of Concorde operation there was an on-going issue of hydraulic seal failures. This led to the sort of thing that you described, where a major seal failure would occur, resulting in the loss of a main system. The standby Yellow system would be switched in to replace the failed one, and depending on the nature of the initial failure, could leak out of the same failed seal. (There were a couple of 'common areas', they were the intake spill door jack, and the Powered Flying Control Units; failures here could result in a double system fail). Your incident was almost certainly due to one of these cases. In the early 1990's the original Neoprene hydraulic seals were replaced with a new Viton GLT seal; this material had far superior age shrinking characteristics to Neoprene, and more or less cured the problem overnight. Eventually all the seals in each aircraft were replaced, and apart from a very few isolated cases, dual system losses were eliminated forever. Air France suffered a similar proportion of failures, however as their flying hours were a fraction of BA's, the effects were not as immediately apparent.
As far as far as the hydraulic contamination story goes, this happened in 1980 but involved one aircraft only, G-BOAG, but in it's original registration of G-BFKW. (having previously been on loan from British Aerospace, where it flew originally as a 'white tail' under this registration). The fragile nature of Concorde hydraulic fluid was not fully understood at this time, and as you say, a hydraulic drum dispenser had inadvertently been left exposed to the atmosphere, and had subsequently suffered water contamination, and this contaminated fluid had found it's way into G-BOAG. Now this hydraulic fluid, CHEVRON M2V has only two vices: One is that is extremely expensive, and the second is that it is highly susceptible to water contamination, EXTEMELY SO. If my memory serves me correctly, the maximum allowable level of water in the fluid is about 8ppm. (parts per million) and the fluid that was analysed after G-BOAG's problems was at about 30 ppm. The water deposits in the fluid gave the equivalent effect of 'rusting up' of critical hydraulic components. I was investigating an air intake control defect the previous day to the incident, but like everybody else had no idea that the real issue here was one of major systems contamination. We were all convinced that we had nailed the problem, only to find that the aircraft turned back on it's subsequent LHR-JFK sector with more serious problems, not only affecting the air intakes, but the artificial feel system also. It was now that we realised that there had to be a hydraulics problem here, and after fluid analysis, the awful truth was discovered. After this event, and the fragilities of M2V fluid were better understood, a strict regime of housekeeping was put in place in terms of fluid storage, and no such incidents with BA ever occurring again. The aircraft itself did not fly again for nine months, all components that were affected were removed from the aircraft and completely stripped and overhauled. Also all of the system hydraulic lines had to be completely purged, until there were no further traces of any contamination. After the aircraft was finally rectified, she successfully again returned to service with her new 'BA' registration of G-BOAG. However the following year, during a C Check, it was decided that due to spares shortages, and the closure of the LHR-BAH-SIN route, there just was not being enough work for seven aircraft, and therefore G-BOAG would be withdrawn from service. (In terms of spares, BA at the time for instance only had six sets of aircraft galleys, as aircraft went in for C checks the galley was 'robbed' to service the aircraft coming out of it's own C check). The aircraft was parked in a remote hangar, and was only visited when a component had to be 'robbed' for another Concorde, and the aircraft soon fell into disrepair, was filthy externally and became a really sad sight. Many people (not myself I might add) were adamant that G-BOAG would never fly again. However, in 1984 things had really started to improve for Concorde, with the charter business increasing and the LHR-JFK route in particular becoming a staggering success. It was decided that OAG would be returned to an airworthy condition. In 1985, with a fresh new interior, and with the new BA colour scheme, she was finally returned to service; and remained as one of the mainstays of the fleet right up to the end of Concorde services in October 2003. She now resides at the Boeing Museum of Flight in Seattle. (I have particularly fond memories of G-BOAG; in a previous post I mentioned flying through an electrical storm in late 1991 over Saudi Arabia, while returning from BKK-BAH to LHR. What I forgot to mention was the spectacle of DOZENS of fierce fires burning on the ground, towards our starboard horizon. These were Sadams oil fires, still burning in Kuwait. It made a sombre contrast to the amazing electrical spectacle right in front of us).
As far as low speed flying control activity was concerned, this was a combination of the fairly flexible outer wing sections, being buffeted by low speed turbulence (the wing tip tanks 5A & 7A also being empty), as well as some autostab inputs. This was perfectly normal, and part of the design our aircraft. However the development aircraft had even more flexible outer wing sections, which used to almost straighten up in high speed flight. However due to fatigue concerns, external lateral stiffeners were added to the underside of the wings during production of the airline aircraft. (these can be easily seen from underneath the wings, just outboard of the nacelles). Unfortunately these external stiffeners also resulted in over a one tonne fuel penalty to the production aircraft, due to increased weight, as well as higher drag in a critical part of the wing aerodynamic surface.
Dude
As far as your adventure goes, in the early days of Concorde operation there was an on-going issue of hydraulic seal failures. This led to the sort of thing that you described, where a major seal failure would occur, resulting in the loss of a main system. The standby Yellow system would be switched in to replace the failed one, and depending on the nature of the initial failure, could leak out of the same failed seal. (There were a couple of 'common areas', they were the intake spill door jack, and the Powered Flying Control Units; failures here could result in a double system fail). Your incident was almost certainly due to one of these cases. In the early 1990's the original Neoprene hydraulic seals were replaced with a new Viton GLT seal; this material had far superior age shrinking characteristics to Neoprene, and more or less cured the problem overnight. Eventually all the seals in each aircraft were replaced, and apart from a very few isolated cases, dual system losses were eliminated forever. Air France suffered a similar proportion of failures, however as their flying hours were a fraction of BA's, the effects were not as immediately apparent.
As far as far as the hydraulic contamination story goes, this happened in 1980 but involved one aircraft only, G-BOAG, but in it's original registration of G-BFKW. (having previously been on loan from British Aerospace, where it flew originally as a 'white tail' under this registration). The fragile nature of Concorde hydraulic fluid was not fully understood at this time, and as you say, a hydraulic drum dispenser had inadvertently been left exposed to the atmosphere, and had subsequently suffered water contamination, and this contaminated fluid had found it's way into G-BOAG. Now this hydraulic fluid, CHEVRON M2V has only two vices: One is that is extremely expensive, and the second is that it is highly susceptible to water contamination, EXTEMELY SO. If my memory serves me correctly, the maximum allowable level of water in the fluid is about 8ppm. (parts per million) and the fluid that was analysed after G-BOAG's problems was at about 30 ppm. The water deposits in the fluid gave the equivalent effect of 'rusting up' of critical hydraulic components. I was investigating an air intake control defect the previous day to the incident, but like everybody else had no idea that the real issue here was one of major systems contamination. We were all convinced that we had nailed the problem, only to find that the aircraft turned back on it's subsequent LHR-JFK sector with more serious problems, not only affecting the air intakes, but the artificial feel system also. It was now that we realised that there had to be a hydraulics problem here, and after fluid analysis, the awful truth was discovered. After this event, and the fragilities of M2V fluid were better understood, a strict regime of housekeeping was put in place in terms of fluid storage, and no such incidents with BA ever occurring again. The aircraft itself did not fly again for nine months, all components that were affected were removed from the aircraft and completely stripped and overhauled. Also all of the system hydraulic lines had to be completely purged, until there were no further traces of any contamination. After the aircraft was finally rectified, she successfully again returned to service with her new 'BA' registration of G-BOAG. However the following year, during a C Check, it was decided that due to spares shortages, and the closure of the LHR-BAH-SIN route, there just was not being enough work for seven aircraft, and therefore G-BOAG would be withdrawn from service. (In terms of spares, BA at the time for instance only had six sets of aircraft galleys, as aircraft went in for C checks the galley was 'robbed' to service the aircraft coming out of it's own C check). The aircraft was parked in a remote hangar, and was only visited when a component had to be 'robbed' for another Concorde, and the aircraft soon fell into disrepair, was filthy externally and became a really sad sight. Many people (not myself I might add) were adamant that G-BOAG would never fly again. However, in 1984 things had really started to improve for Concorde, with the charter business increasing and the LHR-JFK route in particular becoming a staggering success. It was decided that OAG would be returned to an airworthy condition. In 1985, with a fresh new interior, and with the new BA colour scheme, she was finally returned to service; and remained as one of the mainstays of the fleet right up to the end of Concorde services in October 2003. She now resides at the Boeing Museum of Flight in Seattle. (I have particularly fond memories of G-BOAG; in a previous post I mentioned flying through an electrical storm in late 1991 over Saudi Arabia, while returning from BKK-BAH to LHR. What I forgot to mention was the spectacle of DOZENS of fierce fires burning on the ground, towards our starboard horizon. These were Sadams oil fires, still burning in Kuwait. It made a sombre contrast to the amazing electrical spectacle right in front of us).
As far as low speed flying control activity was concerned, this was a combination of the fairly flexible outer wing sections, being buffeted by low speed turbulence (the wing tip tanks 5A & 7A also being empty), as well as some autostab inputs. This was perfectly normal, and part of the design our aircraft. However the development aircraft had even more flexible outer wing sections, which used to almost straighten up in high speed flight. However due to fatigue concerns, external lateral stiffeners were added to the underside of the wings during production of the airline aircraft. (these can be easily seen from underneath the wings, just outboard of the nacelles). Unfortunately these external stiffeners also resulted in over a one tonne fuel penalty to the production aircraft, due to increased weight, as well as higher drag in a critical part of the wing aerodynamic surface.
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 3rd Sep 2010 at 00:07 .
7th Sep 2010, 10:02
permalink Post: 254
for atakacs:
Quote:
| Makes me wonder... In the event of a complete loss of thrust at Mach 2 (say fuel contamination) would the deceleration be significant ? If so I guess the fuel redistribution / pumping to maintain acceptable CG would become interesting... |
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.
10th Sep 2010, 10:01
permalink Post: 310
Thank you for allowing me, a non-techy, to participate in your lovely thread!
Just a short story about the adorable, charming and all-round fantastic bloke, Capt. John Cook.
During an exceptionally busy flight (MPs, press with cameras and sound booms on board - cc trying to negotiate the aisle with mayhem abounding) - John came out of the F/D and was standing in the forward galley looking bewildered.
"What can I do for you, skip?" I asked as I rushed in to replenish a drinks tray.
"Oh Landlady, thank goodness.... I'd love a coffee but I can't work the boiler............"
This from a training captain par excellence, with a twinkle in his eye who knew every inch of that machine - (and in the days before bev makers), who just wanted to save me a job!
I hope the angels are making your coffee now, John.
But that's what everyone was like....we certainly were a team which, I'm sorry to say, isn't always the case these days.
Now boys, I will leave you to get back to your sprockets and widgets.
Just a short story about the adorable, charming and all-round fantastic bloke, Capt. John Cook.
During an exceptionally busy flight (MPs, press with cameras and sound booms on board - cc trying to negotiate the aisle with mayhem abounding) - John came out of the F/D and was standing in the forward galley looking bewildered.
"What can I do for you, skip?" I asked as I rushed in to replenish a drinks tray.
"Oh Landlady, thank goodness.... I'd love a coffee but I can't work the boiler............"
This from a training captain par excellence, with a twinkle in his eye who knew every inch of that machine - (and in the days before bev makers), who just wanted to save me a job!
I hope the angels are making your coffee now, John.
But that's what everyone was like....we certainly were a team which, I'm sorry to say, isn't always the case these days.
Now boys, I will leave you to get back to your sprockets and widgets.
11th Sep 2010, 23:40
permalink Post: 322
Not a very technical Q I'm afraid and a Q asked from a position of total ignorance with regards to airliners in general but:
The concorde galley: smaller or bigger than most? Were there any design considerations (stretching and shrinking), did the quality of nosh provided determine a particular design or equipment fit?
Lastly, trivial perhaps, were c.c. allowed the same nosh as the passengers?
Cron.
The concorde galley: smaller or bigger than most? Were there any design considerations (stretching and shrinking), did the quality of nosh provided determine a particular design or equipment fit?
Lastly, trivial perhaps, were c.c. allowed the same nosh as the passengers?
Cron.
11th Sep 2010, 23:49
permalink Post: 323
Quote:
| were c.c. allowed the same nosh? |
I very much doubt CC had any time available, even for snacking on the 3-4 hour flights.
12th Sep 2010, 01:02
permalink Post: 324
The Galleys
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
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
13th Sep 2010, 15:00
permalink Post: 344
Galley Service.
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.
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.
16th Sep 2010, 12:45
permalink Post: 373
Charters
So nice to come back to find this thread is still running!
The various charters we had the pleasure of crewing were great fun; it certainly didn't feel as though one was at work!
The 'Father Christmas' trips were full of very happy children, (and even happier parents!) We would take Connie to Lapland and the passengers would have a fully organised day ahead of them, meeting Santa Claus etc, with a very early start and a late finish. (It was a day trip.) As crew we would nightstop and be entertained royally at the hotel...on one occasion I remember us all sitting down in uniform to dinner, I can't remember why, and something like 20 courses (16 of them herring!) being served to us. I was fortunate to be able to do a few of these trips, each one absolutely great fun for all involved.(Fortunately, I am quite partial to herring.) With the help of a Harley owning steward, I was even taught how to drive a snowmobile! We had sleigh rides which were pulled along by reindeer, gluwien in hand, and the best bit of all was always standing on the tarmac, (which, of course was covered in snow), watching Connie arrive from London - on touch-down a great plume of snow cascading behind her. All our cameras froze, but thankfully, there was a professional photographer taking shots which we were all given copies of. (Some of our cold weather civvies were a bit suspect. Having never skii-ed, I was lacking in the warm clothing department....I'm a beach girl through and through. I remember my wardrobe consisting of various pieces borrowed from all over the place, none of it matching and some just too big. Bang went the designer-bitch-from-the-Concorde-fleet reputation.
)
We went to Moscow quite often to take the passengers to see the Bolshoi Ballet, and of course we accompanied them, resplendent in our evening wear. (Some of those F/D chappies certainly scrubbed up well.)(The gloss wore off the next morning when, on one such trip the water system on board froze on the ground and then provided us with a spectacular galley flood on thawing out.....causing a six hour delay if I recall.)(No need to chill down the fizz on that occasion.)
We were also part of the round trip that was the Venice -Simplon Orient Express, and we would either take pax to Venice where they would join the train, or bring them home after they had journey to Venice on the train. (I have done that trip as a passenger. Very nice too.) I also went on Concorde to Washington with my new husband on the day we were married, almost 30 years ago. To say the crew spoiled us would be somewhat of an understatement! (Even a wedding cake was provided on board!) Must have done something right, as Mr Landlady is still around to tell the tale. He has done some great trips accompanying me, usually most of the time spent on the F/D jumpseat, completely enthralled.
I haven't time right now to go into the spectacular Round-The -World aircruises, but I promise I will be back if you are still interested. I used to do some public speaking about Concorde on behalf of BA,(we were called ambassadors in those days),so I will try to dig out some catering facts and figures, which are quite interesting.
Thanks as always for your kind messages.
Landlady.
The various charters we had the pleasure of crewing were great fun; it certainly didn't feel as though one was at work!
The 'Father Christmas' trips were full of very happy children, (and even happier parents!) We would take Connie to Lapland and the passengers would have a fully organised day ahead of them, meeting Santa Claus etc, with a very early start and a late finish. (It was a day trip.) As crew we would nightstop and be entertained royally at the hotel...on one occasion I remember us all sitting down in uniform to dinner, I can't remember why, and something like 20 courses (16 of them herring!) being served to us. I was fortunate to be able to do a few of these trips, each one absolutely great fun for all involved.(Fortunately, I am quite partial to herring.) With the help of a Harley owning steward, I was even taught how to drive a snowmobile! We had sleigh rides which were pulled along by reindeer, gluwien in hand, and the best bit of all was always standing on the tarmac, (which, of course was covered in snow), watching Connie arrive from London - on touch-down a great plume of snow cascading behind her. All our cameras froze, but thankfully, there was a professional photographer taking shots which we were all given copies of. (Some of our cold weather civvies were a bit suspect. Having never skii-ed, I was lacking in the warm clothing department....I'm a beach girl through and through. I remember my wardrobe consisting of various pieces borrowed from all over the place, none of it matching and some just too big. Bang went the designer-bitch-from-the-Concorde-fleet reputation.
)
We went to Moscow quite often to take the passengers to see the Bolshoi Ballet, and of course we accompanied them, resplendent in our evening wear. (Some of those F/D chappies certainly scrubbed up well.)(The gloss wore off the next morning when, on one such trip the water system on board froze on the ground and then provided us with a spectacular galley flood on thawing out.....causing a six hour delay if I recall.)(No need to chill down the fizz on that occasion.)
We were also part of the round trip that was the Venice -Simplon Orient Express, and we would either take pax to Venice where they would join the train, or bring them home after they had journey to Venice on the train. (I have done that trip as a passenger. Very nice too.) I also went on Concorde to Washington with my new husband on the day we were married, almost 30 years ago. To say the crew spoiled us would be somewhat of an understatement! (Even a wedding cake was provided on board!) Must have done something right, as Mr Landlady is still around to tell the tale. He has done some great trips accompanying me, usually most of the time spent on the F/D jumpseat, completely enthralled.
I haven't time right now to go into the spectacular Round-The -World aircruises, but I promise I will be back if you are still interested. I used to do some public speaking about Concorde on behalf of BA,(we were called ambassadors in those days),so I will try to dig out some catering facts and figures, which are quite interesting.
Thanks as always for your kind messages.
Landlady.
21st Sep 2010, 10:57
permalink Post: 440
First Flight
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
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
21st Sep 2010, 11:23
permalink Post: 441
As far as the cabin was concerned on state visits etc, it would be the main party (HRH ,PP, any other royals. PMs would have secretaries, PAs etc) and the rest of the entourage in the rear.
Royal flights always left from the Spellthorne Suite, not the main terminal! (You can imagine..."did you pack your bag yourself, ma'am?.."!)
Catering very different, with special meals/requests etc.
Security was very tight, dogs on board before boarding, (sniffer, not corgis!) armed police everywhere. Plain clothes chaps queing for cups of tea in the galley before the parties arrived... but everyone very professional and with a specific job to do. Just as you would expect, really.
LL x
Royal flights always left from the Spellthorne Suite, not the main terminal! (You can imagine..."did you pack your bag yourself, ma'am?.."!)
Catering very different, with special meals/requests etc.
Security was very tight, dogs on board before boarding, (sniffer, not corgis!) armed police everywhere. Plain clothes chaps queing for cups of tea in the galley before the parties arrived... but everyone very professional and with a specific job to do. Just as you would expect, really.
LL x
4th Oct 2010, 12:11
permalink Post: 514
Some Snippets To Start The Week
On one occasion, the lady occupying 1A was causing some consternation amongst the crew. She was wearing a threadbare camel coat, really scruffy shoes and wore a headscarf on her head, probably to disguise her somewhat bedraggled appearance. She was clutching a shopping basket and seemed totally out of place \x96 she just had an air of bewilderment about her. (I realise that this may sound a little class-ist, but 99.9% of our lovely passengers would pull out all the stops when it came to dressing for the journey.) Even the flight deck were known to polish their shoes. (Honestly, I\x92m not exaggerating at all.)
We knew that this lady couldn\x92t have boarded without the correct checks to her boarding card, (although it has been known\x85.), and according to the manifest, 1A should have been unoccupied. This obviously needed to be sorted before the door was closed.
It was down to me to find out if she had taken the wrong turning somewhere and had ended taking a seat on Concorde by mistake\x85\x85. an aircraft door is just that when approached from the finger.
I asked her for her boarding card, and then I asked her if I could take her coat\x85(we kept the boarding cards with the coats for obvious reasons.) She was, in fact, sitting in the wrong seat, but this lady was actually the mother of a very, VERY , famous celebrity and was used to travelling in 1A and had, out of habit, just taken her usual seat instead of 10A which she had been allocated this time.
I have never judged a book by its cover since! (I did actually mention the name of the celebrity at one point in this paragraph, but I doubt if they would want their mother to be portrayed as \x91down at heel\x92!!)
Another time, Elizabeth Taylor was travelling with us to JFK and I couldn\x92t take my eyes off her, she was just jaw-droppingly beautiful. She came to the front door to ask me for a glass of champagne, (no ringing the call bell, quite happy to stretch her legs and come to the galley). As I poured it for her I said how much I had admired her from being a small girl, and, as I handed her to drink to her, I commented on her fabulous diamond ring. (The Richard Burton ring\x85ENORMOUS!!!!!) She put her glass down on the galley top, took the ring off and handed it to me to try on!!!! In all my life I am sure that I will never come as close to a diamond that big again. I was truly honoured and she spent another ten minutes or so chatting with me in the forward galley. She was just one of the girls, really enjoying a joke with the crew, and I was star-struck. Of all the hundreds of famous names that I have had the privilege of looking after, she is in my top three for all-round gorgeousness.
On another occasion, on the evening departure out of JFK we were ready to go but missing one passenger. She was, (and still is), a very famous American film star and with the help of several ground crew eventually made her way down the finger to the aircraft, in a wheelchair, a little worse for wear after what must have been a very good lunch indeed. We helped her to her seat and she apologised profusely, explaining that she was \x91over emotional\x92 due to being pregnant.
"Gosh," says I, wondering about the wisdom of having a little drink or two when expecting a baby but saying nothing of the sort, "how far along are you?"
"About 20 minutes," came the reply in a low southern drawl.
I have reflected upon this episode a few times since then.
It must have been a truely earth-moving experience, requiring the assistance of a wheelchair afterwards.
Warm regards,
LL x
We knew that this lady couldn\x92t have boarded without the correct checks to her boarding card, (although it has been known\x85.), and according to the manifest, 1A should have been unoccupied. This obviously needed to be sorted before the door was closed.
It was down to me to find out if she had taken the wrong turning somewhere and had ended taking a seat on Concorde by mistake\x85\x85. an aircraft door is just that when approached from the finger.
I asked her for her boarding card, and then I asked her if I could take her coat\x85(we kept the boarding cards with the coats for obvious reasons.) She was, in fact, sitting in the wrong seat, but this lady was actually the mother of a very, VERY , famous celebrity and was used to travelling in 1A and had, out of habit, just taken her usual seat instead of 10A which she had been allocated this time.
I have never judged a book by its cover since! (I did actually mention the name of the celebrity at one point in this paragraph, but I doubt if they would want their mother to be portrayed as \x91down at heel\x92!!)
Another time, Elizabeth Taylor was travelling with us to JFK and I couldn\x92t take my eyes off her, she was just jaw-droppingly beautiful. She came to the front door to ask me for a glass of champagne, (no ringing the call bell, quite happy to stretch her legs and come to the galley). As I poured it for her I said how much I had admired her from being a small girl, and, as I handed her to drink to her, I commented on her fabulous diamond ring. (The Richard Burton ring\x85ENORMOUS!!!!!) She put her glass down on the galley top, took the ring off and handed it to me to try on!!!! In all my life I am sure that I will never come as close to a diamond that big again. I was truly honoured and she spent another ten minutes or so chatting with me in the forward galley. She was just one of the girls, really enjoying a joke with the crew, and I was star-struck. Of all the hundreds of famous names that I have had the privilege of looking after, she is in my top three for all-round gorgeousness.
On another occasion, on the evening departure out of JFK we were ready to go but missing one passenger. She was, (and still is), a very famous American film star and with the help of several ground crew eventually made her way down the finger to the aircraft, in a wheelchair, a little worse for wear after what must have been a very good lunch indeed. We helped her to her seat and she apologised profusely, explaining that she was \x91over emotional\x92 due to being pregnant.
"Gosh," says I, wondering about the wisdom of having a little drink or two when expecting a baby but saying nothing of the sort, "how far along are you?"
"About 20 minutes," came the reply in a low southern drawl.
I have reflected upon this episode a few times since then.
It must have been a truely earth-moving experience, requiring the assistance of a wheelchair afterwards.
Warm regards,
LL x
4th Oct 2010, 18:54
permalink Post: 515
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.
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.
7th Oct 2010, 04:02
permalink Post: 522
Oshkosh 1994
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
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
Last edited by M2dude; 7th Oct 2010 at 22:00 .
2nd Nov 2010, 08:12
permalink Post: 652
Landlady returns from the land of the pirate
Hello again chaps and chapesses,
Having consumed enough rum punch to ensure that the guys at the Mount Gay distillery in Barbados stay in business for a long while yet, I was very pleased to return from holiday to see the thread still going and of course, still very interesting.
The photos from pax-man, (thank you!), brought back my own memories of AC, for that was the Concorde on which I did a round-the-world trip in 1988 with the lovely Captain Jeremy Rendell at the controls.
They also reminded me - since she is at Manchester - of taking her up to Ringway a few times when BA would surprise shuttle pax by putting a Concorde on the route as a last minute a/c change.... sheer delight and 100 Concorde grins every time! I sat on the f/d a couple of times going in to Manchester as I am a northern lass and began my flying career there, so the place holds a lot of fond memories for me. On the approach, you could see cars parked everywhere, all the roads and motorways jammed with spectators. It seemed like the whole of the north of England were there to welcome her in.
I realise that I did promise - a while ago now - a bit more information with regard to the RTW trips, so I am off to dig out some old diaries in the hope that I can relate some yarns for you all.
Whilst in BGI I was offered the opportunity to see Connie in the special hanger which they have for her over there, but I simply didn't have time this trip. Maybe I am putting it off... I know that it will be a very emotional experience to touch the galley tops again.... I am back in Barbados again next March, so I will go then..... although I know I will be crying when I have to say goodbye to her.
Happy to be back on line (I don't go in for all this keeping up with forums/facebook/e-mails whilst on holiday!) and happy to answer any cabin-related questions you may have.
Warm regards,
LL x
Having consumed enough rum punch to ensure that the guys at the Mount Gay distillery in Barbados stay in business for a long while yet, I was very pleased to return from holiday to see the thread still going and of course, still very interesting.
The photos from pax-man, (thank you!), brought back my own memories of AC, for that was the Concorde on which I did a round-the-world trip in 1988 with the lovely Captain Jeremy Rendell at the controls.
They also reminded me - since she is at Manchester - of taking her up to Ringway a few times when BA would surprise shuttle pax by putting a Concorde on the route as a last minute a/c change.... sheer delight and 100 Concorde grins every time! I sat on the f/d a couple of times going in to Manchester as I am a northern lass and began my flying career there, so the place holds a lot of fond memories for me. On the approach, you could see cars parked everywhere, all the roads and motorways jammed with spectators. It seemed like the whole of the north of England were there to welcome her in.
I realise that I did promise - a while ago now - a bit more information with regard to the RTW trips, so I am off to dig out some old diaries in the hope that I can relate some yarns for you all.
Whilst in BGI I was offered the opportunity to see Connie in the special hanger which they have for her over there, but I simply didn't have time this trip. Maybe I am putting it off... I know that it will be a very emotional experience to touch the galley tops again.... I am back in Barbados again next March, so I will go then..... although I know I will be crying when I have to say goodbye to her.
Happy to be back on line (I don't go in for all this keeping up with forums/facebook/e-mails whilst on holiday!) and happy to answer any cabin-related questions you may have.
Warm regards,
LL x
2nd Nov 2010, 21:56
permalink Post: 656
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
landlady
I know that it will be a very emotional experience to touch the galley tops again....
|
I know this will sadden you... but better forewarned than discovering it on the day, no?
When they set up the Barbados 'Concorde Experience' on G-BOAE, they decided it would work far better if people could move one way, from the back to the front, rather than continuously getting in each others way.
Now, the two little service doors in the rear galley are not really suited as entrances for the public.
You should know!
Hence the decision was made to remove the rear galley (which they undoubtely kept in storage somewhere, if not actually on display) and to have people enter through the rear baggage hold door, through the baggage hold, and from there into the rear cabin.
(Much the same was done on Delta Golf, the Concorde now at the Brooklands, Weybridge museum.)
So, the only galley tops will be those in the forward galley. Snif....
CJ
26th Nov 2010, 08:47
permalink Post: 781
speedbirdconcorde
Yes we did, just a couple if I remember correctly and relatively minor failures at that. (Regular ultrasonic NDT inspections had been instigated to pre-empt these failures from actually occuring). New elevon purchases were rightly seen to be the answer to the problem; the poorly designed trailing edge extension modifications of the late 1970's were as was said before, the source of these failures, due to moisture ingress in the honeycombe structure).
Mr Vortex
As has been posted previously, there was a small NACA duct on the right hand side of the fin, that provided the air source for fuel tank pressurisation. This pressure was controlled to 1.5 PSIG.
This switch operated two valves that would drain out any residual fuel for maintenance (for example, replacing a vent valve); it was not used very often however.
Islander539 and ChristiaanJ
The actions of Airbus at Filton are nothing short of disgusting. By 'removing the insulation' you will need to strip the cabin completely bare (seats, galleys, ceiling panels and all of the side-wall panels). They say that 'Filton was only ever going to be an interim home for Concorde', what total
crap
!!
The idea is to 'cocoon' the aircraft 'until a permanent home is found'. I hope all readers here realise that this will involve BREAKING UP THE AIRFRAME to make it road transportable. The reasons that scarebus are giving for all this are vague and misleading, but here's my take. There are pressures around from various people and bodies 'to return a British Concorde to flying condition.' Now a lot (NOT ALL) of these people although very well intentioned are not that well informed and their wishes are not reasonably possible. But the pressures exist nonetheless, and scarebus will do anything to prevent this possibility, nomatter how unlikely, from being progressed. So we have G-BOAF, the youngest Concorde in the world, with the lowest airframe hours, in pretty good structural condition (she's suffered from being outside for 7 years, but nothing terminal) and actually in the hands of the dreaded scarebus (who would rather forget that Concorde ever existed, and was almost certainly the reason why they even noe exist). Doesn't take much working out now, does it?
Dude
Quote:
Regarding the rather important role of the elevons on Concorde
where there any failures during her time in the skies ?
|
Mr Vortex
Quote:
|
I've just wonder that does the Concorde use a surge tank or
some a kind of a NACA duct like on B737 for pressurize the fuel in a tank? |
Quote:
Also, in Concorde F/E panel around the fuel control panel there're switch call trim pipe drain switch. Which I tried to read and figure it out but finally I don't know what it actually do
and in which circumstance do we need to use it
|
Islander539 and ChristiaanJ
The actions of Airbus at Filton are nothing short of disgusting. By 'removing the insulation' you will need to strip the cabin completely bare (seats, galleys, ceiling panels and all of the side-wall panels). They say that 'Filton was only ever going to be an interim home for Concorde', what total
crap
!!
The idea is to 'cocoon' the aircraft 'until a permanent home is found'. I hope all readers here realise that this will involve BREAKING UP THE AIRFRAME to make it road transportable. The reasons that scarebus are giving for all this are vague and misleading, but here's my take. There are pressures around from various people and bodies 'to return a British Concorde to flying condition.' Now a lot (NOT ALL) of these people although very well intentioned are not that well informed and their wishes are not reasonably possible. But the pressures exist nonetheless, and scarebus will do anything to prevent this possibility, nomatter how unlikely, from being progressed. So we have G-BOAF, the youngest Concorde in the world, with the lowest airframe hours, in pretty good structural condition (she's suffered from being outside for 7 years, but nothing terminal) and actually in the hands of the dreaded scarebus (who would rather forget that Concorde ever existed, and was almost certainly the reason why they even noe exist). Doesn't take much working out now, does it?
Dude
26th Nov 2010, 15:56
permalink Post: 787
Just some notes on the side.
With the lack of comm from Airbus, of course we don't know the details, but I would have thought the problem is essentially the under-floor insulation, the same that causes the musty smell in the Fox-Charlie cockpit. If so, I doubt they'd bother to strip the cabin.
This is nothing new.
For "Filton", read "Filton airfield and the Airbus site".
At present, the 'permanent home' is planned to be at Cribb's Causeway, where land is already available.
Since this is only just on the other side of Filton airfield, so far there is no question of breaking up the airframe, or road transport.
I doubt this.... The "pressures" from these bodies and people consist only of noises on internet forums and in the press. As long as BA (as the owner), Airbus (as the current 'guardian' and legacy manufacturer) and the CAA (as the regulatory body) say "NO", Airbus knows perfectly well it'll never happen, pressures or no pressures.
My own take is simply, that they're fed up with a Concorde on their site, that their early 'enthusiasts' who campaigned for 'A Concorde at Filton' have now left, and that it's now Airbus exerting pressure on the Concorde Trust and other bodies to provide that 'permanent home' they've been talking about for years.
To be exact, 18,257 hours and 5,639 supersonic cycles
As noted in another post, not the lowest, but a lot less than the 23,000+ hours of G-BOAD and G-BOAE.
In 2003, the issue with G-BOAF was that she was almost 'out of hours', with only a few hours left until the next big overhaul (an 'Inter', IIRC).
At the time, this was the reason why G-BOAF did not partake to the full extent in the flying during the last months, so as to have a few hours 'spare' for the last few flights, and of course the final flight.
Nowadays of course this is pretty irrelevant since any aircraft after seven years outside would need a 'Major' overhaul at the very least .
And that's another reason why Airbus wouldn't be bothered by those "pressures" mentioned earlier... they know perfectly well nobody is going to come up with the \xa3100M +++ to re-create the necessary infrastructure.
CJ
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
M2dude
...By 'removing the insulation' you will need to strip the cabin completely bare (seats, galleys, ceiling panels and all of the side-wall panels).
|
Quote:
| They say that 'Filton was only ever going to be an interim home for Concorde'. |
For "Filton", read "Filton airfield and the Airbus site".
Quote:
| The idea is to 'cocoon' the aircraft 'until a permanent home is found'. I hope all readers here realise that this will involve BREAKING UP THE AIRFRAME to make it road transportable. |
Since this is only just on the other side of Filton airfield, so far there is no question of breaking up the airframe, or road transport.
Quote:
| The reasons....here's my take. There are pressures around from various people and bodies 'to return a British Concorde to flying condition.' Now a lot (NOT ALL) of these people although very well intentioned are not that well informed and their wishes are not reasonably possible. But the pressures exist nonetheless, and scarebus will do anything to prevent this possibility, no matter how unlikely, from being progressed. |
My own take is simply, that they're fed up with a Concorde on their site, that their early 'enthusiasts' who campaigned for 'A Concorde at Filton' have now left, and that it's now Airbus exerting pressure on the Concorde Trust and other bodies to provide that 'permanent home' they've been talking about for years.
Quote:
| G-BOAF, the youngest Concorde in the world, with the lowest airframe hours, in pretty good structural condition... |
As noted in another post, not the lowest, but a lot less than the 23,000+ hours of G-BOAD and G-BOAE.
In 2003, the issue with G-BOAF was that she was almost 'out of hours', with only a few hours left until the next big overhaul (an 'Inter', IIRC).
At the time, this was the reason why G-BOAF did not partake to the full extent in the flying during the last months, so as to have a few hours 'spare' for the last few flights, and of course the final flight.
Nowadays of course this is pretty irrelevant since any aircraft after seven years outside would need a 'Major' overhaul at the very least .
And that's another reason why Airbus wouldn't be bothered by those "pressures" mentioned earlier... they know perfectly well nobody is going to come up with the \xa3100M +++ to re-create the necessary infrastructure.
CJ
27th Nov 2010, 09:02
permalink Post: 790
ChristiaanJ
With respect my friend that is utter codswallop. You can doubt things all you want, they've already said that they would remove it all; that by definition means all the cabin side-walls, galleys and roof panels, as well as the underfloor areas. When G-BBDG (202) was cocooned at Filton they did just that, and
the only intact part of the interior left was the flight deck!!
Unfortunately, this lot have a habit of talking with forked tongue as far as Concorde goes; you can not in any way be sure about this, and we should really stop believing everything that this lot in Toulouse tell us . (Recent history here has taught us this all too well, and nothing would please scarebus more than there to be no reminders of Concorde at all on the airfield at Filton). More to the point, there is absolutely no certainty that the Cribb's Causeway site will ever be built anyway, you just can NOT say that the airframe will not ne broken up for road transportation, because if she does go to another museum in the absence of the Cribb's Causeway site being built, that will DEFINATELY happen. But at least we now have another 'written off' British Concorde; I guess this fact obviously pleases some people
Total crap I'm afraid Christian. You can doubt it all you want; you're entitled to your opinions as we all are here. But the fact remains that there is a certain producer of airframes in Europe that has come out with nothing but lies and deceit with regard to Concorde, since early 2003, and it continues to do so to this day. (Guesses anyone?) You conveniently seem to forget that it was
scarebus themselves
who unilaterally closed the Concorde Filton exhibit...'for maintenace' ..
YET ANOTHER TOTAL PACK OF LIES!!
And as far as responding to pressures; They could not give a flying
about Concorde pressures, they
JUST DO NOT WANT TO KNOW!!
And yes they are fed up with Concorde.. poor dears. Perhaps OAF should never have gone to Filton in the first place; The continuing thought of Filton bending over backwards to please it's French masters makes one want to throw up. The basic fact remains that any British Concorde anywhere NEAR an Airbus plant is nothing more than an embarassment to them, and is fundimantally always in jeapordy.
Big deal, she needed a C Check. Unlike in France, a Concorde major (D check) here did not take over a year to complete, and an inter could be in and out of the shed in a couple of months. Oh, and the check was completed correctly and thoroughly.
I tend to agree with the RTF point, the \xa3\xa3\xa3\xa3\xa3's involved are generally prohibitive and it will probably never happen, but you and I have been in aviation long enough to realise that nothing is impossible. (At least not this side of the Channel). All aircraft left outside in the elements are obviously going to suffer, and it is irony of ironies that the FRENCH aircraft are generally stored indoors in the dry and warm, where the British were ALL intitially stored outside, exposed to the elements. (Only OAC in Manchester and OAE in BGI are now finally cared for under cover, the poor old 'wing clipped' OAA in Edinburgh does not really count). This ridiculous fact is is a source of both wonder and ANGER in the minds of most Concorde people in the UK. (Makes me sick personally!!).
Dude
Quote:
| With the lack of comm from Airbus, of course we don't know the details, but I would have thought the problem is essentially the under-floor insulation, the same that causes the musty smell in the Fox-Charlie cockpit. If so, I doubt they'd bother to strip the cabin. |
Quote:
| At present, the 'permanent home' is planned to be at Cribb's Causeway, where land is already available. Since this is only just on the other side of Filton airfield, so far there is no question of breaking up the airframe, or road transport. |
Unfortunately, this lot have a habit of talking with forked tongue as far as Concorde goes; you can not in any way be sure about this, and we should really stop believing everything that this lot in Toulouse tell us . (Recent history here has taught us this all too well, and nothing would please scarebus more than there to be no reminders of Concorde at all on the airfield at Filton). More to the point, there is absolutely no certainty that the Cribb's Causeway site will ever be built anyway, you just can NOT say that the airframe will not ne broken up for road transportation, because if she does go to another museum in the absence of the Cribb's Causeway site being built, that will DEFINATELY happen. But at least we now have another 'written off' British Concorde; I guess this fact obviously pleases some people
Quote:
| I doubt this.... The "pressures" from these bodies and people consist only of noises on internet forums and in the press. As long as BA (as the owner), Airbus (as the current 'guardian' and legacy manufacturer) and the CAA (as the regulatory body) say "NO", Airbus knows perfectly well it'll never happen, pressures or no pressures. My own take is simply, that they're fed up with a Concorde on their site, that their early 'enthusiasts' who campaigned for 'A Concorde at Filton' have now left, and that it's now Airbus exerting pressure on the Concorde Trust and other bodies to provide that 'permanent home' they've been talking about for years. |
And as far as responding to pressures; They could not give a flying
about Concorde pressures, they
JUST DO NOT WANT TO KNOW!!
And yes they are fed up with Concorde.. poor dears. Perhaps OAF should never have gone to Filton in the first place; The continuing thought of Filton bending over backwards to please it's French masters makes one want to throw up. The basic fact remains that any British Concorde anywhere NEAR an Airbus plant is nothing more than an embarassment to them, and is fundimantally always in jeapordy.
Quote:
| In 2003, the issue with G-BOAF was that she was almost 'out of hours', with only a few hours left until the next big overhaul (an 'Inter', IIRC). At the time, this was the reason why G-BOAF did not partake to the full extent in the flying during the last months, so as to have a few hours 'spare' for the last few flights, and of course the final flight. |
Quote:
| And that's another reason why Airbus wouldn't be bothered by those "pressures" mentioned earlier... they know perfectly well nobody is going to come up with the \xa3100M +++ to re-create the necessary infrastructure. |
I tend to agree with the RTF point, the \xa3\xa3\xa3\xa3\xa3's involved are generally prohibitive and it will probably never happen, but you and I have been in aviation long enough to realise that nothing is impossible. (At least not this side of the Channel). All aircraft left outside in the elements are obviously going to suffer, and it is irony of ironies that the FRENCH aircraft are generally stored indoors in the dry and warm, where the British were ALL intitially stored outside, exposed to the elements. (Only OAC in Manchester and OAE in BGI are now finally cared for under cover, the poor old 'wing clipped' OAA in Edinburgh does not really count). This ridiculous fact is is a source of both wonder and ANGER in the minds of most Concorde people in the UK. (Makes me sick personally!!).
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 27th Nov 2010 at 14:21 .