14th Sep 2010, 18:20
permalink Post: 357
Galaxy flyer
Absolutely correct the T-heads often went up past us at 60000ft, which is quite scarey when you think of the energy required to do that. Makes you as part of mankind seem somewhat insignificant.
Avoiding them as another problemas the Malacca Straits is quite narrow, well it is for Concorde trying hard not to boom the land on either side, but as I remember it there were two good points
The T-storms seemed to be normally over the land either side, but more important we would start to slow down shortly after entering the Malacca Straits and once subsonic we were in the same ball park as other aircraft , avoid them at all cost, and we could then fly over land without upsetting people
--------------------------------------------------------------
bio161
No the crews flew just the one trans Atlantic sector and then got off for a rest. Well you could not have us boys working too hard now .
In fact it was just possible for the crews to do a return trip and indeed when there were crew problems this was indeed done.
Morning flight
The Concorde report time was 1.5 before departure and a turn around at JFK would have been about 1.5 hours so when all added up it could have just been done. However any delay to either service could result in the home bound flight being late or indeed cancelled due to flight time limitations. This the company deemed to be unacceptable risk on an aircraft which was sold as saving time.
In fact as the morning flight was on approach to JFK,the morning flight back to LHR was already taking off. For the crew to now wait for the late departure back to London would put them way over FTLimitations
That did not mean the crews only did one sector a day
LHR-IAD-MIA was a days work as was the return.
On some of the charter flights it was often a multi sector day such as
Sydney--Brisbane --Guam --Beijing
I was only doing the PR on that trip so I have not got the times but it did seem a long day's work
Absolutely correct the T-heads often went up past us at 60000ft, which is quite scarey when you think of the energy required to do that. Makes you as part of mankind seem somewhat insignificant.
Avoiding them as another problemas the Malacca Straits is quite narrow, well it is for Concorde trying hard not to boom the land on either side, but as I remember it there were two good points
The T-storms seemed to be normally over the land either side, but more important we would start to slow down shortly after entering the Malacca Straits and once subsonic we were in the same ball park as other aircraft , avoid them at all cost, and we could then fly over land without upsetting people
--------------------------------------------------------------
bio161
Quote:
| Just one qst. Thanks to her extremely high speed Concorde was able to fly to JFK from LHR in just 3hrs and 30mins. Usually this is a normal flight from LIRF to UUDD where the flight crew, offcourse, flies as well the way back. The flight crew of concorde used to fly from LHR to JFK and then back as well or they were finishing their duty period in JFK and another crew was taking over them? |
In fact it was just possible for the crews to do a return trip and indeed when there were crew problems this was indeed done.
Morning flight
The Concorde report time was 1.5 before departure and a turn around at JFK would have been about 1.5 hours so when all added up it could have just been done. However any delay to either service could result in the home bound flight being late or indeed cancelled due to flight time limitations. This the company deemed to be unacceptable risk on an aircraft which was sold as saving time.
In fact as the morning flight was on approach to JFK,the morning flight back to LHR was already taking off. For the crew to now wait for the late departure back to London would put them way over FTLimitations
That did not mean the crews only did one sector a day
LHR-IAD-MIA was a days work as was the return.
On some of the charter flights it was often a multi sector day such as
Sydney--Brisbane --Guam --Beijing
I was only doing the PR on that trip so I have not got the times but it did seem a long day's work
14th Sep 2010, 18:30
permalink Post: 358
Also, regarding the practicalities of flying LHR-JFK-LHR, one has to remember that there were two airframes involved - the first return flight having nightstopped JFK. So the early JFK-LHR service was just taxying out as the morning LHR-JFK landed.
It was possible to operate the early JFK-LHR (BA002) and then turn round at LHR to operate the late LHR-JFK (BA003) and this was done occasionally, generally at short notice to cover illness or crew shortages.
I only did it once and you certainly knew you'd done it afterwards....
It was possible to operate the early JFK-LHR (BA002) and then turn round at LHR to operate the late LHR-JFK (BA003) and this was done occasionally, generally at short notice to cover illness or crew shortages.
I only did it once and you certainly knew you'd done it afterwards....
16th Sep 2010, 08:22
permalink Post: 369
I don't think you'll be finding hydrazine on a pax-carrying aircraft anytime soon! And it wasn't an APU as such, but a source of power for non-normals potentially found in the flight test programme. M2D and ChristiaanJwill know far more.
The charter flights were different insofar as they often went to non-BA stations, so there was a bit more donkeywork to be done to get all the paperwork organised, but nothing a regular charter pilot won't be used to. Generally one would get a fuel plan/flight plan filed from Ops at LHR, but apart from LHR/JFK/BGI/IAD (and presumably MIA/BAH/SIN in earlier days) we produced our own loadsheet. I only once had to produce a fuel plan/route plan from scratch and that was at Sondrestrom (as it was) with a dodgy fax line. You'd have to file a flight plan occasionally.
We carried a ' PR ' on most of them - a line pilot or FE - to carry out a running PA and do general liaison. They were volunteered to do the loadsheet.
The atmosphere on board was very different - these were pleasure flights and so were the opposite of the JFK business run. Landlady may be able to elaborate on this.
The round-the-worlds were just a big charter in this respect. As you note we carried a 'flying spanner', since Concorde-qualified LAEs are hard to come by downroute. It looked like a great job on paper, but they were often at the airport for many hours before or after the sectors carrying out routine maintenance or dealing with snags.
I enjoyed the charters a lot - everyone was geared up for a good time and in general the flight had something different for us, too: Whether a lightweight departure on a 'round-the-bay', squeezing into a short runway (e.g. Bournemouth), visiting SFJ or Rovaniemi, or setting off around the world, predominantly to non-BA destinations. My favourites, though, were the RTBs out of Filton - EVERYONE was either connected to Conc development or manufacture, or was related to someone who was. Fantastic atmosphere. Shame the runway wasn't a bit longer........
The charter flights were different insofar as they often went to non-BA stations, so there was a bit more donkeywork to be done to get all the paperwork organised, but nothing a regular charter pilot won't be used to. Generally one would get a fuel plan/flight plan filed from Ops at LHR, but apart from LHR/JFK/BGI/IAD (and presumably MIA/BAH/SIN in earlier days) we produced our own loadsheet. I only once had to produce a fuel plan/route plan from scratch and that was at Sondrestrom (as it was) with a dodgy fax line. You'd have to file a flight plan occasionally.
We carried a ' PR ' on most of them - a line pilot or FE - to carry out a running PA and do general liaison. They were volunteered to do the loadsheet.
The atmosphere on board was very different - these were pleasure flights and so were the opposite of the JFK business run. Landlady may be able to elaborate on this.
The round-the-worlds were just a big charter in this respect. As you note we carried a 'flying spanner', since Concorde-qualified LAEs are hard to come by downroute. It looked like a great job on paper, but they were often at the airport for many hours before or after the sectors carrying out routine maintenance or dealing with snags.
I enjoyed the charters a lot - everyone was geared up for a good time and in general the flight had something different for us, too: Whether a lightweight departure on a 'round-the-bay', squeezing into a short runway (e.g. Bournemouth), visiting SFJ or Rovaniemi, or setting off around the world, predominantly to non-BA destinations. My favourites, though, were the RTBs out of Filton - EVERYONE was either connected to Conc development or manufacture, or was related to someone who was. Fantastic atmosphere. Shame the runway wasn't a bit longer........
19th Sep 2010, 18:27
permalink Post: 397
BlueConcorde
Hi again. Yes, the Ronivaniemi charters were supersonic) and VERY popular).
As far as the BA001 and BA003 go, these flights were not really 'related'. The 001 would depart LHR at 10:30, arriving at JFK at around 09:10 EST. (14:10 UK time). That same aircraft would then be turned round at JFK before returning to LHR on the BA004, which departed JFK at 13:45 EST (18:45 UK time), arriving at LHR at around 22:10. The BA004 was fairly critical as far as departure times went; if you had a technical problem you only had around an hour to an hour and a half to solve the issue, otherwise you risked running into the 23:30 LHR jet ban.
The BA003 departed LHR at 19:00; arriving at JFK at around 17:40 EST (22:40 UK time). This aircraft would night stop at JFK, departing the following morning at 08:45 (13:45 UK time), arriving at around 17:00.
We did try and provide a standby aircraft at LHR for both flights, but this was not always possible; We only had seven aircraft in the fleet and sometimes, because of charter operations etc., a standby was just not possible. The standby aircraft was not fuelled, and would be parked as close as practically possible to the Concorde departure stand. However, Terminal 4 was a very busy place, and the nearest 'practical' stand was often not that close at all. If you had to 'change aircraft' it could take anywhere between 90 and 120 minutes to implement the changeover of baggage and catering etc.
Dude
Quote:
|
1) Were the flights to Ronivaniemi supersonic?
2) For BA001 and BA003, 2 Concordes were prepared for the same flight, right? Did ever happened some situation that required a ready-for-takeoff Concorde be brought back? How long a cargo and passengers transfer would take? The backup Concorde was fueled? |
As far as the BA001 and BA003 go, these flights were not really 'related'. The 001 would depart LHR at 10:30, arriving at JFK at around 09:10 EST. (14:10 UK time). That same aircraft would then be turned round at JFK before returning to LHR on the BA004, which departed JFK at 13:45 EST (18:45 UK time), arriving at LHR at around 22:10. The BA004 was fairly critical as far as departure times went; if you had a technical problem you only had around an hour to an hour and a half to solve the issue, otherwise you risked running into the 23:30 LHR jet ban.
The BA003 departed LHR at 19:00; arriving at JFK at around 17:40 EST (22:40 UK time). This aircraft would night stop at JFK, departing the following morning at 08:45 (13:45 UK time), arriving at around 17:00.
We did try and provide a standby aircraft at LHR for both flights, but this was not always possible; We only had seven aircraft in the fleet and sometimes, because of charter operations etc., a standby was just not possible. The standby aircraft was not fuelled, and would be parked as close as practically possible to the Concorde departure stand. However, Terminal 4 was a very busy place, and the nearest 'practical' stand was often not that close at all. If you had to 'change aircraft' it could take anywhere between 90 and 120 minutes to implement the changeover of baggage and catering etc.
Dude
20th Sep 2010, 14:30
permalink Post: 420
Thank you!
Thanks for clearing that one up!
I wondered if perhaps I was posting in the wrong place. Maybe there should be another thread for anyone who has memories that they would like to share, or links with Concorde which aren\x92t spanner related\x85..however, I do have a little story for today.
This concerns the type of traveller that we have all met\x85the ones who like to practise a little \x91one up-manship\x92.
It was a pea-souper of a day at LHR, and we were trying to get away on the early JFK, but our delay-due-fog was getting longer and longer. A businessman was getting himself into a right old state about the fog, and summoned me to his side. (This was taking place in the rear cabin, as a matter of interest.) He told me in no uncertain terms that this was Concorde, (full marks there for observation for a start), and not only could she fly in a bit of fog, but also in zero visibility. Furthermore, he would be having lunch with Lord King a week on Thursday, and have no doubt about it, he would be having words. (Lord King was our Life President for those who don\x92t know, and what a gentleman!) Now, would I please run along to the flight deck and tell the captain to stop b*ggering about and get the show on the road. I informed him that nothing would please me more, and went forward, but before I got to the flight deck I thought I would have a little chat with the passenger sitting at 1A. Lord King.
I told him that there was a passenger down the back who would be having lunch with him on Thursday of next week, and I felt it only fair to warn Lord King that his dining partner was not a happy chap. The lovely John King put his half-moon specs on the end of his nose and fished out his pocket diary, telling me that on Thursday week it would be his wife\x92s birthday, and there would be a family party. He stood up and asked me to take him to the gentleman in question, giving me a little wink.
We arrived at the seat of our disgruntled passenger, who was more than a little surprised to see Lord King standing in front of him. He began by saying how embarrassed he was that he had no mention in his diary of the impending lunch date, and slipped the gentleman his card, saying he should contact his P.A to re-arrange. As he began to walk back to his seat he paused, turned around and said,\x92 by the way, what is your name?\x92 at which several of the nearby passengers actually laughed out loud. Red-faced businessman troubled us no more.
Of course, not all SLF are problematic, but blimey, the ones that are cause us no end of grief!
Warm regards,
Landlady. (Supersonic tea-bag squeezer to the stars.)
I wondered if perhaps I was posting in the wrong place. Maybe there should be another thread for anyone who has memories that they would like to share, or links with Concorde which aren\x92t spanner related\x85..however, I do have a little story for today.
This concerns the type of traveller that we have all met\x85the ones who like to practise a little \x91one up-manship\x92.
It was a pea-souper of a day at LHR, and we were trying to get away on the early JFK, but our delay-due-fog was getting longer and longer. A businessman was getting himself into a right old state about the fog, and summoned me to his side. (This was taking place in the rear cabin, as a matter of interest.) He told me in no uncertain terms that this was Concorde, (full marks there for observation for a start), and not only could she fly in a bit of fog, but also in zero visibility. Furthermore, he would be having lunch with Lord King a week on Thursday, and have no doubt about it, he would be having words. (Lord King was our Life President for those who don\x92t know, and what a gentleman!) Now, would I please run along to the flight deck and tell the captain to stop b*ggering about and get the show on the road. I informed him that nothing would please me more, and went forward, but before I got to the flight deck I thought I would have a little chat with the passenger sitting at 1A. Lord King.
I told him that there was a passenger down the back who would be having lunch with him on Thursday of next week, and I felt it only fair to warn Lord King that his dining partner was not a happy chap. The lovely John King put his half-moon specs on the end of his nose and fished out his pocket diary, telling me that on Thursday week it would be his wife\x92s birthday, and there would be a family party. He stood up and asked me to take him to the gentleman in question, giving me a little wink.
We arrived at the seat of our disgruntled passenger, who was more than a little surprised to see Lord King standing in front of him. He began by saying how embarrassed he was that he had no mention in his diary of the impending lunch date, and slipped the gentleman his card, saying he should contact his P.A to re-arrange. As he began to walk back to his seat he paused, turned around and said,\x92 by the way, what is your name?\x92 at which several of the nearby passengers actually laughed out loud. Red-faced businessman troubled us no more.
Of course, not all SLF are problematic, but blimey, the ones that are cause us no end of grief!
Warm regards,
Landlady. (Supersonic tea-bag squeezer to the stars.)
21st Sep 2010, 10:34
permalink Post: 438
Nick - the only thing I can remember about cabin seats is that the a/c was certified to carry (I think) 125 passengers. But with JFK departures often load-limited as they were, I think 100 was a sensible decision. Some clever arrangements meant it looked bigger and airier than it was. Most passenger feedback seemed to indicate the cabin layout was good enough - not First Class, but then you only had to sit there for 3.5 hours...
22nd Sep 2010, 04:03
permalink Post: 446
Had a chance to go on the BA Concorde, due to the fact that BA certainly realized the allure the Lady had on all pilots, but sadly, my friend who was suppose to join me got sick, so we rescheduled for another flight at a later date. Well, the tragic events of Air France never gave us the chance.
Having spent the last 11 years based JFK, it never got old to see this magnificient bird arrive and I think to a man, or woman, every one always took a moment to look.
Anyway, found this video on youtube, one amongst very many, however, she was most photogenic, so not much to argue about there. Imagine a few of the posters here had a hand in this:
YouTube - Concorde formation
Having spent the last 11 years based JFK, it never got old to see this magnificient bird arrive and I think to a man, or woman, every one always took a moment to look.
Anyway, found this video on youtube, one amongst very many, however, she was most photogenic, so not much to argue about there. Imagine a few of the posters here had a hand in this:
YouTube - Concorde formation
22nd Sep 2010, 23:54
permalink Post: 447
You had to stop and look.
Quote:
| Having spent the last 11 years based JFK, it never got old to see this magnificient bird arrive and I think to a man, or woman, every one always took a moment to look. |
I have loved aeroplanes since I was very young - I genuinely understood Bernouli's principle when I was about nine - and I always looked at aeroplanes, indeed I still do. But most of the time, when the engine note was obviously a 747 or 727 (noisey!) or some such, I would perhaps concentrate on what I was supposed to be doing. But in the early evening, the absolutely inimitable sound of 593s would draw the eyes of nearly everyone in our area. We saw her every day and yet we all looked. Always. Extraordinary.
Not being in the flying profession, I only have two Concorde stories of my own. Back before the M25 was completed and it stopped at Poyle, I would take the opportunity to use what became the Poyle northbound on ramp as a 'plane spotters' place. One evening I stopped in the gathering dusk and got out to watch a few planes. 737s and 757s abounded as the light faded, leaving a broad, light blue band across the horizon, tinged with peach and little colour anywhere else.
Then I heard her on her way and the old heart beat a bit quicker. Suddenly she was up and passing and my mind's eye took the photograph I always wanted and now will never get.
Concorde, silhouetted against the horizon, the cabin lights just visible, but the four, electric blue reheat exhausts - including shock diamonds - the only other colour in the monochrome image. Unforgettable.
The second was day time. I was parking my car in the north car park - when it was basically all the way down one side of 27R. On my way, I think, to Stockholm Arlander, I was ignoring the succession of 'light iron' going by very close. Again, I heard her light up and just stood and waited. Fabulous sight of Concorde, just rotating as she passed me and climbing away to the west trailing thunder ..... and every car in the north car park sounding their tribute when the reheat set off their alarms.
You just had to look - every time.
Roger.
23rd Sep 2010, 23:10
permalink Post: 457
Really interesting thread - thanks to all those who flew/worked on/maintained her. One thing that has bemused me for about 15 years - I took a picture of AC parked at JFK about sunset and its adjacent to an airbridge but parked nose out and not 'plugged in' for people to access - was this a one off or the normal way to leave her for overnight parking?
2nd Oct 2010, 04:44
permalink Post: 507
Are there any concorde simulators that are still working and retain their certification?
Regarding LHR JFK routes.
What was the avarage fuel load and how close to full tanks was it.
At FL500-600 what sort of wind was usually encountered. So high above the tropopause I would think very little.
Flying magazine from the US did a spread on the concorde many years ago. Theye stated that the wind component was such a little percentage of TAS that the block times rarely differed by more then 10 mins. True or false.
They also said that the type rating course was so hard that only the top performers (pilots) were selected for the training and even then there was a 50% washout rate. True or false.
Does anyone still have a complete set of ground school notes?
Regarding LHR JFK routes.
What was the avarage fuel load and how close to full tanks was it.
At FL500-600 what sort of wind was usually encountered. So high above the tropopause I would think very little.
Flying magazine from the US did a spread on the concorde many years ago. Theye stated that the wind component was such a little percentage of TAS that the block times rarely differed by more then 10 mins. True or false.
They also said that the type rating course was so hard that only the top performers (pilots) were selected for the training and even then there was a 50% washout rate. True or false.
Does anyone still have a complete set of ground school notes?
2nd Oct 2010, 08:45
permalink Post: 508
CRON
I can only speak here from the Concorde ground engineering school that I attended over a total of 13 weeks at Filton in 1980 and 1981; the pilot/flight engineer questions there were I'm sure FAR nastier (and also more operationally specific); we did get to share simulator time though, which was really useful. Like the aircrews, we stayed up in a hotel in Bristol during the week. (I personally had only left BAC, as it was then, for BA at Heathrow in late July 1977, so I was returning to familiar pastures). The exam format would be several dozen multi-choice questions per week/phase; a typical question would go something like:
The Inner Elevon Light, plus 'PFC' red Master Warning is triggered by:
a) The Green Flying ControlComparator
b) The Blue Flying Control Comparator
c) Either Comparator
The correct answer is (b).
Another flying controls question I can remember is:
Outer Elevon Neutralisation is triggered at:
a)Vmo + 10 KTS
b)Vmo + 15 KTS
c)Vmo + 25 KTS
The correct answer here is (c).
The pass mark in these exams was 75%, with penalty marking applied for any wrong answers. I always found the worst part was the fact that the exams were on a Friday afternoon after lunch
Nick Thomas
Hi again Nick, one really for the likes of BRIT312, EXWOK etc, but there was, as was mentioned before, an emergency forward transfer switch in the roof panel above the pilots (F/O's side if I remember correctly). When placed to the emergency poition two electric and two hydraulic fuel pumps for the rear trim tank #11 would start up automatically, as well as the forward tank inlet valves being opened also.
From what you said about the 'lady' being ahead of her time, I would certainly agree with you here; in my view she was generations ahead of everything else.
nomorecatering
The BA simulator that resided at Filton has been re-located to Brooklands Museum, and has been re-activated, but without motion and I'm not sure about full visuals either. I've not seen it myself yet, but I'm told that things have progressed really well with the operation. Obviously it is no longer certified as an active simulator; I'm not sure about the situation in France, perhaps my friend ChristiaanJ can answer that one.
I seem to remember typical loads for LHR-JFK being around 93-96 tonnes, depending on the passenger load and en-route conditions. Full tanks, depending on the SG was around 96 Tonnes. High fuel temperatures in the summer were a major pain; restricting maximum onload due to the low SG.
As far as ground school notes, mine are all out on long term loan (MUST get them back). The ground school are totally priceless and I am sure that there are many complete sets lying around in atticks/bedrooms/garages/loos etc.
Dude
Quote:
| If I may ask - and folk can recall - what would a sample question look like from these exams? |
The Inner Elevon Light, plus 'PFC' red Master Warning is triggered by:
a) The Green Flying ControlComparator
b) The Blue Flying Control Comparator
c) Either Comparator
The correct answer is (b).
Another flying controls question I can remember is:
Outer Elevon Neutralisation is triggered at:
a)Vmo + 10 KTS
b)Vmo + 15 KTS
c)Vmo + 25 KTS
The correct answer here is (c).
The pass mark in these exams was 75%, with penalty marking applied for any wrong answers. I always found the worst part was the fact that the exams were on a Friday afternoon after lunch
Nick Thomas
Quote:
| So I have been wondering if there were any special procedures for managing the CofG in a rapid descent especially as there could also be many other factors needing the crews attention? |
From what you said about the 'lady' being ahead of her time, I would certainly agree with you here; in my view she was generations ahead of everything else.
nomorecatering
Quote:
| Are there any concorde simulators that are still working and retain their certification? |
Quote:
| Regarding LHR JFK routes. What was the avarage fuel load and how close to full tanks was it. |
As far as ground school notes, mine are all out on long term loan (MUST get them back). The ground school are totally priceless and I am sure that there are many complete sets lying around in atticks/bedrooms/garages/loos etc.
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 2nd Oct 2010 at 13:40 .
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 .
8th Oct 2010, 13:26
permalink Post: 531
Self Loading Freight
The aircraft could be very unforgiving regarding rough runways, and was a major design headache in the early days. There was particular concern regarding about runway conditions in JFK, and extensive modifications were carried out to the shock absorbers to help reduce the effects. However simplified solutions WERE sought by the manufacturers, one of these being to try and reduce the damping of the main gear by removing a meausured amount of oil from the cylinders and chage the 'tuning' of the leg, but this proved to be, er... less than successful:
In early 1977, aircraft 210, G-BOAE was doing it's pre-delivery test flying out of Filton (Fairford was now closed as a permanent test base, but day flying was carried out from there, the aircraft returning to Filton at night). and it was decided to try this rechnique on 210. A little French guy from the landing gear manufacturer Messier spent all day, travelling from the other side of France to Filton in the west of England, and arrived at the plant at around 23:30. He spent several hours that night, draining off his carefully calculated amount of fluid from each of the main landing gears, and returned to France a happy little bunny the following morning. BIG MISTAKE !!
When OAE did it's test flying the following day, everything seemed to be going well, but on the final landing of the at Fairford.. THUMP!!! The barrels of the shock absorbers bottomed, sending a sizable shock through the entire airframe. No structural damage was done, but several systems went off line, and I particularly remember one of the incidence vane heaters being knackered by the force of the vane thumping against the stops. Our poor little Messier rep' arrives home LATE that night, only to receive a message telling him to go straight back to Filton. The poor guy was a wreck, but like a true trooper headed straight back to the UK, and inserted his carefully measured amount of oil back into the main landing gears of G-BOAE. (Always thought that this would have made a great comedy sketch)
Dude
Quote:
| Was it really that bad, flying out? Or am I being too dramatic? |
In early 1977, aircraft 210, G-BOAE was doing it's pre-delivery test flying out of Filton (Fairford was now closed as a permanent test base, but day flying was carried out from there, the aircraft returning to Filton at night). and it was decided to try this rechnique on 210. A little French guy from the landing gear manufacturer Messier spent all day, travelling from the other side of France to Filton in the west of England, and arrived at the plant at around 23:30. He spent several hours that night, draining off his carefully calculated amount of fluid from each of the main landing gears, and returned to France a happy little bunny the following morning. BIG MISTAKE !!
When OAE did it's test flying the following day, everything seemed to be going well, but on the final landing of the at Fairford.. THUMP!!! The barrels of the shock absorbers bottomed, sending a sizable shock through the entire airframe. No structural damage was done, but several systems went off line, and I particularly remember one of the incidence vane heaters being knackered by the force of the vane thumping against the stops. Our poor little Messier rep' arrives home LATE that night, only to receive a message telling him to go straight back to Filton. The poor guy was a wreck, but like a true trooper headed straight back to the UK, and inserted his carefully measured amount of oil back into the main landing gears of G-BOAE. (Always thought that this would have made a great comedy sketch)
Dude
9th Oct 2010, 23:51
permalink Post: 541
Looking at the prototype's nozzle arrangements in comparison with that used in the production aircraft, does anyone know how much the secondary nozzle silencing effect actually gained?
I wonder how close to the noise limits the prototypes would have been at JFK....
I wonder how close to the noise limits the prototypes would have been at JFK....
11th Oct 2010, 22:13
permalink Post: 556
arearadar
...As an ATCO we had very specific instructions about how to deal with a Concord(e) radiation overdose. We were told that it would have to make an emergency descent and how to integrate it with other traffic as it descended and what the priorities were...
The display, on the radiation meter, was divided into three, coloured, sections.
The procedure to be followed was simply an Abnormal Procedure rather than an Emergency Drill .
It was of some concern that the sort of radiation levels that would trigger the radiation alarm might very well also be playing havoc with radio communications, particularly HF communications. The possibility of being unable to communicate with ATC was one that had to be considered, and so it was only under these circumstances, with both a Red MWS RADN warning and an ATC communications failure, that the Captain was permitted, at his discretion, to perform an uncleared descent.
It's comforting to know that you were prepared to deal with us if required, but unlikely, I would have thought, that your services would have been called upon in practice.
...Has any Concord crew ever had to do this?...
I not aware of any such descent incident, although obviously I can\x92t state definitely that one never occurred.
It wasn't unknown for the radiation alarm to go off, I\x92ve had it, briefly, twice, both times at lowish level over the sea on departure from JFK. On one occasion there was nothing at all to indicate what might have caused it, on the other, we had just overflown a rather large waste barge being towed somewhere!
Best Regards
Bellerophon
...As an ATCO we had very specific instructions about how to deal with a Concord(e) radiation overdose. We were told that it would have to make an emergency descent and how to integrate it with other traffic as it descended and what the priorities were...
The display, on the radiation meter, was divided into three, coloured, sections.
\x95 GREEN .....00\x9610 millirems/hour....No action required.If the "Red" level on the radiation meter was reached, this would also trigger the central M aster W arning S ystem to display a Red MWS RADN light, and also to sound the MWS gong.
\x95 AMBER ....11\x9650 millirems/hour....Alert ATC, prepare for possible descent.
\x95 RED ........51+....millirems/hour.....Descend out of high dosage flight levels.
The procedure to be followed was simply an Abnormal Procedure rather than an Emergency Drill .
\x95 AMBER .....Advise ATC that a descent might shortly be required.So, even with an instantaneous radiation level in excess of 50 millrems/hour indicating, this was not thought to justify the risk of an emergency, uncleared, descent through flights levels possibly occupied by underflying aircraft, and, in fact, if the warning remained RED below 47,000 ft, the warning was deemed suspect, and the descent could be stopped.
\x95 RED .........Alert ATC, obtain clearance, and then descend.
It was of some concern that the sort of radiation levels that would trigger the radiation alarm might very well also be playing havoc with radio communications, particularly HF communications. The possibility of being unable to communicate with ATC was one that had to be considered, and so it was only under these circumstances, with both a Red MWS RADN warning and an ATC communications failure, that the Captain was permitted, at his discretion, to perform an uncleared descent.
It's comforting to know that you were prepared to deal with us if required, but unlikely, I would have thought, that your services would have been called upon in practice.
...Has any Concord crew ever had to do this?...
I not aware of any such descent incident, although obviously I can\x92t state definitely that one never occurred.
It wasn't unknown for the radiation alarm to go off, I\x92ve had it, briefly, twice, both times at lowish level over the sea on departure from JFK. On one occasion there was nothing at all to indicate what might have caused it, on the other, we had just overflown a rather large waste barge being towed somewhere!
Best Regards
Bellerophon
15th Oct 2010, 22:25
permalink Post: 574
Ze Concorde Quiz Mk 2 (Or is it Mach 2?).
As requested here is the second in the diabolical series of Concorde quizes. If you were never personally involved withe the aircraft you can leave out the really stinky questions if you want. Most answers can be found either in this thread, by looking at the many panel photos around or as usual by asking Mr Google
1) How many Concorde airframes were built?
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).
1) How many Concorde airframes were built?
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).
5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavange pump
).
).
6) What was the only development airframe to have a TOTALLY unique shape?
7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft?
8) How many wheel brakes?
9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled?
10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify?
11) At what airfied were the first BA crew base training details held?
12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem).
13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's?
14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight?
Answers in 7 days, if further guidence (or clues) required then feel free to IM me.
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 16th Oct 2010 at 08:00 . Reason: Addition of missing question... I am sooo nasty.
16th Oct 2010, 14:47
permalink Post: 577
questions
Humble SLF here, hope it is ok to have a stab at the questions, mods please feel free to delete if necessary.
1) How many Concorde airframes were built?
22, 20 that flew and 2 test frames
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
New York, Washington, Miami, Barbados, Toronto, Bahrain and Singapore, no British registered aircraft ever operated to or form Dallas, should not forget BAs most popular destination of all time-London
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
0930-Local
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).
193 & 195 respectiveley
5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavange pump ).
Pass
6) What was the only development airframe to have a TOTALLY unique shape?
101, G-AXDN
7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft?
pass
8) How many wheel brakes?
8
9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled?
1.3
10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify?
Not sure here, best guess -green was part of the take-off moniter -red failure-blue reverse
11) At what airfied were the first BA crew base training details held?
Prestwick, shannon, and one in France
12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem).
28L , 28R, 27L, 27R, 9L, 9R 10L 10R, 23
13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's?
Fed-ex
14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight?
214? G-BFKW
1) How many Concorde airframes were built?
22, 20 that flew and 2 test frames
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
New York, Washington, Miami, Barbados, Toronto, Bahrain and Singapore, no British registered aircraft ever operated to or form Dallas, should not forget BAs most popular destination of all time-London
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
0930-Local
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).
193 & 195 respectiveley
5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavange pump ).
Pass
6) What was the only development airframe to have a TOTALLY unique shape?
101, G-AXDN
7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft?
pass
8) How many wheel brakes?
8
9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled?
1.3
10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify?
Not sure here, best guess -green was part of the take-off moniter -red failure-blue reverse
11) At what airfied were the first BA crew base training details held?
Prestwick, shannon, and one in France
12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem).
28L , 28R, 27L, 27R, 9L, 9R 10L 10R, 23
13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's?
Fed-ex
14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight?
214? G-BFKW
16th Oct 2010, 21:12
permalink Post: 579
1) How many Concorde airframes were built?
22 total. 2 test, 9 BA, 9 AF, 2 spares (1 BA, 1 AF).
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
JFK, Dulles Intl., Barbados, Miami, Bahrain, Singapore.
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
No idea.
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).
No idea.
13 tanks, 2 main pumps each (except tank 11 which had 4 pumps) = 28
Main and aux engine feed pumps (3 per collector, 4 collectors for a total of 12)
Fuel pumps from aux tanks to mains = 4
Fuel dump = 2
BAC 221. Flying test bed for the wing design.
Filton.
27 L/R, 09 R.
22 total. 2 test, 9 BA, 9 AF, 2 spares (1 BA, 1 AF).
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
JFK, Dulles Intl., Barbados, Miami, Bahrain, Singapore.
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
No idea.
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).
No idea.
5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavange pump
).
).
13 tanks, 2 main pumps each (except tank 11 which had 4 pumps) = 28
Main and aux engine feed pumps (3 per collector, 4 collectors for a total of 12)
Fuel pumps from aux tanks to mains = 4
Fuel dump = 2
6) What was the only development airframe to have a TOTALLY unique shape?
BAC 221. Flying test bed for the wing design.
7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft?
I'm guessing 14.
I'm guessing 14.
8) How many wheel brakes?
8. 1 per wheel, 4 total on each main gear.
8. 1 per wheel, 4 total on each main gear.
9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled?
Mach 1.3.
Mach 1.3.
10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify?
Blue = Reverse
Amber = Reheat failure
Green = Good to go
Blue = Reverse
Amber = Reheat failure
Green = Good to go
11) At what airfied were the first BA crew base training details held?
Filton.
12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem).
27 L/R, 09 R.
13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's?
Braniff.
Braniff.
14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight?
Concorde? Just a guess.
ECAM Actions.
Concorde? Just a guess.
ECAM Actions.
Last edited by ECAM_Actions; 16th Oct 2010 at 21:38 .