Posts about: "LHR" [Posts: 93 Pages: 5]

Oh yes Roger, I do agree (and a point well made too). Concorde was very much a 1970's era electronics design (with even a little 1960s thrown in too). It was typical that as long as things were left alone and warm, they more or less were happy.
At Heathrow when the crew arrived to depart the aircraft, she was already fairly well tested and fired up, systems wise, even to the extent that the INSs were usually aligned (but not put into NAV mode). Now this all helped immensely as far as systems reliability went, but a last minute INS or ADC failure could often still occur, and hit you in the 'you know wheres' when you had least time. Such was the nature of the beast. (But we all loved her ).
I hope so Roger, I think we all did our best.

Dude

I used to work for BA at BHX (Engineering). BHX was one of the BA diversion airfields for when LHR got fogged out.

A few of us were therefore trained on non BHX based aircraft types in case of diversions. On my shift, I was trained on the B747 and my colleage on Concorde.

Of course we didn't see these aircraft very often, but when we did we had to get out the old course notes to refresh .

However, whenever Concorde turned up, my overriding memory was of my colleage who was obsessed with 'keeping her warm" - at all costs. I remember an occasion where the GPU, that had been running for a few hours (connected to a Concorde), ran out of diesel and therefore the power dropped off-line. I thought my colleage was going to have a heart attack - he did not come down from orbit until power was restored and everything appeared 'normal' again.

I think that this was something drummed into him whilst on his Concorde training course

Kangerlussuaq? Wow, that should have been awesome. Ronivaniemi flights were supersonic? I built and flew a EGLL-EFRO flightplan on the flight simulator once, supersonic along the Norwegian coast, descending and entering continent to reach Ronivaniemi from Northwest. According to my calcs, the difference to a subsonic-only trip using normal airways would be small, so that got me wondering how you actually did that.

Nice! So, by what I already read on this topic, you only worked with Concorde, right? But do you know if Concorde had the same issues as other airliners, or even for you guys "you're not (working) in an airplane, you're in Concorde" quote hold true?

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?

Please, Landlady, that would an even bigger pleasure! Very interesting to read about Concorde from another point-of-view, much more human than Tons, Kgs, CG %, Celsius degrees, etc.

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

Sorry, no. I don't feel offended.... I suppose I've just seen too much of that particular "conspiracy theory"....

Think back a moment to the 2003 context.

Due to the economic and political situation at the time (to put it simply), Air France was already flying their Concordes nearly empty, and wanted out.
BA wasn't doing marvelously either.
Airbus (being a company, not a charity) explained that in that case BA would have to carry the full cost of the maintenance.... which WAS already going up as a consequence of maintaining a 35-year old antique flying.
So BA decided to end the service as well, even if in the end at least they went out with a bang, not a whimper.

In those last months, people like Rod Eddington and others DID have a very serious look at keeping one or two aircraft flying in a "heritage role", and there was even a look at a joint venture with the "Alliance" project.

So yes, all of the alternatives WERE explored, but, AT THE TIME, none of these were found to be viable.

So, British Airways, Air France and Airbus all drew their conclusions, which made sense AT THE TIME, and closed down the Concorde operation.
And, instead of scrapping the aircraft, every single one of them went to museums.

The two airframes that "had an angle grinder taken to them" were Alpha-Alpha and Delta-Golf.

For a start, neither would have flown ever again, anyway...

Alpha-Alpha was never modified to post-2000 standard and would have slowly rotted away at LHR. Taking her to East Fortune was a great initiative, IMHO.

Delta-Golf was an ancient certication airframe, and cannibalised for years and years for spares, and destined for scrapping.
Instead, she's now at Brooklands, and rebuilt as one of the most interesting Concorde exhibits.

As to the "angle grinder", you really have to know where to look to find the traces......
And yes, I've seen both of them.

CJ

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.)

One of my other first flight memories was looking out of one of the windows in the rear cabin as we approached LHR on the return sector, and seeing nothing but low cloud. Being a supernumerary I was occupying a passenger seat.


I remarked to one of the passengers how low the cloud was, considering by now we were all strapped in and fairly close to the ground.


The passenger, obviously a regular, looked at me and said,
"That\x92s the wing."


What a fool I felt!! I was so used to looking out of the window at the rear on a normal jet and seeing the ground, I had completely forgotten that these were delta wings and so nothing to be seen but an expanse of white as you looked directly below. Doh!


I am happy to report that quite a few passengers have made this mistake, (it wasn\x92t just me, and no, I\x92m not blonde!). It sounds stupid but the mind plays strange tricks when it sees something it doesn\x92t expect to see!


I loved M2dude\x92s recollection of when he fell in love with Concorde. It happened to me around 1972 when I saw her in the sky, (believe it or not, over Blackpool!), for the first time. She looked beautiful, elegant, and serene and I knew then that not only did I want to fly for a living, but I wanted fly on Concorde. Later that year I was flying for Freddie Laker. So I suppose you could say that seeing her in the sky that day changed my life.


And no M2dude, you are not old. We have lived through, and had hands on experience of something that no other generation will have in the foreseeable future, so I\x92m pleased to be the age I am for it was being in the right place at the right time which gave me my chance.


Warm regards,

LL x

It was a delight to hand fly supersonic. With autostabs working it was a pleasure to fly through the whole regime, although from M0.95 to about M1.3 it was a bit squirmy - as though someone kept playing with the trims.

Take-off was flown without flight directors as there was no AFDS mode which suited the juggling of roc vs acceleration. If the AP was going to be used them one Usually hand-flew without fly director until you got to the barbers pole when Max Clb could be engaged on FD and AP. mostly we'd just use the FD and hand fly to the subsonic crz.

It really was a very hands on aeroplane - probably the last type out of LHR where one routinely tracked NDBs and VORs every departure (via CPT) without the aid of a flt director let alone a moving map!

Which is one of the many reasons we all loved flying it!

PS pls excuse all the shpelling mishtooks - am using a tiny touchscreen keyboard.....

Thanks, EXWOK.
I was involved with tweaking the autostabs in those very earliest days... and it's still satisfying to this day to hear from the "users" we got it right!

NDBs? You're kidding, no?

CJ

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?

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

Well never having done this set of drills for real, I can only give the experience from the sim, which is never the same as the real aircraft, however with this set of problems there is a big difference between sim and aircraft and that is if for real on the aircraft you might have to cope with pressure breathing, whereas on the sim the mask was just on demand.

Pressure breathing we had to practise on a special little rig at the training base at Heathrow under medical supervision every two years {I think}. Even on this rig we did not get full pressure breathing but sufficient for us to experience what it would be like. Whilst we were on this rig they would ask us to read from a checklist, and it was then you realised how hard it would be in real life.

Normal breathing means you have to use muscle power to inhale and you relaxe to exhale, and luckily for most of us we do not have to think about doing it. However on pressure breathing you are blown up by the pressure and you have to concentrate to stop the pressure air coming in. To exhale you had to use muscle power to push the air out and whilst you were doing this you could speak. Normally a couple of you did it at a time so you could see the affect it had on your buddy who normally went red in the face and the veins started to show up.

All in all I found it quite a tiring experience

So, if the crew were in an emergency descent due to pressurization failure there would be the Depressurization drill, the emergency descent drill and the normal checklist to fit in, while trying to control your breathing and speak as you were trying to force the air out of your lungs. Along with this trying despaeratly to keep switching your intercom off so the pilots could use the R/T otherwise the sound of your breathing deafened everything

As checklist work was carried out by the F/E he could initially be quite busy so the pilots would start the fuel fwd transfer with a switch on the over head panel. However this was quite a rough and ready system so as soon as the F/E could find time he would use his panel switches to transfer the fuel. These switches allowed more flexibility as to where the fuel would go.

That is why it was mandatory for F/E to have two legs as if he only had one there would have been no where to rest all the checklist he might be running at the same time

Sorry about the length, and her in doors is now demanding my attention ,
{just to do some work or other } so I will come back to the subject of the course later

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dude

Ah, YYZ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

R

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

Can't remember a lot of my 20,000 hrs. as pilot but will never forget paxing on Concorde 20 years ago between Washington and Heathrow. Spent the last 2 hours of the flight standing in the flight deck behind the jumpseat ( occupied by an ATCO on famil.). Captain allowed me to remain in situ for the landing, I'm grateful to have experienced an era in aviation where we could share our work environment with colleagues and passengers alike.

A small add-on to the earlier posts about the simulators.

Brooklands sim video

Brief video, taken yesterday (Oct 9, 2010) of a landing on LHR 27L, with the new three-projector visual display.

Also a couple of photosets of the new projectors being installed on the top of the 'cab' and the three overlapping images being aligned. As the photographer (friend of mine) noted , he had to leave before the final tweaks... the borders (overlaps) are now virtually invisible.

Concorde Photos Gallery - 21st September 2010

Concorde Photos Gallery - 25th September 2010

CJ

Wow... quite impressive !

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?).

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