October 22, 2017, 19:32:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9933310
AICU its boards and the interconnect wiring
Mine is one of the 202 development units, and 'knitting' is too kind... 'kludge' describes it better. I'll post a photo, if you like.
That myth was amplified substantially by BA removing those "secret" AICUs from the aircraft after the final delivery flights.
The way I understood the story was that they tried to collect as many reasonably reliable spare AICUs for the last few delivery flights, so as not to have to suddenly cancel a flight.
The AICU was right at the top of the list of "unscheduled removals". IIRC the tea maker was second...
The one I know about is the ADC/DAC board (analog-digital and digital-analog converter board). The supply of either ADCs or DACs ran out literaly worldwide, and the board had to be redesigned, requalified and recertified with more recent components, and a new batch manufactured. The cost, for the replacement of that board alone, came to about 3 million euros.
Somebody passed me a photo taken at Casablanca of a table full of AICUs waiting to be programmed... of course every software mod had to be programmed into all eight computers!
"... 'burning' each individual logic gate with a 9v battery." I believe you, thousands wouldn't... Didn't you have at least some sort of programming unit?
I went through a similar exercise around 1976, but at that time at least we had a programming "suitcase", that let you copy the original in RAM, modifiy bit-by-bit with a keyboard, then 'burn' the PROM (or EPROM, by then) 'automatically'. Still took half the night....
Funny in a way how these things have stuck in our memories... But then, yes, Concorde was unique.
I've said this elsewhere, but I don't mind repeating it... in those days, there were two programmes to be part of. One was Apollo, the other was Concorde. And I've had the chance to be part of one of them.
That myth was amplified substantially by BA removing those "secret" AICUs from the aircraft after the final delivery flights.
The way I understood the story was that they tried to collect as many reasonably reliable spare AICUs for the last few delivery flights, so as not to have to suddenly cancel a flight.
The AICU was right at the top of the list of "unscheduled removals". IIRC the tea maker was second...
The one I know about is the ADC/DAC board (analog-digital and digital-analog converter board). The supply of either ADCs or DACs ran out literaly worldwide, and the board had to be redesigned, requalified and recertified with more recent components, and a new batch manufactured. The cost, for the replacement of that board alone, came to about 3 million euros.
Somebody passed me a photo taken at Casablanca of a table full of AICUs waiting to be programmed... of course every software mod had to be programmed into all eight computers!
"... 'burning' each individual logic gate with a 9v battery." I believe you, thousands wouldn't... Didn't you have at least some sort of programming unit?
I went through a similar exercise around 1976, but at that time at least we had a programming "suitcase", that let you copy the original in RAM, modifiy bit-by-bit with a keyboard, then 'burn' the PROM (or EPROM, by then) 'automatically'. Still took half the night....
Funny in a way how these things have stuck in our memories... But then, yes, Concorde was unique.
I've said this elsewhere, but I don't mind repeating it... in those days, there were two programmes to be part of. One was Apollo, the other was Concorde. And I've had the chance to be part of one of them.
The inter board wiring was random, no harness arrangement other than for power supply. Cross talk was even considered by the design engineers then. Wire wrapped in 30awg OFHC single core cables.
I could go on about a lot of things used in the system as it was also my job to keep a record of all the components and which board they were used on. This also applied to the Sensor Unit, The Test Unit, The Management Control Panel. We were busy Bees in the DO for a few years on AICS. Happy Days
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
October 29, 2017, 05:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9939836
Every time I taxi past 'AB in Heathrow I really feel sorry that somehow it hasn't become a centrepiece for one of the terminals, I half expected T5 to have it hanging off the ceiling. Are there any plans to bring it in from the inclement UK weather or is this an issue of elf n safety? It would be great if it were moved, if only not to distract me from heading up a non-code F taxiway.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
November 29, 2017, 08:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9972671
https://youtu.be/fqOcYhzWUZY
I am ignorant of Concorde operations. I am an aircraft accident investigator, however, after many years of PIC international operations.
With respect to the above site, I'd be most grateful if the following points were to be confirmed in regard to AF4590:
* A spacer was not installed on the LH undercarriage
* The a/c was above its MAUW and outside its C of G limitations
* The take off was commenced with a downwind component
* The T/O run was commenced over tarmac still under repair
* No runway inspection was conducted, as required before any Concorde T/O
* No extra protection to fuel tanks had been provided, as had been done by BA
* The FE completed engine fire and engine shutdown without consultation with PIC
If the above is true, then the accident was unavoidable and I am astounded that the French authorities had the gall (Gaul) to blame Continental Airlines for FOD that should have been detected had the runway inspection been conducted as mandated. Shame!
I am ignorant of Concorde operations. I am an aircraft accident investigator, however, after many years of PIC international operations.
With respect to the above site, I'd be most grateful if the following points were to be confirmed in regard to AF4590:
* A spacer was not installed on the LH undercarriage
* The a/c was above its MAUW and outside its C of G limitations
* The take off was commenced with a downwind component
* The T/O run was commenced over tarmac still under repair
* No runway inspection was conducted, as required before any Concorde T/O
* No extra protection to fuel tanks had been provided, as had been done by BA
* The FE completed engine fire and engine shutdown without consultation with PIC
If the above is true, then the accident was unavoidable and I am astounded that the French authorities had the gall (Gaul) to blame Continental Airlines for FOD that should have been detected had the runway inspection been conducted as mandated. Shame!
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
November 29, 2017, 19:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9973450
TD Racer , Had the privilege of bringing home to LHR from SEA the engineers who de-commisioned her . Was able to make them and their other halves comfortable as a thank you . Some had worked on Conc. for the whole of her BA career , and were retiring with her .
No mention of removing engines whilst chatting with them . However after decades of keeping her running , it was sacrilege for them to drain all fluids , cut pipes ; allowing air /moisture into hydraulic / fuel / oil lines . Disconnecting all electrics , cutting through many wiring looms , removing sections . They were told to make impossible to renovate back to flying condition .
On her delivery flight , via Toronto IIRC . The Canadians graciously allowed her to take a Northerly route over the Tundra with NO speed restictions . It all happened at the last minute , and the last sector had 30 , or was it 70 ? empty seats . A lost opportunity .
No mention of removing engines whilst chatting with them . However after decades of keeping her running , it was sacrilege for them to drain all fluids , cut pipes ; allowing air /moisture into hydraulic / fuel / oil lines . Disconnecting all electrics , cutting through many wiring looms , removing sections . They were told to make impossible to renovate back to flying condition .
On her delivery flight , via Toronto IIRC . The Canadians graciously allowed her to take a Northerly route over the Tundra with NO speed restictions . It all happened at the last minute , and the last sector had 30 , or was it 70 ? empty seats . A lost opportunity .
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
November 29, 2017, 20:17:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9973507
Casper, I'm not aware of any fuel tank protection by either BA or AF prior to the accident.
Overweight & aft GC was due too much fuel as well as captain authorising baggage to be loaded (in the rear baggage cabin) when the aeroplane was already about 5 tons overweight.
Something else germane to the accident was that the fuel tanks were overfilled leaving no airspace to absorb any shock waves on the basis this extra fuel would be burned off during taxi, but the change of runway (to a downwind one) meant a much shorter taxy so it wasn't burned off and the FE didn't ask for a delay while it got burned off. They just 'went'.
Worse - realising they had a rearward CG, fuel was being transferred from tank 11 (in the tail) to the wing tanks DURING THE TAKE OFF ROLL. an absolute no-no in Conc ops. The idea being as fuel was burned off from the wing tanks and replaced by fuel from tank 11, the CG would move foreward.
The result was the wing tanks were always overfull even though they were supplying fuel to the engines, so when one tank was hit by a big piece of tyre the shock waves travelled up through the fuel, bounced off the top surface of the tank, having found no gap of compressible air to absorb the overpressure, and travelled back down and burst the tank floor from inside.
Overweight & aft GC was due too much fuel as well as captain authorising baggage to be loaded (in the rear baggage cabin) when the aeroplane was already about 5 tons overweight.
Something else germane to the accident was that the fuel tanks were overfilled leaving no airspace to absorb any shock waves on the basis this extra fuel would be burned off during taxi, but the change of runway (to a downwind one) meant a much shorter taxy so it wasn't burned off and the FE didn't ask for a delay while it got burned off. They just 'went'.
Worse - realising they had a rearward CG, fuel was being transferred from tank 11 (in the tail) to the wing tanks DURING THE TAKE OFF ROLL. an absolute no-no in Conc ops. The idea being as fuel was burned off from the wing tanks and replaced by fuel from tank 11, the CG would move foreward.
The result was the wing tanks were always overfull even though they were supplying fuel to the engines, so when one tank was hit by a big piece of tyre the shock waves travelled up through the fuel, bounced off the top surface of the tank, having found no gap of compressible air to absorb the overpressure, and travelled back down and burst the tank floor from inside.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
December 14, 2017, 20:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9990408
CliveL
From this video. Have you not seen it? Ignore the garish sensational 'cover'. John is a highly experienced BA Concorde captain.
From this video. Have you not seen it? Ignore the garish sensational 'cover'. John is a highly experienced BA Concorde captain.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
December 28, 2017, 22:29:00 GMT
permalink Post: 10004076
Excellent thread and may it continue!
I have a question I don't think has been previously posed. In terms of the BA fleet, what was the typical fleet rotation routine?
Out as BAW1, return as BAW2, then off to the maintenance area, with a new airframe for BAW3 and 4? Essentially, was there a pattern (presumably to keep the cycles even across the fleet?).
I appreciate this may have changed after 'fleet reduction', so to speak...
Thank you!
I have a question I don't think has been previously posed. In terms of the BA fleet, what was the typical fleet rotation routine?
Out as BAW1, return as BAW2, then off to the maintenance area, with a new airframe for BAW3 and 4? Essentially, was there a pattern (presumably to keep the cycles even across the fleet?).
I appreciate this may have changed after 'fleet reduction', so to speak...
Thank you!
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 01, 2018, 09:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 10038372
Concorde at Kia Tak.
"BRITISH AIRWAYS Concorde at Kai Tak (1996)" on youtube.
It's been many years since I flew into Kai Tak. If memory serves me correctly, landing on the Southern Runway, it was a mandatory go around should the extended centre line be crossed on approach. In this clip the aircraft executes a shallow left turn on short final, proving to me at least, they went through the extended centre line.
Was BA or Concords exempt from this rule?
It's been many years since I flew into Kai Tak. If memory serves me correctly, landing on the Southern Runway, it was a mandatory go around should the extended centre line be crossed on approach. In this clip the aircraft executes a shallow left turn on short final, proving to me at least, they went through the extended centre line.
Was BA or Concords exempt from this rule?
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
November 06, 2019, 10:13:00 GMT
permalink Post: 10612089
If you value technical accuracy and a well written book on Concorde avoid \x91last days of the Concorde\x92 by Samme Chittum
Its about the Air France crash and has an accompanying short history of the program
it\x92s riddled with historical, factual and technical errors however, for instance \x91Concorde commercial service was inaugurated with a BA flight from London to Rio while AF operated from Paris to Bahrain\x92
Who knew ?
Best avoided
Its about the Air France crash and has an accompanying short history of the program
it\x92s riddled with historical, factual and technical errors however, for instance \x91Concorde commercial service was inaugurated with a BA flight from London to Rio while AF operated from Paris to Bahrain\x92
Who knew ?
Best avoided
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
July 20, 2021, 22:42:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11082230
AF registrations
Hi all,
thanks for the read. I think I've managed every single post (although I skimmed some of the *deeply* technical stuff).
As SLF (but always subsonic) I hope I can ask a question.
The registrations used by BA are clear in their origin - but for Air France, any particular reason for F-BVFx and F-BTSx?
thanks for the read. I think I've managed every single post (although I skimmed some of the *deeply* technical stuff).
As SLF (but always subsonic) I hope I can ask a question.
The registrations used by BA are clear in their origin - but for Air France, any particular reason for F-BVFx and F-BTSx?
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
June 16, 2022, 17:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11247183
After the Air France incident at Washington DC in 1979 where events similar to those that caused the Paris crash occurred, did BA install any extra protection to the fuel tanks. Ie skin doublers in the most vulnerable areas?
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
August 30, 2022, 19:54:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11287962
What an amazing thread, thank you for all the contributors....I've been reading through it for the last week as I pass about the half way point!
I'm just SLF with a huge interest and passion for Concorde and was lucky to bag a LHR-JFK flight in 2002 as an 18th birthday present. One of the contributors here in the left seat as it happens...At that time it was before the retirement announcement and I just assumed for my next NYC trip I'd be able to get onboard...
I grew up in North Hampshire and went to school in West Berkshire. My school was on a hill just west of Reading and our morning break would coincide with the BA001. I could sit outside the library that faced eastwards and watch the familiar shape materialize as it came from the Woodley NDB and went right overhead enroute to the Compton VOR. It never got old and caused much amusement when the Heathrow chaplain came to do a sermon one Sunday and was interrupted by the aircraft
Home was under the path of the inbound BA002/BA004 and would always listen for the distinctive sound and head to the garden...and if I happened to be in the area of Heathrow within 30mins or so of a Concorde arrival or departure my father would always suggest stopping by for a look. One of my very earliest memories was sitting high on the white fence by Avis on the North Perimeter Road and watching one land, this would have been late 1980s....
We had a Concorde captain in the neighbouring village that my parents were friendly with. In 1996 he took my Christopher Orlebar book to NYC for a roundtrip getting it signed by the crew in both directions and then gave me all the Jeppesens, flight paperwork and a whole host of passenger "items" that I treasured, and still do. That really sowed the seed for 12yr old me to *really* find a way to get onboard...(and those 250 tier points and 14,000 BA miles were the first entry on my Executive Club account as I couldn't join until I was 18! All downhill from there!)
Anyways, this Concorde captain was by all accounts a bit of a legend so I'm sure those of you insiders knew him. I recall one Sunday afternoon, this would have been late 1990s, I looked out the living room window and saw a BA Concorde at low level, banked streaking across the sky maybe a mile away, a quite incredible sight. It turned out that this local Captain was doing one of the round the bay charters and got ATC permission to do a little tour of North Hampshire. A couple of acquaintances from the village played tennis every Sunday at this specific time and had complained about aircraft noise to him. Well, what better way to piss them off than to do a low buzz of their tennis club...
A year or so later he moved a little further south and opened up the village fete in similar fashion. He retired from BA after the 2000 grounding and the last I heard he was flying a large maroon business jet...that business jet being one of the Qatar Amiri 747SPs...
A question, finally! I now live fairly close to JFK and the 31L Canarsie departure is obviously extremely well known and one I've taken countless times in the "blunties". Given the noise abatement situation what happened if the weather didn't play ball? Were there other departure options? I've seen photos of arrivals on 13L, the Canarsie arrival and my own BA001 arrived on 4L. I assume therefore that arrivals were a lot less liberally governed,,,
Thanks in advance for your replies and I look forward to reading the other 1000 posts I haven't got around to!
I'm just SLF with a huge interest and passion for Concorde and was lucky to bag a LHR-JFK flight in 2002 as an 18th birthday present. One of the contributors here in the left seat as it happens...At that time it was before the retirement announcement and I just assumed for my next NYC trip I'd be able to get onboard...
I grew up in North Hampshire and went to school in West Berkshire. My school was on a hill just west of Reading and our morning break would coincide with the BA001. I could sit outside the library that faced eastwards and watch the familiar shape materialize as it came from the Woodley NDB and went right overhead enroute to the Compton VOR. It never got old and caused much amusement when the Heathrow chaplain came to do a sermon one Sunday and was interrupted by the aircraft
Home was under the path of the inbound BA002/BA004 and would always listen for the distinctive sound and head to the garden...and if I happened to be in the area of Heathrow within 30mins or so of a Concorde arrival or departure my father would always suggest stopping by for a look. One of my very earliest memories was sitting high on the white fence by Avis on the North Perimeter Road and watching one land, this would have been late 1980s....
We had a Concorde captain in the neighbouring village that my parents were friendly with. In 1996 he took my Christopher Orlebar book to NYC for a roundtrip getting it signed by the crew in both directions and then gave me all the Jeppesens, flight paperwork and a whole host of passenger "items" that I treasured, and still do. That really sowed the seed for 12yr old me to *really* find a way to get onboard...(and those 250 tier points and 14,000 BA miles were the first entry on my Executive Club account as I couldn't join until I was 18! All downhill from there!)
Anyways, this Concorde captain was by all accounts a bit of a legend so I'm sure those of you insiders knew him. I recall one Sunday afternoon, this would have been late 1990s, I looked out the living room window and saw a BA Concorde at low level, banked streaking across the sky maybe a mile away, a quite incredible sight. It turned out that this local Captain was doing one of the round the bay charters and got ATC permission to do a little tour of North Hampshire. A couple of acquaintances from the village played tennis every Sunday at this specific time and had complained about aircraft noise to him. Well, what better way to piss them off than to do a low buzz of their tennis club...
A year or so later he moved a little further south and opened up the village fete in similar fashion. He retired from BA after the 2000 grounding and the last I heard he was flying a large maroon business jet...that business jet being one of the Qatar Amiri 747SPs...
A question, finally! I now live fairly close to JFK and the 31L Canarsie departure is obviously extremely well known and one I've taken countless times in the "blunties". Given the noise abatement situation what happened if the weather didn't play ball? Were there other departure options? I've seen photos of arrivals on 13L, the Canarsie arrival and my own BA001 arrived on 4L. I assume therefore that arrivals were a lot less liberally governed,,,
Thanks in advance for your replies and I look forward to reading the other 1000 posts I haven't got around to!
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
September 01, 2022, 18:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11289125
Speedbird223
\x85the 31L Canarsie departure is obviously extremely well known \x85 Given the noise abatement situation what happened if the weather didn't play ball? \x85 Were there other departure options? \x85
If the runway in use at JFK was not suitable for our departure, we would request a different runway, which JFK ATC were extremely helpful at providing, even though this caused some disruption to their landing/take-off pattern. For our part, we had to accept this request could entail a delay to our departure whilst waiting for a suitable gap in their traffic flow.
Remember that we had two take-off calculations to consider. Firstly, could Concorde get airborne from that runway under the prevailing conditions? Secondly - and this was usually the limiting factor at JFK - could the aircraft then stay with the noise limits at that take-off weight and under those ambient conditions of wind and temperature? If the answer to either question was no, then we needed another runway.
An example might be when JFK was using 04R for landing and 04L for departure. We might have been able to lift the weight off 04L, but would have been way over our noise limit, so we would request 22R for departure.
\x85 I assume therefore that arrivals were a lot less liberally governed \x85
Did you mean a lot less strictly governed? If so, the answer is yes.
Concorde would use whatever landing runway was in use at JFK without problem, save requiring a bit more of a gap between herself and the preceding landing aircraft (due to her higher approach speeds maintained to much closer to touchdown) which ATC at JFK were well aware of and which they managed very professionally.
Even so, on the Canarsie approach, it was instructive to see just how quickly Concorde could close the spacing between herself and a preceding lightly loaded and therefore much slower B757.
31R was our preferred runway due to its proximity to the BA terminal, the Canarsie approach onto 13L was good fun and a frequent approach. 04R was also used and was an Autoland runway with Cat3A limits down to 15R / 700 ft RVR, useful in bad weather. Concorde had landing limits on all JFK runways, but, at least in my experience, the others were rarely, if ever, used.
I'm glad you enjoyed your flight on Concorde, it all seems so long ago now \x96 probably because it was!
Best Regards
Bellerophon
\x85the 31L Canarsie departure is obviously extremely well known \x85 Given the noise abatement situation what happened if the weather didn't play ball? \x85 Were there other departure options? \x85
If the runway in use at JFK was not suitable for our departure, we would request a different runway, which JFK ATC were extremely helpful at providing, even though this caused some disruption to their landing/take-off pattern. For our part, we had to accept this request could entail a delay to our departure whilst waiting for a suitable gap in their traffic flow.
Remember that we had two take-off calculations to consider. Firstly, could Concorde get airborne from that runway under the prevailing conditions? Secondly - and this was usually the limiting factor at JFK - could the aircraft then stay with the noise limits at that take-off weight and under those ambient conditions of wind and temperature? If the answer to either question was no, then we needed another runway.
An example might be when JFK was using 04R for landing and 04L for departure. We might have been able to lift the weight off 04L, but would have been way over our noise limit, so we would request 22R for departure.
\x85 I assume therefore that arrivals were a lot less liberally governed \x85
Did you mean a lot less strictly governed? If so, the answer is yes.
Concorde would use whatever landing runway was in use at JFK without problem, save requiring a bit more of a gap between herself and the preceding landing aircraft (due to her higher approach speeds maintained to much closer to touchdown) which ATC at JFK were well aware of and which they managed very professionally.
Even so, on the Canarsie approach, it was instructive to see just how quickly Concorde could close the spacing between herself and a preceding lightly loaded and therefore much slower B757.
31R was our preferred runway due to its proximity to the BA terminal, the Canarsie approach onto 13L was good fun and a frequent approach. 04R was also used and was an Autoland runway with Cat3A limits down to 15R / 700 ft RVR, useful in bad weather. Concorde had landing limits on all JFK runways, but, at least in my experience, the others were rarely, if ever, used.
I'm glad you enjoyed your flight on Concorde, it all seems so long ago now \x96 probably because it was!
Best Regards
Bellerophon
1 user liked this post.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
September 02, 2022, 15:29:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11289644
Amazing, thank you for all the details!
Wow, a great show for those in line for the 04L departure if you guys were using 22R!
By the 31R approach was right by my first home in the NYC area....alas some 10yrs after a Concorde last ever flew it, sadly. My father took the subsonic BA001 shortly after I moved to NYC and I would leave my place when I saw it come over and he'd be through baggage claim by the time I got to T7
20yrs ago on Monday...
Wow, a great show for those in line for the 04L departure if you guys were using 22R!
31R was our preferred runway due to its proximity to the BA terminal, the Canarsie approach onto 13L was good fun and a frequent approach. 04R was also used and was an Autoland runway with Cat3A limits down to 15R / 700 ft RVR, useful in bad weather.
Concorde had landing limits on all JFK runways, but, at least in my experience, the others were rarely, if ever, used.
By the 31R approach was right by my first home in the NYC area....alas some 10yrs after a Concorde last ever flew it, sadly. My father took the subsonic BA001 shortly after I moved to NYC and I would leave my place when I saw it come over and he'd be through baggage claim by the time I got to T7
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.