Posts about: "Cabin Crew" [Posts: 64 Page: 2 of 4]¶

nomorcatering: I for one would be very unhappy if any of my posts are cut and pasted into a book. This would be plagerism. I have a publisher intersted in a book which I have already started, and when I finally hang up my wings, I will spend some time completing.

To the moderators : I guess it's me you referring to with my non-techy posts. I won't be posting on here again, as I have said from the start, I am not technical but my recollections of events on Concorde have interested some.

What a shame, this was the best thread on pprune for years.

Maybe Jetblast is the place to be!

Warm regards,

Landlady. (Supersonic tea-bag squeezer to the stars.)

Landlady, rest assured, I'm not about to publish a book. Was merely thinking out aloud.

Indeed, put me down for the 1st order for when your book comes out.

This thread is the best in the 12 years I have been reading pprune. the only way is to make this thread better........ is for it to be read on a cold winters night, a log fire softly crackling in the background, seated in a comfy chesterfield lounge with a tumbler of the finest rum or scotch or maybe coniac.

Absolute Bliss!

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.)

john_tullamarine ,
My apologies... I shouldn't have 'bitten' in the first place.

landlady ,
Yes, please stay!

A side note to your tale... the funny thing is that the businessman was right, strictly speaking....
Us techies did a lot of development work to make sure Concorde could take off and, above all, land in a pea soup fog, down to zero-zero visibility.
But of course, the rest of the airport would already have come to a complete standstill in those conditions, including the emergency services, hence the rules and regulations for minimum visibility.

Success with your book!
What's the title going to be? "Tea At Two" ?

CJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warm regards,
LL x

Update: This reply was not intended to be posted publicly, as it was directed to select few individuals. We will, however, honor all requests sent to Flight Sim Labs, Ltd. until 30 September, 2010. Apologies for the inconvenience!
---

Gents (and Landlady!),

I am ashamed to admit that I only now discovered this wonderful thread regarding the best aircraft that ever was.

I've chatted with some of the great minds behind the development of the actual aircraft and I've felt very proud that a select few (ChristiaanJ and others) have helped my team with invaluable insight as we developed the Concorde-X addon product for Flight Simulator X. (We only hope we did "her/him" a bit of justice with our final result).

In recognition of all your efforts, I'd like to offer everyone who has been involved in the development and/or flying of the real aircraft a free download copy of our product, if only as a token gift which might bring back some memories of what it felt to be inside its Flight Deck and cabin. Just write our support team (support (at) flightsimlabs (dot) com) a small note (please give us some info on the nature of your relationship with the bird) and we'll provide you with the information required for the download.

Please keep those memories coming - they are the best way to keep the legacy going!

Regards,
Lefteris Kalamaras
Flight Sim Labs, Ltd.

My "Concorde Story" really started around April 1968.

I'd only just finished my aeronautical enginering studies and had already been sending CVs all over the place... when I received a letter from the French firm (SFENA) that was building the French half of the Concorde automatic flight control system, to meet them for an interview : they needed a "flight test support engineer" to take care of their equipment in the UK (Fairford and Filton).

"No experience needed".... since everything in Concorde was new anyway....
My engineering degree, which included a fair amount of electronics, was considered enough... I could learn the rest "on the job".
What clinched the deal at the time was that I was aleady pretty well bilingual Dutch/English, and spoke enough French to get by, whereas in those days most of the French engineers in the firm had very little if any English.

So Dec. 1st, 1968, I moved to Paris, after delivering wife and new-born daughter to mother-in-law in London.
Some nine months of intensive study followed, before my move to Fairford and my first encounter with Concorde 002.

During my "indoctrination", the firm thought it would be a good idea to at least have a personal look at what I was going to work on, and also meet my 'counterparts' at Toulouse I was to be in continuous contact with.
So, sometime end January 1969, only a few weeks before the first flight of 001, I first set eyes on a real Concorde, still buzzing with final preparations.
With all our stuff being in the "pointy end", that's where we went, of course, and I spent half an hour or so in the left hand seat getting familiar with the cockpit lay-out and "our" systems..... the same seat where Andr\xe9 Turcat would be sitting a few weeks later during the first flight.

After that came five years of Concorde at Fairford and Filton, until the development flight test support largely came to an end, and was taken over by our 'product support' department, and I returned to France.

In my case, I wouldn't yet have called it a "love affair" in those days, more an intensively satisfying job.
It was really not until afterwards, that I started to regard those "Concorde days" as the best time of my professional career, and that I started to realise she'd gotten "under my skin".

And I can call myself lucky.... I've "met" 002 again 35 years after last seeing her in the Fairford hangar.
And I've also sat again in that self-same left-hand seat on 001, more than 40 years after that first time.
And I've had the chance of flying once on Concorde, even if in the end she retired just before I did.

landlady is right. We were there, at the right time, and the right place.
I think that says it all.

CJ

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

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

Dude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice one, M2dude!
And certainly not all trivia!

CJ

Wow!! So it is Landlady. Yes a happy birthday indeed. Well spotted
A provider of so many happy memories to so many people.

Dude

Seconded Landlady, but the traditional; 'Many Happy Returns' is sadly no longer possible. Also, its quite extraordinary that more than forty years have passed since that date - that's a whole grown up person!

Perhaps 'Happy Anniversary' to all the thousands of people who made Concorde what she is, would be more appropriate?

Roger.

From this sentimental old fool.....

I've always felt their 'Birthday' was their very first flight.... when from a huge collection of bits and pieces of aluminium and steel and titanium and plastic and electronics and whatever.... they each became an 'individual' of their own right, doing what all of us had worked so long and hard for her/him to achieve. They flew!

So today, to me, is a day to wish 001 "Happy Anniversary ".
And I hope somebody today at Le Bourget sneaked in a bottle of champagne to share that anniversary with him.

CJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

CJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dude

Ah, YYZ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

R

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

Zimmerfly
I have to echo Landlady's comments. This has really been done to death in various forums (yawn!) , and people forget (or perhaps never knew in the first place) just how much vital work the captain in question did for the whole Concorde operation. (Including for example, personally negotianing with HMG regarding BA taking over the Concorde support costs etc, and forming and heading up the division that saw Concorde transformed from a loss making burden into a major profit centre for the airline). Also he was GM Concorde Division and not Chief Pilot.
To answer Steve's original TECHNICAL question; you must remember that using fuel for trimming was to offset long term changes in the centre of lift and not any short term stabilty shifts during landing. (The combination of pilots and elevons coped with that quite admirably ). And around four tonnes WAS transfered into tank 9 after landing, in order to aid ground stability, particularly during disembarkation.
landlady
I hope you are having a great time sunning yourself ('aint jealous, honest ) and have a rum punch or two for me.

V1...Oops
This site you mentioned is definately worth a visit; there are some great images there.

Dude

Concorde was exactly the same as any other aircraft in that it would be loaded in such a manner that with zero fuel the aircraft's C of G would be within the landing limits.. If this was not possible then ballast fuel has to be loaded[ or any other form of ballast] so as to achieve this C of G. This ballast fuel however must not form part of the fuel burn or diversion fuel

With the above in mind all fuel on Concorde was useable fuel but during some part of the flight prior to being burnt it it would be used for varying inflight regime trimming.

Now prior to landing the F/E would pump a predetermined amount into tank 9 so as to achieve a C of G fwd of 53.5 % for landing. This was only required because there was still fuel on board. If the aircraft was held before landing and the fuel QTY dropped he would pump this fuel out of tank 9 and into the engine feed tanks as it was no longer required for C of G purposes

Therefore yes Concorde could safely land from a C of G point of view with no fuel.

There was nothing magical about 4 Tonnes in tank 9, and in fact it usually was too much for stability reasons, but for simplicity a single big figure was used. In fact if it was not possible to put 4000kgs in tank 9 [due to lack of fuel]then the flight deck crew were instructed to remain on the flight deck until the passengers had got off and the rear hold had been emptied. Now some of us flight deck crew helped more than others in this

ChristiaanJ
I could not agree more my friend. There has been a total wealth of queries and information from people from all over, not necessarily involved with aviation, let alone Concorde. Keep asking away everybody
I'm sure that ChristiaanJ, Brit312, Bellerophon, EXWOK and myself and others (ooh, lets not forget Landlady) will be only too glad to churn away at our poor worn out old brains and try and come up with some semi-intelligible (at least) answers.

Dude