Or perhaps we mere mortals don’t have the security clearance to access that link?
You seem to be confusing access issues with existence issues.
The fact is BAE witheld its own damning 1976 report evidence, regarding the potential results of uncontained engine failures, on Concorde, from the Paris crash enquiry.
The French law then ran with the DC10 dropped metal and tyre narrative
In the face of other taxiing pilot testimony stating that the Concorde’s crew were clearly struggling engine issues on takeoff.
Because ‘they’ don’t want anyone to easily find and share the evidence that Concorde was potentially a flying bomb and BAE knew it in 1976 like many others ‘in the trade’.
It’s there in PDF form if anyone wants to search for the relevant articles directly.
Allow me to attempt to summarize:
- There’s a conspiracy,
- which only you are aware of,
- there is evidence,
- unfortunately you can’t produce it,
- but you’re inviting the rest of us to hunt for it
- despite the fact that your link to the info leads to “nothing to see here”?
3 There is evidence.
5 I’ve told you exactly where you can/will find it.The Guardian and Blazetech sites.
6 It’s all to see there it just won’t post here.
Does this work?
Concorde may be prone to fires, report claimed | UK news | The Guardian
Seems so.
So a report says that an uncontained engine failure could result in a serious fire. Fair enough.
The author of the report also saw a serious fire on TV footage of Concorde. Fair enough.
No one says that an engine failure is the only possible cause of fire.
BA refusing to publish that report in public, whilst there is an ongoing enquiry is not the same as BA refusing the show the report to the CAA or the French BEA.
1 Like
As the link you provide (thank you) suggests, “might” and “could” underwrite the entire article. Not a mention of “will”.
As you also point out, an engine failure is not the ONLY possible cause. I can’t be bothered arguing with obdurate conspiracy theorists any more, but it’s a pity that otherwise informative and enjoyable threads devolve into a row when certain people stick their oar in.
All potential risk assessment by definition means might could happen.Not will happen.
There’s a reason why the civil aviation industry settled on wing pylon engine location.Tail, wing root or direct wing, engine location all carry extra risk.
BAE actually with held the 1976 report from the accident investigation ’ for legal reasons’.That report is actually on the Blazetech site in PDF form.It specifically refers to Concorde’s vulnerability to uncontained engine failures.Which was always obvious given the engine location.
Obviously more convenient to blame it on a tyre failure.My guess is like the DC10 passengers voted with their feet either way .
A good point.
Yes engines mounted on pylons are going to be safer in that they remove engines further from wings/fuselage and from both fuel and passengers.
Being safer on pylons, does mean than other locations are more dangerous.
But just as I know that eating smoked bacon will increase my risk of cancer, hence eating smoked bacon is more dangerous than avoiding it, I will still have my bacon without worrying about the marginal difference to my mortality, and so too would I accept a ride in a Concorde should I ever get the chance.
And to add, for those interested here is the BEA accident report in English https://bea.aero/uploads/tx_elydbrapports/f-sc000725a.pdf
More than a five minute read.
Back on track…?
No one has mentioned any of Westland’ s helicopters.
Nor the part UK production of Airbus.
But I will mention the Britten Norman Islander and TriLander.
Never been in a TriLander but I have many times been in Islanders.
Arguably the aviation equivalent of a L-R Defender.
Utilitarian, rugged, simple, STOL, and has been in production for decades. Used by civil and military all over the world.
As someone who grew up among the aircraft manufacturing sector and then the black humour of the aircraft fire fighting scene it just added to my scepticism along the lines of if we were meant to fly we’d have wings.I actually did a ground tour of an operational Concorde in for routine maintenance at the Heathrow hangers.
It just confirmed to me that the only way I’d ever leave the ground in that flying coffin was if I was rendered unconscious first.You can count the times that I’ve ever flown anywhere on one hand.All one way only trips to and from the States.All BA 747 on the basis of if it ain’t a four engined Boeing I ain’t going.Even then hedging my bets with QE2 in the other respective directions.Can also remember the difference between the early generation Pratt and Witney type used on the short sector New York run v the much more to my liking Rolls RB211 version used on the LA run.I literally didn’t think the former was ever going to get off the runway before ending up in Wrasbury resevoir bleedin terrifying for the unintiated.
Followed by a CAT if not Wake turbulence event off the US Eastern seaboard.Which confirmed that the Pratt and Whitney 747 had all the flying qualities of a brick.Even the cabin crew said it had scared them after we’d landed.Even the Rolls version wasn’t much better in some rough air over mainland US.
But at least I had the confidence that it wasn’t a DC10 or the flying bomb Concorde before boarding.
Going by DC 10 would be more along the lines of eating Puffer Fish and raw Morel Mushrooms in a sushi bar than a bacon sandwich.As Freddie Laker found out at his empty boarding gates.
Concorde a game of Russian Roulette with four loaded chambers and sitting in a bath full of petrol smoking four cigars.
The Comet obviously didn’t have time to suffer any uncontained engine failures which certainly would have got the attention of the crew and passengers if the thing didn’t tear itself apart first.
It has been on other threads but maybe a reminder that Airbus wings, made in the UK travel either on Guppy or Beluga air transports, or previously (Ending 2020?) by sea to France and by barge and road to Toulouse.
So you’ve denied yourself a lifetime of travel (outside of Europe before you start bleating on about road trips in your Wolsey) all because you are convinced that aircraft designers and builders are idiots who know far less than you?
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Laugh, definitely.
I have to wonder what CFs opinion on “The Television” would be, I’m betting it will be along the lines of: “The word is half Greek and half Latin. No good will come of it.”
1 Like
Not at all I’ve enjoyed the longer haul American trips I’ve done and with hindsight I would have enjoyed them even more spending the bit extra time and money going by sea in both directions.
I’ve never been comfortable with flying and it’s nothing unusual.Check out the no flying long haul sea travel availability it’s all usually well booked/sold out.I’ve long been planning a trip to Australia and NZ using the Panama route I’ve got no interest in Middle Far East travel.
Other than that there’s not much anywhere that can beat Europe’s coast and mountains destinations.I like driving and don’t like flying and no need to fly in that regard.What’s not to like.