What Actually Happened to the Concorde
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 чер 2022
- Sign up to Nebula here: go.nebula.tv/realengineering
Watch this video ad free on Nebula: nebula.app/videos/realenginee...
Links to everything I do:
beacons.ai/brianmcmanus
Credits:
Co-Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Writer: Josi Gold
Editor: Dylan Hennessy
Animator: Mike Ridolfi
Animator: Eli Prenten
Sound: Graham Haerther
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster
References
[1]web.archive.org/web/200412160...
[2] bea.aero/docspa/2000/f-sc0007...
[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles...
[4]web.archive.org/web/201206251...
[5]silverbiplanes.com/SPECIFICATI...
[6] www.sciencedirect.com/topics/...
[7]www.cnn.com/2012/11/29/world/....
Select imagery/video supplied by Getty Images
Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Thomas Barth, Johnny MacDonald, Stephen Foland, Alfred Holzheu, Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Binghaith, Brent Higgins, Dexter Appleberry, Alex Pavek, Marko Hirsch, Mikkel Johansen, Hibiyi Mori. Viktor Józsa, Ron Hochsprung - Наука та технологія
Kudos to your graphics team. They almost look like real footage
Eli and Mike hit it out of the park. We just hired another animator who worked on the Dark Knight movie, so prepare for even more crazy animations.
@@friendify thanks
I would like to be a part of no return, 500 comments in the future
yes
👏👏👏
Honestly the graphics are awesome, I can't get enough of the virtual pages and boards, its just so perfect.
KEKLEO
Repent to Jesus Christ
“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
Galatians 2:20 NIV
K
@@repentandbelieveinJesusChrist3Amen!
I really love the way you explained the details of *how* they figured out what happened. It's way more interesting than just being told *what* they found out.
the problem solving is what made me want to get into the engineering field, and he portrays that well here
The journey, not the destination.
it's what makes the Mayday/Air Crash Investigation tv series so great
I remember reading the full report and being astounded by the professionalism of the crew to the last moment tying to save the plane.
Seems there may be more to it. ua-cam.com/video/fqOcYhzWUZY/v-deo.html
This was endlessly fascinating. I can't imagine being tasked with figuring all this out. Flight crash investigation almost seems like magic to me. I also can't imagine the amount of work that goes into making these videos. The animations alone must take a long time. What a great video.
Totally agree that figuring this out is insane. Reminds me of fire investigations, the places literally burn down but investigators are somehow able to pin point exactly how fires started and progressed over time. With plane crashes the thing you are investigating is literally in a million smoldering pieces so figuring out anything is amazing.
@@Michaelonyoutub it's one of the main reasons that documentation is so crucial for investigations like this. Many catastrophy investigations are solved long after the fact, by careful examination of all the gathered information. From instrument readings, to the exact location of different parts of the plane/bridge/dam/train/etc. To extensive analysis of materials and service records. I took an elective course about this on my masters degree at a whim, and I think I use knowledge from it as much as from all the other courses, despite it being completely unrelated to my field of work (computer security).
With enough data, you can predict the future.
It seems magical because the investigators are geniuses.
Repent to Jesus Christ
“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
Galatians 2:20 NIV
Absolutely fascinating how the investigators come to their conclusions; it's ironic that the crash really wasn't the Concorde's fault. Just as an aside, why is it that all the most futuristic looking aircraft all come from the past?
Because airlines are a business for moving passengers. Not making nice toys. And despite all its technological Wonder, it was not a financial success. Nor have regulations changed to make supersonic travel viable.
Not the Concorde's fault? I think an airplane that kills itself when it pops a tire only has itself to blame.
The 20th century had a widespread optimism about the future that has gone very much out of style at the moment... it's hard to think inventively about the future when you're overwhelmed with worry that it will be terrible
That isn't how airplane safety works, unless the plane is deliberately sabotaged it is always the company's fault.
1. they could have anticipated the incompressible fuel and built in some margin for empty space
2. Failing that they could have used the kevlar wrap in the first place.
3. They could have designed tires less likely to shred and impact the fuel tanks.
If you tell your passengers "it's not my fault" every time you crash, they'll just switch to flying with airlines that say "we know what went wrong and are taking steps to make sure this can never happen again" As far as passengers are concerned the number of excusable fatal accidents is Zero. Depressed pilots have even deliberately flown into a mountain and the company apologized for not adequately psychologically screening their pilots.
It's a pity that this post about the Concorde crash (along with most others) didn't include the information that the French government and Air France managed to largely surpress about the accident. The aircraft was already in some difficulty even before it hit the metal strip left on the runway, with bad decisions made by the flight crew (before and after takeoff) and poor maintenance by Air France.... John Hutchinson (one of BA's most experienced Concorde pilots) did an excellent piece about it.
And here I was always told the ruptured tire went into the engine and caused an engine failure... Nope, fuel tank rupture due to pressure waves from an adjacent impact. Fascinating.
This also happened. This is what caused the immediate failure of engine# 2. Engine #1 failed due to smoke inhalation from the burning fuel causing it to be oxygen starved.
@@PerfidiousLeaf Engine 2 did not fail due to damage. Because of the fuel leak both engine 1 and 2 surged before cutting off. Engine 1 recovered but engine 2 was then completely shutdown to try and prevent potential damage due to a fire warning. Engine 1 never actually failed completely. But it could not recover as the fuel leak was greater than what could be supplied to engine 1.
Also what's fascinates me is the price of human lives. You only need to 1 million fine for killing 100+ people because of cheap and poor repair. It's like buying "slaves" in the past, cheap as dirt. Shows how powerful and untouchable companies and corporations today...
@@kurtjustiniani1354 look at Boeing and the two 737 max crashes
@@GuinessOriginalThe tenerife disaster? Yea.. that was fucking ridiculous
I met one of the British engineers that was on the investigation team. Their opinion was that a large causal factor was a missing spacer bar in the left undercarriage that had not been refitted by AF engineering after maintenance. This caused the gear bogie to wobble which became far worse after the tyre failed. Additionally the Captain started takeoff when the aircraft was above it's structural weight limit with imbalanced fuel tanks. All of which meant that the aircraft was still on the ground when it hit the strip, when it should have been airborne.
that's how accidents always happen. All humans that are related to an incident are supposed to work with a fail safe. If whichever of them doesn't put the extra effort to ensure there's a fail safe, then it's still fine. But under stress, each tries to cut some corners and often each relies on the others for fail safes, until one to many fail safes fail.
If the designer of the plane would have designed the plane with one more fail safe (kevlar belly, better tyres, etc.), none of it would have happened, despite everything else.
if the AF engineers would have put that space bar, none of it would have happened, despite everything else.
If the Captain would not have started the takeoff, due to structural weight limits, none of it ...
If the guy who refueled would have balanced the tanks, none of it ...
If the Continental plane would have done proper maintainance, ...
If the Airport would have taken the time to inspect the runway after each take off, ....
If the Architect of the Concorde project would have had less hubris and more reasoning, they would have built a project that was economically viable, so that there wouldn't be a stress on the company, so that nobody feels like they have to skip any fail safe procedure.
And so on.
But many of them failed and that's the only way accidents happen. There's never a single reason.
@@nydydn and in this case... there's more than that.
This wasn't the first time a blown tire burst a fuel tank. The guys doing the previous investigation were... quick to sign off on it being safe enough. "sure we had to cancel multiple flights because of blown tires rupturing fuel tanks... but it's not like anyone'll get killed by it." Until it did. This is one thing Concorde hadn't, IMO, been fully honest about because their reputation and finances were on the line.
I would not have considered the aircraft airworthy. Ruptured fuel tanks are not "normal". You can't just say "oh it's not gonna burst into flames" and call it good. Obviously in this case it did in fact burst into flames. Realistically having to cancel flights due to the plane becoming un-airworthy during an attempted take off is something I'd personally consider a huge problem... even if all it does is inconvenience passengers. It's not something you should just handwave. But they did.
Sure.. Continental happened to be the spark that lit the fire... but the fire only lead to an explosion due to a design defect.
@@marhawkman303 the DC-10 had also had fuel ruptures on takeoff that lead to fires. It would be aggressively corrected in modern designs, but to say it would never happen for other aircraft is just false - it was within expectations at the time.
It also needs to be pointed out that there were already preventative measures against this on most concordes; the area around the engines had been strengthened and made resilient against impacts, fuel tanks already had liners, this *particular* airframe just happened to be one that AF had cheaped out on. The concorde as a design was safe and for BA the most profitable aircraft of all time, even with them having paid for all design upgrades to keep them safe and up to standard.
@@iskierka8399 "within expectations"? for a commercial jet to go down in flames during take off?
one thing you left out: how long did it take for the DC10 issue to get fixed?
@@marhawkman303 To set on fire, yes, to go down is the part that was unusual. It also took months for the DC10 issue to even have a hearing on the issue, and was not grounded for that delay - on the other hand, Concorde's issue was *already* fixed years prior, the kevlar lining and protected landing gear were already available and fitted to all British Airways Concordes, this one particular Air France Concorde had been cheaped out on and that is the reason it was *able* to suffer this failure at all.
It never ceases to amaze me how accident investigators can solve these crashes.
I would love to see a video from you guys called "the insane engineering of aircraft carriers." Or if that's too broad a topic, I'm very interested in the catapult launch system and the cable system used for landing. Most carriers use a steam hydraulic system for the assisted launch of its fighters, but the newest line of US supercarriers, beginning with the USS Gerald R. Ford, use an electromagnetic catapult system. I would love to know more about that. Do they use tech similar to a coilgun? A railgun? A maglev train? What problems did they have to solve to make such a system more practical than a more mature technology like steam hydraulics? Please do a video on aircraft carriers! :D
As far as I can tell, the USS Gerald R. Ford was accepted in 2017 from the contractor and is still not passing minimum requirements for deployment. The fact of that and that there are 3 others currently being built worries me.
On the other hand, I too would love a video on the challenges facing the Ford from design to acceptance to certification for deployment. It would be great to get some clarity on what actually happened as opposed to scuttlebutt. (like for instance that the EM catapult would EMP the whole carrier, which seems to have no basis in reality)
id love to see a real engineering on carriers too, but until then not what you think has one which goes into this topic
@@thezouave7636 ,she's coming along just fine. www.dvidshub.net/unit/CVN78
Not What You Think has done lots of videos regarding your topic. Though not too much detail into the engineering aspects, he does talk about the different kinds of systems used across multiple generations of carriers
@@nicholaslau3194 yeah I've watched those. I just wanted a lot more detail about it
This is by no means a criticism, rather supportive feedback. Typically in Aviation, Runway designations are said as "Runway Two-Six-Right" rather than "Runway Twenty-Six-R". Additionally, I think someone else may have said it but Washington's Airport is pronounced 'Dull-es'. Thanks for the great video, I wish our instructors had these to show us instead of the over-dramatized "Air Disasters" series.
> *This is by no means a criticism, rather supportive feedback. Typically in Aviation, Runway designations are said as "Runway Two-Six-Right" rather than "Runway Twenty-Six-R".*
That's one thing that the Mayday/Air Disasters TV series always did that REALLY pisses me the hell off.
It’s actually “One-Six-Right” any aviation nerd should get that reference
so this is actually a criticism?
I think realengineering is mature enough to appericiate it.
But it sad that this needs to be said:
@@TheReaper569 I mean I can forgive pronouncing an airport name in a different country wrong. I’m sure I’ve butchered some English names a few times. It hurts to hear but I can get over it. The runway number should have been caught tho.
Yes I can confirm that he pronounced Dulles incorrectly. After all, it is my profile picture.
Hyper realistic render doesn't wow me these days as I myself work with architectural renderings. But what makes these render stood up is the way the are used. To illustrate a point, to make a clearer picture of the situation and crucially to narrate the story in a unique way (that board shot is just *chef kiss*). Kudos to everyone involved, this is great.
The titanium wear strip was improperly attached on the DC-10 during maintenance in Israel.
Spacer on left main landing gear mistakenly omitted a few days earlier during maintenance possibly causing Concorde to veer to the left before it struck the titanium strip on the runway.
Fuel tanks were over-filled in anticipation of longer taxiing and hold times than actually occurred. This amplified the shockwave from the tire fragment hitting the underside of the fuel tank.
Last minute additional baggage loaded affected the center of gravity. Both the extra fuel and baggage put the Concorde over max takeoff weight.
The Flight Engineer shut down the malfunctioning engine without telling the pilots and well below the altitude indicated the in the flight manual. This finally doomed the plane as the hole in the fuel tank was so large that Concorde could have outflown the fire if it had sufficient thrust and speed.
If any of these things occured differently this accident may not have occurred. A lot of holes had to line up in the Swiss cheese for this accident to have happened.
Tragic.
theres something so funny about the idea of a burning plane succesfully out speeding its own fire
Do you know if the Flight Engineer shutting an engine down in event of fire is standard procedure at AF? It seems unimaginable that the FE would have that authority. Normally, only the Captain can make that decision.
@@fazole It's actually shocking that the flight engineer shut the engine down without authority. Especially since it was a fuel tank fire and not engine. There was an analysis by John Huthchison on You Tube which went into all this detail.
@@fazole It is forbidden to shut down a Concorde engine, even if it’s on fire, under 1,000 ft. by the operating manuals. The FE did it at far less altitude than that, about 200 ft., and didn’t tell the pilots that he did it.
Thank you now I don’t have to waste 16 minutes of my life listening to this
That really is an incredible cause. My mind went to the landing gear being forced slight upward/and toward the wing causing either an immediate rupture or upon the release of tension the material pulling apart just enough to open a tear in the tank.
I don't think a good suspension system would allow that. But yeah, what happened was pretty much unpredictable. No one's fault in my opinion.
How would that happen except perhaps in an extremely heavy landing? I can't imagine that a small metallic strip would bend the whole undercarriage upwards, especially during a take-off run!
@@Nilguiri when you have a heavy plane charging at a small metal strip on the ground at 100 knots, it has quite a large amount of force, but yea I don't think the suspension system wouldn't prevent that.
Generally speaking, the idea I was expressing was purely based on unaccounted for failure of said suspension upon the release of the air pressure of the tire. Basically structural failure followed by some downward movement causing some of the sub components of that suspension to be pushed upward into....whatever was above it, perhaps a fuel line/tank. Obviously it wasn't something I have any background information on or experience in. I'm just a stupid electrician lol I may or may not have experience in some wiring in an older aircraft or two but....not if anyone is asking...because if they are, I don't and I was kidding.
This is not what happened, the tire exploded from over pressure when it run over the metal strip, and the rubber (a large enough chunk of it) itself flown upwards and hit the underside of the tank. and that piece caused the pressure wave to move in the tank (inside the fuel) and when it hit the tank side on the wrong part, it blow out. it was not a slight movement in the landing gear, but a literal explosion with insane force. Still, it was somewhat known to happen and there was even some talk before to switch either stronger tire or make it, that the explosion would go sideways, instead of vertically, avoiding the plane.
No mention of the missing bogey bearing-spacer, that Air France maintenance failed to re-fit a week earlier. After several flight cycles, this meant the left bogey was trimmed left (- pulling left and acting like a brake), forcing the pilots to pull up early, to avoid another aircraft on the adjacent taxiway. With insufficient airspeed at liftoff, the crash was guarranteed.
And in this plane on the adjacent taxiway, il I remember well, there was Jacques Chirac, the President... Well, this video is centered on engineering... ^^
I have no idea what a bogey is but why wouldn't they have aborted the takeoff if they had an issue like that?
@@bobbygetsbanned6049 The bogey connects the wheels to the vertical strut. Once you get to "V1" you don't have sufficient space to stop anymore - you have to liftoff. If you look at the photo at 1:08, the burn/soot line is peeling off the left of the runway.
@@RangieNZ Yes but a missing bearing should be pulling them to the left the entire takeoff, before V1.
@@bobbygetsbanned6049 Perhaps, but the pilots would correct as soon as they noticed.
Never considered it to be a pressure wave.
Thanks for sharing, because I was not sure what happened, lots of conflicting information at the time came out
Transfering forces throughout a structure will still subject materials to mechanical forces that will determine if the local material exceeds tensile, yield, or fracture thresholds.
This channel has been great from the start and it's just getting better and better with every upload. Thanks to everyone who worked on this!
This is such a good video! The graphics are so informative and the writing is too! Nicely done
one thing to remember, additional nail was when Airbus decided not to supply parts to AF and BA, causing the costs to rise as they would need to be made by 3rd party that would need to be qualified.
Brian. This is the best SHORT video you've ever made. (I was going to say "My favourite" but given the subject matter - that seemed as bit morbid). But no, this was amazing. The tone was perfectly appropriate. I've learned new information here despite watching and reading many articles about this event. So this is a valuable piece of the historic record. I would point people toward this video who wanted to know more about the event. What higher compliment could you have than to know this piece of work is of high enough quality to be used as a teaching tool.
Very well done.
Would love to see more of these Engineering Mystery investigations. Really applies everything learned from your previous videos, especially the material science.
This is great for the next generation of engineers who can learn from past mistakes.
Wow, the animations are phenomenal. Amazing content!
It's crazy how precise they can recreate what happened. Figuring the precise method of failure from such a small detail
Wow, this case is wonderfully presented through a very engaging story. Certain details were also quite easy to absorb. Well done team!
You wouldn't believe how much he left out...
It is also key to note that the plane was overloaded and beyond its maximum takeoff weight. That’s why tank 5 was so full.
I heard a story that the captain had way too much fuel pumped into the tank at the very rear of the plane....
Did you kidnap Mustard's animation team?!
you really got it man
Wow, I've loved watching this channel for years and it made me switch to Nebula to see all of the good parts but this one really pushes the reason why. I love how far you have grown in the years and can't wait to see what amazing things you have coming up.
I have always enjoyed the science relating to Air Crash Investigations, and you did them proud. I always say that you can't argue with facts, and the Aviation Industry has always used the post mortem of a crash, or a near miss etc, as a tool for learning to ensure that something like this does not happen again. You have to applaud an industry, with a no blame culture, to learn from mistakes and bring a positive from a negative. Obviously very sad that it happened, of course, but the changes made to aircraft engineering, and procedures etc will generally ensure that this type of accident never happens again. Thanks for your concise portrayal and explanation of exactly what happened to the ill-fated Concorde. There were many other issues regarding the success of the Concorde programme - this was just the final straw. Cheers.
Brilliant video, you explain things in such a fascinating way and the graphics in your videos are seriously impressive!
I love your channel. I'm just curios, do you make the CGI/ animations yourself or is there a third party that does this for your videos? The CGI/ animation is extremely good and it really helps tell the story. I watch a lot of documentaries such as 'Air Crash Investigation' while I'm training for my pilots licence and I've noticed the detail in animation quality is a lot better on your channel compared to TV produced programmes. Moreover, you cover more in-depth technical aspects which most TV documentaries somewhat glance over. I've been watching 'Air Crash Investigation' for years before beginning pilot training, I find these programmes help you avoid the mistakes previous pilots make, especially with advancing automation, but your channel examines each incident in a more technical and in-depth way compared to the TV series. I find it's very useful to learn about previous pilot's experiences, it helps us prepare, prevent mistakes of previous pilots and understand the aircraft/ automation better. There's no better way to avoid a crash than educating yourself on the previous incidents involving your type rated aircraft.
You are doing a smart thing! Are you familiar with the AOPA Air Safety Institute and Blancolirio channel? Both great resources!
My family's always lived quite close to CDG, the crash happened in the town they live in actually, or most of the members, at the time. Could've been us, some of us, instead of the people in that hotel. Anyway, now i can tell the story of how those events happened during family reunions. That'll add to their memories of the tupolev 144 crash...
Both Goussainville and Gonesse/Arnouville are where the armenian diaspora relocated around paris. Both being cities where supersonic planes crashed it feels like a dramatic coincidence.
It is so great having such a trusted source of accessible analysis and explanation. Love your channel.
Your writing is superb. Compelling ramp up of intrigue during the story.
I’m realllyyyy loving this failure analysis case study. My brain was tingling as we were putting together the pieces of evidence.
Great video. I had read that the tire had ruptured the underbody. I wish you has covered how much force was needed to achieve the failure.
the documents are probably available if you are really interested
This channel keeps getting better and better .
Thank you for the content and all that hard work.
Wow this really puts into perspective all of those FOD walks i did in the Air Force.
Animations, storytelling, simple explanations love this video!
Great documentary, the graphics and animations are so good and really adds to the overall feel and delivery of the information, thank you for sharing it here. It's crazy how this event played out, from a single piece of metal strip positioned in the wrong place at the wrong time, what are the odds of that!? 🤯
i love it. while i know the documentaries this video is a great one to watch because it's so much shorter and just covers the highlights nicely
The production quality and clarity of explanation are truly remarkable.
I remember this tragedy well, happened during my initial training to be an amateur private pilot. Very big deal. Very sad.
Thanks very much!
I worked with someone years ago that had worked at JFK Airport. He told me that they always inspected the runway for debris before a Concorde takeoff.
thank you for taking creative risks. this was an outstanding episode.
Thanks for a real up-to-date video! It added another angle to the mystery of the crash. I didn't know that there had been previous tire failures and tank punctures. Only this was different. What good investigative work!
Great video explaining everything. Fantastic work by the engineers and investigators involved in solving this crash.
@Real Engineering - Hey, do you have enough notes to include the Bergen Belsen camp in one of your WW2 episodes? My grandmother was held there during the war and it would be amazing to hear you talk about what it was like there.
Thanks for another great episode. Cheers!
Great video as always! I remember when the concord landed for the last time. I was young but remember stood in the garden of my house watching all 3 fly overhead. Always been an aviation nut so I sort of had an idea of how sad a moment it was. So many point to this crash as the final nail in the coffin for the Jet as you said 😞
you are my favorite channel. you made me very interested in material science and have tought me many things. things that may seem small to you make my day everytime
Animations are fantastic. I love the extra bits you added to the old footage. The yarn looked like it was of steel but still lovely
You missed some details, left main gear boggie had been replaced a few days before and they miss to install a slever that keep a busshing in place and it nade the left boggie start wobbling like on a shopping trolley, this made aircraft drift to left and hit the metall strip. The aircraft weight was over max take off weight and the wind had turnd so they started with tailwind, they were heading on a parked B747 on taxiway waiting to cross runaway so they lift of before takeoff speed, president of France was onboard that 747 and whant to see Con orde tahe off. So there was many things that went wrong that day. Flight engebeer turned of engine with fire warning to early in flight face, newer planets have fire warning inhibit During first part of liftoff.
None of theses things had any relevant role in the accident.
The story as told by John Hutchinson
ua-cam.com/video/fqOcYhzWUZY/v-deo.html
@@redwithblackstripes Very few accidents have a single factor. On a normal day, that tyre failure may well have been a survivable event. There were a lot of aggravating factors here.
Being overweight did not have "no role" in the accident. It hinders the aircraft's ability to fly. It was beyond its maximum _structural_ weight, let alone maximum takeoff weight.
A tailwind takeoff increases the ground speed required to get airborne. That adds to the problem.
The centre of gravity was off, which made it harder to control.
Critically, the wing fuel tanks were overfilled. They _were not meant_ to be filled to the brim, precisely so that fuel _does_ have somewhere to go instead of rupturing the fuel tank.
The captain ignored safety protocols, because they did not want to leave any passengers or bags behind, and filled the tanks to the brim so that the overweight aircraft would make it without a fuel stop.
If the fuel tanks were not overfilled, they would have been a lot less likely to rupture.
@@BlazeFirereign There is nothing wrong with "overfilling" the main wing tanks, this procedure was done in accordance with Concorde's Ops manual. The main engine wing tanks (1-4) were positioned in equal moment around the C of G so the extra weight of additional fuel would have negligible effect on C of G.
Secondly, Tank 5 was not "filled to the brim", it was correctly filled to 94% which was normal for any long distance Concorde flight. Also Concorde, like most vehicles with fuel tanks, had a tank breathing system which in Concorde's case designed to also compensate for fuel surge and tank pressurisation. During the investigation this was found to be functional on Tank 5, it couldn't physically be "fill to the brim" as any excess fuel would be vented out.
The rupture was cause as the fuel was forced back by the acceleration of the take-off, hitting against the rear tank bulkhead leaving a small area in the upper front of the tank with air and by misfortune the tyre debris hit close to a seam at the rear bottom of the tank. The CFD fluid mechanics of such action were not around in the late 60s or early 70s so were not factored in Concorde's design.
That still seems unbelievable how a piece of metal on a fuel tank pop off and separate like that.
the point le the video is that the reservoir was not «cut with a knife » but sheared by compression wave forces. they are not saying exactly like this, but the reservoir exploded under compression waves. the petrol brought natural compression to all parts, and the hook added the little something that was just enough to create the critical front wave to shear the foil.
this reminds me one falcon 9 explosion, where the root issue was a hydrogen tank inside oxygen tank that ruptured, bringing oxygen tank to higher pression than designed ... that happened on ground during filling about 20mn before planning lift off. the dumping mass ( a few tons, a raw steel roll ) was seen to fly a few hundred meters away.
you need to understand how waves hugely increase forces ...
see how glass can break with sound. there are videos made by slow mo guys. also check prince Rupert drops (smarter very day, and other )
@@benoit-pierredemaine3824 no. Me thinks thow doest protest to much. Someone was onboard that needed to be Epstein'ed. Nice try.
Eh, at high pressures, metal behaves similar to a plastic balloon. You can pressurize an aluminum can with a bike pump (or dry ice) and get the same effect, though you’d better have something to hide behind.
@@ZeteticPhilosopher yes, but the destruction would not leave behind a perfectly flat piece of metal with an outline like that. Seems silly.
@@ivegotheart what do you know ?
A few things:
- The callsign was Air France forty five ninety (group form, not individual numbers).
- The flight departed runway two six right, not "26 R."
- Continental was hardly to blame. It was their aircraft but I believe it was contract maintenance in TLV who installed the part, not to mention that the airport authority at CDG was responsible for keeping the runway free of foreign objects. Air France and manufacturers were just looking to place blame on anyone but themselves despite their flawed airframe design.
All that said, that was [another] good video. I've been a pilot since before I was licensed to drive and I've spent decades in the airline industry and air traffic control. Aviation is a lifelong passion and I've studied it thoroughly and always will. Good job covering aspects of this investigation that many people don't know about!
Love your style when it comes to this type of content!
I appreciate this video. I learned about this accident in school and I was told the piece of metal is what caused the accident. This one has always intrigued me, so I'm glad I know the whole story now! Thank you!
Let’s hope Boom is able to make the Overture a success. I feel attached to that company as they picked my home town to have a super factory to produce the Overture.
Man! This video is really good. The explanations are clear and the animations are superb!
Just remember BA was angry when Airbus pulled the type certificate. That was why it was grounded. BA had spent millions refitting their fleet and had been running Concorde very profitably from 1982 onwards.
I remember the event, and others, very well. When this final incident occurred, there was a massive attempt by the manufacturer to make tanks safer but it wasn't enough.
For me, given the huge amount of tyre incidents, I'm stunned that not much was done about it. The incident where 3 holes occurred is a huge alarm bell ringing and yet they passed it off as fine to fix and fly! Keep calm, we're British type thinking that did nothing but keep an unsafe set of mechanisms flying!
I was lucky enough to fly on 2 Concordes in the early 1980s. Once from LHR to JFK which took 3 hours and ten minutes, and once on a subsonic flight (Mach 0.9 if I remember correctly) from LHR to an airport near York (East Leeds? I can't remember). The transatlantic flight especially was amazing and I'll never forget the experience.
The Leeds airport would have presumably been Leeds Bradford Airport, (also known as Yeadon). The runway was extended in the early 80s so Concorde and 747s could operate there. I never got to see Concorde fly as I'm too young but she was an amazing aircraft. My dad once told me about the few times Concorde flew over my childhood house as it was in the flightpath for Yeadon.
@@stevenhickenjr Ah, Leeds Bradford rings a bell, yes. I think we took a bus from the airport to visit York for the day. Seeing the Concordes fly was a spectacle. I worked for BA (I got cheap and free flights! hence my 2 trips on Concordes) at Heathrow right next to the threshold of 27L and every day a few of us aircraft enthusiasts would go out into the car park to watch them take off. It would set off all of the car alarms in the car park! And you could feel the rumble in your chest. At dusk especially, you could see beautiful pink-purple flames from the afterburners shooting out the back of the engines as it raced down the runway and slowly climbed away. It's a shame you never got to see it. It was beautiful!
Great explanation and storytelling accompanied by stellar visuals. Incredible work as always.
I've always been fascinated by that breakthrough investigation. Well done to you as well
Dulles sounds like “dullness” without the N…
During the decade between 2000 and 2010, a lot of other things happened. I think the 9/11 attacks and increasing fuel prices would have been enough to down Concorde even without the accident.
If nothing else, the 2008 recession and the pandemic would have ended its career.
The first test flight carrying passengers (BA staff) near the return-to-flight date was actually on September 11 2001. Not great timing.
Simply amazing... Plot, storyline, graphics, all blend into 16 minutes of feats
This is an amazing video! Incredibly well done! The video quality is wonderful
Fascinating video with excellent, easy-to-understand illustrations. Thank you for posting such phenomenal content.
and thank you for watching it
Yes, ultra excellent. As an aircraft engineer that had to explain equipment to laypeople, perfectly displayed and explained. But where actually on the McD-D did that wear strip come from?
@@huwzebediahthomas9193 From the engine, i think?
I remember the Air Force doing regular "FOD Walks", where FOD means Foreign Object Damage. Any little piece of anything had to be removed from the runway because a jet engine or tire could turn it into a projectile, or other problems could arise from what it does to the aircraft. I'd assume commercial airports would do the same thing, but maybe they don't have the time in their schedule to send humans down the runway between each flight and prevent FOD tragedies. Seems... shortsighted.
@SamuelWright520 Possibly. Foreign Object Damage is the acronym I was told but it could be Foreign Objects & Debris or something in other contexts
Commercial airports do FOD cleanup, too. This was just unfortunately between them.
Both James' and his camera op's walking skills are super impressive. forward, backward, up steps, around corners; so beautifully choreographed!
The quality of content and production is phenomenal, thank you
When I was a kid I thought I'd get to ride a supersonic jet some day.
Then I learned you had to be rich to fly one, they were not mainstream, and then this happened...
near the end of its run, the flights with the Concorde were cheaper
@@ristekostadinov2820 “cheaper” doesn’t always mean affordable. It just means less expensive. Considering OP was disappointed they couldn’t fly on it, it probably wasn’t cheap enough.
Find a friend that is an airforce fast jet pilot and ask him to take you for a ride in a trainer over Nevada or maybe Northern Canada. He'll take to to Mach 2. 😎😉😉😉
@@huwzebediahthomas9193 if it was still in service then become a pilot of the x 15 and you can go tho mach 6
@@heidirabenau511
You'd be in your 90s no! 😁😁😁👍
There are sadly a lot of informations missing in this video and also a false information about a critical thing. The ruptured tank was *not* the reason for the loss of power. It's proven fact that the engines worked just fine and produced power like always until they were shut down by the flightmechanic. Here are all the parts of the chain thet led to this accident:
-The groundmechanics forgot a part that belongs to the plane on the shelf so the lefthand side wheels could slightly change it's angel.
-They startet the takeoff on a partial closed runway that was under construction and there was a sharp transistion between the parts that caused the wheelangle to change (higher friction)
-The wingfueltanks were filled up over the max safe level so there was no air left in it.
-The plane was overloaded (2 tons of taxi fuel + over 600kg bargage). about 3 tons.
-They also started with a tailwind (calculated with that tailwind they were 7 tons to heavy).
-Because of the bargage and short taxi (not many taxi fuel was burned) the planes cg was moved after its safe point.
-While takeoff they hit this titanium part on the runway.
-The last misstake was that the flightmechanic shut down engine two without even telling the captian.
Several parts of your statement are completely incorrect. Do yourself a favour and read the accident report. Engine 2 was at idle when the fire alarm went off. The last part of your comment in particular, is flat out wrong according to the CVR.
From BEA report P 133:
"Engine fire alarm actuation and the very low values on the parameters led the crew to shut down the engine after the Captain called for the engine fire procedure. In fact, the movement of the throttle control lever to its idle stop is heard and, a short time later, pulling of the fire handle. In addition, the deceleration of the engine, established from the recorded parameters, is consistent with a commanded engine shut down."
It is important to note that the AF Concorde Flight Manual requires an immediate reaction by the crew in case of a 'red alarm'.
See the following timeline from the CVR and Concorde Flight manual.
o 14 h 43 min 13.4 s, message from the controller indicating flames at the rear and read back by the FO.
o 14 h 43 min 16.4 s, FE “(stop) “.
o 14 h 43 min 20.4 s, FE “Failure eng… failure engine two”.
o 14 h 43 min 22.8 s, fire alarm.
o 14 h 43 min 24.8 s, FE “shut down engine two”.
o 14 h 43 min 25.8 s, Captain “engine fire procedure” and in the following second the noise of a selector and fire alarm stops.
As the CVR shows, the FE correctly called out the engine failure and then announced the required procedure as "shut down engine two" (I was trained as a Flight Engineer and I would have done the same) and the Captain immediately commanded the engine fire procedure to be carried out. i.e engine shut down, Fire Extinguisher discharged.
Also by Saying "Stop'" at 14:43 16.4, the FE may have been the only person who correctly called for an abort to the takeoff.
@@Completeaerogeek Sorry but that's not correct in case of the concorde. If you have a engine fire on takeoff, you shut off the fire warning and continue until you reached a safe speed and altitude before you shut of the engine.
@@Completeaerogeek You should watch "John Hutchinson on Air France Flight 4590"
You are wrong again. See my further reply from the accident report..
@@x-planeliveriesandstuffsho1074 I have the accident report and have just watched JH video again. He makes several mistakes and unfortunate accusations one of which is in saying that the FE shut the engine down without consulting the Captain. The CVR shows this is not so. He is also in error in that the Air France flight manual demands a response action to a 'Red Alarm' i.e. carry out the fire drill and shut the engine down. The Captain commanded this a second or so after the FE announced the engine failure on #2.
From BEA report P 133:
"Engine fire alarm actuation and the very low values on the parameters led the crew to shut down the engine after the Captain called for the engine fire procedure."
"The movement of the throttle control lever to its idle stop is heard and, a short time later, pulling of the fire handle. In addition, the deceleration of the engine, established from the recorded parameters, is consistent with a commanded engine shut down."
See the following timeline from the CVR and d Concorde Flight manual.
o 14 h 43 min 13.4 s, message from the controller indicating flames at the rear and read back by the FO.
o 14 h 43 min 16.4 s, FE “(stop) “.
o 14 h 43 min 20.4 s, FE “Failure eng… failure engine two”.
o 14 h 43 min 22.8 s, fire alarm.
o 14 h 43 min 24.8 s, FE “shut down engine two”.
o 14 h 43 min 25.8 s, Captain “engine fire procedure” and in the following second the noise of a selector and fire alarm stops.
The BEA report addresses the spacer in detail and says it had minimal/no effect on the accident. The drift to the left was almost certainly caused by the asymmetric thrust which would have had a far greater effect that scrubbing tyres.
Certainly the max fuel issue did contribute . Without it, the tyre would have blown but the accident most likely wouldn't have happened.
great video, only comment I have is that the runways are actually not 26R, but 2-6 Right, and 2-6 Left, the L and R are used when there are parallel runways. C is also used if there is a centre one as well. Pilots also say numbers by digits in order to make sure directions are correctly heard.
Great video, so glad you decided to make it
I've heard this crash discussed in other videos, but I liked your explanation more. very detailed and thorough!
I did hear recently that my country (the US) is working on bringing back supersonic travel, but knowing what happened in the past with the Concorde (as well as the russian version) they would need to figure out how to get past the financial hurdles. Also, its probably not happening soon with our economy struggling since early 2020, but they still have plans apparently.
Hypersonic is where it's at, the Lapcat A2 could take you from New York City to Melbourne in five hours if Reaction Engines would only hurry up and finish building the prototype.
Well, when the droop snoot, the snoot droop
great work!! thank you for putting together.
Wow, what an incredible video. Phenomenal job to you and your team. I’ve heard the story of flight 4590 many times from many different UA-cam videos and documentaries, but none were as in-depth and scientific as this one. I love this video and I hope you make more like it soon!
If you want the real version of events suggest you look at Aircrew Interview's video with John Hutchinsons opinion on this tragedy. An actual Concorde pilot telling you as it really was,no bullshit just straight facts, Brilliant
I just watched the video. How is it possible for such an experienced crew to have made such bad decisions?
@@f-s-r well, the aircraft accident with the higest death count till now, Tenerife airport disaster KLM Flight 4805 · Pan Am Flight 1736, was caused by the most experienced captain of klm Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten
If you want a real version of the events, may I suggest you read the full BEA report. Retired pilots do not make good crash investigators, nor so one that happened to spend some of his career flying for Air France's only Concorde commercial competitor. Mr Hutchinson's opinion is not based on facts, merely disinformation cleverly orated to appeal to his target demographic, sell some books & top up his retirement fund on the ex-Concorde pilot lecture circuit.
01:32 V1 is not the point of no return.
V1 is the decision point of whether to abandon the takeoff or not.
V1 will vary depending on the aircraft and runway length.
Your second line contradicts the first...
To be fair, speeds continue to increase at takeoff. If no action was made at V1, any decision would be too late.
@@krashd how does it do that?
@@dbclass4075 exactly, V1 is the point where you can stop the aircraft on the runway safely. Beyond V1 you are pretty much committed to flight.
@@Slarti Minor detail: V1 is the *maximum* speed an aircraft can stop safely.
Thank you for this brief documentary, the shortest yet complete I have seen so far 😎
Amazing video as always. Also I love Nebula and your content there.
Thanks for letting us know how she really went down , an bless all those lost an there family's, concord was truly amazing plane saw it land once in the mid 80s , it was beautiful. Thanks for all your research qn hard work for this video. Top notch
All I have to add is a pronunciation correction: The first syllable of Dulles is pronounced "dull", not "dool". I'll take "in Washington DC" as a simplification. IAD is 30 miles away from DC, even DCA is across the river in Virginia.
This is a cool direction to take the channel in. might be worth doing some more engineering videos on famous crashes like this.
Had seen about this on Air Crash Investigation show over a decade ago but still wanted to listen from you..
Seriously, the DC-10 is a cursed airplane. It even brought down other airplanes.
IDK if it is logical OR fair to blame the aircraft or its design for this one - as this appears to be a maintenance issue COMBINED with the design issues of Concorde that exasperated the impact of hitting the metal strip.
The DC-10 is so deadly that it is the nail in the coffin for the Concord
Savage
I don’t think that was the conclusion of the video or official investigation. The DC 10 had issues early on but by 2000 they had been long sorted out. Also those issues were irrelevant to this accident.
@@hodgeheg480 Will your supervisor be happy defending your shitty company and planes?
The best video I have seen on the engineering factors of the Concorde crash. Great script, well directed, very high-quality production values.
BTW give the voiceover a raise.
Great Job by all.
Alright I’ll give myself a raise, thanks
@@RealEngineering A raise yes, but not too much, it could set off inflationary pressures in the voice-over "Concorde flight engineering factors that contribute to loss of controlled flight" production field appearing on UA-cam. And I could see that you wouldn't want to do that. Have you considered doing any voice-over work on videos that specialize on the difficulties of maintaining long term sexual relationships in Tardigrades when one member of a mating pair might be frozen for months or years at a time, while the other is not, and it has made a choice to reproduce asexually instead of waiting around. Truly problematical when personal gender function and identity is experienced as: Him, or Her, or Whatever.
Yes, a voice-over on that topic would be both topical, and exciting. Consider it, and thank you for viewing a short moment of, "I can't believe I read the whole thing." A wholly owned subsidiary of, "I can't believe I watched the whole thing,"LLC, itself an off-shoot of ButterEmails inspired by a margarine advertisement on TV and the time I spent watching HRC being questioned for eleven hours by Congressional Committees on Benghazi.
Yes, I did respect the YT video on the tragedy of the Concorde crash and will be mindful in explaining the need to do system analysis in a detailed, and thoughtful manner. Problems can spread, initiated by some of the most benign appearing circumstances, and race along surprising pathways, to ignite the most calamitous disasters.
Hey, let's be careful out there. -HSB 7:12 A.M.
This was amazingly well produced! I love the logistics of D-Day documentary series on Nebula ♥️
Thank you for making such good content that inspires current and future engineers and scientists 😄
It appears as someone is a regular at Mentour Pilot.
Good taste!
sickens me that the concords track record was amazing yet boeing jets have had so many issues (including military jet predominantly the b52) and they still get so many contracts...
The B52 has issue , got a video or article ?
@@elvisgyaase6170 funny thing I watched one yesterday it was a nightmare, it was obsolete so many times but they kept rebuilding redesigning and upgrading, so many crashed had engine issues, structural issues 2 of them lost the entire rudder and not just the control surface the entire structure, they kept loosing nukes because of it it was declassified recently that 1 nuke nearly went off because 3 out of 4 of the safety triggers went off. One got dropped on Spain and they conventional warhead went off and scattered radioactive debris all over america had to do a massive cleanup and stop flying them over Spain I'll find the video.
Edit : ua-cam.com/video/q6rnzOGhj-8/v-deo.html
I saw a documentary on this a very long time ago that mentioned that the engineers had actually designed the fuel tank to withstand this exact scenario, but the problem was that the tires were upgraded and heavier than originally designed due to many tire failures, and the added mass of the upgraded tires was never taken into account for the fuel tank strike calculation.
The animations of the metal fracture and plane are amazing, the photo of the doomed plane is so chilling.
I'm sorry however you have omitted so many crucial pieces of information from this video....for example they took off well over the maximum take off weight, they took off with a tailwind, all the tanks were fully loaded up over the maximum limit. There was a shimmy damper that hadn't been fitted to the left landing gear, causing the deviation to the left, the flight engineer upon hearing the engine fire warning immediately went into a drill without even consulting his captain. No1 and no 2 engine were still working fine! If the stupid flight engineer took a moment to read his instruments he would have realised he could have kept the engines going and not shut down the engines. Ultimately the flight engineers actions caused the crash in the way it did. Wether concorde would have made it to Le Bourget is up for debate- that fire was so intense it could have destroyed the wing before they managed to get it onto the ground.
It was a mega calamity. Exploding tyre then chaos.
This was fascinating, I love this sort of explanation and investigation plus exploration like this.
Absolutely great video very high production quality
57 tire malfunctions, 12 with structural damage and 6 fuel tank penetrations and nothing was done to attempt to make better tires or strengthen the fuel tanks? Sounds a lot like normalization of deviance, which NASA was guilty of with the Challenger and Columbia disasters; but the French authorities blamed it all on Continental...
ditto that
Triple-ditto. What an abandonment of responsibility by the aircraft company and tire vendor.
When have you ever known any country, not just France, to take responsibility for an accident like this?
They also had other problems with it. The one time it came here(New Zealand) it lost a significant chunk of the rudder when it flew from here to Australia.
www.airwaysmuseum.com/aircraft%20images/Concorde-G-BOAF-SY-4-89-KW-2.jpg
The higher French court ultimately overturned most of the charges.
Its nice to see people with common sense, thank you. But yeah innocent people always have to die first before stuff gets changed
Seems Concorde was fragile from the start. A big bird strike might have brought it down.
Seems no lessons learned from the 1979 leak. Or tire issues.
A disaster always waiting
To be that extreme the engineering has to be pushed close to the limit. Fragile, beautiful, uneconomic - such a shame.
So much effort put into these videos. Amazing.
I remember this accident being one of the first airplane documentary I watched when I was a kid. Thank you for making us revisit this tragedy. Your documentary digs even better in the causes of the accident.