What was the OFFICIAL reasoning for the disaster again?
I think i saw a programme on it and it all seemed a bit dodgy and things not adding up.
Also why did that disaster (the only one in concordes history) signal the end of the awesome plane?
2006-08-24 07:29:36 · 19 answers · asked by wave 5 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Aircraft
well the boeing 747 is just as old. the concorde was a superior plane, safer, faster, a marvellous piece of anglo-franco engineering, i wonder if we'll see anything like it again.
2006-08-24 08:28:32 · update #1
It wasn't a conspiracy - just poor maintenance and runway upkeep.
The Concorde hadn't been profitable since 9/11, so the accident was a welcome excuse for Air France and British Airways to retire them.
2006-08-24 07:32:12 · answer #1 · answered by ratman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, it was not retired because it was old. The 747 has been around for a decade longer than the Concorde, and the basic airframe is STILL in production! The Air Force STILL operates the B-52, which was the backbone of the pre-intercontinental ballistic missile SAC mission first being produced in 1952. It's more than half a century old! An airplane being 20 years old is NOTHING. Most aircraft in current operation in the civilian and military fleets are older than 2 decades.
Having said that, the reason why the Concorde was abandoned was because it wasn't profitable. The plane guzzled gas like no other. Plus, it had to be small meaning that it couldn't carry that many passengers per cycle (takeoff/landing). Also, because of authority restrictions, the plane was not able to fly over land supersonic very easily. That limited the routes it could fly to mainly over the ocean, and the Atlantic primarily as a result of its fuel requirements.
While the accident in Paris in 1999 was certainly just that, an accident (tire debris punctured the fuel tank and a spark ignited fuel), the airplane wasn't profitable enough to keep operating. Had it not crashed it probably still would've been abandoned around the same time, anyway.
2006-08-24 15:41:05 · answer #2 · answered by A Guy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Apparently, one of the previous airplanes that landed had a piece of metal that broke off and remained on the runway. During its takeoff roll, the concorde ran over it, which blew out a tire. The debris from the tire punctured the airplane near an engine. I think it was leaking fuel, which resulted in the fire.
The concorde is not in service anymore mainly because it was very expensive to operate (fuel, parts, maintenance, etc). Also, its reputation was tarnished with the crash.
2006-08-24 19:37:15 · answer #3 · answered by jrc 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The official view is :
The accident was caused by debris left on the runway that punctured a tyre and this then punctured a fuel tank.
After the accident, the planes were upgraded to prevent this happening again.
But, they couldn't attract enough passengers to make it profitable.
And BA said that the cost of spares was prohibitive : all had to be manufactured since non were still in production.
Peter
2006-08-24 15:30:25 · answer #4 · answered by MPPRH 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't believe it was a conspiracy. I think it was a piece of debris on the runway which punctured one of the tyres. because the tyre was blown it began to fall apart and some of the tyre debris hit the wing and punctured the fuel tank.
2006-08-25 07:41:26 · answer #5 · answered by 90210 aka Hummer Lover 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
oh for crying out loud, the concorde went into service the same year i was born 1978, it was old, it was expensive and poorly maintained it was time to retire it.
And i tire burst and the metal on the wheel came loose and ignited the duel, so no it wasn't a conspiracy.
next one you're gonna claim is that the pentagon was not hit by a plane (yes there is a conspiracy theory on that one too!)
2006-08-24 14:46:28 · answer #6 · answered by Lou K 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think it was the russians getting revenge for what the french did to the TU-144 back in the 70s
2006-08-24 15:05:11 · answer #7 · answered by Rizzo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've never heard anything to indicate it was anything other than an accident.
I'm not sure why one crash doomed the plane. I assume it was impractical anyway. Noisy, cramped, expensive.
Anyone really needing to go that fast and having the money would be able to charter (or own) their own jet.
2006-08-24 14:32:21 · answer #8 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It crashed because **** happens, especially in the case of monstrously obsolete aircrafts like the Concorde.
Which is also the reason why they finally grounded it.
2006-08-24 14:31:55 · answer #9 · answered by DomC 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It was caused by a damaged tire that caused secondary damage to the fuselage and into the fuel tank.
2006-08-24 14:31:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋