Talk:Air France Flight 4590

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xwang2182.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poor statistics[edit]

"The Concorde had been the safest working passenger airliner in the world according to passenger deaths per distance travelled"

This statement in the article belies a failure to understand statistical significance. With only 20 aircraft working, there were so few hours and miles/kilometers in total, it is a fallacy to compare it to other transport aircraft. Once the crash occurred, the Concord became the worst jet aircraft, far worse than even the DC-10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wefoij (talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you say, but given the choice between flying on Concorde - note correct spelling - or flying on that airline equivalent of a clown's car, which it would appear was one of the few aircraft that, in addition to a pre-flight walk-around, also required a post-flight walk-around after landing just to ensure it still had all the bits it had taken-off with, I know which one I would choose.
Concorde flew in service with BA and AF for twenty seven years and in that time carried over four-and-a-half million passengers, and until the Paris accident in 2000, never hurt even one of them. On the couple of occasions when bits dropped off Concorde they had no effect on the handling and the crew only found out they were missing when they were told by airport ATC when they were landing.
... and they were rudders lost while flying at Mach 2.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.16 (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of March 2024, the article contains this whopper: "Despite the accident, Concorde was still considered among the world's safest aircraft at the time, a reputation it continues to hold after its retirement. This was the only fatal accident of Concorde's entire career.[27]" That entire paragraph is supported by a reference to this article from 2000, before the crash: https://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=83069

I'm taking the first sentence out as it is a complete misrepresentation of how safety statistics related to airplane crashes are compiled. Due to the low number of flight hours, the Concorde crash moved the model from the "safest" column to "one of the worst." If you actually know the history of tire debris damage on Concordes over its entire history you understand that this was a major design flaw that only hadn't caused airframe losses and fatalities previously because the limited number of craft in service meant the dice hadn't yet been rolled enough time.

Any argument that the Concorde was a very safe airplane because it only had a single fatal incident is a logical fallacy. 2601:602:8800:850:85EF:A9A5:7567:2541 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text moved[edit]

Much of the text was moved from the Concorde article. WhisperToMe 17:31, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Death count[edit]

One stewardess was actually German as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.25.27.183 (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was an Australian who died not an Austrian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.124.84 (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that this contradicts the Concorde article on the number of deaths on the ground. This article says 4 people on the ground were killed, Concorde says 5. Fabiform 14:43, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Correct on-the-ground death toll is 4. This article is correct, I will proceed to correct the information on the other article (if it hasn't already been rectified). Redux 02:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yeah i already corrected this but someone had it undone, but there really was a german stewardess, the only german in the air france concorde-team —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.227.120 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the on-the-ground fatalities nationality? Death toll is 113, but only nationalities of crew and passengers are shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.130.208 (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled it as best I could but only found a partial list of fatalities, and no mention of even the names of the ground casualties, much less their nationalities. I would love to see the addition of this important fact in this article. Microbiojen (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture incorrect?[edit]

The second picture is incorrect! It is fliped vertically. The plane was starting in the direction shown on the first picture. The amateur movie made form taxi running near the airport, form which the second pictre cames, clearly shows plane starting in the opposite direction than pictured on second photo.

I don't know, if it is important. I only wanted to notice you about this. Maybe someone wishes to correct this photo.

Trejder 10:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are right. This pic was very widely published at the time. Wasn't it simply taken from the other side? --Guinnog 11:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right! I looked at [1] link, provided in External Links section, and miss-recognised the picture. After a close look it seems to be correct - looking by which engine is in fire. I believe that your explanation is very good - this picture was probably taken from the other side. Trejder 09:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above debate seems to be obsolete, now that there is only one picture of the aircraft on fire. But that picture is a composite, which appeared on the front page of the Daily Mail, showing how the incident probably looked. Nobody actually took that picture. 109.157.18.114 (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the picture was taken from the other side theory is correct! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me20932 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

why do you insist that the spelling is "tyre" instead of "tire"? Just to let you know, "tire" is the correct spelling in Modern Standard English, while "Tyre" is a city is southern Lebanon. I don't see why you inserted a request for people to not correct you on your orthographic error, as it degrades the quality of the article.--Retroandi 14:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page, but basically the policy you are not 'getting' here is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:mos#National_varieties_of_English
HTH --Guinnog 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what he's talking about [2] G0ggy (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - all this spelling argument that goes on in Wikipedia is all getting rather tyresome. Everyone knows that you spell tyre tire, that way we don't get any confusion. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's tyred with all this sort of thing. ...quick nurse, the screens, THE SCREENS!...

Regardless of which spelling is used, the page desperately needs to be edited for consistency. 50% "tire" and 50% "tyre" is not acceptable for an article of this importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.92.193 (talk • contribs)

The last edit was to change it from 100% Tyre to 100% Tire. Read WP:ENGVAR, Tyre is the accepted spelling for this article. (Hohum @) 16:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification[edit]

While I appreciate your inclusion of a source to validate the use of "tyre" in your article, it would lend more weight if you reference something other than a Wikipedia article, such as the Oxford English Dictionary [3]. Also, perhaps we should both contact Wikipedia for their orthographical rules concerning articles in English; no doubt there have been arguements similar to ours with regards to other words. Retroandi 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehehe...this is just the tip of the iceburg. Orange (colour) has been the site of a contentious color/colour war; flavor/flavour over at potato chips; gasoline/petrol over at gasoline; all documented at WP:LAME. Hbdragon88 08:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rule usually is, we go with the more popular, commonly recognized usage. Tire is more widely known than tyre, according to the discussion on the article "Tire". Hence, this article should reflect that. jparenti 00:04, 04 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the rule is usualy that we go by whatever is correct. In this case, tyre is correct. Also, bear in mind tire is derived from tyre. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UK spelling of tyre is tyre, The spelling tire means to be tired - easy, see?
...alternatively, see here; [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.31 (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously some words are spelled differently in America than they are in Europe or other places, it's really not that hard to understand Dylan (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

113 people died and you asshats are arguing over the spelling of a word that is understood in its use. Obviously the plane wasn't tired. You people are inept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.67.107 (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Length of metal wrong?[edit]

it was said in "Seconds from Disaster" that the shard of metal was exactally 42cm long, whereas the article says about 50, i'm not editing i right away because i'm not sure if i am correct or not as the metal was curved...

The correct answer: 1/3 of the piece of metal was actually curved about in 90 degrees. The length of the metal (bent) was very close to 45cm, which is same as the thickness of concorde's one wheel. (Tuesday, 30th of June, 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.255.28.29 (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

>>>> A Picture from CSMonitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/0202-concorde-crash-metal-strip/7329218-1-eng-US/0202-concorde-crash-metal-strip_full_600.jpg 98.195.78.35 (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)WilliamTheFriar[reply]

I work for Continental Airlines in Houston, Texas, and I am familiar with the rub-strip in question. It is indeed about 17" (seventeen inches) long, but the width is only approximately 3/4" or .750" (three-fourths of one inch) wide. And most critically the thickness of this strip is typically only about .025" to .053" (thousandths of an inch). So what you have is a long narrow strip, only slightly thicker than your typical kitchen foil food-wrap.

All engine cowling have such rub-strips installed between their several panels at the mating surfaces, typically in numerous segments. The strips are usually made of stainless steel or titanium, and the substitution of one material for the other is not a matter of great concern. Both the DC-10 and the A300 aircraft have similar designs in their cowling.

It is highly unlikely that such a strip could have cut through an aircraft tire. Such tires are built with very tough damage-resistant synthetic rubber in multiple plies. Typically there is a thick outer cap or thread over numerous plies of more rubber alternating with composite cloth material, in total several inches thick.

Furthermore I have worked with Mr. John Taylor some years ago, shortly before the incident. I knew him to be mentally sharp, manually talented, and he consistently practiced the highest work ethics. He was always an exemplary mechanic.

I know that most of this info is more than called for in the article, but please do correct the dimensions of the rub-strip which was said to have caused the accident. I do not have access to the engineering drawings, but I do speak from direct experience.

98.195.78.35 (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)"WilliamTheFriar"[reply]

Modern puncture-resistant aircraft tires were invented as a result of this accident. Furthermore, the higher takeoff speed of the Concorde, approximately 200KIAS as compared to 130-150KIAS for standard jets, made tire punctures far more likely. I'm not going to pick sides one way or the other but the accident report scenario is plausible considering the unique circumstances present. N419BH 18:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tires I have described above have been thus for at least as long as I have been involved in aviation, which is 30 years, and were thus long before I arrived upon the scene, and long before this terrible accident as well.
My perception of this incident is that it was the tragic combination of two main factors: The critical axle-spacer was omitted during this concorde's last tire-change (at Continental this is an inspection-witnessed item); and the load-master both over-loaded and rear-loaded the aircraft.

98.195.78.35 (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)WilliamTheFriar[reply]

I believe the accident report cites those factors as lengthening the takeoff roll. The aircraft wasn't substantially overloaded (2,000lbs, not sure what Concorde's MTOW is). I'm not sure whether the report found the aircraft was within or beyond aft CG limits. The interesting question is whether the aircraft would have become airborne before hitting the debris had it been within takeoff weight limits and not subject to the extra drag from the misaligned gear. Those questions might have bearing on the finding of fault at Continental. The other interesting question is whether the titanium strip was appropriate for the aircraft. Was it actually FAA approved? Did it even require FAA approval in the first place? The other interesting question is the difference between French and American law. I don't think this criminal trial would be occurring if the accident occurred at JFK or IAD. N419BH 19:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, an overload of 2000lbs is HUGE. Yes, it was "substantially overloaded" and the fact that it was towards AFT of the ship made it exponentially worse.... And the omission of the axle spacer is also a huge error - it has less to do with V1 and lengthening of the tale-off roll than it has with lateral control on the ground at high speed, side-loads and severe wobble, causing the gear to blow tires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.78.35 (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>>>> BOTTOM LINE: The stated size of the debris in question is blatantly incorrect. Will one of the Wikipedia editors please correct the size to {17" long x .750" wide x .040" thick}.... This is a far cry from the stated size of "17in long and 12in wide" implying a huge chunk of cowling, rather than a small section of rub-strip. Thank you! 98.195.78.35 (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)"WilliamTheFriar"[reply]

It is highly unlikely that such a strip could have cut through an aircraft tire - the Concorde's tyres were inflated to much higher pressure than those on a conventional airliner, and in addition, the discarded rubbing strip had already been badly bent (presumably by other aircraft running over it prior to the accident) so that its edge was by then, vertical. The strip also had roughly-cut edges which were quite sharp. The Concorde tyre then ran over it so that the 'sharp' edge of the strip was pointing upwards directly facing the tyre, which, at a much higher pressure than normal tyres, provided a much firmer contact point. The strip effectively acted like a knife, cutting straight upwards in to the tyre carcase. The cuts in the tyre rubber matched exactly the shape of the rubbing strip when it was later found on the runway.
BTW, a 2,000lb overload is not huge for an aircraft the size and power of Concorde. The aircraft had roughly the same engine power as two early Boeing 747s. And having a CofG slightly aft would also have little effect, as the Concorde used fuel for trimming purposes (due to the aft-moving CofG when reaching Mach 1), and any slight aft CofG could have been corrected by pumping fuel forward into the forward tanks before take-off.
Also, the wing and fuel tank wasn't holed as-such - the large chunk of tyre rubber flew up and hit the underside of the wing, flat-side first. This caused a large shock wave (fuel, like water, and unlike air, is not compressible) which travelled trough the fuel and, reaching the forward end of the tank, ruptured it by blowing out an end panel. Fuel then flooded out of the tank into the internal wing structure. This fuel flowed rearwards until, reaching the engines, it effectively flooded them, depriving the engines of air, which caused the two left hand engines to eventually flame-out. At the same time the fuel ignited, which caused an even greater oxygen starvation for the engines, contributing to them flaming-out. The fire then increased until it affected the various internal systems, leading to the crash. This wasn't just a simple fuel leak, the tank was effectively burst by the impact of the rubber piece, and fuel cascaded out in much greater quantities than would be possible in a simple holed tank. The engines were simply drowned in fuel. Once the aircraft had left the runway the crash was probably inevitable, and unsurvivable, no matter what the crew did.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.100.56 (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with some of that description. No one knows conclusively how the hydraulic shock wave moved within tank no. 5, but the failure was not at an end wall, it was adjacent to it on the underside of the wing immediately in front of the left main undercarriage bay. The fuel leak, estimated at 100 litres/second initially, then poured out into the air stream and entering the turbulent flow behind the undercarriage leg and stay, atomised and thus became more likely to ignite from the brake fan wiring in the undercarriage bay that was damaged by tyre debris and was energised with 200VAC during take-off. The engines, particularly no. 2, lost thrust because the hot gas from the burning fuel plume was drawn in through the open auxiliary inlet on the underside of the nacelle and this hot gas reduced or eliminated the surge margin of the engine's LP compressor. Engine no.2 was never able to recover from this condition as it was shut down by the F/E below V2 (this probably made no difference to the eventual crash). Engine no.1 also sustained damage from other debris although it did recover thrust to somewhere near take-off levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.159.137 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continental's statement about the strip's legality[edit]

I inserted [citation needed] and after a while removed the following unsourced statement:

However, Continental Airlines maintains that FAA regulations do allow the use of the titanium strip[citation needed] and added that this metal was more wear-resistant than the original part.[citation needed]

If anyone has a valid reference, please supply it and re-insert. Thanks, Crum375 13:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for this. --Guinnog 20:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube links[edit]

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very good to see videos of many of the incidents that Wikipedia refers to, and 99% of the time YouTube is the place to see them. Surely the onus is on YouTube users to verify copyright, not on those who link to it? If for some silly legal reason that is not the case, could we say, for example, "to see a film of this, put 'concorde' and 'crash' into YouTube's search engine"? That definitively puts the onus on the stuffed shirts to prove there aren't non-copyrighted clips of the crash. - AG, Stockport, UK.

Alternative Theories; Chirac - Bush?[edit]

This looks like repeated vandalism concerning Bush - it's totally irrelevant. And I think it would be a good idea to require reference for the Chirac story as I believe this constitutes only a claim made in a book "Supersonic Secrets" and never elsewhere confirmed... Jimbomu 16:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)jimbomu[reply]

Poorly sourced[edit]

I removed the following poorly sourced or unsourced section (mentioning unnamed sources in the only reference provided):

Alternative Theories: British investigators and former French Concorde pilots looked at several other possibilities that the report ignored, including an unbalanced weight distribution in the fuel tanks and loose landing gear. They came to the conclusion that the Concorde veered off-course on the runway, which reduced take-off speed below the crucial minimum. The aircraft had veered very close to a Boeing 747 known to be carrying French President Jacques Chirac. They argued that the Concorde was in trouble before takeoff, as it was overweight for the given conditions, with an excessively aft center of gravity and taking off downwind. Moreover, it was missing the crucial spacer from the left main landing-gear beam that would have made for a snug-fitting pivot. This compromised the alignment of the landing gear and the wobbling beam and gears allowing three degrees of movement possible in any direction. The uneven load on the left leg’s three remaining tires skewed the landing gear disastrously, with the scuff marks of four tires on the runway showing that the plane was skidding out of control. These investigators were frustrated by the lack of cooperation from French authorities, including an unwillingness to share data and the immediate resurfacing of Concorde's takeoff runway after the crash. They alleged that the BEA was determined to place the sole blame of the accident on the titanium strip to show that Concorde itself was not at fault. The BEA's interim report maintained that the leftward yaw was caused not by incorrectly assembled landing gear but by loss of thrust from the number 1 and 2 engines. Data from the Flight Data Recorder Black Box indicates that the aircraft was centred on the runway and accelerating normally up until the point where the tyre burst occurred. The instantaneous wind speed at the closest anemometer to the take-off point was recorded as zero knots.[5]

I suggest that we either find better named sources for this, or keep it out, per our strict sourcing rules required when living people are involved. Crum375 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British newspaper The Observer commissioned its own investigation into the accident that was highly skeptical of the official report, and this is evidently what is being referred to here. The gist of the report was that the plane was far over MTOW, its load was dangerously rear-heavy, and there was a spacer missing from its left wheelcarriage, all of which caused it to remain on the runway for too long without reaching the minimum rotate speed, while veering too far to the left; only due to these problems, which could have caused the catastrophe by themselves, did it strike the titanium strip from the DC-10, which was located much further down the runway than the Concorde usually travels during takeoff. It's at [6]. An article from Air Safety Week corroborates some of these points [7]. Here's another article, though from a personal website, that makes the point about the spacer: [8].
The Observer theory deserves mention in the article; it's certainly noteworthy and reasonably compelling. I may re-add this section with better sourcing and phrasing, unless someone else would prefer to. ProhibitOnions (T) 11:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate crash theories[edit]

I removed this from the Concorde article as it is far too detalied for an article on the plane itself. I placed it here as I have not edited this page, and I don't know if this piece has been considered before. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other theories[edit]

British and former French Concorde pilots looked at several other possibilities that the report ignored, including an unbalanced weight distribution in the fuel tanks and loose landing gear. They came to the conclusion that the Concorde veered course on the runway, which reduced take-off speed below the crucial minimum. (The aircraft had swerved towards a Boeing 747 carrying French President Jacques Chirac.) They argued that the Concorde was in trouble before takeoff, as it was overweight for the given conditions, with an excessively aft centre of gravity and taking off downwind. It was also missing the spacer from the left main landing-gear beam. This compromised the alignment of the landing gear. The uneven load on the left leg’s three remaining tyres skewed the landing gear disastrously, with the scuff marks of four tyres on the runway showing that the plane was skidding out of control. The BEA's interim report maintained that the leftward yaw was caused not by incorrectly assembled landing gear but by loss of thrust from the number 1 and 2 engines.[9]

The link provided is dead. Unless there is a valid reliable source for this, it cannot be included. Crum375 16:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I forgot to check that, or I would have simply tossed it right then. thanks! - BillCJ 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are more sources on it now.GoldDragon 02:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the 'alternative theories' section because by totally refuting the conclusions of the extensive official investigation and report, it is making exceptional claims. And according to WP:V we need exceptional sources to support exceptional claims. In this case, such sources would be highly regarded news publications, official government agencies or reputable scientific bodies. Just a bunch of conspiracy web sites, or tabloids, or blogs, are not 'exceptional sources'. If these theories have not been published by mainstream media, odds are their publishers decided that the information is not sufficiently valid for them, and our own threshold for validity is no lower than theirs. Crum375 02:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a large enough number of differing sources, not all of them are tabloids or blogs. Former Concorde test pilots were interviewed in the Observer article, and that should be considered highly regarded, and that is also posted on the International Aviation Safety Association. [10] GoldDragon 03:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should perhaps also mention that, according to the Discovery Channel documentary, the BEA was pretty relunctant to share information with the British or the former Concorde test pilots, perhaps a cover-up? Obviously, as only one official agency (the BEA) was allowed to investigate, that meant that the Concorde test pilots had an unofficial investigation, but we should not discount that. GoldDragon 03:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The primary criterion is not quantity, but quality. We need high caliber sources, the one you included above is effectively an online forum, where someone posted what appears to be a copy of an article from the Observer. This is not a high caliber source by any means, and for this type of exceptional claim, we need an exceptional source, which it certainly isn't. A bunch of pilots performing an investigation of a crash would not be a reliable source at all, although it would depend on their publishing venue. Crum375 03:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 2 is the Guardian tabloid; 3 is a blog; 4 is a personal website with no editorial oversight; 5 is a dead link. Only the Guardian comes close to being a reliable source. If you want to retain this minority view, you can relate some of that article's info. However, the other material has to go. Keep in mind that this is a remarkably minority conspiracy theory, and warrants perhaps a sentence or two of coverage here. --EEMeltonIV 03:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As I noted above, this conspiracy theory is an exceptional claim, and blogs or pilots performing crash investigations are not exceptional sources. I suggest that this issue be discussed here prior to inclusion in the article, with emphasis on high quality 'exceptional' sources. Crum375 13:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I third that. Only deserves a few sentences as an extreme minority view, under a title of 'alternative theories' or the like. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Observer article is terrible. "Gilles Jardinaud, the flight engineer, shut down the ailing number two engine. Both French and British pilots say it was another disastrous mistake, which breached all set procedures. The engine itself was not on fire, and as the tank emptied and the fire burnt itself out, it would probably have recovered." That's crazy talk. Lipsticked Pig 17:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would only include such a section after we have exceptional sourcing for it. The conspiracy theorists are alleging malfeasance on the part of the investigators, who are living people, and thus this has BLP implications also. Again, if this theory has any credibility, the mainstream press would pick it up, and we can then cite those reliable sources. If the mainstream press is hesitating, so should we. Crum375 17:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we do need decent sources - but all we need to do is find a reliable source that mentions the alternative theory as existing, even without going into much detail and possibly even rejecting the theory themselves. Such a thing is bound to exist somewhere. Still, I agree, based on what I know of air crashes, that thus far all I've seen on this 'alternative theory' is complete bullshit. Sorry for speaking my mind, but we really shouldn't shy away from it when it is warranted, and I feel it was warranted there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur. Also, at this point, it's probably best to wait for a consensus here before attempting to post the section again. We don't need to get in to a minor revert "police action" while discussion is still ongoing. - BillCJ 17:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with the need for exceptional sources. One of the things that sticks in my craw is that if this were a legitimate effort by pilots from both AF and BA to contest the official findings, and it had solid backing, both pilots' unions would be heavily involved, as well. They have clout and they easily could have gotten significant media attention. That simply isn't the case here. A tidbit of trivia: the DC-10 that dropped the rubstrip was CO's N13067. When CO started to park their DC-10 fleet, this aircraft was one of the first to come here to Mojave for storage. Less than 3 weeks later, it was already being parted out, one of the fastest part-out sequences of any of the -10s. CO was in a big hurry to get rid of the thing. I was told by the on-site CO rep that the offending engine had been pulled immediately after the incident and was still in quarentine due to the on-going litigation. When 067 was cut up, a friend of mine an I were able to salvage a few pieces off it...he got one of the N numbers, and I have a chunk of skin in the garage from just above the L4 door with the fleet number, "067" on it. My wife just shakes her head.... AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>>"26 SEP 2000 A lawyer representing some of the 113 people killed in July`s Air France Concorde crash said he would sue Continental Airlines based on evidence from a preliminary report into the disaster. (Reuters)"<<

I wonder if this was part of the reasoning for scrapping the 10 so fast and if maybe we could add it into the article. Where are the Reuters sourced from exactly? I can find it mentioned in many web pages all over but with the need for exceptional sources it should come from the main source I think.
I found this site with links to the BEA reports: http://www.concordesst.com/accident/report.html
I also am confused because Concorde should have been able to continue to fly with only two engines. I did read somewhere that there was a problem with losing power from engines 3 and 4 but can't find the source. It was something about ingesting fuel wash. Anybody know where this was. I can't find it anywhere now. UB65 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, people need to understand that Concorde, being a delta-winged aircraft, is flown below minimum drag speed on take-off and landing and so has a concept known as Vzrc, zero rate-of-climb speed, which is where thrust is just equal to the drag. At transatlantic weights (408,000lb approx.) for the 3-engine case with undercarriage down this is 212kt. Once the third engine failed, Vzrc then increases to 300kt, which could not be achieved with the drag of the undercarriage and the pitch attitude required to achieve the lift needed to stay airborne. The result is the sudden climb as the rapidly increasing angle of attack gave more lift but at the cost of a rapid speed loss, then the aircraft pitched up as the vortex behaviour changed the centre of pressure (the attached vortices separate over 25 degrees AoA). It also rolled towards the failed engines. By then the crew had no control of the aircraft, their fate was sealed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.159.137 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is found in pages 175 & 176 in the official accident report. Apparently, to counteract the severe bank to the left, the pilots retarded the #3 & #4 thrust levers to idle, and that did enable the plane to roll back to the right, so that it was almost level when it contacted the ground. The possibility of air interruption to those engines was speculated upon too, but they did hear sounds on the CVR, of what they thought to be the thrust levers contacting the idle stops, so it is likely that thrust was deliberately retarded, just so the pilots could prevent the plane from going upside down.
They also concluded that the damage to the plane, from the fire and rupture of the #5 fuel tank, was so extensive that the plane would have crashed, even if all four engines had continued to provide max thrust.
Although a moot point, in that kind of situation, it is a generic fact that no 4-engine airliner in existence can do anything but crash while taking off at MAXATOG, if it loses the thrust of two engines during the initial takeoff stage (before the speed has increased enough to permit a reduction from max takeoff thrust to max climb thrust, and the retraction of flaps and undercarriage). With only two engines providing thrust at that stage of flight, the only way to maintain minimum safe airspeed is to lower the nose, which results in the plane descending. That is the precise coffin corner that a pilot will be forced into: Hold the nose up, to prevent the plane from losing altitude----which would guarantee a stall and loss of control----or lower the nose to maintain control until it slams into the ground. No airliner is required to be able to continue safe flight, after the loss of two engines, during the takeoff regime, to gain certification. EditorASC (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of hotel[edit]

I wonder what the name of the hotel the Concorde crashed into really was. This article has alternatively "Les Relais Bleus" and "Hotelissimo". Of the references, CNN quotes French media for Relais; the French Wikipedia, Aviation-safety.net, and other articles on BBC have Hotelissimo; others (including the BEA report) have "hotel" or nothing. I have no idea, but would guess Hotelissimo is correct. Klehti 08:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of googling (and straining my French) produced this quote: "Une roue du train d’atterrissage est dressée vers le ciel à quelques mètres de l’hôtel voisin, le Relais Bleu, miraculeusement intact", quoted here: [11]. So it would be quite safe to change Relais to Hotelissimo, I think. Klehti 08:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the name of the hotel not "La Patte d'Oie"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.159.137 (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the Hotel the Concorde crashed into was indeed "Hotelissimo". This Hotel was hit and completely destroyed and still is the crash site that you visit today for mourning. The hotel next to it was called "Les Relais Bleus" and while it was slightly damaged (All windows broken, light structural damage) it was quickly repaired. However - it was sold something like a year after the crash as few people wanted to stay at the "Les Relais Bleus" because of the rather difficult location next to a pretty deadly plane crash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterKyodai (talk • contribs) 19:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debris[edit]

A picture of the offending piece of debris would be useful. Bastie (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on CSMonitor: File:Http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow site/storage/images/media/images/0202-concorde-crash-metal-strip/7329218-1-eng-US/0202-concorde-crash-metal-strip full 600.jpg

Also see my comments above. 98.195.78.35 (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)WilliamTheFriar[reply]

Was this bit of metal not important to the DC-10? What happened to that aircraft, the flight number of which isn't mentioned? 68.148.233.117 (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crew[edit]

Who were the crewmembers? Should this be mentioned in the article? Bastie (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot: Christian Marty = one of the first people to windsurf across the atlantic http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pilot-was-one-of-few-to-have-windsurfed-across-the-atlantic-707690.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.18.171 (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresented References[edit]

Reference 14 does not support the facts it is cited in reference to. Please check and correct. Dioptre (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looked into, your concern does not appear to be the case currently. Please comment if this condition continues to exist but please be more specific. Veriss (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More detail on Concorde design problems[edit]

Although Continental definitely installed an incorrect part on their plane, the strip of metal would be unlikely to cause such a disastrous result on a conventional airliner. I think the article could use more detail on the inherent problems of the Concorde which led to this result. Specifically, because of its delta wing configuration, the Concorde must have a much higher take-off speed than conventional airliners. This higher take-off speed means that tires are more likely to shred when impacted by runway debris. Moreover, because of the higher take-off speed, tire fragments from a burst tire will travel much faster and with more energy than would be the case for the take-off of a conventional airliner. Finally, I think there may be some sources which say that the large delta wing fuel tank is more likely to sustain damage from a blown tire than would a conventional wing, which is not located so directly above the tires and does not extend so far rearward behind the tires. --Westwind273 (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the delta wing design would make the tanks more vulnerable, but I am sure that the thickness of the aluminum skin was woefully inadequate to protect against the increased kinetic energy of tire and wheel shrapnel. No doubt in my mind, they knew the much higher tire speeds would cause some tires to explode on takeoff, and that such would increase the risk of damage to the plane. But, they had to cut corners to keep the weight down. The engines were good ones, but not nearly powerful and fuel efficient enough to allow for a much heavier SST. They had to get it into production, to avoid all kinds of political calamities, if they had decided to do what any private enterprise maker would have done: Cancel the project long before they lost their shirt on it.
I have inserted a new "Previous Tire Incidents" section which shows that they had to have known how dangerous exploding tires could actually be. EditorASC (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mode of failure (shock wave transferring the impact energy to [whoops] elsewhere on the tank) was unprecedented in civilian aircraft. After the accident it became known that military aircraft had suffered similar failures. (I have no details on these.) The manufacturer had made efforts to limit objects which would puncture the tank but never considered the shock wave mode of failure. I will make a new section with some comments on the article. Fotoguzzi (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the accident flight before taking off the Captain ordered the fuel tanks completely filled, and as a result there was no cushioning air space at the top of the tanks which would have allowed the shock waves to disperse harmlessly. Normally the tanks are only filled to a certain level to allow for this air space.
He also took on 3 tonnes of taxiing fuel, but this was not used as there was no delay in being given clearance to the runway, as a result the aircraft took-off with a too-rearward CofG, as this fuel was contained in the tank at the rear of the aircraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.228 (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is this fiction[edit]

"This lethal debris carried the energy in excess of twenty .44 Magnum gun blasts."

Since when is energy scientifically measured in gun blasts? And it isn't cited, either. Garbage.69.165.148.195 (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Engineer Shut Down Engine[edit]

Concerning the shutdown of engine the original article said that the "crew" shut the engine down. This is false. It was the flight engineer that shut down engine 2 on his own initiative. According to the accident report he shut down the engine without notifying the captain or being instructed to do so by the captain as required. John Chamberlain (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an inline source for that, and expand it within the article? Hohum (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The accident report says this (on page 175):
  • Engine 2's fire alarm was activated.
  • The Flight Engineer announced "shut down engine 2" and the Captain called for the engine fire procedure.
  • Engine 2's thrust lever was then positioned at idle, the fire handle was subsequently pulled by the Flight Engineer.
Thus, the Captain was notified and he did command the engine fire procedure be carried out, which is what the FE did in response. EditorASC (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified that in the article too, and removed the "citation needed" banner. I tried to put in page 175, as the precise source, but that kills the link to the official accident report. Think I need help on how to provide that page, without killing the link. Also, I capitalized "Captain" and "Flight Engineer," because that is the format used in the official accident report. EditorASC (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The No. 2 engine fire alarm was activated by the heat from the external fire and, apart from a slight loss of power due to the superheated air entering the engine via the air intake, the engine was still giving power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.228 (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flaps or Slats[edit]

To save on weight, the Concorde was designed to takeoff without the assistance of flaps or slats - it's a delta wing, you don't have flaps or slats on a delta wing, you don't need them as the Concorde wing can be used at much higher angle of attacks than normal wings, that's why Concorde had a 'droop snoot' so the pilots could see the runway when it was landing, otherwise the nose would be too high in the air. The Avro Vulcan doesn't have flaps or slats either, it's because (apart from other reasons of control) delta wings don't need them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.31 (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with a modicum of aviation background knows all that. The point was that they settled on the delta wing design, because it was the only way to avoid the extra weight of flaps and slats or by using a swing-wing design. The delta wing saved a lot on weight, but the trade-off was that it required a much higher takeoff speed and that meant a much greater risk of tyre bursts. They knew that increased the risk of structural damage, in the event of a tyre burst on takeoff, but it was the price they were willing to pay to get the plane in the air before the growing political hostility forced the entire project to be canceled. Well, they did it and ended up selling it to themselves. That crash would not have happened, if they had made the bottom wing skin thick enough to resist significant damage from a tyre burst. But, that would have added too much weight, so they decided to accept that increased risk. Sadly, they finally lost that bet. EditorASC (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone with a modicum of aviation background knows all that - well I just though I'd tell you as it wasn't obvious that many of you had any knowledge.
How unfortunate that the Concorde designers took it for granted that there wouldn't be other airliners in such poor state of repair that they took off along runways shedding parts and other pieces of junk along the way. I suspect that back in the 1960s they sort of assumed that most first-world aircraft would be maintained by qualified engineers, rather than the sort of bunch of trained(?) monkeys that appeared to have repaired a passenger-carrying airliner with all the skill one expects to find displayed in a scrapyard. The fact that the offending strip of metal was (apparently) so poorly made is one thing, but that whoever did the repair couldn't even fix the thing on securely so that it remained in-situ, is something else. It was then allegedly several weeks after the accident before anyone in the offending airline even noticed the part was missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.53.118 (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... Nice to see that the Court agrees with me:
Continental Airlines is ordered to pay Air France €1 million for the 2000 crash of Air France Flight 4590, the only fatal incident in Concorde history.
... from Wikipedia front page; In the news - 8 Dec 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.61.65 (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note you left out the part about the French Appeals Court overturning the criminal conviction, letting only civil damage remain as compensation to Air France for “damage to its image.” Difficult to not laugh at that. Air France conducted improper maintenance on a critical part of the airplane, but it was Continental Airlines that damaged Air France's image?
And, we wonder why anyone might SUSPECT the French investigators of slanting the facts to protect the French? I certainly wouldn't say they actually did that, but it does seem understandable as to why some might think so. EditorASC (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" ... Air France conducted improper maintenance on a critical part of the airplane" - The accident was entirely due to the metal strip on the runway. If it hadn't been present the tyre would not have burst and the accident would not have occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.157 (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

& the missing spacer on the left undercarriage bogey? have you even read the report?

duncanrmi (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions[edit]

Having carefully read the BEA final report I detected no indication of any weight or ordinal significance assigned to the bullet points found within section 3 - CONCLUSION and the subsections 3.1 Findings or 3.2 Probable Causes. There is, therefore, no support for the parenthesized statement "in order of importance" that appears at the beginning of the Conclusions section of the article. I have removed the unsupported statement for this reason. Allenc28 (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly remember a UK tv documentary stating that BA's operational procedures insisted that an airport vehicle drive the length of the runway prior to Concorde takeoff or landing to check for any debris. Air France did not insist on this procedure, which would have discovered and removed the rub strip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.196.211 (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tyre?[edit]

WTF is a tyre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.206.89 (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • British spelling of "tire." WhisperToMe (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that there are clues in the context. DBaK (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BEA links to archive[edit]

I am directly linking these so that they archive:

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centripetal, not centrifugal force[edit]

Centrifugal force is often intuitively confused with centripetal force. However, when this is the case, i.e. when the observer is not spinning around the object he is describing, it is just a fictitious force. The force that prevents the rubber of a spinning wheel from flying away is a centripetal, not a centrifuge force. When there is structural failure of the tyre, the elements that hold the rubber together to spin around the axis of the wheel break apart, the centripetal force is abolished, and rubber fragments fly away following a straight path which is tangential (and not perpendicular) to the rim. When a wheel spins faster, the centripetal force required to prevent the tyre from rupturing is greater, i.e. a sturdier tyre is needed.Sophos II (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyre vs. Tire[edit]

Noticed the explanation in the article states "this British aircraft accident". Are we referring to the nationality of the aircraft manufacturer (British-French joint venture)? Might be better to just say the article uses British English. N419BH 17:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The initial versions of the article were written using British English. It is my understanding that that alone, in the absence of any strong connection of the subject matter to a country using another spelling system, determines that British English spellings should be used in this article. 82.41.251.147 (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the second of those two justifications is probably the safest on this occasion. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would an English person know what a tire is? Most Americans have no clue what a tyre is. Sierra shadow (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Spelling article discusses differences in spelling within the national varieties of English, including which ones use the tyre and tire spelling variants. The National varieties of English section of the Manual of Style gives guidance on how the national variety of English used in particular articles is chosen. It says: When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. When an article has not yet evolved to that point, the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted. I don't think that the topic here has any strong national ties which should affect the variety of English adopted. Has the article evolved sufficiently to make it clear which variety is being used? I would say yes and that it looks as though it's British English that's being employed. If there were to be an argument over whether the article has evolved sufficiently, I don't know who should be called the first significant contributor, though the version history shows that the editor who started the article was using UK & Irish English.     ←   ZScarpia   07:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Most Americans have no clue what a tyre is." Really? Let me get this straight. So, an American reader would be looking at an article about an aircraft accident - a "foreign" aircraft, at that - and see something like " this piece of debris, still lying on the runway, ruptured a tyre which then burst." or "This metal fragment punctured the Concorde's tyres" or " the tyre of the number 2 wheel" or "the scuff marks of four tyres on the runway" and when they got to "tyre" they'd just be completely stuck? They wouldn't be able to construct anything from the context, or from a similar word in AmE which looks pretty much the same but has one letter different? I mean if that really were a problem then perhaps they could phone a friend, or use Google, or contact the British Embassy for help. But you know I have this sneaking feeling that they might just read the word and translate it to "tire" without it being too difficult. I do this all the time with words like color, analyze, eraser, hood, trunk which are differently spelt, or just different words, in BrE and I claim no special language skills. Is it really, seriously, your claim that this spelling would throw a large number of American readers off completely? I don't mean to be rude but I find it vanishingly difficult to grasp how this could possibly be so. Usually we just live and let live in our varieties of English and we get along just fine. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC) PS These comments also available in Geordie; translation costs invoiceable.[reply]
It seems pretty clear that the article uses British English. I've added a relevant tag to the talk page, and in case the spelling of tyre confuses some readers, I have wikilinked its first occurrence in the body text. (Hohum @) 14:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You are a fine fine editor and I remove my (bowler) hat in homage. :) DBaK (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's it DBaK - you tell 'em! - LOL! - BTW, shouldn't that be '(derby) hat' instead of '(bowler) hat'? - LOL! - only kidding. What fun one can have with the colonials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.100.56 (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the only people who use the word "TIRE" are believe it or not the Americans of the US. The word "Tyre" is universal except where the US has influenced people. Incidentally "Colour" is "English" as against "Color" which is Latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.59.71 (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI Americans make a very large percentage of the viewers of the English Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previous tyre incidents (first discussion)[edit]

This section seems too detailed for an article about the crash. This level of detail would make sense in a "design issues" section of a Concorde article, however. I believe the section would benefit from more scope with less detail: Early remedies to the tank puncture problem were a redesign of the wheels, elimination of the brand of tire most prone to disintegration, and the addition of deflectors to some of the aircraft. I had thought some tire redesign had also occurred before the crash. (My speculation based on something read a long time ago: Were the tires redesigned to fail in larger chunks without the knowledge that this might cause a shock wave with a large rupture elsewhere on the tank rather than the relatively small punctures from smaller tire chunks?)

None of these remedies considered this shock wave effect which was known in the military but not experienced in commercial aviation. My understanding is that attempts were made before the crash to limit objects that would puncture the tank, but that a tank puncture was not considered fatal. The shock-wave-induced rupture allowed much more fuel to escape than would have been expected based on previous experience. Fotoguzzi (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The shock-wave effect would not have occurred but for the Captain filling the aircraft's fuel tanks to the brim such that there was no air space within the tanks. He had what he thought were good reasons for doing this, but unfortunately it came back to haunt him. Air is compressible, while fuel is not, and the air space at the top of the tank would have helped dissipate some of the energy of the tyre fragment impact.
Normally an aircraft's fuel tanks are not filled completely, a small amount of space is usually left at the top of thank for air, to allow for expansion of the fuel due to temperature changes during flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.16 (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section - as well as being unsourced - has little relevance to the crash of AF4590. The 1979-81 incidents resulted in three safety recommendations: (1) landing gear should not be raised in the case of a tyre failure; (2) improved cabin crew training for emergency landings; (3) correct CVR operation should be checked before every take-off. All of these recommendations were implemented, but did not and could not have made any difference to the crash: the airplane was so badly damaged that they could not have raised the landing gear even if they had wanted to, and they never managed to make an emergency landing. 82.16.130.160 (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overweight[edit]

The article doesn't seem to mention why the aircraft was overweight. I saw a show suggesting some luggage was loaded that wasn't supposed to be but none of this is mentioned in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft was 3000 kg overweight due to he Captain ordering additional fuel as well as also ordering the passenger's baggage to be loaded despite the aircraft then being overweight. The passengers were due to join a cruise liner and so he did not want them to be missing their luggage. The overweight would not have been a problem if the CofG had not been too rearward. This was because the taxiing fuel was not subsequently needed or used, and this additional fuel (and weight) was in the rear fuselage tank. Normally this fuel would have been consumed in taxiing the aircraft to the runway and in the wait before take-off clearance. On the day however there was no delay, and so the fuel was still there when it took-off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.228 (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Event summary wording[edit]

In "Event summary" we have this: "Five minutes before that decision, a Continental Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-10 destined to Newark (US), lost a titanium alloy strip ..." To me, that reads very oddly - I have never come across the usage "destined to" in this kind of context. I'm not changing it, because maybe it is airline-speak or something, but were it not for that concern I'd be wanting to look for something that read more easily in everyday English. What do you think? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: A quick check on Google (yes I know I know) looking for +"destined to" site:en.wikipedia.org didn't find any examples like this in the first ten pages. (I got bored after that, sorry.) Every example I could find was of the form destined to infinitive like destined to live, destined to die, destined to be, destined to levitate over a vat of custard (I made one of those up) but none of them - so far - is of the form the flight was destined to New York, the flight was destined to Campbeltown, etc. Not exactly scientific, I grant you, but it does increase my unease about this usage, which I feel may be, ahem, destined to change. Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No response on this. I've changed it. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

English:

French:

French on English domain:

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you list all these files? Veriss (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because if the BEA takes them down, we still have access. They have robots.txt on their servers, which means web.archive.org isn't displaying archives of those pages publicly. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was curious because that was a lot of work on your part. I learned something new about archival as well. :) Veriss (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which plane?[edit]

Quoting this article: "Also facing fines or a custodial sentence were the designers of the plane, who prosecutors say knew that the plane's fuel tanks could be susceptible to damage from foreign objects, as well as a French official responsible for the regulation of the plane's safety.[36]"

Which plane's fuel tanks? Is this referring to the Concorde operated by Air France, or the Continental plane? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definite article[edit]

This edit makes a good point - Concorde is very often referred to thus, not as "the Concorde". So it is (/was: sob) typical to say "I saw Concorde today" rather than "I saw the/a Concorde today" (though I am far from sure it was never heard). However, I felt the edit may have gone too far too fast, since I think there is certainly room to say "the Concorde" when we are talking about a specific example, as we are at some places, naturally in the article. Do you see what I mean? :) I undid the edit pending a bit of discussion (I hope). Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of the tyre fragment into the wing[edit]

The aforementioned speed is stated to be 310mph. But it cannot exceed the speed at which the Concorde was rolling at the moment of tyre break-up, which is the speed of the outermost part of the tyre. And that speed cannot itself exceed (and is probably rather less than) the takeoff speed of approximately 250mph. Where did the 310mph figure come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concorde main wheel tyres were inflated to 232lb/sq in and due to the severity of the cut the tyre more or less exploded rather than simply bursting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AAIB and the investigation[edit]

Having just read the official English translation of the BEA report, it includes a section where the British AAIB participants criticize the French judicial investigation blaming it for restricting their access to material (physical and documentary), and offer a different view on a couple of aspects of the crash. Has anyone other than the AAIB commented on that aspect? Is it of significance to the article - the BEA discounts their different interpretations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DC-10 image[edit]

The DC-10 current image in the article could be changed by this image? Is the actual DC-10 that caused Concorde accident.
Before Continental Airlines as N13067, it was leased by Alitalia to Eastern Airlines as N391EA.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Runway inspection (first discussion)[edit]

The claim "French authorities acknowledged that a required runway inspection was not completed after the Continental takeoff, as was protocol for Concorde-takeoff preparation" is not supported by the citation made in reference to it, which actually contradicts it. Neither the ABC News article nor the BEA report mention runway inspections being part of preparations for Concorde takeoff. French airports made three routine runway inspections per day; the inspection of runway 26R scheduled for 3pm had been delayed due to a fire-fighting exercise, but since the Continental aircraft departed at 4:37pm and the Concorde at 4:42pm it is unlikely that an inspection at 3pm would have made any difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oktal (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the investigatory team may have wanted to try and rule out the possibility that the metal strip had come from some other aircraft that had taken off before the Continental Airlines DC-10? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Air France Flight 4590. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Air France Flight 4590. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Runway inspection (second discussion)[edit]

A runway inspection, scheduled for an hour and a half before the Continental airplane took off, had not been carried out.

There would have to have been an inspection after the Continental plane took off, to have revealed the lost part. Valetude (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to discuss this exact thing after being reverted for removing it wholesale. I'm so glad that someone else noticed this. I had just removed the part about the inspection for the same reason. An additional person noticed this two years ago (two sections above this one). I think it should be completely removed. -- 143.85.169.19 (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No strong view, as long as consensus is established here. But I'm left wondering why it was included in the original BEA report. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sentence - it's not relevant to the accident, and breaks up the narrative. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous tyre incidents (second discussion)[edit]

The article states that "During its 27 years in service, Concorde had about 70 tyre- or wheel-related incidents, 7 of which caused serious damage to the aircraft or were potentially catastrophic". It then lists nine incidents. Which begs the question, which are the seven serious ones, and why are two minor ones included in the list? 80.2.106.75 (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I suspect it's probably down to ease of access to sources. But the full list, and categorisation thereof, is obviously key to resolving that. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here's what I propose to do. The "seven serious incidents" claim is sourced to the Guardian, which defines a serious incident as one in which a fuel tank was punctured. The incidents in Oct 1979 and Feb 1981 do not meet that criterion. The first of those is unsourced, so I have no compunction in deleting it. The second has two sources, so we know it happened, but it doesn't meet the Guardian's definition of serious, so I propose to delete that as well. Any objections? 80.2.106.75 (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concorde's designers had considered tyre failure during the design process which is one of the reasons Concorde's tyres were initially rated to 250 mph, and it was calculated that any damage caused by a tyre bursting would be confined to small punctures of a tank that would not endanger the aircraft, other than in the loss of the fuel itself. After the accident, apart from the other modifications, new tyres were developed with an increased rating to 290 mph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.228 (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Air France Flight 4590. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No other options? (Overshooting the runway)[edit]

What i dislike is the statement that there were no other options than takeoff. It suggests that aborting the takeoff was not an option since there was not enough runway left and the landing gear would have collapsed. Personally i thought this over and over. We all know what happened in the case of takeoff - chances of survival were around 0 percent. Runway 26R has like 1000 meter of meadow after it, then comes another 200 m of aircraft parking space. I think if the takeoff would have been aborted in the last second it would have also lead to a crash, but maybe at least with survivors. I think the structural damage would have been less severe. So i would challenge that sentence " its only option was to take off." We all know that this was not an option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterKyodai (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and think that sentence should be deleted from the article. It suggests that Captain Marty had the time to weigh up which would be the least bad choice. The paragraph following the "no other option" claim gives the real reason why he continued with the takeoff: i.e. because they had already passed the V1 speed. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As is the case with most airliners, the crew are unable to see the rear of the aircraft from the cockpit and so were reliant on their flight instruments, so it is likely that through most of the incident they were unaware of the seriousness of the situation, and initially thought they had a simple engine fire. It was only the rapidly deteriorating extent of the situation towards the end of the flight that the crew would have known something was seriously wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.16 (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Air France Flight 4590. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative theory[edit]

"The Concorde had veered close to an Air France Boeing 747 carrying then-French President Jacques Chirac who was returning from the 26th G8 summit meeting in Okinawa, Japan, which was much further down the runway than the Concorde's usual takeoff point; only then did it strike the metal strip from the DC-10."

What does Chirac's plane have to do with where Concorde hit the metal strip? Concorde hit the metal strip where the metal strip lay, and would have done so if Chirac's plane had still been in Japan. Can anyone make sense of that paragraph or, failing that, can it be deleted? 80.2.106.75 (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Had assumed this was just part of the narrative. The veering may have been a crew distraction, but they could not have seen or avoided the strip. Could be omitted or clarified. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2017

(UTC)

The captain of Chirac's 747 told a BA Concorde pilot that the accident aircraft, veering left as it took off, overflew the 747 by about 20 feet. So it was airborne at that point. The BA pilot, in an interview, has pointed out that the Concorde should not have been using that runway in the first place because it was grossly overweight and that runway had a tailwind, exacerbating the problem. Had it not been for the excess weight, the Concorde should have lifted off before it ever reached the DC-10 debris. But the quote above seems to be mistaken: the Concorde had already hit the debris and lifted off by the time it passed (over) the 747. Khamba Tendal (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Air France Flight 4590. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

This rather long Talk page has comments going back to 2003. It would probably be a good thing if automatic archiving were set up. Does anyone object? DBaK (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tyre brand?[edit]

I do remember that the tyre manufacturer send two crisis communication teams immediatly after the incident. Sadly I do not remember the company. Who has an idea? 92.117.157.232 (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, originally Concorde used two makes of tyre, Dunlop on the UK fleet, and Michelin for the French fleet. IIRC, the later re-designed 'zero growth' ones fitted after the accident were developed by Michelin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.42 (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few proposals for a possible FA push[edit]

Hello. I would like to discuss a potential FA push for the article. Using Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 (an FA) as a reference, I’m possibly thinking about reorganizing the article in a similar format, first with the flight and crew section, followed by the accident, investigations, final reports and aftermath sections. I’m also thinking about describing the flight background (i.e. crew members, aircraft type, nationalities of the passengers and registration, moving the flight charter from the lead to that particular section, time and date of departure) for the aircraft and crew section. For the accident, we should explain what happened starting with the Concorde tyre hitting the debris, move the time zones to the appropriate section and describe the deaths of those on the ground. We may also need to use parentheses for the NTSB if necessary and add the BEA’s full name. The ultimate goal is to feature it as a TFA on 25 July 2019 (the 19th anniversary of the crash). If there are any further suggestions, please let me know.

Another one of the reasons for this discussion is that my edits, which were in good faith, were unfortunately reverted; as such, I’m taking the bold, revert and discuss route in discussing some of my recent changes to the article and subsequently getting a possible consensus. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your more recent round of changes are much better, added clarity. - Ahunt (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a "British aircraft accident"[edit]

'Tyre' is the correct spelling in this article about a British aircraft accident. Please do not edit it to 'tire'. Thanks

In what must be the silliest controversy I have ever taken part in on Wikipedia - I made what seemed like a sensible and totally inconsequential edit to a hidden note removing the words "British aircraft accident" from the above. The reasons being that this was an Air France plane at a French airport and other than the concorde involved was the product of a joint Anglo/French development some 50 years ago nothing in the article or elsewhere singles out any factor with anything to do with Britain. If this was a 747 (US built) at Heathrow I'm sure it would be approriate to write Tyre. This article is already tagged that British English is the appropriate version of English to use and adding something questionable into the hidden note only lessens its impact. Despite all of this DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered seems very attached to this piece of fiction maybe he/she can explain their reasoning here. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I do not like your childish, aggressive tone of voice. DBaK (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Your reply is seriously perplexing and worrysome. So if I understand you correctly you are refusing to discuss this when it was you who suggested this go to talk. That is coming across as being extremely immature. Please answer the question. How can this be a "British aircraft accident" as is written?- detail obviously you are vigorously supporting. Andrewgprout (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion ongoing - I have removed the whole hidden note - the article is appropriately tagged and should be sufficient to ensure continued use of British English. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Christian Marty[edit]

So I found on the French version of the article that captain Christian Marty has his own separate article. I plan to translate it into English, but it says it will overwrite this article as his name is a redirecting link. Currently the translation name is "Christian Marty (Pilot)." Any suggestions? Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Christian Goetz" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Christian Goetz. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Callsign[edit]

How come the call sign of this flight wasn’t AFR/Air France 4590 heavy, when Concorde’s MTOW is over 300,000 lbs. I know that BAW used a special Concorde call sign, but AFAIK AFR never did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.131.7 (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gushed being unprofessional[edit]

I feel as though gushed is unprofessional and distracting, it should be replaced with a synonym, unless it is a direct quote, which I do not believe so. Gushed has negative connotations and is used in more perverse areas. -Toast (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this here. Your attempt to substitute the terms "surged" and then "jetted" were reverted because both can be misunderstood and don't accurately capture what happened. In aviation fuel tank engineering, "fuel surging" refers to unwanted movement of fuel within a fuel tank, causing centre of gravity issues. Fuel doesn't normally surge out of a tank. A jet aircraft jetting fuel is not clear at all.
The two refs cited for that paragraph actually say one or more punctures in at least one fuel tank resulting in a major fuel release and This impact sent a shockwave through the fuel tank, which ruptured from inside out. Fuel ignited from a spark from wiring in the undercarriage.
If you don't like the current wording of When the tyre fragments struck the wing, the tank ruptured and fuel gushed out, then we need some new wording that captures the concept that a fuel leak emitted a large amount of fuel. How about: "When the tyre fragments struck the wing, the tank ruptured and caused a large fuel leak". How is that? - Ahunt (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, but it didn't cause the fuel to leak, how about instead it could be "When the tyre fragments struck the wing, the tank ruptured, thereby releasing large quantities of fuel." In that the wording is it not implying that the tank rupturing is what caused fuel to leak, when instead it was the tyre. Fuel tanks can be ruptured without releasing large amounts of their cargo. It also allows for the tank rupturing to be a separate fact. I feel as though it gets the point across without having words like leak which makes the issue sound minor, and adding large would confuse the reader a bit more. -Toast (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure that sounds fine to me. - Ahunt (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, i'll edit it in. -Toast (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_France_Flight_4590&oldid=1215164605"