-
A Nation on the Edge
May 20, 2013 | 5 comments
-
April in Paris
April 11, 2013 | 11 comments
-
France Meets Ugly American
April 4, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Kerry Chéri
March 16, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Sarko Redux
March 11, 2013 | 4 comments
Letter From Paris
What Price Supersonic Grandeur?
Concorde’s end came not with a whimper but a tragic bang.
(Page 2 of 2)
Continental is the ideal scapegoat. Besides the offense, in French eyes, of being foreign, a small titanium strip fallen from a Continental plane taking off before the Concorde was found on the runway. This, French investigators — often loyal former employees of Air France — conveniently concluded, slashed the Concorde’s tire and caused the accident. Case closed, with victims’ families already paid generous financial settlements and sworn to silence.
That overlooks a few awkward things pointed out by Continental’s lawyers and a dogged investigative reporter for a French TV channel. Like the plane being overloaded with baggage. Like a wheel spacer that, due to an Air France maintenance error, was missing from the left main gear, leaving it skewed. (Air France itself, whose careless maintenance was noted even by French investigators, is bumptiously suing Continental in the trial. Malicious gossips wonder why it’s not a defendant instead.) Like testimony by a number of reliable eyewitnesses, including airport firemen and the veteran captain of Jacques Chirac’s taxiing plane, that the Concorde caught fire several hundred yards before it could have struck the titanium strip.
But the most damning argument against Concorde is its record of near disasters. “French civil aviation authorities should have stopped Concorde service years ago,” argues Olivier Metzner, Continental’s lead lawyer. “They wanted to protect the image of France it projected.” If the Paris disaster was Concorde’s first and only fatal crash, facts emerging in the current trial make clear that many passengers are lucky to be alive today: from 1976 to 2000 they unwittingly survived no fewer than 57 tire-related incidents. Thirty-two blowouts damaged the aircraft’s structure, engines, or hydraulics, and six resulted in penetration of one or more fuel tanks.
The worst, uncannily like the Paris crash, occurred in Washington on June 14, 1979. Air France Flight 054 to Paris blew two tires on its left main gear on takeoff from Dulles airport, hurling rubber and wheel rim debris at the left wing and engines. After a frantic passenger practically forced a crew member to look through his window at a 12-square-foot hole in the wing, the flight crew barely managed a landing at Dulles with Jet A-1 fuel spewing from a dozen holes in fuel tanks, engine damage, severed electrical cables, and loss of two out of three hydraulic systems.
The near-catastrophes continued. James B. King, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, wrote to his French counterpart on November 9, 1981, expressing his “serious concern” about “the repetitive nature of these incidents.” Besides the tire problems, Concordes occasionally lost parts of their elevators and rudders in flight. In 1998 the Federal Aviation Agency, noting “an unsafe condition” might exist on the Olympus engines that could result in shutdown or fire, ordered special inspections. As the resulting study warned presciently, “A major technical event would probably end Concorde operation.”
That event occurred 10 years ago this July. It ended not only the Concorde myth and the lives of more than 100 trusting people, but France’s brief, costly moment of supersonic grandeur.
About the Author
Joseph A. Harriss is The American Spectator’s Paris correspondent. His latest book, An American Spectator in Paris, was released this fall.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (37) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Joseph A. Harriss
More Articles From Letter From Paris
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/18/what-price-supersonic-grandeur
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack| 5.18.10 @ 9:02AM
Relying on the French is always a mistake. Relying on government engineers, French and UK ones, is a fatal mistake.
William Parker| 5.18.10 @ 9:47AM
Too bad that Ben Stein (see Stein's May 17th piece on flying American First Class) could not have been a passenger on that ill-fated July 25th 2000 Concorde flight.
If he had been, we would have been spared his constant bragging of how successful he is, how much money he has, and how he enjoys his luxurious life in his "many houses and apartments," and how he enjoys the fabulous perks of American First Class, and how the flight attendants adore him, ad nauseum, world without end, Amen.
Stan Redmond| 5.18.10 @ 10:00AM
Spoken like a true populist Obama (pbuh) supporter. Rather then take a tongue in cheek view of a great modern satirist, you wish him dead. I don't remember who said [paraphrasing] "A liberal sees a rich person and thinks how can I take their stuff away and a conservative thinks, how can I earn for myself what they have." You go a step further and just hope they die.
The best part is you can't help but read Ben Stein's blog posts you proclaim you hate. You can't even control yourself.
William Parker| 5.18.10 @ 10:46AM
No, Mr. Redomond, I am not a liberal Obama supporter.
I am, in fact, a traditional fiscal conservative--not a hell-bent, right-wing neoconservative, but a traditional conservative.
And I am sick of Mr. Stein's ilk. He is a status-seeking, showoff materialist.
By the way, Mr. Redmond, do you think there is a confederacy of conservatives? Do you think we should never criticize each other?
I will take on any conservative that I think is way out of line with traditional conservatism--and there are lots of them, including you, it seems.
PolishKnight| 5.18.10 @ 3:07PM
William, I spot an impostor! The terms "right wing neoconservative" are used by leftists to discredit conservatives. It would be like a dixiecrat saying they're not a socialist liberal.
Anyways, Ben Stein is at least honest about his enjoyment of life unlike limo liberals who proclaim the wonders of diversity while living in all white gated communities and preach the wonders of public transportation while driving everywhere...
Alan Brooks| 5.18.10 @ 6:01PM
"And I am sick of Mr. Stein's ilk. He is a status-seeking, showoff materialist."
But that is what will bring the GOP down. Let them destroy themselves.
JimE| 5.18.10 @ 10:10PM
Troll Parker,
You are a moron, liberal trolls always preface their message with how conservative they are before they launch their leftist tirades. Go back to play with your feces.
Miss Alabama| 5.18.10 @ 10:49AM
Ben Stein "a great modern satirist"?
Obviously, you have little knowledge of literature, and you certainly are not familiar with great satire.
KyMouse| 5.18.10 @ 12:06PM
Mr. Parker, why are you incapable of disagreeing with Mr. Stein without wishing that he were dead? Shame on you.
Reinhard| 5.18.10 @ 1:11PM
Parker,
What the hell does this article have to do with Ben Stein? Jealous idiot.
NavyBrat | 5.18.10 @ 1:30PM
Geez. Jealous much? For someone who says they're an old school conservative, you sound curiously like one of those social & economic justice malcontents on the left. And, bro, you wished death on someone. That doesn't do good things for your argument. As for your attemtps to purge all of us who don't toe YOUR line, again, you sound like a commie. But hey, why agree on the 98% of things that we would under normal circumstances? Let's just go YOUR route & wish death on people who aren't up to YOUR par. Cause THAT'LL get a lot done. In the words of Keyshawn Johnson, "COME ON, MAN!"
Gr0w1er| 5.18.10 @ 2:10PM
Jealous? Too much class envy. Careful- your slip is showing...
Jay Washburne| 5.20.10 @ 6:44AM
Mr. Parker: If Mr. Stein offends you so much, stick with Keith Olberman. I believe he's more your style.
Ace| 5.20.10 @ 6:53AM
Mr. Parker
U could always refrain from reading Ben if he annoys U so much.
I had other rather more permanent and painful suggestions, but, Ben's good example led me from them.
dittoheadadt| 5.18.10 @ 10:39AM
I'm reminded of reading WFB Jr.'s account of his round-the-world trip on the Concorde and the in-flight loss of part of the tail of the plane. Happened in 1989.
"After the Concorde left Christchurch
a section of rudder was lost. There was a "thud" and resultant vibration as the aircraft was climbing through 43,000 feet and accelerating to Mach 2. Repairs were carried out in Sydney so that the round-the-world charter could continue to London."
D.A. Darrough| 5.18.10 @ 10:53AM
Its sad that American, European and Russian aircraft manufacturers have not been able to develop a much more sophisticated and safer version of the Concorde after all these years. Say what you want about its safety record, but it did have tremendous impact on commercial aviation in its day. However, instead of learning and growing from that aircraft, the big aircraft companies continue to develop "boondoggles" like the A-380 and the 787!! What will they say when the wings fall off one of these turkeys??
Ned| 5.18.10 @ 2:17PM
To build "their" SST the Soviets did what they usually did/do and stole the French designs... unfortunately they didn't understand the metalurgy (either) and they built a dangerous aircraft that only made a few flights - crashing spectacularly at the '73 Paris Air Show
ACynic| 12.6.10 @ 10:46AM
Actually, they will not have to say anything because the wings will never fall off these planes.
In fact, wings never fall off planes, in case you have not noticied. As for boondoggles, the planes you cited have orders years into the future.
Boeing, and even Airbus, must produce products that customers will actually buy and this is the only way they can survive. Only governments can produce things that nobody wants and still survive.
Oh, that's right !! The Concorde WAS produced by governments and in fact, nobody WANTED to buy this plane; Air France and British Air (BOAC at the time) were FORCED to buy these disasters.
I suggest you look up the definition of "boondoggle" and "turkey."
Tony in Central PA| 5.18.10 @ 11:51AM
Supersonic is a completely different kind of flying, altogether. I'm amazed that this plane continued to operate as long as it did. I'm sure it cost billions of European tax dollars to keep it flying.
John Jarrell| 5.18.10 @ 12:11PM
I agree with Mr. Harriss in the case of the Concorde, though I believe he gave short shrift to operational restrictions imposed on it by the Eco-mafia and the fact that the Boeing design, to my recollection, was far superior to the Concorde . It had about twice the passenger capacity and was faster. It may have had a shot at being profitable. But remember that complaints about the possible effect of sonic booms was only one Eco-mafia complaint. The contrails (condensation trails) were going to generate a high-altitude cloud covers that would have a catastrophic effect on the environment.
Agreed, Concorde, by virtue of its Frankenstein-like orgins, was doomed from the start. But the SST concept was killed by pseudo-science and eco-hysteria.
Dustoff| 5.18.10 @ 4:50PM
DA
boondoggles" like the A-380 and the 787!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
787 boondoggle? Granted most new aircraft have their teething problems as the 787 has.
But I think you know little about the 787.
Pete| 5.18.10 @ 7:09PM
Hilarious stuff...who knew? I had never, ever heard a whisper of this before...wonder why? Shocking that Osama hasn't commissioned one to be built to speed up his "date nights" around the country.
Christopher Holland| 5.18.10 @ 10:00PM
The French and British governments spent billions building a plane that used a ton of fuel for every passenger carried, each passenger paid $10k to sit in a seat with as much room as as in a DC3 from the 1930s, the plane was noisy and it was so tempermental a burst tyre caused the engines to catch fire and the plane to crash. And they wonder what the program failed!!
John Erb| 5.19.10 @ 2:21AM
The government could not save the mustang ranch by making a profit selling whiskey and women how can we expect government to make a profitable airplane, air line, car company,health insurance or anything else?
Richard Baker| 5.19.10 @ 7:54AM
Dustoff:
Agree with you. Most of these correspondents have little knowledge regarding aircraft subjects. However, that doesn't seem to stop them from spouting their inanities. Some of these clowns would have complained that the DC-3 was too leading edge, which it was, in the '30s. Why build beyond the Ford Tri-Motor?
Francis W. Porretto | 5.19.10 @ 1:40PM
The Concorde has always reminded me of USAF's RB-70 project. That plane was based on a "lifting body" conception that allowed it to achieve very high speeds. Theoretically, it was an impressive achievement...but the Air Force canceled the program after only two planes were built. One of those planes is in the museum at Dayton; the other died a fiery death.
More than coincidence?
Ret AF| 5.22.10 @ 8:15PM
I think the XB-70 crash was due to a midair collision during a photo-op. One of the chase planes simply got too close. Human carelessness, yes, but of a differeent kind...
Richard Baker| 5.19.10 @ 8:28PM
No, Robert Strange McNamara (that truly was his name) canceled the XB-70 program. The Air Force wanted it as a high- speed deep penetrator into Soviet airspace. Mach 3+ for a bomber was a remarkable achievement. It was canceled by the man who, as President of Ford Motor Company, gave us the 1960 Falcon and tried to make the F-111 a carrier based fighter, among other brilliant decisions. The prototype which crashed did so because Joe Walker, in his F-104, got too close and was literally pulled into the wake of the B-70 on a photo pass with the resulting catastrophe.
RetAF| 5.22.10 @ 8:16PM
Oops, should have read Richards response.
ACynic| 12.6.10 @ 10:54AM
McNamara also gave us the concept of "body counts" in Vietnam to provide a "quantitative" value on the success or failure of that war. McNamara' policies, subsequent to his Ford Motor days, proved disasterous in everything he touched. He is your archetype bureaucrat; conceited, arrogant, vain, egomaniacal, know-it-all. Govt. is full of his type. This is why this country is in such a mess.
Mark Anderson| 5.20.10 @ 1:24AM
You neglect to say that the U.S. doomed the Concorde by not allowing it at most airports, and it had nothing to do with noise. Just the facts please.
kdi| 7.1.10 @ 3:45AM
beijing massage
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.6.10 @ 9:41AM
Mark,
I've been a pilot for forty years.
All airplanes break.
Super-sonic speeds generate super-critical operating envelopes.
Supersonic military aircraft have sophisticated "punch-out" capability primarily because airplanes break, (not in case they are shot down).
Concordes were stupid.
Brian Richard Allen | 1.6.11 @ 1:30AM
That overlooks a few awkward things like the total absence of anything approaching an acceptable level of cockpit management/chain of command, like the aircraft being more than six tons overloaded with taxiing fuel and late-loaded baggage, like the person in the pilot costume in the command seat electing to take off downwind on a runway having a third-world-like substandard surface for almost half its length and then, the combination of bad command decisions, bad maintenance and a dragging undercarriage assembly combining having required urgent evasive action to avoid imminent collision with a taxiing Air France B-747, dragging the aircraft airborne at 20 knots under its minimum speed for safe flight. Then like the person in the "flight engineer's" (airborne airplane plumber's) costume in the second officer's seat arbitrarily shutting down a perfectly fine and functioning engine, like the wheel spacer that, due to typical Air France maintenance was missing from the left main gear, leaving it skewed and dragging itself and its tires to pieces.
(Air France itself, whose lackadaisical "maintenance" was noted by even French "investigators," is contemptuously suing Continental in the trial. Truth seekers are aghast Air France is not a murder defendant.)
Like testimony by a number of reliable eyewitnesses, including the on-duty air traffic controller, several airport firemen, a half dozen or so Air France and British Airways Concorde captains and the veteran captain of Jacques Chirac's taxiing B-747, that the Concorde caught fire several hundred yards before it could have struck Continental Airlines tiny metal part.
And then there is the damning argument against the Air France's Concorde disaster contained in Air France's record of near disasters. French civil aviation authorities should have stopped Air France's Concorde service years ago." If the Paris disaster was Concorde's only fatal crash, facts have long made it clear that every surviving Air France Concorde passenger is lucky to be alive.
Concorde did not fail on July 25 2000. Air France failed.
The arrogance that builds the mountain of conceit from which flies Air France's chickens came home to roost!