In Defense of the Concorde

by Charles Sebrell

On July 25^th a tragic air crash took the lives of 114 people. Air France Flight 4590, a Concorde, crashed shortly after takeoff from Charles De Gaulle airport near Paris into a small hotel 2 miles west of the airport. The tragedy is the sum of those 114 souls who perished. May God bless and keep them.

In the hours since the tragedy, the media from Jennings to the New York Times to the French Le Figaro, are prophesying that this is the demise of the Concorde.

What is this aircraft, dubbed early in its infancy as the SST (Supersonic Transport), and where did it come from and how did it come to be? And, most importantly, are these its final days?

There are those who will insist that the SST’s possibility was conceived in the days of Jules Verne, and thus those days mark its birth. I would call this its romantic birth.

The factual birth was in the late 1950s. The 1950s in general were definitely the heydays of aviation breakthroughs, second only to the rapid developments immediately following the Wright brother’s first powered flight.

In 1954 the first F-104 took flight, the first aircraft designed specifically for supersonic interceptor missions. Christened the Starfighter, the F-104 was in active service for nearly 30 years. Often referred to as the flying pencil, it was capable of speeds in excess of Mach 2 (twice the speed of sound).

Hot on its heels came a virtual armada of innovative designs and capabilities. The 4-engine B-58 Hustler, first supersonic bomber; the F-4 Phantom, twin engine fighter bomber, and the now famous RB-71 Blackbird were all of mid to late 1950s innovation.

It was during these years that the Concorde’s concept and design roots were put on paper. In late 1962 an Anglo-French agreement was signed to complete the design and eventual construction of an SST.

The first SST, Concorde 101, was rolled out on December 11, 1967, the culmination of, literally, tens of thousands of man-hours. Its maiden flight, however, did not take place until March of 1969, first by the French team followed in April by the British team flying Concorde 102.

Commercial service was even further away. After their maiden flights, numerous design and operational changes were made. After several years of intense work, the Concorde was finally type certified on October 13, 1975. She was now legal and ready for commercial service.

The first commercial revenue flight took place January 21, 1976, slightly 8 years after the first model rolled out of production and nearly 7 years after its first flight.

There were only 3 livery paint schemes on the Concorde: Air France, British Air, and Singapore Airlines. Singapore Airlines never did take delivery and the livery colors were removed and replaced with British Air.

In its 24 plus years of commercial service, and approximately 200,000 flight hours, the Concorde has never suffered a hull loss nor a fatality. This is a record the designers and maintainers are rightfully proud of.

Then on July 25^th this impressive record of safety came to a tragic end.

I do not have sufficient information to know what caused this crash. At the risk of adding to the plethora of speculation, I give the following possibility.

From the eyewitnesses I have heard, the most informative was a FedEx pilot who witnessed the event from his hotel window. He saw everything from the aircraft’s takeoff roll to the impact some 2 miles away. His recount of the event was calm, cool, and factual. His was the first eyewitness account aired in the US. To my disappointment, it was also the least aired as the networks rushed to air emotional, inaccurate, and often second-hand accounts.

Using this pilot’s account and several pictures I have seen published, I think it reasonable to form the following scenario. During the takeoff roll, and after V₁, an engine on the left side failed, followed by a 2^nd engine failure very soon after, probably within seconds. [V₁ is a "go/no go" speed. Prior to V₁, the pilot can safely abort the takeoff as he will have sufficient runway remaining to bring the plane to a safe stop. At and after V₁, the pilot is to proceed with the takeoff.]

The first engine failure was likely a catastrophic failure which then damaged the engine next to it and also punctured the wing fuel tank with hot metal parts. The engine failure could have been the result of FOD (foreign object damage) such as from a blown tire, or from internal failure.

The reported tire pieces found on the runway could have been the initial cause or could be the result of hot engine parts damaging the tires and causing them to fail. From pictures I have seen, I think this all took place within 15 to 20 seconds. Once airborne, the pilot reported he could not retract his landing gear. This may have been the result of severed hydraulic lines caused by the disintegrating engine.

The aircraft airborne, in a high drag state (gear down, takeoff flaps still extended and two engines out of service), did not have power enough to climb and accelerate. The relative high thrust on the right side, and no thrust on the left side resulted in the aircraft rolling to the left, and stalling out. Impact followed.

Despite this terrible tragedy, the Concorde will continue to fly. To borrow from Mark Twain, the demise of the SST is greatly exaggerated.

The SST is one of the most intensely maintained aircraft in the world. It will continue to fly and will likely live out its useful life without further incident.

On the ground, parked or taxing, the Concorde is a long legged gangly and out of place machine. But, once airborne, gear and flaps retracted, silhouetted against a blue sky, she is one of the sleekest, sexiest planes in the air, even in her maturity. If I could afford the ticket, I’d be on the next flight out.

July 29, 2000

Charles R. Sebrell, a Member of the Mises Institute, was an airline pilot for 28 years.