The Truth Behind The Concorde's Tragic Failure | What Went Wrong: Countdown To Catastrophe
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2023
- We delve into the final moments of the iconic Concorde flight 4590. Witness the bustling scenes at Paris's Charles de Gaulle Airport, where 100 passengers board the Concorde for a luxurious transatlantic journey to New York, only for a string of seemingly unimportant errors to take down one of the greatest aviation feats of it's time.
Subscribe to WONDER to watch more documentaries: / wonderdocs
Survivors and first responders recall some of the greatest disasters of modern history and how engineering errors were frequently responsible for the traumatic events.
Follow us on Facebook: / thewonderchannel
WONDER is packed with binge worthy reality documentaries for hours of entertainment. Check out our hub of diverse and empowering stories which explore the extreme side of life!
Any queries, please contact us at: owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com
#wonder #documentary #catastrophe #disaster #concorde - Zábava
The Concord pilot that answered and discussed many of the issues with the Concord done a fabulous job explaining this tragedy. Rip to all that perished. Great documentary.
It is insane to me that one piece of tire on the runway killed 113 people and brought down such a magnificent piece of machinery like the Concorde. RIP to those who perished on AF4509. ❤
Reminicent of the space shuttle Challengers faulty o-ring failure that caused that disaster.
It was an engine cowling piece from continental flight 55, which was a DC-10
@@Dannyedelman4231 ohhhh, I thought it was a chunk of rubber from the DC-10. Thank you for correcting me though haha😅
A Continental Airlines Mechanic performed a faulty repair on the engine cowling that was not an approved repair per the maintenance manual. If I remember correctly, the mechanic was charged with a 2 year suspended sentence from his involvement.
@@redsus4839 chunk of tyre was actually from the concorde itself after it ran through the damn piece of metal from dc-10
I'll never forget this. The poor, poor, beautiful thing. I flew her three times. RIP Concorde.
The DC-10 strikes again.
Fr tho! Why is it always a DC10 😂
All problems started before the metal strips.
-Nineteen bags were loaded into the aft baggage compartment without being added to the load sheet
-The real weight was at least 700 kilograms more than the maximum takeoff weight under the conditions, and the center of gravity was at least 54.2% aft, farther back than the maximum of 54%
-Ahead of 4590 stopped on a taxiway off the left side of runway 26R, was a fully loaded Air France 747 containing French President Jacques Chirac, who had just returned from a trip to Japan.
Concorde veered toward the 747, First Officer Marcot shouted, “Watch out!-If they had aborted could have been worse in the history books!
And if 4590 hit the 747, it would have done what John Hutchinson said and would have literally killed Air France.
By the time they realized they had a fire they were already well past v2
I wish I had the opportunity to fly in one of these beauty 😢
AGAGAGAGAGAGAGA
I took a Concorde flight in the late 90's. Just a two-hour joy ride over the Bay of Biscay and back to Heathrow. Ridiculously expensive and my friends couldn't understand why I paid so much to go nowhere, but I'm glad I did. I'll never get another chance to fly so high and so fast.
Maybe not this one though lol
Wonder if any of these folks who are part of the aeronautical industry ever thought that if they could go back in time, they would decide to design airports with runways twice as long as they are, because it's absolutely nuts that if something goes wrong after V1, you HAVE to take off and add even more danger to your situation. They should have designed airports with extra long runways, so if a problem comes up after V1, they can still abort because they have plenty of runway left to slow down and come to a stop.
The problem is even if they could go back in time landing distances have steadily increased over time due to airliners getting bigger. Airports have expanded and got longer runways but unfortunately nobody wants to buy land for use as an emergency runoff area because runoff areas don’t make them money.
@@alexburke1899True. Airline industry always improves by blood. It's reluctant to implement any safety measures if it costs them money until it costs lives and lawsuits, then they change and improve.
Riding on Concorde was on my bucket list. Never did it. I remember as a child in the 60's in Chicago hearing sonic booms.
17:18 I like the way John describes it. Concorde was a miracle of engineering. So long...
I studied that accident, and before they even get into it, they overloaded the cargo bay and had about a 52% + aft of Centerline weight distribution, they had rolled it across and unimproved part of the runway, something that you never are supposed to do with a Concord, possibly damaging one or more of the tires, before liftoff. One of the people on the ground took pictures of it in the air before it ever got to that piece of metal on the runway that they claim cut one of the tires. The flight test engineer who tested the Concorde stated that anything over 50% aft. 52% or more means it will crash immediately after takeoff the plane is not capable of flight when overloaded with Cargo in the rear. And the people who loaded the plane stated that people brought way too much luggage because it was going to be a special flight. It almost ran into a Plane off the left side of the runway at Jacques Chirac himself was actually watching the plane take off as he was on a flight that had just landed. Might have been a blessing cuz then he couldn't have gotten in with Iraq and tried to cover for them.
French president was not landing at the time of the take-off of the Concorde it was actually parked next to the left side of the runway so he could watch it take off.
Do
You not find ironic he watching the send off
Like the world is corrupted
John Hutchinson is such a legend. I've seen him on 'seconds from disaster' and the smithsonian channel
I’m surprised that this aircraft hasn’t been “overhauled” and reintroduced. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about what advancements have been made since this crash though. It seems that there is a great deal of admiration for this plane and would be something that people would be interested in seeing in the air again.
It basically came down to the fact that the Concorde wasn't profitable for years prior to the crash and wasn't even remotely cost effective to overhaul or modernise anything.
Even before the crash, the writing was on the wall for this very niche service which had seen some planes barely 25% full (on a good day), but also the high running costs and strict speed restrictions over land masses. That's not even taking into consideration the rise of the internet making it far easier for people to communicate globally, thereby negating the need for fast travel such as this.
There are always people interested in seeing it up in the air but that won't pay the bills unfortunately. It might come back in the future but for now, people would rather pay little for a ticket and take 8 hours, as opposed to an almost ten fold cost to get there in 4 hours.
@@ondrejsedlak4935 Thank you for your response! In your opinion, what do you think it was about this aircraft that has made it into such a “legendary” plane? How it looked, its speed, the bragging rights of having spent such an enormous amount of money just to be able to say they flew in it? Personally, I think it’s a highly unattractive airplane. They look like tapirs or elephant seals in my opinion.
@@DEADisBEAUTIFUL Happy to have responded.
Basically it became the stuff of legends because it was able to traverse the Atlantic in record time (for a passenger jet) but also the incredible feat of engineering during a time when computer aided design was still in its infancy.
To be able to sustain that kind of speed with an aircraft of that size is frankly mind boggling as a significantly smaller fighter jets could only sustain speeds like that for an hour at best without burning out the engines (Exception was the SR-71, but that thing is a whole other kettle of fish). The Concorde could do it for several hours, all the while providing all the bourgouis class with cocktails at 60,000 feet. :)
I doubt it had anything to do with the looks of the aircraft but bragging rights certainbly factored into tthe equation. I mean how many people on the planet right now can claim they broke the sound barrier? Definitely less than 1%.
As for its unattractiveness, that's all a necessary evil as the wing design weas chosen specifically so it could maintain stable and efficient flight at those speeds.
A standard wing design (747, A-350, etc...) is sufficient when flying sub-MACH 1 but for anything faster, delta wing is definitely advantegous and dare I say, necessary.
Elephant seals are precious.
I think the feeling was that the design was very old at this point and it was being heavily subsidized. It was also limited to a few airports due to noise. The accident was a good excuse to end it. SST R&D continues though.
The metal strip was a scapegoat. Tyre blew out at early stages of travelling down runway. 2 tons of taxi fuel shouldn't have been there. 700kg of unaccounted baggage was stuffed in at the back. A last minute tail wind made the aircraft effectively about 8 tons overweight in the rear, way off the centre gravity.
The pilot had a lot of experience but he seriously f. ked up.
A beautiful bird that should never have had her wings clipped.
The Concorde was in fact an accident waiting to happen from the start. It had a very high takeoff speed combined with the main landing gear located directly in front of the engines, so fragments from a burst tire or runway debris would be thrown into the engines at takeoff, destroying them when they were needed most. The was a previous flight where one engine was shut down when it ingested debris from a burst tire on take off. Only luck that one and not two engines were disabled, as the Concorde could takeoff with one bad engine but couldn’t if two were shutdown, as it happened here.
Actually, according to the BEA accident report, Appendix 5 Previous Events, there were a significant number (almost 60 in total) of previous tyre failures that affected Concorde, including at least six others between 1978 and 1993 where tyre debris penetrated or damaged fuel tanks. So tyre failures on take-off leading to fuel tank damage was not a particularly uncommon event for Concorde.
@@redfalco21wasn't needed here bro
@@dana102083 wow, I guess I didn’t realize you were the gatekeeper and arbiter of what is needed when. I’ll try to remember to ask your permission and approval before daring to speak. Thank you for your selfless service to society at large.
@@redfalco21wtf amirite? 😂 thanks for the additional info /genuine
And what other jet dealt with all that??
After watching this, I wish I could have flown Concorde. But I guess there's the honor of knowing it was in service during my lifetime, if only for a short time. As they say, all good things must come to an end.
I found a small scale metal model of the concord at a garage sale…..
I bought it. Wish I could of flown on one once.
This was the planes fault 😢.
May the dead RIP.
May the surviving families find peace.
@@equargomg those metal models are the best ✈️!!! I plan to collect some myself. Do you have other models by any chance?
The French president flies commercial?
Notice how the Frenchman covers up for the contributory blunders of his buddy, the pilot, although once the overfilled fuel tank ruptured and a fire ensued, that accident was nonsurvivable
40:49 what John says right here makes it even sadder
It was a piece of metal from a DC-10 that caused this accident!
...Also maintenance issues!
RIP to all the people and the concord!😢
A beautiful aircraft, but like the Space Shuttle, it was impractical.
Who on earth would take off with the ten knot tail wind with this wonderful machine. Mister marty did 0:12
Why not build a runway at every airport EXLUSIVELY for Concorde?
That'd be like building a house in every US city for the President, in case he wanted to stay the night.
looooooooooooooool
Expense on many dimensions..not enough of them to constantly use it. There's many many many airports in the world lol just the land space.. some airports like in New York has no room..why cater to one company, without consideration to the long list..?
we need to build you a brain HAHA!
The DC-10 just couldn't limit itself to killing its own passengers.
I hear there are plans to bring back the Concorde.
Finally someone who knows of the spacer and all the blown tires. Just blame it on the strip?
You notice the strip "matches" a cut in the center of the chunk -- how would that carve off this big chunk?
Still not watching ice pilots
...the droop snoot...
So, all it needed was mudflaps?
Wait wonder is finally making stuff that isn’t available in the Middle East a reality
Sad thing is it could have been avoided with parachutes.
Coming: Boom Overture !
SST, Seattle stands tall.
Experience doesn't really mean anything he likely doesn't have experience in major emergencies, bringing a plane to the ground when 99% of other pilots would fail. So experience doesn't really mean much. We've seen pilots who maybe aren't the most experienced and highly praised perform absolute miracles in the air and run away. That experience in the air means nothing when it comes to true skill and an emergency
Crystal! You absolutely hit the nail on the head! I hate to tell you this, but I seldom find anyone of the fairer sex, making very intelligent comments on the You-Tube channels that deal with topics on the physical sciences, such as aviation! It is a pleasant surprise to come across someone like you to prove that some women are equal to men sometimes! Unless of course, you are actually a male hiding under a female pseudonym!!!😊
Doesnt aircraft engineers inspect the parts that go on an aircraft? Dont they scrutinize the tolerances of parts the manufacturers produce? From what I understand it was a piece of metal from a continental airline which fell on the runway before the concordes takeoff which was part of the cause of the concordes crash. The part was both manufactured wrong and installed wrongly.
Yes odd
It is sad how Concorde went out. But in today's world she would've been retired anyway. She was an amazing machine though. Hopefully they bring one back online someday
My goodness everyone knows about the truth behind this accident! Give me a break!
A sad way to go. I was amazed buy it as I was a young boy when it came to be.
Honestly the concord was ahead of its time and you couldn’t pay me enough to get on board today let alone back then lol but nonetheless RIP to those who lost there lives
Only want to sell 10000 items not answer the question always not helpful at all
Great video. I now understand why it took the French authorities so long to issue their findings - they needed an awful lot of time to find excuses for the catalogue of poor decisions and ineptitude that contributed to this disaster. Had the airplane not been overweight, with an out of whack center of gravity, tanked to the gills, and taking off with a tailwind, there probably would not have been anything but a punctured tire to talk about.
Before the space shuttle lands they make sure there’s nothing on the runway. It’s fast and heavy.
Retreaded tyres.. lol.. += Fail
Were the French designed runway lights also a possible factor as they were on stalks and not level with the runway? Did that also destroy the tyre?
A very interesting Aircraft. More than most could afford. Billy Connelly the Scottish Commedy and Actor said about flying on it. You get there before you leave.
DC-10 Kill Assists: 113 💀
They crashed one little flight and the gov got scared and said "no more fancy planes, go ride on ConAir."
Not that simple. They determined that crashes were inevitable with this type of plane.
@@ilsavv I was riffing on a famous line from The Fresh Prince of Bel Aire, a song by Will Smith used as the intro for a 90's show of the same name.
hahha it wasnt about the crash, actually the concorde flew a couple of years after this accident, the fuel cost and noise was the biggest reason it was stopped being used
The cost to run the jet was unprofitable
It needed to retire
Out of debt
it took until 41 mins into this video to hear it was not the pilot's fault. also, for all the detective commentors below, it was NOT excess fuel, it was NOT excess baggage and it was NOT the aircraft sitting off to the side at the end of the runway. This was one of the very few times in aircraft investigations where it truly was an awful accident. RIP all lost.
I agree, this wasn’t a classic “Swiss cheese model” example. It was a tragic, unpredictable accident.
Thank you! It's encouraging to hear someone comment on this without letting the technical double-speak or raw emotions get in the way. Again...R.I.P for all those lost souls@@kailoveskitties
Because of its environmental noise issue ,the Concorde was limited to landings in New York ,London ,Paris and Washington. It used an incredible amount of fuel as well.
Not an ideal way to travel
It also flew to Barbados, where they have one now that you can tour.
60 thousand feet... Wow! So they could see the fake curvature of the flat earth by concave designed windows... WTF!
I had no idea about the overweight takeoff, C of G out of range and an 8 knot tailwind. Piece of metal on the runway aside, this was very poor airmanship. As a retired Captain with 35 years experience I find it totally absurd that a Captain would accept an aircraft that is overweight and out of the certified centre of gravity envelope.
My company's owner was a spend thrift, and in 1996 insisted on flying Concord to and from Britain . . . at a cost to the company of over $12,000 dollars. His reason - he didn't like to spend hours on a flight. Bahhhh!
Those jets were on the way out anyway, but that was the straw that broke the camels back.
The designers knew it was flawed.
245 MPH takeoff speed and 400,000 LBS was always going to be a rubber tire disaster.
There is no way to safe the plane that is engulfed in flames like that. Same with Swissair 111.
The Concord needs to be brought back. Advances in technology could easily make it a viable business option. Not just for passenger plane but a high speed cargo plane.
Who needs that much cargo in 3 hours at great expense when they could have it in 7 or 8 hours at a much cheaper cost?
There's already been multiple attempts to do just this.
It has always eneded at the planning stage as no one wanted to get on board with it due to the exuburant costs, without any kind of significant returns.
One company got close but couldn't get any engine manufacturer to work with them as they knew the whole thing would fold like fresh laundry.
@@renejean2523 It could be time sensitive items. Such as perishables. Avocados for example. Or bananas.
@@ultrajd- How much are you prepared to pay for bananas? Besides, they are shipped green and ripened in the country they are to be sold in.
@@ultrajd looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
BS is wasn't from Concorde design problems. The tires had know pressure issues. The fuel line was exposed near the tires. If it wasn't design issues then why did they redesign some components. Nothing like blaming someone else for your own problems.
It was a piece of metal that caused this crash.
No, that rolling vortex does not give you ANY lift whatsoever. This must be the UK version of Discovery Channel.
From the Aviation Stack Exchange: The vortex lift is the method by which highly swept wings (like delta wings) produce lift at high angles of attack. In the case of wings having sharp, highly swept leading edges like delta wings, the leading-edge separation vortex phenomenon occurs at subsonic speeds. However, the separation does not destroy the lift as in the case of low sweep wings; instead, it forms two vortices which are (nearly) parallel to the wing edges.
i miss the old narrator
Interesting commentary from Capt John Hutchinson, but I don't think he is correct about the importance of the spacer in the wheel assembly, and, due to the absolute need to save weight the structure of underside of the wing was lightly made. Whether that is a fault or not is a question of judgement in design not incontrovertible fact.
The sad thing is had the captain elected to take off into wind the accident would not have happened - he would have been airborne before reaching the titanium FOD and he wouldn't have needed to cross the junction of the new seal either - which might or might not have been a factor. Also, his ground speed at rotation airspeed would have been lower, and he might have burned off more fuel taxying had he changed his mind after arriving at 26.
The Concorde flew with little room for error and this captain might have charismatic but he was far too casual dealing with critical factors. Of course it would have been better to abort the takeoff and crash on the ground. Runway remaining and fields at the end would have slowed the aircraft to slow down and contrary to the French journalists claim the undercarriage was down until the end. The presence of the president's B747 was a complication. It must have been planning to use the reciprocal of 26: 08
As for the narrator, the take-off roll is not "taxying down the runway" nor is the wheel spacer a "tool" - it's an aircraft part.
I believe that Captain Hutchinson probably knows FAR more about a plane he flew for 15 years than you do. Just sayin.
Most of this video is entirely pointless.....they say things like its over fueled and overweight.... and they repeatedly ignore the actual cause... It's nice to play the blame game AFTER the cause LOL... But even if the plane was half the weight it still would have crashed.....The actual cause was an unfortunate circumstance.......
Can't agree more.The video is not logically structured. If people, who are in the aviation industry, reason this irrational way, then no wonder air planes crash all the time.
@@ilsavvplanes don’t really crash very often though
Did he say 11 thousand dollars to fly from NY to UK was cheaper? To whom? He mentioned Rupert, than I got it. This plane that day, and years past had a lot of problems.
Round trip.
Why would they go ahead and explain what V1 is in depth when he actually reached VR and nobody explained what that meant
Have you ever googled anything? You can try, it's a good thing.
They could've explained vR. But there's no real point in this case. The minute you hit V1 you hit the point of no return. V1 you have to at least try and fly because you don't have enough room to stop. vR is just a speed that the aircraft will now sustain flight. Smaller aircraft will hit vR but never really hit V1. So In the case of accident study V1 is what matters.
They did explain VR. Go back and watch it again.
34:30 imagine if the French prez had been in that Concorde instead
Why was runway not checked before take off ??? !!!!
They check runways regularly, but not after every flight.
Because that's impractical, and would delay flights.
Also, and very relevant, because debris on the runway is a design factor and airplanes are able to cope.
Unless someone breaks the rules, ignores the alarms and fills the tanks to 100%.
@@Setright Breaking the rules means also not fixing the falling titanium strip properly.
@@benjalucian1515 Agreed!
The strip isn't even supposed to be of Ti, it should be made from aluminium. Softer, as a wear plate/strip should be.
Also, the mounting itself was botched - too many holes drilled in the non-wear part.
The jet wheels can take debris and landings more straining than an overloaded jet
This makes me think of highways littered with debris, especially truck tyre debris. Those damage cars and can cause accidents.
How often do those get cleaned?
Airports. How often are the runways inspected in between takeoffs and landings and cleaned?
I think it’s unrealistic to criminally try to charge somebody with something that may have to do with wear and tear. Wear and tear isn’t consistent for you to be able to just catch it.
They actually do clean runways daily. I don't know how often they do, though.
Debris on the runway is predictable and planned for.
Concorde automatically shut the valves to her tanks at 95% full.
If that system failed or the crew manually kept pumping, alarms would go off at 97%.
Ignoring those alarms and deliberately brimming the tanks made them susceptible to ruptures like this one.
During development, the wing tanks were pummelled with tyre treads, because everyone knows that aircraft tyres burst and the airplane must be able to withstand being struck by a piece of it.
Concorde could withstand it, and around 60 earlier incidents proved it.
Only, if someone brimmed the tanks at 100% full...catastrophe would ensue.
Same story, nothing different
So should I always wear a helmet inside a hotel?
Better stay away of any hotels.
Incredible, state of the art, ahead of its time aircraft is brought down by piece of junk that fell off of a piece of junk plane. The irony.
I know right!
electronic communications being what they are, supersonic aircraft aren't entirely necessary for the transaction of commerce. if someone is traveling as a tourist subsonic aircraft do the job efficiently.
So, one crash and they retire the entire fleet?? How stupid.
It was economically unviable after this crash and then 9/11.
It was on its way out way before the crash, which only accelerated its demise.
When they began the Concorde program, jet fuel was 10 cents a gallon, so that was their design criteria. Jet fuel was never again that cheap.
It seems forced.. Like they’re trying to push it down your throat, I watch these and think there’s no way they could know it went down like that and they didn’t want to ruin their image 🤔😮💨 Prayers to all the families affected
Titanics, Concordes... excessiveness is doomed to fail.
Titanic wasn't excessive for the time as you already had the Olympic and the Britannic. Both were similar sized ships and are far smaller than the cruise line monstrosities plaguing the seas as I type this.
Try imagine,what happened,when concorde takin´ of and after 3 hours landing JFK with missing parts of maining gear?
one year before 9/11
These two are hardly connected.
Presidents were witnessing and knew
no oil no water only bull story about fuel .fake story .
again the french f-up one of the best airlines in the world
How?
AGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGA
dont forget ya meds h0mie
Are you having a stroke?
Which Would be More Terrorizing For You...Your Plane Nosedive at 400mph into Middle of The Ocean at Night From 30,000ft or Get Circled and Fatally Attacked by a 20ft GW Shark?...
what caused that crash of the concorde?
the french and overloading on fuel and baggage
@@Thomasccanada HAHAHHAHA no you idiot, it was a metal strip on the runway that bursted the tires and rubber flew to the fuel tanks and ruptured it
gisel dont listen to this clueless daniel lmao
@@liukang3545 Accidents like this are never single cause.
The metal strip, the overfilled tanks and the overloaded cargo were all factors.
Sadly, the overfilled tanks and the cargo were conscious human decisions that ignored basic rules of aviation.
None of the 3 things alone would have caused the crash.
@@Setright THE TANKS BLOWING UP WAS THE M A I N REASON
MAYBE THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USEING RETREAD TIRES? THE THREAD BLEW OFF INTO THE AIRFRAME AND ENGINES
Continental airlines was not the problem. That was the lawyer. The problem was the airplane
Pilot s need to check how old are all the part's in a plane.every one also. Must were parachute s 😂🎉😢
Air France is to blame! Clear as the day! Bad!
Cannot watch this video...way to much music and noise beats...thumbs down..get rid of the music
You got it for free. Make your own version.
The airplane wouldn’t have crashed if it hadn’t been overloaded and running on fuel.
bullshieet hahahaha that wasnt even the cause of the accident
All modern airplanes should be EV’s and floatable and have impact absorbers.
Oh dear, let me guess......
Yeah, that impact absorber will do wonders when swan diving into the Alps at 500 km/h. Genius!
Also how on earth is an EV plane going to generate enough thrust to get it up to Mach 0.7, which is the average speed of a commercial airliner.
EV planes are a thing but they are propeller planes, as a battery cannot generate a jet engine thrust which is a chemical reaction.
@@ondrejsedlak4935 Not to mention wha trappers if say a battery catches fire
Here’s something I want you to think about. When a plane is going down, even the atheist will cry out “Oh, God help me”. This clearly shows that we all actually believe in Allah, our Creator.
Let me suggest one thing, try and ask your creator for guidance even when you’re not facing a life or death situation, and you realize how much your creator will love you and he’ll guide you, because you thought of him when most people wouldn’t.
Also, I although I’m a bit bummed I didn’t get a chance to fly in a Concord, I am very happy to have been able to build a relationship with my Lord. 😊
God isn't real
Allah could have easily acted in a way to have the metal strip removed from the runway that caused the crash....but he did not. He left it to ruin these innocent people's day so you can criticize their last moments and judge their relationship to god. Whatever dog you refer to, you will not find in whatever ancient scripture you dug of a cave, and unless you were there or have been a survivor there is no way to say that is what people were saying. They were probably telling the humans present in their lives they love them. God had absolutely nothing to do with this or he was complicit in it.
@@skullspacepodcast5942He is. Read the book of Matthew, seek first the kingdom of heaven.
@@tankmanZ Do you actually want a real, logical, legitimate answer to your question about why stuff like the crash of the Concorde happen? Read on.
Let’s rephrase the question “If there is a Creator-and we were not a result of random biological phenomena-Why did He create us and put us on Earth? If He was going to create us, why not put us in Heaven-why put us here where we have to struggle to survive, we face danger all around us, we are inflicted with disease and hunger, and to top it off, we have people committing evil actions, like killing and stealing? Why did our Creator not put us in a perfect world, without hunger and pain, and were no one would commit evil crimes?”
A Perfect World
The answer Islam gives is: Allah (S.W.T.) did create a perfect world, where there’s no hunger or pain, no danger, nothing evil happens, and everyone gents to enjoy food, pleasures, friendships, and romantic relationships, all without ever needing to work to earn a living or have to worry about growing old and dying. And that world is called “Jannah”, or Paradise.
Completing Our Creation Process
Why Evil and Suffering Exists
Allah (S.W.T.) has temporarily put us on earth as part of our creation process. We are one of Allah’s best creations-we can think, learn, grow, make independent choices, love, etc. We have free will. As a result of having the aforementioned qualities we need to be able to exercise our free will to grow as humans. We are put on this temporary environment-earth-so we can learn to work together to solve problems, we can learn through struggling, grow through helping others, maintaining relationships, and making independent choices.
Can one ever learn to forgive someone if there was no one to forgive? Can someone learn that actions can have severe consequences without there being the possibility to commit evil acts? Can we learn to take care and protect the ones we love if there were nothing we needed to be protected from? Can we learn critical human interactions without having to work to form and keep friends, solve disputes, trust people while not being too gullible? Can we learn to be brave without having to face danger? The list goes on and on.
The Incubator
So as you see, the earth is an incubator, where Allah (S.W.T.) allows evil to happen and require people to struggle and make choices, where we complete our growing process. On earth, we become who we are. As anyone, and they will tell you of a time in their past with many trials and tribulations that has let them become who they are today.
The earth is like a simulation, or the matrix; it is a testing ground, where we are tested by Allah (S.W.T.). After we die, we return to the “real” world and are graded, so to speak. Jannah is our final destination, but there’s also a place called Jahannam (hell) for people who have made evil choices throughout their life and did not repent to Allah (S.W.T.). Some are punished in hell temporarily, while others eternally, depending on the crime.
Our Purpose
As people, our primary directive is to submit to the Will of our Lord, Allah (S.W.T.). But to know what our Lord wants us to do, we need an instruction manual. That instruction manual is the Quran. And the one who chosen to deliver the instruction manual to us is the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad ﷺ.
Continuation of an Ancient Legacy
There have been thousands of Prophets and Messengers of Allah (S.W.T.), each sent with a message which contained instructions from our Creator. They were sent to people at a specific time and place. These Messengers include Jesus Christ (AS), Ibrahim (AS), Noah (AS), Moses (AS), etc. They were human being just like us, sent with a message. That message was delivered to them by the Arc Angel Gabriel. Remnants of those messages remian, such as the torah and the gospel (old testament and the new testament). But those messages have been corrupted, and portions of them lost, with time.
Our Final Legacy
Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is the Last and Final Messenger, sent to the whole of humanity. Because human civilization have evolved to be able to communicate globally and preserve historical texts, there is no need for another Prophet with a Message. The Quran has been fully preserved, untampered with, and saying and actions of our Prophet ﷺ also recorded.
We therefore must read the Quran to understand the message. It is very clear. I recommend you read an english translation of it. We have to believe that Allah (S.W.T.) is One and Only; He has no parents or children. Allah (S.W.T.) does not resemble his Creation in any way, and He exists beyond time and space as we know it. We must believe in the Day of Judgement, where we will be judged for every one of our actions. But since Allah (S.W.T.) can see and hear everything, we can talk to Him and ask Him to forgive us. Allah (S.W.T.) is the Most Forgiving and Most Merciful. He is Most Loving, and is always there for us to talk to and to is to Guide us.
We must believe that Muhammad ﷺ is the Last and Final Messenger of Allah, and that Quran is the verbatim word of God.
Getting Started with Finding and Fulfilling Your Purpose
If you read the Quran with an open mind, you will quickly see its miraculous amd divine nature, that it couldn’t have been written by a human being. I encourage you to do so. Ask Allah (S.W.T.) to Guide you to the truth and your purpose in life. Allah WILL guide you if you ask sincerely.
If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me. You can also learn about islam by searching on CZcams about what Islam says about a certain topic.
May Allah (S.W.T.) guide you to Islam and bestow upon you His Blessings; Ameen
lol What absolute nonsense. Just because one is in danger you don't start believing in ridiculous fairy stories. That's not how rationality and critical thinking works. You are just trying to justify your own childish, superstitious beliefs by painting everyone as having the same idiotic ideas. "my Lord" Hahaha. Grow up.
The reason all these people died is a know fault where tire ruptures would go thru the wing was not addressed after a similar accident!
Yes, that is the reflex thought reaction.
Then you learn that Concorde designers limited the tank fill to 95%. They would stop automatically.
If they didn't, or were overriden manually, there would be alarms at 97%.
These measures ensured that even when a chunk of tyre went straight through the wing, it wouldn't burst the tank from the inside and start a fire.
Like any other plane, Concorde suffered tyre bursts many times.
This tragic time, the tanks had been filled 100%.
Not a design flaw, but simple human arrogance.
Like any other airplane accident, the metal strip, the overfilled tanks, the overloaded cargo and the tail wind take-off all conspired to cause it.
Stood alone, none of these factors would have caused such a result.