413 private links
A “diverse” air traffic controller could kill you. //
You see, if there aren’t enough blacks or women it is always because of malicious barriers. The very first sentence of the report says that the secretary “made an historic commitment to transform the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) into a more diverse and inclusive workplace that reflects, understands, and relates to the diverse customers we serve.” //
So, in 2014, the FAA ditched the AT-SAT – which it had used for decades – and told all the people who had scored 85 or better and were waiting for a job offer that they had to take a brand-new test, called the Biographical Assessment.
This was an online personality test of 114 questions. It asked such things as: The number of different high school sports you played. The number of college credit hours you had in art, music, dance, or drama. Whether you had a job in any of the last three years. It was graded pass/fail, according to mysterious, never-acknowledged criteria.
My guess is that if you played a lot of sports and took no art classes, you were more likely to be black, so you passed. //
The Inspector General of the Department of Transportation found that the FAA fed the right answers to the black coalition, which fed them to black test-takers so they could cheat (and, of course, lie, if they had taken art and played no sports). It’s a crime to cheat on a federal exam or help someone cheat, but there was no punishment. This guy, Joseph Teixeira, resigned from the FAA, and the cheating scandal disappeared like the morning mist. //
The big New York Times investigation I mentioned earlier found that of the 313 air traffic facilities in the country, only three were fully staffed. The New York regional facility, for example, is short hundreds of controllers and is operating at just over 50 percent recommended staffing.
The Times quotes anonymous burnt-out controllers: “The staffing shortage is beyond unsustainable. It has now moved into a phase of JUST PLAIN DANGEROUS.” Also, “Controllers are making mistakes left and right. Fatigue is extreme.”
Guess how many words were about the thousands of top-qualified candidates who were frozen out because they were white? Zero. And about the black cheaters? Can’t mention that. This is the newspaper of record, after all. //
In 2021, we got “United Airlines vows 50% of new pilots hired will be women or minorities to reflect passenger diversity.” //
Who’s going to reflect the passengers who are children? Or blind? Or who don’t know left from right?
And, in case you were wondering, there are already 52 medical schools that no longer require applicants to take the Medical College Aptitude Test or MCAT because, well, you know why.
Supersonic flight without loud booms? NASA is working on that. //
When earlier designs flew faster than sound, individual shockwaves coming from different features like the nose, canopy, and wings merged into one powerful shockwave as they traveled to the ground. “We designed the X-59 so that those individual shockwaves don’t merge, which makes the boom quieter,” said Mike Buonanno, the X-59 air vehicle lead at Lockheed. //
“This way the vast majority of shocks generated by the X-59 are directed upward, and very few go to the ground,” Richardson explained. But perhaps the most unusual victim of eliminating shock-generating features was the canopy. The X-59 has no front-facing windows. //
And it is quiet—the sonic boom it will make should be around 75 PLdB, roughly like a car door slam from 20 feet away. //
On a New York to Paris flight, Concorde burned through roughly four times more fuel than the Boeing 747 while carrying one-fifth of the passengers.
The problem is that you can’t really do much about both fineness and lift-to-drag ratios—they're limitations imposed by pure physics. If you wanted to keep the right fineness ratio and have enough space for over 500 passengers in a supersonic airliner, you’d just need to make it absurdly long. //
Concorde used 119,600 L of fuel to carry 120 people 7200 km. That's 13.8 L/100km per passenger – almost exactly double the consumption of the Boeing 707, at best; it was worse on shorter flights. The subsonic planes that fly its routes now get 2.2 to 3.4 L/100km per passenger.
That, more than anything, is what killed it. Even if you sold every seat in a Concorde, it had six times the fuel bill per ticket of a similarly sized subsonic plane. It would have become uneconomical even if maintenance were negligible and spare parts were free, which they were not.
Can modern engine technology bring that down? Maybe. I can see 7 L/100km per passenger being potentially achievable with lots of R&D. //
RZetopan Ars Scholae Palatinae
8y
1,222
"At Mach 2.2, air friction heated up Concorde’s fuselage to 121° Celsius"
We see this error a lot, even when describing asteroids entering the atmosphere. The temperature rise is due to the rapid compression of air and not due to an alleged friction. A boundary layer forms near any surfaces parallel to the air flow (just like liquids flowing in a pipe) while the heat is generated at the leading and trailing edges where the surface is not parallel to the flow and the air must undergo a rapid change in speed. Any locations where the flow is forced to quickly change speed is where maximum heat is generated due to the rapid compression. These are the same locations where shock waves form in supersonic flows. Given the large number of errors in this article, we can assume that the author is neither familiar with fluid flows nor supersonic aircraft. Relying on mass market newspaper reports often leads to promoting totally nonsensical claims*.
*Having been subjected to newspaper reporters on multiple occasions, it is astonishing how wrong they can be, both before and after "informing" them. For a trivial example, look at what happened to Irving Finkel's report on a 4,000-year-old cuneiform translation: //
Wickwick Ars Legatus Legionis
14y
33,543
paulfdietz said:
I see your claim fairly often, and I find it very annoying. It seems to equate the heating in supersonic flow with the heating air undergoes in adiabatic compression, for example in a bicycle pump.
But heating at a shock is not an adiabatic (entropy conserving) process. Shocks are irreversible. Entropy increases across a shock as fast molecules slam into slow ones in a region a few mean free paths wide. Compression does occur at a shock, but the heating is higher than is required by the increase in density. Indeed, there is a finite upper limit to the density ratio of a gas going through a shock, regardless of Mach number.
At sufficiently high speed, and particularly for the atmospheric entry case you describe there, almost all the heating is due to dissipation. In that respect it's much more similar to friction (a dissipative process) than it is to adiabatic compression.
You're conflating isentropic (reversible) and adiabatic. Adiabatic is the correct term in this case. In the limit of mild shocks (or low-angle oblique shocks), a shock wave of pressure ratio -> approaches an isentropic process.
Almost all shocks are adiabatic. That just means there's no heat transfer during the process. Which is the case. My compressible flow book has a single chapter discussing non-adiabatic shocks at the end of the book. These are when water condenses out of air, e.g. There's no external heat transfer, but the gas phase loses energy to the liquid phase so it's a non-adiabatic process for the gas.
But that dissipation isn't friction. It's compression heating when the compression is done too fast.
Edit: Let's put some numbers on this. Let's consider a Mach 2.2 normal shock (at the tip of the nose) at 15 km. That's 12 kPa and, -56.5C (216.7K), and 195 mg/m^3 density.
My compressible flow tables put the pressure ratio at 5.48 and the temperature ratio at 1.8569 (for gamma = 1.4 or air). That means the density change is 2.95 (Pressure ratio over temp ratio). So we've got a final density of 575 mg/m^3 at 402.3K (129 C). Isentropic compression to achieve a density ratio of 2.95 would be a pressure ratio of 4.54 (again, gamma = 1.4). And the temperature ratio for an isentropic compression of pressure ratio 4.54 is 1.54. So the isentropic temperature rise (so no dissipation) would result in a temperature of 334K or 61 C. So the isentropic compression heating would be 117 deg. C while the adiabatic heating would be 185.6 deg. C. So, in fact, pure reversible heating would do more than half of the heating that is experienced through a normal shock wave at Mach 2.2.
Fascinating analysis of the use of drones on a modern battlefield—that is, Ukraine—and the inability of the US Air Force to react to this change.
The United States Marine Corps’ Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron One (VMX-1) spends most of its time trialing and evaluating new hardware, weapons, and software updates for Marine aircraft. In between all of those testing events, leaders at the squadron came up with an organic effort to bring in all of their assets for an ongoing test event with a heavy focus on Expeditionary Air Basing Operations (EABO) which is a major initiative that could prove essential to winning a war in the Pacific.
The unidentified drones were such an issue that assets were called in from around the government, including a NASA WB-57 high-altitude jet.
byJoseph Trevithick, Tyler Rogoway| PUBLISHED Mar 15, 2024
Langley Air Force Base, located in one of the most strategic areas of the country, across the Chesapeake Bay from the sprawling Naval Station Norfolk and the open Atlantic, was at the epicenter of waves of mysterious drone incursions that occurred throughout December.
Société Internationale de Télécommunications Aéronautiques
(SITA) Neuilly France
INTRODUCTION
1.1. SITA (Société Internationale de Télécommunications Aéronautique), a cooperative company founded in 1949, embraces the majority of the international air carriers (more than 160). It provides to its members a worldwide message switching network.
1.2. Initially the network consisted of manual (torn-tape) centres, interconnected by low speed circuits (50, 75 Bauds, 60, 30, 15 words per minute, asynchronous). The Airline terminal equipment (teleprinters. Telex) was connected to the SITA manual centres, thus enabling airline messages to be exchanged via nodes of the SITA network, with consequent reduction in costs to the airlines by their sharing of communications facilities.
1.3. With the rapid development of the Air Transport Industry, the airline communications needs became increasingly important and thus the SITA network expanded very quickly, by 1963 covering the world. Network development was not, however, restricted to geographic extension; in 1963 a number of the busiest manual centres were replaced by semi-automatic systems, and three years later, due to the continuing steady increase of traffic volumes, SITA equipped the Frankfurt centre with its first computer system to perform the message switching functions. Then, in 1969, SITA began replacing the other most heavily loaded centres (Western Europe and New York) with computer systems and established a computer communication data network by interconnecting these centres with voice grade circuits (medium speed). This network, called the High Level Network, performing the task of block switching, was interfaced at that time with the rest of the network composed of manual centres. This step was soon followed by the automation of other manual centres using what are in SITA terminology called satellite processors. These stand-alone computers act as concentrators of airline teleprinter traffic and controllers of airline CRT terminals, each of them connected to one High Level Centre by medium speed circuits. By mid-1973, the SITA network comprised 150 centres including 8 high level centres and 21 satellite processors. The 29 automated centres will be referred to as the SITA medium speed network (see figure 1).
Once a paragon of quality, Boeing's focus on its stock price has caused hundreds to die.
When asked how Boeing’s recent door plug incident came about, company CEO Dave Calhoun cryptically explained “a quality escape occurred.” That kind of corporate doublespeak is indicative of the problem at hand. Boeing used to have quality, but it escaped, apparently sometime around when it merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997.
For the last three decades, the company has spent substantial amounts of money buying back its own shares to pump up the stock price, and issuing dividends, instead of researching and developing new high-quality high-efficiency airplanes. The results have been catastrophic, as HBO’s funny Sunday night news man John Oliver explains. //
Prior to Reagan-era deregulation, stock buybacks were considered illegal market manipulation. If a company wanted to boost its stock, it had to do something worth crowing about, like develop good product. //
The desire to push R&D costs off to the company’s suppliers meant that Boeing was essentially building its planes from kits that weren’t designed together, didn’t fit together, and didn’t meet the standard of quality the company had once been known for. This move may have been a short-term boon for company profits, the share price, or for CEO bonuses, but the reduction in quality has given rise to the phrase “If it’s a Boeing, I ain’t going.” //
Saigon_Design
Bradley Brownell
3/07/24 9:55am
It began when Boeing took over Mcdonnell-Douglas and transplanted their board and C-suite into Boeing’s, effectively making it a MDD takeover of Boeing when it was actually Boeing that actually bought MDD.
MDD failed precisely because of their shitty leadership, and they had the opportunity to try their shenanigans again at Boeing and... look where we are now.
Boeing has literally no answer to Airbus and other competitors’ products, and won’t for at least a decade precisely because they focused on their stock price instead of the business. They claimed it would cost too much to invest in a new design - well, now you don’t have anything to offer airlines except the 777, 787, and 737Max, with big holes in the product lineup (e.g. a product to rival the A220). //
Mosko
Saigon_Design
3/07/24 10:31am
Somebody put it brilliantly in another comment on a previous article:
“McDonnell-Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing’s money”.
Pierson reiterated that Boeing’s woes began around 2017 when supply chain issues led to aircraft being assembled out of sequence. The pressure from management to crank out planes lowered quality control standards and employee morale. He retired over these issues in August 2018 and Lion Air Flight 610 crashed October that year. Pierson claimed that nothing has changed since the Boeing 737 Max’s two crashes. //
Polysyllabic
Ryan Erik King
2/27/24 1:12pm
At this point, the MAX design has been scrutinized over by pretty much everyone, from NTSB, FAA, Boeing, independent teams, etc. If all of them are wrong and Pierson’s the only one who’s right, that would be some amazing fail. I can’t believe, with the sheer number of outside experts reviewing this plane, that its design is faulty. Perhaps its construction is dogshit, but the design has been deemed acceptable by so many SMEs at this point. //
krhodes1
Margin Of Error
2/28/24 2:01pm
No, that is exactly oppositely WRONG. The bigger engines act as wings at high angles of attack, which pushes the nose UP slightly more than the old engines do. And more importantly, as I said, it causes the controls to get lighter as the angle of attack increases, which is the opposite of the certification requirements that control force increase with angle of attack to prevent over-controlling the aircraft. So MCAS was intended to add a SLIGHT nose-down force to counter act that. And as I said, after that, some well-meaning engineers decided to enhance it to provide the sort of stall protection that Airbus has, which meant GREATLY increasing how much nose-down force it could apply. Unfortunately without increasing the redundancy of the system to match that new-found control authority.
But any competent pilot would have zero problem flying a MAX without MCAS. the difference in how a MAX flies and the equivalent NG is very, very, minor, but it is technically in violation of the rather arbitrary certification requirements without it. For that matter, no competent pilot would have crashed the airplanes that had the AoA sensor failures that caused MCAS to activate unnecessarily. A trim runaway is a trim runaway, regardless of what causes it and any competent 737 pilot knows what to do about that (turn off the electric trim and trim the airplane manually). At the end of the day, all MCAS does then or now is adjust the horizontal stabilizer trim via the electric trim automatically under certain conditions.
I can guarantee you that the Airbus NEOs do the exact same thing with their also much larger and more forward engines. But being FBW, they don’t need a separate system to counter that slight tendency. On the other hand, WHEN the computers shit the bed and throw their electronic hands up in the air and say Jesus Take the Sidestick to the pilots (as has happened) you end up with an airplane that flies VERY differently than normal right when having more wierd things going on is the last thing a pilot needs.
Here’s some interesting reading about how things change on an Airbus when things start to get wonky:
https://apstraining.com/wp-content/uploads/FCS-Airbus-Quick-Reference.pdf
What this document doesn’t say is the big difference - under “normal law” and “alternate law” he sidestick sets the attitude of the airplane in pitch and roll and the computer maintains that attitude. So you ask for 10 degrees bank and let go of the stick and the airplane continues in a 10 degree bank. But in “direct law” you literally have direct control and have to fly it like the computer doesn’t exist - because at that point it doesn’t exist. And since that happens about never other than a few minutes in a simulator a few times a year, good luck when it does. Again, competent pilots can handle this, but my feeling it that Airbuses are really good at making pilots less competent at actual stick and rudder flying. But you are flying a 737 stick and rudder whenever the autopilot is off.
Many Airbuses have crashed because pilots did not understand what the airplane was or was NOT going to do for them, right back to the loss of the third A320 ever built at an airshow in France. And then there is AF447, a crash that was both an example of some stupendously bad airmanship AND something that simply could not have happened at all in a Boeing aircraft, even a FBW one.
Boeing has some REALLY serious issues with quality control currently that they need to sort out yesterday, but there is not a thing wrong with the design of the current generation of 737. Simple, rugged, very safe airplanes that make airlines a LOT of money, which is why Boeing is going to sell 5000-6000 of them.
TSA's self-screening trial in Las Vegas' airport should have been the standard checkpoint ages ago //
skeffles
liffie420
3/08/24 11:59am
A 9/11 style takeover became impossible once they started locking the cockpit doors. That was the only real change they needed. //
skeffles
Ryan Erik King
3/08/24 11:05am
The TSA is designed to be noticeable, intrusive, and cumbersome, as a feature and not a bug. If it ain’t creating a whole hassle, then how will the public NOTICE the government is DOING SOMETHING about that terrorism stuff? It is pure theater like that. It is meant to be in your face, and down your pants, by design.
If it just worked, seamlessly and quietly, then nobody would notice it. //
_beveryman
Ryan Erik King
3/08/24 2:26pm
I am going to regret weighing in with this perspective, but I have been mulling over some security theater in computer security (Web Application Firewalls), and unfortunately there’s a parallel here which explains the value of TSA security theater.
WAF’s do not stop dedicated attackers.
...
So too, the TSA. Security theater doesn’t keep the dedicated attackers out, it keeps the volume of attackers lower, especially the less sophisticated ones. WAF’s provide value in the same way the TSA does, and this was a very uncomfortable light bulb to go off in my mind. //
ilya212
_beveryman
3/08/24 10:30pm
You are not wrong, and you are not the only one. The best summary of TSA I had ever seen came from Israeli airport security (and I trust these guys know what they are talking about): It stops stupid terrorists.
The question however is: How much damage can stupid terrorists actually do? And does preventing this rather minor damage outweigh all the frustration, wasted time, and overall societal grief TSA causes? //
ncbo
Ryan Erik King
3/09/24 11:50am
“theater” itself is a deterrent. It’s like how your front door could be made of thin glass floor to ceiling, trivially easy to smash by a 9 year old. But has anyone ever? That small step of having to break something deters 99% of would-be criminals. //
xspeedy
Ryan Erik King
3/09/24 1:41pm
My biggest frustration is the lack of consistent rules between airports. Some have you remove laptops, others don’t. And so one is always guessing.
Take a look at the fastest, smallest, and silliest aircraft to appear in the James Bond franchise.
FROM
Anchorage (ANC)
TO
Rzeszow (RZE)
GREAT CIRCLE DISTANCE
7,645 KM
ACTUAL FLIGHT TIME
11:28
AIRCRAFT
Boeing 747-4B5F
REGISTRATION
N713CK
SERIAL NUMBER (MSN)
32808
An airplane does not instantly recover airspeed lost in a wind shear. That takes time, and it takes a particularly long time when all excess power is being used for climbing. //
It’s common practice in gusty conditions to add some knots to your normal approach or climbing speed. Those knots are often said to be “for grandma”—probably because she was always urging us to be careful—and they seem to come in multiples of five. To be logical about it, we should add airspeed in proportion to the reported gust or wind shear fluctuations. When those numbers are of the same magnitude as the difference between the airplane’s climbing speed and its stalling speed, grandma would become justifiably nervous, and it might be best to honor her by remaining on the ground. If that isn’t possible, favor airspeed over climb rate and, if the nose and airspeed drop at once, push, don’t pull.
Watching the video "America's Top 10 Ugliest Aircraft" from Youtube:
At around 7:40 into the video when discussing the Vought Pirate, there are a few seconds of a picture where the Pirate was flying in formation with another aircraft that I personally find gorgeous. //
The "ugly aircraft" from your video is a Vought F6U Pirate, the aircraft furthest from the camera: you saw it flying in formation with Chance Vought Cutlass F7U-1
A New York-bound Virgin Atlantic flight was canceled just moments before takeoff last week when an alarmed passenger said he spotted several screws missing from the plane’s wing.
British traveler Phil Hardy, 41, was onboard Flight VS127 at Manchester Airport in the UK on Jan. 15 when he noticed the four missing fasteners during a safety briefing for passengers and decided to alert the cabin crew. //
“Each of these panels has 119 fasteners, so there was no impact to the structural integrity or load capability of the wing, and the aircraft was safe to operate,” he said.
“As a precautionary measure, the aircraft underwent an additional maintenance check, and the fasteners were replaced.”
The recent runway collision at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport involving a Japan Airlines (JAL) Airbus A350 has placed a spotlight on the resilience of modern carbon-composite aircraft (Airbus A350, Boeing 787, 777-8 and 777-9) in catastrophic fire scenarios. This incident, which marks the first major destruction of a lightweight airliner by fire, is being closely observed as a critical test case for the new generation of high-tech composite airplanes.
The JAL Airbus A350-900, colliding with a De Havilland Dash-8 coast guard turboprop plane, burst into flames shortly after landing. Despite the severe circumstances, all 379 people aboard the A350 were successfully evacuated, though tragically, five out of the six coast guard crew members perished.
The aviation industry is now keenly focused on how these advanced composite airliners, which have revolutionized long-haul flights and airline economics over the past decade, withstand catastrophic fires. Investigators are currently probing the cause of the collision, with the aviation community awaiting insights into the survivability and durability of these high-tech planes in extreme conditions. //
Composite airframes, as explained by Bjorn Fehrm, a composites expert at Leeham News, offer several advantages over traditional aluminum planes. For instance, carbon fiber can withstand significantly higher temperatures, smoldering and burning away rather than melting. Airbus has previously indicated that the A350 demonstrates “an equivalent level of safety” compared to aluminum planes, showing “increased resistance” to fire penetration.
However, prolonged exposure to intense heat can compromise the structural integrity of composite airframes, even if the outer skin appears unscathed. The lengthy duration of the JAL A350 fire, lasting over six hours, raises questions about whether special firefighting techniques are required for composite jets.
A short while ago, we told the story of the Boeing 757, pound-for-pound the most overpowered twin-jet passenger airliner of the jet age of aviation. It was and still is the kind of jet that can legitimately impress fighter jets with its climb-to-altitude capabilities thanks to two colossal engines. If all that's true, think of the Airbus A340 as the complete opposite. Despite sporting four engines instead of two, the A340 is notorious worldwide for being an absolute pig. For better or worse, the A340 is like a Geo Metro in the sky. //
In time, Airbus's two factions advocating for either a twin or quad-jet arrangement for its new airframe conceded four engines were more marketable internationally than two. The only question remaining was what on Earth would power the new jet. Therein lay the future A340's true weakness, its engines.
The engine in question was the Franco-American CFM International CFM56 high-bypass turbofan engine. With well north of 30,000 examples produced since 1974, the CFM56 is one of the most prolific engines of the jet age. Everything from the DC-8 to multiple Boeing 737 iterations and all of the associated military variants therein have made use of the CFM 56 over the last 50 years. //
The last of the 377 A340s delivered to airline customers was completed in 2012. With the completion of Airbus' A380 jumbo jet program in 2021, it's doubtful whether Airbus will ever again field another wide-body, quad-jet airliner again. With the industry shifting ever more towards more efficient twin-jets, the A340 will forever remain a curious footnote in aviation history. https://www.airbus.com/en/who-we-are/our-history/commercial-aircraft-history/previous-generation-aircraft/a340-family //
it's yet to see a fatal accident in three decades of commercial service.
Certification standards require that airliner manufacturers demonstrate their designs are capable of evacuating all passengers within 90 seconds using half the available exits. Bjorn Fehrm, an aeronautical engineer, told the Financial Times, “The most important part, whether the plane is aluminum or carbon fiber, is that you have protection for many, many minutes from external heat. In this case, the carbon fiber is giving that heat-shield protection.”
Even though carbon fiber will burn at lower temperatures than the 600 degrees Celsius of aluminum, Emile Greenhalgh, a professor of composite materials at London’s Imperial College, said the composite material reacts differently to fire. “As the material burns,” he said, “all the flammable material forms a char layer, so you end up with a barrier against the progression of fire.” //
William Bellinger
January 5, 2024 At 8:58 am
The regulations require the plane has to be evacuated in 90 seconds for certification. I understand the actual evacuation took much , much longer. //
william Lawson
January 5, 2024 At 9:14 am
we must remember that faa evacuations tests are done with healthy, trained, in shape people not the average passenger load with children, old people, over weight out of shape passengers.
if they did the tests with a normal group of passengers they would need to make the aisles wider more room in the seats etc. //
niio
January 6, 2024 At 6:47 am
While the ‘passengers’ in the test must be of ‘normal health’ (no disability that would compromise the test), they are not trained and cannot have been a participant in any previous test within six months. A third of them must be over 50 and 40pct must be female. Three infant sized dolls are included. No one who maintains or operates the aircraft may participate. //
bushwc@hotmail.com
January 6, 2024 At 11:41 am
I read that the flight attendants waited for the pilots to give the ok to open the doors. Back in the 70’s and 80’s I traveled to 59 countries and 48 states, many more than once. I always knew where the exits were and how to open them. I certainly wouldn’t have waited on the ok from the flight crew if there is fire all around the aircraft. I would have found an exit with the least amount of fire, opened the door and gotten out. You can’t depend on the flight crew. They could easily be incapacitated by injuries leaving you on your own to survive. Pay attention to the safety briefing and read the safety card carefully. The life you safe could be your own. //
Uniform Golf
January 5, 2024 At 11:44 am
A few thoughts:
...
JAL’s safety videos stand out for their focus on serious instructions such as evacuations, luggage procedures, and slide usage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BDIGt8MOD8
3) Yes, composites seem to burn differently. Some of the videos suggest that the firefighters were on scene with the fire largely out on the exterior, with flames in the interior in the aft of the cabin. Between that video and the photo the morning after, it appears that the fire completely consumed the aircraft leaving little of the fuselage. The following article resurrects an article from 2009 about combatting composite airplane fires and discusses findings on the difference of composite aircraft fire fighting demands, toxic smoke and remains, and cleanup considerations:
https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/02/jal-a350-ground-collision-is-first-hull-loss-by-damage-and-fire-of-an-all-composite-airplane/
Japan Airlines flight collides with Japan Coast Guard aircraft in Tokyo
Concorde Turbo-Jet Engine, Complete with Afterburner
A Rolls-Royce Olympus Turbojet engine 593-610, fitted with afterburner.
Complete with serial numbered mobile stand.