Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5622071/

Topic: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: 747spa330md11
Posted 2012-11-29 06:33:07 and read 10963 times.

Acc. the german website n-tv.de a judicial decision said Continental Airlines is not guilty for the Concorde disaster. A CO Aircraft wich started before the Concorde lost some metal parts on the runway, wich was whirled up by the Concorde and destroyed the fuel tank.

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: Ant72LBA
Posted 2012-11-29 06:34:55 and read 10966 times.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20545201

Beat me to it!

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: Fuling
Posted 2012-11-29 06:40:41 and read 10882 times.

Was it CO? I always thought it was DL? Interesting fact to me  

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: tjwgrr
Posted 2012-11-29 06:59:46 and read 10759 times.

Quoting Fuling (Reply 2):
Was it CO? I always thought it was DL? Interesting fact to me
CO 055, a DC-10-30 bound for EWR.

N13067:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Robert M. Campbell

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000725-0&lang=en



[Edited 2012-11-29 07:08:50]

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: g500
Posted 2012-11-29 07:39:53 and read 10498 times.

As expected, no surprises there. They did this trial to appease the victims, that's all

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-11-29 07:51:56 and read 10391 times.

  

Keep in mind -- all the court ruled was CO was not CRIMINALY liable or the accident.

They still can be held liable in civil suits and matter of fact the court said the company bore civil responsibility.

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: readytotaxi
Posted 2012-11-29 08:23:46 and read 10194 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):

Unfortunately the only "winners" in any outcome like this are lawyers, it drags on and on.

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: g500
Posted 2012-11-29 08:27:29 and read 10164 times.

Agree, particularly the lawyers that represented Continental. They made out like bandits

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: YYZYYT
Posted 2012-11-29 10:31:46 and read 9792 times.

Quoting g500 (Reply 7):
Agree, particularly the lawyers that represented Continental. They made out like bandits

Let's keep thing in perspective: this was a criminal prosecution. The appeals court has now overturned the prior conviction.

The decision to prosecute is made by the duly appointed authorities.

Continental had no choice but to respond and fight the charges... particularly since (IIRC) some Continental employees were given prison sentences for their part in the use of unauthorized parts.

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: readytotaxi
Posted 2012-11-29 10:39:29 and read 9745 times.

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 8):
particularly since (IIRC) some Continental employees were given prison sentences for their part in the use of unauthorized parts.

Did they serve those sentances?

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-11-29 11:33:50 and read 9495 times.

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 9):
Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 8): particularly since (IIRC) some Continental employees were given prison sentences for their part in the use of unauthorized parts.

Did they serve those sentances?

One Continental employee/ mechanic was found guilty of manslaughter and given a 15 month suspended sentence.

Three French citizens and the American supervisor of the Continental mechanic were found not guilty.

Two of the French citizens charged with manslaughter were the former head of the Concorde division at Aerospatiale and the Concorde chief engineer at Aerospatiale. The third was an aviation regulation official. They were charged with manslaughter for failing to order changes in the Concorde after several instances of burst tyres rupturing fuel tanks.

The other American was charge with manslaughter for failing to properly supervise the employee who fabricated and attached the non-spec part to the aircraft. The part which fell off and might have caused the burst tyre.

Continental and the mechanic argued that since the CDG officials did not conduct their runway review/ search before the Concorde takeoff as is their requirement, and that other aircraft and vehicles were on the runway for a long period of time before the part was found - there was no proof that the piece of metal was the actual cause of the burst tyres.

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: YYZYYT
Posted 2012-11-29 11:51:59 and read 9421 times.

thanks, rfields (I was just looknig the answer up...)

I've come accross several other stories which have clarified the situaiton.... I think.

The verdict today is an appeal of the criminal finding - as noted it overturns the prior decison.

It looks as if the same court ALSO determined a second appeal - it has upheld an earlier CIVIL verdict ordering Continental to pay $1m Euros to Air France. This is said to relate to damaged "image" (possibly a transaolation issue in the RFI story...). That story also says that there is a second damages claim by Air France, which had been "suspended" pending this decision. I imagine that second proceeding (for $15m Euros) will now settle.



See:
http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?...JTSFT01-6FRG20DTD396R5TRUDAP36P36N
and
http://www.english.rfi.fr/visiting-f...es-manslaughter-verdict-over-conco

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: MadameConcorde
Posted 2012-11-29 11:55:17 and read 9394 times.

Those lawyers made a big pack of money for sure.

 Wow!

Cleared, but liable ....

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/relaxe-g%C3...oncorde-en-140720175--finance.html

Google Translate:
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/relaxe-g%C3...oncorde-en-140720175--finance.html

Quote:
Continental and its two employees, however, are found liable for civil and criminal, not the disaster and will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to families of victims.

This will never give us back Concorde F-BTSC + all who were on board -crews and passengers.

RIP all crash victims. RIP Concorde F-BTSC

     

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-11-29 12:08:55 and read 9319 times.

Quoting tjwgrr (Reply 3):
Quoting Fuling (Reply 2):
Was it CO? I always thought it was DL? Interesting fact to me
CO 055, a DC-10-30 bound for EWR.

N13067:

One of 3 AZ DC-10-30s acquired by Eastern in 1985-86.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alberto Storti
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jacko
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carlos Borda

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-11-29 13:17:25 and read 9102 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 10):
Continental and the mechanic argued that since the CDG officials did not conduct their runway review/ search before the Concorde takeoff as is their requirement

Are you 100% certain about this? From what I remember there was no requirement to search the runway at that time. That it was implemented when they started flights again after the accident.

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-11-29 14:43:17 and read 8711 times.

That was one of the CO and their employees arguments

Quote:
French investigators earlier said a routine inspection of the runway from which the Concorde took off had been delayed. Paul-Louis Arslanian, head of the Air Accident Investigation Bureau (BEA), told a news conference Friday that there was a fire drill on the runway and the inspection was postponed due to personnel shortages.

However, it is unclear if the routine inspection, which was scheduled for 3 p.m., would have altered the chain of events on July 25, since the Continental flight took off mere minutes before the Concorde.

That would eliminate pointing a finger at airport officials for having postponed the cleaning to allow for a fire drill on the runway. The postponed cleanup was briefly mentioned in the 75-page preliminary report.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82724&page=1

The argument of the French CDG authorities was that the runway inspection was a normal event not related to the Concorde. It was just coincidence that the Concorde was frequently one of the first aircraft to takeoff on the runway after the check was completed on most days.

From the BEA Accident Report - http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-sc000725a/pdf/f-sc000725a.pdf

Aeroportes de Paris note 10/AD/98 specified 3 inspections daily - before 0700, around 1400, around 2100 local time. A partial inspection was conducted about 1430 UTC near taxiway W2 checking on a reported bird strike. The 1500 UTC inspection (1400 local) was pushed back because of a fire training exercise. That inspection had not been completed when the Concorde took off at 1642 UTC/ 1542 local.

One aircraft - an Air France B747 took off on that runway after the CO DC-10 and before the Concorde.


I'm not agreeing, or disagreeing with the CO arguement -just reporting it.

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: TWA772LR
Posted 2012-11-29 15:16:31 and read 8246 times.

I thing that has me baffled is the fact that the CO DC-10 took off 5 minutes before the Concorde. How do the French officials know the part fell off the CO plane? A lot of planes could have, and probably did use that runway in that 5 minute window, unless there is a special procedure to have the runway clear for 5 minutes before a Concorde takes off.

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-11-29 15:27:23 and read 8117 times.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 16):
How do the French officials know the part fell off the CO plane?

From the link provided by rfields5421, http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-sc000725a/pdf/f-sc000725a.pdf

The DC 10 registered N 13067, operated by Continental Airlines, had taken off five minutes before the Concorde to undertake Paris-Newark flight COA 55. Since this aircraft, seen briefly at Paris Charles de Gaulle on 30 August 2000, could be the aircraft which had lost the part, a technical investigator assisted by the Accredited Representative of the NTSB and by FAA specialists visited its base at Houston to examine it in the presence of representatives of the operator.

The following observations were made on the aircraft's right engine (engine 3):
a) Fan reverser aft support
• the lower left wear strip, about forty-four centimetres long, was missing. When
closed, the forxard part of the core door ususally rests on the wear strip,
• the suport was painted with green epoxy primer,
• in the position where the missing part would be, the support was covered in red
type RTV 106 mastic,
• there was no trace of RTV 106 on the other parts of the support,
• there was no trace of RTV 106 on the wear strips which are in place,
• there were numerous paint runs on the support and on the wear strips and the
paint,
• partially overlapped onto the fan reverser cowl,
• in the position of the missing part, the support still possessed several rivets,
• the support was drilled with thirty-seven holes, of which some had gaps between
them,
• that were less than twice the diameter of the holes.

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-11-29 19:38:55 and read 5908 times.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 16):
A lot of planes could have, and probably did use that runway in that 5 minute window

Only one aircraft used the runway - an Air France B747 took off between the DC-10 and the Concorde.

Further - the mechanic later admitted fabricating the piece of titanium because the correct part was not available and putting the titanium part on the aircraft without permission - thought he and his supervisor disputed that the supervisor was told of the makeshift repair.

The part was found within a few dozen feet of where runway markings indicate the tyre burst. Tests by BEA showed that the part could have cut the tyre.

BEA dismissed a missing spacer which allowed the main gear to wobble back and forth 3 degrees as contributing to the tyre failure.

There were several things found on the runway when it was finally searched. BEA did a very good job of identifying all of the bits and pieces and the aircraft they came from.

[Edited 2012-11-29 19:40:42]

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: TWA772LR
Posted 2012-11-29 20:06:18 and read 5699 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 17):
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 18):

OK, that explains a lot now. Thanks  

Topic: RE: Continental Not Guilty For Concorde Crash At GDG
Username: DrColenzo
Posted 2012-11-30 01:53:38 and read 4057 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
Keep in mind -- all the court ruled was CO was not CRIMINALY liable or the accident.

They still can be held liable in civil suits and matter of fact the court said the company bore civil responsibility.

The problem here is the lack of a authoritative inquest system in France built around a coroner with judicial powers*; in the US, UK and similar systems this would not have been dealt as a criminal matter, but rather a judicial investigation into the facts of the accident and that would have been a much more worthwhile exercise in this particular instance.

There has been one benefit from the court case and that is the evidence of what happened has been disected and hopefully we can all learn from the events leading up to the Concorde disaster. However, you are quite correct that this is a civil matter and perhaps there is a case to answer there.

*There is no system equivalent to an inquest in Italian law, which is why the Williams F1 team designers and engineers where taken to court and convicted over the death of Ayton Senna in 1994 - the reason why sentences from cases such as these are usually suspended is because the court recognises the difference between the causes of an accident and genuine criminal intent.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/