Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Cracks Found At CDG  
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12334 posts, RR: 18
Posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4823 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

New cracks have apperared in more parts of the new 2E Terminal. Cracking sounds were heard coming from the ceiling which forced the evacuation of everyone that were inside the damanged terminal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1223797,00.html
http://www.chieftain.com/national/1085464800/4

Sounds like the whole new 2E Terminal has to come down now

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUA2162 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 499 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4713 times:

This is really scary! I think they'll just have to shut down the whole terminal for a while. Let's just hope everything gets squared away before the arrival of the A380.

User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12334 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4553 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Terminal 2E is closed pending a criminal investgation. Only airport Employees and Emergency Services personal/Search and Rescue are allowed in the damanged terminal.

User currently offlineAviationwiz From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 962 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4239 times:

I think it's time to just level the whole terminal...  Sad


Proudly from the Home of the Red Tail.
User currently offlineScottishLaddie From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2004, 2386 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4170 times:

I'm not surprised. A big chunk has already collapsed so the rest of the structure is going to be weakened, it has to be bulldozed, otherwise it'll go itself.

User currently offlineRichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4295 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3914 times:

I can't imagine how they'll save this terminal but I hope they are able to.
Of course, if there is any doubt to its structural integrity, then bring out the wrecking ball. It'll be a shame because I'm sure whatever they put in its place will not be as interesting or architecturally pleasant. But safety must come first!



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offline7E72004 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3587 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3891 times:

Someone screwed up somewhere!  Pissed


The next generation of aircraft is just around the corner!
User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3831 times:

Yeah, they need to make reconstruction of 2E again.

User currently offlineIanatstn From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 577 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3770 times:

ScottishLaddie pretty much got it....

Cheers  Angry
Ian@STN



Ian@STN ::
User currently offlineCON207 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 292 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3597 times:

Comes as no surprise !!
The structure has been weakened and lives have already been lost.
The whole terminal would be better off pulled down and started again.
PEOPLES LIVES ARE MORE IMPORTANT!
You can rebuild a building. You cannot replace a human life.Someone really did mess up here big time .  Angry

Sue

[Edited 2004-05-25 20:04:12]


Being ill sucks. Never take life for granted!!
User currently offlineBoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3565 times:

Some of you peoples are real fatalists. Criminal investigations, The structure is weak and can't be repaired. Let the engineers look at it and then decide. Not a single building in America can withstand a 767, does this mean we should tear them all down? Maybe we should stop driving, or flying all together. You know, we might be at risk.

Ease up folks.

One last thing...If in fact someone is held criminally liable for a design or build fault, that's just wrong on so many levels. One person? After multiple reviews on a project. Man, I'm glad I live in America.

[Edited 2004-05-25 20:06:58]

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Actually BoingGoningGone,

I believe criminal investigations are normally opened under French Law to determine if such events are really accidents. It is considered part of the investigation, as opposed to the US where an investigation commences then a criminal investigation follows.

Just a little nuance of the French system.

But if flaws are turning up in other parts of the building that seems to indicate indirectly that it might be a design or materials issue, rather then a work flaw in just that one section.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineScottishLaddie From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2004, 2386 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3495 times:

Not a single building in America can withstand a 767, does this mean we should tear them all down? Maybe we should stop driving, or flying all together. You know, we might be at risk.

What has that got to do with a building that has already partially collapsed and could well go all together. Buildings aren't built to intentionally collapse like that, and you don't expect a 767 to impact one everyday either.


User currently offlineDontlikeairbus From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3492 times:

Boing,
where have u been
u act as if liability issues arent a problem here in the States


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3430 times:

Not a single building in America can withstand a 767

That's not true.

In the case of the twin towers however, their were built to withstand the impact and burn-out of a 707.

Some more modern structures (e.g., Riverbend Nuclear Power Plant's reactor) have been [re]built to withstand the impact of a 747.


User currently offlineBoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3426 times:

Boing,
where have u been
u act as if liability issues arent a problem here in the States


That's why we have insurance.

What has that got to do with a building that has already partially collapsed and could well go all together.

Nothing. It's an extreme example of some of the fatalism I've seen over this issue. Reading the threads on this is like reading European News... I mean tabloids.


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3315 times:

The WTC towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 on approach to one of the NYC airports.
That means an aircraft with low fuel.

Had the impacting 767s been low on fuel the towers would likely not have collapsed (they would probably have to have been torn down though).
It was the hot fires from the burning fuel which caused structural supports to melt that brought down the buildings.

Quite different from a building which collapses of its own accord only a year after being constructed.
A building moreover that had been warned about having structural problems that could lead to collapse even during construction but which warnings were willfully ignored!



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineBoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3266 times:

A building moreover that had been warned about having structural problems that could lead to collapse even during construction but which warnings were willfully ignored!

If that's the case, then the organization behind it's build was either ignorant to too bureaucratic to fix the problem before hand.


User currently offlineEspion007 From Denmark, joined Dec 2003, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3137 times:

creepy-i was at the terminal just a couple months ago.it seemed very,very large,but nothing to support it inside-just a long concrete tube.maybe that may have something to do with it.


Snakes on a Plane!
User currently offlineFLYtoEGCC From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 947 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3091 times:

"it seemed very,very large,but nothing to support it inside-just a long concrete tube.maybe that may have something to do with it."

Espion007
With all due respect, if you read the articles to which there are links above, you'll see that the design and structure were checked and double-checked by independent experts, and as such, this is unlikely to be the cause. At this stage all people can do is speculate, but if you have a look at the other thread on this topic that was started on the day the terminal collapsed, you'll find people in there with, i suspect, a bit more of an engineering background than yourself with some interesting comments on what may have been the cause.



Come fly with me, let's fly, let's fly away...
User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3038 times:

The WTC towers did withstand the impact of a 767. They would withstand fire alone too. They did not withstand both impact and fire, as the impact destroyed the thermal protection on structural supports, then the latter melted of fire...

Still, that has nothing to do with the situation. Same as "European News... I mean tabloids" - please, don't be that cheap and disrespectful.


User currently offlineLnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1608 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2966 times:

Boing / all,

One last thing...If in fact someone is held criminally liable for a design or build fault, that's just wrong on so many levels. One person? After multiple reviews on a project. Man, I'm glad I live in America.

I have to say, that there are places all over the world that have buildings that I'm sure don't meet today's standards, and probably shouldn't have people in them as we speak.

There are issues with construction of things ALL the time. (whether it be a building, or product, just look at the Three Mile Island Nuclear meltdown that occurred some time ago) The best outcome from ANY tragedy is to learn from mistakes, and ensure nothing happens again, which I'm sure the French will do in this case.

Boing, you are correct when you say that Insurance covers liability for issues such as this (as I'm sure you'll see when this all wraps up), but American's aren't immune to the cost of the claims when such tragedy's like this occurs -- check out your Insurance rates since 9/11. Here in Canada, they've almost tripled. Insurance isn't the end-all-be-all solution.

In my opinion, SOMEONE (individual or company) has to take responsibility for what happened. If we look at the current facts, you can see that clearly, structural failure has occurred. Whether it be from construction, poor workmanship, bad materials, someone is responsible ultimately. Who is responsible and what SHOULD be done will be decided by the outcome of the investigations.

On an side note, in reading the few threads on this subject, as well as pretty much any other thread that happens on here, it's amazing to see the complete split between the U.S and the rest of the world (A vs B ,etc), when it comes to certain topics and certain individuals. Some people really take National pride WAY out of control. I'm the first person to admit that I love my American friends just like they're family. We all know that you're the "Superpower" of the world, and we all don't need to be reminded of it, even subtly.

To the families and to the FRENCH PEOPLE --> The rest of the world (including MANY MANY Americans) feel your pain and offer our condolences for your loss.

1011yyz.



Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
User currently offlineBoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2963 times:

Still, that has nothing to do with the situation. Same as "European News... I mean tabloids" - please, don't be that cheap and disrespectful.

You mean realistic????


User currently offlineN777UA From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2932 times:

Six people die, a major part of a major airport might have to be demolished and rebuilt...

...but let's not forget about the effect on the A380!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Come on people, an airplane's an airplane, they can park it at remote stands until the terminal gets fixed or rebuilt, you can't replace the lives lost.


User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2750 times:

Very well said, 1011yyz. It saddens me to see that some people will just say "oh, that's what insurance is for" or something to that effect. Sure, it may not cost YOU directly, but it costs everybody indirectly. Same with trival lawsuits, so common in the USA for millions of dollars over spilled coffee. It costs everybody indirectly, and it affects the design of consumer products, for better or for worse.

It truly is sad that people's lives were lost, and let's hope the investigation, which is crucial by the way, will determine whether it was a material, construction, or criminal problem that occured in the new terminal at CDG.



"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
25 BoingGoingGone : This is an investigation into a safety concern. The purpose is to find the cause to prevent it in the future, not place blame. Don't over do it with t
26 Bezoar : Tragedies of this nature are often the result of multiple factors, not just one. Remove just one of the factors, and you have a very different outcome
27 Varig md-11 : Jwenting I know you're a specialist in anti-France propaganda and tabloid-like posts but the warnings were not ignored during construction: pillars we
28 LH423 : This is an investigation into a safety concern. The purpose is to find the cause to prevent it in the future, not place blame. Don't over do it with t
29 Elwood64151 : But if flaws are turning up in other parts of the building that seems to indicate indirectly that it might be a design or materials issue, rather then
30 Post contains links Garnetpalmetto : Same with trival lawsuits, so common in the USA for millions of dollars over spilled coffee. A) In the infamous Liebeck v. McDonald's case, Liebeck di
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Cracks Found In New Apron At Islip posted Sat Jun 10 2006 01:56:40 by Dragon-wings
AF - New Arrangements For F Passengers At CDG posted Wed Apr 4 2007 21:34:41 by DernierVirage
Vueling To Open A New Base At CDG posted Thu Mar 8 2007 22:58:12 by SKY1
What New At CDG For This Summer? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 23:02:15 by Uralflyer
CDG - New Check In Facilities At CDG posted Wed Jan 25 2006 15:32:55 by Dstc47
Emirates Hit New Pax Record At FCO posted Wed Oct 19 2011 16:18:44 by LIPZ
How Are Spirit's New Flights Doing At ORD? posted Tue Aug 23 2011 10:23:06 by TWA1985
New Airline Service At Tweed-New Haven? posted Sun Dec 26 2010 19:27:22 by boeing71234567
2,000 Evacuated At CDG - Snow Damage posted Fri Dec 24 2010 05:07:50 by VV701
Will AC Ever Move To T1 At CDG? posted Mon Dec 20 2010 07:01:48 by cgnnrw