Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
French Court: CO responsible for AF Concorde crash  
User currently offlinealasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 22562 times:

Just coming through on BBC News now. Source is AFP, I found this on their website.

"PARIS (AFP) - A French court found Continental Airlines 'criminally responsible' Monday for a deadly 2000 Concorde crash, ruling it was caused by a piece of metal left on the runway by one of the US carrier's jets."

EDIT: article on BBC news website now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11923556

[Edited 2010-12-06 03:05:09]

143 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 22182 times:

I'm not surprised, not in the slightest.
Since its discovery, the investigation has concentrated solely on that metal strip. Right from when the wreckage was still smoldering. They've dismissed a lot of evidence that show the real causes may have been faulty maintenance practices and poor PIC decisions.

I can't help but think that the object of the investigation was to find a way to blame anyone but a french person or company. This is my opinion drawn from reading the investigations reports and reading about other evidence to hand.

In my opinion, Continental are not at fault for causing the crash.
They do carry blame for fitting an uncertified part to their aircraft, but this was not the sole cause of the crash.

[Edited 2010-12-06 03:51:34]


arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlinestlgph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9518 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 22173 times:

ap update -


PONTOISE, France (AP) - French court orders Continental Airlines
to pay Air France euro1 million over Concorde crash.

(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

AP-NY-12-06-10 0638EST



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineGrid From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 22056 times:

It seems the French have taken a page from the U.S. system in that plaintiffs must find someone to blame other than themselves. I guess the mechanic is unlikely to ever vacation in France now.


ATR72 E120 E140 E170 E190 Q200 717 727 737 747 757 767 777 A319 A320 A321 A330 A340 MD11 MD82 MD83 MD88 MD90
User currently offlineGarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 21994 times:

Quoting Grid (Reply 4):
It seems the French have taken a page from the U.S. system in that plaintiffs must find someone to blame other than themselves

I completely agree.
From them moment I read their dismissal of the missing MLG spacer, I knew they were out to find a scapegoat.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2755 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 21492 times:

Quoting Garpd (Reply 1):
I can't help but think that the object of the investigation was to find a way to blame anyone but a french person or company

Agree. What a waste of French taxpayer money.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 21335 times:

This sounds rediculous. The reports all focused on multiple contributing causes, of which the Continental strip may have been the trigger. Given all earlier deliberations saw many contributing factors, and even if the Continental role was instrumental, this does not get the others off the hook. Looks weak, unless we're not getting the full story. Otherwise, as has been said already:

Quoting Grid (Reply 3):
It seems the French have taken a page from the U.S. system in that plaintiffs must find someone to blame other than themselves. I guess the mechanic is unlikely to ever vacation in France now.



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlinegingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 898 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 21296 times:

Not surprised, but I agree with the idea that they've been looking for a scapegoat to lay the blame on. I guess in this case, Continental are that scapegoat.


Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2755 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 21244 times:

Quoting Grid (Reply 9):
I agree the damages here are low

There should of been no damages against CAL at all.

Quoting Grid (Reply 9):
I wonder if the Concorde fleet had an inherent design flaw that mitigated the damages and we are not privy to the court's allocation of responsibility

Like three or four previous incidents of tires blowing and doing severe damage.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineGrid From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 21145 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 11):
There should of been no damages against CAL at all.

Well, yes, but once it was found guilty, the damages levied seem low, which may say a lot about how the court felt about making this ruling.



ATR72 E120 E140 E170 E190 Q200 717 727 737 747 757 767 777 A319 A320 A321 A330 A340 MD11 MD82 MD83 MD88 MD90
User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 21149 times:

Interesting how everybody thinks CO acts purely as a scapegoat here, so what they are saying then is that the court has given a political verdict and found CO guilty of something it didn't do, purely because it was ordered so? That's quite something to say from a Court of Justice in a Western European democracy....

It looks more likely that under French law CO indeed has some blame for the accident and in fact it doesn't surprise me at all.

Look at it this way: if I park my car dangerously along a narrow street and somebody slams into it at night, even when he or she is drunk and speeding, I will still be found co-responsible for the accident, despite all the aggravating factors on the driver's side for the simple reason I did something stupid/dangerous and it has (helped) cause(d) an accident. I will not just walk away from the court room in Europe, that much is a given. I dont know how it goes in the US, but here in continental Europe, that would be a no brainer really.

Nothing shocking about it at all ready and I think those who feel otherwise, have no good understanding of European criminal law really so before making all sorts of accusations, they might check up on that first!

As others have said, 1M euro is a really low sum, so the court clearly followed the law and found CO co-responsible for the accident, while at the same time also recognizing its role was only minor, hence the low fine. Very sensible judgement IMHO.

[Edited 2010-12-06 06:05:46]

User currently offlineCO 757-300 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2001, 331 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 21058 times:

aren't airports responsible for monitoring FOD on runways? surely it's not" every man for himself" out there?

User currently offlinesaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1619 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 21038 times:

If an illegal component is knowingly installed and that illegal component causes the chain reaction which leads to the accident, how are the people who knowingly acquired and installed that component not guilty?

Seems like a no brainer to me.

The person/people who knowingly did this are criminally responsible and need to be held accountable.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 21006 times:

France, I believe, is the only country that brings criminal charges in an accident investigation. The mechanic got a 15 month suspended sentince, and a E2,000 Euro fine.

Before the tragic Concorde accident, the problems of the unprotected fuel tanks in the wings had been known for years. There was also two 1979 AF Concorde incidents at IAD that could have ended with the same results as the CDG 2000 crash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washing...al_Airport#Accidents_and_incidents

Incidents
On June 13, 1979, the number 5 and 6 tires on an Air France Concorde blew out during a take-off from Washington Dulles Airport. Shrapnel thrown from the tires and rims damaged number 2 engine, punctured three fuel tanks, severed several hydraulic lines and electrical wires, in addition to tearing a large hole on the top of the wing, over the wheel well area.[48]
On July 21, 1979, another blown tire incident involving an Air France Concorde occurred during take-off from Washington Dulles Airport. After that second incident the “French director general of civil aviation issued an air worthiness directive and Air France issued a Technical Information Update, each calling for revised procedures. These included required inspection of each wheel/tire for condition, pressure and temperature prior to each take-off. In addition, crews were advised that landing gear should not be raised when a wheel/tire problem is suspected.”

It seems the Concorde's susecpitability to these events was never completely solved. Is that CO's fault, too?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 20981 times:

Quoting CO 757-300 (Reply 15):
aren't airports responsible for monitoring FOD on runways? surely it's not" every man for himself" out there?

Yes, it is an airport responsibility to control FOD on runways and taxiways (movement areas).

Quoting saab2000 (Reply 16):
If an illegal component is knowingly installed and that illegal component causes the chain reaction which leads to the accident, how are the people who knowingly acquired and installed that component not guilty?

Seems like a no brainer to me.

The part that fell off the CO DC-10 was not an illegal or unauthorized part.


User currently offlineGrid From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 20894 times:

Quoting saab2000 (Reply 16):
If an illegal component is knowingly installed and that illegal component causes the chain reaction which leads to the accident, how are the people who knowingly acquired and installed that component not guilty?

Seems like a no brainer to me.

The person/people who knowingly did this are criminally responsible and need to be held accountable.

True but it never is that simple. When you fly an airplane that has enough of a history of blowing tires and you know that foreign objects increase the likelihood of tires blowing and you know the occurrence of foreign objects on runways is not uncommon, you should probably know it's only a matter of time before something serious happens. If anything, Continental was a contributor to the accident but it looks like the court placed all of the blame on it.



ATR72 E120 E140 E170 E190 Q200 717 727 737 747 757 767 777 A319 A320 A321 A330 A340 MD11 MD82 MD83 MD88 MD90
User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 20877 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
The part that fell off the CO DC-10 was not an illegal or unauthorized part.

Regardless, it fell off it while it shouldn't, so they introduced the all important part to what later became a crime scene... as such there is NO WAY they can not be held co-responsible for what happened at that scene under French law, THAT is the whole point really.


User currently offlinesaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1619 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 20849 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
The part that fell off the CO DC-10 was not an illegal or unauthorized part.

If I am wrong I stand 100% corrected. But it was my understanding that the part in question was a counterfeit component which had been acquired via a non-standard acquisition channel to save money.

If I am wrong on this my opinion is changed. But that was my understanding.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineGrid From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 20744 times:

Quoting slz396 (Reply 20):
Regardless, it fell off it while it shouldn't, so they introduced the all important part to what later became a crime scene... as such there is NO WAY they can not be held co-responsible for what happened at that scene under French law, THAT is the whole point really.

So is Continental being held co-responsible? It seems not.



ATR72 E120 E140 E170 E190 Q200 717 727 737 747 757 767 777 A319 A320 A321 A330 A340 MD11 MD82 MD83 MD88 MD90
User currently offlineGarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 20714 times:

Quoting slz396 (Reply 20):
Regardless, it fell off it while it shouldn't, so they introduced the all important part to what later became a crime scene... as such there is NO WAY they can not be held co-responsible for what happened at that scene under French law, THAT is the whole point really.

That's just the thing though isn't it. CO have been found responsible, not co-responsible, but simply responsible.

CO carry some of the blame but they were not solely to blame.
What about AF, who's faulty maintenance (leaving a spacer out of the gear) caused the aircraft left MLG to wobble, cause a rise in heat and friction in the tyres and allow the metal strip to cause more damage? This possibly even pulled the aircraft to the left slightly and onto the metal strip.

What about the airport that failed to clear the runway of FOD before concorde was cleared for take off? (Surely such a sensitive aircraft with such a high T/O speed warranted having the runway checked!, LHR did that with BA Concordes).

What about the reports from airport fire personnel who testified to seeing smoke and flames from Concorde before it passed the location the metal strip is supposed to have been lying?

What about the overloading of Concordes fuel and luggage?

What about the decision by the PIC to take off with a tail wind?

All of these have been discounted and the finger pointed solely at CO.

[Edited 2010-12-06 06:37:31]

[Edited 2010-12-06 06:42:55]


arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 20697 times:

If you google for Air France 447 and damage claims in the US, you will see what I meant. In this case, there was no clear trigger for a fatal chain of things to happen.

User currently offlineferengi80 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 21612 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting slz396 (Reply 14):
I park my car dangerously along a narrow street and somebody slams into it at night, even when he or she is drunk and speeding, I will still be found co-responsible for the accident, despite all the aggravating factors on the driver's side for the simple reason I did something stupid/dangerous and it has (helped) cause(d) an accident

This is not the case in the UK, unless you were in the vehicle at the time of the accident. If you had parked your vehicle, and someone hit it whilst it was unattended, you would not be held responsible, regardless of how / where the vehicle was parked.

Going back to the case in question, however, the people responsible here, IMHO, are AF. The missing MLG Spacer was a key screw up, and if this was in place, things would have been completely different.

CO are definitely scapegoats here. Don't you just love French law?   



AF1981 LHR-CDG A380-800 10 July 2010 / AF1980 CDG-LHR A380-800 11 July 2010
User currently offlinediverdave From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 21582 times:

It may cost Continental much more, according to this quote from the referenced article:

"Following Monday's verdict, Air France, which paid out 100m euros in compensation, may decide to seek to reclaim some of that money from Continental. "

If the titanium part was criminal, why doesn't that same standard apply to the missing MLG spacer?  

edit: Here is an old but interesting article from 2001:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/may/13/davidrose.focus

David

[Edited 2010-12-06 06:46:39]

User currently offlineGarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 21699 times:

Quoting diverdave (Reply 26):
If the titanium part was criminal, why doesn't that same standard apply to the missing MLG spacer?

Criminal negligence in my book. But that would make AF liable, no?



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 21616 times:

It seems the French courts had made up their minds on this tragidy before the verdict was made. There is ample evidence the tires and Concorde where problematic before the accident. It seems other evidence did not carry the legal weight that it should have. Reasonable doubt never entered this case.

Was CO made a scapegoat here? Could they appeal to some world court?


25 Grid : I did google it and discovered that after the accident, U.S. courts did not ground A330s for years. The 447 incident is completely different, of cour
26 windy95 : Agree. Sounds like the court either new they could do nothing to the Mechanic and CAL or had problems with the findings. Yes it seems that way. They
27 slz396 : AF is automatically assumed liable as they were the operator of the plane, hence they needn't be found guilty for the accident by a court explicitly.
28 Grid : I don't think CO is made a total scapegoat. It seems there is enough blame to go all around. It may have been a politically convenient thing to do -
29 hloutweg : That is not what has been ruled in court. But they're responsible 100% for maintenance of their own aircraft, which at this particular event, seems t
30 rfields5421 : Airports have a responsibility for checking the runways. However no airport in the world, nor any safety expert says a FOD sweep of the entire runway
31 Garpd : No they have been found "criminally responsible" not Co-responsible Seems to me, CO is taking the most of the blame here. I think fairer terms would
32 saab2000 : Like I said, if I am wrong I stand corrected. This was my understanding of the events. But it wouldn't be the first time my understanding of events w
33 MD11Engineer : Nope, this happens all over the world (including the US). If I knowingly deviate from approved maintenance procedures and this deviation is one of th
34 Post contains images readytotaxi : I don't think that the relatives have been served well by this judgement. The French Tax payer served just as badly.
35 Zkpilot : I think the reason for the low sum of 1million is because the French knew it is a scapegoat and CO will probably pay it just to put the matter to bed
36 Grid : Aren't the requirements of criminal negligence higher than knowingly deviating from a normal course of action?
37 MD11Engineer : Because it was the mechanic, who signed the release to service. I´ve been down this road before several times. Often the supervisors don´t have the
38 MD11Engineer : Depends on the country´s laws. Jan
39 slz396 : CO are found responsible, together with others which were automatically responsible, hence CO became co-responsible. It's not that hard to understand
40 nighthawk : The BBC article seems to disagree: The BBC article suggests CO did not dispute this, they argued the part didnt cause the crash, not that the part wa
41 Grid : Right, but you spoke in generalities before so I was hoping you would do so again.
42 windy95 : In many peoples opinion the piece of metal did not start the chain of events. The missing spacer in the landing gear allowed the gear bogey to swivel
43 jouy31 : So, he gets a suspended sentence and actually has to pay just a EUR 2,000 fine ? CO may be interested in appealing the verdict, but I am not sure an
44 EricR : This sets an interesting precedent for all accidents involving FOD from other carriers. I think the relatively low penalty is the court's way of sayin
45 Grid : Maybe. Under France's civil law system, I'm not sure how binding court's decisions are. Besides, this is one verdict that might be better off being i
46 worldliner : If the trial was in any other country there is no doubt that the outcome would of been different.
47 BA174 : The sad thing about the 79 incident is that one of the recommendations was to fit Concordes fuel tanks with bullet proof liners. This did not happen
48 KLXA380 : You tell me where one square inch of Democracy exists on this planet and you will be getting free oil changes for life !!!!! I have one question. Sin
49 frmrCapCadet : Enough has been said on this site to persuade me that we need an expert in French law, and a forensic engineer to interpret what the French decision m
50 Grid : It probably depends on the merger agreement and what each party has agreed to assume for liabilities and whether the French appellate court rules bef
51 Grid : Lack of knowledge has never stopped anyone from posting on airliners.net before.
52 jouy31 : Well, EADS, the result of the merger of Aérospatiale (one of the defendants) and a German company has been ordered by the same court to pay 30% of c
53 Post contains images KLXA380 : Oh ok. Just another question though. Now that i have moved here to the USA ( Northbrook, Chicago to be exact ), is there anyway i can get more info o
54 YULWinterSkies : Yeah, something like prison and millions for the mechanic and hundreds of millions for CO. A million for CO is a gift, and so is 5 month suspension f
55 KLXA380 : Unfortunately victims in todays society come last. As Tommy Araya from Slayer once sung " Lost child pay the dead Bleeding screams of silence" Lost c
56 lightsaber : That is the point. All aircraft experience FOD. *All* other aircraft are required to be able to handle a tire blow out during runway operations... th
57 GATechAE : You are getting a bit mixed up there. CO+mechanic has been found to be the sole CRIMINALLY negligible party. The others have been found to be civilly
58 jouy31 : It is a suspended sentence; which means that he will serve no prison term unless he is convicted by a French court of committing the same offence wit
59 MD11Engineer : Usually after incidents traced back to design faults, the manufacturers issue service bulletins with a recommened fix. This SB is not mandatory unles
60 MaverickM11 : Truly pathetic. This is the best/saddest line in the whole article, that sums up French justice in this case: "But he concluded: 'The photograph does
61 rfields5421 : A merger, or purchase by another company, does not end liabilities - at least in the US. The 'new' company inherits all claims and actions against th
62 shankly : One assumes the surface of the sea will be found guilty by the French Courts for causing the break up of AF447
63 chopchop767 : I saw this pop on the news too and was surprised by the verdict. Does Continental have a responsibility to ensure that FOD isn't falling off their pla
64 AirNZ : No, it could be conceived as not the sole cause of the crash, but it was the specific aspect which caused the chain of events to happen on that fatef
65 TOMMY767 : If y'all recall correctly, CO had issues with D10 gear spilling out on runways back in the late 1990s/early 2000s. There was an incident at EWR that s
66 Garpd : But there is evidence that things were in motion before the metal strip. The plane was overweight The PIC decided to continue take off with a tail wi
67 Access-Air : Maybe not after every takeoff, but for Concorde, yes. If the Brits did it for theirs, why not the French for theirs? Also, did British Airways have a
68 ANITIX87 : Yes, and I believe it was SOP to do a runway sweep before a Concorde departure. This was skipped, if I recall correctly, because the flight was delay
69 NZ001 : French are just looking to pass the blame. Shocking that CO are blamed. The engineers should be, but imagine being one of those engineers working that
70 windy95 : No it started with the missing spacer that pulled the aircraft left of center. The skid mark of 4 tires could be seen before it hit the plate. The pl
71 MD11Engineer : The missing spacer would solely be the responsibility of the technician who signed off the last wheel change (and that´s not a Concorde issue alone,
72 kanban : actually money well spent since the goal was to absolve French comanies and ceivil service from any responsibility Re the fines... as I recall readin
73 707lvr : Quoting Burkhard (Reply 6): 1 million is an extremely low sum. If a French aircraft had lost a part on a runway in the US, playing any role in an US p
74 MD11Engineer : The aircraft fullfilled the design specs at the time when it was designed. Jan
75 glideslope : Could not agree more. What a waste of French Taxpayer money. This entire trial was a circus about dismissing evidence putting the airports failure to
76 glideslope : Interesting theory. Yesterday I would have thought you were deranged.
77 GDB : I was in BA Concorde Engineering at the time, we of course worked closely with the investigation and would lead, in parallel with this, work on the r
78 Post contains images N1120A : They ARE at fault. They share that fault with others. You clearly understand neither system. I don't think it is that bad. Garbage. CAL certainly bea
79 LMP737 : Courts in the US have no say on whether or not a type of aircraft is grounded.
80 413X3 : So is this why nothing has happened in the AF447 crash? Because the French authorities have been unable to blame other countries yet?
81 Post contains images jouy31 : I would say the ECHR rather than the ECJ.
82 WAH64D : No it is not. FOD control is the responsibility of EVERYBODY in aviation whether they be a ramper, FOD patrol agent or a Ground Controller. How can y
83 Post contains images cuban8 : National pride eyyy?? I'm sure the discussion on this forum would have been very different if the titanium left on the runway would have come from an
84 Post contains images usair330 : If airport services would have checked that runway before Concorde took off this accident could have been avoided. I don't believe in Santa Clause
85 LHRBlueSkies : Yes, CO need to take responsibility for their part in this tragedy, as should any airline or organisation who a) fitted incorrect parts, and b) left s
86 Post contains images readytotaxi : As we come to the end of another year at Airliners.net this is one of the better quotes I have seen.
87 GDB : As mentioned before, please listen to what you are saying. The French are not from outer space, they just have a different way of investigation in th
88 Post contains links MD11Engineer : why do you think most of us are supscious, bordering on paranoia, when having to sign for work carried out by somebody else? I´m a member of the Brit
89 Aesma : I took a semester in law a few years ago, I learned enough to understand that this case is almost impossible to grasp as an outsider, even with far mo
90 glideslope : Never would happen. What would Air France do with the Million? Maybe a new "Official" Livery for the Sarkozy 332?
91 glideslope : Very good point, as this is the direction in my experience also. While I am not an Aircraft Engineer, the trend to go after, as I like to call it "Th
92 rolfen : If airplanes shed their parts like this on the runway, we'd have many more accidents. This should not happen! But putting the blame on the 1st event m
93 Post contains images MaverickM11 : The irony being that Concorde was especially prone to leaving a trail of FOD behind it
94 soon7x7 : Having just disassembled (15) 747 tire/rims for scrap, I find it extremely hard to believe a strip of 2024 aluminum penetrated a heavy transport tire,
95 MD11Engineer : It was supposed to be a 2024 aluminium strip, but the CO mechanic used titanium instead, which is quite a bit harder and tougher. Jan
96 frmrCapCadet : This seemed to be pretty informative to me, along with the rest of the post.
97 Pihero : I have to thank MD11Engineer and GDB and a few others for their work in fending-off the anti-French brigade. Otherwise, I would have risked another ba
98 rcair1 : IIRC the tire segments did not penetrate - or if they did, it was a small leak. The gusher was the result of a pressure wave in the tank that blew ou
99 art : Sure of that? I studied English law a little, so I'm curious to know if that's your belief or if know that as a fact. I believe that if you park a ca
100 ltbewr : To me this French investigative/criminal court decision may set a very questionable precedent, especially in Europe. We have seen here with France and
101 Dizzy777 : With the "evidence" you have set out, Remove the "metal strip" from the equation, now tell me, would the plane have blown a tyre? Caught fire? crashe
102 OzGlobal : Please explain how this comment is anything but bigotry?
103 cschleic : A common argument. But what if you keep going back up the chain...where does it stop? If the runway had been checked, did ATC make a mistake sending
104 airbear : Hello all ... yes. It all sounds a bit like the manufacturer of a gun used as a murder weapon, being found guilty of the murder. In this case, the FO
105 MaverickM11 : Couldn't you say the exact same thing about the tire flaw going back over 20 years?
106 MD11Engineer : But on the other hand there have to be penalties to stop people from making dangerous shortcuts or prioritizing economic concerns over safety. Let´s
107 YYZYYT : Don't confuse criminal and civil courts - this is a criminal conviction, and the 1 million Euros are a fine, not damages. As an aside (and from a com
108 casinterest : For this court to find the mechanic and Continental the sole criminaly responsible parties is a farce. EADS, and the designers of the Concorde are eve
109 Airvan00 : I thought it was explained up thread that this wasn't the case. The mechanic and Continental were additional to those already responsible. Maybe I wa
110 rcair1 : Actually - I think you could replace "metal strip" with a number of things in this accident and say it would not have crashed. For instance, "overwei
111 Dizzy777 : I agree, however, for the purpose of this particular accident: All the links prior to the metal strip seem to be some what minor (in the context of t
112 jonathan-l : If I am not mistaken, the Continental aircraft was the second to last aircraft taking off before the Concorde. So it was bad luck that the metal stri
113 Garpd : I did and found the reasons for not accepting witness accounts pretty weak. Yes they use figures, measurements and such. But those can easily be fudg
114 wilco777 : Here we go again into a french bashing! It really upsets me to see some comments from people who have not taken the time to read the full investigatio
115 Garpd : In this case, AFs procedures are in question, regardless what you think. They failed to re-enforce the underside of the wings after a few well known
116 Grid : Obviously this forum would grind to a halt if people could comment only after reading full reports, knowing the justice systems of various countries,
117 CuriousFlyer : Having read a lot of articles since it happened, I agree with the sensible people on this thread: CO has their share of responsibility. It's simple: h
118 XT6Wagon : The origonal items were stainless steel. Funny enough, they used stainless steel to mimic the titanium for many tests, after proving that titanium an
119 art : To me that is something indicating fault by the designers. It was foreseeable that blown tyres might puncture the wing yet no steps were taken to mit
120 MD11Engineer : It is his duty to make sure that whatever he installs (and signs for) fullfills all regulations and procedures. Period. There is no weaseling out in
121 Pihero : In this caser, I'm all ears. Prove that those figures, may I remind you, approved by the saintly NTSB and the godly AAIB plus the Germans and a host
122 MD11Engineer : One thing more: Any maintenance carried out on an aircraft, which is not done in accordance with approved documentation is illegal and voids the aircr
123 shankly : That is true. Although airport fire personnel have a particular skill at identifying fire in aircraft (funnily enough). Whilst it maybe prudent not t
124 MD11Engineer : From what I understand AF accepted their part of the guilt already several years ago and paid a compensation to the victims. CO contested the finding
125 Garpd : It's not a question of aeronautics, it's the statement that the fire personel saw flames and smoke from Concorde well before the metal strip that is
126 Pihero : I like the "without a doubt"... Then prove it as I'm, again, all ears. I really wonder whether you've read the report (it's in English, btw). The rep
127 Pihero : I do not know your background but I suspect it has to do with very little knowledge of Maths and Physics, the same kinds that sent people to the moon
128 Garpd : Agreed, and if it did and I smelt the same rat, I would voice the same opinion. Be it a British, American, German, African or whatever investigation.
129 Aesma : But then BA is also in question, they didn't modify the Concorde either.
130 Pihero : You could have fracking fooled me ! Poor rat...
131 art : I don't think it is the job of airlines to re-design and re-engineer aircraft in their fleet, is it? Why was extra protection from burst tyre damage
132 Garpd : If indeed they did not, then yes. But it wasn't a BA concorde that crashed was it? So they have no fault in this accident. However, I'm led to believ
133 GDB : If you are referring the elevon or rudder de-lamination, they happened in flight, the missing part ending up in the drink. Certainly in my time on th
134 Pihero : You believe a lot, especially when prejudice conforms to your beliefs... Pity you don't know as much as you believe. to GDB, Thanks for an interestin
135 Garpd : If you call an having opinion being prejudice then that's your call. I couldn't care less who investigated what and what flag they serve.
136 ZKCIF : Could anybody explain to what extent is the verdict dangerous to CO? Can they be sued by French and/or American/ any other courts for paying more? Wha
137 Aesma : No need to sue, that verdict already rules that CO must pay 30% of the compensations (that have been paid a long time ago by AF insurers, an undisclos
138 JoeCanuck : I don't believe the wing was punctured by the tire. From what I understand, the tire hit the wing below the tank sending a shock wave into the tank a
139 Garpd : Didn't a BA Concorde have a similar, non fatal type on incident in the 80s with one of their concordes, prompting them to beef up the metal work below
140 Post contains images David L : Ah, GDB, I'm still amazed at your continued patience on this matter, even after several years! Sadly, it's quite obvious that many of the opinions her
141 thediplomat : David, There is also an anti-french bias on anet. which flows through many many threads on this forum.
142 JoeCanuck : It may be loaded but not intentionally. If one is sensitive enough, evidence can be found for an anti-anyone/everyone bias. It the thread is french,
143 GDB : Due to it's configuration, take off speeds, yes Concorde was more susceptible to damage from bursts. This was factored in to operational procedures. T
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...
Regarding AF Concorde Crash posted Wed May 12 2010 03:46:58 by 777way
AF Concorde Crash Trial Begins posted Mon Feb 1 2010 21:48:58 by BlueFlyer
AF Concorde Crash Show On NBC Dateline posted Sun Feb 22 2009 16:23:33 by JFKMan
What Happened To The AF A320 Crash At Airshow? posted Fri Aug 25 2000 00:23:01 by Qantas777
AF Concorde Crash Video Downloads? posted Sat Jul 29 2000 19:12:55 by Olympic A-340
Reg. # On The AF Concorde That Crashed Today posted Tue Jul 25 2000 22:39:05 by RWally
Continental To Be Accused For Concorde Crash? posted Thu Mar 10 2005 21:14:28 by Tomys
First To Fly The AF A380 Visits Concorde G-B0AD posted Sat Dec 19 2009 04:45:06 by MadameConcorde
End Of Life For The Oldest A320 In Service (AF) posted Sat Aug 15 2009 09:15:24 by FlySSC
AF Keeps CDG-PHL For The Summer. posted Sun Feb 22 2009 23:48:51 by FlySSC