Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Concorde Relatives Sue Continental  
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 20
Posted (14 years 10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2812 times:

Continental, Goodyear sued over Air France Concorde crash

By C. Bryson Hull

HOUSTON, July 26 (Reuters) - Survivors of five French crew members who perished in last summer's fiery crash of an Air France Concorde jet sued Continental Airlines and tiremaker Goodyear for negligence that allegedly led to the crash, lawyers said on Thursday.

The families of four flight attendants and the co-pilot aboard Air France Flight 4590 sued Continental for allegedly faulty maintenance that led to a metal strip falling onto the Concorde's runway. The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, also blames Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. for the design of the tires used on the Concorde's landing gear.

The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, came Wednesday, exactly one year after the crash and two days after the release of an interim report by French safety investigators.

The interim report affirmed an initial finding that the venerable supersonic jet suffered the first crash in its history after running over metal debris on the runway.

The French Accident Investigation Bureau found the metal strip ruptured a tire, sending debris shooting into the aircraft's underwing fuel tank and causing a deadly fire seconds after take-off from Paris' Charles De Gaulle airport on July 25, 2000. The report noted that investigators still did not fully understand the mechanics of how the fuel tank burst.

The jet rode a fiery trail, captured by a passerby on a chilling videotape, before crashing into a hotel in Gonesse, killing all 109 on board and four people on the ground.


Both Houston-based Continental and Akron, Ohio-based Goodyear rejected any liability for the crash.

"Our sympathy goes out to the victims of the accident, but we don't see how Contintental bears responsibility for it," Continental spokesman David Messing said.

Goodyear spokesman Chris Aked said the safety investigation stated there was nothing wrong with the tires and that it was the metal strip that caused the puncture and not a defect.

"We obviously sympathize with all the victims, but we are very certain about the quality and integrity of the tires," Aked said.

Goodyear, as well as Concorde manufacturers BAE Systems Plc and EADS , was represented by an attorney for Air France's insurers who negotiated a settlement with about 750 relatives of victims. Lawyer Fernand Garnault on Monday confirmed a deal had been struck, but declined to comment on news reports pegging its value at around $120 million.

San Mateo, California-based law firm O'Reilly, Collins & Danko alleges that Continental improperly installed the metal strip onto one of their DC-10 jets 16 days before the crash.

The DC-10 in question, bound for Newark, New Jersey, and later found to be missing the strip, took off shortly before the New York-bound Concorde. Air France and its insurers last year sued Continental on the same grounds, and that case is still pending in a U.S. court.

The latest suit alleges the Goodyear tires were improperly designed for the Concorde, since unlike a conventional aircraft, the tires are located close to the supersonic jet's underwing fuel tanks and engine inlets. The tires should have been designed to deflate upon puncture, rather than explode and send chunks of tire carcass flying, the suit claims.

Concordes, which were grounded after the crash until British Airways test-flew one on July 17, no longer use Goodyear tires, but a new tire made by Michelin.

Plaintiff's attorney Michael Danko said his clients deserved the same recompense as the survivors of the dead passengers.

"We don't really know for sure why settlements were not offered to crewmembers' families. But we certainly have some ideas," he said.

The Warsaw Convention, which governs liability in international flight crash, only requires that carriers compensate the survivors of passenger victims, not crew.

Continental's Messing declined to comment when asked if the carrier paid settlements to the relatives of passenger victims but not those of the dead crew. Goodyear's Aked similarly declined to comment, but acknowledged the company was represented in the settlement negotations.

The suit does not name Air France because there is no apparent negligence on their part, Danko said.

22:57 07-26-01

Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

They'll sue Continental and Goodyear but not Air France? Something smells rotten.

"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
105 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlineAirlinelover From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 5580 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (14 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2547 times:

Of course they won't sue Air France, as it wasn't their fault!  Insane But anyway, they just want money. They are greedy, and I am sure that their deceased relatives are spitting in their graves over this..I would be..

Also, I urge EVERYBODY to read either the Virus Alert or Urgent Everyone Read thread that I posted. I think people are getting emails from A.net and sending viruses to them, as I got one tonite. I caught it though. Details are there.


Lets do some sexy math. We add you, subtract your clothes, divide your legs and multiply
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8653 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (14 years 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2534 times:

This is trully insane. Pieces fall off planes all the time. If every time a plane rolled over a small piece of metal a crash resulted, jet travel would be as popular as Zeppelins. If a plane can't suffer a burst tire without going down in a fireball then the fault resides completely with the designer, not whoever left a strip of scrap metal behind.

fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30408 posts, RR: 57
Reply 3, posted (14 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2524 times:

Has anybody actually heard any difinative proof that piece of metal actually....

A. Came off a DC-10
B. Came from a CO aircraft
C. Was struck by the tire on the Concorde
D. Caused a tire burst.

If any of those isn't true save for maybe B then the relatives have no case.

I have no doubt however that the French report will do everything it can to protect the Concorde design.

Before you guys start throwing knifes at me...I don't say that in jest.

If you want a historical precedent to that statement go and read a copy of the US NTSB report on the Roselawn ATR crash and the report from the French Authorities on the same crash.

User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2523 times:

Such an opportunity to aquire lots of money only comes by once in a life time. I would try to make the best out of the unfortunete situation and cash in on it. I hope those who filed the lawsuit win their case. I would sue air france too, their fault or not. They were flying a badly designed aircraft in which an accident was waiting to happen. It is ridiculous that pices of RUBBER that came off the tires punctured the wing fuel tanks. What are they made of paper?

The concorde is a piece of crap, face it.

User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (14 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2513 times:


that was one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read. There have been hundreds of serious articles about the case and what are you doing? Writing nonsens. What kind of material are your eyes made of? Wood? That would explain that you cannot read the reports which state the facts. Maybe you should learn that the rubber used in tyres is not the same as rubber used in pens.

Maybe the wing tank was a weakness, ok. But why ground the aircraft, now after it has been modified and is not any longer regarded as unsafe? There have been many design faults so far, just look at the DC-10. They fixed the problems back in the 70s and the aircraft enjoyed great success. Or should they have grounded them forever for only one fault?
And don't forget, that was ONE accident in over 20 years. Quite a good safety record...

Piece of crap? If you think so, ok. But I regard it as a legend and like thousands other people I cannot wait to see it taking off again. You don't have to fly with it, so calm down.

User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (14 years 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2500 times:

The cocorde is an out dated rust bucket. It was new and great in the 1970's but it's days are long past. Even if the fuel tank problem is fixed new problems are sure to arise. These planes are flying on 30 year old engines and Im sure such a long time of sucking in moisture has had its ill efect. The concorde cannot fly forever and it wont. I highly doubt that It will return to service in the first place. Remember the aloha 737 which lost some of its fusulage? Well it was much newer then the Concorde when it happened and the probelem was found to be corrosin. Sure it might look nice on the outside but whats underneath is what counts.

As for other planes having crashed, there has yet to be an airliner which was pulled out of service after the first incident.

User currently offlineBruneiAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (14 years 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2490 times:

Where did you get those diagrams??????
They are soooo cool

Ps. how do you get them to work??

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13604 posts, RR: 76
Reply 8, posted (14 years 10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2473 times:

For the 100th time, the tyre carcass did NOT puncture the tanks, the leak was caused by an internal shockwave in the fuel. And EADS have not been able to replicate the incident, (perhaps they've not tried to simulate overfuelling the tanks?).
Rust bucket? Well flying at Mach 2 pretty much eliminates any mositure. And aircraft age is measured in flying hours and landings, not years.
Operate ANY aircraft outside of it's limits, then a minor incident can very quickly turn nasty.
Finally, don't judge all operators of a design the same, maint. and procedures do differ from carrier to carrier. Even when there are only two.

User currently offlineTravaz From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 317 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (14 years 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2466 times:

It would seem to me that the Airport would bear the responsibility of no maintaining a clean runway. I mean it just gets ridiculus the way they sue everyone!

User currently offlineAKelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2201 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (14 years 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2445 times:

Hey, what about sueing BAe and EADS (Aerospatiale) for designing a faulty aircraft?

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 12434 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (14 years 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2444 times:

"Well flying at Mach 2 pretty much eliminates any mositure. "

Very true!

"And aircraft age is measured in flying hours and landings, not years. "

You should tell Udo that. It doesn't matter that the plane only crashed once in 20 years. What matters is that statistically, the Concorde is the most unsafe plane in modern times, at an incident rate of more than 20 times as unsafe as the 737, rudder and all.

Blaming the Continental jet is complete bullshit. The facts are facts. It didn't matter that it ran over a piece of metal from a CO plane. It could have been a rock, or a bird, or plently of other types of FOD on the runway to cause the same thing. I hope this thing is tried in the US. There's much less protectionism for the Concorde here, and I'd predict that it will end quickly, with a win for Continental.

Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 32
Reply 12, posted (14 years 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2445 times:

I'd just like to say that all the families of the people who died on the ill-fated flight received $1,000,000 from Air France.

Now the relatives of 5 Air France Crew Members are sueing Continental and Goodyear.

Although i don't see why they should sue both, one was more to blame than the other (although i do not know which).

You assholes who are saying these relatives are greedy, how the F&CK would you feel if one of your family members were killed, when it was not necassarily their fault.

In 30 years this has never happened, there have been blowouts before but this was a 1 in a million. Does anyone want to get over that or not?

CYKA - Your posts are ignorant, immature and very rude. I would hope that if one of your family was on that aircraft you wouldn't still post the same Bullsh!t.

Once again, families of the victims, my thoughts are with you.

Lets hope once again Concorde will grace our skies.



User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 32
Reply 13, posted (14 years 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2442 times:

Travaz has a good point  Smile

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 12434 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (14 years 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2427 times:

"You assholes who are saying these relatives are greedy, how the F&CK would you feel if one of your family members were killed, when it was not necassarily their fault. "

If it were me, I'd be very distressed, obviously. That doesn't give me the right to sue anyone I please. It doesn't even necessarily give me the right to sue even! Fact is, people are mortal. It is a sad fact of life that people die. It is a sad fact that sometimes bad luck just happens. And seeing how the people involved in the suit aren't reading these threads, I don't see the necessity to always temper what is being said so as not to offend. Sometimes, the truth hurts. Deal with it.

The fact is, the Concorde was downed by a design flaw. A tire blowout downed the plane. Not, the piece of metal. The critical point in the chain of events was the tire blowing out. And, you think this is a one in a million chance event? Think again. There have not even been a million Concorde flights yet, but this has happened TWICE!! A tire blowout nearly downed another Concorde at Dulles. Don't forget that.

Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineLuckySevens From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (14 years 10 months 6 days ago) and read 2417 times:

Remember that the Concorde recieves treatment above and way beyond what a normal plane recieves. It also accumulates far fewer hours in the air than most commercial aircraft. Also, remember that there were only 15 Concordes in commercial service ever. (At any time there are over ten times that number of 737s in the air)

All Tire Burst Incidents:

All Concorde Incidents:

Safe? No.
Exhilirating? Yes!

User currently offlineCorey777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (14 years 10 months 6 days ago) and read 2407 times:

Geez, I would say there is/was a BIG problem with Concorde's tires blowing out and causing airframe damage. Out of 90 Concorde incidents on aviation-safety.net, 55 are tire-bursts and 32 resulted in some sort of system damage besides the tire(s). I would have taken Concorde out of service for modifications years ago.

As far as who is 'responsible' for AF4590, though a CO plane may have dropped the metal strip, shouldn't the blame also be with AdP for not checking the runway adequately (especially seeing as how sensitive the Concorde's tires seem to be?)

Just my thoughts,

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21652 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (14 years 10 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2400 times:

EGGD: I'd just like to say that all the families of the people who died on the ill-fated flight received $1,000,000 from Air France.

Sadly, you´re wrong about that: Only the families of the passengers are entitled to compensation from the recent settlement. The crew´s families will get nothing from that.

While I don´t think that money can resolve the consequences of this terrible tragedy, I do think airlines ought to take more responsibility for their own employees and their relatives in such a situation. The current "too bad, but you´re on your own" approach doesn´t seem quite right to me.

User currently offlineVirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (14 years 10 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2392 times:

Why are the family members sueing CO? Why not CDG crew responsible for the clean up of the runways. Is it because they have a thing against Americans since it's so far only five instead of the rest of the families joining in? Things fall off of aircraft many times but it's the airport's resposibility to clean it up. I think they need to sue Air France for their disgraceful "You're on your own" approach. And the French thinks that we are barbaric. Atleast airlines tend not to eave the next of kin high and dry. Until Air France gives compensation I'll be boycotting like I did with SIA after their abominable treatment to the families of 006 TWA the same thing toward Flt 800 families, and PAN AM after they helped murder 270 people when they cut corners on security (which resulted in the death of my best friend and his family)

User currently offlineVirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (14 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2388 times:

What I also wanted to say is that PA went under to to bad press that the families gave them. So AF better be very careful because they are walking on thin ice. In the court of employee/public opinon; they've already lost.

User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 32
Reply 20, posted (14 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2379 times:

55 are tire-bursts So it was a 1 in 55 event, i am mistaken.

Klaus - i think that backs up my statement more so.

these people died doing their job, it wasn't their fault the plane went down (well, it hasn't been proved yet i don't think). Claims direct said it best: "If you have had an accident, and it wasn't your fault you are entitled to a claim".

So there we are.

This can all be traced down to the chicken and the egg, which came first? In my view it was the egg. (What caused the accident, the metal or the tyre (blowout)?)

2 Scenario's, obviously the families of the crew thought that the egg came first, so they sue Continental and Goodyear. If they'd have thought that the chicken came first they'd sue the Air France or whoever.

User currently offlineTeXstud323 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (14 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2368 times:

so... if a plane goes down due to ingestion of birds in the engine, Everyone should go sue the Audobon Society!? The thought of holding Continental Airlines responsible is absurd. What if the object had been a piece of asphalt..who would be to blame then? If Concorde was that vulnerable to cataclysmic death-by-metal, glad I never flew on it! I don't dismiss the grief the surviving relatives must feel but that we can't lose sense of reality either.

User currently offline174thfwff From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (14 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2365 times:

I have a question...

Didn't the Concorde do a go around 3 times?

I thought I heard that somewhere.

Maybe if that is true then these people could have been saved if they landed the first or second or even third time. Maybe the pilots were to blame if this is true.

Also.Come on, you people take risks flying. As seeing that everything in this world could kill you one way or another. Why don't we sue mobile phone companies for making it easier for us to talk and drive? I am sorry these people died and everything, but they took the risk of flying that day,don't try to tell me that I am a moron or a unsensitive person. But you take risks for driving to and from work.

Sueing for bullshit reasons like this make the world a suckier place to live. My goodness. ok so they are sueing CO because a piece of metal fell off. It;s like that idiot who is suing her teacher because he pulled out a chair from under her and she fell less the one foot to the ground. She is suing for emotional damages. That is total crap. If i was a judge I would send that bitch to jail just for wasting my time.

These are my "epinions" if you don't like em, too bad.

User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (14 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2366 times:

CYKA, you are an ass for such a idiotic statement. You're one of these money-grubbing individials that thinks you have a "right" to "cash in" on anything, anyone, if it furthers you. You don't care if what you're suing for is true or has merit-just sue, and make me rich. You hope these people win their case simply because you, yourself, have no moral bearings that such a suit is wrong. The only think that matters to someone like you is YOU.

As for the suit against CO, Gordon Bethune made two great points when he was in Cleveland earlier this year:

1. Even if it was a piece of a CO aircraft that went into that tire, why should a blown tire cause a catastrophic fire in an engine? Sounds like a desing flaw.

2. As he told the CO employees-CO has LOTS of insurance to cover such an eventuality.

Either way, in my view, the fault should be put squarely on Air France and the maker of Concorde. That's where the lion's share of the blame lies.

User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 32
Reply 24, posted (14 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2358 times:

I'm tellin you its the chicken and the egg!

25 Alpha 1 : 174thfwff, they never got chance to do one go-around. You've all probably seen the video of the crash-the engine was engulfed in flames right after ta
26 Post contains links Klaus : (This has gotten quite long. Sorry for that.) There is in fact one other aspect to the accident where AF might actually be involved. It´s a mistake i
27 Whistler : "And don't forget, that was ONE accident in over 20 years. Quite a good safety record... " Not really, considering less than 20 concordes were built.
28 D L X : From a post in another thread, I said: "[another poster] It has the best safety record of almost any commercial airliner, " Actually, it has just abou
29 Donder10 : Hi GDB, could you email at donder10@yahoo.com please as I have a few questions to ask you. Thanks,Alex
30 Cyril B : If i had to sum up what i read about this topic, it would give something like that: "Concorde is a piece of crap, Air France is a piece of crap to, an
31 Jean leloup : The amateur statistical "evidence" that tends to surface in these discussions is ridiculous. Can an airliner, after experiencing it's one and only fat
32 Post contains images Aloha 737-200 : N400QX: As was pointed out tyre rubber is completely different than conventionl rubber. I do know that auto tyres are lines with stell belts!! Take an
33 D L X : Jean, you can't play 'what if.' It happened. The fact that a tire blowout caused the plane to crash proves that the thing wasn't safe. It was an accid
34 D L X : "Hence why the tyre pieces COULD VERY EASILY puncture or severely damage an aircraft's skin, or a fuel tank in this instance. " And when tires blow on
35 174thfwff : I would have been the first person in line to buy a Concorde ticket the day after it crashed, no doubt in my mind would I have secont thoughts. Doed e
36 MD-90 : What the heck? Titanium is an illegal metal to use in aircraft consturction? Since when has it been illegal?
37 Lehpron : Be careful with statistics, DLX, they ARE just numbers. What they mean is usually mathimatical superstition, nothing. Different people see different t
38 Donder10 : Unlike other commerical planes Concorde had flown such few hours that a problem didn't crop earlier.Other commerical planes fly many more hours and cy
39 Post contains images Strickerje : So far numbers are the most realistic and accurate way of expressing data. Any conclusions? I see plenty: 1) there are very few Concordes as compared
40 L-188 : Klaus and I seem to be thinking along the same lines as to possible causes of this crash. And from what I have seen of the peliminary report that you
41 Eg777er : Numbers, numbers, numbers. Statistics show that Concorde has allegedly the highest accident rate of any airliner. However, it's not quite fair and not
42 Cyril B : I Don't think titanium is illegal for aircraft construction. But what i know is that this piece of trust reversers shouldn't have been made of titaniu
43 GDB : Firstly, sueing the airport is way off beam, the CO DC-10 took off, the illegal repair, (the piece of titainium), fell off. Then an AF B747 took off.
44 Akelley728 : Aloha 737-200: Airliner tires are bias-ply, not steel belted. However, airlines/tire manufacturers are strongly looking at switching the steel-belted
45 MD-90 : L-188, I wasn't saying titanium was illegal. It was a rhetorical question. I totally agree with you. Continental wouldn't make a part for an aircraft
46 L-188 : I did also notice too in the report that it critized the spacing of the rivits that held the deflector plate on the the engine. The Brits where correc
47 Klaus : CDB: Very probably the piece was blown to the edge of the runway. We know F-BTSC was at the edge of the runway as it took out several landing lights,
48 Alpha 1 : Cyril B-you're forgetting one important thing: it has never been proved that this piece of metal actually came off the CO aircraft. That has never bee
49 GDB : It's been recently established that the piece of metal did come from the CO DC-10. The actual work for CO was carried out by Bedek in Israel. I'm not
50 Ryanair : I can't understand the arguement CO is scot free, their operation created a hazard that made a plane crash killing 113 people. They're not the only pa
51 Klaus : GDB: Klaus, my understanding is that F-BTSC had steering problems soon into the take-off, probably before hitting the metal object. I don´t know abou
52 GDB : The skid marks and fuel and oil stains on the runway clearly show F-BTSC veering to the left. Runway light debris catalogued during the wreck parts in
53 Post contains links Klaus : Ryanair: There are various pictures of the flight taking off that show very clearly the a/c was not at the side of the runway. No. The pictures were t
54 Klaus : GDB: BEA state that the veering was caused by engine thrust on nos.1 and 2 being disrupted by hot gas ingestion, no Concorde pilot we've spoken to is
55 Post contains images Klaus : Critter592: Maybe you should do something against the urge to read forums you´re not interested in...
56 D L X : Whew! I come back from vacation, and I get a whole bunch of D L X-haters on me. fair enough. I can take it. I'll start with GDB, because I'm not sure
57 Lehpron : Bravo, very nice indeed; only to the extent that your post deserves response. I for one am going to defend myself. DLX, you said that statistics if us
58 L-188 : GDB....I am confused by one of your statements. The piece of metal scalped the wheel of the Concorde, the piece that hit No.5 tank, denting it, was 5
59 GDB : DLX-Because there's plenty more info (naturally after further investigation), of other factors in the accident that undermines the 'single cause' that
60 Post contains links Klaus : GDB: Thanks for the link to ConcordeSST; It links to the "renegade report" here: http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,490018,00.html It says i
61 Eg777er : D L X - do I detect a tiny, tiny, tiny degree of jealousy here? Anyway, with regards to the successor, I propose my version: Name: eg777er-one Format:
62 Post contains images Klaus : Eg777er: Comments - or have I been rambling? Well... at least you forgot the fuel consuption specs! Not to mention the proof of feasibility...
63 Post contains images Eg777er : Pfffffff Fuel consumption is for wimps - look at Concorde... Seriously though, it would have to have 2005 levels of fuel consumption for entry into se
64 D L X : Lehpron: "Don't use statistics, use the fact that Concorde is a first; all firsts will experience failure at some point because there is nothing to bu
65 GDB : I agree, taking CO to court is not justified, when AF did, it was seen by many involved with the aircraft as a cynical act.
66 Post contains links and images Strickerje : DLX: "Obviously, I could have a complete death trap, sit it in a hanger for 19.9 years, then say 'it's still the safest, first crash in 20 years' afte
67 Eg777er : Well, you seem to have this nonsensical personal vendetta against Concorde. Why is this? Just sit back and enjoy the spectacle of the world's only sup
68 Eg777er : Strickerje, A number of corrections to your post. The first Concorde flew in 1969, this was model 001. This aircraft no longer flies. All Concordes cu
69 EGGD : Eg77er - you have that right about the airframe's. With so little aircraft, the chances of one crashing is low, but if by misfortune an accident happe
70 Klaus : EGGD: If 30 or 60 or 100 Concordes were built, i am sure the safety record would be a whole lot better, and i doubt it if there would be any more cras
71 Post contains images Udo : DLX, You are right that the statistics I used did not take cycles and other aspects into consideration, but only years. That may be misleading. But pl
72 D L X : Eg777er: "Well, you seem to have this nonsensical personal vendetta against Concorde. Why is this?" First off, it's no *vendetta*. And, my argument is
73 GDB : If more Concorde's were in service then there would be a whole lot more operational experience, which could have undermined the 'single cause' theory
74 Post contains links and images Eg777er : OK the American thing was a cheap shot. My apologies. I agree with you that Concorde is not an absolutely safe airliner - but then there are no absolu
75 Lehpron : Golly dude we are really straying off the subject. I'm obviously pissed that a plane that I've idolized since I was 7 years old has, for the first tim
76 Standby87 : If only, if only - that's the safety chain: If that CO DC-10 hadn't had an improvised repair. If that 30cm long strip hadn't come off that day. If the
77 D L X : Where was it stated officially that the CO DC10 had an 'illegal' or 'unauthorized' repair? I would like to read an official's report.
78 GDB : I first heard the word 'illegal' to describe the offending piece of metal back in December, in a briefing about the planned mods. When questions were
79 D L X : Right. I remember the DC10 part was found very quickly after the crash. Something like early August of last year. That's when the first reports of sui
80 GDB : The BA personnel at the briefing were directly quoting the BEA. The part should have been made of a light alloy, it is suspected, but unproven, that t
81 Toady : "But, what made the part 'illegal?' Who is saying it was illegal? The families? AF? The BEA? BA? CO? Each party I mentioned has a different degree and
82 Tguman : Hey, It happens. My thoughts, if that plane hadnt crashed those 109+ people would have died anyway. How? When God says thats it, then thats it. If its
83 Toady : Wow!! What a coincidence: 113 people whose "time was up" all in the same place at the same time.
84 Post contains images Klaus : Tguman: Could you possibly state it more cynically? I´ve had no relative or friend in that Concorde. But if I did, I would feel that remark like a bl
85 D L X : I'm particularly interested in the soot markings being off center. Are they truly indicative of the plane floating to the left, or is this when the pl
86 Tguman : I am sorry if some of you read my previous statement. I believe that this is what they call an "act of God." What it is, God knew that the Concorde wa
87 Toady : I, for one, accept your apology with good grace. But: "we should work to make sure that this never happens again." Eh? You said it was an act of God -
88 EGGD : Of course i have Basis to say that you moron. Do you really think such an aircraft is so badly built and maintained? Do you think that travelling at t
89 D L X : "Of course i have Basis to say that you moron. " You lost any credibility you had on this very first sentence. If you can't make your argument without
90 Hypermike : Alpha-1 nailed it. That's what liability insurance is for.
91 EGGD : You can't compare the statistics, you just can't. Thats like saying a bread roll has a 1 in 20 chance of having mold on it. Take 5 Bread rolls, it has
92 Tguman : Like I said God works in mysterious ways. God is unable to do anything bad. He just can't. However he does allow things to happen for the good of mank
93 D L X : I see quite clearly. I'll use your example to illustrate my point. If a roll has a 1 in 20 chance of being moldy, then it has a 19 in 20 chance of bei
94 Post contains images Klaus : DLX: "You can't compare figures of 300 aircraft and compare them with 13 aircraft. " Yes, you can. That's part of the beauty of properly used statisti
95 D L X : "The problem is that a comparativley small sample (few aircraft with few cycles each) will limit the certainty of any conclusion based on it. " Agreed
96 Go Canada! : It seems that its relatives trying to make a quick buck with a bunch of second rate cowboy lawyers. Why arent they taking action against CDG, AF or th
97 Klaus : DLX: The point I'm making is that those who insist that the Concorde is the safest, or even 'as safe as' other airliners are misguided. Many of these
98 GDB : There were also skid marks on the runway to indicate a leftward drift. The comparison with a near-Tenirife style accident raises the question, was 'go
99 Teva : The question is about the lawsuit. Why CO? Because they own the DC10, and, by the intl laws, are responsible for the falling parts. I wouldn't attack
100 Klaus : The overweight question appears to center on the 8kt tailwind that the crew didn´t respond to. If the captain had taxied to the other end of the runw
101 GDB : The BEA have recently conceded that F-BTSC was slightly overloaded. There were 19 extra items of baggage, and from we've heard of the fuel levels, 'sl
102 Teva : GDB, Is it an official release from the BEA? For me, the only official document is the report they published July 23. For those who read French, here
103 Wannabe : Did anyone read the article in this months Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine on the Concord return? It claims that the failure of the AF maintenence st
104 Teva : Wannabe, As per the same report from the BEA, this maintenance problem seems to have had no effect before the concorde rolled on the metal strip. To s
105 GDB : Well many experienced Concorde pilots and Engineers have issues with the BEA report. Nothing official in that. BA policy is to go along with it and he
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...
Continental To Be Accused For Concorde Crash? posted Thu Mar 10 2005 21:14:28 by Tomys
Relatives Of Crash Sue AA, NOT Airbus! posted Thu May 2 2002 16:07:24 by ChrisNH
BBC: Relatives Accept Concorde Cash posted Mon May 14 2001 00:16:58 by Jiml1126
Continental Sued By Air France Over Concorde.... posted Wed Sep 27 2000 14:00:38 by Hole_courtney
Update On Continental To Star Alliance? posted Sat Nov 29 2008 17:15:02 by AA737-823
Delta Protests Continental Plan posted Fri Nov 28 2008 13:19:35 by BriGuyinHou
Continental's 757-224 Seat Map.. 11A? posted Fri Nov 28 2008 11:34:52 by LASoctoberB6
Awesome Concorde (music!) Video, Great Takeoff! posted Sun Nov 23 2008 14:13:04 by ConcordeBoy
Air France Concorde Being Moved At Toulouse posted Mon Nov 17 2008 19:57:37 by AeroplaneFreak
Why Was One Concorde Not Saved For Demos? posted Sat Nov 15 2008 08:37:51 by SSTsomeday