747spa330md11 From Germany, joined Dec 2003, 100 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9517 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.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6145 posts, RR: 25 Reply 10, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8048 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.
YYZYYT From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 852 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7974 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.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6145 posts, RR: 25 Reply 15, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7264 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.
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.
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.
TWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 755 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6799 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.
There's nothing like the smell of Jet-A in the morning. It smells like... VICTORY!!!
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
• 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
• that were less than twice the diameter of the holes.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6145 posts, RR: 25 Reply 18, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4461 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.
DrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 105 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (5 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2610 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.