Republic
Topic Author
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:39 am

New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sat Apr 07, 2001 1:03 pm



Sat, 07 Apr 2001
BBC WORLD SERVICE |


FRANCE
Air France blamed for Concorde crash
Posted Fri, 06 Apr 2001

A spokesperson for the French carrier Air France said Friday that the company would not comment on a new report blaming last July's fatal crash of one of its Concordes on a faulty repair job.

Jean-Claude Couturier told Deutsche Presse-Agentur that the company had learned of the report from journalists and had known about it "for several weeks".

"We will not comment on the report," he said, adding that opinions differed on the competence of the three aviation experts who had drawn it up.

On Thursday, France 2 television reported that the study has been presented to the magistrate investigating the crash, which killed 113 people.

The report claims that during a July 21, 2000, overhaul of the supersonic jetliner, mechanics failed to replace a crucial part in the plane's landing gear.

As a result, the left front part of the landing gear overheated as the Concorde sped down a runway at Charles de Gaulle airport four days later, causing it to break apart and provoking a chain reaction that resulted in the fatal accident.

According to France 2, the plane had completed three flights with the defective landing gear before the accident occurred.

Prior reports by the French Office of Accident Investigation (BEA), which is leading the crash investigation, said that the Concorde rolled over a metal strip that fell onto the runway from another plane, causing a tyre to burst.

Fragments of the tyre then struck the fuel tank, causing a substantial fuel leak and fire. The Concorde crashed into a hotel and exploded less than two minutes after take-off, killing all 109 people aboard and four people on the ground.

Air France and British Airways are currently testing new tyres and a kevlar lining for the Concorde's fuel tanks in the hope of preparing the plane to fly again later this year.

The world's fleet of 12 Concordes has been grounded since mid-August, when French and British aviation authorities suspended the plane's certificate of airworthiness.

--------------------------------------
Yet another opinion. Continental can certainly use this investigation to help defend its case, or at least cast doubt on AF's claim.

Rgds,
Joe




 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sat Apr 07, 2001 4:40 pm

Oh dear that is bad.

However, on a personal note, I still blame for the most part Contienntal Airlines, as it was their metal piece, that triggered the version of events.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sat Apr 07, 2001 5:04 pm

I fyou want to chat go to www.airliners.net/chat and log on as wishihadalife. Not here please.

Yes resentment and if you want to start an SQ006 post then do it somewhere else. Not here.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
ryanair
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 1:41 am

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sat Apr 07, 2001 8:06 pm

People in Glasshouses......

I think it's hard to justify AF's weaker safety stance, compared to BA (ie. the protectors BA has and AF didn't).

I wonder how reputable this report is, although AF throwing doubt on this seems a weak but hard to refute suggestion, which makes me suspicious.
Doesn't mean it's true though, everyone knows for the sake of courtrooms experts are often dragged out for one side to say "white", with another equally qualified person for the other saying "black".

Just some ramblings of mine.
 
Guest

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sat Apr 07, 2001 8:18 pm

Wishihadalife,

LOL.

Singapore_Air, Please state some facts that links the CO metal piece to the accident. Good luck b/c there isn't any.
 
Ikarus
Posts: 3391
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 10:18 pm

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sat Apr 07, 2001 8:18 pm

This development means that for the first time, this crash might be justifiably seen as "someone's fault". The debris on the runway could not be blamed on anyone (Sh*t happens and cannot be completely prevented) - But a maintenance error could be realistically blamed on the airline and its mechanics. I still doubt it, though.

Regards

Ikarus

PS: On second thought, one might blame this accident on the shoddy design of the aircraft - a plane crashing because of a punctured tire is just not acceptable.
 
Singapore 777
Posts: 980
Joined: Sat May 29, 1999 3:00 pm

RE: Singapore_Air

Sat Apr 07, 2001 8:49 pm

Just ignore him. It's doesn't hurt to have a laugh sometimes doesn't it?

Please state some facts which links the SQ aircraft to this accident and good luck because there isn't any...
 
Western737
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 5:45 am

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sat Apr 07, 2001 9:21 pm

I still considered it as freak accident. Would I be in trouble if my car dropped a muffler and struck other vehicle?
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sat Apr 07, 2001 9:30 pm

Wpr8: You want an argument. Well voilà!

IATA states that any debris from an aircraft (in this case a DC-10), is the responsibility of the owner of the aircraft (Continental Airlines, United States of America).

That's what my post is based upon. If you wanted to have a go at me. You could have at least had the courtesy to e-mail me privately.

Oh, and I am aiming for higher aspirations that what you have said.

Also, considering that you haven't added anything remotely connected to the post makes your post completely irrelevant and is taking up space that could have been used by users which have something to contribute to this post.

With the new evidence, it seems that AF had a much bigger part to play in the crash, however IMO, the bulk of the blame remains on the metal. I don't really care if CO gets sued or not. The piece of metal caused the events leading to the crash.

Good enough for you Wpr8? Thought so.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
Guest

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sat Apr 07, 2001 9:49 pm

Hate to tell you buddy but your post proves NOTHING!

IATA may state that, but where is your evidence that the CO part fell off that airplane which then is responsible for the crash of the Concorde. That has not been proven by anyone not least yourself.

Your "IMHO" shows ignorance and nothing else.

See you at check-in
 
widebody
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2000 5:08 pm

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 12:52 am

Wpr8e,

The fact that Continental admitted the piece was missing off their aircraft, the fact that it took off 4 minutes before Concorde, and the fact that the gash in the tyre matched the length of the piece of metal.....that for me links Continental to the crash.....

 
gordonroxburgh
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2000 8:36 pm

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 12:55 am

I may stand corrected on this one but:

The BEA report in Jan 2001 stated that it had been found that this spacer part was missing, so nothing really new.

The feeling is that the maximun damage it could cause would be to cause the gear to skew by 3 degrees. this would provide excessive wear and heating but not been the main casue of the accident.

Running over a piece of titanium would cause the slashing and bursting of any A/c tyre.

it just so happend that the slash caused the tyre to bust into a big chunk which hit the fuel tank, due to the design of Concorde. The tank burst and the fuel caught fire.

I would have though they would have found it was missing fairly soon when the found the wear levels on the tyres.

Gordon
 
Guest

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 1:47 am

AF is has a major problem now! This now will help Continental! I think AF is at fault! BAC is also at fault! If a peice of meteal hit a Boeing plane nothing would happen but a blown tire! When it hit the Concorde the tire blew and the fuel line inside the wing was cut to! BAC will have to put new sheet meteal on the wing that is stronger to even have a hope of flying again! The concorde will also need a new flight deck for me to fly it! (if I had the money and the plane was flying!)
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 2:37 am

Singapore_Air, you really are an idiot. Bits fall off airliners all the time - inspection covers, small panels, even gear doors. Runways in some parts of the world have debris on them, CDG is better than most in sweeping the runways three times a day. Airliners are not supposed to go down in a fireball because of a burst tyre. The alleged piece of CO metal didn't go anywhere near the fuel tanks in any case, it was pieces of rubber that caused the holes.

Anyway, to prove what a tenuous grip on reality you have, may I remind you of the time you went off at a forum member because they referred to your beloved SQ as "Singapore Air" - what's your name again?

Get a life!
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 3:19 am

No YOU GET A LIFE. My name is Singapore_Air as Singapore Airlines doesn't fit. If you have a problem with the length of user names go to Johan and maybe he'll change the length of the user names column in the forums.

However, I have come into some information I hadn't considered before. I remember news reports saying that CDG was having a fire drill and the airport couldn't check the runway at the time. Therefore, the debris would have been missed. In that respect, I think that shifts some of the blame of AF / CO and some onto the CDG Airport Authorities.

And Wpr8: I refer you to the factually correct post of "Widebody".
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
gordonroxburgh
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2000 8:36 pm

What Planet Has Mr 717 Been On?

Sun Apr 08, 2001 3:20 am

not earth anyway.

who is BAC? possibly you mean BA : British Airways

I would not want to get on a Concorde with additional metal shielding, not stong enough, although I would prefer to get on one with the kevlar fuel tank linners they are putting in!!!

have you ever flown in a 737-200, DC9, DC10, 727, 747-200 etc.. if you have I hate to tell you that the concorde cockpit is still more advanced , or at least at the same level as them. Theses model make up more that half of the aircraft flying around the world today.

If a boeing was fitted with a similar type tyre it could burst in a similar way and cause all sots of damge in the landing gear bay, eg elctrics and hydraulics, in fact if you search through an accident database you will find it has happend on many an occasion to your boeings.

On yeh... and wasn't it a fuel tank rather than a fuel line that failed?

Does Mr. 717 work for a tabliod newspaper? 'cause nothing he ever say is ever correct!!! maybe he should just shut up and give us all peace as I have never seen him add anythig construction to a discussion.

Gordon
 
Guest

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 4:31 am

I blame the capitan, if he had an engine failure + fire while still on the runway he should have attempted to stop the aircraft even though he was pased v1. Even if he had sucesfully climbed out past paris he would still have to fly to the ocean to dump the fuel. Any sensible person would have realized that there wasn't nearly enaugh time to do all that when you already had half the wing engulfed in flame while on the runway. This case simply proves that "standard procedures", do not always apply and that pilots need to make their own decisons when it comes to unique emergencies.
 
Guest

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 4:35 am

Given my understanding of the facts, I personally point my finger of blame at Concorde's Design.

The fact that;

1) New Tyres & a Kevlar lining for the fuel tanks are being fitted

2) Concorde's certificate of AIRWORTHINESS was suspended

seems to me to indicate a flaw in the design somewhere... (not to be confused with Concorde itself being a flawed design-which is NOT what I am saying).

As someone said above, it seems strange that a tyre burst should be able to set off a chain of events which ends in the plane CRASHING WITH TOTAL LOSS OF LIFE.
 
widebody
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2000 5:08 pm

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 5:13 am

FP_v2,

From what I understand, the crew didn't know there was a fire until the aircraft was in the air.....no chance of gettin' the aircraft back on the runway at that stage.......
 
Greg
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 6:19 am

Well at least the Air France tragedy was an actual accident.
Not the result of gross negligence by the pilot--as is the case in SQ006.
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 6:37 am

Now that was a personal attack, using reverse psychology, for me to write some long-wnded article for you to explain SQ006. Well I won't. And your just Stupid to be frank , to even bring it into this post. Why don't you sling yer hook, and if you want to discuss SQ6, create a new post and stop trying to create a war.

I think it is interesting however, the differences between the BA and the AF Concordes. Remember that BA reinforced the wing a little, after a spate of tyre accidents earlier in the decade. However, Air France didn't do this. Could this have prevented the traredy?
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

Whose Fault?

Sun Apr 08, 2001 6:53 am

One of the things that's always amused me was a couple of email taglines I once saw. The first was "Every absurdity has a champion to defend it" and the other was "A conclusion in search of supporting facts."

One of the fallacies about aviation safety in general (and airline accident investigation in particular) is the apparent fixation on a singular "probable" cause, seemingly to the exclusion of other "causes" (i.e. contributing factors). Pretty much everyone knows that numerous things usually have to go wrong before an accident occurs, yet often times the "probable" cause is deemed to have been the "last, best chance to have prevented the accident." Put another way, "who pulled the trigger" while seeming to ignoring the context of which person(s) took the gun out of the locked drawer, loaded it, cocked it, and then left it where the toddler could get their hands on it.

The media especially suscribes to this tendency, since there's then a single villain thus assigned (often simplistically), and one then doesn't have to get bogged down in researching/reporting the complex technical inter-relationships of how things *really* work. They get in, get the story (or what they "think" the story is) and then get out, and on to the next "newsworthy" item. Hey, if it bleeds--it leads... McNews at 11....

In the case of the Concorde accident, (and along with the above, this is all just MHO), I don't think that CO was totally responsible. Yes, it supposedly was their DC-10 part on the runway, and yes, as such they're responsible for it being there, but it's not as open-and-shut as that. That said (and the Paris airport folks' failure to detect/remove this foreign object from the runway notwithstanding) airline type aircraft should be able to withstand impacts with stuff that they'll commonly see in everyday operations. Tire failures (regardless of cause) are one of them.

If, say a 737 or DC9/MD80 aircraft has departed immediately after the CO DC10 (instead of the Concorde) and struck the metal strip with a main gear tire, it too would have had tire problems. Both the 737 and DC9/MD80 types would have experienced damage to the underside of the wings/flaps, and the DC9/MD80 might have also experienced an associated engine failure from ingested debris. Whether or not either type of aircraft would have experienced damage to the underside of the wing sufficient to compromise their own fuel tanks is speculative. However, one *can* go back and look at nearly 40 years of operational history for these types and look at all the tire failures and the damage they've caused, i.e. whether or not compromised fuel tanks had occurred. Based on the accident records of these two aircraft types, I'd say they look pretty good, and the aircraft can withstand some commonly experienced stuff that causes tire failures and their aftermaths.

Now consider the Concorde, more precisely, its design and construction. (Please, no Boeing vs. Airbus debates...) Previous history of Concorde tire/wheel/brake problems would, I think, indicate a higher degree of intolerance of the aircraft being able to withstand collaterial damage. The press report of the Dulles-Paris (1979?) of the F/O coming back in the cabin after takeoff to assess the problem (hole in the wing with escaping fuel) and said F/O exclaiming "Mon Dieux!" (My God) would seem to indicate a pretty serious situation. Neither would it be the only one in the Concorde's history. How does this compare (rate of fuel tank compromises versus cycles flown) with other types of aircraft? Did the FAA/NTSB (and their French/English counterparts) do everything they could have done to mitigate the risk(s)?

It was a very sad accident, and the media coverage (including some stunning photos) of the demise of a French national symbol (akin to our Shuttle Challenger) lends itself to the public's demand for a simplistic "who's responsible, and I wanna know NOW" attitude.

If the Concorde can be modified to be more failure-TOLERANT (not failure-proof), and such modifications are not "band-aids" or "window dressing" to appease the masses (or cost-conscious operators), I'd get on a Concorde in a second, given the chance (and free ticket, of course)...  Big grin

Best...





ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
B747-437B
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 6:58 am

OPNLguy summed it up perfectly.

How refreshing to read a real professional's educated opinion for a change.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
Guest

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 7:13 am

OPNL,

The logic in your post was that with which I based my post on, with some important additions (multiple factors//chain-of-error in accidents).

Thanks for an informative post.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 7:25 am

My 2 cents worth on some of this:

-CO reported the metal piece missing when the plane was checked out in IAH the next day. The immediately reported this to authorities in Paris.

-The fragment on the runway has never been proven nor disproven to be from the CO DC-10.

-Gordon Bethune has said the even if the piece was from his DC-10, he is dumbfounded as to how this metal piece hitting a tire could lead to a catastrophic fire and crash such as this. Point being that maybe there's something structurally wrong with the Concorde.

-And Greg, you launched your attack simply to be a personal attack, and nothing more. If you want to bring up the subject in the last sentence of your last post here, go on the web and find it, don't bring it up here. For a lawyer, you're quite immature.
 
gordonroxburgh
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2000 8:36 pm

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 8:12 am

OPNLguy

Brilliant post; sums up everthing that has been going on and where a lot of discussion has taken place. Nice to hear from someone with a very good handle on the subject.

Alpha 1

didn't the latest BEA report (jan 2001) proved that the part had come from the ai DC10 and kew exactely where the bad repair had been done etc... I though the part matched up exactly incluingd the botched fixing holes.

CO would not have though the piece of aluminium could have caused such a disaster but it turned out that it was titanium painted in the colour of the protective paint that aluminium would be painted in. The wrong material had been fitted, hence causing the damage and startig a complex chain of events.


Gordon
 
widebody
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2000 5:08 pm

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 8:43 am

Alpha 1,

From what I remember, it took CO over a month to realise that the piece was missing......
 
Guest

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 8:59 am

I love it when Singapore_Air deletes my posts. It just solidifies to me his inability to take a little criticism. What dramatic melodrama is he going to post now?

As for Widebody's comment. Me thinks that you are also not looking at the big picture. I won't restate as it has been done by OPNLguy.

This topic is dead.

I would like seat 1A Singapore_Air. And would you please hurry up and put in my 1K Mileage Plus number. Make it quick I need to do my duty free shopping!
 
widebody
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2000 5:08 pm

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 9:42 am

Wpr8e,

Just to clarify, I pointed out the Continental link to the crash, personally, I don't think they were even partly responsible, the fault lies with Aerospatiale and Air France as far as I'm concerned....

Regards,
WB.
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 5:20 pm

There you go again Wpr8: Another personal attatck on me. Retaliation because you post was deleted? Thought so. And sorry, we're full. You can have 60J.

OPNLGuy: Thank you very much for writing such an informative post, and in sense, for spending so much time on it. I agree wholly with what you were saying. I haven't said this alot recently but, Kudos for you
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
Guest

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 7:16 pm

I love getting your sarong in a bind. Especially with those new shoes
 
Singapore 777
Posts: 980
Joined: Sat May 29, 1999 3:00 pm

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 8:41 pm

If you could just ignore him, Singapore_Air, the world would be a MUCH better place.  Smile

Relax!
 
Guest

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 9:02 pm

Oh good. Now I have another whipping boy
 
vambridge
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 8:23 pm

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 9:45 pm

In my opinion, even if the metal strip from the continental a/c caused the chain of events that led to the demise of the concord, continental should not be held responsible as this was obviously an accident.Had a 747 crashed because of that metal piece, would they have grounded all 747's if the chain of events were similar to those of the concord?
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

Widebody

Sun Apr 08, 2001 11:34 pm

From what I remember, it was the very next day that reports of a possible CO "connection" to the crash was being looked at.
 
Guest

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Sun Apr 08, 2001 11:44 pm

"I love getting your sarong in a bind. Especially with those new shoes"

LOL  Big thumbs up  Big thumbs up  Big thumbs up
 
SegmentKing
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Mon Apr 09, 2001 12:10 am

Hrm.... I love these Euro - American fights... always brings out the best in us.

I can't wait for a piece of metal to fall off of a "poorly maintained" Air France aircraft and cause an A330/A340 to crash. I wonder who's fault it will be. OH wait, it will be UNITED's fault for a 747-400 taking off a few mins early and a lil plastic hose falling off. It's NEVER anyone's fault when a plane crashes. Nevermind that a piece of metal fell off of an airplane. Nevermind the plane that crashed had a design flaw. Nevermind that the airport authority didn't sweep the runway. Nevermind the ATC's failure to see this metal on the runway. Nevermind the new insight on the overhaul. It's still Continental's fault.. oh wait.. maybe it should be BOEING'S fault.... yeah! it's Boeings fault!
~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~
 
Guest

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Mon Apr 09, 2001 12:22 am

Is it really somebodies fault??? Blaming CO for the crash is absolutely ridiculous!!! If I drive down the street one day and hit a Hyundai bumper which fell of a couple of minutes earlier that causes me to crash my car and as a result I am stuck in a wheel chair for the rest of my life (just a hypothetical scenario) who will I blame? The driver of the Hyundai who had no idea this happened. Hyundai itself for building defective bumpers or myself for not being attentive enough. Or maybe I should just stop trying to blame someone else and accept the fact that maybe this was a freak accident...
 
Guest

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Mon Apr 09, 2001 12:59 am

Gyro,

I don't agree, and your analogy is incomparable in terms of scale, to the Concorde incident.

Freak accident: Yes, in that it was a highly unusual (and unfortunate) set of circumstances that lead to that ACCIDENT.

The fact of the matter is that flying an a/c (with or without pax) is POTENTIALLY much, much more dangerous than driving a car down the road.
And that is why I don't agree with your analogy.

You can't compare driving a car to flying an a/c from a SAFETY perspective.

The fact that flying is one of the safest forms of transport is only because of the numerous safety precaustions, rules, regulations & recommendations that govern every aspect of flight operations and tests.

Part of the a/c manufacturers RESPONSIBILITY to safety, therefore, is to ensure that it releases an AIRWORTHY a/c to the airlines; one whose design, as well as being functional, has the ability to withstand potential incidents/malfunctions.

The fact that both the British & French Aviation Authorities WITHDREW THE CERTIFICATE OF AIRWORTHINESS of Concorde, was a testament to the fact that in their view, the a/c was NOT WORTHY TO FLY.

WHY was it not worthy of flying???? IMHO, because it was a design flaw that allowed (what might not have occured with any other subsonic a/c) the a/c to ultimately, become uncontrollable & crash.

Again, would the same chain of events produced the same set of results, had the a/c been a 757???

If not, WHY NOT??
 
vambridge
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 8:23 pm

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Mon Apr 09, 2001 1:07 am

Capt. Picard

hear,hear!!
 
Guest

Capt. Picard

Mon Apr 09, 2001 1:48 am

May I suggest that you reread my post.

Please realize that my analogy is aimed at representing a much smaller case scenario that could happen everyday (which I think is only obvious) as to why Continental can not be blamed for this accident. I agree that the Concorde had a design flaw, and IMHO it should never have gotten the go ahead. The fact that the only two customers for this jet were from the countries where it was built tells me something...
I hope you see what I tried to express now.

Regards: Sven
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Mon Apr 09, 2001 2:19 am

Mr.717 I hate to burst your 'I know everything about aviation' bubble, but THERE IS NO COMPANY CALLED BAC, or BAc.

There was once a company called BAC - the British Aircraft Company.

However, it was replaced by BAe - British Aerospace.

The company is now called BAE SYSTEMS.

There is also no company called 'Aerospatiale'. Aerospatiale was incorporated into EADS in 1999.

So you could say that Concorde was the first 'Airbus' aircraft - although the division of labour was BAE 50/ EADS 50 rather than the Airbus current of BAE 20 / EADS 80.

 
servisair
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:44 am

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Mon Apr 09, 2001 2:29 am

Gyro:

When Concorde was give the go-ahead, it had more airlines interested than just BA and AF. Lufthansa, JAL, SIA and Syrian to name but a few. It was mainly the huge rise in oil prices that led to only two airlines operating the a/c. In fact, the Sryian deal was practically signed, sealed and delivered when they pulled out. Concorde was in a far better position when launced, than the 757-300 was at the same stage.

As far as the crash goes. I think it is unfair to lay the blame squarely with one party. So far several factors which contributed to the crash have been identified:-

1. The flight was delayed due to unscheduled maintainace.

2. CDG failed to perform FOD checks on the runway before the flight departed.

3. AF had not modified their Concorde fleets water deflectors despite BA's recomendations to do so.

4. CO engineers 'bodged' a repair job as an interim measure.

5. Concorde's inability to withstand catasrophic tyre failure.

If it is proved that AF engineers had a part to play in this accident, then they will only be another link in the chain which led to 113 people losing their lives.
30 Yeras in the Biz...
 
Guest

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Mon Apr 09, 2001 2:38 am

Gyro,

I read your post very carefully the first time round.

Basically, the problem is your analogy isn't very good.

A better analogy would be hitting that same Hyundai bumper, and your car's fuel tank being punctured by shreds of torn tyre, causing a leak and subsequent fire.
This would eventually lead to you loosing control of your vehicle etc.

(God forbid this would actually happen to you, or anyone else).

Now who should bear responsibility??-you, for not taking avoiding action? (AF pilots parallel/ADP)the Hyundai owner, for not maintaining his vehicle? (CO parallel), or your car's manufacturer, for not building a car able to withstand a minor collision with Foreign debris on the road? (BAe/Aerospatiale parallel).


But from your most recent post, I get the impression you understood my logic for pointing a suspicious finger at the designers of Concorde.

Of course, it doesn't help if the Airport authorities and other airlines don't keep up to scratch with maintenance procedures or whatever...(I am NOT blaming CO or ADP (Aeroports de Paris).

So, who's fault is it now? Answer: *Probably* your car's designer.


As for your last comment, I presume you are implying that Britain & France put national pride above safety.

That is a completely different story, which I am not qualified to comment on.

One would assume though, that both nations' Aviation Authorities were convinced there were no flaws in the design.

Who knows............

 
Guest

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Mon Apr 09, 2001 2:40 am

I stand corrected on my use of "Aerospatiale" etc. by the honourable Eg777er Big grin

CP
 
Guest

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Mon Apr 09, 2001 4:10 am

I don't see how this is Continentals fault. CDG is a very busy airport and some other plane that was taxiing to the runway or to the gate could have noticed a big metal piece on the runway and could have notified the ATC. Also, what do you expect when your still flying those old DC-10s. Also, if there was a problem with the plane and they had it tested out at CDG, it couldn't have been Continental maintenance, they wouldn't have one at CDG. AF would of have to check it out and test everything ok.
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: This Is Getting BAe Mad!

Mon Apr 09, 2001 4:20 am

Mr.717, what exactly are you trying to contribute?
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Mon Apr 09, 2001 5:27 am

Actually, if you consider how much effort and money was put into Concorde, each airframe is worth about £1 billion:

I.e. about $1,200,000,000.

Hardly cheap.

Anyway, I think you shall piss off....well said CPDC10-30...
 
Guest

RE: Eg777er

Mon Apr 09, 2001 5:43 am

Cheap as in quality!
 
gordonroxburgh
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2000 8:36 pm

RE: New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash

Mon Apr 09, 2001 6:44 am

The cost of Concorde was around £1.5 billion UK and they brought back in around £150 Million UK from sales and £30 for the airlines taking on the cost of running then from 1983 onwards.

MR 717

you do not ever contribute anything to these groups: this discusion was not tilted "was concorde a good idea"...is concorde crap etc... (if it was, with hindsight, I may have agreed with you) but it was about a very important investigation on an accident where 113 people lost there lifes.

I will email the adminstrator and asked that your registration be removed, for failure to comply with the rules. In the words to the UK game show (Soon to come to the states)
"you ARE the weakest link....goodbye!!!!"

Gordon