b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Fri Jul 27, 2001 12:49 pm

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.

AIRLINE, TIREMAKER REJECT LIABILITY

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."
 
airlinelover
Posts: 5287
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:03 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Fri Jul 27, 2001 3:29 pm

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.

Chris

Lets do some sexy math. We add you, subtract your clothes, divide your legs and multiply
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8103
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Fri Jul 27, 2001 4:44 pm

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
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Fri Jul 27, 2001 5:02 pm

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.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Guest

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Fri Jul 27, 2001 5:14 pm

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.
 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Fri Jul 27, 2001 5:33 pm

CYKA,

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.
Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
 
Guest

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Fri Jul 27, 2001 7:02 pm

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.
 
Guest

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Fri Jul 27, 2001 7:20 pm

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

Ps. how do you get them to work??
 
GDB
Posts: 12679
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Cyka

Fri Jul 27, 2001 11:41 pm

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.

 
travaz
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 1:03 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 12:06 am

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!
 
akelley728
Posts: 1968
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 1999 12:35 pm

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 12:41 am

Hey, what about sueing BAe and EADS (Aerospatiale) for designing a faulty aircraft?
 
D L X
Posts: 11698
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 12:48 am

"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.
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 12:50 am

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.

Regards,

Dan
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 12:52 am

Travaz has a good point  Smile
 
D L X
Posts: 11698
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 1:42 am

"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.
 
LuckySevens
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 6:51 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 2:18 am

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:
http://aviation-safety.net/cgi-bin/dbsearch.cgi?concorde+search+retrieve+&&1-20&Type=~Concorde%%%%dm=Line+cs=No+em=Yes+ob=Key+dfd=Yes

All Concorde Incidents:
http://aviation-safety.net/cgi-bin/dbsearch.cgi?concorde+search+retrieve+&&1-20&Type=~Concorde%%%%dm=Line+cs=No+em=Yes+ob=Key+dfd=Yes


Safe? No.
Exhilirating? Yes!
 
Guest

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 2:53 am

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,
Corey777
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE:EGGD

Sat Jul 28, 2001 3:42 am

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.
 
VirginA340
Posts: 2556
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:35 pm

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 3:59 am

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)
"FUIMUS"
 
VirginA340
Posts: 2556
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:35 pm

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 4:03 am

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.
"FUIMUS"
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 4:10 am

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.


 
Guest

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 4:39 am

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.
 
174thfwff
Posts: 2831
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:47 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 4:42 am

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.
Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, Staten, Uptown, what now? Lets make it happen.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 4:44 am

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.
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 4:53 am

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

 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 4:55 am

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 take off. Apparently the captain was attempting a go-around, or to land at a small field near CDG.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Other Causes? (LONG Post!)

Sat Jul 28, 2001 5:27 am

(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 in maintenance that may have contributed to the accident or even caused it, according to some experts. In that case, neither the plane nor the metal strip would be at fault, alone.

While the infamous metal strip obviously appears to be the final trigger for the accident, three experienced former Concorde Pilots (one BA, two AF) who were interviewed for the recent documentary on german TV (ZDF) introduced another aspect:

As the accident investigation report states, AF mechanics forgot to re-install a spacer in the bogie/oleo coupling of the left main landing gear during the last maintenance to the plane (http://www.bea-fr.org/docs/f-sc000725ae/htm/report.htm#_Toc503264035).

This missing spacer normally keeps the bearings of the bogie coupling in place. If it´s missing (it was later found in the Air France maintenance hangar), the bearing rings may shift out of position - especially the inner one during flight when the axle of the bearing is vertical and the assembly is subjected to signficant vibration and temperature variations.

The result would be that the bogie beam were no longer fixed in it´s straightforward direction. Instead, it would be free on one side to “wobble” horizontally out of track. Potential consequences would be increased stress on the gear assembly in general and on every tyre of that gear in particular.

Following this maintenance (during July 17th to 21st), the Concorde made four more trips. The absence of the spacer apparently wasn´t noticed before the wreckage was inspected after the crash.

The above mentioned experts are raising the suspicion that the missing spacer might, in fact, be the cause for the accident, instead of the metal strip, due to excessive tyre stress.


I´m no expert myself, but here are the thoughts I can´t get rid of, yet:

Why has the strange coincidence of the missing spacer and the tyre blowout on the same gear (actually, the blown #2 tyre was the “oldest” of the four tyres in the left MLG with 37 against 9, 4 and 0 cycles) not been worth even mentioning, let alone investigation, in the official report? The bare fact of the missing spacer is stated in an appendix - and no more word about it, while the metal strip´s origin and composition is discussed exhaustively in the following paragraphs.

Have the bogie bearings been inspected after the crash? Were they both still in their proper position ? Were there any signs of wear consistent with them being shifted out of position before the crash?
I would have expected results of a closer inspection. That is a strange omission.

The pilots tried in vain to retract the landing gear in order to get the air speed up. (The report dismissed this as irrelevant.) Could stress exerted on the gear assembly before takeoff be a contributing factor there?

The plane was overweight. Couldn´t that be another aggravating factor?

Isn´t it possible that during the four trips with the spacer missing the tyres were pre-damaged to the extent that the metal strip was able to cause comlete tyre disintegration? Maybe the blowout would have been less severe otherwise. (Although that would have to be a kind of damage that wouldn´t be noticed on visual preflight inspection. Maybe not all that likely.)

The debris map in the report shows only pieces of the left MLG´s water deflector before the point where the metal strip and some tyre parts were found. This deflector is made of light composites, so it might have been blown back from the place of the tyre blowout by the accelerating plane´s jet blast. That would again point to the metal strip as the trigger; But is that enough to rule out the significance of the missing spacer?


DISCLAIMER:

I repeat: I´m not an expert. But there are a few things raised by seasoned experts that seem a little odd even to to me.

The investigation report is preliminary, so these points hopefully will be addressed before the final conclusion. As troubling as the maintenance mistake with the spacer may be, I hope (for the responsible maintenance crew) that it will be possible to rule it out as a contributing factor.

No, I do not care much for paranoia in either direction.
But I would always like to see all responsible parties doing their best to find out the cause(s) of an accident, take the necessary steps preventing another accident and last but not least care for the families of the victims.

Liability is one thing. Responsibility another.
 
Whistler
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:12 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 6:17 am

"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. I think the 737, A320, 747, etc etc all have a better safety record than the concorde.


 
D L X
Posts: 11698
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Reiteration: Concorde Was Not, And Is Not Safe.

Sat Jul 28, 2001 6:32 am

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 about the worst record. from airdisaster.com:

Fatal incidents per 1 million flights:

B757: .56
B737: .60
A32x: .67
F100: .67
A300: 1.0
DC10: 1.97
MD11: 5.71
Concorde: 12.5

Overall, year 2000: 1.52


So, the Concorde, relative to the average airliner, is 8 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident!
Compared to the 757, you're 22.5 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident when flying the Concorde. Don't mistake infrequence of incidents with being a safe plane.

more at http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

GDB

Sat Jul 28, 2001 7:51 am

Hi GDB,
could you email at donder10@yahoo.com please as I have a few questions to ask you.
Thanks,Alex
 
Cyril B
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:03 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 8:55 am

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, and CDG is an unsafe airport..."

Isn't it a typical american point of view?
Of course it is.
How can you be so rude?
What would you say if a member of your family have been on this Concorde?
Please, a little respect for the people who died in this dramatic crash.

YES, a blown tire should not have resulted in a crash.
YES, the crash is the result of a design flaw.

But you must know that the piece of airplane which fell off the CO DC10 was an illegal FORGERY. It was made of titanium, a very very hard metal, which caused the tire burst of the Concorde. If this piece of airplane have been made in a legal metal, the tire would not have burst.

All airlines, even the american ones, MUST respect law, and the relatives of the Concorde crew are right to sue CO:
CO voluntarily used an illegal material for one of their plane, and it indirectly caused a serious problem to another aircraft: it's simply unacceptable.


 
Jean Leloup
Posts: 1953
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 10:46 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 9:08 am

The amateur statistical "evidence" that tends to surface in these discussions is ridiculous.

Can an airliner, after experiencing it's one and only fatal accident, realistically move from the very top of the safety list to the very bottom?

D L X, imagine if this ONE fatal Concorde accident hadn't occurred, or even if the Captain had been able to safely land it with the fire, then Concorde's rate of fatal accidents would be ZERO incidents per million flights, not 12.5.

Would YOU then be on here claiming that the Concorde was the SAFEST plane in the sky and that you were INFINITELY more likely to die on a 757, 737, A32x or ANY of the other models quoted?

Of course not; that would be ridiculous. But that, in fact, is the logical conclusion of the argument. That is what your list of crash probabilities states.

That, obviously, is because your "probability" statistics are bullshit.

I am not saying here that the Concorde is or isn't a safe plane. I just couldn't ignore this ridiculous use of "statistics".
Next flight.... who knows.
 
Guest

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 9:33 am

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 old tyre, and stick a very sharp knife into it. Now, try and cut it. You can't, because essentially you are trying to cut steel with an alluminum knife.

I have a sneaky suspicion that airline tyres are also lined with steel or some other metal, so really, when the tyre blew apart, it was steel hitting alluminum.

Hence why the tyre pieces COULD VERY EASILY puncture or severely damage an aircraft's skin, or a fuel tank in this instance.

Now before anyone jumps on me...I heard the the tank was ruptured. IF the case was different, sorry.  Big grin

So, rubber can be a bit stronger than ya think.

Aloha 737-200!!  Wink/being sarcastic
 
D L X
Posts: 11698
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 10:04 am

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 accident waiting to happen.

You can call my statistics bullshit if you want, but that's how the pros do it. So, you're really calling the NTSB bullshit. I don't think you'll find many followers on that idea.


Did you go to the aviation safety links that Lucky Seven provided? It is by sheer fortune and incredible flying skills that this event didn't happen earlier. There was a nearly identical incident in 1979, where fortunately, the plane was saved. The incident rate didn't suddenly spike when the plane crashed last year. The only thing that changed was that finally, the airplane wasn't so lucky.
 
D L X
Posts: 11698
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 10:06 am

"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 other airliners, the plane simply turns around and comes back. Can we name one other instance in modern aviation where a tire blowout caused the destruction of the plane?


The families suing CO are barking up the wrong tree.
 
174thfwff
Posts: 2831
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:47 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 10:14 am

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 everyone stop driving after someone you know dies in a car accident? I don't think so, because i sure as hell wouldn't want to walk everywhere i go. Cars and planes help us get around faster. A plane is exactly like a big grayhound bus that travels faster and higher. All those damn buses crash because of shitty matinence and the NTSB does jack shit about it. If a plane crashes, they work there asses off to find the cause.
Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, Staten, Uptown, what now? Lets make it happen.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

Cyril B

Sat Jul 28, 2001 12:01 pm

What the heck? Titanium is an illegal metal to use in aircraft consturction? Since when has it been illegal?
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Reiteration: Concorde Was Not, And Is Not Safe.

Sat Jul 28, 2001 3:21 pm

Be careful with statistics, DLX, they ARE just numbers.

What they mean is usually mathimatical superstition, nothing. Different people see different things from different sources of facts, such as a website: Facts are dependent on the person interpreting them.

Fact #1) a Concorde died last year.
Fact #2) Now there are 13/14 left
Fact #3) They have been in commercial service for 30yrs.
Fact #4) They have also barely clocked 100,000 flight hours.

Any conclusions? There are none and if you want to play with numbers, fine. That means Concorde won't see another fatal accident until the year 2030, by then the Boeing 757 would have statistically had about 10 more crashes...

Oh yeah, the Concorde is real dangerous, huh?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 3:37 pm

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 cycles and so problems crop earlier which allowes modifications to be made.Concorde, now with the modifications are considerably safer than it was pre-accident.Alex
 
strickerje
Posts: 706
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 1:35 pm

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 4:24 pm

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 to other commercial aircraft.
2) The ones that are flying make very few flights per amount of time as compared to other commercial aircraft
3) For the number of flights the Concorde has flown, it has the highest fatal accident rate of any commercial aircraft in service, despite that it has only had one fatal accident.

Yes, if you look at how many accidents the 757 will have in comparison to the Concorde between now and 2030, yes, the Concorde APPEARS safer. But, if you view it more realistically and look at how many flights Boeing 757's will make between now and 2030, what percent of those flights will crash, and what percent will arrive safely, then you look at how many flights Concordes will make between now and 2030, what percent of those flights will crash, and what percent will arrive safely, then the Concorde is indeed far more dangerous.
My car could be in the worst condition of any automobile in existance, but if it's never driven again, guess how many more accidents it will see? None... unless, of course, a Concorde crashes on it.  Big grin

-Jeffrey Stricker
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 4:47 pm

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 linked too it does seem like it was written to come to fix the blame of the crash and not determine was caused the crash.

It does smell a lot like the Roselawn crash.

MD-90....You need to look at some regulation manuals. Because you statement of that piece of metal being "illegal" is way way way out in left field. The maintainece manual for any aircraft in commmercial service will allow some items to be contructed by the mechanic from raw materialsand they are listed in the manuals. Likewise any part on a privately operated aircraft can be fabricated by the owner.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 5:14 pm

Numbers, numbers, numbers.

Statistics show that Concorde has allegedly the highest accident rate of any airliner.

However, it's not quite fair and not quite correct.

Due to the low number of airframes and the low number of flights, it is impossible for Concorde to have any other accident rate . As soon as Concorde had a crash, its accident 'rate' went way up. So, having had one crash, it went from the world's safest aircraft to the world's most unsafe. Do you think that's correct?

Not really. Only statistics can attempt to convert a (by their own definition) 'safe' aircraft into an 'unsafe' aircraft in such a short time.

Statistics present the theory that aircraft get safer and safer the more they are operated - so a prototype 777 that crashed would not be 'safe' until it had flown enough flights to reduce its accident 'rate'. This is bollocks. Aircraft do not get safer, they are either safe or not.

Concorde is a safe aircraft. I think you should look more at the conditions under which it crashed rather than trying to find a 'smoking gun'. GDB expressed it very diplomatically when he said

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.

but I'll be blunt. This crash was caused by suspect mainentance and operations proceedures by the operating carrier.

Airline crashes are never caused by one sole factor, they are always a contribution of small factors that suddenly overwhelm.

And, seeing as DLX is in the habit of telling people what not to forget, I'll tell you what is drummed into the head of anyone starting a university statistics course:

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

&

You can prove anything with statistics.
 
Cyril B
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:03 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 7:03 pm

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 titanium.

A CO employee said they choose to use this illegal piece because they didn't wanted to replace it too often.

CO responsability in the crash is not obvious, but in this case, law is against them.
 
GDB
Posts: 12679
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

DLX And Other Sceptics

Sat Jul 28, 2001 8:06 pm

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. Seen the wake those things produce? 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, what was it doing there?
A faulty gear, at a 3 deg angle off centre would produce serious heating of the tyres, slowing the acceleration. The French authorities have ruled this out. I should add that a BA engineer examining the wreck last December noticed the missing spacer, only then was it discussed, but they knew about it 4 months earlier. Draw your own conclusions. Maybe they just thought it was irrevelant.
Once the tank ruptured, the way the fuel gushed out, swirled around the gear, raised it's flashpoint. Hence the fire.
Rotation was 25 kts below minimum speed, on rotation No.2 eng had a fire warning and was cut, the mimium height for this is 400 ft. The engine was found to have been undamaged by internal fire, so the surrounding blaze triggered the alarm. The engine gauges, inches from the E/Os face, would have shown a healthy engine.
The centre of gravity was off too, No.1 engine fluctuated due to hot gas ingestion, the fire buckled the gear doors preventing retraction. Hydraulics on Concorde are armoured, they were not seriously affected.
These factors led to F-BTSC stalling, leading to airflow disruption into the other two engines, leading to the crash.
Ironically a DC-10 suffered a tyre burst at LHR in 1980, only superb airmanship prevented a disaster. Other DC-10 bursts have caused fatalities.
Pilots of big jets will tell you that a tyre burst is no joke. A burst on a BA B747-436 in 1999 blew a one foot square hole in the fuselage, luckily nothing sensitive was behind it.


 
akelley728
Posts: 1968
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 1999 12:35 pm

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 11:21 pm

Aloha 737-200:

Airliner tires are bias-ply, not steel belted.

However, airlines/tire manufacturers are strongly looking at switching the steel-belted tires, in wake of the Concorde incident.

This was from an Aviation Week & ST article from a few months ago. I'll try and dig it up and post it here.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 11:31 pm

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 with an unapproved (FAA approved) material. Since titanium can withstand high temperatures very well, making a thrust reverser with it makes sense. \
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sat Jul 28, 2001 11:41 pm

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 correct in noting that the standard aircraft rivit spacing is no closer then 2*diameter of the riviet. But if the original aircraft was issued an airworthiness certificate with a factory spacing that was less then 2D then typicially one would try and rerivet it in place using the original holes and the spacing that came with it from the factory.

Perhaps Cyril B would care to enlighten us as to a source for that report about that CO employee. That is a new thing I haven't heard of yet. I didn't see it in that report that was linked too earlier.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: GDB

Sun Jul 29, 2001 1:05 am

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, what was it doing there?

As far as I´ve understood the report, only one runway light was taken out - roughly at the point where the Concorde took off. And the plane didn´t veer from the centerline before the tyre blew out (which actually happened quite early).

The location of the metal strip after the accident at the right edge of the runway together with pieces of the tyre (in the same spot) do seem to point at a connection. It would be quite a coincidence otherwise...


I´m quite certain that the Concorde is a reasonably reliable and safe airplane. Not exceptionally so by today´s standards, of course. But the same could be said about a number of other older planes still in service. I´ve seen hapless mis-use of statistics in this forum and otherwise that´s just breathtaking.

It´s certainly wrong to get all hysteric now.

The Concorde is in fact more sensitive to tyre blowouts than most other planes. Two airlines have made more or less serious mistakes in maintenance. The plane was overloaded. The Airport didn´t check the runway.

More than a hundred people died, probably as a result of the combination of all these factors.
The public chooses their respective pet culprits.


Does this help anybody now??


Shouldn´t:

- The Concorde be made safer before it can be allowed to fly again? That´s being done right now.

- Continental have a close look at their quality control in maintenance?

- Air France take a deep look at their maintenance procedures? (As with CO, that would especially require to reassess the scheduling pressure that can be put on their mechanics!)

- Air France revise their procedures regarding weight control?

- Procedures for runway checking prior to Concorde takeoff be toughened up?


It looks increasingly like too many people at too many places were shifting too much from “safety first” to “profit first”. Probably none of them even felt badly about it before the crash.

Safety is something you can´t really see - until it´s gone.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sun Jul 29, 2001 1:55 am

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 been established. And the charge of using an "illegal" material, let's see you back that up with some facts. And even if the piece did come from the CO aircraft, and even if it cause the tire to burst, why in God's name should a burst tire lead to a castastrophic fire in an engine?

And how are we being "rude" for pointing out facts that, you yourself say are true. like the fact that Concorde had design flaws?

These people are NOT right ot sue CO or Goodyear, in any way, shape or form-it's simply a grab for money. The suit should be targeted at AF, the manufacturer of Concorde, and even CDG.

 
GDB
Posts: 12679
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Concorde Relatives Sue Continental

Sun Jul 29, 2001 3:17 am

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 advocating suing CO. IMHO AF got off lightly.
The piece of metal scalped the wheel of the Concorde, the piece that hit No.5 tank, denting it, was 5 feet long! This kind of tyre damage is unprecedented.
Klaus, my understanding is that F-BTSC had steering problems soon into the take-off, probably before hitting the metal object. Debris from more than one landing light has been indentified.
A correction from my previous post, of course the fuel flashpoint was lowered, not raised as I stated.
None of this will change the minds of the Concorde bashers, but they are usually pretty badly informed and have an axe to grind regardless.
Concorde had 7 years of testing before entering service, the potential for tyre problems has been known, and various engineering and procedure changes have reflected this.
As for the mods being done now, the FAA are happy with them, and are being kept in the information loop.
The last BA Concorde to have damage caused by a tyre burst was in 1993, during an RTO. The burst blew off the water deflector, this was designed to shatter on impact but did not, causing a small fuel leak.
BA modded their deflectors with a metal strip to hold them on, the authorities did not make this mod mandatory, so AF did not do it.
It still isn't, so AF still haven't done it. The new tyres should prevent a repeat of this problem, but you'd think they would make it mandatory.
Looking to the future, if the Sonic Cruiser is built, and it's anything like the configuration shown, with that delta wing full of fuel in front of the engines.
Hope Boeing build in protection to the wing tanks, believe me it's much easier to build it in than do a mod later.
Let's also hope that the tyres are of the NZG type being fitted to Concorde, or something similar.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos