The French court will hand down its verdict on Monday 6th Dec in a 10-year-old case brought to decide what caused the crash of an Air France Concorde in 2000, which killed 113 people and hastened the end of luxury supersonic travel.
...to decide what caused the crash of an Air France Concorde in 2000....
Sadly, no. It's not the court that can "decide" what happened.
What caused the crash is already well known, even if some contributary factors can be argued (the Swiss cheese arguments, etc.).
The current court case is ridiculous, an unfortunate consequence of the French legal system, and of course a rich dog's dinner for the lawyers for the parties involved.
Their "verdict" will be futile... even more so since the aircraft is no longer flying.
Nevertheless, thanks for opening a separate thread on the subject!
We have an interesting 'technical' thread going on the Tech Log forum, and this may prevent it being polluted by an endless rehash of the crash story.
Well I wonder if they will come to the conclusion that you don't fly an overweight burning wreck through the air, or it will be pilot buddy apologists, wringing their hands about all the 'factors' involved to muddle the clear facts....
Any proper review of the aircraft's history prior to the crash would have shown that it did not meet the relevant expectations upon which affirmative airworthiness decisions are made.
The current court case is ridiculous, an unfortunate consequence of the French legal system, and of course a rich dog's dinner for the lawyers for the parties involved.
The Americain cour de justice is not much better, at least when it comes to civil suits.
............. and the man dubbed the “Father of the Concorde” for his role in the development of the delta-winged aircraft, face charges of involuntary homicide after the accident on July 25 2000. They all deny responsibility.
There was a very interesting reconstruction and reporter investigation conducted by National Geographic Channel. They interviewed many people, including French technical staff who were eye witnesses. What came out was far from conclusive that it was caused by 'that single piece of metal' puncturing the wing. These guys claimed to have seen other things, but were not listened too. Where's Michael Moore when you need him? I'm not trying to trivialise the issue, but the program did raise some question which, in the aftermath, do not appear to have been answered. It may not have been such a simple stright forward matter. I stand to be corrected in the final report.
France will never blame a French and certainly never Air France for not complying with the maintenance procedures! Shame on them! Remember Toronto or the South Atlantic? It's never their fault. I know what company I decide not to choose when I fly...
It seems beyond belief to me that an airline is not fined ten times that amount for perpetrating such an appallingly gash and illegal "repair" to an aircraft even if it hurt no one. $200.000 for that would be getting off scot-free.
As they caused the deaths of over 100 people and destroyed hundreds of millions in property through that criminal negligence then the fine is a bloody insult to the victims and their families. There should be three or four more zeros on the end of it.
And why is Air France not on the block too, their negligence led directly to the crash too?
The aircraft was overweight, C of G outside the aft limit, taking off downwind, a 10 inch spacer missing from the main undercarriage and eyewitnesses reported that it was already on fire before it hit the titanium. There is more, but not unGrenouille to blame.
chauvinism: exaggerated or aggressive patriotism The legendary Nicolas Chauvin was a Frenchman. What else did we expect?
A Paris court has said Continental Airlines was "criminally responsible" for the crash of a Concorde supersonic jet 10 years ago, and fined it 200,000 euros (£170,000).
It has also been ordered to pay 1m euros to the jet's operator Air France.
A Continental mechanic, John Taylor, was given a 15-month suspended prison sentence over the crash.
Continental has said it will appeal, saying the verdict "only protects French interests".
