Continental blamed for Concord cash

[dfish]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050310/bs_afp/franceconcordelegal_050310213326

Dave Fisher

CYYZ

[A and C]

This has nothing to do with aviation it's just the blood sucking leaches of the leagal business trying to make a lot of money from an unfortunate accident.

The real flight safety message has to be about runway inspection but there is no money in that issue for the leagal parasites.

[TheOddOne]

A and C

The real flight safety message has to be about runway inspection

I think you're absolutely right. There's an awful lot of work gone on in the background on this subject. At LGW, you're as likely as not these days to find Checker either carrying out an inspection or waiting by the side of the runway to get on. We also carry out 'from the side' inspections. LHR are trialling a RADAR system that might detect relatively small items, but I'm not sure what size it works down to.

However, it remains the case that we cannot carry out an inspection in between each movement. At the busiest airports, an inspection every 200 or so movements is the very best you could hope to achieve. The very low number of items of FOD found during these inspections indicates to me that the inspection regime is robust. We also rely on others for a FOD-free environment. (I was going to point fingers here, but 'he who is without sin, cast the first stone'...)

Of course, an item like this should never have destroyed a tyre, with the subsequent consequences. There is more work to be done to ensure that tyres can stand up to actual FOD found in the real world. Aircraft certification should allow for the catastrophic failure of a tyre not to result in critical airframe damage or the ability of the remaining tyres to take the load. In my experience, this does seem to be the case with current aircraft types.

The conspiracy theorists have plenty of scope with this tragedy. It doesn't seem to me that there has been completely open and honest disclosure of other factors concerning maintenance issues that some people have raised. Are Air France in the dock, too? Were the AAIB allowed full access to the investigation?

Actually, this has all been done to death, here & elsewhere. The victims are gone, the aircraft is grounded for ever. Those of us hoping for closure find the whole business of raking up the past somewhat distasteful.

The Odd One

[Globaliser]

A and C: This has nothing to do with aviation it's just the blood sucking leaches of the leagal business trying to make a lot of money from an unfortunate accident.How is the French criminal justice system's decision to start a formal criminal investigation process the fault of lawyers trying to make money?

[Kolibear]

Of course, an item like this should never have destroyed a tyre

Tyres blow for what reason, the AAIB files contain a lot of reports about burst tyres, I would suggest that the loss of a tyre should not be capable of the destruction of the aircraft.

[Tonic Please]

It wasn't the loss of the tire it was the rubber penetrating the fuel tank.

[Jerricho]

This came up just before Christmas (see here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155106) ).

:rolleyes:

This just makes me sick. What are we going to see next? Airlines suing other airlines for not getting off a runway expediently and causing a go-around which of course costs money.

[Globaliser]

Jerricho: This just makes me sick. What are we going to see next? Airlines suing other airlines for not getting off a runway expediently and causing a go-around which of course costs money.Can I please say this one more time?

This has nothing to do with anyone suing anyone else. This is a criminal investigation.

[outofsynch]

Yes a criminal investigation instigated by a bunch of money-leeching lawyers working in the public prosecutions department!!

All just trying to cover up the french engineering f*** up that really caused the crash..................

[BEagle]

French engineering errors
French captain's decision to take-off with ATOW>RTOW
A small piece of metal
French flight crew CRM errors

All conspired to destroy their Concorde.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

It wasn't the loss of the tire it was the rubber penetrating the fuel tank.

My understanding is that the rubber didn't penetrate the tank - it gave the bottom of the tank a massive thump causing the fuel to surge upwards, and be bounced back down at considerable pressure off the top of the tank, with sufficient force to rupture the bottom of the tank.

But I think BEagle makes valid points, too.

SSD

[Flying Lawyer]

SSD is right.
The rubber didn't penetrate the tank. In non-scientific language (which is all I can do), the impact of the piece of tyre striking the underside of the wing set off shock waves in the fuel and in the tank itself. The tank ruptured where the shock waves met.

Wasn't there a suggestion that the aircraft went off the runway before it rotated? One of the runway lights was damaged - I think (not certain) on the left side of the runway.


outofsynch
Do you, as a pilot, find the tabloids say things about your industry and/or about flying which you know to be utter rubbish? As a lawyer, I do.
Do you find there are some people who still prefer to believe what they've read in the tabloids even when you've told them the facts? I do, but thankfully not too often.
Do you find that frustrating? I don't. I've got used to it. ;)

BTW, the "money-leeching lawyers" are salaried and won't earn any more/less money regardless of the outcome of the investigation.

Tudor

[BEagle]

'Hydrostatic shock' caused the tank rupture, not direct penetration.

Hi Tudor!

[captplaystation]

I live here, so I suppose I shouldnt say this ,but it is fairly safe to assume that had it been an Airbus product or another AF aircraft involved they would have found some other cause( like the terrible distraction caused to the controller by having to speak 2 languages merde alors! )Look at the cover-ups and lies(and in both cases tampering with FDRs) in the 2 French territory A320 accidents and be amazed that we at least know some of the truth about the Concorde accident.But of course most of the stuff that could have been embarrasing to AF in the run up to partial privatisation/KLM merger has been ignored/glossed over,Ce la vie.

[400drvr]

The loss of the Concord was tragic and I for one am saddened by the fact that we will never see it on the ramp again. But while it was operational maybe there should have been a FOD sweep program for Concord departures. I do not think the impact on traffic would have been that great since the number of Concord departures was never very high.

Ed

[Frangible]

when the judge has done whatever he is going to do with Continental, which is not so crazy seeing as the repair to the DC10 engine was improper, watch out you French-hating Conc sentimentalists. His next target is the people who looked at the 1979 Dulles incident, said tut tut, nothing much we can do about that, and then acted surprised when Gonesse happened.

The AAIB, btw, had full access and participated fully in the investigation. They dissented on some points. One was the the strange notion that the fire progressed from the afterburners forward, instead of from sparks in the wheel bay, which is the AAIB theory and would, by implication, cast doubt on the efficacy of the Dulles investigation and preventive measures taken after it. In that incident, rubber went into the wings, shorted out wheel bay electrics and damaged two hydraulic circuits. The sparks didn't light the fuel because it was further away from the sparks and much less massive than at Gonesse.

AAIB was also sceptical about the hydrodynamic ram effect. They couldn't disprove it, but they also knew that chunks of rubber going at 250 kts plus are perfectly capable of penetrating a 2mm wingskin.

Sentimentality, national pride times two, and the "Emperor's clothes" effect are really what kept Conc going so long. It was unsafe by any modern standard.

[Flying Lawyer]

Many informed people with years of first hand knowledge and experience of Concorde would strongly disagree with your final sentence.

I agree national pride was a factor in keeping the Air France Concorde fleet flying as long as it did. Unlike BA, AF was losing money on Concorde even before the crash. The even greater losses in the post-crash slump in sales was money AF couldn't afford at a time when it was in a dire financial straits and desperate to cut costs. From AF's perspective, there was neither the means nor the incentive to 'weather the storm'. The post crash slump in sales provided a financial reason to pull out without loss of national pride.

[Frangible]

Not very difficult to turn a profit on a plane that costs you nothing down, nothing to pay (ever) plus five years of maintenance costs gratis. I still believe that hearts were ruling heads.

[Flying Lawyer]

Not very difficult to turn a profit on a plane that costs you nothing down, nothing to pay (ever) plus five years of maintenance costs gratis.Not very difficult? :confused:

With respect, Concorde's operating history doesn't seem to be your strong point if you think a free aircraft and five years free maintenance made long term profitability of a supersonic airliner "not very difficult." :)
Five years free maintenance? What about when the five years were up?
Not very difficult? AF didn't make it a good job of it; BA did.

Concorde was making substantial losses by 1981 when Lord King became Chairman of BA, and many in the company wanted to get rid of it for that reason. But for his foresight and wisdom, it probably wouldn't have survived BA's financial streamlining in preparation for privatisation.

King created the Concorde Division and gave Captain Brian Walpole (appointed General Manager Concorde) and Captain Jock Lowe (then a Senior FO) a deadline of two years to turn it to profit. They did so, despite the forecasts of the beancounters that it couldn't be done, and despite being hit by a serious unforeseen crisis when their challenging task had only been under way for a few months: the government gave notice it wouldn't fund Concorde's support costs beyond 1983.

Many in BA thought that really was the end of Concorde and when King told the government BA would consider taking over the support costs, the anti-Concorde body in BA thought he was barking mad. The government agreed to extend the cut-off by a year to 1984; King and his team negotiated new contracts with the relevant companies and Concorde was saved again.

King probably did have a soft spot for Concorde, but he was also a tough hard-headed businessman who saw the advantages to BA of having this stunning flag-ship - provided it was also profitable.

The anti lobby forecast financial disaster but the BA Concorde fleet was still making a profit 20 years later when the retirement was announced.
As well as being Chief Pilot of BA, Jock Lowe was Commercial Director Concorde until 1999. Captain Walpole's career didn't end on a high note for other reasons, but that doesn't detract from the amazing job both men did to make Concorde such a success.

Of course having free aircraft was a trememdous advantage, but that's only a small part of a much bigger story.

[airborne_artist]

Not very difficult to turn a profit on a plane that costs you nothing down, nothing to pay (ever) plus five years of maintenance costs gratis. I still believe that hearts were ruling heads.

It's worth bearing in mind that with BA's fixed cost base at the time, the purchase price of any aircraft represented a very small percentage of the total cost of operating.

[Frangible]

Much as Lowe and Walpole did a good job, operating aircraft profitably is supposed to be what an airline is about. While many may mourn the passing of a beautiful and technically splendid machine, there are some who have more tears for an aviation industry which went south at least in part because it had no significant investment in potentially world-beating products because the money wasn’t there. It was in Concorde.