Five people to face Concorde crash trial

[Brit312]

I must be mising something here, but all these comments have made me look at the report or at least some off it again and there aare a couple of points which confuse me

1] the aircraft is reported to have drifted to the left of the runway [due to this missing spacer] during the take off run, so one would have expected to see some input to correct this. Now as the nosewheel steering was connected to the rudder one would have expected to see some movement to the right on the rudder pedals, but all I can see are two rather big imputs [10 degs] to the left at about 50 to 60 knots. Subsequent there is the big imput of right rudder at engine failure

2] Not that it really has a any input on the crash but it would seem from the Concordesst site that the co-pilots medical was out of date, ie as he was over 40 years old his medical lasted for 6 months to the day and his last medical was 17th Jan 2000. therefore under FCL.1 regs [1999] he should have renewed it by the 17th July at the latest.
Again nothing to do with the crash but I am suprised that if true Air France would miss this.

[Lord Bracken]

Humble SLF here but IIRC it was SOP on a Concorde departure to add a bit of rudder on the initial roll, as the number 4 (or 1, an outboard one anyway) reheat would automatically light later than the others, as the wing vortex would wash over this engine's exhaust just as the reheats were trying to light.

You could feel this at the front of the front cabin as a little 'shimmy' just after power was applied.

[wings folded]

My thoughts prior to the trial is that any all elements outside the scope of the prosecutors draft will be either downplayed or even potentially excluded from consideration. So in the end it would appear that a forgone verdict exists prior to the commencement of the trial.


A forgone verdict exists only according to your thoughts prior to the trial.

Your ability to know with certainty what a future outcome will be is an extraordinary gift.

It's a pity you spoil it all by advancing remarks to do with French legal process which are just incorrect.

[SLFinAZ]

Actually my opinion is shaped as it is because I see the trial as an extension of the indictment. The prosecutor created a very limited playing field by ignoring significant factors glossed over in the BEA report. So in the end we are left with a couple of poor sods that were coerced into bad decisions decades ago and a convenient scapegoat (Continental) while ignoring the underlying operational transgressions and shortcomings that may very well be the root cause of the tragedy.

[fdr]

L.B, Hi.

Your observation is consistent with the delay in the #4 engine achieving afterburner light off and rated thrust. This does appear to be a fairly small lateral acceleration. The first 2 LH rudder inputs appear to have quite a lag before generating a LH acceleration, but may be characteristic of the aircrafts lateral control response.

The Investigation

It is unfortunate that the excellent work conducted by the BEA on their analysis of TO performance, 5 May 2008, using Erik Hollnagel's Failure Resonance Analysis Method, FRAM was not used on the investigation of F-BTSC, as it may have lead to a more holistic understanding of the event, and perhaps would have quenched some of the enthusiasm of the Judiciary to test a few individuals accountability vs the general and (arguably) understandable failure of the system to adequately protect the operation from a relatively complex failure mode.

After the fact it is easy to draw straight lines from the effect backwards to the perceived causes, it is far tougher to develop the risks from the start of operation, and predict the consequences of multi factorial resonant behavior.

At some point do the authorities place the politicians on trial as well? as they are a factor in the provision of resources, and regulatory structure under which it is assumed that the DGCA and COA personnel worked under.

It is easy for the inquisitor to hold the individual accountable for not acting on knowledge that didn't exist at the time of the occurrence, where this knowledge becomes identified post event; what is forseeable pre- and post- event are quite different, although there was a fair amount of evidence accumulated before 25th Jul 2000 to indicate that the SST was susceptible to compound failures arising from a forseeable failure of a tyre; that this opportunity was missed is clearer post event than it would have been pre event, but as is occasionally the case, each component of the failure had been assessed separately and were evaluated to be adequately protected or remote enough not to be a factor. On the day, all that could go wrong, did.

The failures of tyres/wheels/hydraulics/gear retraction/engine damage were documented well prior to the accident, stemming from either tyre failure or FOD damage leading to tyre failure.

[SpeedbirdXK8]

I love it when the Yanks get a bee in their bonnets when a "good 'ole boy" ends up facing a court in the old continent. If it goes against the US carrier then it would be considered by them as a unfair trial, biased Judges, media etc and no doubt the Taleban and other nasty people who think differently from the US are all in on it!

Can we stick to the facts, please!:ugh:

[wings folded]

SLF in AZ


Actually my opinion is shaped as it is because I see the trial as an extension of the indictment.


And you are still doing it.

You may see the trial as an extension of the indictment

"Indictment" is a feature unique to Common Law regimes. It has no sense, meaning, validity under other forms of law.

So your point is totally without foundation.

This trial is not to be conducted under US regimes of law, custom or practice, because although it may strike you as inconvenient, the accident occurred on French soil, and according to a non-judicial investigation by a duly competent investigation body, there is a question of responsibility to be answered by a corporate body which happens to be American.


It will no doubt bore other readers, but I will just attempt one more time to assist you in your understanding of French legal process.

You may not have followed the story, but a former Prime Minister of France was tried recently for having been allegedly complicit in a smear campaign against the President of France amongst others, in connection with what became known as the "Clearstream" affair.

The Court cleared him absolutely of the charges. The President was a "Partie Civile" (see earlier posts about the meaning of this, but briefly means that he was a private party to the prosecution).

The judges used and showed their complete independence from administrative interference in reaching their decision.


So in the end we are left with a couple of poor sods that were coerced into bad decisions decades ago and a convenient scapegoat (Continental) while ignoring the underlying operational transgressions and shortcomings that may very well be the root cause of the tragedy.


No.

We are left with a judicial process scheduled to last 4 months or so, when all aspects will be examined.

Under your version of things, they could all show up and say "It was Continental's fault"

The evil French would all agree.

The hearing would last 20 minutes.

But it is not like that.

[wings folded]

wings folded,

The reason many of us doubt the existence of a determined will to find the truth is that the only ones being charged are the ones highlighted by the BEA (Continental) and ones who are so far back in history that they will be dealt with leniently anyhow.
If the public prosecutor had listened to the other opinion existing and had demanded the prosecution of the AF engineer responsible for the non-replacement of the spacer (as everyone EXCEPT the BEA seems to understand the importance of this ), perhaps the person compiling the loadsheet, perhaps the controller who didn't see the smoke & flames until WAY too late (CDG controllers don't look out the window , I operated there for 6 yrs & I can give some hideous examples that prove that claim) the Director of Flight Training of the Concorde fleet, indeed , 1 single person associated with Air France, somebody ? ? nobody ? ? cmon ! ! maybe we could give more credence to this "process" which seems to me to be heavily loaded to dump the blame at the first & last holes in the cheese, whilst conveniently absolving (indeed not even accusing ) the embarassing mould in the middle.
Me, I think it is a cover up, let the verdict satisfy the professional pilot population throughout Europe & I will be happy to retract that statemen


So you know already how the court will deal with the "ones who are so far back in history that they will be dealt with leniently anyhow."

Do let us know the rest of the judgement of which you are aware by some miraculous time shift.

We are all wasting our time here since you know the outcome in advance. Put us out of our misery. Tell us the reasoned findings as they will emerge in 4 months.

Like so many other contributors to this thread, you fall into the mistake of beleiving that only the BEA report will be heard.

A judicial process can and will hear properly formulated evidence from any concerned party.

Even in France.


let the verdict satisfy the professional pilot population throughout Europe & I will be happy to retract that statement

I have nothing but admiration for pilots' abilities.

I entrust my life to them frequently.

I get a little bit nervous when they think they also know the law inside out.

Remain safe, dedicated, skilled pilots.

It is already quite a task. Try not to get too distracted from it.

[chuks]

"Too distracted"? Just because someone here probably has trouble typing while chewing gum doesn't mean that we all share this problem.

In fact most pilots can think about sex, bitch about their low pay and shoot an ILS down to minimums all at the same time. Okay, maybe not so well, when you nervous passengers have to read about this post-crash on the CVR transcript but still...

No sweat, my man, you have sold us on the benefits of the Napoleonic Code and we now have infinite faith in the French legal system shaking the truth out of this murky affair.

[SLFinAZ]

properly formulated evidence

This is exactly what I fear will happen. The "inquisitional" panel of judges will in it's "wisdom" limit its consideration to what it perceives as the above. Disregarding your semantics in previous posts the prosecutor has determined (in his view) who the culpable parties are. If the court follows this line of reasoning then it's left crippled IMO. Since you present yourself as someone more knowledgeable answer this question. Can the court dismiss a portion of the criminal indictment at its discretion and directly charge or instruct the prosecutor to charge another party it views as at fault? My guess is that the answer is a resounding NO.

A judicial process can and will hear properly formulated evidence from any concerned party This is a non starter and entirely false in any jurisdiction. A "concerned party" may not have standing and the evidence that party may wish to present may or may not be deemed as appropriate. I would go so far as to argue that the complete absence of both the airport authority and AF from the charge sheet is specifically designed to prevent any serious inquiry into their potential culpability.

[wings folded]

Since you present yourself as someone more knowledgeable answer this question. Can the court dismiss a portion of the criminal indictment at its discretion and directly charge or instruct the prosecutor to charge another party it views as at fault? My guess is that the answer is a resounding NO.


I have tried more than once to correct your misconceptions.

I will leave you with your Arizonian guess.

Meanwhile, justice will be carried out without guesses. It will be carried out by competent people, within a structure of law which they understand.



This is a non starter and entirely false in any jurisdiction


Your palpable ignorance of judicial process is staggeringly clear from your posts, and cannot be remedied in a forum such as this.

It does not matter.

You are not trying this case.

You have no evidence to offer. The views which you are entitled to hold carry no weight beyond the boundary of your own person.

[S.F.L.Y]

I think the 1981 NTSB recommendations were already clear enough:

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/1981/A81_150_152.pdf

Now it's not because this letter was sent to the French authorities that "other" operating authorities shouldn't feel concerned by the listed occurrences, which by the way happened more often in serious stages (fuel leaks) than with the French operations.

The 1981 letter mentions: "potentidly catastrophic incident resulting from blown tires during takeoff" What else does need to be added? Why should the court segregate responsibilities on AF only while its a entire systematic risk management failure? To me it is very clear that all parties involved in the operations of this aircraft were fully aware of the risks mentioned in the NTSB recommendations.

I would really appreciate if one could stop attempting to discharge other parties by demonstrating AF's heavy violations. AF failure to work properly doesn't clear other parties from there responsibilities and AF isn't the only one missing in the court.

[M.Mouse]

I would really appreciate if one could stop attempting to discharge other parties by demonstrating AF's heavy violations.

And I would imagine most of us would appreciate you stopping your one track crusade although I would imagine most people are probably using the ignore facility already to remove your tedious postings from sight.

[CONF iture]

The aircraft is reported to have drifted to the left of the runway [due to this missing spacer] during the take off run, so one would have expected to see some input to correct this.

Is not it precisely what appears on the graph ?

http://i65.servimg.com/u/f65/11/75/17/84/con_0010.gif (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=40&u=11751784)

Constant right input for 2 degrees.
What a bizarre practice to off center the scale I concede …

[S.F.L.Y]

stopping your one track crusade although I would imagine most people are probably using the ignore facility already to remove your tedious postings from sight.

There is no one track crusade, I guess whoever operates an aircraft with such incidents history is somehow accountable. What is tedious?

[EHartmann]

If one reads the BEA report this is explained there. The Flight Data Recorder output numbers presented included the calibration error. For rudder pedal that error was (if memory serves me well) +1.7, which means that that what appears to be -2 in the graph is actually 0.

[SLFinAZ]

Meanwhile, justice will be carried out without guesses. It will be carried out by competent people, within a structure of law which they understand

So you define "justice" as a preconceived idea of guilt that excludes multiple entities who's actions directly contributed to the incident under review?

You define "competent" how?

Who exactly are "they"?

My entire point here is that the "structure" of the law here is actually being shaped by the prosecutor not the 3 judge panel. In the end this is nothing other then an attempt to assign blame not "justice" or more importantly an unbiased search for the underlying truth.

So I'm a bit curious but we will start with one specific point. We have enough reasonable documentation that we can (for arguments sake) stipulate that 3 French fire fighters on station and observing the take off roll in a professional capacity will testify (if allowed) that they witnessed observable signs of a fire well before the plane reached the area of the FOD. Since this event clearly is unrelated to any potential damage from the FOD and unrelated to issues specific to the fuel tank puncture it would appear to exonerate both Continental and the other defendants from having primary responsibility for the tragedy.

As a second point it appears (even from the BEA report) that the tracking issues are separate from the tire failure itself. This issue led to the impact with the lighting and the related damage to the wheel well and possibly the engine failure. So if the source of the flame is sparks from the damage, the source of the engine failure is debris from the lighting fixtures and damage from the impact is what prevented the gear to be raised and contributed to the lack of safe operating speed being obtained then the root cause of the tragedy is in fact the lack of centerline tracking. After all the Dulles incident did not involve any fire.

So we have two alternative possibilities immediately at hand.

1) The "fire" predates the tire failure (or the failure occurred prior to FOD impact) or 2) that the tire failure was secondary to a bigger tracking problem that caused the structural damage that led to engine and landing gear failure and potentially would have caused a fuel puncture regardless but in the end was the causal event for the tragedy.

At this point your further opinion on how these very real questions are handled is not required. My believe (which I will gladly retract if needed) is that the judges will discount any and all technical alternatives not in line with the findings of the BEA report as speculative and inconclusive. Accordingly they will ignore such and rely entirely on the technical findings of the BEA report and apportion blame accordingly. So in the end there will be judgement....but no justice.

[captplaystation]

With one or two notable exceptions, I think you have accurately summed up what most of us here fear will be the outcome.
The other two individuals appear to be going to great lengths to, respectively, drag BA into it, and convince us that a case that appears to have already targeted who they think is at fault, will be anything like comprehensive enough.
Interestingly you are still waiting for an answer to your question regarding changing the "blame" for this, if as the trial progresses, it appears there are other fish more deserving to be fried. As yet I see no response to that very valid and important point.
I would hope that the "net" could be cast a little further if justice is really to be done.

[Finn47]

A jury of 12 average Joes taken from the street is not a key to happiness nor any guarantee that they would better arrive at the truth in this case than the 3 judges. If you think otherwise you are delusional.

In this case, three persons - the judges - will decide whether the accused are guilty or not. Three people can do it just as well as 12 people. Perhaps even better.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

The Court

"The inevitable technical nature of this trial should not make it lose its human dimension," recalled the president of the court, Dominique Andréassier.

Wishful thinking because in the courtroom there is virtually no family passengers died. They have all been very well compensated in return for their silence and their complete withdrawal.

While such trials after a major disaster is always a pretext to allow victims to their grief, this is not the case this time.

Only plaintiffs not entitled to compensation as that of the crew or the hotel staff are present.

No illusions either about the search for truth as only one case has been studied by experts and validated by the judge. And in a courtroom, as everyone knows, there is no possible escape outside the sacrosanct order of dismissal of judge defended by the experts.

Therefore no opportunity to see other causes of the crash jewel of French aircraft, just before the A320, this stunning slide.

And the Americans have done well seen as both accused of Continental Airlines, a boilermaker, John Taylor and Stanley Ford, head of the team in which Mr. Taylor was working, were also absent on the first day of trial . If Mr. Ford is suffering "and" should be present in March, according to his lawyer, Emmanuel Marsigny, Mr. Taylor, under arrest, should not go to trial. "He has no American passport" and "can not move," said François Esclatine, his lawyer.Google Traduire (http://translate.google.be/translate?hl=fr&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crashdehabsheim.net%2Fautre%2520crash%252 0Concorde.htm)

Original link:
crash Concorde (http://www.crashdehabsheim.net/autre%20crash%20Concorde.htm#3.2.10)

[philbky]

This thread may begin to have some relevance once the testimony of witnesses and defendants is heard and accurately reported.

Until then we have little to go on other then the constant rehashing and dissection of the BEA report and eye witness comment from the time of the accident.

As for the French judicial system, those contributors from the USA who are convinced the French are out to "get" Continental ought to look to their own system which the numbers show is heavily biased, in terms of sentencing and imprisonment, against certain members of its own community.

One fact is clear, Continental used a defective method of repair to its DC10. If that repair caused, or was a party to the causes of, the Concorde accident is just one point that a fair and thorough trial should uncover.

The Napoleonic code and the system of investigative trials, as opposed to the confrontational system in front of a jury as used in the UK and US, for instance, has merit and has proved equally as valid as the jury system and is less likely to return a false verdict in cases where an eloquent lawyer puts on a bravura performance to sway a jury with little or no technical knowledge or knowledge of the law.

On the other hand, the interested parties in France, including many not on trial, have a great deal of economic (thus political) influence and Gallic pride is a very strong national trait. One has to trust that the judges are as impartial as they are sworn to be, though history shows that in all countries, including the USA, judges have been partial to political, economic and mob influence.

[streetcar 1]

What nobody is talking about is that Concord was unsafe from day one. A naked flame has no place near a passenger/civil aircraft why because any fuel leak will immidiately catch fire and that kind of fire cannot to extingushed. A fuel leak no matter how massive on Airbus 320-380 or B737-387 will be no bid deal.but not on the concord. Afterburner was the cause of the Paris Concord crash. It is simply put a naked flame. it may be ok on a fighter jet because a pilot on a fighter jet can always bale out. Without the afterburner the Concord could have managed the fuel leak. but the afterburner set fire to the air/fuel mix that could not be put out.( did Boeing come to the same conclusion and is that why after spending massive amount of moneey it calcelled the boeing supersonic project? remember no afterburner no supersonic plane)

[chuks]

Tests were done after the accident that showed that while leaking fuel may have been ignited by the afterburner the flame front's speed was too low to allow the ignition of the fuel further forward. (I think the numbers were flame front speed about 10 metres/second, airflow about 60 metres/second, so you can see what they meant by that.) I think it was taken to be proved by testing that the ignition source for the wing fire was damaged, sparking wiring associated with the landing gear.

No one was going to certify a civil transport airplane that was "unsafe" because of a "naked flame" so that the afterburners were taken to be acceptably safe. Boeing dropped their attempt to build the supersonic aircraft for economic and environmental reasons, I think you will find.

If you remember, there was a sharp rise in the price of oil in 1973, when that put the economics of supersonic flight in doubt. Concorde had been designed when fuel was still cheap, since it burned lots of the stuff!

Then there were tests done using a B-70 to see what the sonic boom would be like over the central United States, when millions of dollars in damage was done. That meant we could forget going supersonic from New York to LA, for instance, so that the market for a Boeing supersonic airliner should be much smaller that if that were allowable.

Braniff had already been operating Concorde between Texas and New Ýork subsonic and failing to make that pay. A conventional subsonic airliner was much cheaper to operate than a supersonic airliner flown subsonic, no surprise really.

Concorde was a wonderful technical accomplishment but it was damaged by economics to the point where it just didn't pay to continue flying it, I think. It was not grounded due to safety, having been successfully modified post-crash. I think we could put it in that corner of aviation with the Graf Zeppelin, the Spruce Goose and the Saunders-Roe Princess, technical successes but economic failures.

[robertbartsch]

After considering inflation, I thought the cost of fuel today is "cheaper" than the cost of fuel in the mid to late 1970s.

It is not clear to me about the fuel tank issues; were these tank breaches during the history of Concoord caused exclusively by tire blowouts or were there other causes?

Thx.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

What nobody is talking about is that Concord was unsafe from day one. A naked flame has no place near a passenger/civil aircraft why because any fuel leak will immidiately catch fire and that kind of fire cannot to extingushed. A fuel leak no matter how massive on Airbus 320-380 or B737-387 will be no bid deal.but not on the concord. Afterburner was the cause of the Paris Concord crash. It is simply put a naked flame. it may be ok on a fighter jet because a pilot on a fighter jet can always bale out. Without the afterburner the Concord could have managed the fuel leak. but the afterburner set fire to the air/fuel mix that could not be put out.( did Boeing come to the same conclusion and is that why after spending massive amount of moneey it calcelled the boeing supersonic project? remember no afterburner no supersonic plane)

That's one of the stupidest, misinformed posts on here ever, and that takes some doing.

So you cannot have an engine fire if you do not have reheat ?

A very interesting hypothesis.

Idiot.

[Skipness One Echo]

fuel leak no matter how massive on Airbus 320-380 or B737-387 will be no bid deal

If you had read anything on this story, you would be aware that it was not the afterburners that cause the fire. It was arcing from the damaged undercarriage. If you want to post controversial opinions, at least make SOME effort to follow the facts as they become known.

A most lazy post from Accra I see.

[papazulu]

Without the afterburner the Concord could have managed the fuel leak. but the afterburner set fire to the air/fuel mix that could not be put out.

It was an interesting thread (thank mainly to M2dude contribute) before amateurs and SLF-know-it-all step...:{

PZ :zzz:

[streetcar 1]

Lets keep this civil. No Isults please

[philbky]

Then don't post rubbish.

[wings folded]

SLFin AZ


So you define "justice" as a preconceived idea of guilt that excludes multiple entities who's actions directly contributed to the incident under review?

You define "competent" how?

Who exactly are "they"?



One last try to educate you, then I give up.


So you define "justice" as a preconceived idea of guilt that excludes multiple entities who's (sic) actions directly contributed to the incident under review?


No,

I define justice as a proper process of law.

I do not define it as some rabid views held by somebody who has no competence.

I have defined legal process in an area you clearly know nothing about. Where is there any evidence of preconceived guilt?

"Competent" ?

Well, actually, competent within their profession.


Who exactly are "they"?


The judges.

[stilton]

This is the result of a no big deal fuel leak on a 737 :



YouTube - INCENDIO FIRE BOEING 737 CHINA AIRLINES NAHA OKINAWA JAPAN 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qyZFASOAe0)

[lomapaseo]

Stilton

This is the result of a no big deal fuel leak on a 737 :


What's your point?

How does this relate to the thread subject?

[JEM60]

Sreetcar 1. Australian F.111 regularly dumped fuel at Airshows, and then set fire to it with it's afterburners. As long as you are travelling faster than the flame, then no problem, as already stated.

[stepwilk]

In fact they did it just the other day at the Singapore show.

by the way, why are we bothering with a poster who apparently thinks the airplane was named after a town in Massachusetts?

[SLFinAZ]

Lets review your comments wings...

There is no question that this is a tragedy with a complex and surprisingly murky set of variables. Out of all these factors criminal charges were filed against very specific parties completely in line with the findings of the BEA report. This report is viewed by many as incomplete and possibly self serving. Given that continental is apparently making a proactive defense that other factors are to blame and that the BEA report is wrong we are left with a fundamental question.

Are the defendants on trial or is the BEA report on trial or both? Did Continental or any other party of interest have the ability to challenge the BEA report or it's findings during the investigation? If the report is flawed but serves as the true basis for the criminal charges then was a "proper process of law" actually followed?

As a single point I will illustrate the following. Lets set aside my doubts (and others) regarding the technical accuracy of the findings and accept the report on face value. In this event we have a technical finding specific to the cause of the crash with FOD as the primary factor. While that might be fine from an investigative perspective it's not from a legal one.

Under the law (in France as well as the US and UK) a certain level of professional competence is excepted in the performance of any professional service. Doctor, Lawyer, Dentist, Electrician or Pipe-fitter...so a fundamental standard of "prudent and reasonable" action is implied and enforced. Just of the top of my head...

1) Failure to inspect the runway prior to takeoff
2) Failure to inform the flight engineer of additional luggage weight/location
3) Decision to use a runway already deemed unsuitable for flight operations
4) Decision to take off in a reported tailwind which violated SOP
5) Failure to inspect and fix improperly maintained equipment
6) Failure to properly follow SOP during an in flight emergency

So while we may have a correct "technical cause" a much broader question of responsibility has been excluded from consideration. In effect we have a manslaughter trial for malpractice without the primary party having been charged.

Personally I do not see how any reasonable third party can view the underlying facts and come away feeling that either AF or the airport authority met any legal definition of "reasonable and prudent" specific to the actions above.

[chuks]

Why not just wait for the trial to proceed and then comment on it? You seem to be trying to predict the future here. Also, the French use of the Napoleonic Code is very different to what we are used to, based as it is on English law, so that the process may appear unfair to you simply because of its unfamiliarity. Bear in mind that both the UK and France are in the EU and seem to accept each other's legal practices so that justice in France must be reasonably fair.

[vapilot2004]

by the way, why are we bothering with a poster who apparently thinks the airplane was named after a town in Massachusetts?

It's my understanding that the aircraft was originally to be named Concord.
The e was added to make the Frenchies happy.

[philbky]

The correct English spelling is Concord (dictionary definition "agreement" "harmony"), the correct French spelling for the same definition is Concorde neither having anything to do, in the context of the aircraft with the town in Massachusetts.

The aircraft was initially referred to in the UK as "Concorde", with the French spelling, but was officially changed to "Concord" by Harold Macmillan in response to a perceived slight by Charles de Gaulle. In 1967, at the French roll-out the British Government Minister for Technology, Tony Benn, announced that he would change the spelling back to "Concorde"

In the UK this created a nationalist uproar that died down when Benn stated that the suffixed "e" represented "Excellence, England, Europe and Entente Cordiale.

In his memoirs, he recounts a tale of a letter from an irate Scotsman claiming: "You talk about 'E' for England, but part of it is made in Scotland." Given Scotland’s contribution of providing the nose cone for the aircraft, Benn replied, "It was also 'E' for 'Écosse' (the French name for Scotland) — and I might have added 'e' for extravagance and 'e' for escalation ( of cost) as well" - such are the soothing words of politicians to cool the ire of foreigners and their own nationals alike.

Prior to roll out, artwork produced by Aerospatiale, BAC and a number of airlines showing the original aircraft shape had the name in French on the Air France and on one side of the Air Canada pictures and the English spelling on BOAC, Pan American and the other (passenger entrance) side of Air Canada pictures.

[stilton]

Yes Lompaseo. 'Streetcar 1 ' is postulating that a fuel leak on an Airbus or a Boeing is 'no big deal' and that only Concorde with its 'naked flame' afterburners was vulnerable to leaking fuel.



I posted the link of a 737 that caught fire due to leaking fuel to illustrate that simply is not true.


Comprend ?



Streetcar's theory is, incidentally, ridiculous.

[GarageYears]

I posted the link of a 737 that caught fire due to leaking fuel to illustrate that simply is not true.And incidentally is also a timely reminder to avoid ever booking a flight on China Airlines again.

And to wonder what took the fire brigade quote so long to arrive...?

And if that's not thread drift I don't know what is.

However, unless I'm much mistaken speed is certainly your friend when it comes to discovering parts of your plane are on fire. The more speed the better ideally.

- GY

[vapilot2004]

Thank you Mr. Philbky for that erudite and apropos history lesson.

[bizdev]

"And incidentally is also a timely reminder to avoid ever booking a flight on China Airlines again"

As I understand it, the China Airlines fire was caused when a loose slat fairing bolt pierced the slat-can which caused the fuel leak. This turned out to be a problem caused by poor production build at Boeing, and resulted in an Alert Service Bulletin being issued affecting B737-NG operators worldwide.

I don't think China Airlines were culpable in any way?

bizdev

[wings folded]

Lets review your comments wings...


Could have had some merit except that you do not review my comments.

You just wheel out one more time your already expressed preconceptions based upon a total ignorance of the process involved.

Read "chuks"'s post directly after yours.

Thank you chuks.

[DB64]

Regardless of their flaws, Concord(e) and the comet were remarkable firsts in engineering, the latter of which no doubt helped Boeing et al in their rise to supremacy in passenger jet technology (helped by their respective governments). As for concorde, if one looks at the flying hours of other passenger aircraft (737 for example) one would find the first fatal accident of many types ocurred with lower flying hours but yet they still fly. Considering the technology and physical stresses on concorde airframe wouldn't it be more pertinent to compare it to jets flying above Mach than those below? But even compared to other passenger jets, and the age of the aircraft, aren't some posters somewhat harsh about one of the most extraordinary feats of engineering ever?

[gruntie]

but it seems at least possible that Branson failed to purchase the Concordes not because of high maintance, bad economics and a lack of financing options, but rather that it may have been determined, by someone other than Branson, that the planes have significant design flaws and that flying them would very likely result in additional accidents and loss of life.


The commonly quoted scenario goes something like:

1) Operating Concorde is bleeding AF white. They've lost one, nearly lose another at Halifax, the "freedom fries" antipathy means they're carrying 8 or 10 passengers at a time to/from the US on their scheduled services.
2) Upcoming alliance and EU rules mean AF financial losses have to be stemmed swiftly and govt subsidy is (notionally at least) illegal. No quick answer to Concorde losses so it has to go.
3) Airbus say to BA "now you're the sole operator you'll have to carry entire support cost".
4) BA say "unfair, give us a bit of time". Airbus say "OK, six months".
5) No way to make it work so 6 months later the tearful goodbyes.
6) The planes belong to BA. Given previous antipathy a willing sale seems unlikely.
7) To operate it Branson would also have to take on the entire BA resource. Dare say a large number of that resource would not be prepared to make the swap either.
8) Return to point 3 above.
9) Insert national pride &/or superior knowledge where appropriate.

[Jig Peter]

While both "superpowers" built and operated large Mach 2-capable aircraft for war, I've long felt that another remarkable feature about Concorde is that it was built for peaceful purposes. Neither the Press nor other media have noted this, except indirectly - perhaps feeling it would be non-PC to do so. Building an aircraft for the safe and regular transport of passengers is a whole lot different from designing and building a bomber, and for me, this has always been a major "plus" for "the most beautiful aircraft ever built" ...
The US and USSR supersonic bombers also probably flew/fly far fewer sorties/hours than the Concorde fleet.
Credit where credit's due, eh ?

[DB64]

Couldn't agree more. I lived under the flight path of this beautiful jet and the sound would always make me take a look outside, it was like clockwork every evening. I also had the great honour of being outside observing the final three flights, they flew directly overhead, one from the north east, one from south east and one straight in from the east, and will admit to shedding a tear and being in awe of this remarkable piece of engineering.

[Hedge36]

Forgive me for interjecting here... but can someone clue a lowly helo driver in on the purpose of the horizontal bars in front of the main trucks? I'm guessing they're deflectors for shed tire carcasses.

[hellsbrink]

IIRC, Hedge, BA did fit deflectors because of the tyres going pop (something recommended by the FAA but was not mandatory) but AF didn't. Whether these "bars" are said deflectors or not is something I cannot possibly comment on.

Now, I'm working on memory here. If I am wrong I am more than happy to be corrected.

[M.Mouse]

They are water deflectors. BA's were fitted with a restraining cable in case of detachment caused, amongst other things, by a blown tyre. AF did not have restraining cables fitted to their deflectors.

[nnc0]

I've followed this thread from the beginning and being an engineer involved in certificationm have an interest in the daily proceedings. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a a court summary anywhere or much reporting on it. Any suggestions , aside from Googling every day, on how one might follow the trial on a regular basis?

[M2dude]

The water deflectors were required for certification, owing to the proximity of the main U/C to the engine intakes. I remember seeing a video many moons ago, showing the certification trials for the deflectors, performed at Fairford (circa 1973) and using the FRENCH pre-production aircraft 201 (F-WTSB). The A/C did a series of high speed passes through a huge water trough that had been placed on the on the runway. In the 'before' shots you could see massive plumes of water entereing the intakes, causing quite interesting and visible surging of the engines, whereas the 'after' shots, the plume of water very neatly missed the intakes altogether. After the final BA tyre burst/wing damage incident in 1993, a modification was emodied TO THE BRITISH AIRCRAFT ONLY, fitting a retaining cord through the centre of the main gear deflectors; if a tyre burst occured, the deflector would ostensibly stay in one lump, causing no airframe damage at all; it worked perfectly, there was NEVER another case of a British aircraft sustaining skin penetration due to a tyre burst.
The design of the water deflectors was simple but brilliant, in terms of the differnce it could make to the path of heavy runway water. (The nosewheel also had a deflector fitted, with the addition of two small 'shredder' blades; if a nosewheel punctured at high speed, the blades would neatly shred and divert the rubber straight down the runway behind the A/C, well away from the engines. I have no personal recollection of this ever occuring during airline service).

(My first post for several days, some interesting posts since though, oh and LOVE the photo).

[Bluestar51]

M2Dude,

I'm enjoying your technical input on the Concord. I remember parking beside it at KDFW and getting a tour from the BA crew. It was an amazing airplane.

BS

[M2dude]

Thanks Bluestar51 :ok:; I've just been trying to inject some technical perspective into this topic.
G-BOAB, certainly flew on her many times. The most 'fun' flights of all were the C of A renewal test flights, these involved taking the aircraft outside the normal envelope (Max Altitude, Mmo etc), to monitor the performance of critical A/C systems. (eg. Powerplant, Flying Controls, AFCS etc). Several interesting procedures would be employed. One such procedure involved a 'flat' acceleration to around Mach 2.1 (Mmo being M2.04). The most incredible event of all however, was a supersonic zoom climb to 63,000', (Normal maximum was 60,000') ending with a simultaneous reduction of engine power and perfectly orchestrated pushover. During this steep zoom climb, Mach number never even reduced to much below M1.8, and you tended to ask yourself "is this REALY an airliner?' AMAZING!! During the bunt manoevre, you were semi-weightless for several seconds and if you gently tossed your pen into the air, it tended to 'hang' there for a second or two.
All of this tended to make you realise what a truly amazing aircraft Concorde was. (As a matter of interest also, G-BOAB was the first British Concorde to achieve Mach 2 on her maiden flight).

[Chronus]

The magnificent and somehat haunting photo of concorde has prompted me to refer to the epitaph written by Donald L. Pevsner to his friend FO Jean Marcot The article, considered by some as highly controversial is dedicated to the memory of his good friend and airman, Air France Concorde First Officer Jean Marcot.

The article may be accessed at :

THE BETRAYAL OF CONCORDE (http://www.concorde-spirit-tours.com/concorde.htm)

In the event Mr.Pevsner is aware of the existence of this forum then I would invite his further comments about the current proceedings at Pontoise.

[Desk Jockey]

Chucks-Concorde was a wonderful technical accomplishment but it was damaged by economics to the point where it just didn't pay to continue flying it, I think. It was not grounded due to safety, having been successfully modified post-crash. I think we could put it in that corner of aviation with the Graf Zeppelin, the Spruce Goose and the Saunders-Roe Princess, technical successes but economic failures.

I was in the BA Engineering Directors office at the time the fleet was being stood down. I said to him it was a shame we were going to stop flying them. He said to me "They are just too dangerous" Or words to that effect. That may well have been a personal view of his and I'm sure the decision wouldn't have been his alone. Economics must have had a hand, after all economics and safety can't be separated in most fields.

[SeenItAll]

Hope springs eternal that I can narrow the communication gap between SLFinAZ and Wings Folded.

The miscommunication seems to arise from SLF's assumption that certain procedures of the French legal system match those in the U.S. In particular, in the U.S., the judge (or jury) is not generally allowed to ask any questions of the witnesses. Thus, they are limited to consider only the evidence advanced by the prosecutor or defense attorneys. Because SLF sees the prosecuting attorney choosing only to advance one theory (that COA FOD and ancient Sud Aviation designers are responsible), SLF smells a rat and believes that if this is the only evidence that is going to be presented at the trial, how is it possible that AF procedures could be found culpable or contributing.

But this thought process neglects two things. The first is that the defense attorneys will be able to present their contradicting evidence. While this cannot have the effect of convicting AF, it can have the effect of convincing the judges to find COA and the Sud designers not guilty.

But more importantly, I believe Wings Folded correctly indicates that the French judges will have more leeway in the trial than is available to a U.S. judge. In particular, the French judges will not be limited to hearing (and considering) only the testimony that the prosecutor or defense attorneys choose to present. Rather, they will also be able to directly question the witnesses presented by the prosecution and defense, and adduce additional testimony that the prosecutor (or defense attorney) may not have chosen to elicit.

Further, because of the training and experience of these judges, it is likely that they may be more discerning in their winnowing of the evidence than jury laymen.

While I, too, am disturbed by the one-sided nature of the BEA's conclusions and their apparent endorsement by the prosecution, I am also hopeful that the judges hearing this case will act inquisitively, insightfully and independently. As Wings Folded has indicated, they have the power to do this. Let us see how the actual trial unfolds before jumping to conclusions.

[20driver]

I think the criticism of the French system is a little rich coming from Americans.

Anyone care to discuss the technical merits of the jury decisions in:

The Carnahan case - It was the vacuum pumps fault despite the fact the pump showed no broken vanes. But hey what does the NTSB know.

Silk Air - Sorry it wasn't suicide, just an never seen before set of problems with a pcu. Lets not trouble ourselves over the lack of CVR and FDR data.

The Mid air at Meigs with the radio guy, Bob Grant? - they managed to hang that one on a guy flying Bonzana who had left the pattern due to a gear down problem. It seems he distracted the controllers. We will ignore totally that Mr Grant misreported his position while flying VFR circuits and killed another pilot (Who did not f**K up) as a result.

Its a moot point as no French judge would have made a decision in these cases, as the examining magistrate would never have let theses cases come to court.

I live in America and get to pay for these stupid and wrong jury "feel good" decisions every time I pay my insurance, buy a part or pay my mechanic. Give me three french judges any day of the week.

20driver

[M.Mouse]

Economics must have had a hand, after all economics and safety can't be separated in most fields.

When Concorde was withdrawn from service it has to be remembered that post Sept 11th the whole aviation business had taken one of its downturns and the general economic situation had led companies to re-examine their corporate travel budgets.

I remember being told by BA's then Concorde chief pilot that BA used to have nearly 20 companies who specified Concorde travel for their executives where available. Prior to its permanent withdrawal from service that number had become zero.

[Spikedriver]

You've got to remember that cancellation as far as BA went was not really about raw economics, more about a naive CEO who trusted his Engineering Director. The post-911 era was exremelly difficult, but the BA Concorde market started to pick up very well. The engineering director of the time was paranoid ant-Concorde, and always had been. As an ex-BA F/O (B744), I had the mis-fortune to meet this guy once, and when the subject of Concorde came up in conversation, he almost started boiling over and dribbling at the mouth; he hated the thing. When the French came out with their 'reasons' not to continue flying, all of his Christmases came at once. He told the CEO that this airplane was unsafe, and BA should stop flying as soon as possible. A Concorde pilot friend of mine told me tha.t BA had an excellant legal case in fighting the Airbus decision to withdraw technical support without a massive increase in product support fees, but the CEO did not want to upset Airbus. The mind boggles.

[wings folded]

SeenItAll


Hope springs eternal that I can narrow the communication gap between SLFinAZ and Wings Folded.


I do not feel that I have a "communication gap".

I think I understand what SLFinAZ says. I just think he is wrong on judicial aspects. For the reasons you so clearly and simply evoke:

The miscommunication seems to arise from SLF's assumption that certain procedures of the French legal system match those in the U.S.

As will be clear from my posts, I take no issue with those technically more competent than I am, nor do I dispute nor denegrate their views. You are no doubt well informed and sincere when you state:


While I, too, am disturbed by the one-sided nature of the BEA's conclusions and their apparent endorsement by the prosecution,


Strictly in the spirit of commenting only upon procedure, a public prosecutor cannot seriously do anything other than place reliance upon an official body's findings.

But the real strength of French legal process (which our Arizonian friend has failed to grasp) is that the Court has the freedom to investigate beyond those findings. It can and will hear evidence from other sources. In particular the Civil Parties (Parties Civiles), the lawyers acting for Continental, inter alia, and others.

Many of the posters on this thread have clearly read the BEA findings. Probably in translation, but perhaps in the original.

Most will be able to agree that, whichever version they have read, if we take only the BEA findings, we are way short of the 90 volumes of evidence to be seen and heard by the Court.

So where has all the other volume of material come from?

All the parties are free to, and have used that freedom, to make submissions. They have. Hence 90 volumes.

The Judges are, in addition, free to make their own enquiries. That is in the nature of an inquisatorial system, versus an adverserial system wherein they can only take the points made by the parties' advocates.

SLFinAZ is deluded when he thinks that an inquisatorial system is an "inquisition". It is simply a different system of law.

He evidently knows nothing about French legal process.

He therefore dislikes it, thinks it is stacked; he mounts on his chauvinistic high horse, and takes issue with the process.

He thinks it will take 4 months of Court process after close on 10 years of investigation, to "rubber stamp" a prejudiced anti American, pro French conclusion.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

He thinks it will take 4 months of Court process after close on 10 years of investigation, to "rubber stamp" a prejudiced anti American, pro French conclusion.Understanding or not the french judicial procedures .. I bet it will be indeed a "Rubber Stamp" a prejudiced anti American, pro French conclusion.

At least .. if you analyse the other trials involving BEA-Air France or other french airlines - Airbus Industries .. you have a evident pattern
Why this will be different today ?
And I bet .. this will be the same pattern in 10 years or more for the AF447 trial unless somethings change in France about the BEA statuts.

And as usual .. I suppose Continental will make a appeal .. and in some years this will going .. and with same results as other appeals in the past trials.

[wings folded]

jcjeant


I bet it will be indeed a "Rubber Stamp" a prejudiced anti American, pro French conclusion


(Quote from you.)


My guess is that the answer is a resounding NO.



(Quote from SFL in AZ)

"I bet...", "My guess...."

Judicial process does not work on guesses, nor bets.

Not in the US. Not in France.

Why can you people (some of you, that is) not wait until the outcome of the trial?

If you are not happy then, we can talk a little more about it.

[Bluestar51]

Wings Folded,

Why wasn't AF and CDG included with the other five defendants in this trial?

BS

[wings folded]

bluestar51

I cannot answer your question.
I do not have inside knowledge to do so.
I restrict my comments to areas where I have some competence.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Why wasn't AF and CDG included with the other five defendants in this trial? Methink you can add the BEA on the list.
Why ? .. cause public knowledge how BEA managed the reports of "Retour d'experience" and the many accidents reports where Concorde was involved.
Each accident was a step forward to Gonesse.
With the knowledge of the past experiences of the Concorde .. someone make not the job for avoid the final tragedy .....

Why wasn't AF and CDG included with the other five defendants in this trial?

I do not have inside knowledge to do soCause the "secret de l' instruction" :)
This was a "juge d'instruction" decision .. and you can't know why he take this decision .. unless the "juge d'instruction" is trialed himself for "faute grave" or "bad job" if you want.
This is very rare in France ... I just remember the case of one joung "juge d'instruction" trialed by parliamentary inquiry in a sex scandal involving teenagers and adults some years ago ....

Affaire d'Outreau
(http://translate.google.be/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAffaire_d %2527Outreau&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8)

[lomapaseo]

We need to be careful about why one and not the other is on trial and of course await the findings of the learned judges.

Then we can have our field day of discussions :}

The missing parties may be left out simply because they serve the public and other than bad (sic) decision making having violated no laws.

OTOH the the trial parties are probably going to be more closely examined as to their level of recklesness (sic) in violations of rules or regulations.

I could be wrong, but that's why I await the outcome to see how much equality turns out to be among those involved.

I do appologize for my choice of words followed by "(sic)" but I only used them to illustate my own ponderings

[rottenray]

This thread has been an informative and amusing read.


I'll not add fuel to the "French vs. US Justice System" flame, other than saying this:

CO was perhaps a bit negligent in maintenance. Any fool can tell you that a more-or-less "hand formed" titanium shape riveted to an aluminum shape will eventually, given enough vibration, temperature change, et cetera, pull the rivets loose. The two metals have different coefficient of temp expansions, different flexibility. The RTV applied to this particular mismatch prolly helped it separate sooner, by transferring heat.

OTOH, we don't really know how many other titanium wear strips are flying around right now, and we don't know why the MX person chose titanium instead of AL.

Closing this thought off, I'll say that in some respects this part of the incident reminds me of a spate of lawsuits in the US brought against trucking companies transporting gravel in those large 38' open-topped semi trailers. A bit of gravel flies off, chips the windshield of the car following closely behind the truck, the driver of the car notes the license # (or "call about my driving" #) and promptly expects a new windshield. Most trucks in the US now have a sticker printed in 172-point type, readable from about 75' with average vision, which says "if you can read this you are too close."

It's impossible to apply this bumper-sticker "fix" to the air transport industry, and this puts the responsibility back on airport operators. Junk on runways happens, and it presents a clear and present danger, but airports are simply too busy to FOD-walk after each takeoff. Perhaps carriers should start assessing the "FOD-freeness" of runways and approach airport management with penalties for those fields which do not take the situation as seriously as they should.


Next, we've heard a lot about the Concorde and it's capabilities and the high points of its design, as well its frailties and weak spots.

At this point, you have to look at the overall record for the airframe: More incidents per "x" number of flights than average, but this is based on its limited routing.

OTOH, in many respects it never really got out of the "experimental" stage, due to the low number of frames manufactured and the [relatively] low number of pax-miles flown by the type.

Techincally it did, but in the "spirit" of my statement, I'll posit that it never really was "grown" past the initial few years of 707/DC8 learning.

It was, overall, a brilliant design. Although supersonic flight was, at the point of Concorde's EIS, a rather mature technology, the concept of supersonic commercial flight was pretty much an unplowed field. Concorde was the first, and it obviously had some "growing pains" trying to match the resource-intense regime of supersonic with the economic restrictions of commercial duty.

Reputations aside, I'd like to suggest that both operators did the best they could with the concept. Neither AF nor BA were deliberately negligent in the way they operated the Concorde. BA might have embraced the airframe a bit tighter than AF, but both companies made a valiant effort with regards to the unusual marketing, maintenance, and operation of the frame.


At this point, I'd like to suggest that we do two things:

1) Try like mad to get inside information on how the French court is proceeding,

and

2) Hold back a bit in the AF vs. BA battle of barbs


Both companies are reputable carriers, and the French system of justice - while somewhat "alien" to other countries - has a considerable reputation for trying to find truth.


Personally, I'd like to hear more from MX people and pilots. Not necessarily those connected with the Concorde, but those who are familiar with the C and its characteristics.

And, thanks to those who have already made some stunningly acute posts and posts which have started to tell the "inside" story of this wonderful aircraft.


I'll end on a somber thought.

It's too freakin' bad the cost of fossil fuel went up to a level which has killed the Concorde and reduced subsonic transport to cattle-truck levels of quality.

In the grande scheme of things, 2 developments have seriously changed the human experience:

-- The ability to go from one side of the world to the other in hours instead of months
-- The ability to share information from anywhere in the world in a matter of seconds

At some future point, mankind will learn how to do both without any kerfluffles; then we'll be able to consider them boring and really concentrate on new ideas!:)


Cheers!
RR

[SLFinAZ]

I've been a bit bzy in the real world but let me try and clarify my thoughts here.

Yes I do understand that the French system does afford much more significant leeway for the judges. Leaving the semantics aside the fundamental question is still as follows. The prosecution functions as the arm of the state in all legal systems charged with the task (in the broadest sense) of defending the "welfare of the republic". This is by it's nature an adversarial role (when viewed by the defending parties) and also creates an issue in the sense that the state is viewed (by its own system) as being fair and pragmatic. So in effect the very nature of the proceedings gives a subtle edge to the prosecution. This is true in any system and even in the occasionally ludicrous American justice system ("if the glove doesn't fit you have to acquit") the stark reality is that we have far to many innocent people in jail (and on death row and sadly pushing pansies as well).

So while I hope that a fair and impartial examination of all the underlying facts will take place the simple truth is that in any system the judiciary (at the trial level) leans slightly but firmly toward the prosecution. While just as clearly the appellate level takes a tougher stance with regard to any prejudicial misconduct that resulted in a conviction.

Accordingly my view is that the panel of judges is much more likely to lean toward the rational behind the "criminal bill" then to embrace any alternative explanations. If either the operating airline or the airport authority faced scrutiny for it's actions then I feel a much more open examination would take place. Given the nature of the parties charged my thought is that all the factors I brought up will be viewed an "possible" contributing factors in the speculative sense but falling well below the standard required to play directly into cause and effect (or the BEA report would have mentioned them). All these factors will be evaluated at trial and a "fair and reasonable but impartial" judge will certainly ask the prosecution how and why they chose to act specific to the charges.

I'm sure the answer will be well thought out and concise and compelling.....even if 100% wrong. The reality is that nether the prosecution or the panel of judges is really qualified in this regard. In effect we have the exact opposite of the "if the glove....". We have a piece of metal and a burning plane and a smoking crater with dead bodies.

Accordingly "Continental in the library with the titanium strip" is a forgone conclusion IMO...even of this is an unfair and overly simplistic dispersement of blame for a tragedy decades in the making. The alternative that the creeping complacency and erosion of SOP's for a very demanding system made a tragedy a 100% certainty will be viewed with credulity and openly scorned as an attempt to divert responsibility for sub standard maintenance procedures.

This is not in anyway an attempt to downplay the fact that the Continental plane WAS improperly maintained...simply a recognition that a runway contaminated with one or more foreign objects was a statistical certainty over a large enough sample of events. Further given the very real danger a tire failure created for the Concorde any such incident would have a much higher potential for catastrophic failure then with any other plane in service. Accordingly the real question is why a pre-takeoff runway inspection for FO's wasn't SOP? After all it was a question of when...not if this would happen. So how is holding the offending plane/airline responsible prudent vs taking reasonable steps to avoid an incident in the 1st place?

[norodnik]

and the last post contained only the link hence the poster wondering why it had been removed.

[M2dude]

Point is SLFinAZ, this really was not 'just' a case of Concorde running over a piece of FOD. As has been pointed out by many people 'ad nauseam', it was the result of a large combination of totally avoidable factors. (The traumatised L/H undercarriage with vital component missing, an overweight aircraft already starting it's T/O roll over very rough surface etc etc). The titanium strip was just another factor; the tyre was DESTROYED, not a simple blowout. Are the real culprits in the dock? I wonder
It is so easy to state here that 'Concorde was just a disaster waiting to happen', but this is absolute and total rubbish. Witness the fact that after BA modified the Main U/C water deflectors in 1993, there was never another case of a BA aircraft suffering skin damage due to tyre failure. And as has been stated before, BA operated more A/C, an infinitely greater number of services, with a corresponding increase in the flying hours than AF. The airplane operated from the UK like a very well oiled swiss watch, day in, day out it was routine. (Even a single aircraft doing a 'world tour' was a completly routine event).
As I stated in my initial post; Concorde in the hands of true professionals, was an extremely safe and reliable aircraft indeed. This part is purely subjective, but in the opinion of this aviation professional, Concorde was the finest aircraft that was ever built. Don't jump down my throat here guys, this is my opinion only.

[wings folded]

Yes I do understand that the French system does afford much more significant leeway for the judges. Leaving the semantics aside the fundamental question is still as follows. The prosecution functions as the arm of the state in all legal systems charged with the task (in the broadest sense) of defending the "welfare of the republic". This is by it's nature an adversarial role (when viewed by the defending parties) and also creates an issue in the sense that the state is viewed (by its own system) as being fair and pragmatic. So in effect the very nature of the proceedings gives a subtle edge to the prosecution. This is true in any system and even in the occasionally ludicrous American justice system ("if the glove doesn't fit you have to acquit") the stark reality is that we have far to many innocent people in jail (and on death row and sadly pushing pansies as well).



You make some valid points, and some totally erroneous points.


The prosecution functions as the arm of the state in all legal systems charged with the task (in the broadest sense) of defending the "welfare of the republic"


So where does that leave monarchies, principalities, federations?


This is by it's nature an adversarial role


You are once again applying your local knowledge and familiarity therewith to areas which transcend national boundaries.

Systems of law which are not based upon the US model can and do recognise a different process of law.

"Adverserial" is one form of process of law.

"Inquisatorial" is another, different process of law.


So in effect the very nature of the proceedings gives a subtle edge to the prosecution. This is true in any system and even in the occasionally ludicrous American justice system


That may be true in your jurisdicition. I do not know.

I do wonder how you can assert that "that s true in any system" given your manifestly abject ignorance of non US processes of law.

As to you valid points,


the occasionally ludicrous American justice system ("if the glove doesn't fit you have to acquit") the stark reality is that we have far to many innocent people in jail (and on death row and sadly pushing pansies as well).


I have nothing but respect for the truth, humility and humanity of that remark, and your courage to express it.

If that sounds patronising, it was not intended. I am sincere.

[petitb]

Has the link to the Concorde photo been removed?, or could someone kindly direct me to it. Thanks.

[md80fanatic]

The original image is on airliners dot net.

Photos: Aerospatiale-BAC Concorde 102 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/British-Airways/Aerospatiale-BAC-Concorde-102/0441886/L/)

[captplaystation]

All gone a bit quiet, aren't the press allowed in to this courtroom, or is it seen as "un-newsworthy" after all this time ? :hmm:

[wings folded]

French judicial procedure is only very exceptionally held in camera, and this process is not one of those.

It has perhaps gone quiet because the process is methodically and attentively taking its course, and the court is knee deep in expert evidence which inevitably is a little bit contradictory, depending on whose expert is being heard.

My most recent update is now a few days old, but consisted essentially of an expert witness averring that the fire broke out before the aircraft reached the site of the alleged titanium debris, but upon being challenged, was unable to offer any alternative explanation for the fire.

Patience is called for. The level of detail being examined is minute.

[glad rag]

"My most recent update is now a few days old, but consisted essentially of an expert witness averring that the fire broke out before the aircraft reached the site of the alleged titanium debris, but upon being challenged, was unable to offer any alternative explanation for the fire."

Now see how the system works..........

[wozzo]

There seems to be only a reporter from French news agency AFP constantly following the proceedings, so there are sometimes reports in French media, mostly when something juicy happens, like when the defense wanted the trial to be thrown out of court because of alleged partiality of BEA experts (the court declared they wouldn't stop, but factor that in their deliberations) or when Continental presented a 3D animation (which they paid 800,000 $ for) depicting an accident version where the aircraft was on fire several hundred meters before reaching the location with the metal strip (based on witness testimonials not included in the accident investigation report).

Interesting: Continental defense strategy is to declare Concorde unfit to fly. Continental lawyer is quoted saying that Concorde should have been taken out of service 1979 after the first tire incidents.

[Chronus]

This is a trial about involuntary manslaughter, the defendants are charged with criminal offences under the French Penal Code, the operative provisions of which are:

ARTICLE 111-5
Criminal courts have jurisdiction to interpret administrative decisions of a regulatory or individual nature, and to
appreciate their legality where the solution to the criminal case they are handling depends upon such examination

ARTICLE 113-4
French Criminal law is applicable to offences committed on board aircraft registered in France, or committed against
such aircraft, wherever they may be. It is the only applicable law in relation to offences committed on board French
military aircraft, or against such aircraft, wherever they may be.

ARTICLE 121-3
(Act no. 1996-393 of 13 May 1996 Article 1 Official Journal of 14 May 1996; Act no. 2000-647 of 10 July article 1 Official
Journal of 11 July 2000)
There is no felony or misdemeanour in the absence of an intent to commit it.
However, the deliberate endangering of others is a misdemeanour where the law so provides.
A misdemeanour also exists, where the law so provides, in cases of recklessness, negligence, or failure to observe
an obligation of due care or precaution imposed by any statute or regulation, where it is established that the offender
has failed to show normal diligence, taking into consideration where appropriate the nature of his role or functions, of his
capacities and powers and of the means then available to him.
In the case as referred to in the above paragraph, natural persons who have not directly contributed to causing the
damage, but who have created or contributed to create the situation which allowed the damage to happen who failed to
take steps enabling it to be avoided, are criminally liable where it is shown that they have broken a duty of care or
precaution laid down by statute or regulation in a manifestly deliberate manner, or have committed a specified piece of
misconduct which exposed another person to a particularly serious risk of which they must have been aware.


PENAL CODE
SECTION II
INVOLUNTARY OFFENCES AGAINST LIFE Articles 221-6 to
221-6-1
ARTICLE 221-6
(Act no. 2000-647 of 10 July 2000 Article 4 Official Journal of 11 July 2000)
(Ordinance no. 2000-916 of 19 September 2000 Article 3 Official Journal of 22 September 2000 into force 1 January
2002)
Causing the death of another person by clumsiness, rashness, inattention, negligence or breach of an obligation of
safety or prudence imposed by statute or regulations, in the circumstances and according to the distinctions laid down
by article 121-3, constitutes manslaughter punished by three years' imprisonment and a fine of €45,000.
In the event of a deliberate violation of an obligation of safety or prudence imposed by statute or regulations, the
penalty is increased to five years' imprisonment and to a fine of €75,000.

Do any of the defendants fit the bill ?
If so which ones and why.
It would be interesting to see how the forum judges the issues, within the constraints of the legislation.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

All gone a bit quiet, aren't the press allowed in to this courtroom, or is it seen as "un-newsworthy" after all this time ?

For those of you able to read french language ... here are the report day by day of the trial ... :)
mars 2010 Procès du crash du CONCORDE (http://procesconcorde.fenvac.org/?m=201003)

[atakacs]

For those of you able to read french language ... here are the report day by day of the trial ...
mars 2010 Procès du crash du CONCORDEWow absolutely fascinating stuff... lots of gems... Thanks for that !

[captplaystation]

Thanks from me too :ok:

[snowfalcon2]

Please forgive me if this is in the wrong thread, but I found this news item significant.

French prosecutor seeks suspended jail for 'father' of Concorde
(AFP) – 2 hours ago

PARIS — French prosecutors called Friday for a two-year suspended jail term for an 80-year-old engineer known as the father of the Concorde, at a trial into a deadly crash of the supersonic jet in 2000.

Henri Perrier, who directed the Concorde programme at Aerospatiale, now part of EADS, from 1978 to 1994, is accused of ignoring warning signs from a string of incidents on Concorde planes before the accident outside Paris.

Prosecutors also sought a 175,000-euro (220,000-dollar) fine against Continental Airlines, siding with experts who said the Concorde plane crashed because of a strip of metal that fell off a Continental jet that took off just before it.

More here (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hGzpNxrIirSKdQfdZQmaQz4UJzjA).

[SLFinAZ]

What an ongoing farce...

So at the end of the day you blame it on an old guy and "defective overall maintenance" of the DC-10.

[norodnik]

Are there no honest, decent, objective people left in the world ?

Look at where we are, the world is filled with special interest groups, lobbyists, pressure groups and is so run by the media that we now have no one left to make informed decisions, take calculated risks etc.

Everything is CYA and shift the blame. Imagine when Concorde was being built if we had the world we live in today. It wouldn't have stood a chance.

What we need is a revolution and send all these sorry bureaucratic idiots to the sweat camps, or better still to charity projects around the world where they can see the real face of humanity.

[brooksjg]

or better still to charity projectsOH Nooooooo!!!!

Many charities and other NGOs are already totally f'ed up by their supercargo of incompetents and do-gooders who fail to confront the realities of the problems they purport to 'deal with'.

I guess once a Blame Culture gets started even prosecutors and Courts get infected with the same people and attitudes.

[wozzo]

I'm sure the world is coming to its end in one way or another, but I'd like to point out that the prosecutor is just trying to execute his/her own prosecution (or part of it - charges against two defendants were dropped).

"Translated" into the discussion of this thread, this means that the prosecution continues to argue that (1) Concorde was defective and the accident could had been prevented if earlier incidents had led to modifications of the aircraft, and (2) the piece of metal on the runway was the "immediate" cause on the day of the accident.

Before getting into another round of discussion of this already discussed theory (and alternative views), I'd like to suggest to wait for the verdict (which, according to AFP, isn't expected before the end of this year).

[SLFinAZ]

1) There is a significant question regarding the role the titanium strip played in the tragedy. Not only are there a significant number claiming the plane was already on fire prior to reaching the location of the strip but more then one is an airport fire brigade member and as such are observing events in a professional capacity for which they are trained accordingly.

The mere fact that the prosecution is arguing against this overwhelming testimony indicates a political agenda at work. Combine this with the documented maintenance failures that directly contributed to the poor tracking that caused the plane to literally run of the runway on the takeoff roll as well as the lack of common sense SOP's like checking the runway for debris prior to takeoff and you have a clear indication (same as with the A320 accident) of a corrupt judiciary...

[rottenray]

Quoting CNN:

The prosecution called for charges to be dropped against two other defendants, a former French civil aviation official accusing of overlooking faults on the plane, and another former Concorde engineer.So, let's see...

We dismiss charges against the French "frontline" people who probably had a much better idea of the plane's susceptibility to FOD, and instead place suspended sentences upon A) the program's head, and B) a couple of maintenance joes on another continent.


Quoting CNN:

During their 27 years of service, the jets suffered dozens of tyre blowouts or wheel damage that in several cases pierced the fuel tanks -- a flaw that Perrier's team and the French civil aviation were accused of missing.Knowing this, neither operator could be bothered to request a FOD check before each Concorde flight? Yeah, yeah, operations, yadda-yadda.

It's not as if there were dozens of Concorde flights taking off spaced throughout the day. Two guys in a pickup truck could have driven the runway at 45mph and would have spotted the strip. International airports are teeming with spotters, many of whom would pay to go along on such a ride, so it's not cost.

And of course, the official report on the crash of FLT 459 excluded alternative possibilities. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde_crash#Alternative_theories)

It strikes me that there won't be much practical good to come out of this trial.

[lomapaseo]

It strikes me that there won't be much practical good to come out of this trial.

True

The professional investigation already evaluated the evidence and took what action was deemed appropriate to restore safety

The trial is to satisfy the public's need for blame and punishment under their laws, much like our executions do.

So let the trial proceed towards that end in order to satisfy the law of the land and we can revisit whether the punshment fits the crime after it is handed down. Else all we might do is whine about a law that we neither created nor live under :)

[ExSp33db1rd]

It's not as if there were dozens of Concorde flights taking off spaced throughout the day. Two guys in a pickup truck could have driven the runway at 45mph and would have spotted the strip. International airports are teeming with spotters, many of whom would pay to go along on such a ride, so it's not cost.



If runway inspections were only carried out before Concorde take-offs, as I read into the above (?) wouldn't that infer that there was a potential problem with the Concorde on every take-off ? If so ..... a) would you want to fly in it or...... b) fix the problem !!

But then, fixing the problem would cost money, and presumably a weight penalty if under-wing strengthening was required, which of course leads to payload penalty, which comes back to money ....... !!

Not suggesting that AF or BA would ever let safety be second to financial considerations, of course. :eek:

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Mise en délibéré (http://procesconcorde.fenvac.org/?p=315)

Vendredi 28 mai 2010 Le Tribunal a annoncé au terme des plaidoiries de la Défense que le jugement était mis en délibéré au lundi 6 décembre à 9h30.
Nous mettrons en ligne le jugement rendu.
Le blog reste bien évidemment en ligne.




Under advisement
Friday, May 28, 2010

The Tribunal announced at the end of the argument of defense that the trial was being deliberated Monday, December 6 at 9:30.

We will post the ruling.

The blog is obviously online.

28 mai 2010 Procès du crash du CONCORDE (http://procesconcorde.fenvac.org/?m=20100528)

[rottenray]

Ex writes:

Not suggesting that AF or BA would ever let safety be second to financial considerations, of course.I really think it boils down to a perception of prestige, which both carriers played completely wrong.

"The only way we can offer flights on this very expensive aircraft at the price we do is by taking every opportunity to avoid the wear and tear normal airliners are subject to. Therefore, we inspect and clean the runway whenever possible."

How f*cking hard is that?


Chronus writes:

Do any of the defendants fit the bill ?
If so which ones and why.No, at least not in my mind.

If we're going to stay with the titanium strip theory, then whomever scheduled the training session which delayed the runway FOD inspection should have been charged.

As well as whomever failed to make it clear that an aircraft highly susceptible to damage was scheduled at XX for takeoff, and that nothing should interfere with runway inspection.

Really, to play the titanium card, you have to admit to knowing that it could have caused the damage which "caused" the crash, and its presence on the runway indicates a degree of negligence.

Ground ops has far more control over FOD than a departing aircraft.

If we're going to go with the missing spacer and the 3 degrees (?) of caster it caused, then the person who inspected the landing gear should have been charged.

Either way, I hope this whole thing makes those who need it feel better.