French Concorde crash

[MountainBear]

Still, are you completely sure that he would not be strictly liable were he to be a P.E.?The point you're trying to make is sound. American law does hold certain occupations to a higher standard, such as medicine. Medical negligence is its own specialized field. However, I am not aware that an exception applies for engineers the way it does for medicine. I'm not aware of any engineer being held liable for defects in the aviation industry. I think the point you raise is interesting in a theoretical sense; I don't think it applies to this specific case, however.

[PBL]

Please, folks, let's not get testy with each other. These issues are subtle, and we don't always have in mind all sides of them when we are thinking and writing. That is, after all, the point of discussing them.

Except for I think you misunderstood the BEA report regarding the significance of titanium vs. stainless steel.
whom I want to assure that I did know what I was saying here (not just from the report, but from colleagues), I won't respond by name, in order to highlight the issues.

American law is relevant to this case in that we are discussing comparative law - obviously! Comparative legal studies are important in order to gain an firmer understanding of legal concepts in individual jurisdictions and to related them to more-universal concepts, such as that of responsibility and just compensation, which concern us all, all over the world.

The Concorde matter is not baked and over and done with, so one cannot just assign it to the dustbin of French jurisprudence. It has opened the Pandora's box - thank heavens - in a way in which previous purely-French incidents such as Air Inter at Mt. St.-Odile did not.

American law places heavy duty of care on companies to ensure the appropriate behavior of employees, and correspondingly lower duty of care on employees. I raised the example of playing with gun during one's employment to ask what duties of care do exist on the individual level. The answer is that such an act is clearly criminal. But this is a chicken-egg problem. The act is clearly criminal because there is a clear duty of care and violating it has such severe consequences. That is the difference between, say, negligence and gross negligence in English law. If the question is, as it was, whether an individual employee incurs a duty of care when employed, the answer is a clear yes.

It also transpires that certain licensed or certified professionals incur a duty of care under US laws when performing professional tasks as professionals. Such as medical doctors and, I believe, P.E.s. Being a licensed mechanic seems here to be a boundary case, from what I read of the discussion so far.

The concepts are very similar, although the words may not be: crime ou delit; crime or misdemeanor; summary offence, indictable offence or "in between". Duty of care, standard of care, negligence, gross negligence (so - a bit missing here - what are the standards for and relevance of judgements of negligence in French law?). Compensation follows responsibility in US law, in British law, in French law. There is a lot of commonality of concepts.

But the application appears to be divergent. It is judged that US laws would likely not have considered the individual-employee's duty of care (but a boundary case as he was a licensed professional) in the way in which the French court did. Well, maybe, but I think we all know that it is hard to tell unless a case is brought, tried and judged. It does seem to be the case that a tribunal correctionel considers criminal sanctions (suspended jail terms, fines) as well as assigning responsibility (and therefore responsibility for compensation), functions which are usually separated in common-law jurisdictions into trials for offences and civil suits.

What is the point of all this? The point is that, if there is a common basis in concepts and function of all this law, then this basis can be codified into international agreement, through ICAO and this will bring clarity and uniformity world-wide into handling issues such as duties of care, just compensation, and accident investigation in a way which minimises conflict between these procedures. And the conflict at the moment is huge, as I and other commentators have been pointing out in public for at least half a decade. And it is not just in aviation. It seems to be enshrined in civil-law jurisdictions.

For example, consider the MagLev demo-track accident in Lathen in 2007. I won't reiterate it here, instead referring people to http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/Bieleschweig/ninth/LadkinB9Slides.pdf . The horrendous accident was investigated by - the State Prosecution Service, for that is who investigates rail accidents. They do so primarily to see whether an indictable offence has been committed by someone. At the end of the day on which the accident occurred, the State Prosecutor was confident enough to say that all indications were that the accident was due to human error, by which he meant a procedural error by some driver or controller, singular or plural. Even the newspapers had figured out by Day 2 that there were obviously some system issues. Not only were there some system issues, but some of them were the very same as involved elsewhere, such as the Glenbrook accident in New South Wales, Australia, which had been serious enough to involve a Royal Commission.

I'll stop here with the account of the accident. Interested readers can follow the link. The point is that in some areas the conflict between learning and implementing safety lessons, and legal retribution, is far higher than it appears to be in aviation.

Aviation does have some successes in reducing this conflict. One late non-lamented correspondent was going on here about why wasn't Air France being held to account for this accident? The answer, obvious to anyone who knows anything about these matters, is that the responsibility did and does indeed lie with the airline, under international agreement (ICAO again), and Air France (or, rather, their insurers) has already paid out compensation commensurate with that responsibility, 10 years ago. That works quite well. I see no reason to imagine we cannot have the same success with an attempt to make international law concerning duties of care and offences versus liabilities, in such a way as to minimise adverse influence on the causal investigation of accidents.

PBL

[Safety Concerns]

American law produces safer aviation outcomes than European law.


What we have done is take a pragmatic look at the safety record which, as I have said to the Committee when they visited the Safety Regulation Group, is second to none in Europe and twice as good as the Americans.

So who do I believe? An anonymous american poster or a statement made under oath to a UK Transport Select Committee hearing on the workings of the UK CAA.

The UK CAA has always regulated a system of shared responsibility because the benefits are well known.

Government tasks the regulator
regulator tasks industry (by producing regulations)
industry has responsibilities and is accountable
key individuals are licensed (pilots and engineers)
they are responsible and accountable for their actions

This approach has consistently produced the safest aviation community year after year.

The argument is in fact quite simple and does not require academic intervention particularly by those far removed from the day to day reality of attempting to fly safely. It is not something than can be quantified around some nice warm coffee table, through a few abstract theories whilst the producer of that safety record is outside in 2 feet of snow at -5C.

The american legal approach does not produce a safer aviation community as claimed, it does however produce more dollars in the legal aftermath.

Iron duke hit the nail on the head because all those involved in aviation in Britain realise one thing:

They are directly responsible for everything they do. They cannot run off to mummy employer to take the rap if they foul up. Iron duke likes it that way, I like it that way. It is bracing, it does concentrate the mind and it does produce the safest aviation environment.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

The answer, obvious to anyone who knows anything about these matters, is that the responsibility did and does indeed lie with the airline, under international agreement (ICAO again), and Air France (or, rather, their insurers) has already paid out compensation commensurate with that responsibility, 10 years agoI do not think this is an end in itself or in other words it prevents an individual (family passenger or crew member) to initiate a lawsuit against Air France for additional damages compensation or seek other convictions
Of course if a subrogation was signed .. (renunciation of right to sue in court after receiving compensation) the case is closed.
Many time those compensations are used as a gag.

[green granite]

I see were having the usual 'we're American, other countries laws don't apply to us' spat. I wonder if the engineer had been in the 3rd world whether anyone would have bothered to defend him.

[PBL]

Well, Safety Concerns's answer in http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/435870-french-concorde-crash-26.html#post6134862 to the question of whether US law or British law produces a "safer" aviation environment does take some beating!

However, I might suggest that the answer to the question So who do I believe? An anonymous american poster or a statement made under oath to a UK Transport Select Committee hearing on the workings of the UK CAA. is not as obvious as it may seem.

First, I've talked to them, too, back in the days when I was a public busybody and the reboutable Mrs. Dunwoody was running it. I told them back in 1998 that if they didn't take my advice on the NERC development I was afraid we'd be back the next year repeating the show. They didn't. NERC came on-line five years later, as I recall.

Second, you can of course tell them anything you believe, without being grilled on the evidence, because none of them are scientists or engineers, unfortunately. If I had been on the committee, I would have asked the witness for the measurements he had taken which showed conclusively that the British approach led to greater safety. I would ask him how he measured safety, for one thing. For on the most obvious statistics, namely rates of major crashes, it most certainly does not rest! They are the same, modulo rarity of events: virtually none.

PBL

[Safety Concerns]

I should of added that the witness was the UK CAA's Head of Safety Regulation.

[PBL]

the witness was the UK CAA's Head of Safety Regulation.

You mean the Group Director? Who is now of course an American. :)

PBL

[Iron Duck]

Mountain Bear

If you are reading this, I apologise for apparently being so thick as not to have realised that your posts were an attempt to discuss in the abstract the relative merits of US and French law in accidents such as that which happened to Concorde, with a view to improving air safety and the international legal situation.

If you had stated this explicitly at first, I would probably not have interpreted your remarks as being the "jingoistic tripe" I have read so many, many times on this and other international lists and fora populated by your countrymen.

I would be very interested in following such an abstract discussion - I might learn something. I am grateful to PBL for teaching me MttB - a concept of direct utility to me.

As a person not professionally involved in aviation I am only directly affected by it when I buy an air ticket, or if an aircraft crashes into my house, or if I am killed, injured or suffer damage to my property as a result of an object such as a titanium strip falling from an aircraft and hitting me - an entirely foreseeable consequence, as there have been many instances of people being so harmed.

If that strip had not fallen from the DC10 at that moment but perhaps a few seconds later, and burst the tyre of a vehicle on the main road adjoining CDG, causing the driver to lose control and initiate a subsequent fatal multi-vehicle crash, or several hours later on the approach to its destination had fallen and injured someone below, should the licensed mechanic have been responsible for his bodged repair and the foreseeable damage that ensued, or not? Please tell me.

As I understand it, you are arguing that he should not. Or perhaps he should, given that there have been sufficient instances of persons on the ground being harmed by objects dropped from aircraft that the "average man" might be able to foresee them?

And so, why should it be that the mechanic might be responsible for the harm caused by the strip dropping from the sky onto someone, but not the harm caused by Concorde rolling over it and crashing as a result?

[infrequentflyer789]

I should of added that the witness was the UK CAA's Head of Safety Regulation.

"head of". Oh dear. That, sadly, doesn't mean they know anything relevant. At the top level, the CAA, like other quangos, is a political organisation with political appointees (in highly paid jobs as a favour from their mates in power), some of whom I recall are on record as saying they know nothing about aviation. Is the head of the CAA still the guy who used to run a railway (badly) ?

With a name and a CV we might have more of an idea, but without that I would give much more weight to opinions of those like PBL who clearly and provably do know what they are talking about.

[Safety Concerns]

The comments are minuted as Mike Bell, Group Director of Safety Regulation.
I believe he was/is a pilot and a chartered engineer.

I assume that's acceptable considering that when he spoke them, he did so in an open and public forum, not hiding behind anonymity and was well aware of the potential consequences of misleading people.

[lomapaseo]

Safety Concerns

I assume that's acceptable considering that when he spoke them, he did so in an open and public forum, not hiding behind anonymity and was well aware of the potential consequences of misleading people.

Way too many possible messages in this sentence, ripe for negative interpretations. :suspect:

I would suggest some editing

[wings folded]

American law produces safer aviation outcomes than European law. Despite several invitations by myself over the last several pages of posts not a single individual has explained how European law produces better outcomes.


The Continental mechanic worked and perhaps still works daily under which regime of law?

American?

Or a different one?

[wings folded]

PBL


Comparative legal studies are important in order to gain an firmer understanding of legal concepts in individual jurisdictions and to related them to more-universal concepts, such as that of responsibility and just compensation, which concern us all, all over the world.




In aviation terms, will you agree with me that the Warsaw Convention as modified by the Montreal Convention are the prevailing authorities?.

Both are universal.

In both cases, as regards transported passengers.

The topic becomes a little more complicated when there are victims on the ground, such as happened at Gonesse. And that is not an unlikely scenario.

Warsaw and Montreal cannot apply to victims on the ground, obviously, because there never was a contract of transport between the carrier and the victim,

I know a little bit about how the insurance fandango worked, but I can not be too specific, for that would breach my confidentiality undertakings.

Air France was indemnified for the loss of the airframe within days.

The "ayants droit" or inheritors for non French speaking readers, of passengers, were offered indemities according to Warsaw and Montreal, by Air France, with, of course their insurers behind them.

Those indemities were by and large accepted. Acceptance included an undertaking that no further process could be undertaken. (That is not the same phenomenom as subrogation, as mentioned elsewhere, but the distinction is not so important here)

[Lemurian]

jcjeant :
I do not think this is an end in itself or in other words it prevents an individual (family passenger or crew member) to initiate a lawsuit against Air France for additional damages compensation or seek other convictions

No, you're wrong. This verdict is now as per French law a *test case* ( we say "le jugement fait jurisprudence")The claims must follow the findings of the court... unless the appeal court reverses it. No more claims can be asked outside the verdict.

PBL :
In my opinion, finding a common ground with the different jurisdictions could well be a chore but there are two aspects that could be investigated as far as the French - and those who have a similar *code* ( that means all the ex-colonies, in particular ) are concerned :
1/- Accept or discuss the absolute prerequisite in French law : responsibility of each individual , I've asked a lawyer who told me that an employment contract constitutes the basis of an employee's responsibility : He's signed it, he's bound by it to a set of ethics and standards he cannot ignore... On the other hand, the company using his services is responsible for the quality of the worker's actions...here again, responsibility.
In this light, the verdict makes sense, whether we like it or not.
2/- Explore why , should an accident, a mishap... happen in the commercial navy, the first jurisdiction that will be set up is the *Tribunal Maritime Commercial*, in which, mariners, officers, mechanics...etc... and captains are judged by professionals,hence their peers (With the assistance of a magistrate) and the constitution of the tribunal reflects the hierarchical level of the defendants... unfortunately, that's not all as the *civil* suit - here, dealing with the financial claims -, needs to be appreciated by a *tribunal correctionel* assessing respective liabilities from the Maritime Tribunal's findings.
If I remember correctly, That tribunal dates from the days of the Royal merchant navy..Why that system hadn't been carried out to the aviation field is beyond my understanding.
A very interesting thread I have to thank you for...if one could ignore the imbecilic self-righteous ramblings from a place in North America.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

I do not think this is an end in itself or in other words it prevents an individual (family passenger or crew member) to initiate a lawsuit against Air France for additional damages compensation or seek other convictions No, you're wrong. This verdict is now as per French law a *test case* ( we say "le jugement fait jurisprudence")The claims must follow the findings of the court... unless the appeal court reverses it. No more claims can be asked outside the verdict.Let me explain that it was possible to individuals (but before the trial) to initiate a lawsuit against AF or others during the 10 years preceding the trial.
But as explained above in better words than mine ... compensations was paid and accepted (under condition of not undertaking .. bla bla ... )
So .. as I writed .. many time the convention (Warsaw and Montreal) and compensations (insurances) linked are double edged sword as they can be a gag ..
Shut people mouth with money :)

[Lemurian]

jcjeant,
Let me explain that it was possible to individuals (but before the trial) to initiate a lawsuit against AF during the 10 years preceding the trial.

Yes, and that's the trial we are discussing the verdict of.
Nice try !

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Yes, and that's the trial we are discussing the verdict of.
Nice try !

Again .. I'm not discussing about the trial or the verdict .. but about how a system fo "protect" passengers can be a double edged sword ..or in better words a mouths shutter.

[JFZ90]

The foreseeability debate is quite important.

I think the gun analogy does have some relevance.

If you are a technician, you should, through your training and licensing, have an appreciation of why there are approved repairs & procedures. They should also appreciate that engineers will have specified materials and fixing schemes based on analysed requirements and proven testing. You can't change these without approval (e.g. from DA, who may need to confirm there is no impact) and if you do so you should be under no illusions that you should be responsible for the consequences.

In this respect, it was entirely foreseeable that his actions could be detrimental to the airworthiness of the aircraft. For a start the part could have fallen off after the continental aircraft took off, landing in a playground - foreseeable and unacceptable.

[bearfoil]

A mechanic is certified to standards set by the regulating authority. It is the Regulating Authority that controls airworthiness and compliance. It is not for the mechanic to make judgments relative to airworthiness, only to comply with "the book".

A/P mechanics are not philosophers, nor do they have authority to make life and death decisions. To impute other than the duty of compliance with Code is to get truly in the weeds. The controlling Authority can issue a 337 for any "Ramp Repair" or not.

An objective judgment is simply that, an opinion with the power of the Court, French, or any other jurisdiction. The takeaway from this unfortunate accident is that to focus "Blame" is far more important than the progress of safety. There is a definite argument to be made that incompetence can lead to disaster. The defining limit of Random chance seems to allow for the perseverance of chasing a theory into the extreme.

The repair was preposterous. If it indeed caused this crash, any theory is plausible.
It is hard to reject the claim that this is proven. Weighed with the unfortunate history of the aircraft's problems in this area specifically, singling out Mr. Taylor to shoulder the brunt makes the process look silly. It relieves the Authority of responsibility paid for with punishment of another. Taylor becomes the Proxy, the goat, for a litany of Manufacturing, Design, and Regulatory issues. The relationships that control are left to blunder on. IMO.

bearfoil

[wings folded]

bearfoil,



The takeaway from this unfortunate accident is that to focus "Blame" is far more important than the progress of safety.

The progress of aviation safety (and I assume that you meant safety in that arena), is a proper matter for that industry, those who work in it, those who regulate it.
I have already posted some remarks regarding "blame".
I imagine that all practioners in the aviation industry want to take heed of every incident, even minor ones, to improve safety. Lessons can be learned daily. Not just in one's professional sphere.
The particular topic we debate here has a high profile, partially at least on account of the charisma of the airframe which was lost.

Back to your quote.

The aviation industry must imperatively take every opportunity to learn something about safety. That is its duty.

National law, and its mechanisms, has a duty to inquire into to what happened on its turf.

Nobody half serious could accuse French process of being hasty, nor pre-judged.

The timetable speaks for itself.

A cursory read of the trial transcripts reveals an attention to detail, and every opportunity given to interested parties to plead.

A detailed read reveals a degree of competence and fairness shown by the the tribunal of which France can be proud.

The case was heard at the Tribunal Correctionnel de Pontoise, the correct forum according to where the event occurred.

This was perhaps, and we hope, the last time, that they had to hear a case of this nature.

The findings and judgement are the result of judicial process. The aviation industry must draw its own conclusions about methods, adherence to protocols and so forth.

[JFZ90]

I got the impression a lot had been done in the problem area on Concorde - in other words the actions of the manufacturer etc. were consistent with trying to ensure the aircraft would not be vulnerable. The facts are that it was bad luck rather than lax certification that led to the crash. Obviously, once the weakness was fully understood after the accident, things were changed, but it appears to be an abuse of hindsight to accuse the manufacturer/authorities of not attempting to address the tyre burst hazard adequately.

Conversely, it is harder to be sympatheic towards an abuse of airworthiness maintenance procedures - which at the end of the day did lead to the end of Concorde and significant loss of life.

The more I think about it the more I find myself agreeing with the french verdict.

[bearfoil]

wings folded

Complete agreement here. Your last sentence is a different way to express the salient thrust of my message.

"the Aviation Industry must draw its own conclusions about methods, adherence to protocols, and so forth."

So here you demonstrate what is wrong. The verdict is what it is. It has no bearing on the larger issue, that of Safety in the Industry. Left to its own devices, the Industry will recover quickly and inexpensively from an event that happened ten years ago.

Permit a reference to another and current thread, anent the "Industry".

The most recent AD re: Rolls Royce engines (from a read) designates authority for compliance and judgments of airworthiness to the manufacturer itself !!! ........ It cannot be read another way.

Inspections are relaxed, the critical inspection of the problem area is deferred for two hundred cycles.........etc. etc.

A marvelous opportunity to turn the Titanic around has been lost once again. The "Hen" in the "Wolfhouse"?

[Lemurian]

A mechanic is certified to standards set by the regulating authority.
It is not for the mechanic to make judgments relative to airworthiness, only to comply with "the book".
Thank you ! Quod erat Demonstrandum.
(i.e. the mechanic didn't comply with the books and then made an unauthorized repair with an unauthorized material... whether or not the consequences were foreseeable is just a matter of semantics on your side of the Atlantic ocean and which in this matter we don't give a hoot to ).
Of course, the responsibility of the supervisor who presumably signed the chit off and the airline procedures are heavily engaged, and that's what tyhe verdict reflects, too.
Tha's how the Freench law saw it and that's how the verdict stays until the decision of the appellate court.
And it's tough that you don't like it. You've got to live with the fact that your law system doesn't get an application everywhere.
Tough indeed.

[bearfoil]

Lemurian

With utmost respect, I do not disagree with the verdict, and (dis)approval of same is irrelevant.

[wings folded]

bearfoil,

I am afraid that I am not at all sure about what you are saying in many of your posts, because, I think, you use a jargon or shorthand with which I am not familiar.

I think I can grasp the following:


So here you demonstrate what is wrong. The verdict is what it is. It has no bearing on the larger issue, that of Safety in the Industry. Left to its own devices, the Industry will recover quickly and inexpensively from an event that happened ten years ago.



The point of my posts is that safety in the industry is a matter for the industry. National laws have a responsability to determine how people lost their lives, if that is the outcome of a failure of safety in the industry.

I am not at all sure I understand your emboldened "inexpensively".

Cost should not be a factor in this kind of incident.

[Safety Concerns]

The point of my posts is that safety in the industry is a matter for the industry.

Now I don't follow you. Safety is a matter for industry in as much as they must meet the level set by the regulator.

There is only one successful way because the UK has proven it over many years. That may also explain why they come across as arrogant at times.

Government tasks the regulator
regulator tasks industry (by producing regulations)
industry has responsibilities and is accountable
key individuals are licensed (pilots and engineers) they are responsible and accountable for their actions

The airworthiness of Concorde was sound as highlighted in post 446 by PBL.
If you want safe flying people must be accountable for their actions.
There is no escaping the downright shoddy, inappropriate, unapproved repair carried out by the mechanic. It is that simple.

Repair done properly, NO ACCIDENT.

[wings folded]

Lemurian


Of course, the responsibility of the supervisor who presumably signed the chit off and the airline procedures are heavily engaged, and that's what tyhe verdict reflects, too.



I am not sure you are correct in affirming that the supervisor's liability was "engagé. "

As I read the verdict, the supervisor was "relaché".

Continental was not, nor was the mechanic.


(Forgive my smugness, but notwithstanding your impeccable English in your posts, you are slightly guilty of a small dose of franglais there. "Engagé" does not easily translate, and "engaged" is not really English at all in this context).

But I appreciate the qualty of your contributions.

[wings folded]

Safety Concerns,

I sometimes wright briefly so as not to bore readers unduly.

Quote:
The point of my posts is that safety in the industry is a matter for the industry.
Now I don't follow you. Safety is a matter for industry in as much as they must meet the level set by the regulator.


By that I meant the industry in its fullest sense:
-practioners, involving flying crew, maintenance personnel etc.
-regulators

I meant that courts, civil or criminal, are not the best equipped to dictate how to aviate safely. They are necessarily called upon after a failure of the industry to aviate safely, especially where loss of life occurred.

I think that we can all agree that where the law is called upon to investigate and judge an event, with loss of life in particular, there has been a failure to aviate safely. For which somebody carries the responsibilty.

[Safety Concerns]

ok sorry, you had me worried for a moment.

b) A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of his certificate and rating unless he understands the current instructions of the manufacturer, and the maintenance manuals, for the specific operation concerned.

If american law genuinely excuses the mechanic and holds the the company responsible despite this FAR 65.81 statement, then there is something seriously lacking in american law.

Unless of course in american society the most important aspect of an accident is the legal scrum for damages. Because if we were not at all interested in the safety aspect from a legal perspective, then naturally a mechanic has less money in the bank than the company.

It then follows that if you screw the company regardless its more bucks all round.

Sad, very, very sad.

[wings folded]

Unless of course in american society the most important aspect of an accident is the legal scrum for damages. Because if we were not at all interested in the safety aspect from a legal perspective, then naturally a mechanic has less money in the bank than the company.




Now, I do not want to be accused of American bashing, but it is an unavoidable part of that culture that searching for what in my industry is known as the "deep pocket" is inate.

That means you go after corporations. That means that even if your own actions may have been less than prudent, you sue anyway, and either you win, or you might be bought off.

I do not aver that this approach is wrong per se, it is simply different from the way things are dealt with in Europe.

Finding a Continental mechanic to be wanting in his professional competence is a matter of judgement. Again, I repeat that the "criminal" sanction (for those still unable to differentiate delit and crime) demanded by the prosecution, and handed down by the court, was a suspended prison term, with obviously no practical impact on this individual.

[Safety Concerns]

Finding a Continental mechanic to be wanting in his professional competence is a matter of judgement.

where's the judgement? You need to explain that one to me. I do not follow instructions, I am licensed and required to follow instructions by law. I am required to follow approved instructions and not just any instruction by law. I choose not to.

Please explain where is judgement required here other than your nicked.

[wings folded]

Safety Concerns


where's the judgement?

Pontoise

I confess to being baffled by your post:
I do not follow instructions, I am licensed and required to follow instructions by law. I am required to follow approved instructions and not just any instruction by law. I choose not to.

Do you follow instructions or not? Are you under a legal obligation/constraint?

Sorry if I appear obtuse, but it is not clear to me.

[Lemurian]

I am not sure you are correct in affirming that the supervisor's liability was "engagé. "


Sorry, I should have known one can't marry one responsibility, unless that's another name for a wife.
I bow to your expertise 1

[Safety Concerns]

@wings

you said:
Finding a Continental mechanic to be wanting in his professional competence is a matter of judgement.

The certified mechanic is licensed and required to follow instructions by law. He is also required to follow approved instructions and not just any instructions by law. He chose not to.

Where is the judgement?

[mercurydancer]

Whilst being neither an expert in law French or English, there does seem to be two legal principles which do apply to the mechanic who applied the titanium strip

1. A frolic of his own. This archaic language means largely that the mechanic decided to do something outside of the known limits of what his actions should be. No company/authority can be blamed for someone doing something against instruction, unless the company knew and agreed or permitted the act.

2. If not for.... This is very plain. If not for the titanium strip being on the ground would Concorde have flown normally? It doesnt seem so.

[Lemurian]

Whilst being neither an expert in law French or English...
and apparently you're not even an expert at reading all the previous posts .
the mechanic decided to do something outside of the known limits of what his actions should be. No company/authority can be blamed for someone doing something against instruction, unless the company knew and agreed or permitted the act.

Yes it is,.., and that's the finding of the court. A company is responsible for its employee's actions, too.
But in fact, Continental wasn't only found guilty for the mechanic's actions, it was as well - and more - because the mounting and rigging of that thrust reverser were totally out of the manufacturer's tolerances. for a very long time. The mis-alignment of the reverser door caused a friction on the wear strip that *wore* it a lot faster than it should, hence the need for replacement of the strip on repeated occasions and very probably the reason why the mechanic chose a titanium strip (probably in the hope that it would stand the wear a lot more than it did.). I let the engineers amongst you draw their conclusion on that sort of thinking.
Proof of the numerous instances of that strip replacement is that the investigators found 256 rivets or rivet heads inside the cowling (I could just about set up a rivet shop with that number ! )
So please, spare us the whining about Continental's responsibility and the poor mechanic being made a scapegoat, because to me that's exactly what you mean.
I might add that during the trial, Continental and their lawyers never questioned the above findings, concentrating on some half-cooked theory that the aircraft was on fire way before the wear strip entered the plot.
That's also why among their recommendation the BEA asked for an audit of Continental maintenance. Whether it has been done , I don't know...but I've never heard of it.

[overthewing]

As a humble passenger, but someone who has often had to delegate technical work to others, I confess I'm surprised that all blame landed on the mechanic.

Surely he wasn't just handed the task, and the aircraft passed fit to fly because he said he'd done it? Doesn't anyone check repairs? Would no-one have seen that the finished job didn't match what the manufacturer specified, or the airline's practices stipulated? Perhaps they wouldn't have been able to identify that it was titanium rather than stainless steel, but surely they would have seen the problem with the holes? And if they saw it, and passed it on the basis that it was 'good enough', doesn't that propagate responsibility to line management? Was the supervisor cleared because it would not have been possible for him to check the repair, once done? Is this kind of maintenance autonomy common within the industry?

I also can't judge how rare it is for such bits to fall off planes. I presume that wear strips, by definition, get worn. Is it common for them to fall off? Or do they tend to stay attached if they're made of the right material, and correctly fitted with the right number of bolts through the right number of holes in the right position?

[JFZ90]

^^
You are right to suggest the mechanic is not the only guilty party in continental - his line management should also bear some responsibility and his work should be checked. But it is also clear that a licenced technician should never have been doing what he did.

From an airworthiness point of view bits should never fall off planes - as there us a direct hazard they will drop on someone and kill them. From a probability point of view you can never say never, so the probability of it happening should be consistent with a fatal outcome - I.e. 10x9 or similar - some expert may have the exact number.

On this basis, the continental aircraft was almost certainly rendered unairworthy as a result of the mechanics actions. Makes you wonder if it was a typical practice!

[bearfoil]

Perhaps like using a Forklift to install engines with Pylons attached at AA.

[con-pilot]

Perhaps like using a Forklift to install engines with Pylons attached at AA.

Excellent, but sad point.

[mercurydancer]

Lemurian

You have taken my brief comments out of context. Id read the posts and they were looking at the issue of the mechanic's culpability. if the mechanic worked outside of his instructions then he is on a frolic of his own and the company should not be liable.

[Chu Chu]

If I remember from law school, a "frolic of his own" is not just not following instructions. If an employee runs a red light in a company car and causes an accident, the company is liable, no matter how many times it reminded or ordered the employee not to do so. This, by the way, does not mean that the employee is not liable, only that the company can be sued as well.

If the company sends the employee across town to make a delivery, and he runs for a quickie with his girl friend 50 miles away, that's a frolic of his own, and the company is not liable if he gets in an accident on the way.

A mechanic's job is to fix the company's airplanes, and it would be pretty hard for the company to escape liability for anything he did while doing so. Well, maybe if he snuck into the cabin for a smoke and managed to start a delayed fire, or something like that.

[mercurydancer]

Chu Chu

Your points are valid, it depends on the extent of the deviation from SOP. The devil as always is in the detail. Did the company expressly prohibit titanium fittings as repair, and did the employee know why the prohibition existed? It is possible that the company may have a defence if they issued strict limits to the use of such materials. A defence would be how many repairs are made in similar circumstances using titanium. If the mechanic was one of many who used such materials then its the company who would be equally culpable, but if he alone decided to repair using the material and it never happened before, or since, then its a frolic of his own.

[wings folded]

Safety
Where is the judgement?
Read post 535.

Judgement was at the Tribunal Correctionnel de Pontoise.

[DozyWannabe]

I confess I'm surprised that all blame landed on the mechanic.

AAAAARGH!

It didn't. I don't mean to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but if you read either this thread or the trial findings you'll see that the "responsibility" for the accident, for what it's worth, was split between Continental (as in the corporate entity) and EADS. The mechanic was the person found liable for the repair being improperly carried out, which was just one factor.

[wings folded]

mercurydancer,

A defence would be how many repairs are made in similar circumstances using titanium. If the mechanic was one of many who used such materials then its the company who would be equally culpable, but if he alone decided to repair using the material and it never happened before, or since, then its a frolic of his own.

I have never encountered "a frolic of his own" as a concept of French justice.

Why are you and others trying to re-try the case?
It has been heard.
Findings were made and sentences given.

The various parties judged responsible were sanctioned. It is a little bit late to speak of potential defences, even if they were defences which held some sway under French law.

Why do so many contributors want to believe that their local laws, jurisprudence and standards apply somewhere else?

[overthewing]

DW, you're right, I phrased it badly. I know that responsibility was apportioned between parties. By 'all blame', I was referring to fact that no other individual human being on the airline's side was convicted of wrongdoing. The mechanic's supervisor was explicitly cleared of blame / responsibility. The implication is that no-one checked the repair, and that this self-certification-type work is considered acceptable. I would have expected the repair to be inspected and cleared by one other person at the very least. The fact that it is apparently OK to have one person sign off his own work, when that work is a repair to a passenger aircraft, is alarming to this passenger.

[bearfoil]

overthewing

Likewise a loss of opportunity on the whole to focus on what is important here. Ramp 'shoot from the hip' "engineering" is clearly wrong. An inattention to address fully a clearly delineated and long standing insufficiency of maintenance on the Concorde is equally culpable, absent pedantry on the Court case. It is this deflection of attention to progress that is inexcusable. Spacer? Tire Inflation? Wrong place Right time? Titanium?

'Pride' kills, always has, always will. 'Human' error, as I see it, not mechanical.

forewing

[ChristiaanJ]

overthewing,
I agree with your view...

Once upon a time I had an inspector's stamp (yes, Concorde, but in the earliest days).
Being a small team, I also regularly stuck my own hands into a computer to do modifications.
Whenever that happened, the stamp stayed firmly in my pocket, and it would be a collegue (with his own stamp) who'd inspect my work.
Self-certification was an absolute no-no.

And the final responsabilty was with the person whose stamp was on the seal, and whose signature was on the 'certificate of conformity'.The fact that it is apparently OK to have one person sign off his own work, when that work is a repair to a passenger aircraft, is alarming to this passenger.It's alarming to this engineer, too....

CJ

[wings folded]

Safety Concerns,

Upon re-reading the posts, I think I see what has happened. We had different concepts in mind for the term judgement, and our exchanges passed each other by like two sailing ships on a foggy night.

I think you meant "exercise of discretion"

I meant "court judgement", as in judicial decision with corresponding sentencing.

Hope it is a bit clearer now.

[mercurydancer]

Wingsfolded,

You are quite correct, the matter is decided, and by French courts. That is a final matter. French courts are aligned on the principle of establishing fact not guilt, so they have established the facts of the accident.

However, I offer my comments in the context of making some sense of the judgement, and as this is a forum for doing exactly that. There are no absolute villains in this accident, and as it seems, no malicious intent at all, that leaves Mr Reason's cheese. Unfortunately the holes are not too many in number in this accident.

Whilst the term "frolic of one's own" is an English legal term it will do for a reference point for culpability, a legal concept that transcends national boundaries. it is a matter of degree, which is open to discussion.

[PBL]

The editor of the European Journal of International Law, who is an American by the name of Joseph Weilers, a distinguished jurist, has been criminally accused of libel in France by an Israeli author of a book on the International Criminal Court who was dissatisfied with a negative review of her book in the journal, and on the associated US WWW site, by a German academic jurist.

Easiest intro with links is Jonathan Zittrain's short comment Friday (http://futureoftheinternet.org/edit-a-european-academic-journal-face-a-criminal-trial).

The phenomenon is of profound interest to people such as myself, because, as Prof. Weilers says, it challenges the basic tenets of academic freedom to say what you think (as long as it is what you think) and be judged only by peers and public. I mention this only in passing - I am not going to defend this here, because it is only peripherally relevant to piloting, although, if you delete the word "academic", the principle is central to the premiss of this WWW site.

The reason I am posting the link here is that there has been considerable discussion, and considerable misunderstanding, of the French legal system, which is Inquisitorial, on this thread, in commentary about the Concorde trial.

First, on misunderstanding procedure. "Inquisitorial" means that there is no independent agency, such as the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK, the State or US Attorney General's office in the US, or the Staatsanwaltschaft in Germany, which examines a case on its merits and decides to prosecute or not before the courts are involved, but that the court itself undertakes this examination. It turns out to be costly to the plaintiff; if a complaint is found without merit by the CPS, AG, or SAWS there is no direct cost to the person accused for this investigation and its decision not to proceed (although there are the costs of retaining one's personal legal advisor to assist).

A second misunderstanding concerned competence and efficacy. Joseph Weiler reports here his experiences (http://www.ejiltalk.org/in-the-dock-in-paris/). Note in particular

The trial was impeccable by any standard with which I am familiar......It was a strange mélange of the criminal and civil virtually unknown in the Common Law world. The procedure was less formal, aimed at establishing the truth, and far less hemmed down by rules of evidence and procedure. Due process was definitely served. It was a fair trial.

Recall this is the judgement of someone tenured at Harvard Law and NYU, who has advised governments on four continents and arbitrated disputes between so-called "super-powers". (I do recommend a quick perusal of the material linked by Zittrain; it doesn't take long.)

The importance of establishing a better understanding of the French legal system is that criminalisation of aviation accidents is an important, and regrettably globally increasing phenomenon of which France is supposed, with cause, to be in the forefront. Any revision of this phenomenon is, to my mind, likely to start with a reappraisal of French legal procedures - their comparative advantages as well as disadvantages. It is not going to proceed along the lines proposed here by some ignorant commentators who simply abuse the French system.

I believe that all of us on this site, including of course the lawyers, have a profound interest in helping to decriminalise aviation accidents.

PBL