French Concorde crash [Archive]

tribo

6th Dec 2010, 10:30

A January 25, 1986 Flight International article - Supersonic passenger decade - can be found at these links:

air france | concorde | 1986 | 0214 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986%20-%200214.html)
air france | concorde | 1986 | 0215 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986%20-%200215.html)
airbus | concorde | 1986 | 0216 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986%20-%200216.html)
air france | concorde | 1986 | 0217 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986%20-%200217.html)
air france | concorde | 1986 | 0218 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986%20-%200218.html)
air france | 1986 | 0219 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986%20-%200219.html)

The FAA type certification of the Concorde issued April 23, 1974, can be found at this link:

Special Conditions; Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale/British (http://www1.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/a3c383b620d9eb8786256e510072db44!OpenDocument&ExpandSection=-3)

Weary

6th Dec 2010, 10:41

It's going to be a good Christmas for the Tort lawyers.

- and a bad one for Continental.

Agaricus bisporus

6th Dec 2010, 10:43

It seems beyond belief to me that an airline is not fined ten times that amount for perpetrating such an appallingly gash and illegal "repair" to an aircraft even if it hurt no one. $200.000 for that would be getting off scot-free.

As they caused the deaths of over 100 people and destroyed hundreds of millions in property through that criminal negligence then the fine is a bloody insult to the victims and their families. There should be three or four more zeros on the end of it.

And why is Air France not on the block too, their negligence led directly to the crash too?

A whitewash and utter disgrace.

Neptunus Rex

6th Dec 2010, 11:07

The aircraft was overweight, C of G outside the aft limit, taking off downwind, a 10 inch spacer missing from the main undercarriage and eyewitnesses reported that it was already on fire before it hit the titanium. There is more, but not un Grenouille to blame.

chauvinism: exaggerated or aggressive patriotism
The legendary Nicolas Chauvin was a Frenchman. What else did we expect?

psimpsim

6th Dec 2010, 11:48

A Paris court has said Continental Airlines was "criminally responsible" for the crash of a Concorde supersonic jet 10 years ago, and fined it 200,000 euros (£170,000).

It has also been ordered to pay 1m euros to the jet's operator Air France.

A Continental mechanic, John Taylor, was given a 15-month suspended prison sentence over the crash.

Continental has said it will appeal, saying the verdict "only protects French interests".

Source:

BBC News - Continental 'responsible' for Concorde crash in 2000 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11923556)

Continentals response is what you'd expect from them, pretty low class IMO

SLFinAZ

6th Dec 2010, 12:29

Verdict is exactly the whitewash I (and many others) predicted. Continental and John Taylor (mechanic)....total garbage IMO.

Ex Cargo Clown

6th Dec 2010, 12:36

I would absolutely love it if the FAA and US Government ban french registered aircraft from their airspace.

You can come out with "Mickey Mouse" verdicts like this, that completely ignore the facts.

I'm no Americophile, but this decision is just ridiculous.

INKJET

6th Dec 2010, 12:42

Entirely predictable, but ultimately someone is to blame for everything that goes wrong other than a Tsunami, and even then it's their own fault or the authorities for allow them to live near water!!

Bits fall off aircraft and CDG is amongst the worse in terms of ramp and taxiways for rubbish, i have seen dogs running around for 5 hours with no one doing anything about, i have very nearly taxied over suitcases shed from speeding baggage trucks, even if a whole flap section fell off an aircraft 50% of the pilots would be unaware because they use French & English in equal measure, so half the time you don't have a clue whats going on!!

Even if you report something the best you'll get is "I call you back"

Cacophonix

6th Dec 2010, 12:47

This ludicrous verdict certainly raises questions about French jurisprudence and, sadly, the ability of the relevant French aviation authorities to conduct apolitical, fact based, aircrash investigations.

This smells worse than a piece of camembert cheese.

Capetonian

6th Dec 2010, 12:53

A French operated, French owned, French crewed, French designed and built (partially) aircraft crashes on departure from a French airport.

I am therefore at a loss to understand why anyone might think that the French could in any way be at fault. They never are.

I am not making light of this tragedy but it does once again prove the utter contempt with which the Gallic nation treat the rest of the world.

valvanuz

6th Dec 2010, 12:53

This is an outrageous decision. Just show a material link with an event and you can be made responsible. I am guilty because I did slam the door and my scarred neighbor upstairs dropped the pot of hot tea onto her cat, scalding it…

Who to blame if it were a turtle crossing the runway that made the tire burst?

And now, of course, legal appeal …

SKS777FLYER

6th Dec 2010, 13:13

They did, however, in this instance, turn over the correct CVR and flight recorder to the courts. There is some progress.

lomapaseo

6th Dec 2010, 13:29

This is an outrageous decision. Just show a material link with an event and you can be made responsible. I am guilty because I did slam the door and my scarred neighbor upstairs dropped the pot of hot tea onto her cat, scalding it…
This reminds me of the use of the coutroom argument "because of" or "if not for" used to find blame enough to claim damages.

However, in aviation one does not begin to prove negligence until considerations of design mitigation are examined such as "in spite of" which presume many of these so called minor incidents occurring over the life of the fleet and actions taken to mitigate their effects since it is impossible to eliminate all such intiating events.

Courtroom arguments have no measurable effect on aviation safety processes since their objectives are not the same.

Engman1

6th Dec 2010, 13:43

Whose runway was it?
Who is responsible to clear it?
Who said Ok to take off?

HAWK21M

6th Dec 2010, 13:47

Why blame the Mechanic & Airline for an Indirect cause.

Dont Hang Up

6th Dec 2010, 13:47

Courtroom arguments have no measurable effect on aviation safety processes since their objectives are not the same.

Wise words.

Sadly though, the litigators do not accept this. They believe they are crusaders for a safer world by fighting negligence wherever they find it (sadly often finding it in legal precedence with little or no use of inconvenient facts).

TeachMe

6th Dec 2010, 13:49

Valvanuz,

You would be surprised how people can make others responsible. I live in South Korea and just last year they passed a law that said if a driver honks at a pedestrian, then causing the pedestrian to jump in fright and hence get hit by a car, it is the fault of the person who honked. Stupid@!

Dont Hang Up

6th Dec 2010, 13:50

Why blame the Mechanic & Airline for an Indirect cause.

They aren't French.

Plectron

6th Dec 2010, 13:54

They may leave trash all over the airport, have bizarre taxi signs - if any, confusing taxiways, collapsing terminals, "security" whereby the arriving transit passengers from an un-named but suspect continent (hey - I did learn my PC lesson!!) and airline are allowed to mingle with passengers and crew ALREADY cleared through (in other words - anything including a howitzer could be passed on), Captains are addressed as Mister if you are not French, the protest strike du jour, and the rubber gets removed from the runways once a decade only if required.

BUT>>>>>

Try to call ground before your entire aircraft and your trailing kerosene exhaust has cleared the inboard runway. THEN you will encounter some real Gallic ire.

norodnik

6th Dec 2010, 14:00

re: Honking in South Korea

much the same as if you hit a Cow in India, and it used to be if a sheep wanted to commit suicide on the Isle of Skye and chose to jump in front of your car, that was your fault as well (although I think this law was changed in the 70's/80's)

We all know the BEA is a complete joke along with most of the French Court system. They ignore almost every law that doesn't suit them in the EU and we all just stand by and let them get a way with it.

I don't buy ANY French products and the closet I ever come to its corrupt shores is when I fly across it on my way to Madrid!

Iron Duck

6th Dec 2010, 14:16

1st post from SLF here. I'm not a journalist.

Neptunus Rex:

The aircraft was overweight, C of G outside the aft limit, taking off downwind, a 10 inch spacer missing from the main undercarriage

But it took off and flew.

1. Would it have continued to do so in this state had there been no fire?
2. If the aircraft had only lost 25% of its thrust, would it have continued to fly?
3. Would the airframe damage from the fire have knocked it down anyway, even were it within weight, CG, etc.?

and eyewitnesses reported that it was already on fire before it hit the titanium

I've never seen a reason given for why it might have been on fire before hitting the strip. Is there one?

PBL

6th Dec 2010, 14:19

I am not expert on legal matters, but for those - unfortunately many - contributors who seem to have no clue at all, some observations.

It was observed at a meeting of the RAeS Law Group earlier this year, reported in Flight International, on the criminalisation of aviation accidents, that the French legal system does not have the mechanism of the English legal system, the inquest, to determine what went on in an accident. So in France, for the state to determine what indeed went on, there must be a criminal trial. First point: it's a shame for all that they don't have inquests. I am sure many French people agree.

Second: why do you need an inquest? Amongst other things (and "gaining closure", being a US import and to me unwelcome, is not one of them), it is to help figure out who should ultimately pay. For there is am ancient general principle of compensating victims of mishaps and this should not only follow rules but also be seen to be "fair", adjudicating amongst competing claims.

Third: this isn't a "bonanza for tort lawyers". The airline (that is, the airline's insurance company) has already paid to settle most or all tort claims, as is by now the rule in commercial aviation. The cost is reported to be in the realm of €100 million, relatively low for such accidents (Concorde did not carry so many passengers).

Fourth: the ruling is Continental 70%, EADS 30%, everyone else (Air France, DGAC, Paris Airports Authority, etc) 0%. That means that the insurance company will be negotiating with those parties to recover the relevant proportion of its costs. Since there is now a legal ruling which will act as precedent, there is little point in disputing it in court. (I guess the discussion would be something like Continental pays €70m, EADS €30m.)

Fifth, what is this ruling based on?

The ruling is based on the obvious physical ABC of the accident occurrence.

The report said: titanium strip fell off Continental onto the runway; Concorde ran over strip; strip sliced into tire and caused tire burst of unprecedented form and strength; large tire fragment hit tank; impact shock wave caused tank to explode from within; resulting hole allowed fuel to stream out in large quantity; fuel was ignited (not completely sure how, but probably by reheat); fire engulfed critical wing structure and contributed to critical performance degradation of two engines; Concorde cannot accelerate after TO on two engines alone (BTW, there is no evidence that Concorde was overweight at TO) and went down.

That's what the court found also. People have said "missing spacer". Our work on that said: not relevant. People have said "overweight at dispatch". Yes, but not at TO, as far as anyone can tell. People have said "airport should have swept runway better". Yes, but that wasn't a direct contributing cause in the intuitive sense of the above sequence of physical events. It would be like blaming the police for Fred's broken jaw in a street fight because they weren't there at the time. Thousands of years of legal tradition says the person responsible for the broken jaw is the person who threw the punch. So here: the court said that the entity responsible for the burst tire is the entity that left the titanium strip on the runway; and, further, as I understand it, the person who mounted that titanium instead of an aluminium part; as well as, to some degree, the people responsible for the aircraft design, even though (and others here will agree with me here) the airplane was a triumph of aeronautical technology. Other people (Continental) said the plane was on fire before it encountered the strip. The report, as well as all of the people I know who know about Concorde, indeed, physical common sense given the undisputed evidence of what happened, have no explanation at all of how that could possibly have been the case. The only evidence is circumstantial - eye witness testimony from witnesses who were far away from the scene. There is no physical explanation of the accident which coheres with that testimony at all, after ten years of thinking about it. So, reasonably, that testimony was (I take it) rejected.

Now, that all seems to me, given the system, appropriate, fair, and straightforward. What is not appropriate, in the minds of many including myself, is that it seems to need a criminal trial, rather than an inquest, to serve this necessary legal function of apportioning the enormous costs of compensation.

PBL

er340790

6th Dec 2010, 14:29

To come up with a verdict of 'criminally responsible' rather than 'civil liability' (even if that were justifiable) is verging on the unbelievable.

Are we to read from this that a criminally responsible mechanic deliberately set out to sabotage one of his own employer's aircraft in such a way that the damage would deliberately cause catastrophic damage to another company's aircraft. Utter, utter nonsense from the Paris court.

Mind you, that 1.3 Bn Court ruling in favour of Air France will get the French Govt nicely off the next bail-out / banned EU subsidiary for the national carrier.

bearfoil

6th Dec 2010, 14:55

er

Do the French have that departed a view of "Criminal" Responsibility? Here, it requires a very complete proof of Intent to do Harm.

I was only half kidding when I posted that the "Smelterer" would be found Liable.

Good Grief. How can this culture keep a straight face?? And I say that coming from America, for goodness' sake.

bear

Cacophonix

6th Dec 2010, 15:02

Concorde ran over strip; strip sliced into tire and caused tire burst of unprecedented form and strength; large tire fragment hit tank; impact shock wave caused tankSo should we ignore the fact that in the previous 24 years of Concorde flights prior to July 2000 there were 65 burst tyre incidents of which 6 events led to the perforation of fuel tanks? Even if you dispute these numbers surely even one previous fuel tank breach would be one too many?

The fact that an inquest as we know it here in the UK was not available to the French authorities does not justify a criminal trial nor the apportioning of criminal guilt in this way.

vapilot2004

6th Dec 2010, 15:23

Does anyone recall where a French court proceeding involving aviation where guilt was found to be a French company, French national or member of the French government when there were non-French defendants available?

bearfoil

6th Dec 2010, 15:31

mssrs Montgolfier??

Didn't they light off a milking barn, whilst heating the envelope? I think some Americans were in attendance, whose glances upset the brother with the match?

stuckgear

6th Dec 2010, 15:41

People have said "airport should have swept runway better". Yes, but that wasn't a direct contributing cause in the intuitive sense of the above sequence of physical events.

From what I recall, due to the higher runway speeds of the type, it was SOP at many locations the type operated to, to perform runway sweeps to check for and clear any debris.

one of two daily runway sweeps for debris at Charles de Gaulle airport had been cancelled on the day of the crash; and a wheel spacer on the left main undercarriage had not been replaced during maintenance four days earlier. [Source: Aviation Week. Feb 2, 2010.]

Fine, if you want to say that it was not a mitigating fact. However, due to the higher runway speeds of the type, not only were tyres(tires) specific to the type but also it was SOP at many locations to perform runway sweeps prior to departure of the type. As such, the identification of such type specific actions expressly dictates predetermined actions specific to the type, which were not undertaken by the port authority. Thus it can be considered that the port authority responsible was directly negligent in the failure to detect and remove debris, which contributed to the damage resulting in total hull loss and fatality.

Further, the was the missing wheel spacer subject to the MEL of the operator or the manufacturer. IE is it anywhere stated in the maintenance manuals, or operational manuals for the carrier that a component part of the design of the aircraft not re-installed on the aircraft post maintenance, if not included in the MEL, may be released for service?

As such, if it is not expressly indicated that the aircraft may be released for operational revenue service with such a spacer missing, then the aircraft should not have been released for service. In which event it should not have been on the runway, overweight, underweight, hole in fuel tank or not, in operational service. Ergo, negligence on the part of the maintenance provider and on the part of the operator for having an aircraft in operational service that, subject to missing components should not have been.

It would be like blaming the police for Fred's broken jaw in a street fight because they weren't there at the time. Thousands of years of legal tradition says the person responsible for the broken jaw is the person who threw the punch.

This argument is a non sequitur.

If Fred had fallen down on an icy patch or tripped on a kerb, falling and smashing his face into the ground, prior to being punched, or the person who threw the punch punched him in the chest, or in fact the person that threw the punch was in fact a midget and could only reach Fred's knee caps, then by all respects the person that is deemed liable under the 'Court of PBL' is not in fact responsible for the damage/injury, but is in fact circumstantial to the damage incurred.

Then of course, there are thousands of years of legal 'tradition' which determines what are mitigating facts and which are not.

Edit to add: facetious tone not appropriately indicated in typeface.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

6th Dec 2010, 15:44

<<also it was SOP at many locations to perform runway sweeps prior to departure of the type.>>

I shared my career with Concorde but in all those years I do not recall a runway "sweep" (whatever that is) at Heathrow prior to a departure.

stuckgear

6th Dec 2010, 15:49

HD, as i said, i seem to recall and cannot verify the fact of the statement, hence the statement as to i seem to recall. I do seem to recall however, that some locations in the US, which the aircraft operated to did in fact perform a sweep of the runway prior to the departure/arrival of the type (and i don't mean a street cleaner going out with a broom and brush, or a motorized vehicle physically sweeping the runway) but the inhabitants of a ground vehicle passing over the runway looking for any debris and removing it.

I seem to recall at LHR ground vehicles performing visual inspections of the runway from time to time.

infrequentflyer789

6th Dec 2010, 15:50

Do the French have that departed a view of "Criminal" Responsibility? Here, it requires a very complete proof of Intent to do Harm.

IANAL, but I think on this side of the pond "Manslaughter" (of the involuntary type if in the UK) is precisely what you imply - i.e. criminal responsibility for a death without intent to harm. French position in this case seems pretty similar to what I understand of English law.

Having just looked it up, the wikipedia page on manslaughter (Manslaughter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter)) would appear to agree with me (not that that means anything). Interestingly it suggests that you do have the same legal concept in the US, to quote:

In the United States, misdemeanour manslaughter is a lesser version of felony murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder), and covers a person who causes the death of another while committing a misdemeanour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanour) – that is, a violation of law which doesn't rise to the level of a felony. This may automatically lead to a conviction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_%28law%29) for the homicide, if the misdemeanor involved a law designed to protect human life. Many violations of safety laws are infractions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infraction), which means a person can be convicted regardless of Mens rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea).
So it looks like the French aren't so much different after all.

Saint-Ex

6th Dec 2010, 15:58

We heard at the time of the accident that the part from the Continental aircraft was not approved. Can anyone verify this?

ChristiaanJ

6th Dec 2010, 15:58

So should we ignore the fact that in the previous 24 years of Concorde flights prior to July 2000 there were 65 burst tyre incidents of which 6 events led to the perforation of fuel tanks? Even if you dispute these numbers surely even one previous fuel tank breach would be one too many?Tyre bursts were/are not unique to Concorde, and they can result and have resulted in structural damage on other types. The main difference was the frequency.
Certification testing had shown, that an exploding tyre would at the most result in fuel leaks of a few litres/sec.
The severity of some of the earliest incidents (where the wheels themselves, and the water deflectors, did most of the damage) WAS addressed by modifications.

And it was not ignored ... three of the "accused" were from EADS (as the legacy manufacturer) and the DGAC (French CAA).
They could be accused of "errors of judgment", in not being more "pro-active" (the NZG tyres were available well before 2000), the same as Continental can be accused of "professional incompetence" at several levels.

However, I agree that a ten-year criminal trial turned the whole thing into a bitter farce, without contributing anything to aviation safety.

CJ

PS I'm not French, even if I live there.

interpreter

6th Dec 2010, 15:59

Continental's response suggests that there is much more to come on this issue. I find it extremely difficult to believe that if there had been a fire in one of the engines prior to take off nobody in the tower or on the ground described it accurately immediately after the accident. Furthermore engine fires do not rupture fuel tanks as clearly happened on this occasion.

The MOST likely cause was the metal left on the runway but I suppose as with so many of these incidents we will never ever really know with any certainty if there were other contributory factors .

The fines are miniscule and the aircraft flies no more - sadly as it was perfectly capable of flying for many more years - and all we can do is sympathise with all those who tragically lost their loved ones as the result of the crash. There but for the grace of God go...................

bearfoil

6th Dec 2010, 15:59

Mea Culpa, non compos mentis.

Did the (CAL) Mech's repair fall withing the regs? I thought it did, or did the French Court exclude exculpatory pleading? The lack of required (spacer) equipment strikes me as an offsetting plead, and more direct in the accident's procuring cause, given the lengthy history of Concorde's Achilles "Leg"? "Duty of Care"? When there is a choice twixt causes, there is your Appeal.

bear

stuckgear

6th Dec 2010, 16:00

the same as Continental can be accused of "professional incompetence" at several levels.

well that alone leaves a significant portion of many airlines around the globe up the proverbial creek ! :}

stuckgear

6th Dec 2010, 16:08

Did the (CAL) Mech's repair fall withing the regs?

Bear, interesting point. Perhaps CAL's FSDO could be liable for a failure in oversight ! :}

edit to add: Gallic shrug not duly represented by typeface.

Ex Cargo Clown

6th Dec 2010, 16:18

There maybe a level of actus rea in respect to this, in that it was a bit of a gash repair job, but I didn't think there was any level of mens rea.

How Air France are escaping any blame in this is beyond me.

Oh, I forgot where this incident took place.

The whole incident is a little like saying if I litter accidently, and a car, that is carrying too many people happens to skid on it, that was being driven by a really poor driver then I am to blame and hence guilty of manslaughter.

I don't think any sane judicial system on the planet would see it that way, oh I forgot where this courtcase occurred.

Just out of interest, was there ever a case brought before court when that Shorts 360 had it's roof chopped off and a poor man lost his life due to ATC incompetence?

Cacophonix

6th Dec 2010, 16:24

ChristiaanJ

As you say tyre bursts are not uncommon right across all types operational but to say a particular burst was of unprecedented force just doesn't make sense to me.

Unprecedented from what I wonder? Perhaps he means from the last burst that occurred that may just luckily have not caused a conflagration or the loss of the aircraft!

This said, I don't believe that any of the three French gentlemen should have been tried either. This accident resulted from a number of causes of which the tyre burst incident was the precursor but not the only one.

I must say that I am apt to agree with Mr Learmount's comments when he wrote...

There is no obligation under French law to launch a criminal prosecution following an aviation accident. An accident could be presumed to be just that: an unintended, unforseen occurrence.

This compulsion to prosecute following aviation accidents in France seems to be embedded in the way the establishment works in the country, but it's about time somebody in authority questioned the procedure. The trouble is that it seems to be considered sacrilege to criticise or interfere with the French judicial system. The judiciary's independence is sacred to the extent that they can write their own rules. So that's what they do.

I reported an encounter with a senior French lawyer who specialises in aviation, and she gave me a cryptic insight into why the French judiciary act as they do (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/learmount/2008/07/accident-investigation-beats-d-1.html). I quote briefly from that report: "The French judiciary are not obliged to prosecute following accidents, any more than the British judiciary are, but in France they always choose to go for prosecution, while in the UK they hardly ever do."

Let's look at what this Pontoise court has to do if it is to convict any of the five accused of manslaughter.

For the charge against the Aerospatiale engineers/designers to stand, the prosecution has to be able to prove that Concorde was designed negligently, that the design's vulnerability to wing fuel tank damage was known, and it could have been forseen that there was a risk that this vulnerability could lead to the loss of the aircraft so as to cause harm to those on board.

That will be difficult to prove.

The Continental Airlines mechanics are alleged to have departed from proper engineering procedures when they prepared a titanium strip to carry out a repair to the DC-10 that took off from the same runway shortly before Concorde began its take-off roll, and that the strip detached from the aircraft during the roll. The accident investigators' report says the probable cause of the accident is that the titanium strip on the runway cut one of the Concorde's tyres in such a way that a large chunk of the exploding tyre pierced the wing skin and released a stream of fuel that caught fire, causing the crash.

It may be that the alleged departure from standard engineering procedures could be established, but whether a connection between the engineering procedure and the accident can be proven is not certain. The technical investigation does not deal in legal proof, its purpose is to establish a "probable cause" for an accident purely so that future events of the same type can be prevented. A probable cause is not a proof. The court may be unable to prove the connection.

This court case is pointless. Concorde itself will never fly again, and in the unlikely event that any new technical facts emerge that had not already been examined by the accident investigators, they are unlikely to provide lessons that are transferable to in-service types because so much about Concorde's design is unique. If the argument is that the prosecution is being pursued "pour encourager les autres", or to see justice served by jailing some individuals on the grounds they are guilty of manslaughter through criminal negligence, which group of people will welcome this judicial revenge against five individuals? There has been no baying for blood over this accident, merely sadness.

In previous cases where a prosecution was mounted following air accidents in France, the normal outcome has been the acquittal of all involved. On the rare occasion that a person has been found guilty, the sentence has been suspended.

What makes the Concorde case particularly distasteful is how much time and money have been wasted on preparing it for court over the nine years since the accident, and how much more is going to be wasted in court during the next four months. Add to that the harm and delay always imposed on the technical investigation by the French judiciary's meddling which, in this case, drove the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch - a partner in the investigation - to distraction while they were trying to get on with the job.

The French judiciary in this case are acting like a peculiar sect with strange beliefs pursuing an eccentric ritual that has no relevance to anyone except the participants.
As usual, this case will be won or lost on legal technicalities. It is certainly not about aviation, it is more about legal egos, if my French lawyer friend is to be believed. And about lining their pockets.

ChristiaanJ

6th Dec 2010, 16:28

Did the (CAL) Mech's repair fall withing the regs?Replacing a wear strip on a cowling with titanium ??
Come on, bearfoil, you can't be that naive.

Not to mention the utter incompetence of the mechanic.
Ever tried to drill in titanium?
After wearing out the first drill bit, he should have recognised something was not quite right.
Instead of which, he drilled a few more holes, here, there and everywhere, and just fitted it anyway.

Bad luck, in being found out in such a spectacular way....

CJ

Airmotive

6th Dec 2010, 16:34

Shall I speculate on how this action by the French courts will affect the search for AF447? It seems that, with this one ruling, a lot of people who would normally be helping with an open and honest investigation of AF447, would now be better off if that plane is never found.:ugh:

If given the choice between 'benefiting aviation safety' or 'not spending 20 years in jail', even the most ardent safety guy would prefer to be home with his wife and kids.

con-pilot

6th Dec 2010, 16:42

Well as no one has stated the obvious, I will.

A burst tire, no matter how unprecedented, should not cause a modern jet airliner to crash due to the damage caused by the bursting tire. No matter what caused the tire to fail.

And even more damning is that this was not the first time this had happened, did not the same type of incident happen to a BA Concorde, which caused BA to modify the bottom of the BA Concordes fuel tanks?

This is CYA at a national level.

Cacophonix

6th Dec 2010, 16:45

Well as no one has stated the obvious, I will.

Con thanks for stating bluntly what I was skating around! :ok:

Nick Thomas

6th Dec 2010, 16:46

It seems to me that many on this thread have little or no knowledge of the French legal system, and I include myself in that statement. Making references to what would happen in the USA or UK is therefore not relevant. I have had this debate about different legal juristrictions with Bearfoil before(Qantas engine failure). As SLF I have noticed a tendency to criticize people who make "uneducated" comments as being MS pilots. Well in this case I think it's fair to say that many posters are acting as armchair lawyers.
Of course everyone is entitled to their view on the technical causes of the Concorde accident but to suggest that a court in reaching a different view to yours is corrupt /incompetent etc is simply laughable.
Regards
Nick

Hi Lok

6th Dec 2010, 16:49

Yet again the engineer has been witch hunted and given a suspended jail term ? :ugh:

I'm sure he has been feeling good since the allegations :rolleyes:

Cacophonix

6th Dec 2010, 16:54

I include myself in that statement. Making references to what would happen in the USA or UK is therefore not relevant

As this case involves people and institutions from the US, UK and France it is highly appropriate for all these legal systems to be considered and if comparisons are odious then so be it.

You might be surprised by how many people who comment here do have a legal backgound. However, I do agree a simplistic kneejerk reaction to a system be it legal or otherwise just because it is French is inappropriate.

ChristiaanJ

6th Dec 2010, 16:58

ChristiaanJ
As you say tyre bursts are not uncommon right across all types operational but to say a particular burst was of unprecedented force just doesn't make sense to me.
Unprecedented from what I wonder?Unprecedented from all the 65 previous occasions you mention, and also unprecedented from all the certification tests - but then those were all based on the tyre bursting from "known" effects, such as under-inflation, overheating from excessive braking, etc. etc.
Somehow the tyre being ripped apart by a large piece of knife-like FOD was never considered.
Perhaps he means from the last burst that occurred that may just luckily have not caused a conflagration or the loss of the aircraft! [...]
This accident resulted from a number of causes of which the tyre burst incident was the precursor but not the only one.Quite.
I suppose most people here are aware of the sequence...
Not only a large leak (possibly caused by 'oil-canning' which probably would not have occurred either if the tanks hadn't been so close to being full, as was normal), but the leak was ignited.
The exact cause may be debatable (arcing in the wheel well sounding the most probable, rather than "blow-back" from the reheat), but it happened.

Without that happening, it would have simply been a very messy incident.
I must say that I am apt to agree with Mr Learmount's comments when he wrote...A very measured comment. And yes, I'm apt to agree too.

CJ

suninmyeyes

6th Dec 2010, 17:05

This reminds me of the Turkish DC10 cargo door crash in Paris in 1974.

Despite a known technical problem with the cargo door and paperwork showing it had been modified (when it fact it hadn't) the French media put the blame and responsibility for the accident on the Algerian baggage handler who closed the door.

This Concorde investigation also seems to put the blame in the wrong arena.

Nick Thomas

6th Dec 2010, 17:16

I have just read Hi Lok's post and it seems to me to be yet another post in a long line that assume that aviation is above the law. Of course it's not and quite rightly so.
I have read the arguments that no blame should be attributed so that incidents are reported and aviation safety can therefore be improved and I agree with that.
In this case (and any other major aviation incident) this line of reasoning fails on many levels.
For example
The incident is in the public domain.
The catastrophic nature of the incident.
Surely the point of a no blame reporting culture is to avoid incidents such as this one. Therefore in this case a different response is required.

To say that the engineer is the subject of a witch hunt is unwise and if taken to it's logical conclussion would mean that every person in front of a court of law is subject to a witch hunt. I can also accept that he may have had many sleepness nights over the outcome of this trial yet this does not mean that it's unfair to bring a case against him.

Regards
Nick

Nick Thomas

6th Dec 2010, 17:30

No am not surprised that some posters may have some legal knowledge. In fact I have extensive experience of the civil legal system in England and Wales, I have stated that to back up the following:
That it's unwise to draw conclusions about one legal system when your experience is based on another.
Am also of the view that it's foolish to criticize any legal proceedings without careful study of those proceedings.
Regards
Nick

Hi Lok

6th Dec 2010, 17:30

Nick, I tend to agree and to be honest don't really know IF that person was negligent ? Obviously it has been proven that he was.
Having vast structural repair experience and seeing fatigue and repairs after time it could happen to any aircraft.

BUT I do agree with you and yes we are all accountable and sometimes these things remind us what we actually do.

Again haven't read the in depth report and just think that an Airline has been named (Not the CEO or managers) and the engineer has.

Thanks, Hi Lok

infrequentflyer789

6th Dec 2010, 17:36

Bear, interesting point. Perhaps CAL's FSDO could be liable for a failure in oversight ! :}

Prosecution indeed went beyond the individual technician. From an older news article (one of many with same details though):

Six defendants have been accused of manslaughter in the Concorde trial. All deny the charges.
*Continental Airlines
Accused of negligently allowing its staff to use banned titanium strips for aircraft repairs. If found guilty the company faces a fine of up to €375,000.
*John Taylor, 41, Continental Airlines mechanic
He fitted the titanium strip which fell onto the runway before the doomed Concorde flight. Like the other four individuals on trial, he faces up to five years in prison and a maximum fine of €75,000 if found guilty.
*Stanley Ford, 70, head of the Continental Airlines maintenance team
He is accused of approving the banned repair.

Interestingly, nowhere in anything I've read have I seen anything from Continental or their lawyers disputing that the repair was illegitimate or that the tyre was destoryed by running over the part. Their sole reported defence seems to have been that the Concord was on fire before it hit the part, which seems to be based on purely eye-witness evidence, not physical (the physical evidence reported all seems to show the tyre burst as the start of the problems). May just be me, but that seems to be a bit of a flimsy defence.

Also, it looks like although it was Continental and agents who got hit by fines etc., the court apportioned damages split between Continental and EADS (mfr. - and partly French). So they've decided Continental were partly responsible but not solely.

Nick Thomas

6th Dec 2010, 17:38

Having just read your last post Hi Lok am glad that you agree with me that aviation is not above the law.
I apologise for mentioning you personally but in mitigation I would add that I inadvertentally assumed that your first post was another in the long line of posts condemning this verdict out of hand.
Regards
Nick

SPIT

6th Dec 2010, 17:39

I wonder what would have happened if instead of the prev A/C had NOT BEEN an American airline but it was a French airline or even Air France ??? :E:E:E

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

6th Dec 2010, 17:42

<<I seem to recall at LHR ground vehicles performing visual inspections of the runway from time to time.>>

Well, of course, runway inspections took place several times each day, but none specifically prior to a Concorde movement. Whilst I was there, the only flights which enjoyed such treatment were those carrying the US President. Concorde was just another aeroplane.

Nick Thomas

6th Dec 2010, 17:50

Hi Spit
Am wondering if your last statement is just another way of saying that this verdict is corrupt?
Regards
Nick

Hi Lok

6th Dec 2010, 18:01

No problem. I just feel that sometimes when or if things go wrong for engineers all around you step backwards. It would be interesting to know IF the engineer had legal representation form the airline, I would imagine he did? Still don't know why they need to name that guy?

No worries about naming me though :hmm:

Hi Lok

wings folded

6th Dec 2010, 18:14

Are we to read from this that a criminally responsible mechanic deliberately set out to sabotage one of his own employer's aircraft in such a way that the damage would deliberately cause catastrophic damage to another company's aircraft. Utter, utter nonsense from the Paris court.

"Homicide involontaire" (the charge actually brought) should not be too difficult a concept to grasp even if it is French.

The clue is in the "involontaire" part.

If you think that means deliberately set out to sabotage one of his own employer's aircraft in such a way that the damage would deliberately cause catastrophic damage

you might try looking up "involontaire" in a dictionary. If you don't have a French one to hand, look up "involontary"

RoyHudd

6th Dec 2010, 18:22

I witnessed the crash from my hotel room at the Copthorne, Roissy. I was flying for AF at the time, as a member of a 6-month wet-lease contract. AF were a shambles to work with, but that is not relevant.

The CDG airport taxiways were oftened contaminated with dirt and rubbish; the runways appeared no better when we were at slow speed. NO runway inspections were evident before the accident. The day after, the inspections STARTED. Try getting the French responsibles to investigating or admitting to this. Not a chance. A nation of cowards and liars, I am afraid, with little honour to their name, and little sense of shame.. My personal indictment covers French aviation, and this shameful verdict is in perfect fitting with the French way.

wings folded

6th Dec 2010, 19:38

Norodnik

We all know the BEA is a complete joke along with most of the French Court system.

No, we do not all know that.

Do not presume to speak for others.

What exactly is your level of familiarity with French judicial process?

Thunderpants

6th Dec 2010, 19:58

Wether the legal system is French, British or American, is frankly irrelevant. The point is, it is all about the LAW, very little to do with actual JUSTICE, and absolutely bu@@er all about basic COMMON SENSE.

How long before the entire Western World finally chokes to death on it's own legal systems?

bearfoil

6th Dec 2010, 20:02

Is Rolls Royce familiar with French Jurisprudence? Re: Airbus? What did the Engine maker know and when did they know it? Thread selection has become problematic, I see a Fraud prosecution, French style, relative to QF32? Marque damage?

oldchina

6th Dec 2010, 20:04

The typical Brit in the street assumes the judiciary is above political interference.

The typical français in the street accepts the judiciary can be influenced by politicians.

infrequentflyer789

6th Dec 2010, 20:26

The CDG airport taxiways were oftened contaminated with dirt and rubbish; the runways appeared no better when we were at slow speed. NO runway inspections were evident before the accident. The day after, the inspections STARTED.

Whilst that might not suprise, it isn't relevant to the accident. The continental flight took off only a few minutes before Concorde, so unless they were inspecting between every departure it wouldn't have helped (see previous posts where others have confirmed that they didn't do that elsewhere, e.g. LHR).

It was bad luck for everyone that the continental flight happened to be followed by a plane that takes off unusally fast, making the consequences of tyre burst much worse. Had it been any other plane, I think we'd still be looking at a burst tyre, but not a hull loss with 100+ dead. Continental (had the debris been found) might still have been in the dock for breaking the rules, but not for manslaughter.

Han Special

6th Dec 2010, 20:31

I don't think racism is the issue. In view of the history Roy's comments are not unfair.

bearfoil

6th Dec 2010, 20:33

I think Roy's comments are not out of line at all, given the moment and the idiocy afoot in France. Strong, not out of line.

Robert Campbell

6th Dec 2010, 22:31

As Long as We're Bashing the French...

Taj Mahal visit by Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni causes anger and panic - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/8182337/Taj-Mahal-visit-by-Nicolas-Sarkozy-and-Carla-Bruni-causes-anger-and-panic.html)

Taj Mahal visit by Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni causes anger and panic
A romantic dusk visit to the Taj Mahal by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his wife Carla Bruni caused anger and panic as thousands of visitors were hurried from India's most celebrated tourist attraction.

I think the problem is an attitude which has been pervasive for many years in France.

Eisenhower had his problems with DeGaulle in WWII. Friends of mine just returned from a visit to France and tell me they loved everything about it except the French.

wiggy

6th Dec 2010, 22:51

I think more likely it's an attitude that's been pervasive in the Daily Telegraph for years. Do you think for one minute that if Mr President and Michelle had wanted to visit the Taj on his recent trip to India it wouldn't have been similarly cleared, causing similar "anger and panic"?

Eisenhower had his problems with DeGaulle in WWII...not exactly breaking news, so did Churchill and if you know your French history you'll know DeGaulle wasn't popular with a a significant portion of the French population, both during and after WWII....

Friends of mine just returned from a visit to France and tell me they loved everything about it except the French.

Umm, two questions, did they venture beyond the tourist traps and can they speak French?

SLFinAZ

6th Dec 2010, 23:35

Tipsy Barossa

6th Dec 2010, 23:37

All aviators and all those in aviation must take FOD hazards very seriously. At the high speeds the airliners can sustain lethal damage to the undercarriage and the control surfaces when impacted by FOD. Any small pieces of material sucked into engines running at high rpms are going to be catastrophic. I am also amazed at the laisse faire attitudes when aircrafts have engine pod contacts with the runway or tailstrikes.....the cursory inspections done by the safety vehicles can easily miss tiny metal pieces that come off on impact.

Nick Thomas

6th Dec 2010, 23:48

Bear
I wonder if you would be kind enough to expand on your comment "given the moment and the idiocy afoot in France"
Regards
Nick

icarus5

6th Dec 2010, 23:58

I remember at the time of the crash a Captain whilst doing his walkaround at CDG came back to the UK with a sick bag that contained 36 metal items of litter (or FOD) which he had found. The next day having done another walkaround on different apron at CDG he had collected 38 items.
As these flights were being conducted for AF the items were photographed and emailed to AF, allegedly so that they could raise this issue at CDG's monthly safety meetings. Nothing was ever heard again by way of feedback.
For someone to be found guilty of a criminal offence the evidence should show guilt beyond reasonable doubt. How was it proven that that particular piece of titanium was the cause of the burst tyre? Given that the runway at CDG was usually only inspected/swept once early in the morning and again late in the day, how can anyone say there was not another piece of metal which caused it (bearing in mind the exceptional amount of FOD that was clearly everywhere on the apron) or that the tyre simply shredded itself (assuming this was the sole cause of the fire/failure)?
A runway is not a public road but owned and controlled by the Airport Authority. Airlines must pay to use it.The Authorities therefore owe a duty of care to ensure that it is not dangerous to operate off it.I would argue that only two such inspections comes nowhere near this requirement.
It would appear that this prosecution gets an awful lot of people off the hook, including the airport, AF, ATC, the manufacturers, the DGAC and the crew.

Robert Campbell

6th Dec 2010, 23:59

Nick Thomas

7th Dec 2010, 00:26

As I understand it the shape of the titanium strip matches the profile of the cut in the burst tyre. Therefore it may well be reasonable to assume that this strip caused the tyre burst.
Regards
Nick

bearfoil

7th Dec 2010, 00:28

Nick

"Heat of the moment"

idiocy: criminal trial? not by any acceptable standard.

"The purpose of this investigation is not to assign fault, but to identify.....etc."

Criminalizing this accident is a farce, imo.

cheers bear

Ranger 1

7th Dec 2010, 00:29

As a matter of personal interest who was responsible for the runway inspections at CDG at the time of the incident?
Has there been an improvement in the FOD situation airside since the incident?

Sunny Boyle

7th Dec 2010, 00:30

It is imperative that pilots not only log in onto their maintenance log these misadventures BUT REPORT TO ATC ASAP so that runway inspection can be done! Neglecting to do so is CRIMINAL!

SgtBundy

7th Dec 2010, 00:37

icarus5 - even the discovery documentaries about this crash show enough details to show what happened with respect to the strip found. The form and shape of the titanium strip found match exactly the tyre cut pattern on the burst tyre for a very large 70lb chunk of rubber that also matched the indentation on the wing.. They put the strip up against the rubber and it followed it exactly. That evidence is pretty clear in that regard.

This was not normal FOD - it was a roughly cut, jagged extremely stiff chunk of titanium instead of a properly manufactured aluminium strip. It was sharp and hard enough to slice a pretty substantial aircraft tyre on contact, where as the specification strip would have been crushed by the tyre.

Like any disaster, there is more than one aspect that contributes to the end result, but this strip is a major factor and in my view the critical one. Dismissing it and the raft of physical evidence relating to it is not rational. The legal and blame games are another matter, but don't just dismiss a critical fact because it disagrees with a jingoistic view of the matter.

Nick Thomas

7th Dec 2010, 00:38

Bear
Thanks for your prompt reply.
Regards
Nick

Ex Cargo Clown

7th Dec 2010, 00:38

How on Earth were the pilots to know that a strip of titanium had come off their aircraft?

It's just the same as repairing a wing item with Speedtape, you'd never knew it had come off. Can you really assign blame for that?

SgtBundy

7th Dec 2010, 00:41

ECC - I don't think anyone is blaming the Continental pilots. The maintenance worker who made and applied the strip and airline management who approved its use are the ones under charges.

Ex Cargo Clown

7th Dec 2010, 01:07

ECC - I don't think anyone is blaming the Continental pilots. The maintenance worker who made and applied the strip and airline management who approved its use are the ones under charges.

Have a look at the Sunny Boyle post a few up.

pct085

7th Dec 2010, 01:30

onetrack

7th Dec 2010, 01:56

The info must be around somewhere, and I haven't found it... but I have yet to see the dimensions of the titanium strip, and any pictures of the Concorde tyre that came into contact with the strip.
The information I have gleaned, is that the investigators report that the strip profile matched a massive slash in the tyre, and was undoubtedly the item responsible for the blowout.

As always, there is never one exact, precisely-responsible cause, for a disaster. It's always an escalating chain of events, with an amazing line up of those events.

One has to question how Concorde survived numerous (figures range from 57 to 65) previous tyre burst events.. yet this particular one was so catastrophic. Surely Concorde blew tyres previously, fully loaded, on TO? ... yet survived to continue flying?
Was it that the titanium strip provided a far more EXPLOSIVE burst, than a regular tyre burst, caused by overheat, overload/other factors?

I have no doubt the tyre burst event was THE crucial factor in the crash. To my mind, runway checks for debris, must be an equivalent factor to Continental negligence, that must also occupy a high level of responsibilty for the crash.

If the titanium strip was found, prior to the Concorde departure, it's reasonably obvious that the Concorde would have flown. Thus, in my view, there has to be equal responsibility shared between Continental and CDG management for the disaster.

mattyj

7th Dec 2010, 03:24

Was this verdict ever in question? I'm sure I, and many others predicted this years ago. French law is obviously a joke..on the bright side..if Continental could hold out for a few months, the fine will become minimal as the Euro plummets :}

On the other hand..Poor Mr Taylor..stitched up..there must be some Air France Engineers shifting uncomfortably in their beds tonight

Shame!!:=

Old Carthusian

7th Dec 2010, 04:53

I notice that accusations of 'French justice' have reared their ugly heads already as if the French somehow don't adhere to 'proper' standards of justice. Continental themselves are peddling that line though they didn't dispute the negligence charges. However, given the evidence, one finds it difficult to see how the French court could have ruled any other way. I seriously doubt any court in any country with a reasonable system of justice would have ignored the evidence presented.
The question that interests me is whether the court should have been involved in the first place. No blame reporting certainly leads to the truth coming out quicker but is it appropriate in a case where lives are lost? I put this as a question for serious consideration - shouldn't a seriously negligent (if that proves to be the case) individual or organisation be punished for their casual attitude to important matters? No blame can lead to no responsibility which is not where we want to go. In fact the unedifying thing about this business is not the conduct of the court which was exemplary but the efforts of all those involved to deny or mitigate their responsibility in this issue (and this includes the French participants as well as the Americans).

ozaub

7th Dec 2010, 04:59

All the info "onetrack" needs is in the BEA accident report. Google it.
Concerning the missing spacer the accident report clearly illustrates it and clearly shows how omission of the spacer caused the MLG bogie to be misaligned. It seems to me that without the loose bogie Concorde would have followed a different path along the runway and would not have hit the debris!

jcjeant

7th Dec 2010, 05:37

Hi,

The epitaph that can be read on the tomb of the Concorde

I was born disabled with a delicate landing gear ..
The doctors could do nothing .. and this failure has caused my death and that of those I carried :uhoh:

sitigeltfel

7th Dec 2010, 06:11

Would anyone hazard an opinion that, had this accident not occurred, Concorde might still be flying?

Fargoo

7th Dec 2010, 06:34

Iron Duck

7th Dec 2010, 08:48

SLFinAZ

The witnesses to the possibility of a fire before the Concorde encountered the titanium strip are the on duty fire fighting crew at the airport. So not only do you have multiple witnesses but they would qualify as testifying in an area of professional expertise.

I don't doubt the expertise of the witnesses, although it is well known that memory is imprecise and can shift subject to "expectations". Might they have conflated their memory of seeing reheat with the fire they subsequently saw?

If the aircraft was on fire prior to the tyre burst, what might have caused it? Were there any indications of fire on the FDR prior to hitting the strip?

ozaub

7th Dec 2010, 09:13

There is no way that Concorde could have continued in service any longer than it did. Quite apart from economics and the Paris crash it could not comply with aging wire rules.
It's widely overlooked that after Concorde returned to service, on 13 June 2003 a BA Concorde had an undetected fuel fire! Plane was flying LHR to JFK when a fuel gauge failed. Defect persisted as an allowable deferred defect for 3 more flights until investigation on 23 June belatedly found that aircraft had suffered in-flight fire. Fuel had leaked into wing to body fairing and been ignited by chaffed, shorting wire. Miraculously the fire self extinguished.
AAIB Report at http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/dft_avsafety_pdf_029047.pdf gives details and has pictures showing extent of undetected fire damage.
That fright was the true end of Concorde because the cost of checking and refurbishing wires would have been prohibitive.

flynerd

7th Dec 2010, 09:59

Perhaps the court could have had some regard for the roughness of the French tarmac/runway that caused the titanium strip to come off.

After all, it had remained in place for many hours after it was attached.
And perhaps the fasteners were faulty and failed early. Not the problem of the engineer who applied the strip.

FN

sitigeltfel

7th Dec 2010, 10:34

PBL

7th Dec 2010, 10:36

I really do recommend to anyone wishing to comment on the details of the accident that they read the report, which has been available on the BEA WWW site for nine years now. Before you write your opinions, please!

I am surprised to find people admitting that the word "unprecedented" makes no sense to them. Dictionaries are available on the WWW.

I have it on authority that none of the tire-burst incidents, which are a common-enough occurrence and obviously were explicitly considered during design and test, had shown any problem with the lower wing skin. It was not penetrated in any of them. This includes the Washington Dulles incident. [Edit on 13.12.2010: This is incorrect. As stated by others, the lower skin was penetrated in 6 previous incidents.] Indeed, I don't believe it was penetrated from the outside in the Gonesse accident either. It was penetrated from the inside, by a shock wave in the liquid fuel punching out a roughly 32cm-square portion of the tank wall/skin. Such effects were known to the military through battle damage, but knowledge had not made it into civil aviation. Associates of the BEA were able to create a comparable effect using a 4.5kg rubber chunk travelling obliquely (apparently round about 30° is optimal) at about 140 m/s. That is somewhat over 300 mph and is thought to be representative of what might be attained by a cleanly cut chunk of rubber of the size found amongst the debris expelled by the tire under circumstances of takeoff.

The BEA performed experiments on Concorde tires and titanium strips to validate the clean-cutting mechanism observed on the recovered debris. It is in the report, with pictures to satisfy every taste. It is titanium that does it, not other metals or alloys.

Such an event has never happened before or since in civil aviation. In 105 years of it. Indeed, I don't know of another occasion when an aircraft tire has been inadvertently cut by a titanium strip during normal operations.

Is it now more clear why the word "unprecedented" is suitable?

ozaub, the reason Concorde flights stopped is that the manufacturer was unwilling to continue supporting the aircraft. This is all known history. BA wouldn't have stopped on their own. They had just paid to refurbish their entire fleet with tank liners.

PBL

forget

7th Dec 2010, 10:43

... a fuel gauge failed.... deferred defect for 3 flights. Investigation found aircraft had in-flight fire. Fuel had leaked into wing/body fairing and been ignited by chaffed, shorting wire... the fire self extinguished.

ozaub, can you point to a report on this? All seems a bit unlikely to me.

flynerd

7th Dec 2010, 10:47

@sitigeltfel

You're kidding..........right?
To a degree, yes. Just extending the Cause and Effect already applied in this legal case.

FN

infrequentflyer789

7th Dec 2010, 10:53

The wrong question appeared to be asked here. The simple question to ask is whether a plane ought to be able to survive running over a piece of metal on the runway of that type and size. I don't think it reasonable to assume the runway is clear of debris like this.

IMO debris like this is pretty much certain to burst a tyre if it is run over, and I doubt you could design a tyre that could survive it.

Other types have had hull losses due to tyre burst on takeoff, and I think it is likely that more (if not most) are actually vulnerable given the right amount of bad luck.

Even if you manage to engineer out (in theory) all directly fatal consequences of a tyre burst, you still have the issue of a burst at or near V1 leading to a high speed RTO with all the risk that entails. Sure, in that case we can all look at it afterwards with benefit of an armchair and hindsight and say "bad RTO decision" and put it down to pilot error, but pilots shouldn't really be having to cope with titanium caltraps falling off the plane in front.

Debris like this is always going to be potentially lethal and should not be on the runway, or bodged onto a plane so that it can fall onto the runway.

flydive1

7th Dec 2010, 11:02

I have no doubt the tyre burst event was THE crucial factor in the crash. To my mind, runway checks for debris, must be an equivalent factor to Continental negligence, that must also occupy a high level of responsibilty for the crash.

If the titanium strip was found, prior to the Concorde departure, it's reasonably obvious that the Concorde would have flown. Thus, in my view, there has to be equal responsibility shared between Continental and CDG management for the disaster.

Well to achieve 100% safety you would have to perform a check before every take off.
That would mean a take every what, about 10 mins? Long waiting line at the holding point me think.

.if Continental could hold out for a few months, the fine will become minimal as the Euro plummets

You think the Euro will go the way the dollar did?;)

FAStoat

7th Dec 2010, 11:14

Unless my memory has been playing tricks,I was under the impression the Air France Concord that crashed had arrived with a Fuel Pump problem that had meant the Reheat control on one engine could not be controlled properly.I was actually operating an Aeropostale route at the time and was South Side at De Gaulle,but in the Altaea Hotel when it happened.The talk was that the Aircraft had arrived with the Fuel or ?Pump problem,but was required to be dispatched again later that afternoon.As a result the line maintenance apparently changed the problem items,but did NOT move the aircraft over to the area east of the Carrousel,near I think the Sierra Parking ,where full bore runs can be done-there are JBDs there for that purpose as I remember.The was no time to move the aircraft to that point to do full bore runs,as it would mean a delay on the departure slot,so as I was lead to believe, checks were only done with idle ground runs,done presumably on stand!?Furthermore several aircraft reported an engine afterburner fire on the immediate part of the take off run,so there would have been a likely accident before running over the debris,that snowballed the problem into the catastrophe that occurred.With Le Bourget just a short distance away with a runway capable for the aircraft to make an emmergency landing,why a small bank was not made to effect such an emmergency landing,we will never know.BUT the talk at the time was one of incredulity that nothing was done by the Crew or Air Traffic to try to stop the Aircraft as it must have been before V1 that the other pilots reported the Fire from one engine,or was it??I accept that after V1 other issues take precedence and that the Fire has to be taken into the air,but I suggest this would not have happened at other large International Airports.

infrequentflyer789

7th Dec 2010, 11:22

Personally I think there are 3 issues that come to mind when looking at the "verdict"....

1) The witnesses to the possibility of a fire before the Concorde encountered the titanium strip are the on duty fire fighting crew at the airport. So not only do you have multiple witnesses but they would qualify as testifying in an area of professional expertise.

Multiple eyewitnesses with relevant military experience saw TWA800 get hit by a missile. Guess that must be another corrupt French cover-up inquiry ? :}

Reality is eyewitness evidence in events like this (matter of seconds) is notoriously unreliable and you should be looking for physical evidence to back it up, or rule it out. No physical evidence backs the earlier fire theory.

2) As mentioned there have been multiple instances of tire failure causing perforation to the fuel tanks prior to this incident (6 I believe).

But not to the same catastrophic extent. There have also been incidents on other aircraft...

3) The cause of the fire is not necessarily the same as the tire failure. Even if we discount the eyewitness testimony some combination of tire failure and an another event is needed to cause the actual fire. It is my understanding that the Concorde took out multiple runway lights during its takeoff run and that the "tracking" problems were not specific to the tire failure.

The problems all started at the tyre failure. If you think the missing spacer caused the aircraft to go off track, then you need to show a reason why it happened when it did on this flight. The aircraft had already flown without the spacer, without incident. What was different ? The tyre burst. Causitive or massively improbable coincidence ?

This is all separate from the obvious common sense that a plane with a demonstrated history of potentially catastrophic damage due to tire failure needed not only design modification but common sense safe guards like runway inspections prior to take off.

So you think runways should be inspected every time before, say, a Lear 60 takes off ?

paulftw

7th Dec 2010, 11:31

Once while playing golf in Singapore at the Laguna National Golf and Country Club, which is right under the flight arrival or departure for one of the runway's, on the Masters Course on hole 2, I found on the green a piece of metal. It had a serial number on it and the only way it got there was by falling of an aircraft. Being in the Airside operations (runway lighting etc) I called Changi and informed them, put on hold, and then told they would call my mobile back. They did, I told then the serial number (which was in full) and then continued my golf game. By this time my putting was off, my drive ruined and my concentration gone. Should I blame Boeing or Airbus for this happening? If I was French, why not, it's their fault. I feel they (the French) have just simply lost the plot. Guess I’m not French huh. In Future could all aircraft shedding parts please do so over Batam Island like Qantas who has the courtesy to do this, that way my golf will improve!

Keep swinging

Paul

Nick Thomas

7th Dec 2010, 11:56

Paulftw
If you want to propose that the French have "simply lost the plot" then at least get your facts straight. The titanium strip should not have been fitted to the DC10. In fact the part should have been aluminium which being a lot softer might well have not cut the tyre.
Enjoy your golf
Nick

Cacophonix

7th Dec 2010, 12:06

I am surprised to find people admitting that the word "unprecedented" makes no sense to them. Dictionaries are available on the WWW.I appreciate the suggested use of a dictionary but I am well aware of the usual definition of the word 'unprecedented'.

The truth is that a tyre blow out (of which there were 65 over the life of the Concorde) had become an all too familiar event. It seems specious to argue that an explosive blowout could not have been foreseen and the risk analysis undertaken to look at the likely scenario/s that might and finally did transpire. (I appreciate the detailed analysis in your post).

There had been sufficient previous evidence of the likelihood of damage for this event, violent as it was, not to be regarded as 'unprecedented'.

The fact that it was caused by titanium and not a mechanic's screw driver or a sharp piece of swarf or even a common or garden nail is ultimately irrelevent to the fact there was a definable risk of puncture on a runway (and this risk is increased on a runway that is is not cleared and surveyed regularly).

Some punctures certainly are worse than others given factors like speed, size of the object etc. but to say that contact with a sharp object and consequent tyre destruction of this magnitude could not have been foreseen just pushes the boundaries of credibility.

What was unprecdented was that this particular blowout (whatever the cause) caused the aircraft to crash which should not have been possible!

Still, like the French lawyers, we are tilting at windmills. The sad fact is that the accident did occur, people still grieve and Concorde is gone.

stuckgear

7th Dec 2010, 12:08

BA wouldn't have stopped on their own. They had just paid to refurbish their entire fleet with tank liners.

PBL

Why did BA do that ?

... engineers have begun fitting [Concorde] with new linings to its fuel tanks and shielding wiring in the undercarriage areas.

The new fuel tank liners, (which are similar in appearance to seed trays) - [B]manufactured by EADS, the former Aerospatiale, in Toulouse - are made of a kevlar-rubber compound and cost around £17,000 Each. They have been designed to contain the fuel should the wing skin be punctured,

hmmmmmm

jcjeant

7th Dec 2010, 12:33

Hi,

A little of topic (but is about money .. so not too much far from one of the trial objective :) )

You think the Euro will go the way the dollar did?
Sure he will .. after the bankrupt of Portugal and Spain (Spain will be the big bail out too far !)

PBL

7th Dec 2010, 12:38

It seems specious to argue that an explosive blowout could not have been foreseen and the risk analysis undertaken to look at the likely scenario/s that might and finally did transpire.

It does happen to be the consensus view of everyone I know working in and around the aircraft at the time, as well as that of the investigators, as I understand it.

PBL

jcjeant

7th Dec 2010, 12:39

Hi,

But not to the same catastrophic extentIndeed .. the Washington even was not so catastrophic .. but anyways the plane was scrapped.
And the remplacement plane was ironically the one who crashed in Gonesse.

jcjeant

7th Dec 2010, 12:48

Hi,

... engineers have begun fitting [Concorde] with new linings to its fuel tanks and shielding wiring in the undercarriage areas.

The new fuel tank liners, (which are similar in appearance to seed trays) - [B]manufactured by EADS, the former Aerospatiale, in Toulouse - are made of a kevlar-rubber compound and cost around £17,000 Each. They have been designed to contain the fuel should the wing skin be punctured, That demonstrate they where full aware of the danger represented by the problems in case of fuel tanks puncture ...
This danger come from the design of the Concorde ... gear .. fuel tanks and engines locations .
The Washington event was a eyes opener.
The catastrophe was fully predictable .. what was not know was where and when.

md80fanatic

7th Dec 2010, 13:48

The form and shape of the titanium strip found match exactly the tyre cut pattern on the burst tyre for a very large 70lb chunk of rubber that also matched the indentation on the wing.. They put the strip up against the rubber and it followed it exactly. That evidence is pretty clear in that regard.

I am not so sure about the ability to accurately reassemble a burst tire using a piece of rubber that is said to have penetrated fully two wing skins and at least one full fuel tank, and finally land on the runway still with high momentum. To say the edge line perfectly matches a bent up titanium strip is near ludicrous to suggest.

Tire bursts are chaotic events at the moment of the burst. Forces are high enough to penetrate as was displayed 6 times before. What makes one believe that a force strong enough to penetrate the wing/tanks would not be enough to further mangle a titanium strip that is said to have been at the center of the event? Would a pre-burst strip topography precisely match the post-burst tire pattern? No one can possibly discern such. (except for the French apparently)

onetrack

7th Dec 2010, 13:53

Fargoo, thanks for the excellent pics and report link, which I wasn't able to find initially.

The simple fact remains that it is obvious the Concorde was built with inherent minimal tyre reserve strength.
The Concorde tyres operated at 225-230 psi (15-20% more pressure than a 747-400 tyre).
They were tasked to run to over 200 kts at VR (as compared to a 747-400's 163 kts).
The Concorde tyres were a smaller diameter than any other comparable aircraft.
The wing sheeting on Concorde was thinner than comparable aircraft.
The fuel load was enormous - 26,286 Imperial gallons (119,500 litres/95,600 kgs).
The tyres were tasked to operate at FL60, leading to even higher tyre stresses, than other aircraft tyres.

There were 70 Concorde tyre burst events between 1976 and 1999. 7 of those events resulted in metallic shards piercing the fuel tanks. The metal came from the water deflectors on the undercarriage. BA added additional deflectors to their Concordes to deflect tyre and water deflector shards... but AF didn't.

And even after all this... Mike Bell, the CAA's head of design and production standards, states: (quote - late Aug, 2000) "This is unique. We could not believe that a single tyre failure could lead to the loss of an aircraft"... :ugh:

This... despite the well-known, and often-repeated warnings of the massive explosive power of an instantaneous tyre burst... reported to be the equivalent of "4-5 sticks of dynamite".
It's obvious the powers-that-be, never even remotely considered runway debris as a serious risk to Concorde operation.

In the case of the Concorde, it appears that there was a long-held and over-ruling belief, in important aviation quarters (and not just AF)... that there was no serious tyre damage potential... and no attempt was ever made, to examine the all-too-obvious disaster potential... from tyres that had virtually no reserve strength in their design, from day one.

Tire Explosions Can Discharge Energy Equivalent to Dynamite | Air Safety Week | Find Articles at BNET (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_32_14/ai_63944420/)

crazyaviator

7th Dec 2010, 14:37

In the case of the Concorde, it appears that there was a long-held and over-ruling belief, in important aviation quarters (and not just AF)... that there was no serious tyre damage potential... and no attempt was ever made, to examine the all-too-obvious disaster potential... from tyres that had virtually no reserve strength in their design, from day one.

Reminded me of the shuttle disaster The leading edge was perforated by ice accumulation from the fuel tank,,,, everyone also thought it couldnt have the force necessary to break the LE material,,,but after the simulation tests, everyones jaw dropped!! Physics and peoples opinions DONT MIX . Human nature is NOT proactive by nature but rather it is reactive !

Coffin Dodger

7th Dec 2010, 14:46

Forget asked re Concorde in-flight wing fire (post #113): can you point to a report on this? All seems a bit unlikely to me.http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/dft_avsafety_pdf_029047.pdf

AlphaZuluRomeo

7th Dec 2010, 14:55

Well... First post here, so hello everybody :)

I'm a French national, and a bit astonished (to say the last) by the amount of french bashing around here, often "backed-up" by inconsistant / irrelevant / wrong "technical data".:yuk: :sad:

I won't try to answer to those who make soooo intelligent comments, except to ask them, perhaps :
- to look by themselves at what can occur in their countries sometimes, and
- to read the public material available on the accident.

I would like to thank, on the other hand, the posters who wrote interesting, informed & relevant posts. :D

On the topic, now :
I'm not confortable with the verdict of the court. I do think "french interests" (to bee precise : french administration (DGAC, BEA), industry (Aerospatiale/EADS), and operators (AF, ADP)) were somehow overly protected : Some of them do share responsability of the fatal events (Reason's model), for not having taken into account the previous incidents. [edit] My mistake, I should have read better : Eventually the court DID take that into account, with the 70%-30% amount sharing.
However, I do think Continental's way of defending itself (abstract : "it's not our fault, the plane was already burning") is based on biased facts/beliefs and/or unconvincing testimonies (**), therefore being far(ther ?) from the truth...

Cheers,
AZR

(*) If anybody's got a link to a list of testimonies including the professional qualities and position at the time of the accident of the witnesses, please provide it : I remember the french TV reporters "contre-enquête" but had found it unconvincing...

PT6fixer

7th Dec 2010, 15:11

With apparently several burst tire incidents it is a wonder not more has been done to protect the tanks or manufacture other stronger tires prior to this incident.
And can anybody tell me why the mechanic in Continental ultimately is the guy being sentenced?
He must have a maintenance manager or supervisor that oversees his work.
And unless he has kept it out of sight of those very people i fail to see why they haven´t gotten a sentence too?
Instead of the buck stopping at the very top, it has stopped at floor level in this case.

Nick Thomas

7th Dec 2010, 15:20

md80fanatic
Am I correct in assuming that you believe that the tyre fragment penetrated the wing? My understanding is that it did not as the impact caused a percussive shock wave in the wing tank. Please see PBL's post 38.
Therefore I submit that it's possible to examine the tyre fragment to determine if the cut was caused by the titanium strip.
If you disagree with that statement it would be helpful if you could back your opinion up with verifiable facts.
Regards
Nick

forget

7th Dec 2010, 15:26

Thanks CD, ozaub inferred that the incident was spontaneous when, in fact, it came about through damage to the wiring - which rather kills his suggestion that the aircraft needed re-wiring.

In 2001, routine inspection of the wing structure had detected cracks in the area of spar 66, Figure 2, and in order to complete the structural repair, it was necessary to disturb the wiring. It is likely that in reinstating the wiring the possibility for the chafe to occur was introduced.

Bergerie1

7th Dec 2010, 15:27

PBL (your post 112)

Thank you for being the calm voice of reason. Far too many posters sound off without studying the facts.

cwatters

7th Dec 2010, 15:49

MD80Fanatic -

They did many tests to see of similar strips could cause tyre damage. . See page 98 onwards..

http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-sc000725a/pdf/f-sc000725a.pdf

They also found rubber from concord tyre in the rivet holes on the strip.

lomapaseo

7th Dec 2010, 16:14

Some Pros and Cons to ponder

From a data standpoint (historical)

Runway debris is always a risk

The risk decreases with runway usage (stuff blown off runway by jet exhaust etc.)

Tires blow out due to debris often whether made out of titanium or not

Tires go up and hit wings often

Metal pieces of blown tires are less often encounterd but when they happen they do put small holes in wings

Small holes in fuel tanks due to blown tires are rare

Fuel leaks from small holes in tanks being ignited at takeoff speeds are quite rare

Large holes in fuel tanks due to blown tires are quite rare

taking the combinations together (as in this accident) were arguably not forseeable in the life of the fleet.

Hindsight of course can always predict the past

The trial was unfair in that it failed to consider probabilities and sellected only a single probable contributor for blame.

Diversification

7th Dec 2010, 16:46

CJ

I have drilled many times in titanium and its alloys and also machined it in lathes. No problem if one uses standard hss type sharp drills. We usually squirted some denaturated alcohol on the drill and used not too high rotation speed. Very much like drilling is some alumina alloys.
However, if the titanium had been heat-treated it had a very hard surface which usually was removed by etching before machining. The most spectacular thing is that when you operate your tools at too high speed, the removed matter may start to burn with a strong white light and emission of white smoke.

Regards

ChristiaanJ

7th Dec 2010, 16:52

lomapaseo,
Finally another sensible post, thanks.

My own take on the matter, for what it's worth.

The tyre burst itself did not cause the crash.
It caused a major fuel leak.
If that leaking fuel had not caught fire almost immediately, the outcome might have been very different.

The accident was a combination of events in a chain, as nearly always.

There were two major events:
* an unprecedented tyre burst causing a major fuel leak,
* the leaking fuel caught fire.

All the other issues, dragged out endlessly, merely determined how exactly the subsequent events evolved.
None of them would have caused the crash by themselves.
None of them would have done anything other than move the crash location slightly........

CJ

wings folded

7th Dec 2010, 17:00

lomapaseo

The trial was unfair in that it failed to consider probabilities and sellected only a single probable contributor for blame.

No, it did not.

The very reason for the trial was to establish what caused the loss of life of the victims.

The decision was made by a panel of three career judges (not elected muppets; in fact people who have gone through a selection process which would have left you and me gasping at the roadside) after 3 or 4 months of evidence and a 6 month period of reflection to come up with the judgement.

One of your cherised national carriers was found to have been faulty. And one of its employees.

The sanctions called for were at the best modest.

Euro 175,000 was demanded against Continental. Euro 200,000 was awarded.

The mechanic's sentence in prison is suspended, as demanded by the prosecution. He would never have been rendered to France to serve a jail sentence anyway, since your nation does not extradite its nationals.

Trials are designed, indeed meant, to clarify what happened. That is what occurred.

bearfoil

7th Dec 2010, 17:01

ChristiaanJ

With respect, I think it is popular to subscribe to "Holes in Cheese". I think it not wrong, but a titch misleading. The first hole is what is known in some approaches as the procuring cause, The rest of the holes really are more like "results".

In this accident, as we see here, the Titanium is the procuring cause only if one wishes it to be. Nothing of any conclusive nature rising to acceptable thresholds for Criminal prosecution exists here, IMO.

all respect, Sir

Bear

ChristiaanJ

7th Dec 2010, 17:03

I have drilled many times in titanium and its alloys and also machined it in lathes. No problem if one uses standard hss type sharp drills. We usually squirted some denaturated alcohol on the drill and used not too high rotation speed. Very much like drilling is some alumina alloys.Thanks for removing my mis-conception about machining titanium.
It doesn't excuse the mistake by the Continental mechanic, but it does make it a bit more understandable.

CJ

bearfoil

7th Dec 2010, 17:12

Diversification

Are you sure the debris was "burning"? If so, would you be concerned about the part being machined? Could it be atmospheric gases being liberated and then oxidizing?

Would you want an inert environment if "burning" was possible?

I have trouble with Stainless!!! :ok:

wings folded

7th Dec 2010, 17:13

Mr Bear
Nothing of any conclusive nature rising to acceptable thresholds for Criminal prosecution exists here, IMO.

In your opinion, (if I understand "IMO" correctly), there should not have been a trial at all.

I have some experience of the insurance consequencies of the loss of an aircraft.

A lot of my experience is US based

A lot is European based

Part of that is French based.

Each nation applies its own legal regime to the problem.

infrequentflyer789

7th Dec 2010, 17:18

The trial was unfair in that it failed to consider probabilities and sellected only a single probable contributor for blame.

Agreed but for that last one - it seems they actually did do more than blame the repair and the engineer.

Continental were found guilty as a corporate entity, plus the individual engineer who did the repair. The head of Continental's maintenance was found not guilty as an individual. Concorde designers (and I think a regulator) were also found not guilty of manslaughter as individuals.

However, (and not as widely reported) the court also assigned responsibility for damages - 70% against continental and 30% against EADS as the manufacturer. In doing this they are clearly assigning some of the blame to the Concorde design.

What I do think is unfair, is that this court has (I think) only been able to look at the defendants before it - I don't think they were procedurally able to assign any blame to AF (for example), whatever the evidence, because someone previously decided not to prosecute AF.

bearfoil

7th Dec 2010, 17:19

wings

You make a conclusion that "There should not have been a trial".

One cannot know that without the Trial taking place. An indictment is not a proof, and no finding can prevent a Trial from occurring, that is up to the Jurisdiction, (French, in this case).

If you don't like uncertainty, you should practice in Appeals!!

So, on the contrary, I believe wholeheartedly in the Trial's necessity.

bear

ChristiaanJ

7th Dec 2010, 17:29

bearfoil,
I think we went through this before.... there IS a difference between a trial and an inquest.

Lemurian

7th Dec 2010, 18:13

post 75
NO runway inspections were evident before the accident.
May be they were done when you weren't there?
I know they have been doing three inspections a day for quite a long while, sometimes only two when they had exercises.
Have heard of airport certification
A nation of cowards and liars, I am afraid, with little honour to their name, and little sense of shame.. My personal indictment covers French aviation, and this shameful verdict is in perfect fitting with the French way.
...and you had to work for them for six months !
In your place, I would have voted with my feet a lot earlier.
So who is a coward for not being able to back up his very strong ideas with very strong attitudes ?
Pathetic !

cwatters

7th Dec 2010, 19:22

In many countries there is a general principal of law that says that you must take victims "as you find them" (sometimes refered to as the "eggshell skull principle"). Basically it means if you shout BOO at someone and it turns out they have a weak heart and drop down dead you are still considered guilty of manslaughter even though you had no way of knowing that they had such a weakness.

Take Your Victim As You Find Them | ICBC Personal Injury Claims Lawyer Erik Magraken | Victoria & Vancouver Island BC (http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/tag/take-your-victim-as-you-find-them)

Obviously you can claim you didn't intend to kill them and that should be considered in mitigation but you are still guilty. It's not the victims fault that they have a weakness.

Capetonian

7th Dec 2010, 19:47

Try getting the French responsibles to investigating or admitting to this. Not a chance. A nation of cowards and liars, I am afraid, with little honour to their name, and little sense of shame.. My personal indictment covers French aviation, and this shameful verdict is in perfect fitting with the French way.

My experience too. I have also worked with these people and to the above delightful characteristics I would add that they are lazy and devious, and that's without even discussing some of their endearing personal traits. And I got a ban from JetBlast for saying so but it seems freer speech is allowed on this forum.

DozyWannabe

7th Dec 2010, 19:47

That demonstrate they where full aware of the danger represented by the problems in case of fuel tanks puncture ...

Hate to break it to you, but the Kevlar liners were *designed* and fitted *after* the Gonesse crash as part of the return to airworthiness programme applied to Concorde. EADS, being the parent company of Airbus - which at the time held assets of the former Aerospatiale and BAC - would therefore be the logical supplier.

The redesigned tyres actually made the Kevlar liners redundant, but they'd been front and centre of reports into the work done, so they were kept as an extra safety layer.

I've kept my mouth shut on the wonderful Concorde thread in Tech Log, but some of the invective here really upsets me, so forgive me if I repeat what has already been stated but I want to make a few things clear.

Assertion : The court found no blame attached to any French organisation - FALSE.

As has been stated, EADS (as the parent firm that subsumed Aerospatiale and part of BAC) were found partially responsible.

Assertion : There is still reasonable doubt as to whether the titanium strip was the first link in the chain - FALSE.

Every test run indicates that the logical progression of events starts with the strip piercing the tyre. Every potential alternative cause (including the wheel spacer) was run and the chain of events did not fit.

Assertion : Concorde's design was fundamentally flawed - FALSE

Concorde was designed in the 1960s, and indeed was one of the first airliners to have aspects of systems safety incorporated into the design (see the Tech Log thread) - the airframe was as safe, if not safer than any other aircraft of that vintage.

I'm deeply saddened that some of the comments seem to have been written without even a cursory read of the findings, seemingly based on prejudice against the French justice system and French aviation. This feeds into the conspiracy bumpf and doesn't become a forum that prides itself on the professionalism of the pilots and crew that have made their home here.

Stanley Eevil

7th Dec 2010, 20:15

Could somebody please confirm/clarify: was an engine(s) shutdown that was still producing significant thrust during this emergency?

bearfoil

7th Dec 2010, 20:20

A very stringent effort to merge Concorde with existing technologies and geographies was undertaken, and for the most part quite successful. The Convair B-58 had weenie tyres and quite high launch v's. It experienced, as a military a/c, all that was forties and fifties about aviation.

I am surprised some one takes this trial as an affront to Concorde. I must have been asleep, but how so? She did everything asked, in elegant fashion. Duff tyres, Fred Sanford's aerodrome (s), slop maintenance are not in her quiver, she is the victim of such things, not the accomplice, imo.

Diversification

7th Dec 2010, 20:45

Bear
"Are you sure the debris was "burning"? If so, would you be concerned about the part being machined? Could it be atmospheric gases being liberated and then oxidizing?
Would you want an inert environment if "burning" was possible?"

That fine and hot threads from machining of Ti in a lathe will burn in air is well known - much like e.g. magnesium, zirconium, uranium and plutonium. Cooling liquid is normally applied to the tool edge to prevent this. These fires almost never spread to more massive parts of the metal. The reactions behind is a mixture of oxidation and nitriding of hot metal. All rather well investigated.

Regards

KBPsen

7th Dec 2010, 21:14

I wonder why people keep focusing on the wear strip being made of titanium and insisting it should have been made of aluminum, when it is quite clearly stated in the accident report that it should have been made of stainless steel.

Let me quote from page 105 1.16.6.2 Manufacturer’s Documentation ...The wear strip is made of stainless steel... And from page 97 ...stainless steel whose mechanical strength characteristics are similar to titanium... That the wear strip was made of incorrect material was of no consequence.

DozyWannabe

7th Dec 2010, 21:41

KBPSen:

Note use of the word "similar". That word (ir its French equivalent) would be chosen for a very specific legal reason. If the properties were identical, then your point that the material would have made no difference would be fair.

As it is, the tensile and mechanical properties of titanium versus stainless steel must be different enough that it would have made a difference, otherwise the court would not have come to the conclusion that it did.

KBPsen

7th Dec 2010, 21:54

Did the court concluded that it made a difference, or did it conclude that an incorrect material was used? Tests made at Goodyear using both titanium and SS strips seems to indicate no difference in results.

Iron Duck

7th Dec 2010, 21:54

FAStoat

Furthermore several aircraft reported an engine afterburner fire on the immediate part of the take off run

Looking at the BEA report (http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-sc000725a/pdf/f-sc000725a.pdf), it says on P77 that "The primary and secondary nozzles showed no signs of overheat on any of the engines"; on page 122 "It should, however, be noted that no traces of fire were discovered during the examination of the engines" and on page 134 "The observations and examinations carried out on the four engines brought to light no malfunction of any of their basic equipment or components, or any indication of any behaviour outside of the certificated norms. None of them showed any signs of overheat or overspeed prior to the impact with the ground."

I can't find any mention in the report of other aircraft reporting an afterburner fire. Then again, I could have missed it.

DozyWannabe

7th Dec 2010, 22:12

Looking at the event from a systems failure perspective, I would imagine that the incorrect fitting of the part was exacerbated by the part being made of the wrong material. Earlier posts indicate that titanium alloys can be worked in the same manner as stainless steel - if the fact that you're working with titanium is known - but it's likely that it probably caused some problems (see : incorrectly aligned drill holes).

jcjeant

7th Dec 2010, 22:20

Hi,

Did the court concluded that it made a difference, or did it conclude that an incorrect material was used? Tests made at Goodyear using both titanium and SS strips seems to indicate no difference in results.Unfortunately it's in french language ... but this point was subject of a looong discussion between experts , lawers and judge during the trial ........
The complete "minutes" of the trial can be found here:
2 février 2010 Procès du crash du CONCORDE (http://procesconcorde.fenvac.org/?m=20100202)

vapilot2004

7th Dec 2010, 22:42

I read this:
As it is, the tensile and mechanical properties of titanium versus stainless steel must be different enough that it would have made a difference, otherwise the court would not have come to the conclusion that it did.

Yet this has remained unanswered:
Did the court concluded that it made a difference, or did it conclude that an incorrect material was used? Tests made at Goodyear using both titanium and SS strips seems to indicate no difference in results.

Meanwhile:
There were 70 Concorde tyre burst events between 1976 and 1999. 7 of those events resulted in metallic shards piercing the fuel tanks. The metal came from the water deflectors on the undercarriage. BA added additional deflectors to their Concordes to deflect tyre and water deflector shards... but AF didn't.

The aircraft was overweight and took off downwind, yet the French court has assigned not one ounce of blame with the operator. Also, what is the significance of the missing wheel spacer? Were they located on the same bogey as the unlucky tire that met with the titanium strip?

DozyWannabe

7th Dec 2010, 22:53

The aircraft was overweight and took off downwind, yet the French court has assigned not one ounce of blame with the operator.

If I recall correctly, the all-up weight was just outside the recommended numbers, but was within safe limits. Neither the weight nor the downwind takeoff would have changed the outcome, hence AF's actions were not responsible for the accident.

Also, what is the significance of the missing wheel spacer? Were they located on the same bogey as the unlucky tire that met with the titanium strip?

That's a can of worms, because it's central to an alternative theory doing the rounds on the internet, but neither the BEA or AAIB people concerned seemed to think it had any real significance.

exeng

7th Dec 2010, 23:12

Could somebody please confirm/clarify: was an engine(s) shutdown that was still producing significant thrust during this emergency?

Yes it was - according to the tapes the F/E shut down the engine with a fire warning before the Captain asked for the engine to be shutdown.

That engine was producing thrust.

Whether that early shutdown would have affected the final outcome I do not have enough information to make a qualified judgement - but certainly the F/E shut down an engine producing thrust before any command from the Captain.

That action by the F/E was not an action I would have expected from any F/E in another airline that operated the aircraft.

Regards
Exeng

Ex Cargo Clown

7th Dec 2010, 23:47

A piece of stainless steel would have done the same damage, if not more.

It may have ended differently as the steel may have take a different trajectory due to the difference in densities, but I'd suggest that stainless steel hitting a wing would be far worse, as it is much heavier.

This all sounds incredibly iffy, and looks like a French cover-up for something.

DozyWannabe

7th Dec 2010, 23:50

That engine was producing thrust.

As I recall, it was barely producing thrust by the time they cleared the threshold and would have continued to decrease to practically none in a matter of seconds. The "controversy", if you can call it that, was purely that the F/E broke protocol by shutting it down without an order from the Captain.

The CVR indicates that they believed they were dealing with an engine fire at first, and I'd be willing to speculate that the Captain would have been fully focused on trying to maintain control as (unknown to him) the electronics and flight surfaces began to disintegrate - so the F/E made an executive decision to shut the engine down and pull the fire handle.

So to answer the original question of "was it producing significant thrust", the answer would have to be "unlikely", and the answer to the implied question of whether the outcome would have been affected would have to be "highly unlikely".

Ex-Cargo-Clown : There's no evidence that the strip itself hit the wing - the damage was caused by fragments of tyre striking the underside of the fuel tank and the fuel itself punching a hole through it due to fluid dynamics. I'd be interested to hear how this would constitute a "cover-up" because - as has been pointed out by several people - EADS (i.e Airbus) were also assigned some blame.

Ex Cargo Clown

8th Dec 2010, 00:06

Ex-Cargo-Clown : There's no evidence that the strip itself hit the wing - the damage was caused by fragments of tyre striking the underside of the fuel tank and the fuel itself punching a hole through it due to fluid dynamics. I'd be interested to hear how this would constitute a "cover-up" because - as has been pointed out by several people - EADS (i.e Airbus) were also assigned some blame.

Even better then, a piece of stainless steel would do exactly the same if not worse to the tyre, so why the concentrating on it being Ti rather than SS.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck......

blind pew

8th Dec 2010, 00:11

Tyre failure also caused the loss of a Swissair aircraft in the 1960s when it exploded after retraction and caused a catastrophic failure of the wing spar.

In my mind the Concorde prosecution was not the only dubious legal action taken by an aviation authority - the CAA prosecuted Captain Glen Stewart after he messed up a missed approach at Heathrow. A year later he committed suicide.

V1 is not a go/no go speed.
It is a reference speed in a balanced field take off - an engine failure at or below V1 will mean the aircraft should be able to stop within the runway (and associated stopway).
There have been many cases where a take off has been discontinued after V1 - rightly or wrongly.

Concorde had a directional control problem as well as the engine failure.
It rotated below VR and never attained V2 - if I remember correctly.
V2 is the engine out safety speed.
Despite the FO making several low speed calls speed was traded for altitude.
A swept wing stalls at approx. AOA of 45 degrees but has an exponential increase of drag with increase of AOA.

BA had a concord that had an engine go into reverse after lift off in the mid 70s - it passed over my house, at night, around 1000ft. My house was 35NM from LHR.
I believe the EngOut procedure was maintain V2 until 500ft, maintain 500ft until V?, maintain V? until 1500ft, maintain 1500ft until V??, climb at V??.
It crossed the Bristol channel at around 3000ft.

The point being on 3 engines at max TOW, with the gear up and cool tempr it's performance was marginal when flown at the correct speed; Gear down, engine out and below V2 no chance (unless it was flown in ground effect).

BEA had a Trident hit the approach lights during TO out of Malta at night with the stick shaker going - the captain flew it on radio altimeter in ground effect until he had burnt enough fuel and was able to accelerate to a normal flying speed.

It has surprised me that I have never seen a post re the decision to take an aircraft into the air when directional control has been lost????

Another observation - why did the CAA so quickly ground BA's Concords?

Did it have anything to do with the numerous AAIB reports of bits falling off and other incidents?

Were they waiting for an excuse?

And as the post regarding the French character traits as seen by the Anglo Saxons..... there are intelligent ones with flying ability and a sense of humour - I've met two!

DozyWannabe

8th Dec 2010, 00:30

...so why the concentrating on it being Ti rather than SS.
Read the preceding posts - it was a jerry-rigged part incorrectly fitted. I think the point is that if the part had been made of the correct material it would have been easier to fit correctly and would likely not have fallen off.

In my mind the Concorde prosecution was not the only dubious legal action taken by an aviation authority - the CAA prosecuted Captain Glen Stewart after he messed up a missed approach at Heathrow. A year later he committed suicide.

Apples and oranges - the French judicial system is automatically involved in air accidents in France in a way that it is not in the UK. I'm struggling to see the connection with the Stewart case - tragic though that was - where the CAA handled the investigation because the AAIB were fully committed to Kegworth.

It has surprised me that I have never seen a post re the decision to take an aircraft into the air when directional control has been lost????

I'm pretty sure it was covered in another thread many years ago, but I think the decision to get airborne had to do with being unable to stop within the remaining runway length (at the end of which was the main road into the airport), coupled with the fact that they weren't aware that they'd lost directional control - they thought they had an engine fire.

Another observation - why did the CAA so quickly ground BA's Concords?

Better safe than sorry. It's pretty easy to ground a type that only has 12 airframes in service.

KBPsen

8th Dec 2010, 00:58

it was a jerry-rigged part incorrectly fitted I don't see the BEA report suggesting anything beyond the material used not being to specifications. It is mentioned that an adjacent wear strip was impacting and distorting the strip when cowls were closed. Previous posts here on the matter seem based on the erroneous assumption that the strip should have been made of aluminum.

johns7022

8th Dec 2010, 02:08

Blame a piece of metal, a tack, chewing gum, whatever FOD you want........the pilots chose to 'GO' and rotated with a fire, rather then pull the levers and stand on the brakes.

wings folded

8th Dec 2010, 02:40

vapilot2004

8th Dec 2010, 03:26

Will take your word on the takeoff decision. Too bad the winds were not enough for ATC to switch runways. Could have been an entirely different story altogether.

That's a can of worms, because it's central to an alternative theory doing the rounds on the internet, but neither the BEA or AAIB people concerned seemed to think it had any real significance.

I'm guessing it had a purpose of some sort. Haven't really heard of the alternative theories other than this spacer seemed significant to many familiar with the case.

bearfoil

8th Dec 2010, 03:53

wings folded

You definitely say that I believe "there should have been no Trial". I said no such thing.

Your conclusion as to what I "Think" is incorrect.

bearfoil

jcjeant

8th Dec 2010, 04:21

Hi,

Read the preceding posts - it was a jerry-rigged part incorrectly fitted. I think the point is that if the part had been made of the correct material it would have been easier to fit correctly and would likely not have fallen off.When you read all the experts reports (at the trial) it's appears that this part was rigged incorrectly and was to fall one day or another made of the good or bad material.
The holes in the receiving body and in the part were not manufactured with the state of art .... (spacing .. number of .. etc)
(it was no one of the spare parts and so was manufactured on situ )
Also the mechanic added some bonding product (and it's appears to be not a practise in the maintenance book)

I don't see the BEA report suggesting anything beyond the material used not being to specifications. It is mentioned that an adjacent wear strip was impacting and distorting the strip when cowls were closed. Previous posts here on the matter seem based on the erroneous assumption that the strip should have been made of aluminum.Yes .. it is a know problem with this engine .. and this wear strip was to be replaced many time .. cause .. it's a wear strip
Also looong discussion during the trial about the problem ...

Golden Rivit

8th Dec 2010, 07:37

"I've never seen a reason given for why it might have been on fire before hitting the strip. Is there one?"
Yes ,"Pencil Whipping" the tire pressures on the line check,Along with wobbly wheel from missing spacer.
Also someone mentioned," the Concord had no design defects, How does that jibe with this,Continental is the ideal scapegoat. Besides the offense, in French eyes, of being foreign, a small titanium strip fallen from a Continental plane taking off before the Concorde was found on the runway. This, French investigators -- often loyal former employees of Air France -- conveniently concluded, slashed the Concord's tire and caused the accident. Case closed, with victims' families already paid generous financial settlements and sworn to silence.

That overlooks a few awkward things pointed out by Continental's lawyers and a dogged investigative reporter for a French TV channel. Like the plane being overloaded with baggage. Like a wheel spacer that, due to an Air France maintenance error, was missing from the left main gear, leaving it skewed. (Air France itself, whose careless maintenance was noted even by French investigators, is bumptiously suing Continental in the trial. Malicious gossips wonder why it's not a defendant instead.) Like testimony by a number of reliable eyewitnesses, including airport firemen and the veteran captain of Jacques Chirac's taxiing plane, that the Concorde caught fire several hundred yards before it could have struck the titanium strip.

But the most damning argument against Concorde is its record of near disasters. "French civil aviation authorities should have stopped Concorde service years ago," argues Olivier Metzner, Continental's lead lawyer. "They wanted to protect the image of France it projected." If the Paris disaster was Concord's first and only fatal crash, facts emerging in the current trial make clear that many passengers are lucky to be alive today: from 1976 to 2000 they unwittingly survived no fewer than 57 tire-related incidents. Thirty-two blowouts damaged the aircraft's structure, engines, or hydraulics, and six resulted in penetration of one or more fuel tanks.

The worst, uncannily like the Paris crash, occurred in Washington on June 14, 1979. Air France Flight 054 to Paris blew two tires on its left main gear on takeoff from Dulles airport, hurling rubber and wheel rim debris at the left wing and engines. After a frantic passenger practically forced a crew member to look through his window at a 12-square-foot hole in the wing, the flight crew barely managed a landing at Dulles with Jet A-1 fuel spewing from a dozen holes in fuel tanks, engine damage, severed electrical cables, and loss of two out of three hydraulic systems.

The near-catastrophes continued. James B. King, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, wrote to his French counterpart on November 9, 1981, expressing his "serious concern" about "the repetitive nature of these incidents." Besides the tire problems, Concord's occasionally lost parts of their elevators and rudders in flight. In 1998 the Federal Aviation Agency, noting "an unsafe condition" might exist on the Olympus engines that could result in shutdown or fire, ordered special inspections. As the resulting study warned presciently, "A major technical event would probably end Concorde operation."

wings folded

8th Dec 2010, 08:25

wings folded
You definitely say that I believe "there should have been no Trial". I said no such thing.
Your conclusion as to what I "Think" is incorrect.
bearfoil

Please explain your post number 139 which says inter alia:

Nothing of any conclusive nature rising to acceptable thresholds for Criminal prosecution exists here, IMO.

blind pew

8th Dec 2010, 09:22

http://www.1001crash.com/index-page-description-accident-concorde-lg-2-crash-164.html

Re loss of directional control on the runway - view image of soot trail on the runway.

There have been several take off abandons after V1 - some successful and others not.

The pilot handling should have realised that it wasn't a simple failure as he couldn't keep the aircraft on the runway.

An engine out, gear down and rotating way b4 Vr there was very little chance of continued flight.

It is always better to crash in control than not, better still don't crash at all.

DozyWannabe

8th Dec 2010, 11:12

blind pew:

The soot trail indicates the path both before and after the aircraft got into the air - it would have been entirely reasonable for the Captain to assume that the loss of directional stability on the ground was due to the tyre burst and elect to get airborne. Once in the air the crew got an indication of an engine fire, which - they believed - was their primary problem right up until the end. If it had been just a burst tyre and an engine fire, they would have had ample time and thrust to make it to Le Bourget, which was again indicated by the CVR as their intended course of action. Unfortunately it is unlikely they were ever aware of the full scale of their predicament.

Golden Rivit:

I have not the words. Let's start with the fact that the court found EADS (part French, remember...) partially responsible and work forward from there.

Ex Cargo Clown

8th Dec 2010, 11:38

Two things greatly concern me about this bizarre decision.

Firstly, I believe the aircraft "collected" a bit of airfield lighting and grass due to going "off piste", I'm pretty sure Concorde had enought rudder/NWS authority to cope with assymetric thrust, so that was probably the spacer = AF fault

Secondly, I'm no Concorde pilot, but I do know Delta wings don't stall, they just run out of lift so to speak, so I would love to know why you would allow speed to decay so quickly whilst climbing to 200ft. I'd be happy with a V/S of 1 per hour if needs be to maintain speed. And if they saw the speed get to the point whereas you were going to plummet to the ground, trade off altitude for speed and stick it in a field. A controlled crash is better than an uncontrolled one. = AF fault.

Lemurian

8th Dec 2010, 11:48

exeng:
according to the tapes the F/E shut down the engine with a fire warning before the Captain asked for the engine to be shutdown.
but certainly the F/E shut down an engine producing thrust before any command from the Captain...
...That action by the F/E was not an action I would have expected from any F/E in another airline that operated the aircraft.
Rubbish. You're just citing numerous article from the gutter press and some posters with an agenda and I'm surprised that you did not read the report... because it's French, right ?
This is first the French original text :
"A 14 h 43 min 24,8 s, l.OMN annonce « coupe le moteur 2 ». Dans la même seconde, le
commandant de bord appelle la procédure feu réacteur. Moins de deux secondes plus tard, on entend un bruit que l'analyse spectrale et l'examen des sélecteurs HP ont montré être dû à la manette de puissance amenée en butée ralenti"
...and the English explanation text : "The exceptional environment described above quite naturally led the FE to ask to shut down the engine. This was immediately confirmed by the Captain’s calling for the engine fire procedure. This engine had in fact practically been at idle power for several seconds and the fire alarm was sounding. The engine was therefore shut down following the “engine fire” procedure after having run for twelve seconds at low power. It is important to note that the Concorde Flight Manual requires an immediate reaction by the crew in case of a red alarm"

blind pew :V1 is not a go/no go speed.

please read the official definition of V1 before you make a fool of yourself :
"2.1.2. Decision Speed: V1
JAR 25.107 Subpart B FAR 25.107 Subpart B
V1 is the maximum speed at which the crew can decide to reject the takeoff,
and is ensured to stop the aircraft within the limits of the runway."

Concorde had a directional control problem as well as the engine failure.
Rubbish. There was a thrust asymetry, therefore some directional control problems the crew coped rather well with until the destruction of the elevons (?) on the left side.

It has surprised me that I have never seen a post re the decision to take an aircraft into the air when directional control has been lost????

It's because you're not a pilot who has dicussed all sorts of possible occurences : here the exploded tyre was reducing his acceleration and causing him all sorts of directional problems ; plus at that speed, braking on a reduced number of brakes wasn't probably the best idea ; he's way past V1 so a greater acceleration should be possible airborne.
That's what the report stated in different terms than mine :"In
this exceptional and unknown environment, the decision to take off as soon as possible appears to have become compelling. The rate of the rotation also appears to confirm that the pilot was conscious of taking off at a speed below VR."

And as the post regarding the French character traits as seen by the Anglo Saxons..... there are intelligent ones with flying ability and a sense of humour - I've met two!
If that is what amounts to humour in your country, it's in a far direr state than I thought : prejudice, racism, xenophobia, arrogance...
Yes, go get laid, too !

DozyWannabe

8th Dec 2010, 11:52

Firstly, I believe the aircraft "collected" a bit of airfield lighting and grass due to going "off piste", I'm pretty sure Concorde had enought rudder/NWS authority to cope with assymetric thrust, so that was probably the spacer = AF fault

See here:

Annexe 12 (http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-sc000725/htm/annexes/annexe12.htm)

There wasn't any significant deviation from centreline until after the tyre burst. Added to which the aircraft had flown several times with the spacer missing and no significant issues were reported.

Have a look at that track and imagine what would have happened if he'd stayed on the ground (bearing in mind that at lift off he was near enough on 200 knots).

bearfoil

8th Dec 2010, 11:56

wings folded

Yes, Thanks. I stated my opinion about the "Standard" of Proof not being met as an opinion, for what it may be worth. From that, you concluded that I believed that because of that opinion, I also believed there should have been no trial. This is not the case. A misunderstanding?? My original post had to do with post Trial findings, not the pre Trial "Foundation". Sorry.....

bear

Ex Cargo Clown

8th Dec 2010, 12:04

Assymetric thrust and a tyre burst shouldn't bring give a track like that.

This looks like gross mishandling and then panic setting in resulting in a premature rotation and we know the rest.

Any SSC pilots want to comment on how easy she was to control in asymmetric conditions?

I'm not having it that the tyre burst caused this as you would actually create more drag on the port side, where the engine has failed.

Green Guard

8th Dec 2010, 12:16

and I have to say again,

If some people here could just stick to Rumours and News
the tread would be much easier to read

without all their insinuations and "mad dog barking" too
:}

rh200

8th Dec 2010, 12:23

V1 is not a go/no go speed.

There have been several take off abandons after V1 - some successful and others not.

"2.1.2. Decision Speed: V1
JAR 25.107 Subpart B FAR 25.107 Subpart B
V1 is the maximum speed at which the crew can decide to reject the takeoff,
and is ensured to stop the aircraft within the limits of the runway."

I guess its easy in hind sight to say they should have rejected takeoff regardless of an over run. But flight crew can only make judgments with the evidance presented to them in chaotic circumstances. This can lead to errors of judgment in the heat of the moment and it is almost always imperative to follow the established procedures for those circumstances.

I wonder though, if in the flight deck you had the outside pictures of the bird and could see what every one else could see, would you have still taken off?

I could be wrong, but I havn't seen anything yet in my humble opinion to say that the flight crew had indications to say that they where "really really screwed".

Iron Duck

8th Dec 2010, 12:26

Golden Rivit

The BEA crash report (http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-sc000725a/pdf/f-sc000725a.pdf) is a fascinating document.

Reading the timeline on pages 161/162, everything was normal at V1. The tyre burst occurred 6 seconds after V1, at which point the crew became aware that something was wrong. The captain commenced rotation before engines 1 and 2 surged, before any engine fire warnings were received, and before ATC informed him of the fire.

Pages 147-154 deal thoroughly with the left main bogie, and conclude:

"Overall, the balance of forces at the centre of the bogie would result in self-aligning moment and two loads whose resultant is increased drag, that is to say a tendency to make the aircraft yaw to the left. The level of this drag would be at most around 1000 daN, very low in relation to the thrust of the engines. The influence of possible sideslip on the trajectory is thus very low or negligible."

The photograph on page 160 appears to me to show the aircraft tracking straight down the runway for a couple of hundred metres after the fire started.

wings folded

8th Dec 2010, 12:32

Mr Bear
A misunderstanding??

Possibly.

I thought that I had read your words and understood them, although they were a little bit lacking in clarity to my mind.

Anyway, I have a firm belief that proper judicial process was applied to this hearing, according to the relevant law, and that those who bash Frogs have no real concept of the relevant law and procedures.

Other contributors can prattle on to their heart's content about their armchair views of what was behind this tragedy.

The court heard expert evidence from all sides.

Continental's lawyer, Olivier Metznel, is one of France's leading lawyers. He was involved or may still be in the the De Villepin / Clearstream case, and the Bettencourt case.

Even with his skill as an advocate, he was unable to convince the court that his client was not blameworthy. The court in other words did not buy his / Continental's version of events.

Read the transcripts.

Read the judgement.

As others have remarked, there is a degree of blame at the door of EADS, the modern term for the builder of that gracious bird. 30%.

The sale of a dozen or so premium seats by Continental will cover the fine.

Why is nobody impressed by the sense of dimension shown by the prosecution and the court in its judgement?

Because bashing the French is legitimate.

Had a French operated aircraft shed a piece of very dodgy repair work in front of an American aircraft on a runway in the US, would we be in the realm of Euro 200,00?

I think we would be in the realm of $2,000,000

DozyWannabe

8th Dec 2010, 12:36

I'm not having it that the tyre burst caused this as you would actually create more drag on the port side, where the engine has failed.

And she tracked to the left (port) - your point being?

What you've got there is a track induced by a combination of the tyre burst, engine damage due to FOD and fire and an unknown amount of control linkage damage due to same.

Of course, we have the advantage of hindsight, which the pilots didn't. This wasn't just *a* worst-case scenario, this was a combination of *several* worst case scenarios in terms of damage caused and the point in the take-off roll at which the damage was initiated.

bearfoil

8th Dec 2010, 12:41

All good points. Had Concorde launched just prior to CAL and left a trail of tyres wheel parts, ?? CAL hits a large piece of tyre, skids off piste, burns and has fatalities, and the drama is @JFK?? No one need fear the slammer, and the Fines would have been much larger. Justified?? To each his own, injustice fuels many passionate dramas.

bear

exeng

8th Dec 2010, 12:54

I have read the CVR transcript translated into English and apparently the F/E stated "shut down engine two". I accept that this 'statement' could have easily been a question as I agree that the Captain did one second later order the engine fire procedure.

So my apologies - I have changed my mind following your post as it is by no means 'certain' that the F/E actually shut down the engine without command from The Captain.

Regards
Exeng

wings folded

8th Dec 2010, 12:56

Mr Bear

Once again you have not been paying attention. The prosecution at Pontoise, not Paris as so many ignorant posters would have it, pleaded for a suspended jail sentence.

Now, to what lengths do I have to go to explain what that means?

Well, here goes.

If the condemned carries out the same act again, he may be tried and found guilty of an offense. He will then endure the double sanction, i.e. the first verdict, plus whatever the second verdict prescribed.

The Continental mechanic has probably many sleepless nights when he recalls what happened.

French justice was never designed to make scapegoats.

It has a duty, however, to establish the facts. Months of hearing evidence and pleadings served that end.

Nick Thomas

8th Dec 2010, 16:05

DozyWannabe and wings folded have clearly and logically explained why they agree with the court's verdict. This is also my opinion.

What I find unacceptable is the view that the court in reaching this verdict must be corrupt etc. Then to go even further and make racist remarks is offensive.

Bear with regard to your point that if a similiar incident had have happened at "@JFK No need fear the slammer" (sic). Well aviation is international and that means you have to accept different outcomes in different countries. Eg if I murdered someone in the UK I would get a life sentence yet if I did the same thing in Texas then I could well be executed. I understand and accept that and would not then keep on making the point that UK legal system is better than the USA system.

So in conclussion I hope that we can have a civilised debate and refain from boasting about how things would have been done differently and better in our own country.
Regards
Nick
ps Bear I know that you stated that any fine in the USA would have been greater. Even taking that into account I still stand by my conclussion.

bearfoil

8th Dec 2010, 16:52

Nick

Duly noted, and I regret that my comment "To each his own" may have implied a boast, or other less than helpful conclusion. I try not to make such judgments as I appear to have garnered some animosity here!!

Thanks for your kind response, I'll be more careful

bear

wings folded

8th Dec 2010, 17:11

Mr Thomas,

I am absolutley certain that wherever such a tragic event occurs, local law is applied as a matter of course.

One cannot blame the French for having been too hasty, nor not diligent enough.

The length of the hearing speaks for itself.

But sad francophobes sat in front of their keyboards knew the truth well before evidence was adduced.. The outcome for them was no surprise, apparently. They had decided that it was a French stitch up.

The remark of a poster on this forum quoting Continental's lawyer, Maitre Olivier Metznel as saying what he said about the process, should be read in the context of what he has said about the same legal process when it came up with an outcome which suited his client.

Nick Thomas

8th Dec 2010, 18:29

Wings folded please call me Nick.

I agree wholeheartly with all your points in your last post.

I should have made it clear in my last post that my plea not to boast, was in reference to legal systems. I think differences of view concerning technical matters is interesting; as long as they are not used to question the verdict of the court or to back up racist claims.

Bear I feel no animosity towards you. I do though find the racist remarks of some posters repugnant. If that is construed as animosity: so be it.

Regards
Nick

KBPsen

8th Dec 2010, 18:55

Why shouldn't the verdict of the court be questioned?

I assume that the possibility of appeal is open to those convicted, which suggests that even the legal system does not believe its abilities to reach a fair and correct verdict should not be questioned.

vapilot2004

8th Dec 2010, 19:01

Like testimony by a number of reliable eyewitnesses, including airport firemen and the veteran captain of Jacques Chirac's taxiing plane, that the Concorde caught fire several hundred yards before it could have struck the titanium strip.

Are there any links? Was testimony of these presumably unimpeachable witnesses entered into the record? If true and not inaccurate hearsay, this is shocking news to me.

The only way out of that one would be to fiddle faddle with the positioning of the piece of metal on the runway.

wings folded

8th Dec 2010, 19:02

Nick,

Since we are now familiar.

I, perhaps like you, am not wise enough to know exactly what happened on that fatefull day in July some years ago.

Many posters here and on previous threads appear to have the absolute knowledge about the whole topic.

They were not in the crew. They were, of course, not even on board.

It seems to me that a tragic incident put an end to a glorious episode of aviation.

Lives were lost, in the airframe and on the ground.

I have lost close relatives in less dramatic circumstances. We probably all have.

Loss of life is not, or should not be an issue of nationality, nor of national pride.

jcjeant

8th Dec 2010, 19:13

Hi,

blind pew : Quote:
V1 is not a go/no go speed.
please read the official definition of V1 before you make a fool of yourself :
"2.1.2. Decision Speed: V1
JAR 25.107 Subpart B FAR 25.107 Subpart B
V1 is the maximum speed at which the crew can decide to reject the takeoff,
and is ensured to stop the aircraft within the limits of the runway."Correct indeed ...
To notice that Vr is rotation speed.
The Concorde rotated before Vr (it's also in BEA report)
That's what the report stated in different terms than mine :"In
this exceptional and unknown environment, the decision to take off as soon as possible appears to have become compelling. The rate of the rotation also appears to confirm that the pilot was conscious of taking off at a speed below VR."Why?
Cause the plane was departing from the runway
Rubbish. There was a thrust asymetry, therefore some directional control problems the crew coped rather well with until the destruction of the elevons (?) on the left side.
(hence the broken bulbs) and the B-747 with the french president Chirac aboard was near or on the trajectory (also hence the report of fire by the pilot(s) of this B-747)
So .. in fact the pilot(s) was not able to cope with the departing from runway before any destruction of moving surfaces

wings folded

8th Dec 2010, 19:26

Are there any links? Was testimony of these presumably unimpeachable witnesses entered into the record? If true and not inaccurate hearsay, this is shocking news to me.

Oh please read the transcripts of the trial.

Lemurian

8th Dec 2010, 20:47

jcjeant,
(hence the broken bulbs) and the B-747 with the french president Chirac aboard was near or on the trajectory (also hence the report of fire by the pilot(s) of this B-747)
So .. in fact the pilot(s) was not able to cope with the departing from runway before any destruction of moving surfaces
Your laziness in not bothering to read the report or the minutes of the trial but still have an opinion astounds me.
You certainly don't know what I'm taking about and I wonder whether you have an idea on what you are talking about.
And Chirac has never been anywhere near that accident and his aircraft was in no way involved.
May be the Spiegel got it wrong as much as Fox and the Murdoch network.
I have a feeling I am going to suggest you do what has been told to two of your ilk.
The most astounding fact is after some 150 posts, some of a really high calibre from PBL, DozyWannabe, Wings and quite a few others, the themes go round and round... ad nauseam...which is exactly how I feel : nauseated by the stench of blinkered asses .

Ex Cargo Clown

8th Dec 2010, 20:56

I'm still disturbed by these facts.

If you can't control the aircraft with an engine failure, then you might want to consider that there is a serious failure, and you may not get airborne for very long. Even after V1 it's better to stick it somewhere than take off into the unknown.

Remember the 748 at STN years ago, landing back on.

This is pilot error, pure and simple, not CO's fault.

jcjeant

8th Dec 2010, 21:13

Hi,

Your laziness in not bothering to read the report or the minutes of the trial but still have an opinion astounds me.

I read the minutes of the trial here:
mars 2010 Procès du crash du CONCORDE (http://procesconcorde.fenvac.org/?m=201003)
Do you have a better source ?

Iron Duck

8th Dec 2010, 21:21

According to the BEA report, the captain had started to rotate early because the crew clearly perceived that there was something wrong with the aircraft, but before any engine surge or fire warning was received.

It was well after V1. There was going to be no chance of stopping before the aerodrome boundary and the main road beyond.

Given the choice between lifting a rattling aircraft into the air, or aborting the takeoff for a guaranteed high-speed crash at the boundary in a fully-loaded, fully-fuelled aircraft, which would you have done?

ChristiaanJ

8th Dec 2010, 21:21

Since the "eyewitnesses" of "fire before the aircraft had hit the metal strip" have been dragged in yet again....

Could all of you ask yourselves a few basic questions?

How fast was the aircraft moving?
Close to 100m/sec.
So this hypothetical fire would have started only a few seconds before the aircraft hit the metal strip, causing the tyre burst and a major fuel leak.

One...
With eyewitness perception as it is, how on earth would any of them be able to assert that "the aircraft was on fire" before it hit the metal strip, especially since none of them could have known at the time when that happened.
We all know how easily eyewitnesses' memory is distorted by subsequent knowledge about the event, and subsequent efforts at "recall" about "exactly" what they saw.
Even only hours afterwards, could any of them have pointed to within a few hundred metres to the exact location where they first saw the fire?
Of course not, especially after (to them) such a dramatic event.

Two....
The locations of the first kerosene (from the leak) and soot (from the fire) marks on the runway, the fragments of the tyre, and the metal strip itself, all coincide more or less (read the report).
There are no physical indications of anything significant before that, neither are there any indications on the FDR.
The mere suggestion that a pre-existing fire would have left NO traces is faintly ridiculous.

Three....
The "theory", that a hypothetical fire started a few seconds before all the conditions were reunited for a real fire to occur (tyre burst, major fuel leak, potential ignition sources) is really pushing probability a bit too far.

CJ

vapilot2004

8th Dec 2010, 22:28

We may be onto something as it appears there is concerted effort by some individuals to discount this testimony well before it has a chance to be publicly read and understood.

Oh please read the transcripts of the trial.

I wish I could JC. I am native English speaker and fluent in German. My French is lacking.

Anyone care to share the salient points in testimony where first responders (airfield firemen) and a head of state aircraft captain see fire coming from the Air France Concorde well before the metal strip became an issue?

Many thanks in advance.

Iron Duck

8th Dec 2010, 23:02

I haven't read the transcripts but I've read the report. As I said here (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/435870-french-concorde-crash-8.html#post6109040), it says on P77 that "The primary and secondary nozzles showed no signs of overheat on any of the engines"; on page 122 "It should, however, be noted that no traces of fire were discovered during the examination of the engines" and on page 134 "The observations and examinations carried out on the four engines brought to light no malfunction of any of their basic equipment or components, or any indication of any behaviour outside of the certificated norms. None of them showed any signs of overheat or overspeed prior to the impact with the ground."

So there is no physical evidence of engine fire. If not engines, what else might have caught fire? The wheels? If so, where is the evidence on the runway? The report says that there is none until after the first kerosene spillage, which is coterminous with the positions of the strip and tyre fragments.

So what might have been on fire?

Anyone care to share the salient points in testimony where first responders (airfield firemen) and a head of state aircraft captain see fire coming from the Air France Concorde well before the metal strip became an issue?

As ChristiaanJ says:

With eyewitness perception as it is, how on earth would any of them be able to assert that "the aircraft was on fire" before it hit the metal strip, especially since none of them could have known at the time when that happened.

And I'll add, that the strip was there to hit in the first place.

Extremely improbable events occur, so I'm not going to rule out a preexisting fire simply on the grounds of probability. But where is the physical evidence for it, unless it was entirely destroyed in the crash?

DozyWannabe

8th Dec 2010, 23:08

vapilot2004:

Sorry to jump in, but that wasn't JC, that was Wings Folded, and I think he's actually arguing the same point you are - i.e. there is *no* eyewitness testimony on the legal record stating that the aircraft was on fire before it hit the strip. The only source for that claim was the tabloid press.

vapilot2004

8th Dec 2010, 23:16

Thanks for the information Ducks.

DW, thanks for the jump in. Apologies not needed. Are you telling me that according to the court transcript, the Chirac pilot and airport firemen gave absolutely no testimony?

Also could you or anyone else verify that both the pilot and the alleged other witnesses were not on the court docket as witnesses? The reason I ask is witnesses are sometimes called, but for various reasons, their testimony is sometimes stricken from the official record by the presiding judge.

Nick Thomas

8th Dec 2010, 23:28

KBPsen
Am not an expert on French law, but in the UK it's normal to only allow an appeal to proceed for either an unlawful decision or if a point of material fact was withheld from the original hearing.

To be in a position to suggest either would require a detailed study of the courts findings and the conduct of the hearing. This in my view is very difficult for any of us posting here to have a view on. Unfortunatly there is a tendency here for those who disagree with the outcome to imply that the result was a foregone conclussion; and for a few to go further in there allegations.

I have no problem in people providing different technical viewpoints. What I have difficulty with is when they then assume that their different viewpoint is in itself evidence of a corrupt trial.

Regards
Nick

DozyWannabe

9th Dec 2010, 00:16

Are you telling me that according to the court transcript, the Chirac pilot and airport firemen gave absolutely no testimony?

Certainly not as far as I'm aware, having done some cursory digging. It's repeated endlessly in press articles and blog posts though, because it makes for good copy. Variations on the story include F-BTSC passing within 7m, 70m or 7 yards(!) of the alleged Chirac 747, the alleged 747 itself either on the runway and exiting, at a holding point or *actually crossing the runway across F-BTSC's path*. Some even have Chirac himself "looking on in horror" as the flaming Concorde passed by.

Now you'd think that if any of this were true, Chirac would at least have said something in public by now - or the 747 pax and crew would have been called as witnesses.

This lack of confirmation - combined with so many variations in the telling - suggests to me that the whole story is complete hogwash.

As an aside, while French officials did and do sometimes travel on AF charters, the usual mode of travel in Chirac's day was a government-owned A310.

wozzo

9th Dec 2010, 00:24

If you can't control the aircraft with an engine failure, then you might want to consider that there is a serious failure, and you may not get airborne for very long. Even after V1 it's better to stick it somewhere than take off into the unknown.

Remember the 748 at STN years ago, landing back on.

This is pilot error, pure and simple, not CO's fault.

BEA final accident report, english version, page 166:

Note: the simulation described in paragraph 1.16.13.4 showed that an aborted takeoff would have led to a high-speed runway excursion. Under these conditions, the landing gear would have collapsed and with the fire that was raging under the left wing, the aircraft would probably have burst into flames immediately.

1.16.13.4 describes simulation in detail, with various hypotheses and residual speeds at end of runway: "These figures show that an aborted takeoff would have led to a runway excursion at such a speed that, taking into account the fire, the result would probably have been catastrophic for the aircraft and its occupants."

jcjeant

9th Dec 2010, 01:07

Hi,

DW, thanks for the jump in. Apologies not needed. Are you telling me that according to the court transcript, the Chirac pilot and airport firemen gave absolutely no testimony?As I remember from my reading ....
After the intervention of the Continental lawers (about fire before the lost piece) and a explaination based on the witnesses reports (Continental made a 3D movie presentation for that) the judge asked to the BEA what about ....
Chirac would at least have said something in public by now - or the 747 pax and crew would have been called as witnesses.The BEA (by the voice of Mr Arslanian) tell at the trial that they received the testimonies (pilots and firemen and also tower personnal of course) but they discarded them.
So .. as they were discarded .. the witnesses don't appeared for testimony at the trial.
Those testimonies were also recorded by the "Gendarmerie Nationale" of course.
Apparently the judge (was a woman) don't used her power (if she want she can call any people during the trial) to ear the witnesses.

onetrack

9th Dec 2010, 02:05

There seems to be a general misunderstanding amongst many of the above posters, as to what a court considers.
A court is appointed to consider and sift evidence. The quality of evidence is rated within courts systems.
Verbal evidence is the lowest level. Verbal evidence with correlation is rated a little higher. Witness statements, in writing, rate slightly higher.
Hard evidence, in the form of physical items that show proof of the events being considered, rate very highly.

Courts are convened to sift evidence for truth. Evidence that doesn't meet court truth standards is ignored.
Never forget that old, very truthful comment... "One has only to listen to the descriptions from the witnesses of a traffic crash, to start to become concerned about the record of written history". :E

This court sat for a long time and considered much evidence. The aim of the court was to establish the factors and causes of the crash. Their decision is largely correct.
What is galling many is that the court appeared to need to enlarge its list of witnesses to include many that weren't interviewed.
This is a factor in many court cases, and is not one easily resolved. The court has an aim when a case commences, and many witnesses deemed not directly crucial to the courts aim, are excluded.

Witness statements that they thought they saw fire prior to the Concorde hitting the titanium strip, are not backed up by the hard proof of where fire evidence was found.

The bottom line is, that despite this event, "having never happened before in 105 years of aviation"... the Concorde was a machine that from the very beginning, was testing the limits of aviation design and materials.
As such... and with the large number of burst tyre events that preceded this disaster... it is quite obvious, that much more emphasis should have been placed on tyre burst danger prevention... particularly by AF, and particularly by the aviation safety authorities.

The simple fact that there was a divergence in safety improvement ideas, between AF and BA, to reduce tyre burst damage... is indicative that there was greater concern... and understandably correct concern, inside BA... that the tyre burst problem, was one that held a substantially greater danger for Concorde, than for any other type of aircraft.

vapilot2004

9th Dec 2010, 05:08

Thanks DW, JC and others.

I understand how eyewitness reports often vary and can be unreliable. The 'caliber' aka technical background of the witnesses however is often used to apportion weight to their words. A policeman or fireman will be given deference to say a carpenter or baker when it comes to matters of crime or fire. On the other hand, the baker would be the best man to ascertain just how high the dough has risen.

So again, I am left to wonder if the Chirac pilot or the alleged airport firemen were called to the witness stand at all and more importantly, were they on Continental's witness list?

Iron Duck

9th Dec 2010, 08:22

Variations on the story include F-BTSC passing within 7m, 70m or 7 yards(!) of the alleged Chirac 747, the alleged 747 itself either on the runway and exiting, at a holding point or *actually crossing the runway across F-BTSC's path*.

The pictures on page 92 of the BEA report were evidently shot from an aircraft on one of the S taxiways; going by the map on page 39 and looking at the perspective, probably S2. So there was an aircraft holding there that Concorde swung towards, whether or not Chirac was on board.

stuckgear

9th Dec 2010, 09:43

This court sat for a long time and considered much evidence. The aim of the court was to establish the factors and causes of the crash. Their decision is largely correct.
What is galling many is that the court appeared to need to enlarge its list of witnesses to include many that weren't interviewed.
This is a factor in many court cases, and is not one easily resolved. The court has an aim when a case commences, and many witnesses deemed not directly crucial to the courts aim, are excluded.

Witness statements that they thought they saw fire prior to the Concorde hitting the titanium strip, are not backed up by the hard proof of where fire evidence was found.

The bottom line is, that despite this event, "having never happened before in 105 years of aviation"... the Concorde was a machine that from the very beginning, was testing the limits of aviation design and materials.
As such... and with the large number of burst tyre events that preceded this disaster... it is quite obvious, that much more emphasis should have been placed on tyre burst danger prevention... particularly by AF, and particularly by the aviation safety authorities.

Good summation onetrack. Though, not so much as the witnesses excluded, but the questions raised by the court findings over the circumstances are significant, not in terms of the tinfoil hat & conspiracy brigade, but on an operational level within the industry.

Iron Duck

9th Dec 2010, 10:17

This is a factor in many court cases, and is not one easily resolved. The court has an aim when a case commences, and many witnesses deemed not directly crucial to the courts aim, are excluded.

Witness statements that they thought they saw fire prior to the Concorde hitting the titanium strip, are not backed up by the hard proof of where fire evidence was found.

I can't tell from the maps where the fire services were located. However, looking at the photographs on page 92 of the BEA report, the photographer was looking almost straight down the runway. The angle of view and runway heading diverge by only a few degrees. Consequently the Concorde would only have had very slow R-L movement across the photographer's field of view. The crew, probably further ahead, would have been at an even more acute angle.

I doubt that it would have been possible to make an accurate assessment of where on the runway events happened from such an acute viewpoint.

Therefore, witnesses in that holding aircraft could certainly confirm and describe the fire, but probably not add much to the evidence in the photographs.

wings folded

9th Dec 2010, 10:46

jcjeant,
Apparently the judge (was a woman) don't used her power (if she want she can call any people during the trial) to ear the witnesses.
Exactly what is the relevance of your helpful observation "was a woman"?
Do you believe that she should have been at home preparing her husband's dinner?
You are furthermore wrong.
There was not one judge, but three, presided by a female judge.

KBPsen

9th Dec 2010, 12:05

Nick, Continental have already publicly stated that they will appeal the verdict. I doubt they would do so unless they knew they had the option. The feeling I get from various interviews in the media, is that there is a belief that the ruling will likely be overturned on appeal.

DozyWannabe

9th Dec 2010, 12:05

So there is no physical evidence of engine fire. If not engines, what else might have caught fire? The wheels? If so, where is the evidence on the runway? The report says that there is none until after the first kerosene spillage, which is coterminous with the positions of the strip and tyre fragments.

So what might have been on fire?

Well, what we know - with the benefit of the forensic report and hindsight - is that the engines were not substantially damaged by fire. However from the CVR we know that the location of the fire *did* trigger the Engine Fire Master Warning, and a significant drop in thrust was simultaneously noticed by the F/E. As far as he was concerned, all signs pointed to an engine fire, and the tower warning that they were trailing flames indicated a very serious one.

About a second beforehand the aircraft was losing acceleration, possibly due to the tyre burst, and veering to the left in such a manner that full right rudder was unable to compensate - this justifies the Captain's decision to get airborne just prior to runway excursion. Then came the engine failure warning from the F/E, followed in quick succession by the engine fire warning and all of a sudden it could be argued that the decision doesn't look so sound. However, only the pilots could see what was directly in their path and it's very unlikely that the taxiways they would have crossed on the excursion were empty at the time (in fact the photographic evidence proves that they weren't).

The tragic irony in this case is that it might have been possible to get to Le Bourget's boundary if the engine fire warning had been ignored - but to do so would have gone against every aviator's training, not to mention instinct. At the same time the Master Warning console would have been lit up like a Christmas tree, and I suspect the noise from the audible warnings would have been horrendous.

This happened in the space of a few seconds, and every action taken by the crew looks justified if you take into account the order in which events occurred and the split-second decision making that took place - to say nothing of the shock of having a routine flight go so badly wrong so suddenly.

Regarding the "alternative" theories, I have a deep respect for John Hutchinson - he was a hero of mine ever since I saw the BBC Concorde Special in the late '80s as a boy. However I think his passion and love for the aircraft he flew have taken him off-piste on this occasion.

wings folded

9th Dec 2010, 12:40

KBPSen

Nick, Continental have already publicly stated that they will appeal the verdict. I doubt they would do so unless they knew they had the option. The feeling I get from various interviews in the media, is that there is a belief that the ruling will likely be overturned on appeal.

I have spent much of my life in legal wrangles of this sort.

I have yet to encounter a lawyer who does not immediately talk of appeal when his party lost.

Maitre Metzner is a highly experienced lawyer at the French bar.

He will know whether there are grounds or not for an appeal.

In most jurisdictions you cannot appeal a verdict merely because you do not like it.

There have to be solid reasons, such as procedural irregularities for an appeal to go forward.

Maitre Metzner as Continentals' lawyer was free to call as witness anybody with relevant knowledge. He did not call Jacques Chirac, nor the supposed pilot of his 747.

One has to presume that his calling of witnesses was designed to give the best possible face to his client's case.

He and Continental went to a considerable length in constructing a 3D replay of the accident, according to their version.

It was not found to be conclusive by the court.

Courts exist for that very purpose.

KBPsen

9th Dec 2010, 12:44

So the short answer is that you don't know.

wings folded

9th Dec 2010, 12:53

So the short answer is that you don't know.

Correct.
I did not hear all the evidence. I trust those who did.
Did you attend at the trial? Were your findings different? Were there questions you were burning to put to the witnesses, but could not because you had no authority so to do?

Lemurian

9th Dec 2010, 13:10

exeng:
I have changed my mind
You are a gentleman and a man of courage, Sir.
With respect...

jcjeant :
The BEA (by the voice of Mr Arslanian) tell at the trial that they received the testimonies (pilots and firemen and also tower personnal of course) but they discarded them.
So .. as they were discarded .. the witnesses don't appeared for testimony at the trial.

Nice try. You just forget that the BEA doesn't chose who will appear in court as witness. The judges do, on requests made either by the instructing judge or the lawyers, all based on the dossier instructed by the appointed magistrate.
Apparently, you not only read aerotech that you haven't grasped, but you also read on legalities of the French system you ignore.
Your persistence is admirable.

Iron duck :
I can't tell from the maps where the fire services were located. However, looking at the photographs on page 92 of the BEA report, the photographer was looking almost straight down the runway. The angle of view and runway heading diverge by only a few degrees.
Very difficult to judge angles on a long lens shot.
Look again at the angles and it will become a lot more obvious that the view was taken from one of the high-speed exits of RWY 26L, in my opinion V1.
Less dramatic, eh ?

DozyWannabe :
Variations on the story include F-BTSC passing within 7m, 70m or 7 yards(!) of the alleged Chirac 747, the alleged 747 itself either on the runway and exiting,
As that idea started in the French press and that I've met the pilot of that airplane, Yes!, he was exiting the runway...26L on V1 !

DozyWannabe

9th Dec 2010, 13:20

As that idea started in the French press and that I've met the pilot of that airplane, Yes!, he was exiting the runway...26L on V1 !

You've stated this fact before, but I want to get it on this thread for confirmation - was Jacques Chirac on that aircraft? :)

Also, out of my own curiosity... did the pilot say whether anyone on that aircraft could have been witness to F-BTSC's takeoff run?

(Note to others, the aircraft was exiting 26L, F-BTSC was taking off on 26R.)

KBPsen

9th Dec 2010, 13:29

wings folded,

I have made no comments on the trial and how it was conducted, but if you feel the need to put words in my mouth feel free to continue to do so.

I have made comments on the possibility of an appeal and, despite the verbosity, it appears you know as much about that as I do.

wings folded

9th Dec 2010, 14:12

So the short answer is that you don't know.

Your words.

I am not a judge on this case.

Neither are you.

Lemurian

9th Dec 2010, 14:23

Dozywannabe :
was Jacques Chirac on that aircraft?
No. Wasn't even at the airport when the accident happened.

did the pilot say whether anyone on that aircraft could have been witness to F-BTSC's takeoff run?
I think the investigators took numerous testimonies from that aircraft. The *unidentified* comment on the origin of the fire not from the engines came from that flight deck. Who were proven right.

There are a few comments to be made on that accident :
the very first, after reading the BEA report is that that crew didn't have a chance in hell to escape their predicament :
=They had the engine thermo-physics against them :
- #1 and 2, although in perfect order, even after the tyre-burst couldn't deliver any appreciable thrust due to their running in very hot air, explosively surging...

=They had time against them :
- The time the fire allowed them before the destruction of the flight controls on the port wing.

= They had aerodynamics against them :
- The landing gear could not retract as the left doors were damaged by the flying debris from the tyres, increasing the overall drag... It is obvious - to me - that the Captain was perfectly aware of his airplane flyability as the IAS oscillated around 205 kt, which was the Zero rate of climb speed - Vzrc -.
Unfortunately the unavailability of #1 Engine would have meant a Two -engine Vzrc of 300 kts... Being on the back of the thrust curve, he had no chance of turning the situation around.
But try hard he did.

So you see, I don't even want to answer to the imbecile's comments of one ex cargo clown as they are very low in the merde...where they belong.

AlphaZuluRomeo

9th Dec 2010, 15:00

The tragic irony in this case is that it might have been possible to get to Le Bourget's boundary if the engine fire warning had been ignored - but to do so would have gone against every aviator's training, not to mention instinct.
Why might that have been possible ?
I mean... OK, the crew shut off engine #2. But :
- As this engine produced, at this time, barely more thrust than idle, and
- As the flight control surfaces (left wing elevons) were being damaged by the fire
... what would ignoring the fire warning (maybe) have changed ?

Lemurian (post #228) : Thanks, Sir :D

AZR

DozyWannabe

9th Dec 2010, 15:14

AZR : I was referring to the viewpoint on a previous thread that some believe that had they "firewalled" the throttles on all four then they might have stood a better chance - I should have made it clear it was a very small "might". I suspect that, as Lemurian says, the hot gases from the fire would have prevented the engines from producing enough thrust to make a difference, even if they were not physically damaged.

M2dude

9th Dec 2010, 15:19

AlphaZuluRomeo
I like most of the British Concorde 'family' am generally resisting the temptation of contributing to this particular thread, but I will allow myself just this one little point. There is all sorts of speculation as to the effects of shutting down No2 engine, and that it was only producing idle(ish) thrust at the time but I would like to mention that:
a) This engine was found to have very little compressor damage, and almost certainly the loss of thrust was due to massive fuel ingestion.

b) It is quite possible that the ingested fuel pattern would have altered to the point of at least a substantial recovery of thrust.

c) There is only one way (short of extinguishing it altogether) to detach a fuel fed fire from the flame itself, and that is by increasing airspeed. On only 2 1/2 engines there was absolutely no way that the IAS could increase above the 211 KIAS achived that day.

d) It is always possible (but none of us can possibly prove this) that the flame pattern COULD have altered with an increased IAS to the point that some time could have been bought. (We can only speculate whether that would have been enough for SD to have reached Le Bourget or not).

With Respect
Dude

fran35780

9th Dec 2010, 15:37

Please read again the final report :

http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-sc000725a/pdf/f-sc000725a.pdf

1.12.1.3 Piece of Metal
A strip of metal about 43 centimetres long, bent at one of its ends, was found on the
runway shoulder at Slab 152 level. Its width varies from 29 to 34 mm and it has drilled
holes, some containing rivets, similar to the Cherry aeronautical type. The holes are not at
regular intervals.
On visual inspection, the piece appeared to be made of light alloy, coated on one side
with epoxy primer (greenish) and on the other side with what appeared to be red aircraft
mastic for hot sections (RTV 106). It did not appear to have been exposed to high
temperature.
This piece was not identified as part of the Concorde.
Figure 21: Piece found at line 152

and :

1.16.6.4 Examination of the Wear Strip
The wear strip found on the runway was subjected to laboratory examination:
• the strip was 435 mm long, 29 to 34 mm wide and about 1.4 mm thick. It was
made of a type TA6V alloy composed of titanium (89.67%), aluminium (7.03%),
vanadium (2.28%) and iron (1.02%). It was covered on one side in green primer
composed of an epoxy bisphenol A resin containing elements of silicate and
pigments of strontium chromate. The other side was covered in red silicon mastic
for high temperatures. The rivets, of Cherry Max type, were made of an aluminium
alloy bush - magnesium AG-5 or 5056 - and a steel stem with an alloy of
chrome-nickel-molybdenum covered with a layer of cadmium,
• the strip possessed twelve drill holes with random spacing, some off centre with
the longitudinal axis,
• the presence of circular indentations on the mastic side bears witness that the part
opposite it possessed extra drill holes. Seventeen hole marks were counted in
addition to the twelve holes drilled in the strip,
• black marks were noted on the outer side of the strip and black elastomer debris
was found jammed in one of the rivets. The spectra of these marks and deposits
are similar to the Concorde tyre.
1.16.6.5

SLFinAZ

9th Dec 2010, 16:05

My "issue" with the courts finding is very basic. The past history of damage specific to tire failure made the the reality of a catastrophic failure a statistical certainty over a large enough sample of data. The question wasn't IF a fatal event would happen but when. I can see absolutely no logic that would exclude AF from the fundamental reality that they were operating an airframe with a statistical certainty of catastrophic failure. To place the focus on the specific events at hand totally ignores the statistical certainty of the event.

The fundamental truth is that the Concorde should not have been flying without significant modifications to the fuel tanks and tires....period.

jcjeant

9th Dec 2010, 16:12

Hi,

About the witnesses (trial audition)
Sorry Google translation ....

Google Vertaling (http://translate.google.be/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fprocesconcorde.fenvac.org%2F%3Fm%3D 20100210&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8)

Original source:
10 février 2010 Procès du crash du CONCORDE (http://procesconcorde.fenvac.org/?m=20100210)

wings folded

9th Dec 2010, 16:33

ChristiaanJ

9th Dec 2010, 16:45

Another nice sample of ignorance about the reality in aviation.

The past history of damage specific to tire failure made the the reality of a catastrophic failure a statistical certainty over a large enough sample of data.Damage specific to tyre failure was assessed by exhaustive testing before the aircraft even flew, and during certification.
The in-service history showed that the certification conclusions were mostly correct (a tyre burst would result at most in a minor fuel leak), but that as a result of a tyre burst, fragments of the wheel itself, and the "cow-catcher" (spray guard) could do damage and penetrate the wing - which led to modifications.

"Statistical certainty"... there is no such thing.
If you have "a large enough sample of data"... or in other words if you fly an aircraft long enough.... every aircraft will crash sooner or later, or to be more accurate, every aircraft type will crash sooner or later.

Do I really have to remind you of the DC-10, for instance?
Nothing was done about the cargo door incidents, until the Turkish Airlines aircraft crashed at Ermenonville (near Paris).
Do I have to remind you about TWA 800?

...the statistical certainty of the event...As the saying goes, there are lies, damn lies... and statistics.

CJ

Lemurian

9th Dec 2010, 16:53

jcjeant :

About the witnesses (trial audition)
Sorry Google translation ....
If you can made a fair judicial decision on that google garbage, count me out...
Actually, I should have to thank you as you've provided us with the most extraordinary refutal of the so-called *professional testimonies* of the fire fighters... Remember those who said that they should know better than anyone ?
so look : the ONLY witnesses who saw fire originating on the RIGHT side of the aircraft are the exercizing firemen.
So much for the reliability of expert witnesses.

the text in French follows, with my stresses

" Le témoignage des pompiers :
Da 548 (1ère fois) : jusqu’à V6 rien, quand le Concorde passe à l’intersection S5, il a vu le réacteur intérieur gauche s’allumer, puis le droit mais pas de la même manière.
(he saw the left engine catch fire, then the right one, but not in the same way)
En mai 03 (2ème fois) : Da 2732 : il maintient sa déclaration pour lui c’est l’aile droite qui a pris feu en premier. Le feu démarre entre le chemin de sécurité, entre 26D et W7.
(He maintains his earlier declaration :to his mind, the right wing caught fire first.)

Da 550 (1ère fois) : jusqu’en S5, rien de particulier. Départ du feu en S5. Le Concorde se trouvait en phase de leur bâtiment. Le départ des flammes est du côté droit.
(Concorde was in front of their building, the flames started on the right side)
2ème fois, en mai 03 : Da 2733 : le bruit du Concorde l’interpelle, dans son champ de vision, après S6, rien d’anormal, départ de flamme entre le chemin de sécurité et S5.Le feu est à droite.
That's the second interview. For him, the fire is on the right side
En juillet 03 : Da 2274 : il voit passer le Concorde, une dizaine de mètres avant S5, il voit une fumée à gauche, il n’a rien entendu de particulier.
(This one changed his mind after the third interview. I do not know why.)
"

wings folded

9th Dec 2010, 16:58

Mr Christian

every aircraft will crash sooner or later, or to be more accurate, every aircraft type will crash sooner or later.

There are happy exceptions, but your remark is not without merit.

A small fleet (eg Concorde) will tend not to crash so much as a huge fleet (eg Boeing 747).

Iron Duck

9th Dec 2010, 17:22

Very difficult to judge angles on a long lens shot.
Look again at the angles and it will become a lot more obvious that the view was taken from one of the high-speed exits of RWY 26L, in my opinion V1.

I'm a commercial photographer. It's not a long lens shot. It's a crop from the middle of a negative shot on a compact camera. This is obvious from the size of the film grain. The lower picture on page 92 clearly shows a taxiway in the foreground that appears to be perpendicular to the runway.

Given the scale of the objects, the photo's perspective suggests to me that it was shot from a position above the ground that would correspond with the window height of a widebody. It is certainly not shot on a long lens from the aerodrome boundary.

It is very difficult to judge distant acute angles, yes, but a simple study of the map on page 39 reveals that for an aircraft holding on S1 (looking again, I now reckon that's where the camera is), the angle between its line of sight to Concorde in the uppermost shot and the runway heading is around 5°. At rotation, the angle is more like 30°.

SLFinAZ

9th Dec 2010, 17:48

I'm sorry but these are self serving comments....

The Concorde had 6 incidents in which tire failure led directly to fuel leaks. In no way can the incident in DC be considered minor. The statistical sample of over 50 tire failures leads to a ratio of roughly 10% of tire failures leading to structural damage significant enough to cause a fuel leak. Even if only the DC event is construed as major we still have a 10% chance of a fuel leak and a 2% chance of a potentially catastrophic failure.

Any self serving analysis that this is acceptable would not fly in any civil litigation....in fact no reputable attorney would let this get to a trial. There was a clear and present statistically significant danger that could have been addressed by modifying the fuel tanks. Had such modifications been made the accident would not have occurred. The incident in DC clearly showed that the nature of the tire failure was not clearly linked to the fuel tank failure.

The mere fact that the Concorde was allowed to continue in service without modified fuel tanks was in fact criminally negligent based on the statistical certainty of percussive failure of the fuel tank in the event of tire failure.

Iron Duck

9th Dec 2010, 17:49

As that idea started in the French press and that I've met the pilot of that airplane, Yes!, he was exiting the runway...26L on V1 !

That's very interesting, because looking at the map, the area between the camera position and the runway is occupied solely by taxiways either perpendicular or parallel to the runway. Therefore, any pavement visible in the foreground must either be parallel to the runway (which it clearly isn't), perpendicular (which it appears to me to be), or correspond with the junction of S2, V1 and V4.

Position 4 on the map corresponds to a corrected radio altitude of 26 feet, so in the rotation photo it looks to me as if the camera is either at that junction with S3 in the foreground, or on the curve of S1 with S2 in the foreground. How else can the pavement perspective be explained?

If the camera had been in an aircraft holding on taxiway V1, by position 4 the Concorde would have passed the camera's position. But it hasn't: in the pictures we see a 3/4 view from the front.

DozyWannabe

9th Dec 2010, 17:53

From which we can gather, presuming the information is correct, that the photograph may have been taken from an airliner, but not the AF 747 that was clearing 26L.

Lemurian

9th Dec 2010, 18:10

Iron Duck,
http:www.concordesst.com/accident/picture/m1.jpg
Take a look at this picture whch in my opinion the best of the lot.
You may very well be right as the runway/taxiway configuration shown can only be S2 in the foreground, the runway and then the combination of W1/S2(north).
For an angle resolving clue, one has to take in the first airborne picure the alignment made by the left main gear oleo and the top of the fin.
Found some 27 °.
Not bad.
and thanks for the correction.

AlphaZuluRomeo

9th Dec 2010, 18:15

DozyWannabe : I was under the impression that something I didn't think of could lie behind your "might". Thanks for clarifying. :)

M2dude : Thanks also, Sir. Much appreciated.

AZR

Nick Thomas

9th Dec 2010, 18:29

KBPsen
"So the short answer is that you don't know"

Continental may well have stated that they will appeal. We will only know for certain if and when they do. So yes you are right in stating "that you don't know" None of us can know how Continental will proceed.

Starting an appeal is not proof that the verdict is mistaken.

If they appeal, whether they are allowed to procede will be decided at that time. Then and only then will the appeal be heard.

So I still stand by my post 209
"To be in a position to suggest either would require a detailed study of the court findings and the conduct of the hearing. This in my view is very difficult for any of us posting here to have a view on."
My point is that none of us here have enough information to question the court. Of course you and anyone else can speculate as much as you like but please do not claim that your speculation is anything more than that.

In my post 191 I wrote
"What I find unaceptable is the view that the court in reaching this verdict must be corrupt etc".
What am unhappy about is; when speculation is used to claim the court is corrupt or to justify racist remarks. The last sentence is not directed at you KBPsen.

In summary am asking for a civilised debate and not an excuss to air long held views on the corrupt nature of the French and their legal system.

Regards
Nick

Iron Duck

9th Dec 2010, 18:30

http:www.concordesst.com/accident/picture/m1.jpg

A similar shot to the one in the BEA report, probably the next frame on the roll. It has less camera shake; Concorde is 3 - 4 metres higher and yet its fuselage angle relative to the camera has barely changed, showing how far away it is. The size of the film grain is also revealing of this as a crop from the middle of the frame.

In the report it is credited to the picture library Corbis and is the famous picture that was published in all the newspapers. You may be surprised to learn that it probably has not made a rich man of the photographer.

FP2010NC

9th Dec 2010, 18:31

Alright then, but if these factors are so "well known" then why has this case been in court for ages? How can you absolutely prove anything 100%?

Iron Duck

9th Dec 2010, 18:43

Well, what we know - with the benefit of the forensic report and hindsight - is that the engines were not substantially damaged by fire. However from the CVR we know that the location of the fire *did* trigger the Engine Fire Master Warning, and a significant drop in thrust was simultaneously noticed by the F/E. As far as he was concerned, all signs pointed to an engine fire, and the tower warning that they were trailing flames indicated a very serious one.

Of course. My comment referred to the alleged fire prior to the tyre burst. Given that there was no physical evidence of engine fire, I was wondering what else might have been on fire, and why, prior to the tyre burst.

I agree with just about everything else you say - well put - except the possibility of reaching Le Bourget. Given the rate at which the airframe was being compromised by the fire, I doubt it would have held together (or control been maintained) long enough to get there.

The BEA report considers two plausible ignition sources for the fire - arcing in the wheel wells and ignition from the afterburners. Tests were able to reproduce wheel well arcing ignition but not afterburner ignition, so the report considers wheel well arcing the more likely but does not discount the other possibility.

It seems to me that the flame's initial appearance and growth would probably be different in each case; possibly an explosive flame from arcing but more gradual development from afterburner ignition propagating forward. I don't know.

The report is a factual document that draws reasonable cause-and-effect conclusions from the evidence it contains. As I read it, the report concludes that all of the other errors and omissions notwithstanding, the aircraft would have taken off without event had it not run over the strip, at which point its fate was sealed. To doubt the conclusions requires the rejection of the report's evidence as being incomplete, inaccurate or tampered with. That would require the CVR, FDR and ATC data and physical evidence to be compromised.

So I reckon the proportion of blame is about right. No strip on the runway, no accident, so CAL is a fault. However, Concorde was knocked down by an unprecedented tyre burst, which is shouldn't have been, and arguably EADS did not ensure that AF Concordes were as resistant to tyre burst as BA's, so EADS are also at fault.

Let's not forget that in any court of law, 50% of the lawyers are proved wrong. Furthermore, it's not a lawyer's job to ascertain the truth - that's down to the Court. Rather, the lawyer's job is to procure the most favourable judgement for their client, and to that end a lawyer will argue that black is white if they think that they can get away with it.

wings folded

9th Dec 2010, 19:13

Mr SLFin AZ

Any self serving analysis that this is acceptable would not fly in any civil litigation....in fact no reputable attorney would let this get to a trial.

I think that I have never read such utter nonsense as this.

Exactly which attorney, acting on behalf of whom, could or would have stopped proper judicial process at Pontoise?

The process at Pontoise was not civil. It was correctionnel.

The forum is France, not Arizona. French procedure applies. Not Arizonian

The accident did not happen in Arizona.

jcjeant

9th Dec 2010, 19:40

Hi,

A point of view:

This aircraft had a serious flaw that everyone knew, there had been incidents, serious incidents and even accidents, it must be repeated, but he continued to fly and "it was doing" ... until the day the crew was unable to prevent the tragedy occurred.

Faced with a situation not foreseen by the manufacturer combines the bursting of a tire, a broken part of tank No. 5, a major fire under the left wing, a loss of engine thrust 1 and 2 and the non- -retraction, which may suggest that the crew had a chance to get out even tiny?

20 July 1979, after the accident in Washington, BEA, in a confidential memo signed by its director at the time Mr. GUILLEVIC, measured in these terms the seriousness of possible consequences of a burst tire, including: risk fire, severe damage to engine, inability to lift the landing gear. And crash it would have added, is not it?

The crew and passengers had they been warned that failure of a tire could have such catastrophic consequences? Certainly not, since the note was confidential! Further evidence of concealment of a problem we did not want to solve!

And the main argument based on the character supposedly unique and unpredictable process of tearing the tank as implemented in the accident of July 25, 2000 does not, since November 15, 1985 in London, the Following the bursting of a tire during rolling, a depression of the interior to the exterior of a fuel tank resulting from a shock on the underside of the wing had already taken place.

And regardless of whether the failure of the tire wheel No. 2 was due July 25, 2000 by a blade, a hole or a step. The Concorde, its crew and passengers should never have undertaken this flight with the defect had been measured with extreme gravity without wanting to solve.

The Concorde accident demonstrated the bankruptcy of feedback, the newest of 447 FA confirms it.

"Our feedback system is not working properly ... and this for years," exclaimed the President of the APNA in December 2009. "A rapid mobilization to improve it is therefore necessary and the sooner the better! "

"The BEA itself, whose role is to provide" recommendations "to improve air safety, does not seem to show eagerness to put it mildly, to be used in this sense, the database Incident air ... "says, he explained.

Even the "commission of the European Communities does not hesitate to write diplomatically that" The current EU system of accident investigation of civil aircraft and reporting of events does not work optimally "...

It was the Justice of our country, during this trial, definitive stop to this serious deficiency in the institutions of our country. It was not the case, alas!

And so, nothing will prevent the DGCA, EASA, BEA and others to mask other problems ahead for failing to solve them.Source:
Concorde : retour sur le verdict : Les dossiers noirs du transport aérien (http://henrimarnetcornus.20minutes-blogs.fr/archive/2010/12/09/concorde-retour-sur-le-verdict.html)

KBPsen

9th Dec 2010, 19:55

Nick,

My comment was to wings folded rather verbose way of saying he didn't know.

At the risk of repeating myself, I have not commented on the court proceedings or verdict. I have not speculated or made any claims and, as I also said to wings folded, I would rather appreciate it not being presented as if I have.

Having said that, I certainly do not subscribe to the view that a court or verdict can not and should not be questioned.

SLFinAZ

9th Dec 2010, 20:05

I'm sorry but the "nonsense" here is yours...

The most fundamentally basic standard of human conduct specific to civil litigation is the prudent person standard. In a criminal trial both the level of conduct and the standard of proof can be ratcheted up as the presiding judge(s) deems appropriate.

Since AF would be presumed to have a higher standard of obligation the mere fact that the Concorde was on the runway is grounds for negligent homicide since any reasonable and prudent person would logically conclude that the planes history of damage specific to tire failure called for safety measures.

The source of the tire damage is incidental to the fact that the plane had a history of potentially catastrophic failure in the event of a tire blowout at high speed prior to takeoff.

The truth is that the courts failure to even address the fundamental failure of Air France to maintain any level of professional oversight is a clear indication that the court was unwilling to address the issue in accordance with any recognized minimum application of basic accountability.

Any argument that this was anything other then a kangaroo court fails on this count alone. The simple reality is that the Concorde should not have been flying until basic safety issues specific to percussive failure of the fuel tanks were solved.

Compare this to the recent issues with the A380 where the airline immediately grounded the plane until all issues could be examined. Air France was and is criminally negligent in its conduct specific to the Concorde. The only thing that has saved them is the fact that the incident occurred on French soil...anywhere else in the world and they are the folks on trial...