Continental may be charged for Concorde Crash (Press Report)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lump of metal from the DC10 was definitely the prime cause of the accident.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic;
A few years ago a First Officer on a shorts 330 was killed after a collision with an MD80 at CDG, the primary cause of the accident was due to language and misunderstandings due to the controllers speaking a non standard language ie FRENCH. The report strongly advised that CDG adopt the international standard language, ENGLISH, have they done that? no!! so who is liable for that accident and should another happen god forbid because lessons have not been learned would the french courts charge the controllers and French pilots? prob not. Double standards here i think.
A few years ago a First Officer on a shorts 330 was killed after a collision with an MD80 at CDG, the primary cause of the accident was due to language and misunderstandings due to the controllers speaking a non standard language ie FRENCH. The report strongly advised that CDG adopt the international standard language, ENGLISH, have they done that? no!! so who is liable for that accident and should another happen god forbid because lessons have not been learned would the french courts charge the controllers and French pilots? prob not. Double standards here i think.
Still behind the curtain
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't think that Continental and Air France apply to this scenario on take off. If two planes from two different countries are trying to land, then I may agree on the language spoken, but in this case, I don't think it carries any water.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As more and more aircraft accidents end up as criminal prosecutions rather than life saving/improving safety excersizes the whole process of accident investigation is changing.
It also makes increasingly harder to support things like FDR's, CVR's and cockpit camera's when their ultimate use is no longer in the safety realm but the PUNISHMENT realm.
It is a very different mentality overseas from America in an accident investigation, but the valujet investigations have changed the dynamics in the USA as well.
This is a VERY bad idea, but not suprising. The difference in culture was quite well represented during the 587 investigation (the first time I was involved in the investigation an Airbus product)
But when you realize that all things end in courts and penal systems don't have the same protections around the world, these things become somewhat easier to understand.
Think about that the next time a Greek controllers goes berzerk at you. He might go to jail... He's got a lot of pressure on him, over and above just safety...
Cheers
Wino
It also makes increasingly harder to support things like FDR's, CVR's and cockpit camera's when their ultimate use is no longer in the safety realm but the PUNISHMENT realm.
It is a very different mentality overseas from America in an accident investigation, but the valujet investigations have changed the dynamics in the USA as well.
This is a VERY bad idea, but not suprising. The difference in culture was quite well represented during the 587 investigation (the first time I was involved in the investigation an Airbus product)
But when you realize that all things end in courts and penal systems don't have the same protections around the world, these things become somewhat easier to understand.
Think about that the next time a Greek controllers goes berzerk at you. He might go to jail... He's got a lot of pressure on him, over and above just safety...
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hangar 69
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted by Koyo:
I´m definitely no lawyer, but what about the word accident? I´m sure the CO technician who installed that piece of metal did not intend to crash an AF Concorde! It was most probably an unintentional mistake, and now the French authorities want to sue someone for that? It does not make sense!
As some people have pointed out, with this mentality there is no end in sight about blaming someone for an accident!
I can see why the French wants to sue Continental. It was alleged that the piece of metal that caused the tyre failure was said to be manufactured and installed incorrecly. Assuming that is really what happened, Continental could be found liable for the accident.
As some people have pointed out, with this mentality there is no end in sight about blaming someone for an accident!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those of you who missed the memo:
a journalist published a charming little article a few years back about how this flight was a "death ride" because of the missing spacer, leaving the gate above take off weight, taking off with a tail wind, and Jacques Chirac's jet on a neighboring taxiway causing a rotation before V1.
To clear the air:
A) The weight the aircraft had was not that at the end of the runway -- it had burned to exactly MTOW.
B) Winds were calm. The winds as measured at various points along the runway indicate that, for most of the run, the concorde had a headwind. Whatever mild tailwind tower was announcing, it wasn't the headwind as measured at the threshhold and halfway down the strip.
C) The missing spacer may have had something do with it -- I dunno.
Now, as for blaming Continental: yeah, there probably was a shortcoming in maintenance. And it probably led to leaving a big nasty foreign object on the runway. And that Concorde undoubtedly suffered a tire blowout from FOD, a tire blowout which punctured the wing, set the aircraft on fire, and ultimately led to a catastrophic failure and loss of life.
But -correct me if I'm wrong- tire failures are rather common events, and it was only on Concordes that they tended to take parts of the wing with them.
And aircraft do at times make messes behind them. While operators should make every effort not to do so, the responsibility for providing a safe runway lies with the airfield operator, just as the decision to take off on that runway is that of the pilot. It has to be that way.
Of course, criminal inquiries by investigating judges do not equate to findings of liability.
a journalist published a charming little article a few years back about how this flight was a "death ride" because of the missing spacer, leaving the gate above take off weight, taking off with a tail wind, and Jacques Chirac's jet on a neighboring taxiway causing a rotation before V1.
To clear the air:
A) The weight the aircraft had was not that at the end of the runway -- it had burned to exactly MTOW.
B) Winds were calm. The winds as measured at various points along the runway indicate that, for most of the run, the concorde had a headwind. Whatever mild tailwind tower was announcing, it wasn't the headwind as measured at the threshhold and halfway down the strip.
C) The missing spacer may have had something do with it -- I dunno.
Now, as for blaming Continental: yeah, there probably was a shortcoming in maintenance. And it probably led to leaving a big nasty foreign object on the runway. And that Concorde undoubtedly suffered a tire blowout from FOD, a tire blowout which punctured the wing, set the aircraft on fire, and ultimately led to a catastrophic failure and loss of life.
But -correct me if I'm wrong- tire failures are rather common events, and it was only on Concordes that they tended to take parts of the wing with them.
And aircraft do at times make messes behind them. While operators should make every effort not to do so, the responsibility for providing a safe runway lies with the airfield operator, just as the decision to take off on that runway is that of the pilot. It has to be that way.
Of course, criminal inquiries by investigating judges do not equate to findings of liability.
Psychophysiological entity
The piece of metal caused the tire to fail. The tire caused the aircraft to crash.
As a layman, it seems to me that if the piece of metal had caused the crash by an immediate destructive process, i.e. entering and engine, then there would be some culpability…somewhere. But where the demise of this aircraft was caused by the failure of one of its tires, then the question has to be asked: if a tire fails, should it bring down the aircraft? I think not.
As a layman, it seems to me that if the piece of metal had caused the crash by an immediate destructive process, i.e. entering and engine, then there would be some culpability…somewhere. But where the demise of this aircraft was caused by the failure of one of its tires, then the question has to be asked: if a tire fails, should it bring down the aircraft? I think not.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right about the word "accident". CO had no intension of hurting anyone. However, if it can be foreseen that an event can occur as a result of negligence you can still be liable. It's like excessive speeding. I'm sure the driver don't intend to kill anyone but he/she can foreseen that it could happen. So it comes down to this. Could CO had predicted that the strip of metal can cause such tragic accident. I'm not blaming CO completely here.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The piece of metal and the spacer
Hold on guys, please go back to Slingsby’s post above. It is a known fact that the spacer was missing, but it is not a proven fact, as far as I know, that any tyre actually hit the piece of metal. It is only an assumption, and a convenient one at that. The piece of metal was found on the runway after the event. That is accepted, but IMHO there is enough evidence that the tyre failure and resulting fuel tank rupture could be attributed to the missing spacer alone.
As far as I recall, the missing spacer produced something like three degrees of LHS bogie misalignment. Running the tyres with that much misalignment produces a lot of side force. It’s a distant memory, and I am happy to be corrected, but I would expect a side force of something more than 20% of the vertical load on the tyres with that much misalignment. If you don’t believe me, try doing it with your car. A little bit of steering track rod adjustment should do it. Then try driving it at between 100 to 200 mph.
As the aircraft accelerated down the runway, the two bogies would have been fighting each other and pulling to one side, with corrective rudder inputs to try and keep the aircraft tracking straight. Thereby applying side force predominantly to the LHS bogie tyres.
Evidently, the scrubbing action on the LHS tyres was also sufficient to lay rubber on the runway, to me that is very significant. I saw the photographs showing the tyre marks going off the runway to the left. Not just one tyre, but the whole LHS bogie set. Scrubbing the misaligned tyres at that speed for a considerable distance, as evidently happened, would have also generated a lot of heat in the tyres. Easily enough to cause tyre failure.
Then did the tyres also hit the runway edge lights?
IMHO, scrubbing the tyres alone would be enough to explain the tyre failure. If they hit the piece of metal as well, then that was double bad luck.
I’m 100% with Slingsby. The skeletons in the cupboard are waiting for the lawyers. Personally, I think it is about time that this tragedy was properly laid to rest.
Hold on guys, please go back to Slingsby’s post above. It is a known fact that the spacer was missing, but it is not a proven fact, as far as I know, that any tyre actually hit the piece of metal. It is only an assumption, and a convenient one at that. The piece of metal was found on the runway after the event. That is accepted, but IMHO there is enough evidence that the tyre failure and resulting fuel tank rupture could be attributed to the missing spacer alone.
As far as I recall, the missing spacer produced something like three degrees of LHS bogie misalignment. Running the tyres with that much misalignment produces a lot of side force. It’s a distant memory, and I am happy to be corrected, but I would expect a side force of something more than 20% of the vertical load on the tyres with that much misalignment. If you don’t believe me, try doing it with your car. A little bit of steering track rod adjustment should do it. Then try driving it at between 100 to 200 mph.
As the aircraft accelerated down the runway, the two bogies would have been fighting each other and pulling to one side, with corrective rudder inputs to try and keep the aircraft tracking straight. Thereby applying side force predominantly to the LHS bogie tyres.
Evidently, the scrubbing action on the LHS tyres was also sufficient to lay rubber on the runway, to me that is very significant. I saw the photographs showing the tyre marks going off the runway to the left. Not just one tyre, but the whole LHS bogie set. Scrubbing the misaligned tyres at that speed for a considerable distance, as evidently happened, would have also generated a lot of heat in the tyres. Easily enough to cause tyre failure.
Then did the tyres also hit the runway edge lights?
IMHO, scrubbing the tyres alone would be enough to explain the tyre failure. If they hit the piece of metal as well, then that was double bad luck.
I’m 100% with Slingsby. The skeletons in the cupboard are waiting for the lawyers. Personally, I think it is about time that this tragedy was properly laid to rest.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad Fact coming . . .
Reading round what you've all written, I daresay the 'truth' is covered in there somewhere.
The piece of metal is pretty much agreed to be the cause of the first INCIDENT, the ACCIDENT happened a bit further down the line - the error chain.
Sad fact about error chains is that they are most obvious to investigators and lay-people alike all possessing 20:20 hindsight (that's not a dig at anyone).
The saddest fact of all this (if true) is that the ONLY winners in this whole sorry tale are going to be law firms and lawyers AND of course, the MEDIA, who will feed on it like parasites.
I'm sorry if I offend anyone who happens to be from the Media, but your track record of accuracy versus drama value in aviation topics leaves you condemned - utterly (and I'm specifically citing accident reporting here, not industrial topic coverage).
Facts, Truth and Accuracy seldom are allowed to interfere with a good 'story'.
There is no wonder that many in the aviation industry (ie 'doing the job') regard the press as a species of pond life.
Lawyers come a close second.
OK - I am cynical.
The piece of metal is pretty much agreed to be the cause of the first INCIDENT, the ACCIDENT happened a bit further down the line - the error chain.
Sad fact about error chains is that they are most obvious to investigators and lay-people alike all possessing 20:20 hindsight (that's not a dig at anyone).
The saddest fact of all this (if true) is that the ONLY winners in this whole sorry tale are going to be law firms and lawyers AND of course, the MEDIA, who will feed on it like parasites.
I'm sorry if I offend anyone who happens to be from the Media, but your track record of accuracy versus drama value in aviation topics leaves you condemned - utterly (and I'm specifically citing accident reporting here, not industrial topic coverage).
Facts, Truth and Accuracy seldom are allowed to interfere with a good 'story'.
There is no wonder that many in the aviation industry (ie 'doing the job') regard the press as a species of pond life.
Lawyers come a close second.
OK - I am cynical.
The Concorde might have been very close to or slightly above MTOW, but I understand that it was very definitely well above RTOW for the conditions passed to the crew. If they chose to ignore that, they would have commenced the take-off roll in contravention of JAR-OPS requirements. A decision which would reflect adversly upon the AF Commander's risk management strategy.
The incorrectly repaired undercarriage assembly and the a/c weight delayed acceleration so that they hit a piece of metal from an incorrectly repaired Continental a/c. That caused the tyre burst which in turn led to the fire. The FE shut down an engine which, whilst damaged, was still producing thrust without being so ordered. That guaranteed disaster...
The incorrectly repaired undercarriage assembly and the a/c weight delayed acceleration so that they hit a piece of metal from an incorrectly repaired Continental a/c. That caused the tyre burst which in turn led to the fire. The FE shut down an engine which, whilst damaged, was still producing thrust without being so ordered. That guaranteed disaster...
Last edited by BEagle; 10th Dec 2004 at 07:22.
Just a numbered other
It would seem from the above posts that we have an error chain involving
An incorrectly assembled bogey on the Concord
A take off probably above RTOW
A piece of metal on the runway from a CO DC10
NO runway inspection for a long period
A tyre failure for some reason
an uncommanded (by the PF) shut down of an engine still doing useful work
And the only non native link in that chain appears to have attracted the spotlight of litigation?
An incorrectly assembled bogey on the Concord
A take off probably above RTOW
A piece of metal on the runway from a CO DC10
NO runway inspection for a long period
A tyre failure for some reason
an uncommanded (by the PF) shut down of an engine still doing useful work
And the only non native link in that chain appears to have attracted the spotlight of litigation?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right on Arkroyal, and I would add a history of burst tires resulting in punctured fuel tanks. BA chose to retrofit their Concordes to add integrity to the fuel tanks during these events,
Air France chose not to.
Air France chose not to.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Over The Hills And Far Away
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before too many people join in on the ever so popular sport of french bashing, have anybody actually been charged with anything? is there any evidence that anybody will be, besides a report appearing in a news media that is usually treated with utter contempt on this forum.
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While litigation seems to be an increasingly depressing trend that may destroy us in Europe, and fueled by increased insurance premiums has already driven prices on products and services in the US stupidly high, it would be interesting to see if this legal challenge is fact or simply speculation.
How they will prove that it was that metal strip alone which caused the disaster, and that it was in fact Continental's will also be interesting? A number of other pertinant facts surely directly affected the outcome of that tragic day. The spacer and evidence of it's effect seems to have been clear, had the TO distance not increased might the aircraft in fact not have rotated before reaching the object which, may, or not, have burst the tire?
What sadly is true is that those who would profit most from a case like this, is most likely to be the press and the legal profession.
How they will prove that it was that metal strip alone which caused the disaster, and that it was in fact Continental's will also be interesting? A number of other pertinant facts surely directly affected the outcome of that tragic day. The spacer and evidence of it's effect seems to have been clear, had the TO distance not increased might the aircraft in fact not have rotated before reaching the object which, may, or not, have burst the tire?
What sadly is true is that those who would profit most from a case like this, is most likely to be the press and the legal profession.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me that this is a classic "chain of events" or "domino" accident, where a number of systematic failures are exacerbated by human factors. Any one of them not occurring could have stopped the entire sequence.
Many other unfortunate accidents, such as Chernobyl, Piper Alpha, Space Shuttle(s), etc followed such chains as well. To not learn from these properly is the real shame.
Without wishing to incur the wrath of Danny, I do feel that there is not a French arrogance to this, or that the lawyers are driving it. More the Grand Ecole (the politicians) attitude (We are right, we don't make mistakes, everyone else is wrong).
Now, exactly what might be the FO in FOD? Metal? A bird? The fox I saw last year? At CDG. Any one of those could cause similar devastating circumstances. The fact that I saw a fox running across the runway - should we balme the French for a lackadaisical attitude? Should they do more? SHould we stop flights from CDG at once?
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The blame process here seems only to be trying to divert attention in the most silly way. Perhaps driven in the most nationalistic, and ironic given the name of the airport, of ways. In so doing, the real issues, and ALL of them, may be missed.
So, Messieurs, grow up, vous ne devez pas etre "comme des garcons", and make sure that this does not happen again.
Many other unfortunate accidents, such as Chernobyl, Piper Alpha, Space Shuttle(s), etc followed such chains as well. To not learn from these properly is the real shame.
Without wishing to incur the wrath of Danny, I do feel that there is not a French arrogance to this, or that the lawyers are driving it. More the Grand Ecole (the politicians) attitude (We are right, we don't make mistakes, everyone else is wrong).
Now, exactly what might be the FO in FOD? Metal? A bird? The fox I saw last year? At CDG. Any one of those could cause similar devastating circumstances. The fact that I saw a fox running across the runway - should we balme the French for a lackadaisical attitude? Should they do more? SHould we stop flights from CDG at once?
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The blame process here seems only to be trying to divert attention in the most silly way. Perhaps driven in the most nationalistic, and ironic given the name of the airport, of ways. In so doing, the real issues, and ALL of them, may be missed.
So, Messieurs, grow up, vous ne devez pas etre "comme des garcons", and make sure that this does not happen again.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While we the public ultimately pay for such waste and nonsense, I'd like to see the matter brought to trial, so I can enjoy seeing Continental's lawyers publicly spank those suggesting that they are to blame for this terrible accident.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having enjoyed 44 flights on Concorde mostly New York routeing but some Washington ones as well, I feel strongly that the French are by a massive percentage the ones at which responsibility for the crash must be laid. A tyre burst at a critical point on the take off roll should not result in the deaths of over 100 people.
The typical French arrogance in not following BA's example to mod the guards to prevent wing puncture if a tyre burst at a critical point in the TO run, didn't help.
The possible engineering cock up during U/C assembly that caused the offset tracking, made matters worse.
The Air France use of many more retreads per tyre carcase than BA may have been a factor.
The French Flight Engineer that shut a working engine down without being told to, sounded the death knell.
By contrast, Continental is but an innocent bystander.
Aviate 1138
The typical French arrogance in not following BA's example to mod the guards to prevent wing puncture if a tyre burst at a critical point in the TO run, didn't help.
The possible engineering cock up during U/C assembly that caused the offset tracking, made matters worse.
The Air France use of many more retreads per tyre carcase than BA may have been a factor.
The French Flight Engineer that shut a working engine down without being told to, sounded the death knell.
By contrast, Continental is but an innocent bystander.
Aviate 1138