Continental may be charged for Concorde Crash (Press Report)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Also, how much do you feel shutting down a perfectly operating engine contributed to the crash?"
As I understand it damage to wiring caused a warning on the No 2 engine which was then correctly shut down iaw drills. The engine itself was OK but the crew were not to know that. Indeed, I would not entertain any criticism of the crew in this case - they did everything that could be expected of them in a situation that was irrecoverable. Concorde was designed to climb at 4% gradient (safer than the subsonic ordinary plane's 3.2%) with one engine out, u/c retracted. The accident aircraft had one engine shut down, another giving less than full power for a time, an u/c that was not fully retracted and a plume of flame at the back which produced extra drag. (I don't want to start a hare running here but the plume causes afterbody drag - the air sees it a part of the aeroplane.) Under these circumstances there was no way it was going to climb.
Concorde probably was more vulnerable than other aircraft to tyre damage, but not by much. I know other manufacturers are looking carefully at the hazards which might arise on their aircraft in similar circumstances. Hopefully we can all learn from this disaster. It would be an insult to a fine professional crew and all those pax if we did not.
As I understand it damage to wiring caused a warning on the No 2 engine which was then correctly shut down iaw drills. The engine itself was OK but the crew were not to know that. Indeed, I would not entertain any criticism of the crew in this case - they did everything that could be expected of them in a situation that was irrecoverable. Concorde was designed to climb at 4% gradient (safer than the subsonic ordinary plane's 3.2%) with one engine out, u/c retracted. The accident aircraft had one engine shut down, another giving less than full power for a time, an u/c that was not fully retracted and a plume of flame at the back which produced extra drag. (I don't want to start a hare running here but the plume causes afterbody drag - the air sees it a part of the aeroplane.) Under these circumstances there was no way it was going to climb.
Concorde probably was more vulnerable than other aircraft to tyre damage, but not by much. I know other manufacturers are looking carefully at the hazards which might arise on their aircraft in similar circumstances. Hopefully we can all learn from this disaster. It would be an insult to a fine professional crew and all those pax if we did not.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northwing - Well said Sir
Hmmm, after the jackals of the legal profession and media have finished with this carcass, it would be nice to think that we, as an industry actually learn something from it.
I have a problem with 'fitting tributes to . . .' because I think it's a sentiment full of excrement. It suits as as humans to fudge our feelings to make ourselves feel better, it has little to do with the personalities concerned.
What I DO believe is that certain incidents (not only in our industry) act as turnkeys to improving safety - Herald of Free Enterprise, the ferry for example.
That said, we've not learned much about furnishings aboard since the Manchester 737 have we? How long ago was that?
We still carry bottles and bottles of Molotov Cocktails (Duty Free to the uninitiated) too, instead of ground based DF lounge on arrival like some airports now have.
I believe the crew probably did the best they could given the circumstances they were presented with. I also believe that they were in a worst case scenario and a no-win situation.
I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the nearest and dearest of all aboard, because you NEVER go off to work not expecting to come back (unless you're a terrorist I suppose), and the family accept that your job takes you away - there is no belief (only a silent fear) that it is permanent.
Can you imagine what is going through the minds of the Continental crew - the 'if onlys'?
I pray that this accident too, allows work to be done to make EVERYBODY safer.
I have a problem with 'fitting tributes to . . .' because I think it's a sentiment full of excrement. It suits as as humans to fudge our feelings to make ourselves feel better, it has little to do with the personalities concerned.
What I DO believe is that certain incidents (not only in our industry) act as turnkeys to improving safety - Herald of Free Enterprise, the ferry for example.
That said, we've not learned much about furnishings aboard since the Manchester 737 have we? How long ago was that?
We still carry bottles and bottles of Molotov Cocktails (Duty Free to the uninitiated) too, instead of ground based DF lounge on arrival like some airports now have.
I believe the crew probably did the best they could given the circumstances they were presented with. I also believe that they were in a worst case scenario and a no-win situation.
I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the nearest and dearest of all aboard, because you NEVER go off to work not expecting to come back (unless you're a terrorist I suppose), and the family accept that your job takes you away - there is no belief (only a silent fear) that it is permanent.
Can you imagine what is going through the minds of the Continental crew - the 'if onlys'?
I pray that this accident too, allows work to be done to make EVERYBODY safer.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Stansted
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its fair to say there still some very important unanswered questions:
According to a seperate investigation carried out by those who clearly felt the facts as given by the French Authorities didnt stack up; one being an ex AF Concorde Flight Engineer
Namely:
1. Why was a report by a CDG fire crew by the side of the runway stated that they saw Concorde on fire well short of where the strip of metal was found dismissed by investigators?
2. Apparantely due to Concordes TOW it requested full length and an area of the runway rarely used and as a result in particularly poor condition. While these suspicious chaps were looking into this rough area being a cause for the tyre to burst.
CDG had subsequetly resurfaced it. Evidence gone!
3. Evidence from the runway seemed to suggest Concorde had left the centre line, again before reaching the strip of metal. Bearing out the point above.
4. Concorde was veering toward the AF 747 on the taxiway and as a result got airbourne well short of Vr. According to the transcript the FE seemed to shut down the engine which was still producing thrust without a call from the Captain. This these investigators agreed sealed Concordes fate.
5. The programme ended by saying the assisting British investigators never actually got to see the strip of metal and the full CVR tape. Why?
Funny enough only seen this programme aired once. But it seemed convincing.
According to a seperate investigation carried out by those who clearly felt the facts as given by the French Authorities didnt stack up; one being an ex AF Concorde Flight Engineer
Namely:
1. Why was a report by a CDG fire crew by the side of the runway stated that they saw Concorde on fire well short of where the strip of metal was found dismissed by investigators?
2. Apparantely due to Concordes TOW it requested full length and an area of the runway rarely used and as a result in particularly poor condition. While these suspicious chaps were looking into this rough area being a cause for the tyre to burst.
CDG had subsequetly resurfaced it. Evidence gone!
3. Evidence from the runway seemed to suggest Concorde had left the centre line, again before reaching the strip of metal. Bearing out the point above.
4. Concorde was veering toward the AF 747 on the taxiway and as a result got airbourne well short of Vr. According to the transcript the FE seemed to shut down the engine which was still producing thrust without a call from the Captain. This these investigators agreed sealed Concordes fate.
5. The programme ended by saying the assisting British investigators never actually got to see the strip of metal and the full CVR tape. Why?
Funny enough only seen this programme aired once. But it seemed convincing.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bits fall off aeroplanes all the time. Just a couple of days ago a large bit fell off a departing Cathay and did nasty things to Khun <somebody's> pickup parked not a million miles from BKK.
To be fair, Cathay are paying for his new windscreen and undenting his roof and god bless 'em..
The point is (as someone said earlier) Sh*t happens.
If M le Grenoble reckons he's got a chance of pinning the Air France Concorde tragedy on Continental then good luck to him. Just so long as Continental are not required to contribute to the legal costs on what has to be a complete waste of time and very bad public relations.
It's so stupid. If I run over a nail on the road and puncture a tyre, I don't go looking for the nail manufacturer for recompense.
To be fair, Cathay are paying for his new windscreen and undenting his roof and god bless 'em..
The point is (as someone said earlier) Sh*t happens.
If M le Grenoble reckons he's got a chance of pinning the Air France Concorde tragedy on Continental then good luck to him. Just so long as Continental are not required to contribute to the legal costs on what has to be a complete waste of time and very bad public relations.
It's so stupid. If I run over a nail on the road and puncture a tyre, I don't go looking for the nail manufacturer for recompense.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take-off weight was calculated to be 186,9 tons, including 95 tons of fuel, which was one tone over the maximum take-off weight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just WHY was the take-off attempted?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just WHY was the take-off attempted?
OLD RED DAMASK
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lancashire born. In Cebu now
Age: 70
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reports in 3 US papers confirming AC 2's reply.
French magistrate Judge Christophe Regnard in his report states that the metal strip played a 'direct role' in the accident.
Think the French have now officially bitten off more than they can chew.
French magistrate Judge Christophe Regnard in his report states that the metal strip played a 'direct role' in the accident.
Think the French have now officially bitten off more than they can chew.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange (or perhaps not so strange, after all
) that the French have so clearly forgotten the role of the Flight Engineer in the Concorde, with his propensity of pulling the fire handle of an operating engine, thereby sealing the fate of the big delta-winged bird.
But then again, the French are being...well, typically French.
) that the French have so clearly forgotten the role of the Flight Engineer in the Concorde, with his propensity of pulling the fire handle of an operating engine, thereby sealing the fate of the big delta-winged bird.But then again, the French are being...well, typically French.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continental may be charged for Concorde Crash (Press Report)
There were many holes lined up in many slices of cheese for this one to happen. I won't comment on my opinion as to what was the primary contributor- as everyone else has been. I will say that rather than punishment, I think it is interesting that no one is looking at "the easiest way to make sure this doesn't happen again". Surely we should learn, change and move on.
Any takers?
I did want to take up LatviaCalling's posting
I work in airside operations and have reasonable knowledge of runway inspections policies and practices at about 9 airports in Europe and the US. I know of no such 'agreement' at any airport close to the size of CDG that the runway should be inspected after the take off of every heavy. Let alone this 'agreement' being rolled into any Aerodrome Safety Policies. The most prescriptive (in terms of quantitative measures) runway inspection policies I have seen are limited to "we will inspect the runway x times a day". I'm not saying that's right or wrong (although I am always looking for a better way of doing something)- in fact, every airport should do it's own risk assessment.
Just imagine what an inspection after every heavy would mean for an airport like LHR. That's an inspection every minute or two of nearly 13,000 ft of a strip of tarmac about 148 ft wide (often in the dark). As you increase the inspections you also need to account for the hazards you are introducing onto the runway- just think of all those vehicles you MIGHT have needed to find that strip of titanium! Again, I'm sure there's a better way of doing what CDG were doing on the day, but other posters have covered that.
Any takers?
I did want to take up LatviaCalling's posting
Following the AF Concorde story when it happened and post factum postings, there seemed to be a general agreement that the runway should have been cleared of any debris after each heavy took off, and especially before a Concorde took off. According to all those pages and posts, this was not done. I don't remember who said it, but the gist was that almost every heavy aircraft loses something on takeoff. Therefore the snuff patrol, but the main point is that before every Concorde takeoff the runway was to be clean. Somebody screwed up.
Just imagine what an inspection after every heavy would mean for an airport like LHR. That's an inspection every minute or two of nearly 13,000 ft of a strip of tarmac about 148 ft wide (often in the dark). As you increase the inspections you also need to account for the hazards you are introducing onto the runway- just think of all those vehicles you MIGHT have needed to find that strip of titanium! Again, I'm sure there's a better way of doing what CDG were doing on the day, but other posters have covered that.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Blighty
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, just imagine a scenario here. Bear with me - I'm not trying the defend or attack anyone here - I'm just trying to put a different perspective on this discussion.
Imaging there's this chap called Kevin the boy-racer. One day, Kevin is cleaning his beloved Ford XR3i Turbo nob-mobile, when he notices that the rear bumper has worked loose. Rather than go to Ford and pay for some new brackets, he decides to fudge something together in his garage, using bits of old scrap metal.
Pleased that he can now buy some more speakers with the money he has saved by not buying the proper brackets, he goes out for a razz around town late that evening.
Whilst driving down a 70mph dual carriageway, the home-made brackets work loose and the bumper falls off. Unfortunately, Kevin has got his music on, so he doesn't hear the bumper fall off.
A few miles behind him is a woman, returning from visiting relatives, with her two children in the car. It's dark, so the woman doesn't see the bumper lying in the road, but as she hits it it bursts her tyres, and she spins off at 70mph and tragically hits a tree. Both her and her children are fatally injured.
So. Who's fault was this accident?
Is it the boy racer, for not using the proper parts, or do you simply say "sh!t happens" ?
In the concorde crash, there were several contributing factors, the Continental strip being one of them. If any one of them had not happened, the accident would not have occured.
The way the French are isolating just the CO strip is not acceptable. They should hold the other factors EQUALLY accountable.
That said, nobody can argue that if CONTINENTAL had used ALUMINIUM instead of TITANIUM (as per the manufacturers instructions), THIS INCIDENT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
Imaging there's this chap called Kevin the boy-racer. One day, Kevin is cleaning his beloved Ford XR3i Turbo nob-mobile, when he notices that the rear bumper has worked loose. Rather than go to Ford and pay for some new brackets, he decides to fudge something together in his garage, using bits of old scrap metal.
Pleased that he can now buy some more speakers with the money he has saved by not buying the proper brackets, he goes out for a razz around town late that evening.
Whilst driving down a 70mph dual carriageway, the home-made brackets work loose and the bumper falls off. Unfortunately, Kevin has got his music on, so he doesn't hear the bumper fall off.
A few miles behind him is a woman, returning from visiting relatives, with her two children in the car. It's dark, so the woman doesn't see the bumper lying in the road, but as she hits it it bursts her tyres, and she spins off at 70mph and tragically hits a tree. Both her and her children are fatally injured.
So. Who's fault was this accident?
Is it the boy racer, for not using the proper parts, or do you simply say "sh!t happens" ?
In the concorde crash, there were several contributing factors, the Continental strip being one of them. If any one of them had not happened, the accident would not have occured.
The way the French are isolating just the CO strip is not acceptable. They should hold the other factors EQUALLY accountable.
That said, nobody can argue that if CONTINENTAL had used ALUMINIUM instead of TITANIUM (as per the manufacturers instructions), THIS INCIDENT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if we would all feel differently had that bit of metal fallen off a bit later on?
It might have landed harmlessly and caused no damage.
It might have come down in a school playground killing a child or two?
Should the penalty be different depending on the unpredictable outcome and if so why?
Perhaps the penalty should always be high because the outcome could be serious even if it isn't always? Drunk drivers don't always kill people.
It might have landed harmlessly and caused no damage.
It might have come down in a school playground killing a child or two?
Should the penalty be different depending on the unpredictable outcome and if so why?
Perhaps the penalty should always be high because the outcome could be serious even if it isn't always? Drunk drivers don't always kill people.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to mention in this discussion that after recently talking to the lead AAIB investigator in the initial report, which too blamed the titanium strip, they were right with their French colleges at the BEA in agreeing that their sequence of events was correct.
After all the technical accident investigation was a joint effort. Both the AAIB and the BEA were given a hard time doing their job by the French judicial system and their parallel report (published today)
The only 2 things they disagree on were noted in the original report, the exact source of ignition. the Uk giys said it was the landing gear brake fan power leads arcing and the the way the tank failed. The French believe in the shock-wave, the UK believe an a similar model but say it may have been punctured with debris to the side of where the main failure was, therefore causing the failure.
Lets put the spacer to rest for once and for all.
Up until the point where the aircraft hit the strip, the aircraft was dead straight on the run way with no steering or rudder inputs to keep it straight has the bogie been mis-aligned. In fact if you look at the FDR trace there is a slight bit of rudder to compensate in the completely opposite direction.
When the aircraft hit the strip, the tank ruptured and the fuel caught alight. Both engines on that side then surged and had zero power output. this caused the aircraft to veer over and and clip the runway light after rotation.
None of the reports go into detail on the what ifs thats not what they do.
Had the No2 engine not been shut down, it would have in a likely hood failed in a similar way to the No1 did 60-90 seconds later due to the fire in that area killing control systems. If they had been able, with the gear down, to get enough airspeed before these both failed is very debatable. Vzrc for 2 engines with gear down was over 300knots.
Maybe they could have got enough speed up to detach the flame, but the damage it was doing was massive. Their only option was no come back to CDG - am emergency landing Le Bourget was never going to have been achievable, if the aviators amoungs us look at the flight tracks.
After all the technical accident investigation was a joint effort. Both the AAIB and the BEA were given a hard time doing their job by the French judicial system and their parallel report (published today)
The only 2 things they disagree on were noted in the original report, the exact source of ignition. the Uk giys said it was the landing gear brake fan power leads arcing and the the way the tank failed. The French believe in the shock-wave, the UK believe an a similar model but say it may have been punctured with debris to the side of where the main failure was, therefore causing the failure.
Lets put the spacer to rest for once and for all.
Up until the point where the aircraft hit the strip, the aircraft was dead straight on the run way with no steering or rudder inputs to keep it straight has the bogie been mis-aligned. In fact if you look at the FDR trace there is a slight bit of rudder to compensate in the completely opposite direction.
When the aircraft hit the strip, the tank ruptured and the fuel caught alight. Both engines on that side then surged and had zero power output. this caused the aircraft to veer over and and clip the runway light after rotation.
None of the reports go into detail on the what ifs thats not what they do.
Had the No2 engine not been shut down, it would have in a likely hood failed in a similar way to the No1 did 60-90 seconds later due to the fire in that area killing control systems. If they had been able, with the gear down, to get enough airspeed before these both failed is very debatable. Vzrc for 2 engines with gear down was over 300knots.
Maybe they could have got enough speed up to detach the flame, but the damage it was doing was massive. Their only option was no come back to CDG - am emergency landing Le Bourget was never going to have been achievable, if the aviators amoungs us look at the flight tracks.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Mexico
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just saw this in a Belgium News Paper, I try to translate it and resumee it, you find the original one in french at:
http://www.lesoir.be/rubriques/mond/...9_283182.shtml
Sorry for my bad inglish!!!javascript:smilie('
')
confused
In brief it say:
1) A original default discovered in 1979 and not resolve is one of the cause of the accident. The judge authorise french autorities to find why nothing was done in 1979 to resolve this default.
2) A little piece of metal from an DC10 Continental Airlines is also part of the accident. It seems that the replacement of the original part was not autorised by the FAA, and that the instalation was not properly done. For such reason, the judge will ear 5 people involved in this replacement, employee of CA (as I understood).
3) It also mention that it is posible that CA will be examn too.
4) The trainig of the crew is also mentioned and that the pilot rotate at a slow velocity and that the tecnician shut off the engine quiet prematurely. But question is made as, was there other solutions??
http://www.lesoir.be/rubriques/mond/...9_283182.shtml
Sorry for my bad inglish!!!javascript:smilie('
')confused
In brief it say:
1) A original default discovered in 1979 and not resolve is one of the cause of the accident. The judge authorise french autorities to find why nothing was done in 1979 to resolve this default.
2) A little piece of metal from an DC10 Continental Airlines is also part of the accident. It seems that the replacement of the original part was not autorised by the FAA, and that the instalation was not properly done. For such reason, the judge will ear 5 people involved in this replacement, employee of CA (as I understood).
3) It also mention that it is posible that CA will be examn too.
4) The trainig of the crew is also mentioned and that the pilot rotate at a slow velocity and that the tecnician shut off the engine quiet prematurely. But question is made as, was there other solutions??
Do AF captains routinely give a 'Gallic shrug' to MTOW and, more importantly, RTOW values when clearly overweight?
First take the plank out of thine own eyes, my Froggy friends.......
Not impressed by AF risk management culture. So I don't pax with them.
First take the plank out of thine own eyes, my Froggy friends.......
Not impressed by AF risk management culture. So I don't pax with them.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imaging there's this chap called Kevin the boy-racer. One day, Kevin is cleaning his beloved Ford XR3i Turbo nob-mobile, when he notices that the rear bumper has worked loose. Rather than go to Ford and pay for some new brackets, he decides to fudge something together in his garage, using bits of old scrap metal.
Pleased that he can now buy some more speakers with the money he has saved by not buying the proper brackets, he goes out for a razz around town late that evening.
Whilst driving down a 70mph dual carriageway, the home-made brackets work loose and the bumper falls off. Unfortunately, Kevin has got his music on, so he doesn't hear the bumper fall off.
A few miles behind him is a woman, returning from visiting relatives, with her two children in the car. It's dark, so the woman doesn't see the bumper lying in the road, but as she hits it it bursts her tyres, and she spins off at 70mph and tragically hits a tree. Both her and her children are fatally injured.
So. Who's fault was this accident?
Is it the boy racer, for not using the proper parts, or do you simply say "sh!t happens" ?
So Kevin the boy trucker blows a tyre and keeps going, not noticing it because he's got 17 other good ones.
Karen and her family come along in the dark and hit the blown tyre. While for a normal car, this would cause consternation, Karen's utlrasleek McLaren sports car has a design defect whereby if a tiny piece of rubber gets stuck in the intake, the engine overheats and the car catches fire. Flames shoot ouyt of the hood, and Karen's looking at a one-lane tunnel -- she can swerve and hit a tree, or go through the tunnel and try to stop on the other side. She eases off the gas, and drives into the tunnel, gradually losing sight and systems. Eventually, the steering cables are burned through, the car spins out, hits a couple of pedestrians and explodes.
Is it Kevin the Trucker's fault for using a questionable but tolerated maintenance procedure? Or is it MacLaren's fault for failing to rectify a known design problem? Or do you just say "tough luck".
----
If someone flicks a cigarette off a road bridge, and it lands in the bed of a dumptruck hauling black gunpowder, the smoke is clearly guilty of littering. Is he also guilty of homicide? Or could he have had a reasonable expectation that vehicles certified for road transport had some sort of protection against common hazards, like lit cigarettes?
---
The distinction is between a trigger event and an underlying systemic failure. If the CO metal strip weren't there, would there have been a disaster on that day? Probably not. But there would have been a disaster sooner or later. All the other pieces were there; all it needed was a statiscally fairly common event. Unless, of course, you checked the runway for debris before every Concorde takeoff . (blowouts don't seem to pose as much of a threat to other A/C).
Rotate on this!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 64
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My tuppence worth.....
IMHO there are 3 main events here each that needs to be viewed both in relation to the other 2 events AND in isolation.
(1) The strip.... it will need to be established if this in fact came into contact with the tyre. (I understand the tyre damage fingerprint matched the shape of the strip).
If it IS the case that the strip was hit it then needs to be ascertained why the strip 'fell off' the CON a/c, ie was there any negligence in the way it was fitted. Dependent on the answers to this SOME of the culpability may be adjudged to lay with CON.
(2) The Aircraft.... regardless of how the strip came to be where it was, if the tyre DID strike it should or should not the aircraft be reasonably expected to cope with the incident. Here I'm sure the CON people will be asking why BA retrofitted mods whilst AF didn't. I'm very sure that the CON people will produce documents proving that engineering data that led BA to retrofit was shared with AF. Dependent on the answers to this SOME culpability may be adjudged to lay with AF
(3) The engine shut-down... Presumed 'false warning' - I'm not going to speculate.
IMHO there are 3 main events here each that needs to be viewed both in relation to the other 2 events AND in isolation.
(1) The strip.... it will need to be established if this in fact came into contact with the tyre. (I understand the tyre damage fingerprint matched the shape of the strip).
If it IS the case that the strip was hit it then needs to be ascertained why the strip 'fell off' the CON a/c, ie was there any negligence in the way it was fitted. Dependent on the answers to this SOME of the culpability may be adjudged to lay with CON.
(2) The Aircraft.... regardless of how the strip came to be where it was, if the tyre DID strike it should or should not the aircraft be reasonably expected to cope with the incident. Here I'm sure the CON people will be asking why BA retrofitted mods whilst AF didn't. I'm very sure that the CON people will produce documents proving that engineering data that led BA to retrofit was shared with AF. Dependent on the answers to this SOME culpability may be adjudged to lay with AF
(3) The engine shut-down... Presumed 'false warning' - I'm not going to speculate.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all fairness to the French just wanted to point out that all French news sources I've seen are stating that:
1. the metal strip on the runway from the CO DC 10, and
2. a fault in the design of the Concorde
were the main causes of this sad and unfortunate accident.
So the French authorities are NOT solely blaming CO, but also blaming the design of an aircraft they built themselves. So cool do mes amis with the attacks on France. And as some of you so correctly point out, Yes, the French are being very French... what else do you expect?
On a side note, I've only been living in France a couple of years and am still totally lost with the French legal system. There was a very interesting story running for a while a few months ago. Apparently somebody got drunk at a dinner party, and crashed his/her car after the dinner killing himself/herself and somebody else not with them (can't remember if it was people in another car, pedestrians)... So the French legal system brought the couple who hosted the dinner party to court claiming taht they shouldn't have permitted their gustes to drive home in a drunken state, and they were partly at fault for the incident... Just found it interesting and must say made me think.
Bonne journée...
1. the metal strip on the runway from the CO DC 10, and
2. a fault in the design of the Concorde
were the main causes of this sad and unfortunate accident.
So the French authorities are NOT solely blaming CO, but also blaming the design of an aircraft they built themselves. So cool do mes amis with the attacks on France. And as some of you so correctly point out, Yes, the French are being very French... what else do you expect?
On a side note, I've only been living in France a couple of years and am still totally lost with the French legal system. There was a very interesting story running for a while a few months ago. Apparently somebody got drunk at a dinner party, and crashed his/her car after the dinner killing himself/herself and somebody else not with them (can't remember if it was people in another car, pedestrians)... So the French legal system brought the couple who hosted the dinner party to court claiming taht they shouldn't have permitted their gustes to drive home in a drunken state, and they were partly at fault for the incident... Just found it interesting and must say made me think.
Bonne journée...