Continental may be charged for Concorde Crash (Press Report)

[pprecious]

Courtesy of www.airdisaster.com

Continental 'outraged' at report of charges in Concorde crash.

"PARIS (AP) -- Continental Airlines Inc. said Wednesday it was "outraged" at reports that French authorities want to prosecute the airline and several employees over the Concorde crash that killed 113 people in Paris four years ago.
The airline issued a strongly worded statement after a French newspaper reported that investigating judge Christophe Regnard had summoned several Continental officials for interrogation and plans to place them under formal investigation along with the company.

"We strongly disagree that anything Continental did was the cause of the Concorde accident, and we are outraged by the media reports that criminal charges may have been made against our company and its employees," the airline said.

Continental said it had no independent confirmation of the charges reported in French daily newspaper Le Parisien, which did not cite sources.

The French justice ministry and the prosecutor's office handling the case declined to comment.

The newspaper said other companies or individuals were also likely to face prosecution over the accident on July 25, 2000, when an Air France Concorde plane crashed in flames onto a hotel shortly after taking off from Paris Charles de Gaulle airport, killing all 109 people on board and four on the ground.

An investigation by France's Accident Investigations Bureau concluded almost three years ago that the accident was caused by a badly installed titanium "wear strip" that had fallen off the engine housing of a Continental Airlines Boeing DC-10 that took off from the same runway minutes earlier.

The metal bar caused a Concorde tire to burst, the report said, propelling rubber debris into the supersonic plane's fuel tanks.

Le Parisien did not name any of the Continental employees it said would be summoned by Regnard, who is heading a manslaughter probe into the disaster.

In its statement, the airline said it was "confident that there is no basis for a criminal action" against the company. "We will defend any charges in the appropriate courts," it said.

Continental shares rose 4 cents, or 0.3 percent, to close at $12.25 Wednesday on the New York Stock Exchange -- near the middle of its 52-week trading range of $7.63 to $18.70."


Might this type of case, even of brought to court, nevermind proved or otherwise cause a precedent for any other incidents?

[Human Factor]

Surely their defence would be that CDG didn't check their runway before Concorde (or anyone else) departed. Right or wrong, I can see it happening.

[Jerricho]

That was exactly the first thing that went through my mind as well. The foreign object could have been anything.

[Dengue_Dude]

Ah, there's a Culture at work.

When bad stuff happens, it seems a real human thing these days to have to 'blame' someone.

Much easier to point at someone and say 'it's their fault' than to say 'sh*t happens' however tragically.

In this more and more litigious society 'blame' means big bucks.

That said, that form of 'society' was learned beyond 50 West anyway - a slight irony there.

Not sure that anyone could be held responsible for that tragedy - but if they can pin it on Continental, then there's someone to share the bill with.

Does that sound cynical?

[ferrydude]

Where does it stop? Should the the check airman of the FE who shut down the wrong engine also be charged? What about the DGCA rep who had oversight of the check airman?

[kick the tires]

Human Factor,

how many airfields check a runway after EVERY departure?? - None! Just imagine what the flow rate would be.

No, that argument is a non starter.

[Arkroyal]

What about the guys who put together the Concord undercarriage with parts missing?

After all, that's the real reason for the crash, isn't it?

[Danny]

Would appreciate all those 'high blood pressure/angry' types getting it through their heads that posting rubbish about "liberating France in WWII" or "whining French" etc. is a futile effort on here as it is only going to be deleted. If you want to have rant to get xenophobic tendencies off your chests then go to the Jet Blast forum. (No guarantees that your posts will be allowed to remain there either but it keeps the 'trailer-trash/redneck' comments off this forum!)

Discuss as intelligent adults or else find yourselves an 'anoraks' website.

[Oshkosh George]

Danny

I know some spotters who are really quite intelligent!

What are you trying to say?

[slingsby]

A colleague of mine who is the maintrol manager of the company who service major undercarriage for most european airlines, stated to me that the "part" not installed (-and- the non modifed spray deflector) could and most probably were the primary cause of the tyre failure. It was already tracking off line before the FOD to tyre impact. Most likely the high speed of Concorde on take off would have caused a possible catastrophic failure of tyres 1/2 and possibly 5 and 6 prmiarily due to the tyre angle and track being estimated at over 20 degrees off centre and increasing aircraft accelerated down the runway. INcreasing rudder inputs to maintain runway heading would have been large if not to be full deflection towards the end of the run.

I am definately not going to belittle the french legal system but on past historic events, if they can blame someone else for a failing and not their own product they will. Litigation is very likely in this case and I think it may pull open a few closed cupboards that the french may not like if I know the US legal system.

[No comment]

If I may add my own two pence worth, I remember reading about the part apparently from the CO departure prior to Concorde.

Was there not a story running at the time that the part was in fact a non standard component? i.e. that the part ending up on the runway was made of a much tougher metal than what would normally be used?

I'm not sure how this "allegation" ended up but if true, then perhaps CO would be liable but that is the only scenario I could see them being taken to court for.

Anything other than that would be pointless.

(p.s. I'm not saying anything against CO, just what I remember reading!!!)

[Atlanta-Driver]

Why not sue the Wright brothers estate for inventing the whole business??? Or Charles Lindbergh for starting Atlantic crossings, the CO DC10 was going to cross wasn't it? So surely old Chuck could be discredited?

How about just suing the people that designed Concorde for their omissions and lack of testing in this area or instructors that didn't cover this scenario in the simulator?

Come on... French justice system muct be idling or someone is looking to move to the politics and is trying to make a name and get the old face on screen.

AD

[peeteechase]

Also rumours about:
TOW in excess of TOPL
Some unaccounted baggage
Tailwind ignored

AF nearly lost a second one, just after the aircraft returned to service. Landed with minutes to go after a fuel leak.
That's why the plug was pulled for BA too, great shame for a company that not only obeyed the rules but exceeded them.

I see a can of worms being opened,
bon chance- Air France

ptc

[Harrier46]

If somebody at the local garage put my brakes back together incorrectly and the car crashed as a result I don't think I would be after Henry T. Same thing if the bonnet fell off and the car behind hit it.

[Koyo]

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. After all, it was their aircraft and it is their job to make sure everything on it is proper. I don't really understand how the court system works in the EU but if this were to happen in the States, it will most likely to end up in civil court. FAA would probably fines Continental for improper maintinence.

Personally, I haven't read the accident report so what I just said could be entirely garbage.

[Ranger 1]

What about the Runway inspections at CDG that day?
It emerged that the only inspection was carried out many hours prior to the departure of Concord , & the excuse was given that there was a fire drill which meant the Fire Dept couldn't carry out the inspection
Although it has been mentioned that the piece of metal which had just come off the DC-10 just prior to Concords departure, had been a major factor in the incident, in my opinion does not let CDG off the hook, if this happened here in the UK, I feel that the airport concerned, with its runway inspection proceedures like CDG , given the movement rate as well, would be looking at a possible charge of "Failure of duty of care".
Also how many airports of this size have their Fire Depts doing Runway inspections?
Not really dedicated stuff in my opinion have they heard of dedicated Airside ops / Safety units ?
Perhaps its the French way of doing things

[Avalon]

OK chaps this is the plan......... If this action proceeds then;

Every pilot, every airline, every handling agent, every airport, infact anybody to do with aviation should refuse to fly Lawyers / solicitors / Barristers etc etc

This "litigation business" has gone far enough. And it is this group of people who are fuelling and sustaining it all. We all accept that gross negligence has no place in this business of aviation and we do more than any other industry to prevent it. But an accident is an accident, and while humans are in "the loop" they will probably occur, hopefully very very occasionally.

So, lets reclaim our future back from the grubby hands of the legal profession and get back to straight and level again. I've got a feeling they might begin to miss their frequent trips to Tuscany, Provence, Aspen or wherever......... paid for by you and me of course. Who is with me on this one?

[northwing]

The lump of metal from the DC10 was definitely the prime cause of the accident. It was a titanium rubbing strip, about the size of a 1-foot ruler, from a thrust reverser. It was designed to be easily replaceable because it got rubbed in normal use. The part that fell off was rather crudely made and was not an OEM part, but the book said you could make one yourself if you wanted to. I am not sure if it was supposed to be made of aluminium and someone had made a titanium one to get a longer life out of it or whether they are all made of titanium.

This one was always going to be a lawyers' benefit but I would be rather surprised if individuals are to be charged at this stage. It would be difficult if not impossible to prove culpability at this stage. Company lawyers seeking damages from othercompanies is another matter.

I don't believe that the missing spacer on the U/C had much to do with it and the aircraft was not overweight. It was right on the limit, and that did not help. It had a long taxi, and that didn't help as the tyres would have heated up. However, it was the lump of bent titanium that sliced up the tyre and threw big lumps of rubber up that really did the damage.

[5milesbaby]

The strip of metal had been badly cut giving it a serrated edge that caused it to cut into the tyre and burst it. The cut mark matched the tangled mess the strip ended up in, and it was the reason why the piece of tyre that hit the wing was so large. The tyres on Concorde were supposed to break into small fragments should they burst. Also, the screw holes had been haphazadly drilled and didn't even form a straight line which is probably why it fell off in the first place.

[LatviaCalling]

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.