Five people to face Concorde crash trial
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since you present yourself as someone more knowledgeable answer this question. Can the court dismiss a portion of the criminal indictment at its discretion and directly charge or instruct the prosecutor to charge another party it views as at fault? My guess is that the answer is a resounding NO.
I will leave you with your Arizonian guess.
Meanwhile, justice will be carried out without guesses. It will be carried out by competent people, within a structure of law which they understand.
This is a non starter and entirely false in any jurisdiction
It does not matter.
You are not trying this case.
You have no evidence to offer. The views which you are entitled to hold carry no weight beyond the boundary of your own person.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: DXB
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the 1981 NTSB recommendations were already clear enough:
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/1981/A81_150_152.pdf
Now it's not because this letter was sent to the French authorities that "other" operating authorities shouldn't feel concerned by the listed occurrences, which by the way happened more often in serious stages (fuel leaks) than with the French operations.
The 1981 letter mentions: "potentidly catastrophic incident resulting from blown tires during takeoff" What else does need to be added? Why should the court segregate responsibilities on AF only while its a entire systematic risk management failure? To me it is very clear that all parties involved in the operations of this aircraft were fully aware of the risks mentioned in the NTSB recommendations.
I would really appreciate if one could stop attempting to discharge other parties by demonstrating AF's heavy violations. AF failure to work properly doesn't clear other parties from there responsibilities and AF isn't the only one missing in the court.
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/1981/A81_150_152.pdf
Now it's not because this letter was sent to the French authorities that "other" operating authorities shouldn't feel concerned by the listed occurrences, which by the way happened more often in serious stages (fuel leaks) than with the French operations.
The 1981 letter mentions: "potentidly catastrophic incident resulting from blown tires during takeoff" What else does need to be added? Why should the court segregate responsibilities on AF only while its a entire systematic risk management failure? To me it is very clear that all parties involved in the operations of this aircraft were fully aware of the risks mentioned in the NTSB recommendations.
I would really appreciate if one could stop attempting to discharge other parties by demonstrating AF's heavy violations. AF failure to work properly doesn't clear other parties from there responsibilities and AF isn't the only one missing in the court.
Controversial, moi?
I would really appreciate if one could stop attempting to discharge other parties by demonstrating AF's heavy violations.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brit312
The aircraft is reported to have drifted to the left of the runway [due to this missing spacer] during the take off run, so one would have expected to see some input to correct this.
Constant right input for 2 degrees.
What a bizarre practice to off center the scale I concede
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: DXB
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stopping your one track crusade although I would imagine most people are probably using the ignore facility already to remove your tedious postings from sight.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Bf109
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#273 CONF iture ->
If one reads the BEA report this is explained there. The Flight Data Recorder output numbers presented included the calibration error. For rudder pedal that error was (if memory serves me well) +1.7, which means that that what appears to be -2 in the graph is actually 0.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile, justice will be carried out without guesses. It will be carried out by competent people, within a structure of law which they understand
So you define "justice" as a preconceived idea of guilt that excludes multiple entities who's actions directly contributed to the incident under review?
You define "competent" how?
Who exactly are "they"?
My entire point here is that the "structure" of the law here is actually being shaped by the prosecutor not the 3 judge panel. In the end this is nothing other then an attempt to assign blame not "justice" or more importantly an unbiased search for the underlying truth.
So I'm a bit curious but we will start with one specific point. We have enough reasonable documentation that we can (for arguments sake) stipulate that 3 French fire fighters on station and observing the take off roll in a professional capacity will testify (if allowed) that they witnessed observable signs of a fire well before the plane reached the area of the FOD. Since this event clearly is unrelated to any potential damage from the FOD and unrelated to issues specific to the fuel tank puncture it would appear to exonerate both Continental and the other defendants from having primary responsibility for the tragedy.
As a second point it appears (even from the BEA report) that the tracking issues are separate from the tire failure itself. This issue led to the impact with the lighting and the related damage to the wheel well and possibly the engine failure. So if the source of the flame is sparks from the damage, the source of the engine failure is debris from the lighting fixtures and damage from the impact is what prevented the gear to be raised and contributed to the lack of safe operating speed being obtained then the root cause of the tragedy is in fact the lack of centerline tracking. After all the Dulles incident did not involve any fire.
So we have two alternative possibilities immediately at hand.
1) The "fire" predates the tire failure (or the failure occurred prior to FOD impact) or 2) that the tire failure was secondary to a bigger tracking problem that caused the structural damage that led to engine and landing gear failure and potentially would have caused a fuel puncture regardless but in the end was the causal event for the tragedy.
At this point your further opinion on how these very real questions are handled is not required. My believe (which I will gladly retract if needed) is that the judges will discount any and all technical alternatives not in line with the findings of the BEA report as speculative and inconclusive. Accordingly they will ignore such and rely entirely on the technical findings of the BEA report and apportion blame accordingly. So in the end there will be judgement....but no justice.
So you define "justice" as a preconceived idea of guilt that excludes multiple entities who's actions directly contributed to the incident under review?
You define "competent" how?
Who exactly are "they"?
My entire point here is that the "structure" of the law here is actually being shaped by the prosecutor not the 3 judge panel. In the end this is nothing other then an attempt to assign blame not "justice" or more importantly an unbiased search for the underlying truth.
So I'm a bit curious but we will start with one specific point. We have enough reasonable documentation that we can (for arguments sake) stipulate that 3 French fire fighters on station and observing the take off roll in a professional capacity will testify (if allowed) that they witnessed observable signs of a fire well before the plane reached the area of the FOD. Since this event clearly is unrelated to any potential damage from the FOD and unrelated to issues specific to the fuel tank puncture it would appear to exonerate both Continental and the other defendants from having primary responsibility for the tragedy.
As a second point it appears (even from the BEA report) that the tracking issues are separate from the tire failure itself. This issue led to the impact with the lighting and the related damage to the wheel well and possibly the engine failure. So if the source of the flame is sparks from the damage, the source of the engine failure is debris from the lighting fixtures and damage from the impact is what prevented the gear to be raised and contributed to the lack of safe operating speed being obtained then the root cause of the tragedy is in fact the lack of centerline tracking. After all the Dulles incident did not involve any fire.
So we have two alternative possibilities immediately at hand.
1) The "fire" predates the tire failure (or the failure occurred prior to FOD impact) or 2) that the tire failure was secondary to a bigger tracking problem that caused the structural damage that led to engine and landing gear failure and potentially would have caused a fuel puncture regardless but in the end was the causal event for the tragedy.
At this point your further opinion on how these very real questions are handled is not required. My believe (which I will gladly retract if needed) is that the judges will discount any and all technical alternatives not in line with the findings of the BEA report as speculative and inconclusive. Accordingly they will ignore such and rely entirely on the technical findings of the BEA report and apportion blame accordingly. So in the end there will be judgement....but no justice.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With one or two notable exceptions, I think you have accurately summed up what most of us here fear will be the outcome.
The other two individuals appear to be going to great lengths to, respectively, drag BA into it, and convince us that a case that appears to have already targeted who they think is at fault, will be anything like comprehensive enough.
Interestingly you are still waiting for an answer to your question regarding changing the "blame" for this, if as the trial progresses, it appears there are other fish more deserving to be fried. As yet I see no response to that very valid and important point.
I would hope that the "net" could be cast a little further if justice is really to be done.
The other two individuals appear to be going to great lengths to, respectively, drag BA into it, and convince us that a case that appears to have already targeted who they think is at fault, will be anything like comprehensive enough.
Interestingly you are still waiting for an answer to your question regarding changing the "blame" for this, if as the trial progresses, it appears there are other fish more deserving to be fried. As yet I see no response to that very valid and important point.
I would hope that the "net" could be cast a little further if justice is really to be done.
A jury of 12 average Joes taken from the street is not a key to happiness nor any guarantee that they would better arrive at the truth in this case than the 3 judges. If you think otherwise you are delusional.
In this case, three persons - the judges - will decide whether the accused are guilty or not. Three people can do it just as well as 12 people. Perhaps even better.
In this case, three persons - the judges - will decide whether the accused are guilty or not. Three people can do it just as well as 12 people. Perhaps even better.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Google Traduire
Original link:
crash Concorde
The Court
"The inevitable technical nature of this trial should not make it lose its human dimension," recalled the president of the court, Dominique Andréassier.
Wishful thinking because in the courtroom there is virtually no family passengers died. They have all been very well compensated in return for their silence and their complete withdrawal.
While such trials after a major disaster is always a pretext to allow victims to their grief, this is not the case this time.
Only plaintiffs not entitled to compensation as that of the crew or the hotel staff are present.
No illusions either about the search for truth as only one case has been studied by experts and validated by the judge. And in a courtroom, as everyone knows, there is no possible escape outside the sacrosanct order of dismissal of judge defended by the experts.
Therefore no opportunity to see other causes of the crash jewel of French aircraft, just before the A320, this stunning slide.
And the Americans have done well seen as both accused of Continental Airlines, a boilermaker, John Taylor and Stanley Ford, head of the team in which Mr. Taylor was working, were also absent on the first day of trial . If Mr. Ford is suffering "and" should be present in March, according to his lawyer, Emmanuel Marsigny, Mr. Taylor, under arrest, should not go to trial. "He has no American passport" and "can not move," said Franēois Esclatine, his lawyer.
"The inevitable technical nature of this trial should not make it lose its human dimension," recalled the president of the court, Dominique Andréassier.
Wishful thinking because in the courtroom there is virtually no family passengers died. They have all been very well compensated in return for their silence and their complete withdrawal.
While such trials after a major disaster is always a pretext to allow victims to their grief, this is not the case this time.
Only plaintiffs not entitled to compensation as that of the crew or the hotel staff are present.
No illusions either about the search for truth as only one case has been studied by experts and validated by the judge. And in a courtroom, as everyone knows, there is no possible escape outside the sacrosanct order of dismissal of judge defended by the experts.
Therefore no opportunity to see other causes of the crash jewel of French aircraft, just before the A320, this stunning slide.
And the Americans have done well seen as both accused of Continental Airlines, a boilermaker, John Taylor and Stanley Ford, head of the team in which Mr. Taylor was working, were also absent on the first day of trial . If Mr. Ford is suffering "and" should be present in March, according to his lawyer, Emmanuel Marsigny, Mr. Taylor, under arrest, should not go to trial. "He has no American passport" and "can not move," said Franēois Esclatine, his lawyer.
Original link:
crash Concorde
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread may begin to have some relevance once the testimony of witnesses and defendants is heard and accurately reported.
Until then we have little to go on other then the constant rehashing and dissection of the BEA report and eye witness comment from the time of the accident.
As for the French judicial system, those contributors from the USA who are convinced the French are out to "get" Continental ought to look to their own system which the numbers show is heavily biased, in terms of sentencing and imprisonment, against certain members of its own community.
One fact is clear, Continental used a defective method of repair to its DC10. If that repair caused, or was a party to the causes of, the Concorde accident is just one point that a fair and thorough trial should uncover.
The Napoleonic code and the system of investigative trials, as opposed to the confrontational system in front of a jury as used in the UK and US, for instance, has merit and has proved equally as valid as the jury system and is less likely to return a false verdict in cases where an eloquent lawyer puts on a bravura performance to sway a jury with little or no technical knowledge or knowledge of the law.
On the other hand, the interested parties in France, including many not on trial, have a great deal of economic (thus political) influence and Gallic pride is a very strong national trait. One has to trust that the judges are as impartial as they are sworn to be, though history shows that in all countries, including the USA, judges have been partial to political, economic and mob influence.
Until then we have little to go on other then the constant rehashing and dissection of the BEA report and eye witness comment from the time of the accident.
As for the French judicial system, those contributors from the USA who are convinced the French are out to "get" Continental ought to look to their own system which the numbers show is heavily biased, in terms of sentencing and imprisonment, against certain members of its own community.
One fact is clear, Continental used a defective method of repair to its DC10. If that repair caused, or was a party to the causes of, the Concorde accident is just one point that a fair and thorough trial should uncover.
The Napoleonic code and the system of investigative trials, as opposed to the confrontational system in front of a jury as used in the UK and US, for instance, has merit and has proved equally as valid as the jury system and is less likely to return a false verdict in cases where an eloquent lawyer puts on a bravura performance to sway a jury with little or no technical knowledge or knowledge of the law.
On the other hand, the interested parties in France, including many not on trial, have a great deal of economic (thus political) influence and Gallic pride is a very strong national trait. One has to trust that the judges are as impartial as they are sworn to be, though history shows that in all countries, including the USA, judges have been partial to political, economic and mob influence.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: accra Ghana
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
concord crash
What nobody is talking about is that Concord was unsafe from day one. A naked flame has no place near a passenger/civil aircraft why because any fuel leak will immidiately catch fire and that kind of fire cannot to extingushed. A fuel leak no matter how massive on Airbus 320-380 or B737-387 will be no bid deal.but not on the concord. Afterburner was the cause of the Paris Concord crash. It is simply put a naked flame. it may be ok on a fighter jet because a pilot on a fighter jet can always bale out. Without the afterburner the Concord could have managed the fuel leak. but the afterburner set fire to the air/fuel mix that could not be put out.( did Boeing come to the same conclusion and is that why after spending massive amount of moneey it calcelled the boeing supersonic project? remember no afterburner no supersonic plane)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so, actually...
Tests were done after the accident that showed that while leaking fuel may have been ignited by the afterburner the flame front's speed was too low to allow the ignition of the fuel further forward. (I think the numbers were flame front speed about 10 metres/second, airflow about 60 metres/second, so you can see what they meant by that.) I think it was taken to be proved by testing that the ignition source for the wing fire was damaged, sparking wiring associated with the landing gear.
No one was going to certify a civil transport airplane that was "unsafe" because of a "naked flame" so that the afterburners were taken to be acceptably safe. Boeing dropped their attempt to build the supersonic aircraft for economic and environmental reasons, I think you will find.
If you remember, there was a sharp rise in the price of oil in 1973, when that put the economics of supersonic flight in doubt. Concorde had been designed when fuel was still cheap, since it burned lots of the stuff!
Then there were tests done using a B-70 to see what the sonic boom would be like over the central United States, when millions of dollars in damage was done. That meant we could forget going supersonic from New York to LA, for instance, so that the market for a Boeing supersonic airliner should be much smaller that if that were allowable.
Braniff had already been operating Concorde between Texas and New Żork subsonic and failing to make that pay. A conventional subsonic airliner was much cheaper to operate than a supersonic airliner flown subsonic, no surprise really.
Concorde was a wonderful technical accomplishment but it was damaged by economics to the point where it just didn't pay to continue flying it, I think. It was not grounded due to safety, having been successfully modified post-crash. I think we could put it in that corner of aviation with the Graf Zeppelin, the Spruce Goose and the Saunders-Roe Princess, technical successes but economic failures.
No one was going to certify a civil transport airplane that was "unsafe" because of a "naked flame" so that the afterburners were taken to be acceptably safe. Boeing dropped their attempt to build the supersonic aircraft for economic and environmental reasons, I think you will find.
If you remember, there was a sharp rise in the price of oil in 1973, when that put the economics of supersonic flight in doubt. Concorde had been designed when fuel was still cheap, since it burned lots of the stuff!
Then there were tests done using a B-70 to see what the sonic boom would be like over the central United States, when millions of dollars in damage was done. That meant we could forget going supersonic from New York to LA, for instance, so that the market for a Boeing supersonic airliner should be much smaller that if that were allowable.
Braniff had already been operating Concorde between Texas and New Żork subsonic and failing to make that pay. A conventional subsonic airliner was much cheaper to operate than a supersonic airliner flown subsonic, no surprise really.
Concorde was a wonderful technical accomplishment but it was damaged by economics to the point where it just didn't pay to continue flying it, I think. It was not grounded due to safety, having been successfully modified post-crash. I think we could put it in that corner of aviation with the Graf Zeppelin, the Spruce Goose and the Saunders-Roe Princess, technical successes but economic failures.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After considering inflation, I thought the cost of fuel today is "cheaper" than the cost of fuel in the mid to late 1970s.
It is not clear to me about the fuel tank issues; were these tank breaches during the history of Concoord caused exclusively by tire blowouts or were there other causes?
Thx.
It is not clear to me about the fuel tank issues; were these tank breaches during the history of Concoord caused exclusively by tire blowouts or were there other causes?
Thx.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What nobody is talking about is that Concord was unsafe from day one. A naked flame has no place near a passenger/civil aircraft why because any fuel leak will immidiately catch fire and that kind of fire cannot to extingushed. A fuel leak no matter how massive on Airbus 320-380 or B737-387 will be no bid deal.but not on the concord. Afterburner was the cause of the Paris Concord crash. It is simply put a naked flame. it may be ok on a fighter jet because a pilot on a fighter jet can always bale out. Without the afterburner the Concord could have managed the fuel leak. but the afterburner set fire to the air/fuel mix that could not be put out.( did Boeing come to the same conclusion and is that why after spending massive amount of moneey it calcelled the boeing supersonic project? remember no afterburner no supersonic plane)
So you cannot have an engine fire if you do not have reheat ?
A very interesting hypothesis.
Idiot.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fuel leak no matter how massive on Airbus 320-380 or B737-387 will be no bid deal
A most lazy post from Accra I see.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: bespin, the cloud city
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without the afterburner the Concord could have managed the fuel leak. but the afterburner set fire to the air/fuel mix that could not be put out.
PZ
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLFin AZ
One last try to educate you, then I give up.
No,
I define justice as a proper process of law.
I do not define it as some rabid views held by somebody who has no competence.
I have defined legal process in an area you clearly know nothing about. Where is there any evidence of preconceived guilt?
Well, actually, competent within their profession.
The judges.
So you define "justice" as a preconceived idea of guilt that excludes multiple entities who's actions directly contributed to the incident under review?
You define "competent" how?
Who exactly are "they"?
You define "competent" how?
Who exactly are "they"?
So you define "justice" as a preconceived idea of guilt that excludes multiple entities who's (sic) actions directly contributed to the incident under review?
I define justice as a proper process of law.
I do not define it as some rabid views held by somebody who has no competence.
I have defined legal process in an area you clearly know nothing about. Where is there any evidence of preconceived guilt?
"Competent" ?
Who exactly are "they"?