Five people to face Concorde crash trial

[stilton]

This is the result of a no big deal fuel leak on a 737 :



YouTube - INCENDIO FIRE BOEING 737 CHINA AIRLINES NAHA OKINAWA JAPAN 1

[lomapaseo]

Stilton

This is the result of a no big deal fuel leak on a 737 :

What's your point?

How does this relate to the thread subject?

[JEM60]

Sreetcar 1. Australian F.111 regularly dumped fuel at Airshows, and then set fire to it with it's afterburners. As long as you are travelling faster than the flame, then no problem, as already stated.

[stepwilk]

In fact they did it just the other day at the Singapore show.

by the way, why are we bothering with a poster who apparently thinks the airplane was named after a town in Massachusetts?

[SLFinAZ]

Lets review your comments wings...

There is no question that this is a tragedy with a complex and surprisingly murky set of variables. Out of all these factors criminal charges were filed against very specific parties completely in line with the findings of the BEA report. This report is viewed by many as incomplete and possibly self serving. Given that continental is apparently making a proactive defense that other factors are to blame and that the BEA report is wrong we are left with a fundamental question.

Are the defendants on trial or is the BEA report on trial or both? Did Continental or any other party of interest have the ability to challenge the BEA report or it's findings during the investigation? If the report is flawed but serves as the true basis for the criminal charges then was a "proper process of law" actually followed?

As a single point I will illustrate the following. Lets set aside my doubts (and others) regarding the technical accuracy of the findings and accept the report on face value. In this event we have a technical finding specific to the cause of the crash with FOD as the primary factor. While that might be fine from an investigative perspective it's not from a legal one.

Under the law (in France as well as the US and UK) a certain level of professional competence is excepted in the performance of any professional service. Doctor, Lawyer, Dentist, Electrician or Pipe-fitter...so a fundamental standard of "prudent and reasonable" action is implied and enforced. Just of the top of my head...

1) Failure to inspect the runway prior to takeoff
2) Failure to inform the flight engineer of additional luggage weight/location
3) Decision to use a runway already deemed unsuitable for flight operations
4) Decision to take off in a reported tailwind which violated SOP
5) Failure to inspect and fix improperly maintained equipment
6) Failure to properly follow SOP during an in flight emergency

So while we may have a correct "technical cause" a much broader question of responsibility has been excluded from consideration. In effect we have a manslaughter trial for malpractice without the primary party having been charged.

Personally I do not see how any reasonable third party can view the underlying facts and come away feeling that either AF or the airport authority met any legal definition of "reasonable and prudent" specific to the actions above.

[chuks]

Why not just wait for the trial to proceed and then comment on it? You seem to be trying to predict the future here. Also, the French use of the Napoleonic Code is very different to what we are used to, based as it is on English law, so that the process may appear unfair to you simply because of its unfamiliarity. Bear in mind that both the UK and France are in the EU and seem to accept each other's legal practices so that justice in France must be reasonably fair.

[vapilot2004]

by the way, why are we bothering with a poster who apparently thinks the airplane was named after a town in Massachusetts?

It's my understanding that the aircraft was originally to be named Concord.
The e was added to make the Frenchies happy.

[philbky]

The correct English spelling is Concord (dictionary definition "agreement" "harmony"), the correct French spelling for the same definition is Concorde neither having anything to do, in the context of the aircraft with the town in Massachusetts.

The aircraft was initially referred to in the UK as "Concorde", with the French spelling, but was officially changed to "Concord" by Harold Macmillan in response to a perceived slight by Charles de Gaulle. In 1967, at the French roll-out the British Government Minister for Technology, Tony Benn, announced that he would change the spelling back to "Concorde"

In the UK this created a nationalist uproar that died down when Benn stated that the suffixed "e" represented "Excellence, England, Europe and Entente Cordiale.

In his memoirs, he recounts a tale of a letter from an irate Scotsman claiming: "You talk about 'E' for England, but part of it is made in Scotland." Given Scotland’s contribution of providing the nose cone for the aircraft, Benn replied, "It was also 'E' for 'Écosse' (the French name for Scotland) — and I might have added 'e' for extravagance and 'e' for escalation ( of cost) as well" - such are the soothing words of politicians to cool the ire of foreigners and their own nationals alike.

Prior to roll out, artwork produced by Aerospatiale, BAC and a number of airlines showing the original aircraft shape had the name in French on the Air France and on one side of the Air Canada pictures and the English spelling on BOAC, Pan American and the other (passenger entrance) side of Air Canada pictures.

[stilton]

Yes Lompaseo. 'Streetcar 1 ' is postulating that a fuel leak on an Airbus or a Boeing is 'no big deal' and that only Concorde with its 'naked flame' afterburners was vulnerable to leaking fuel.



I posted the link of a 737 that caught fire due to leaking fuel to illustrate that simply is not true.


Comprend ?



Streetcar's theory is, incidentally, ridiculous.

[GarageYears]

I posted the link of a 737 that caught fire due to leaking fuel to illustrate that simply is not true.

And incidentally is also a timely reminder to avoid ever booking a flight on China Airlines again.

And to wonder what took the fire brigade quote so long to arrive...?

And if that's not thread drift I don't know what is.

However, unless I'm much mistaken speed is certainly your friend when it comes to discovering parts of your plane are on fire. The more speed the better ideally.

- GY

[vapilot2004]

Thank you Mr. Philbky for that erudite and apropos history lesson.

[bizdev]

China Airlines

"And incidentally is also a timely reminder to avoid ever booking a flight on China Airlines again"

As I understand it, the China Airlines fire was caused when a loose slat fairing bolt pierced the slat-can which caused the fuel leak. This turned out to be a problem caused by poor production build at Boeing, and resulted in an Alert Service Bulletin being issued affecting B737-NG operators worldwide.

I don't think China Airlines were culpable in any way?

bizdev

[wings folded]

Lets review your comments wings...

Could have had some merit except that you do not review my comments.

You just wheel out one more time your already expressed preconceptions based upon a total ignorance of the process involved.

Read "chuks"'s post directly after yours.

Thank you chuks.

[DB64]

Regardless of their flaws, Concord(e) and the comet were remarkable firsts in engineering, the latter of which no doubt helped Boeing et al in their rise to supremacy in passenger jet technology (helped by their respective governments). As for concorde, if one looks at the flying hours of other passenger aircraft (737 for example) one would find the first fatal accident of many types ocurred with lower flying hours but yet they still fly. Considering the technology and physical stresses on concorde airframe wouldn't it be more pertinent to compare it to jets flying above Mach than those below? But even compared to other passenger jets, and the age of the aircraft, aren't some posters somewhat harsh about one of the most extraordinary feats of engineering ever?

[gruntie]

but it seems at least possible that Branson failed to purchase the Concordes not because of high maintance, bad economics and a lack of financing options, but rather that it may have been determined, by someone other than Branson, that the planes have significant design flaws and that flying them would very likely result in additional accidents and loss of life.

The commonly quoted scenario goes something like:

1) Operating Concorde is bleeding AF white. They've lost one, nearly lose another at Halifax, the "freedom fries" antipathy means they're carrying 8 or 10 passengers at a time to/from the US on their scheduled services.
2) Upcoming alliance and EU rules mean AF financial losses have to be stemmed swiftly and govt subsidy is (notionally at least) illegal. No quick answer to Concorde losses so it has to go.
3) Airbus say to BA "now you're the sole operator you'll have to carry entire support cost".
4) BA say "unfair, give us a bit of time". Airbus say "OK, six months".
5) No way to make it work so 6 months later the tearful goodbyes.
6) The planes belong to BA. Given previous antipathy a willing sale seems unlikely.
7) To operate it Branson would also have to take on the entire BA resource. Dare say a large number of that resource would not be prepared to make the swap either.
8) Return to point 3 above.
9) Insert national pride &/or superior knowledge where appropriate.

[Jig Peter]

Concorde - another singularity

While both "superpowers" built and operated large Mach 2-capable aircraft for war, I've long felt that another remarkable feature about Concorde is that it was built for peaceful purposes. Neither the Press nor other media have noted this, except indirectly - perhaps feeling it would be non-PC to do so. Building an aircraft for the safe and regular transport of passengers is a whole lot different from designing and building a bomber, and for me, this has always been a major "plus" for "the most beautiful aircraft ever built" ...
The US and USSR supersonic bombers also probably flew/fly far fewer sorties/hours than the Concorde fleet.
Credit where credit's due, eh ?

[DB64]

Couldn't agree more. I lived under the flight path of this beautiful jet and the sound would always make me take a look outside, it was like clockwork every evening. I also had the great honour of being outside observing the final three flights, they flew directly overhead, one from the north east, one from south east and one straight in from the east, and will admit to shedding a tear and being in awe of this remarkable piece of engineering.

[Hedge36]

Forgive me for interjecting here... but can someone clue a lowly helo driver in on the purpose of the horizontal bars in front of the main trucks? I'm guessing they're deflectors for shed tire carcasses.

[hellsbrink]

IIRC, Hedge, BA did fit deflectors because of the tyres going pop (something recommended by the FAA but was not mandatory) but AF didn't. Whether these "bars" are said deflectors or not is something I cannot possibly comment on.

Now, I'm working on memory here. If I am wrong I am more than happy to be corrected.

[M.Mouse]

They are water deflectors. BA's were fitted with a restraining cable in case of detachment caused, amongst other things, by a blown tyre. AF did not have restraining cables fitted to their deflectors.