Five people to face Concorde crash trial

[ExSp33db1rd]

It's not as if there were dozens of Concorde flights taking off spaced throughout the day. Two guys in a pickup truck could have driven the runway at 45mph and would have spotted the strip. International airports are teeming with spotters, many of whom would pay to go along on such a ride, so it's not cost.

If runway inspections were only carried out before Concorde take-offs, as I read into the above (?) wouldn't that infer that there was a potential problem with the Concorde on every take-off ? If so ..... a) would you want to fly in it or...... b) fix the problem !!

But then, fixing the problem would cost money, and presumably a weight penalty if under-wing strengthening was required, which of course leads to payload penalty, which comes back to money ....... !!

Not suggesting that AF or BA would ever let safety be second to financial considerations, of course.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Mise en délibéré

Vendredi 28 mai 2010 Le Tribunal a annoncé au terme des plaidoiries de la Défense que le jugement était mis en délibéré au lundi 6 décembre à 9h30.
Nous mettrons en ligne le jugement rendu.
Le blog reste bien évidemment en ligne.

Under advisement
Friday, May 28, 2010

The Tribunal announced at the end of the argument of defense that the trial was being deliberated Monday, December 6 at 9:30.

We will post the ruling.

The blog is obviously online.

28 mai 2010 Procès du crash du CONCORDE

[rottenray]

Ex writes:

Not suggesting that AF or BA would ever let safety be second to financial considerations, of course.

I really think it boils down to a perception of prestige, which both carriers played completely wrong.

"The only way we can offer flights on this very expensive aircraft at the price we do is by taking every opportunity to avoid the wear and tear normal airliners are subject to. Therefore, we inspect and clean the runway whenever possible."

How f*cking hard is that?

Chronus writes:

Do any of the defendants fit the bill ?
If so which ones and why.

No, at least not in my mind.

If we're going to stay with the titanium strip theory, then whomever scheduled the training session which delayed the runway FOD inspection should have been charged.

As well as whomever failed to make it clear that an aircraft highly susceptible to damage was scheduled at XX for takeoff, and that nothing should interfere with runway inspection.

Really, to play the titanium card, you have to admit to knowing that it could have caused the damage which "caused" the crash, and its presence on the runway indicates a degree of negligence.

Ground ops has far more control over FOD than a departing aircraft.

If we're going to go with the missing spacer and the 3 degrees (?) of caster it caused, then the person who inspected the landing gear should have been charged.

Either way, I hope this whole thing makes those who need it feel better.