Five people to face Concorde crash trial
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the day, I thought a runway inspection was to be accomplished prior to any Concorde departure. Was this not a fact, and if so, why was the FOD not discovered?
Last edited by captjns; 3rd Jul 2008 at 18:41.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: southwest
Age: 78
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In France the truth will never come out
In case you didn't hear, French President Sarkozy has just announced that he alone will be responsible for appointing the head of government-run television.
Since the state controls information, and manipulates the justice system, Air France maintenance (who have a lot to answer for) will never have to justify their actions.
Quel banana republic.
Since the state controls information, and manipulates the justice system, Air France maintenance (who have a lot to answer for) will never have to justify their actions.
Quel banana republic.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I opened this thread I reported that Continental Airlines (themselves) were also to be charged. I subsequently amended the post after someone queried that statement. Some hours later the BBC is still reporting that the airline itself is to be charged as well as the 5 people aforementioned.
I can't help feeling that all this is a complete waste of time and money and will do little to compensate or commiserate (with) the relatives of the passengers and crew on the ill-fated Concorde.
How many times does something fall off an arriving or departing aircraft or indeed during flight? There is always some debris on a runway. On aircraft carriers they walk the deck at least once a day to pick up bits that have fallen off aircraft. What's the situation at CdG or any other major airport? How many times a day do they physically inspect the runway and clear it of debris?
Things go wrong and bits of flying metal end up in all sorts of places - some critically significant, others not. If a tyre bursts and lumps fly upwards on any aircraft the chances are that a fuel tank could be perforated.
If there is a difference here then it was because Concorde used after-burners during take-off. With the fires of hell spewing out of the tail pipes, the addition of leaking fuel spraying into the line of fire contributed to an accident that, perhaps, no-one could have foreseen.
I hope that, if this does go to trial, Continental Airlines does not end up with a massive legal bill that was not of their asking. In these dim and dismal days for the airlines, such an unforeseen expenditure could send another good airline to the wall. As for the 5 individuals - I think to proceed against them would be massively unfair.
I can't help feeling that all this is a complete waste of time and money and will do little to compensate or commiserate (with) the relatives of the passengers and crew on the ill-fated Concorde.
How many times does something fall off an arriving or departing aircraft or indeed during flight? There is always some debris on a runway. On aircraft carriers they walk the deck at least once a day to pick up bits that have fallen off aircraft. What's the situation at CdG or any other major airport? How many times a day do they physically inspect the runway and clear it of debris?
Things go wrong and bits of flying metal end up in all sorts of places - some critically significant, others not. If a tyre bursts and lumps fly upwards on any aircraft the chances are that a fuel tank could be perforated.
If there is a difference here then it was because Concorde used after-burners during take-off. With the fires of hell spewing out of the tail pipes, the addition of leaking fuel spraying into the line of fire contributed to an accident that, perhaps, no-one could have foreseen.
I hope that, if this does go to trial, Continental Airlines does not end up with a massive legal bill that was not of their asking. In these dim and dismal days for the airlines, such an unforeseen expenditure could send another good airline to the wall. As for the 5 individuals - I think to proceed against them would be massively unfair.
Last edited by Xeque; 3rd Jul 2008 at 16:10.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xeque - I can only assume that you've never actually flown on Continental then?
I think most people accept that potentially there are multiple causes for what was in the end a tragic accident - swiss cheese theory and all that. That doesn't mean that everyone should get away scot-free. Where it can be shown that negligence played a part - then the persons concerned should face the music - whether it be individuals or corporations. We all know that our actions can have a serious impact in aviation and the lack of intention to cause harm is not an excuse. If the only end-result is that it improves safety in aviation, then the action will have a valid purpose.
I think most people accept that potentially there are multiple causes for what was in the end a tragic accident - swiss cheese theory and all that. That doesn't mean that everyone should get away scot-free. Where it can be shown that negligence played a part - then the persons concerned should face the music - whether it be individuals or corporations. We all know that our actions can have a serious impact in aviation and the lack of intention to cause harm is not an excuse. If the only end-result is that it improves safety in aviation, then the action will have a valid purpose.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Age: 68
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possible FOD after engine pod contacting runway
There were cases whereby some aircrafts had engine pod contact with the runway upon touchdown in poor visibility and the control tower was not aware. Upon inspection after landing, the damage was found......it would have been possible to have some loose parts littering the runway ( not lightly though unless the damage was substantial ). Now how would such cases play out in court as the pilots might not have known of the extent of the damage....in the interim between engine pod contact and physical inspection, some other unlucky aircraft might have come to grief like the afforesaid Concorde?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was the CO part that fell of installed in the US or UK? Where are the workers located. I doubt the US would even consider extraditing anyone to the UK to face these charges.
From a legal perspective, if the person(s) were at fault, then they are in a sense partially responsible. But so are the people at Air France who ignored the already proven concerns about tires coming apart on previously on Concorde, as are the people who did not install the spacers on the bogies, and the people who did not inspect the runway. and are those who accepted a tail wind departure, and those who allowed an overload and CG issue to occur. As we all know, most aviation accidents are a result of multiple failures. If you are going to try and fix blame, do all or do none.
Patrick
From a legal perspective, if the person(s) were at fault, then they are in a sense partially responsible. But so are the people at Air France who ignored the already proven concerns about tires coming apart on previously on Concorde, as are the people who did not install the spacers on the bogies, and the people who did not inspect the runway. and are those who accepted a tail wind departure, and those who allowed an overload and CG issue to occur. As we all know, most aviation accidents are a result of multiple failures. If you are going to try and fix blame, do all or do none.
Patrick
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trial Ordered in Concorde Crash
from New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/wo...ncorde.html?hp
Trial Ordered in Concorde Crash That Killed 113
Toshihiko Sato/Associated Press
Air France Concorde flight 4590 crashed shortly after take-off on July 25, 2000, killing all 109 people aboard and four others on the ground.
Article Tools Sponsored By
By ALAN COWELL
Published: July 4, 2008
PARIS — A prosecutor said Thursday that Continental Airlines and two of its employees had been ordered to stand trial on involuntary manslaughter charges related to the crash of a Concorde supersonic airliner in 2000 near Paris in which 113 people died.
In addition to Continental, the prosecutor also filed involuntary manslaughter charges against two employees of the Concorde program and an employee of the French civil aviation authority.
Continental responded angrily to the French action. “These indictments are outrageous and completely unjustified,” Nick Britton, a spokesman for the airline, said in London. “Continental remains firmly convinced that neither it nor its employees were the cause of the Concorde tragedy and we will defend ourselves vigorously against these charges.”
The order by the prosecutor’s office in Pontoise, a Paris suburb, was the latest development in a long saga since the crash, which forced Concorde’s operators to make modifications to its fuel tanks before it was withdrawn from service in 2003. British Airways and Air France began flying the Concorde in 1976.
.... more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/wo...ncorde.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/wo...ncorde.html?hp
Trial Ordered in Concorde Crash That Killed 113
Toshihiko Sato/Associated Press
Air France Concorde flight 4590 crashed shortly after take-off on July 25, 2000, killing all 109 people aboard and four others on the ground.
Article Tools Sponsored By
By ALAN COWELL
Published: July 4, 2008
PARIS — A prosecutor said Thursday that Continental Airlines and two of its employees had been ordered to stand trial on involuntary manslaughter charges related to the crash of a Concorde supersonic airliner in 2000 near Paris in which 113 people died.
In addition to Continental, the prosecutor also filed involuntary manslaughter charges against two employees of the Concorde program and an employee of the French civil aviation authority.
Continental responded angrily to the French action. “These indictments are outrageous and completely unjustified,” Nick Britton, a spokesman for the airline, said in London. “Continental remains firmly convinced that neither it nor its employees were the cause of the Concorde tragedy and we will defend ourselves vigorously against these charges.”
The order by the prosecutor’s office in Pontoise, a Paris suburb, was the latest development in a long saga since the crash, which forced Concorde’s operators to make modifications to its fuel tanks before it was withdrawn from service in 2003. British Airways and Air France began flying the Concorde in 1976.
.... more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/wo...ncorde.html?hp
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a careful look at the bogies on BA and AF Concordes.
The AF models were all missing a FOD deflector fitted to BA's
machines, the French decided not to fit them.
This would probably have saved the ill fated flight.
Vive la France
Hooray for lawyers!
The AF models were all missing a FOD deflector fitted to BA's
machines, the French decided not to fit them.
This would probably have saved the ill fated flight.
Vive la France
Hooray for lawyers!
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: Where the job is!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "The AF models were all missing a FOD deflector fitted to BA's
machines, the French decided not to fit them."
Would that not then be criminal negligence on the part of the company and the individual who made the decision not to fit them? They cannot say that it was an unforeseeable event since somebody at BA obviously foresaw the possibility and took the appropriate precautionary action of fitting FOD deflectors.
machines, the French decided not to fit them."
Would that not then be criminal negligence on the part of the company and the individual who made the decision not to fit them? They cannot say that it was an unforeseeable event since somebody at BA obviously foresaw the possibility and took the appropriate precautionary action of fitting FOD deflectors.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know next to nothing about the "Code Napoleon" other than FOR CRIMINAL LAW they have examining magistrates and the case is more a discussion of his/her findings rather than the adversarial procedures of Common Law countries.
Does anyone know how that might affect how things are done ?
.
Does anyone know how that might affect how things are done ?
.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought that, logically, they can't hold _both_ the Continental and the French certification people negligent. Either there was a certification problem - not meeting the standard of being able to tolerate FOD of the size encountered - or the FOD created was beyond what a correctly certified airplane could tolerate.
If the certification authorities are negligent in approving the design, it means the plane should have survived the FOD which means Continental is not negligent. No?
I'm also curious about patrickal's question of where the workers were located. Was the modification done in the US? If so, it seems improper to charge them in France - if they were never in France, the workers should be subject to US law on manslaughter but not French law.
[edit] The accident report states that the modification was in fact done in Houston. So again, how can a maintenance worker in Texas be considered subject to French criminal law?
If the certification authorities are negligent in approving the design, it means the plane should have survived the FOD which means Continental is not negligent. No?
I'm also curious about patrickal's question of where the workers were located. Was the modification done in the US? If so, it seems improper to charge them in France - if they were never in France, the workers should be subject to US law on manslaughter but not French law.
[edit] The accident report states that the modification was in fact done in Houston. So again, how can a maintenance worker in Texas be considered subject to French criminal law?
Last edited by YRP; 3rd Jul 2008 at 22:10.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the difference? Landing gear looks identical to me...
Photos: Aerospatiale-BAC Concorde 101 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Photos: Aerospatiale-BAC Concorde 102 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Photos: Aerospatiale-BAC Concorde 101 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Photos: Aerospatiale-BAC Concorde 102 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<<<ADP which did not ensure the runway was swept, as required, prior to the departure of the Concorde flight.>>
Presumably a French local requirement? It never happened during all the years I worked with Concorde at Heathrow>>
Sorry if my point was unclear. The runway sweeping was a scheduled requirement, not directly related to Concorde, but would have been carried out immediately prior to the take off according to contemporary reports. It was delayed due to staff being involved in fire drill as was a scheduled runway inspection. Abandoning operational requirements for a drill is as negligent as any other of the contributing omissions.
This whole involuntary manslaughter nonsense is just the latest Health and Safety PC fad. Hopefully the investigative nature of the Napoleonic Code will deal more equitably with the facts than the adversarial nature of the British/US systems
Presumably a French local requirement? It never happened during all the years I worked with Concorde at Heathrow>>
Sorry if my point was unclear. The runway sweeping was a scheduled requirement, not directly related to Concorde, but would have been carried out immediately prior to the take off according to contemporary reports. It was delayed due to staff being involved in fire drill as was a scheduled runway inspection. Abandoning operational requirements for a drill is as negligent as any other of the contributing omissions.
This whole involuntary manslaughter nonsense is just the latest Health and Safety PC fad. Hopefully the investigative nature of the Napoleonic Code will deal more equitably with the facts than the adversarial nature of the British/US systems
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before an airline's aircraft departs from an airport's runway does it sign a disclaimer, to the effect, 'we shall not drop any nuts and bolts etc. on your runway'?
As they say, 'sh1t happens, and who is ultimately responsible for maintaining CDG's runway, Continental or the airport authority?
That would be great, but only to an accountant or a lawyer, we'll charge extortionate landing fees etc. and put the onus of responsibility for maintaining the runway and it's safe operation upon a US carrier who probably pays more for the usage of that said runway than the operator whose aircraft suffered a crash.
As they say, 'sh1t happens, and who is ultimately responsible for maintaining CDG's runway, Continental or the airport authority?
That would be great, but only to an accountant or a lawyer, we'll charge extortionate landing fees etc. and put the onus of responsibility for maintaining the runway and it's safe operation upon a US carrier who probably pays more for the usage of that said runway than the operator whose aircraft suffered a crash.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and the missing shims from the undercarriage truck? C of G aft? tailwind? overload by 11 tonnes?
......also,............the engine was shut down immediately and the gear wasn't raised----definitely caused by the piece of metal----vive la France.
No FOD deflectors fitted as per BA concordes
I love the French but blaming Continental Airlines employees, PLEASE!
