Five people to face Concorde crash trial

[forget]

..... the A/C was already well over to the right, because of the U/C problems.

Well over to the left.

[Chronus]

concorde trial

The whole sad affair is reminiscent of the tragic loss of Flight 981, the Turkish Airlines DC10 which crashed into Grove of Damartin in the Forest of Ermenonville north of Paris on 3 March 1974. Initially a poor baggage handler was blamed. Now we have a hapless welder who stands in his place. In the case of the 1974 crash the subsequent investigation revealed the complexities of truth and proved that truth is never simple but it is always pure. It is my sincere hope that this trial will achieve the same.

[S.F.L.Y]

forget

I didn't yet check the P64 of your document but there were 4 previous flights without spacer before the accident.

[M2dude]

Again, SFLY, like all armchair critics you just do not get the point. We've (the rest of the world that is) established that the 'final' BEA report (that I'm sure you lovingly downloaded) was totally tainted; more about protecting AF than giving a totally honest objective report. The previous incidents were minor perforations in comparison. There were NOT EVER any British events of gushing fuel, ever. Tank inlet valves illegally being set to O/R resulted, for reasons that you just would not understand. all of the tanks becoming pressurised. Tank 2 exploded OUTWARDS, this was not a simple tye burst, but DESTRUCTION of the tyre. Please stop criticising something you clearly do not understand, or do you have a private agenda?.

[M2dude]

Sorry Forget, my bad. That's what happens when you type too fast.

[ExSp33db1rd]

All will be revealed due to the magic combination of vested political interests and very well paid corporate lawyers

The only truth that will come out of this tragic affair.

The only reason now is to decide who pays.

Says it all, and that's not only confined to French investigations, either.


I think that this thread should end right here.

[S.F.L.Y]

The previous incidents were minor perforations in comparison. There were NOT EVER any British events of gushing fuel, ever.

Buddy, I was among the firsts to criticize the final report even before its public release.
Now you can tell me whatever you want about the size of the holes in BA's concordes tanks, there were still 5 occurrences of tank perforations caused by tire incidents. How can you seriously pretend these shouldn't have been considered as major issues? If appropriate mitigation of the fuel tanks perforations risks had been enforced, the Paris accident would only have been another non-fatal tire issue.

It's precisely because previous occurrences (which you consider as minor) have been voluntary ignored by authorities and operators than nothing was done to prevent the accident to occur following another tire incident.

[M2dude]

The whole point is to try and get the WHOLE truth out in the public domain. This has arguably been one of the biggest accident cover ups in aviation history. Trying to put the bulk of the blame on Continental Airlines is both wrong and pathetic; you have to look back at a state run airline being prepared for eventual privatisation. Did you not notice that AF are in no way implicated in court?
I'm sure the thread will continue sir.

[M2dude]

SFLY; the incidents were all considered serious, and where necessary dealt with as far as possible with several modificaions. This was a case of several mistakes all happening together. I seriously doubt that any wing undersurface would have been intact, given the combination of fuel tanks pressurised and such a massive tyre explosion. This was NOT a blow out, it was the total destruction of the tyre.

[S.F.L.Y]

Trying to put the bulk of the blame on Continental Airlines is both wrong and pathetic

No need to blame Continental.
AF, BA, the BEA, the AAIB, the DGAC, the CAA and the manufacturer should all be held accountable for ignoring the serious issues which occurred for almost 3 decades.
Not only the rate of tire incidents was insane, but the extent of potential dramatic consequences were clearly known. Tolerating fuel tank perforations on an afterburner civilian transport aircraft is a very innovative approach of flight safety.

[M2dude]

Oh dear SFLY, back to our armchair rant again are we? You clearly seem unable to grasp anything here, a lot has been explained to you (by people, unlike you, who DO know what they are talking about). You play statistics like a musical instrument (you're playing off key too).
The fact that Concorde had Reheat/Afterburner is irrelevent. Again, and read this now, there were NEVER any cases of ANY British aircraft streaming fuel. Maybe a shrink can cure your SST complex.

[robertbartsch]

Isn't Continental's defense an uphill battle? Ok, so apparently there were many factors in the crash including tire issues, aircraft design issues, runway issues, pilot issues, and on and on and on....

...But it is fairly clear that the metal piece that fell off their plane caused the AF tire to blow and that metal piece was not authorized for use in repairs to this A/C; right?

Can someone explain the sanctions the French court might impose for each party charged?

Thx...

[B Fraser]

A few years ago, I was talking at length to a former Concorde SFO who took me through the entire "Swiss cheese" scenario. He stated that the source of the ignition was not the afterburners as I had presumed. The ignition source was (at that time) believed to have been in the wheel well, possibly through an electrical short.

Has this been disproven or is it still believed to be the case ?

I asked by how much in relative terms was the aircraft overweight. I think the answer was around 4% based on what had been officially recorded.

[M2dude]

Hi B Fraser, a very interesting point. Your Concorde SFO friend was dead right about the Swiss Cheese and the ignition source. Although the ignition source was never 100% proven, it seems that the most likely source was the 200VAC supply to the wheel brake fans, as the wiring on the L/H U/C leg was severely damaged. After the crash, the fans were selected to OFF for T/O, and also the wiring harness was reinforced.

[lomapaseo]

Totally boring to read through arguments by posters talking past each other for numerous posts. Most of these arguments will be adjudicated by the court.

To me they are all valid arguments so once stated there is little to gain by trying to covince each other of who is more right.

I learned that taking valid arguments to a jury trial is still a large chance in the outcome.

But is this really a trial by jury of whose arguments carry the most weight, or is this a deterministic trial by judges against the law of the land?

Either way once the arguments are put foward there is liittle that our say will weigh on the matter.

ready to hear more arguments without the bashing

[M2dude]

The whole point (for most people) in this debate to to hope that the whole truth will out. Everyone has to accept the points you make about jury trial (NOT 100% if this is one though, I'd have to check). The whole point here is that technical facts have been hidden from the official BEA report. I'm sorry if you find this all boring sir, but most of 'us' are very passionate about what is being said about this amazing aircraft.

[S.F.L.Y]

there were NEVER any cases of ANY British aircraft streaming fuel

I'm sure you're more knowledgeable than me and I do hope you'll be kind enough to educate me on the few questions I may have.

Could you for instance explain me why BA's concordes tanks perforations couldn't have led to fuel leakage? How is it possible to dissociate "fuel tank perforation" and "possible fuel leak"?

It's not because something didn't happen that it couldn't happen. That's precisely the point of enforcing safety & risk management procedures.

[StickFlyer]

I've been a long time lurker of PPRUNE and wish it wasn't this that made me register I guess but I would have anyway I'm sure, however this event has always stuck in my mind
I agree with SFLY, not based on special knowledge but as someone with a very logical way of thinking (have to for my job)

The facts seem very clear to me:
Firstly, the tank penetration in the late 70's caused fuel to be seen spraying out from the wing. Obviously this is about as serious as it gets, especially on take off. I'll get no arguments about this I'm sure

Secondly following the sad day in France all Concordes were modified at great expense to have titanium protection under the tanks - surely a guaranteed fix that should have been carried out the first hint it could happen

Therefore all the other 'fixes' were half measures and down to purely financial motives they flew around with a serious fault

The blame on Continental or the airport is misplaced because a tire shredding is an unpredictable event and objects left on the runway is always a possibility - the plane should have been able to manage it!

But it wasn't the plane's fault and surely a lack of willpower to correct the problem fully and it's very sad poor management and cost cutting ever led to this situation

All that work to make the engines safe and the plane viable compromised by something so simple. Bottom line - never cover up and downplay concerns but address them no matter what the cost, that should be the attitude of the manufacturers of aircraft

If I was running things it would be a terse one line memo - 'fix it to the satisfaction of the chief engineer and get on with the the show!'

I have no idea the point of this trial

[forget]

SFLY

By the way the issue with the missing spacer wasn't on the takeoff phases but during the landings preceding the accident... .... there were 4 previous flights without spacer before the accident.

You cannot possibly say that, as the aircraft had flown previously (if indeed it had) without bogie problems then the bogie made no contribution to the accident. Simple reason being, the missing spacer caused a mobile fault and it may well have produced an aligned bogie for any previous (?) flights.

Look at the tyre scuffing on the runway, day of the accident. Are you suggesting that the aircraft had taken off and landed with the bogie misaligned to this degree?

[M2dude]

I'm sure you're more knowledgeable than me and I do hope you'll be kind enough to educate me on the few questions I may have.

OK, of course I will. Seeing as you are so fond of your statistics, perhaps you would care to look at the last time the British had tank damage... 1993. (As I've TRIED to explain, these puntures, although I admit were serious, because any tank or wing damage is serious, were structutaly minor, with little or no fuel loss in most cases). After the water deflectors were modified there were no further instances of such damage.
But EVERY single incident was acted on, as I'm sure you've read.
Let's just agree to disagree here; people have died, and probably innocent people are now accused of involuntary manslaughter in a French court.