Five people to face Concorde crash trial

[forget]

all Concordes were modified at great expense to have titanium protection under the tanks -

Stick flier, if you are here to tell us all how the world should really be run then get the facts right. Kevlar, not titanium.

[S.F.L.Y]

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.

Yes I can. The aircraft flew on the 21,22,23 and 24. While the missing spacer wasn't a factor during takeoff phases (slow acceleration) the landing efforts caused the ring to slip due to the lack of spacer. Marks are clearly visible on the ring: http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-...s/figure75.jpg

As a consequence, the tire might have been exposed to a succession of lateral efforts resulting from the axis misalignment during the previous landings.

While having been uneventful, each of the previous landings might have weakened the tire.

[StickFlyer]

ok Forget I stand corrected, I must admit I prefer to post 'by the seat of my pants' rather than check my facts first, however this proves my point, why didn't they make the Kevlar mod originally? Did they over-react?
There's obviously some very knowledgable people posting here but to a 'lay man' such things stand out, illuminated if you will, and logic seems to have been, well, forgotten

[M2dude]

Welcome Stickflyer, you've made a very well presented first thread, and make your points well. The AF incident at IAD in 1979 was never fully explained; no other tyre blow had produced such damage.
As far as titanium reinforcement; this was never proposed or implemented; The weight penalty would have been staggering, when you look at the size of the wing). What WAS done was to fit Kevlar linings to the INSIDE of the 'vulnarable' tanks, to make these tanks effectively self-sealing. But the 'real' fix was the NZG tyre, the technology for which just was not available in the 70's, 80's and 90's. The fixes were never really meant as half-measures; every mod' reduced the chance of systems damage.
But your post is very well balanced, addressing both sides of the arguement.

[Cymmon]

Gobonastick. I'm not sure f you understand anything about this dreadful tragedy, but the French Judiciary are blaming Continental Airllnes for the bulk of the accident. Most relevantly learned people here are of the opinion that the explosive destruction of the tyre was more due to a comnination of being grossly overweight, the front wheels on the L/H U/C skewing badly from true (due to the missing spacer) and running over a very rough (awaiting repair) initial runway surface, NOT the strip on the runway.. Oh, and also the fuel tanks were under pressure, due to illegal placement of fuel inlet valves to over-ride, ('hiding' fuel in the fuel transfer galleries from the fuel gauging system/fuel weight computation). So when the tyre destruction occured (not a blow out in the normal sense) we have a terrible set of ingredients. This overweight aircraft veered hard along the L/H side of the runway, took out a taxi llight which in turn seriously damaged an engine. It then took off on 3 1/2 engines, way below V2 and in flames. A good, thrust producing engine was then shut down leaving 2 1/2 engines. RAF studies show that the only hope of extinguishing such a fuel fed fire is enough IAS to cause the flames to become detached from the source. The Bogie Beam alignment circuit on the L/H gear had been damaged, preventing raising of the gear. The aircraft desperately needed to climb and accelerate to survive; it could do neither, and tragically came down on the hotel at Gonez.

Good to hear the outcome, when you in court?

[M2dude]

SFLY,we know you are an expert reader of the tainted BEA report but the spacer did, repeat DID contribute in a large way to what happened; again, there were large rudder inputs before the 'strip' without corresponding HDG changes, also witness the scuff marks. And no more of your hyperlinks; we've all read it before. Now back to your armchair.

[M2dude]

Oh, and Cymmon, I don't need to be in court. there are other expert witnesses for the defence already. What's your point?

[S.F.L.Y]

SFLY,we know you are an expert reader of the tainted BEA report but the spacer did, repeat DID contribute in a large way to what happened;

Darling, would you be kind enough to take the time to understand what I've written?
I'm precisely explaining to forget why the missing spacer during the previous landings played a major role in the accident while the official report only consider the effects of the missing spacer on takeoffs. The hyperlink is simply illustrating this.

[vapilot2004]

10 April 2003 - One of the saddest days in aviation.

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

This sort of thing goes on more often than you might think and is not limited to French courtrooms.

[One Outsider]

For the sake of the thread, perhaps the author of

don't be so patronising sir

would care to follow his own advice?

[Flyingmac]

I am aware that a number of contributing factors brought about the sad end of this aircraft. At the risk of being accused of finger-pointing, which I am not. Would it be true to say that the engine shut-down,(for whatever reason), sealed it's fate?

[in my last airline]

Just a couple of questions for the knowledgeable posters on this thread;

1. Was it proven that the tanks were over-ridden and therefore over-filled?

2. Was this commonplace amongst Concorde crews?

3. Was this manufacturer approved or approved without technical objection from the manufacturer?

Thank you for your input.

[valvanuz]

It may have sealed the fate of the crew and passengers. Assuming that with a bit more power on, they woud have managed to reach nearby Bourget airport (airport limits less than a mile and runway 21 less than 1.5 mile from crash site), I doubt very much the plane would have survived the fire.

[M2dude]

In My Last Airline; to try and answer your questions as well as I can:

1. Yes it was proven; Tank 5 O/R switch found at O/R in wreckage. These were lever locked switches, Impact could not have changed switch position. (De-Air pump in Tank 11 would do the pressurising).
2. Was not commonplace in the UK.
3. It was definately not approved; The O/R position was there to cater for fuel level switching failure, not 'hiding' fuel from the FQIS.

Valvenuz yes, that is a very valid but sad point. On this tragic day, the V1 for the day was 150 KTS, VR 198 KTS and V2 was 220KTS. The A/C took off at only 201 KTS and the maximum speed achieved was only 211 KTS. So at the very BEST, the A/C was 9 KTS below the MINIMUM safe engine out speed, and this on only 3 1/2 engines (#1 engine severely damaged by ingested runway light), and with landing gear stuck down. When # 2 engine was shut down (stricly against SOP's) there was nothing that anyone in the world could have done to save the A/C. As stated before, the A/C needed to climb and accelerate in order to survive; it could now do neither.
It's possible to debate that the A/C (and all of the poor souls onboad) was doomed once airborne and may never have made Le Bourget, but with the shutting down of #2 went any chance at all. Even after nearly 10 years it is still such a tragic, sad story.

[DickyPearse]

nnc0:

Can somebody clarify why a charge of involuntary manslaughter has been applied in this case.

I think I have read somewhere that criminal charges are required to be laid in many European countries where a death other than by natural causes occurs. The last high profile case was in relation to Aryton Senna's F1 crash in Italy

[wings folded]

Can somebody clarify why a charge of involuntary manslaughter has been applied in this case.

I have no idea the point of this trial

I will not be postulating technical explanations of what happened. I do not have the competence.

I will not rise to the bait about the BEA, AF, BA ADP, CAA, and others failing to react in the past.

I will simply explain that French judicial process requires that responsabilities be identified.

There is a corrolary in the sense that the insurers of the responsible party take up the burden of indemnifying the victims. Here, I do have some competence.

Note that the charge is "involuntary" manslaughter. (OK it is a translation from the French, and therefore not too precise.)

It would be a different matter if any firm, individual or entity were to be accused of deliberately causing this tragedy.

The form is a legal one, according to the way French law (and many others too) phrase these issues.

Anybody claiming a typical French "cover up" cannot be taken too seriously.

We are almost at the tenth anniversary of the event. Huge amounts of investigation have been carried out. The trial has been programmed for something like 4 months.

That, to me, smacks of rigour, need to establish what happened, learn from it, take steps for the future, and above all hear expert evidence about exactly what did happen.

And I mean "Expert"

[in my last airline]

Thank you M2DUDE,

Can you therefore conclude with any certainty that IF the tanks hadn't been filled 'beyond the brim' that the accident would not have occured?

It seems that all the other factors, CG; spacer; tyre failure; tailwind performance; rough runway; metal strip; in themselves or even combined would not have caused the catastrophic loss of the aircraft.

The fuel shockwave theory (or was it fact M2DUDE?), the overfilled and overpressured tank that set off a 'tank explosion' was what ultimately caused the next sequence of events, the crash sequence.

So who was responsible for allowing/ordering a fuel overload surely THEY/HIM or HER are directly to blame for the crash?

Additionally if this was a 'normalisation of deviation' known to Concorde crews in AF and obviously the BEA, then there is accountability there too, I would imagine?

[S.F.L.Y]

1. Yes it was proven; Tank 5 O/R switch found at O/R in wreckage. These were lever locked switches, Impact could not have changed switch position. (De-Air pump in Tank 11 would do the pressurising).
2. Was not commonplace in the UK.
3. It was definately not approved; The O/R position was there to cater for fuel level switching failure, not 'hiding' fuel from the FQIS

Two questions to understand your points:

1 Where is it documented?
3 Where was it disapproved (in writings)?

The report mentions that tank 5 switches were damaged and unreadable. Where did you get different information?

[Gulfstreamaviator]

If it made it to Le Bourget

I suspect the death toll would have been massive.

A fire ball, totally out of control, bouncing off the airfield, with a very large built up area so very close, I think the captain was very clever in aiming for the hotel car park.....(Irony).....

I have my own beliefs: mosty if the Engineer had not shut down the engine (without the Captains authority), then the crash would have happened somewhere else, so it was good that he ensured the landing was in the car park.

glf

[captplaystation]

Gulfstreamaviator,

Don't know if everyone will share your ironic humour

If I remember well, Concorde was very tight out of CDG to carry a full payload. So, if a little "fiddle" had been found to squeeze more fuel in well, you tell me. Quite apart from weight & balance issues, it seems nobody thought of the other consequences.
Trouble is, who will admit to this procedure ? as anyone who did it was by association breaking the rules too.
Maybe they have to seek someone who feels strongly enough to tell the truth, and offer them "witness protection", or maybe they won't try too hard to investigate all these "nasty rumours" and continue to protect AF, and jeez, with some of the stuff they have done since then, they could do with having their safety culture reputation protected.