Five people to face Concorde crash trial

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Moronic perhpas

I was based in PLB that month, was on the apron the day before the accident.

I was there the day after, passed almost over the smoking hole, on finals.

I was very pleased that the aircraft did not make PLB, as were all the other crews and owners based there.

glf

[in my last airline]

Terribly sorry all, I should not have used the word 'blame' in my last post. I did not mean it in a demonizing way at all to any individual or group. My question was, 'was the person(s) who ordered/over-fuelled the Concorde, morally responsible for the catastrophe?'

Sorry for that word which should obviously never be used when trying to determine the cause of an accident (or speculation either).

[B Fraser]

When # 2 engine was shut down (stricly against SOP's)

I'll stick my neck out again and relay what was doing the rounds a few years back. #2 engine ingested neat fuel and recovered, it happen for a second time and the crew decided that this engine was no longer serviceable and shut it down.

I'm not an expert on airflow however the info is from the same chap who spoke about the source of the ignition. He's an expert on flying the aircraft and he did not criticise the action.

[GarageYears]

It happened for a second time and the crew decided that this engine was no longer serviceable and shut it down.

I'm not an expert on airflow however the info is from the same chap who spoke about the source of the ignition. He's an expert on flying the aircraft and he did not criticise the action.

With the crystal-clear clarity of hindsight, it's really hard to see how the act of shutting down this engine was anticipated to help the situation. And it was always my understanding that the engine was shutdown by the FE acting alone, or at least without the acknowledgment of the Captain. Is there information otherwise?

- GY

[Chronus]

cocorde involuntary manslaughter charges

Those needing clarification/appreciation of the nature of the criminal charges involved may refer to the UK Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 which came into force only as recently as 6 April 2008. The link is

www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/manslaughteractguidance.htm

Albeit that the trial is under French law and jurisdiction conceptualy the law is similar. I do believe that had this accident occurred after the date of this enactment, on UK soil, the charges would have been brought under the Act.

[B Fraser]

Here's an extract from the CVR transcript. The crew were aware of the fire and #2 engine gave cause for concern.

14 h 43 min 10.1 s, noise followed, from 14 h 43 min 11 s to 14 h 43 min 13.8 s, by a change in the background noise. In the same time per"d the FO announces "watch out".
14 h 43 min 11.9 s, an unintelligible sound is heard, then at 14 h 43 min 13.0 s, the FE says "watch out".
14 h 43 min 13.4 s, message from the controller indicating flames at the rear and read back by the FO.
14 h 43 min 16.4 s, FE "(stop) ".
14 h 43 min 20.4 s, FE "Failure eng... failure engine two".
14 h 43 min 22.8 s, fire alarm.
14 h 43 min 24.8 s, FE "shut down engine two".
14 h 43 min 25.8 s, Captain "engine fire procedure" and in the following second the noise of a selector and fire alarm stops.
14 h 43 min 27.2 s, FO "watch the airspeed the airspeed the airspeed".
14 h 43 min 29.3 s, fire handle pulled.
14 h 43 min 30 s, Captain "gear on retract". In the course of the following eight seconds the crew mention the landing gear several times.
14 h 43 min 42.3 s, second fire alarm.
14 h 43 min 45.6 s, FO "(I'm trying)", FE "I'm firing it".
14 h 43 min 46.3 s, Captain "(are you) shutting down engine two there". 14 h 43 min 48.2 s, FE "I've shut it down".

[S.F.L.Y]

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.

Again, I would be very much interested to know your sources for such assumptions which are contradicting the official report. Did you inspect the wreckage by yourself?

[captplaystation]

In response to your comment re the wreckage . . . p1ss off !

In response to your Q, read the previous posts.

[ONTPax]

Maybe this is a naive comment, but how do the prosecutors intend to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a specific Continental plane left behind a small fragment of metal along the runway? It's a busy runway with many take-offs and landings.

This reminds me of the people who have their homes damaged by "blue ice" falling from the sky and they, or, rather, their lawyers manage to pinpoint the specific airline and plane that supposedly dropped it.

ONTPax

[S.F.L.Y]

In response to your comment re the wreckage . . . p1ss off !

In response to your Q, read the previous posts.

So your only reference is an undocumented PPruNe post?
If you can't be polite try at least to be accurate.

From the report:

On the flight engineer’s central panel (fuel), the following items were noted:
• Tank 5
o indicated quantity of fuel "2 t"
o pump switches unreadable

[RobertS975]

Because the CO plane later landed in Newark with the piece of metal missing from the airframe!

[nnc0]

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

Thanks to Wings Folded, Dicky Pearse and tkazaz for their answers.

I don't think the question has ben answered though.

The UK act only applies to the corporation and comes with a fine. This trial is against individuals and the penalties could involve a fine and prison time for those folks.

Such a trial is almost unheard of hear in N America, Ref the Ford Pinto, Ford Explorer, etc): These were situations wherein the company actually knew of the problems for a long time but did not fix them because a cost benefit analysis showed it was cheaper to let people die. There are probably similar stories in the pharma biz. I don't recall any individuals being charged with any crime. (does sounds like a really good idea though) The only time I can recall an engineer facing charges was if the designer knowlingly signed off on false data at the start.

I do recall that the ATR 42 had some icing issues that led to crashes and some engineers and regulators went to jail for similar charges back in the late eighties/early ninreties. What I don't understand is why? They designed the product in good faith to the stds in effect at the time without any fraud or misrepresentation.

How can they, the individuals, be charged in this specific case? What is so different about it? Why these particular individuals and not their bosses/subordinates?

[robertbartsch]

Is this a jury trial???

Lomapaseo:
I did not think this new trial in France is a "JURY" trial but I could be wrong. I thought the AB crash trial accusing the pilot of negligence in the Air Show crash was decided by a judge and not a jury but that is my recollection.

What are the sanctions for manslaughter in France?

Thx...

[S.F.L.Y]

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.

M2dude & Captplaystation could you please name your references in regard to this statement?

Thank you.

[M2dude]

SFLY, read this and read it good!! There will be no further responses here to your provocative and quite honestly childish postings, use Google for this, that is what you are clearly best at. Unlike you, we are people who were INVOLVED, saw and read official data (We've 'lived' this whole tragic strory for nearly 10 years, you haven't). Take a look at the photos of the fuel panel wreckage, all will be revealed regarding switches. And EVEN if you want discount the whole fuel tank pressure theory, the A/C was SERIUOSLY overweight, took off into a tailwind over damaged runway, and with the spaced missing was crabbing to the left FACT!! You think just because you have downloaded and read the BEA report you are an expert; here's news for you, you are not. And do NOT try and 'pursue' me on other forum threads again with your insults, you will get no response. Your behaviour here is both childish and pathetic. Perhaps you are a poor frustrated pilot who was never good enough to fly Concorde, I don't know, but you seem to be totally obsessed about something you know clearly about. Now back to your armchair

[S.F.L.Y]

Stop acting like a virgin, I just asked you to name your sources as you are affirming something contradictory with the released facts. I believe that it's the minimum you can do if you want to be taken seriously.

Btw I didn't download this report, I had it in my hands before its public release.
This report clearly says the aircraft was overweight, had tailwind and a missing spacer. It also says the tank 5 O/R switch position was unreadable (while you managed to read it from a picture).

[M2dude]

Hi, In My Last Airline, sorry I did not reply to your post yesterday, I was not 'here'. It is of course speculation whether ‘just’ the fuel situation was the straw that broke the camel’s back here; we all know that crashes are seldom caused by one, but by a succession of factors. As far as ‘blame’ or should we say, ‘responsibility goes’, it is always of course too easy to’ blame the crew’, but the F/E was alone responsible for the fuel panel and it’s operation. The fuel shockwave theory is an interesting one I know, evidence suggests that it was soft material only that hit the tank (ie tyre debris), and in no other reported incident regarding Concorde tyre bursts was soft material alone able to rupture the A/C skin. What is known of course is that an A4 sized chunk of lower wing surface was blown out, and if you take into account the trauma on the U/C caused by the missing spacer migration/rough initial runway surface/overweight situation, you can see how this tyre destruction occurred.
You have hit the point perfectly here; any implication of AF by the BEA seems to have been avoided totally, and eye witness accounts were dismissed, because these accounts did just that.

[M2dude]

Oh, and to clarify; A question raised by a prevous poster 'were you at the crash site'? No, but I know personally two people that WERE, and have discussed what the situation was, and what was found at length. AT LENGTH.

[S.F.L.Y]

You basically didn't see the fuel control panel yourself while had an opportunity to view pictures contradicting with the report. What did you do about it during these 10 years (apart of making a point on this forum)?

With all due respect, you understand that most readers can't just rely on your statements and need some evidences supporting your accusations.

captplaystation probably had an opportunity to view the same pictures.

[BOAC]

Question for M2Dude (do you have a tie by the way?):

I have looked at the BEA report and can see no reference to a 'Tank5' over-ride switch of any sort. I see
Tank 5A
- indicated quantity of fuel "2.4 t",
- two pumps on "On"

and
Tank 5
- indicated quantity of fuel "2 t"
- pump switches unreadable

The only references there to 'overrides' are
Tank 9
- indicated quantity of fuel "11 t",
- left pump on "Auto", right pump on "On"
- main left Inlet Valve on "Shut" (free movement of the switch which has no locking device), Override on "O/ride"
- main right Inlet Valve on "Auto", Override on "Off"

and
Tank 11
- indicated quantity of fuel "10 t"
- left hydraulic pump on "Auto", right on "Off"
- position of electric pumps unreadable
- main left Inlet Valve on "Shut", Override unreadable
- main right Inlet Valve and Override unreadable

I presume from your username you have some association with the a/c, so can you
tell me what I have missed? Which of those switch positions is relevant to tank 5?