Five people to face Concorde crash trial
sispanys ria
I agree with everything that you say above
However the "issue" has two parts. The airworthiness part and the civil part.
The airworthiness part as discussed above has been addressed by removing the certificate. The civil part operates under entirely different standards and is to be addressed in a french court (an eye for an eye).
The runway inspection has nothing to do with this issue.
A safe aircraft is supposed to be able to suffer a tyre loss without causing fuel tank perforation, fire, and loss of control.
A safe aircraft is supposed to be able to suffer a tyre loss without causing fuel tank perforation, fire, and loss of control.
However the "issue" has two parts. The airworthiness part and the civil part.
The airworthiness part as discussed above has been addressed by removing the certificate. The civil part operates under entirely different standards and is to be addressed in a french court (an eye for an eye).
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My previous post in this thread was a bit too black, but what I am trying to say is that regardless of all the good technical discussions taking place, in simple terms it is really bad aviation to have bits fall off an aeroplane and then running over them at 100+ km/h. This should just not be happening.
Typically the French are trying to incriminate others to deflect attention from their own faults.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Navarre
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of the cause one thing is for certain. If we are to criminalize aircraft accidents, then we are going to set airline safety back 50 years. Instead of working together with authorities during accident investigations airline personnel, if they are smart, will dummy up for fear of prosecution. It started with Value Jet and continues today.
Mistakes happen. Do you acutally think that any mechanic, pilot, or otherwise goes to work thinking "I think I will cause an accident today"? Hardly.
Mistakes happen. Do you acutally think that any mechanic, pilot, or otherwise goes to work thinking "I think I will cause an accident today"? Hardly.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
So the pic of a mate’s ex wife (CC) sitting on the flight deck (not jump seated) is SOP/by the book?!?
Certainty breeds complacency…
iX
I think you'll find that BA certainly always operated Concorde by the book!
Certainty breeds complacency…
iX
Last edited by ix_touring; 7th Jul 2008 at 21:23. Reason: Formatting
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: OVER THE RAINBOW
Age: 74
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can a anybody tell me where to find the EAD 001-09-2001 relating to the accident (the AD issued after the offical accident report)
I have looked in EASA and UK CAA sites and cannot source
Thanks
I have looked in EASA and UK CAA sites and cannot source
Thanks
Update today: manslaughter trial to start in 2010, according to French prosecutors.
French Concorde Crash Manslaughter Trial To Begin In Feb 2010
French Concorde Crash Manslaughter Trial To Begin In Feb 2010
Guest
Posts: n/a
Standard of care
67 tire blowouts and seven tank ruptures? Manslaughter seems rather an ambitious path. Willful negligence and lack of disclosure, purposeful wrongdoing? Continental or Air France? Air France. CAL was trying to fix something (non-standard?). Air France was trying not to.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: france
Age: 75
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"If we are to criminalize aircraft accidents, then we are going to set airline safety back 50 years."
No, you must make the difference between a mistake and a fault. Maintaining the Concorde airworthiness so many years with so many precursory accidents and serious incidents is a serious fault
"If we are to criminalize aircraft accidents, then we are going to set airline safety back 50 years."
No, you must make the difference between a mistake and a fault. Maintaining the Concorde airworthiness so many years with so many precursory accidents and serious incidents is a serious fault
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continental on trial for deadly Concorde crash
Continental on trial for deadly Concorde crash | Herald Sun
US airline Continental and two of its employees go on trial this week for the manslaughter of 113 people who died in a Concorde crash that put an end to the dream of supersonic travel.
US airline Continental and two of its employees go on trial this week for the manslaughter of 113 people who died in a Concorde crash that put an end to the dream of supersonic travel.
A former French civil aviation official and two senior members of the Concorde program will be tried on the same charge from Tuesday in a court near Paris, with proceedings expected to last four months.
The New York-bound jet crashed in a ball of fire shortly after take-off from Paris Charles de Gaulle airport on July 25, 2000, killing all 109 people on board - most of them Germans - and four hotel workers on the ground.
The blazing Concorde demolished an airport hotel when it hurtled to the ground in a crash that marked the beginning of the end for the world's first -- and thus far only -- regular supersonic jet service.
Air France and British Airways grounded their Concordes for 15 months after the crash and, after a brief resumption, finally put an end to supersonic commercial service in 2003.
The plane, born of British and French collaboration, embarked on its maiden commercial flight in 1976. Only 20 were manufactured: six were used for development and the remaining 14 flew mainly trans-Atlantic routes at speeds of up to 2170km/h.
A French accident inquiry concluded in December 2004 that the Paris disaster was partly caused by a strip of metal that fell on the runway from a Continental Airlines DC-10 plane that took off just before the supersonic jet.
The Concorde, most of whose German passengers were due to board a Caribbean cruise ship in New York, ran over the super-hard titanium strip, which shredded one of its tyres, causing a blow-out and sending debris flying into an engine and a fuel tank.
Continental is charged over a failure to properly maintain its aircraft, along with two US employees: John Taylor, a mechanic who allegedly fitted the non-standard strip, and airline chief of maintenance Stanley Ford.
An arrest warrant was issued for Mr Taylor after he failed to show up to be questioned by investigators here, and, according to his lawyer, he will not be attending the trial in the court in Pontoise, northwest of Paris.
Mr Taylor's lawyer declined to say if his client would show up in court.
The former Concorde officials and French aviation boss are also accused of failing to detect and set right faults on the supersonic aircraft, brought to light during the investigation and thought to have contributed to the crash.
Henri Perrier was director of the first Concorde program at Aerospatiale, now part of the EADS group, from 1978 to 1994, while Jacques Herubel was Concorde's chief engineer from 1993 to 1995.
Both men are accused of ignoring warning signs from a string of incidents on Concorde planes, which during their 27 years of service suffered dozens of tyre blowouts or wheel damage that in several cases pierced the fuel tanks.
Finally Claude Frantzen, director of technical services at the French civil aviation authority DGAC from 1970 to 1994, is accused of overlooking a fault on Concorde's distinctive delta-shaped wings, which held its fuel tanks.
The trial will seek to pin down the share of responsibility of the US airline, the Concorde and French aviation officials.
Most of the victims' families agreed not to take legal action in exchange for compensation from Air France, EADS, Continental and the Goodyear tyre manufacturer.
The amount they received has not been made public, but reports said that around $US100 million ($A111.78 million) was shared out among some 700 relatives of the dead.
Throughout the eight-year investigation, Continental pledged to fight any charges in the case.
US airline Continental and two of its employees go on trial this week for the manslaughter of 113 people who died in a Concorde crash that put an end to the dream of supersonic travel.
A former French civil aviation official and two senior members of the Concorde program will be tried on the same charge from Tuesday in a court near Paris, with proceedings expected to last four months.
The New York-bound jet crashed in a ball of fire shortly after take-off from Paris Charles de Gaulle airport on July 25, 2000, killing all 109 people on board - most of them Germans - and four hotel workers on the ground.
The blazing Concorde demolished an airport hotel when it hurtled to the ground in a crash that marked the beginning of the end for the world's first -- and thus far only -- regular supersonic jet service.
Air France and British Airways grounded their Concordes for 15 months after the crash and, after a brief resumption, finally put an end to supersonic commercial service in 2003.
The plane, born of British and French collaboration, embarked on its maiden commercial flight in 1976. Only 20 were manufactured: six were used for development and the remaining 14 flew mainly trans-Atlantic routes at speeds of up to 2170km/h.
A French accident inquiry concluded in December 2004 that the Paris disaster was partly caused by a strip of metal that fell on the runway from a Continental Airlines DC-10 plane that took off just before the supersonic jet.
The Concorde, most of whose German passengers were due to board a Caribbean cruise ship in New York, ran over the super-hard titanium strip, which shredded one of its tyres, causing a blow-out and sending debris flying into an engine and a fuel tank.
Continental is charged over a failure to properly maintain its aircraft, along with two US employees: John Taylor, a mechanic who allegedly fitted the non-standard strip, and airline chief of maintenance Stanley Ford.
An arrest warrant was issued for Mr Taylor after he failed to show up to be questioned by investigators here, and, according to his lawyer, he will not be attending the trial in the court in Pontoise, northwest of Paris.
Mr Taylor's lawyer declined to say if his client would show up in court.
The former Concorde officials and French aviation boss are also accused of failing to detect and set right faults on the supersonic aircraft, brought to light during the investigation and thought to have contributed to the crash.
Henri Perrier was director of the first Concorde program at Aerospatiale, now part of the EADS group, from 1978 to 1994, while Jacques Herubel was Concorde's chief engineer from 1993 to 1995.
Both men are accused of ignoring warning signs from a string of incidents on Concorde planes, which during their 27 years of service suffered dozens of tyre blowouts or wheel damage that in several cases pierced the fuel tanks.
Finally Claude Frantzen, director of technical services at the French civil aviation authority DGAC from 1970 to 1994, is accused of overlooking a fault on Concorde's distinctive delta-shaped wings, which held its fuel tanks.
The trial will seek to pin down the share of responsibility of the US airline, the Concorde and French aviation officials.
Most of the victims' families agreed not to take legal action in exchange for compensation from Air France, EADS, Continental and the Goodyear tyre manufacturer.
The amount they received has not been made public, but reports said that around $US100 million ($A111.78 million) was shared out among some 700 relatives of the dead.
Throughout the eight-year investigation, Continental pledged to fight any charges in the case.
Last edited by Bobman84; 31st Jan 2010 at 10:37.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the hands of true professionals Concorde was an extremely safe aircraft indeed. But this crash followed many French near-misses, spread over all the years of Concorde operation. Misses due to questionable airmanship or maintenance, often combinations of both. Maybe we will get the truth and not a cover up this time?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd suggest it's more about French face-saving. Maybe we'll hear some details of the arguments in due course, but it seems a strange. IIRC the story is that a bit fell of a CO aircraft, wasn't cleared off the runway before the Concorde began its takeoff roll, and then caused the fatal puncture to the fuel tank. But bits do fall of aircraft now and again, and if the finger of blame points anywhere here (and we don't just say it was a tragic lining up of holes) then wouldn't the airport be first in line for not clearing the runway?
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd suggest it's more about French face-saving.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
......Not to mention MULTIPLE eye-witness acounts (some of them French firemen!!) stating that the L/H gear area had flames eminaing long before the aircraft reached the titanium strip. . all of these accounts were dismissed out of hand by the BEA. (Oh, and ask the BEA who found out that the bogie spacerwas missing... it was a British engineer assisting at the crash site).