Five people to face Concorde crash trial
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've followed this thread from the beginning and being an engineer involved in certificationm have an interest in the daily proceedings. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a a court summary anywhere or much reporting on it. Any suggestions , aside from Googling every day, on how one might follow the trial on a regular basis?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde Water Deflectors
The water deflectors were required for certification, owing to the proximity of the main U/C to the engine intakes. I remember seeing a video many moons ago, showing the certification trials for the deflectors, performed at Fairford (circa 1973) and using the FRENCH pre-production aircraft 201 (F-WTSB). The A/C did a series of high speed passes through a huge water trough that had been placed on the on the runway. In the 'before' shots you could see massive plumes of water entereing the intakes, causing quite interesting and visible surging of the engines, whereas the 'after' shots, the plume of water very neatly missed the intakes altogether. After the final BA tyre burst/wing damage incident in 1993, a modification was emodied TO THE BRITISH AIRCRAFT ONLY, fitting a retaining cord through the centre of the main gear deflectors; if a tyre burst occured, the deflector would ostensibly stay in one lump, causing no airframe damage at all; it worked perfectly, there was NEVER another case of a British aircraft sustaining skin penetration due to a tyre burst.
The design of the water deflectors was simple but brilliant, in terms of the differnce it could make to the path of heavy runway water. (The nosewheel also had a deflector fitted, with the addition of two small 'shredder' blades; if a nosewheel punctured at high speed, the blades would neatly shred and divert the rubber straight down the runway behind the A/C, well away from the engines. I have no personal recollection of this ever occuring during airline service).
(My first post for several days, some interesting posts since though, oh and LOVE the photo).
The design of the water deflectors was simple but brilliant, in terms of the differnce it could make to the path of heavy runway water. (The nosewheel also had a deflector fitted, with the addition of two small 'shredder' blades; if a nosewheel punctured at high speed, the blades would neatly shred and divert the rubber straight down the runway behind the A/C, well away from the engines. I have no personal recollection of this ever occuring during airline service).
(My first post for several days, some interesting posts since though, oh and LOVE the photo).
Last edited by M2dude; 12th Feb 2010 at 10:49. Reason: typos
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Republic of Tejas
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M2Dude,
I'm enjoying your technical input on the Concord. I remember parking beside it at KDFW and getting a tour from the BA crew. It was an amazing airplane.
BS
I'm enjoying your technical input on the Concord. I remember parking beside it at KDFW and getting a tour from the BA crew. It was an amazing airplane.
BS
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Bluestar51 
; I've just been trying to inject some technical perspective into this topic.
G-BOAB, certainly flew on her many times. The most 'fun' flights of all were the C of A renewal test flights, these involved taking the aircraft outside the normal envelope (Max Altitude, Mmo etc), to monitor the performance of critical A/C systems. (eg. Powerplant, Flying Controls, AFCS etc). Several interesting procedures would be employed. One such procedure involved a 'flat' acceleration to around Mach 2.1 (Mmo being M2.04). The most incredible event of all however, was a supersonic zoom climb to 63,000', (Normal maximum was 60,000') ending with a simultaneous reduction of engine power and perfectly orchestrated pushover. During this steep zoom climb, Mach number never even reduced to much below M1.8, and you tended to ask yourself "is this REALY an airliner?' AMAZING!! During the bunt manoevre, you were semi-weightless for several seconds and if you gently tossed your pen into the air, it tended to 'hang' there for a second or two.
All of this tended to make you realise what a truly amazing aircraft Concorde was. (As a matter of interest also, G-BOAB was the first British Concorde to achieve Mach 2 on her maiden flight).
; I've just been trying to inject some technical perspective into this topic.G-BOAB, certainly flew on her many times. The most 'fun' flights of all were the C of A renewal test flights, these involved taking the aircraft outside the normal envelope (Max Altitude, Mmo etc), to monitor the performance of critical A/C systems. (eg. Powerplant, Flying Controls, AFCS etc). Several interesting procedures would be employed. One such procedure involved a 'flat' acceleration to around Mach 2.1 (Mmo being M2.04). The most incredible event of all however, was a supersonic zoom climb to 63,000', (Normal maximum was 60,000') ending with a simultaneous reduction of engine power and perfectly orchestrated pushover. During this steep zoom climb, Mach number never even reduced to much below M1.8, and you tended to ask yourself "is this REALY an airliner?' AMAZING!! During the bunt manoevre, you were semi-weightless for several seconds and if you gently tossed your pen into the air, it tended to 'hang' there for a second or two.
All of this tended to make you realise what a truly amazing aircraft Concorde was. (As a matter of interest also, G-BOAB was the first British Concorde to achieve Mach 2 on her maiden flight).
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Betrayal of Concorde
The magnificent and somehat haunting photo of concorde has prompted me to refer to the epitaph written by Donald L. Pevsner to his friend FO Jean Marcot The article, considered by some as highly controversial is dedicated to the memory of his good friend and airman, Air France Concorde First Officer Jean Marcot.
The article may be accessed at :
THE BETRAYAL OF CONCORDE
In the event Mr.Pevsner is aware of the existence of this forum then I would invite his further comments about the current proceedings at Pontoise.
The article may be accessed at :
THE BETRAYAL OF CONCORDE
In the event Mr.Pevsner is aware of the existence of this forum then I would invite his further comments about the current proceedings at Pontoise.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE England
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chucks-
I was in the BA Engineering Directors office at the time the fleet was being stood down. I said to him it was a shame we were going to stop flying them. He said to me "They are just too dangerous" Or words to that effect. That may well have been a personal view of his and I'm sure the decision wouldn't have been his alone. Economics must have had a hand, after all economics and safety can't be separated in most fields.
Concorde was a wonderful technical accomplishment but it was damaged by economics to the point where it just didn't pay to continue flying it, I think. It was not grounded due to safety, having been successfully modified post-crash. I think we could put it in that corner of aviation with the Graf Zeppelin, the Spruce Goose and the Saunders-Roe Princess, technical successes but economic failures.
I was in the BA Engineering Directors office at the time the fleet was being stood down. I said to him it was a shame we were going to stop flying them. He said to me "They are just too dangerous" Or words to that effect. That may well have been a personal view of his and I'm sure the decision wouldn't have been his alone. Economics must have had a hand, after all economics and safety can't be separated in most fields.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hope springs eternal that I can narrow the communication gap between SLFinAZ and Wings Folded.
The miscommunication seems to arise from SLF's assumption that certain procedures of the French legal system match those in the U.S. In particular, in the U.S., the judge (or jury) is not generally allowed to ask any questions of the witnesses. Thus, they are limited to consider only the evidence advanced by the prosecutor or defense attorneys. Because SLF sees the prosecuting attorney choosing only to advance one theory (that COA FOD and ancient Sud Aviation designers are responsible), SLF smells a rat and believes that if this is the only evidence that is going to be presented at the trial, how is it possible that AF procedures could be found culpable or contributing.
But this thought process neglects two things. The first is that the defense attorneys will be able to present their contradicting evidence. While this cannot have the effect of convicting AF, it can have the effect of convincing the judges to find COA and the Sud designers not guilty.
But more importantly, I believe Wings Folded correctly indicates that the French judges will have more leeway in the trial than is available to a U.S. judge. In particular, the French judges will not be limited to hearing (and considering) only the testimony that the prosecutor or defense attorneys choose to present. Rather, they will also be able to directly question the witnesses presented by the prosecution and defense, and adduce additional testimony that the prosecutor (or defense attorney) may not have chosen to elicit.
Further, because of the training and experience of these judges, it is likely that they may be more discerning in their winnowing of the evidence than jury laymen.
While I, too, am disturbed by the one-sided nature of the BEA's conclusions and their apparent endorsement by the prosecution, I am also hopeful that the judges hearing this case will act inquisitively, insightfully and independently. As Wings Folded has indicated, they have the power to do this. Let us see how the actual trial unfolds before jumping to conclusions.
The miscommunication seems to arise from SLF's assumption that certain procedures of the French legal system match those in the U.S. In particular, in the U.S., the judge (or jury) is not generally allowed to ask any questions of the witnesses. Thus, they are limited to consider only the evidence advanced by the prosecutor or defense attorneys. Because SLF sees the prosecuting attorney choosing only to advance one theory (that COA FOD and ancient Sud Aviation designers are responsible), SLF smells a rat and believes that if this is the only evidence that is going to be presented at the trial, how is it possible that AF procedures could be found culpable or contributing.
But this thought process neglects two things. The first is that the defense attorneys will be able to present their contradicting evidence. While this cannot have the effect of convicting AF, it can have the effect of convincing the judges to find COA and the Sud designers not guilty.
But more importantly, I believe Wings Folded correctly indicates that the French judges will have more leeway in the trial than is available to a U.S. judge. In particular, the French judges will not be limited to hearing (and considering) only the testimony that the prosecutor or defense attorneys choose to present. Rather, they will also be able to directly question the witnesses presented by the prosecution and defense, and adduce additional testimony that the prosecutor (or defense attorney) may not have chosen to elicit.
Further, because of the training and experience of these judges, it is likely that they may be more discerning in their winnowing of the evidence than jury laymen.
While I, too, am disturbed by the one-sided nature of the BEA's conclusions and their apparent endorsement by the prosecution, I am also hopeful that the judges hearing this case will act inquisitively, insightfully and independently. As Wings Folded has indicated, they have the power to do this. Let us see how the actual trial unfolds before jumping to conclusions.
No system is perfect - but some are better
I think the criticism of the French system is a little rich coming from Americans.
Anyone care to discuss the technical merits of the jury decisions in:
The Carnahan case - It was the vacuum pumps fault despite the fact the pump showed no broken vanes. But hey what does the NTSB know.
Silk Air - Sorry it wasn't suicide, just an never seen before set of problems with a pcu. Lets not trouble ourselves over the lack of CVR and FDR data.
The Mid air at Meigs with the radio guy, Bob Grant? - they managed to hang that one on a guy flying Bonzana who had left the pattern due to a gear down problem. It seems he distracted the controllers. We will ignore totally that Mr Grant misreported his position while flying VFR circuits and killed another pilot (Who did not f**K up) as a result.
Its a moot point as no French judge would have made a decision in these cases, as the examining magistrate would never have let theses cases come to court.
I live in America and get to pay for these stupid and wrong jury "feel good" decisions every time I pay my insurance, buy a part or pay my mechanic. Give me three french judges any day of the week.
20driver
Anyone care to discuss the technical merits of the jury decisions in:
The Carnahan case - It was the vacuum pumps fault despite the fact the pump showed no broken vanes. But hey what does the NTSB know.
Silk Air - Sorry it wasn't suicide, just an never seen before set of problems with a pcu. Lets not trouble ourselves over the lack of CVR and FDR data.
The Mid air at Meigs with the radio guy, Bob Grant? - they managed to hang that one on a guy flying Bonzana who had left the pattern due to a gear down problem. It seems he distracted the controllers. We will ignore totally that Mr Grant misreported his position while flying VFR circuits and killed another pilot (Who did not f**K up) as a result.
Its a moot point as no French judge would have made a decision in these cases, as the examining magistrate would never have let theses cases come to court.
I live in America and get to pay for these stupid and wrong jury "feel good" decisions every time I pay my insurance, buy a part or pay my mechanic. Give me three french judges any day of the week.
20driver
Controversial, moi?
Economics must have had a hand, after all economics and safety can't be separated in most fields.
I remember being told by BA's then Concorde chief pilot that BA used to have nearly 20 companies who specified Concorde travel for their executives where available. Prior to its permanent withdrawal from service that number had become zero.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've got to remember that cancellation as far as BA went was not really about raw economics, more about a naive CEO who trusted his Engineering Director. The post-911 era was exremelly difficult, but the BA Concorde market started to pick up very well. The engineering director of the time was paranoid ant-Concorde, and always had been. As an ex-BA F/O (B744), I had the mis-fortune to meet this guy once, and when the subject of Concorde came up in conversation, he almost started boiling over and dribbling at the mouth; he hated the thing. When the French came out with their 'reasons' not to continue flying, all of his Christmases came at once. He told the CEO that this airplane was unsafe, and BA should stop flying as soon as possible. A Concorde pilot friend of mine told me tha.t BA had an excellant legal case in fighting the Airbus decision to withdraw technical support without a massive increase in product support fees, but the CEO did not want to upset Airbus. The mind boggles.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SeenItAll
Hope springs eternal that I can narrow the communication gap between SLFinAZ and Wings Folded.
I do not feel that I have a "communication gap".
I think I understand what SLFinAZ says. I just think he is wrong on judicial aspects. For the reasons you so clearly and simply evoke:
As will be clear from my posts, I take no issue with those technically more competent than I am, nor do I dispute nor denegrate their views. You are no doubt well informed and sincere when you state:
While I, too, am disturbed by the one-sided nature of the BEA's conclusions and their apparent endorsement by the prosecution,
Strictly in the spirit of commenting only upon procedure, a public prosecutor cannot seriously do anything other than place reliance upon an official body's findings.
But the real strength of French legal process (which our Arizonian friend has failed to grasp) is that the Court has the freedom to investigate beyond those findings. It can and will hear evidence from other sources. In particular the Civil Parties (Parties Civiles), the lawyers acting for Continental, inter alia, and others.
Many of the posters on this thread have clearly read the BEA findings. Probably in translation, but perhaps in the original.
Most will be able to agree that, whichever version they have read, if we take only the BEA findings, we are way short of the 90 volumes of evidence to be seen and heard by the Court.
So where has all the other volume of material come from?
All the parties are free to, and have used that freedom, to make submissions. They have. Hence 90 volumes.
The Judges are, in addition, free to make their own enquiries. That is in the nature of an inquisatorial system, versus an adverserial system wherein they can only take the points made by the parties' advocates.
SLFinAZ is deluded when he thinks that an inquisatorial system is an "inquisition". It is simply a different system of law.
He evidently knows nothing about French legal process.
He therefore dislikes it, thinks it is stacked; he mounts on his chauvinistic high horse, and takes issue with the process.
He thinks it will take 4 months of Court process after close on 10 years of investigation, to "rubber stamp" a prejudiced anti American, pro French conclusion.
Hope springs eternal that I can narrow the communication gap between SLFinAZ and Wings Folded.
I think I understand what SLFinAZ says. I just think he is wrong on judicial aspects. For the reasons you so clearly and simply evoke:
The miscommunication seems to arise from SLF's assumption that certain procedures of the French legal system match those in the U.S.
While I, too, am disturbed by the one-sided nature of the BEA's conclusions and their apparent endorsement by the prosecution,
But the real strength of French legal process (which our Arizonian friend has failed to grasp) is that the Court has the freedom to investigate beyond those findings. It can and will hear evidence from other sources. In particular the Civil Parties (Parties Civiles), the lawyers acting for Continental, inter alia, and others.
Many of the posters on this thread have clearly read the BEA findings. Probably in translation, but perhaps in the original.
Most will be able to agree that, whichever version they have read, if we take only the BEA findings, we are way short of the 90 volumes of evidence to be seen and heard by the Court.
So where has all the other volume of material come from?
All the parties are free to, and have used that freedom, to make submissions. They have. Hence 90 volumes.
The Judges are, in addition, free to make their own enquiries. That is in the nature of an inquisatorial system, versus an adverserial system wherein they can only take the points made by the parties' advocates.
SLFinAZ is deluded when he thinks that an inquisatorial system is an "inquisition". It is simply a different system of law.
He evidently knows nothing about French legal process.
He therefore dislikes it, thinks it is stacked; he mounts on his chauvinistic high horse, and takes issue with the process.
He thinks it will take 4 months of Court process after close on 10 years of investigation, to "rubber stamp" a prejudiced anti American, pro French conclusion.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Understanding or not the french judicial procedures .. I bet it will be indeed a "Rubber Stamp" a prejudiced anti American, pro French conclusion.
At least .. if you analyse the other trials involving BEA-Air France or other french airlines - Airbus Industries .. you have a evident pattern
Why this will be different today ?
And I bet .. this will be the same pattern in 10 years or more for the AF447 trial unless somethings change in France about the BEA statuts.
And as usual .. I suppose Continental will make a appeal .. and in some years this will going .. and with same results as other appeals in the past trials.
He thinks it will take 4 months of Court process after close on 10 years of investigation, to "rubber stamp" a prejudiced anti American, pro French conclusion.
At least .. if you analyse the other trials involving BEA-Air France or other french airlines - Airbus Industries .. you have a evident pattern
Why this will be different today ?
And I bet .. this will be the same pattern in 10 years or more for the AF447 trial unless somethings change in France about the BEA statuts.
And as usual .. I suppose Continental will make a appeal .. and in some years this will going .. and with same results as other appeals in the past trials.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jcjeant
(Quote from you.)
(Quote from SFL in AZ)
"I bet...", "My guess...."
Judicial process does not work on guesses, nor bets.
Not in the US. Not in France.
Why can you people (some of you, that is) not wait until the outcome of the trial?
If you are not happy then, we can talk a little more about it.
I bet it will be indeed a "Rubber Stamp" a prejudiced anti American, pro French conclusion
My guess is that the answer is a resounding NO.
"I bet...", "My guess...."
Judicial process does not work on guesses, nor bets.
Not in the US. Not in France.
Why can you people (some of you, that is) not wait until the outcome of the trial?
If you are not happy then, we can talk a little more about it.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Methink you can add the BEA on the list.
Why ? .. cause public knowledge how BEA managed the reports of "Retour d'experience" and the many accidents reports where Concorde was involved.
Each accident was a step forward to Gonesse.
With the knowledge of the past experiences of the Concorde .. someone make not the job for avoid the final tragedy .....
Cause the "secret de l' instruction" 
This was a "juge d'instruction" decision .. and you can't know why he take this decision .. unless the "juge d'instruction" is trialed himself for "faute grave" or "bad job" if you want.
This is very rare in France ... I just remember the case of one joung "juge d'instruction" trialed by parliamentary inquiry in a sex scandal involving teenagers and adults some years ago ....
Affaire d'Outreau
Why wasn't AF and CDG included with the other five defendants in this trial?
Why ? .. cause public knowledge how BEA managed the reports of "Retour d'experience" and the many accidents reports where Concorde was involved.
Each accident was a step forward to Gonesse.
With the knowledge of the past experiences of the Concorde .. someone make not the job for avoid the final tragedy .....
Why wasn't AF and CDG included with the other five defendants in this trial?
I do not have inside knowledge to do so
I do not have inside knowledge to do so
This was a "juge d'instruction" decision .. and you can't know why he take this decision .. unless the "juge d'instruction" is trialed himself for "faute grave" or "bad job" if you want.
This is very rare in France ... I just remember the case of one joung "juge d'instruction" trialed by parliamentary inquiry in a sex scandal involving teenagers and adults some years ago ....
Affaire d'Outreau
Last edited by jcjeant; 14th Feb 2010 at 21:02.
We need to be careful about why one and not the other is on trial and of course await the findings of the learned judges.
Then we can have our field day of discussions
The missing parties may be left out simply because they serve the public and other than bad (sic) decision making having violated no laws.
OTOH the the trial parties are probably going to be more closely examined as to their level of recklesness (sic) in violations of rules or regulations.
I could be wrong, but that's why I await the outcome to see how much equality turns out to be among those involved.
I do appologize for my choice of words followed by "(sic)" but I only used them to illustate my own ponderings
Then we can have our field day of discussions
The missing parties may be left out simply because they serve the public and other than bad (sic) decision making having violated no laws.
OTOH the the trial parties are probably going to be more closely examined as to their level of recklesness (sic) in violations of rules or regulations.
I could be wrong, but that's why I await the outcome to see how much equality turns out to be among those involved.
I do appologize for my choice of words followed by "(sic)" but I only used them to illustate my own ponderings
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has been an informative and amusing read.
I'll not add fuel to the "French vs. US Justice System" flame, other than saying this:
CO was perhaps a bit negligent in maintenance. Any fool can tell you that a more-or-less "hand formed" titanium shape riveted to an aluminum shape will eventually, given enough vibration, temperature change, et cetera, pull the rivets loose. The two metals have different coefficient of temp expansions, different flexibility. The RTV applied to this particular mismatch prolly helped it separate sooner, by transferring heat.
OTOH, we don't really know how many other titanium wear strips are flying around right now, and we don't know why the MX person chose titanium instead of AL.
Closing this thought off, I'll say that in some respects this part of the incident reminds me of a spate of lawsuits in the US brought against trucking companies transporting gravel in those large 38' open-topped semi trailers. A bit of gravel flies off, chips the windshield of the car following closely behind the truck, the driver of the car notes the license # (or "call about my driving" #) and promptly expects a new windshield. Most trucks in the US now have a sticker printed in 172-point type, readable from about 75' with average vision, which says "if you can read this you are too close."
It's impossible to apply this bumper-sticker "fix" to the air transport industry, and this puts the responsibility back on airport operators. Junk on runways happens, and it presents a clear and present danger, but airports are simply too busy to FOD-walk after each takeoff. Perhaps carriers should start assessing the "FOD-freeness" of runways and approach airport management with penalties for those fields which do not take the situation as seriously as they should.
Next, we've heard a lot about the Concorde and it's capabilities and the high points of its design, as well its frailties and weak spots.
At this point, you have to look at the overall record for the airframe: More incidents per "x" number of flights than average, but this is based on its limited routing.
OTOH, in many respects it never really got out of the "experimental" stage, due to the low number of frames manufactured and the [relatively] low number of pax-miles flown by the type.
Techincally it did, but in the "spirit" of my statement, I'll posit that it never really was "grown" past the initial few years of 707/DC8 learning.
It was, overall, a brilliant design. Although supersonic flight was, at the point of Concorde's EIS, a rather mature technology, the concept of supersonic commercial flight was pretty much an unplowed field. Concorde was the first, and it obviously had some "growing pains" trying to match the resource-intense regime of supersonic with the economic restrictions of commercial duty.
Reputations aside, I'd like to suggest that both operators did the best they could with the concept. Neither AF nor BA were deliberately negligent in the way they operated the Concorde. BA might have embraced the airframe a bit tighter than AF, but both companies made a valiant effort with regards to the unusual marketing, maintenance, and operation of the frame.
At this point, I'd like to suggest that we do two things:
1) Try like mad to get inside information on how the French court is proceeding,
and
2) Hold back a bit in the AF vs. BA battle of barbs
Both companies are reputable carriers, and the French system of justice - while somewhat "alien" to other countries - has a considerable reputation for trying to find truth.
Personally, I'd like to hear more from MX people and pilots. Not necessarily those connected with the Concorde, but those who are familiar with the C and its characteristics.
And, thanks to those who have already made some stunningly acute posts and posts which have started to tell the "inside" story of this wonderful aircraft.
I'll end on a somber thought.
It's too freakin' bad the cost of fossil fuel went up to a level which has killed the Concorde and reduced subsonic transport to cattle-truck levels of quality.
In the grande scheme of things, 2 developments have seriously changed the human experience:
-- The ability to go from one side of the world to the other in hours instead of months
-- The ability to share information from anywhere in the world in a matter of seconds
At some future point, mankind will learn how to do both without any kerfluffles; then we'll be able to consider them boring and really concentrate on new ideas!
Cheers!
RR
I'll not add fuel to the "French vs. US Justice System" flame, other than saying this:
CO was perhaps a bit negligent in maintenance. Any fool can tell you that a more-or-less "hand formed" titanium shape riveted to an aluminum shape will eventually, given enough vibration, temperature change, et cetera, pull the rivets loose. The two metals have different coefficient of temp expansions, different flexibility. The RTV applied to this particular mismatch prolly helped it separate sooner, by transferring heat.
OTOH, we don't really know how many other titanium wear strips are flying around right now, and we don't know why the MX person chose titanium instead of AL.
Closing this thought off, I'll say that in some respects this part of the incident reminds me of a spate of lawsuits in the US brought against trucking companies transporting gravel in those large 38' open-topped semi trailers. A bit of gravel flies off, chips the windshield of the car following closely behind the truck, the driver of the car notes the license # (or "call about my driving" #) and promptly expects a new windshield. Most trucks in the US now have a sticker printed in 172-point type, readable from about 75' with average vision, which says "if you can read this you are too close."
It's impossible to apply this bumper-sticker "fix" to the air transport industry, and this puts the responsibility back on airport operators. Junk on runways happens, and it presents a clear and present danger, but airports are simply too busy to FOD-walk after each takeoff. Perhaps carriers should start assessing the "FOD-freeness" of runways and approach airport management with penalties for those fields which do not take the situation as seriously as they should.
Next, we've heard a lot about the Concorde and it's capabilities and the high points of its design, as well its frailties and weak spots.
At this point, you have to look at the overall record for the airframe: More incidents per "x" number of flights than average, but this is based on its limited routing.
OTOH, in many respects it never really got out of the "experimental" stage, due to the low number of frames manufactured and the [relatively] low number of pax-miles flown by the type.
Techincally it did, but in the "spirit" of my statement, I'll posit that it never really was "grown" past the initial few years of 707/DC8 learning.
It was, overall, a brilliant design. Although supersonic flight was, at the point of Concorde's EIS, a rather mature technology, the concept of supersonic commercial flight was pretty much an unplowed field. Concorde was the first, and it obviously had some "growing pains" trying to match the resource-intense regime of supersonic with the economic restrictions of commercial duty.
Reputations aside, I'd like to suggest that both operators did the best they could with the concept. Neither AF nor BA were deliberately negligent in the way they operated the Concorde. BA might have embraced the airframe a bit tighter than AF, but both companies made a valiant effort with regards to the unusual marketing, maintenance, and operation of the frame.
At this point, I'd like to suggest that we do two things:
1) Try like mad to get inside information on how the French court is proceeding,
and
2) Hold back a bit in the AF vs. BA battle of barbs
Both companies are reputable carriers, and the French system of justice - while somewhat "alien" to other countries - has a considerable reputation for trying to find truth.
Personally, I'd like to hear more from MX people and pilots. Not necessarily those connected with the Concorde, but those who are familiar with the C and its characteristics.
And, thanks to those who have already made some stunningly acute posts and posts which have started to tell the "inside" story of this wonderful aircraft.
I'll end on a somber thought.
It's too freakin' bad the cost of fossil fuel went up to a level which has killed the Concorde and reduced subsonic transport to cattle-truck levels of quality.
In the grande scheme of things, 2 developments have seriously changed the human experience:
-- The ability to go from one side of the world to the other in hours instead of months
-- The ability to share information from anywhere in the world in a matter of seconds
At some future point, mankind will learn how to do both without any kerfluffles; then we'll be able to consider them boring and really concentrate on new ideas!
Cheers!
RR
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been a bit bzy in the real world but let me try and clarify my thoughts here.
Yes I do understand that the French system does afford much more significant leeway for the judges. Leaving the semantics aside the fundamental question is still as follows. The prosecution functions as the arm of the state in all legal systems charged with the task (in the broadest sense) of defending the "welfare of the republic". This is by it's nature an adversarial role (when viewed by the defending parties) and also creates an issue in the sense that the state is viewed (by its own system) as being fair and pragmatic. So in effect the very nature of the proceedings gives a subtle edge to the prosecution. This is true in any system and even in the occasionally ludicrous American justice system ("if the glove doesn't fit you have to acquit") the stark reality is that we have far to many innocent people in jail (and on death row and sadly pushing pansies as well).
So while I hope that a fair and impartial examination of all the underlying facts will take place the simple truth is that in any system the judiciary (at the trial level) leans slightly but firmly toward the prosecution. While just as clearly the appellate level takes a tougher stance with regard to any prejudicial misconduct that resulted in a conviction.
Accordingly my view is that the panel of judges is much more likely to lean toward the rational behind the "criminal bill" then to embrace any alternative explanations. If either the operating airline or the airport authority faced scrutiny for it's actions then I feel a much more open examination would take place. Given the nature of the parties charged my thought is that all the factors I brought up will be viewed an "possible" contributing factors in the speculative sense but falling well below the standard required to play directly into cause and effect (or the BEA report would have mentioned them). All these factors will be evaluated at trial and a "fair and reasonable but impartial" judge will certainly ask the prosecution how and why they chose to act specific to the charges.
I'm sure the answer will be well thought out and concise and compelling.....even if 100% wrong. The reality is that nether the prosecution or the panel of judges is really qualified in this regard. In effect we have the exact opposite of the "if the glove....". We have a piece of metal and a burning plane and a smoking crater with dead bodies.
Accordingly "Continental in the library with the titanium strip" is a forgone conclusion IMO...even of this is an unfair and overly simplistic dispersement of blame for a tragedy decades in the making. The alternative that the creeping complacency and erosion of SOP's for a very demanding system made a tragedy a 100% certainty will be viewed with credulity and openly scorned as an attempt to divert responsibility for sub standard maintenance procedures.
This is not in anyway an attempt to downplay the fact that the Continental plane WAS improperly maintained...simply a recognition that a runway contaminated with one or more foreign objects was a statistical certainty over a large enough sample of events. Further given the very real danger a tire failure created for the Concorde any such incident would have a much higher potential for catastrophic failure then with any other plane in service. Accordingly the real question is why a pre-takeoff runway inspection for FO's wasn't SOP? After all it was a question of when...not if this would happen. So how is holding the offending plane/airline responsible prudent vs taking reasonable steps to avoid an incident in the 1st place?
Yes I do understand that the French system does afford much more significant leeway for the judges. Leaving the semantics aside the fundamental question is still as follows. The prosecution functions as the arm of the state in all legal systems charged with the task (in the broadest sense) of defending the "welfare of the republic". This is by it's nature an adversarial role (when viewed by the defending parties) and also creates an issue in the sense that the state is viewed (by its own system) as being fair and pragmatic. So in effect the very nature of the proceedings gives a subtle edge to the prosecution. This is true in any system and even in the occasionally ludicrous American justice system ("if the glove doesn't fit you have to acquit") the stark reality is that we have far to many innocent people in jail (and on death row and sadly pushing pansies as well).
So while I hope that a fair and impartial examination of all the underlying facts will take place the simple truth is that in any system the judiciary (at the trial level) leans slightly but firmly toward the prosecution. While just as clearly the appellate level takes a tougher stance with regard to any prejudicial misconduct that resulted in a conviction.
Accordingly my view is that the panel of judges is much more likely to lean toward the rational behind the "criminal bill" then to embrace any alternative explanations. If either the operating airline or the airport authority faced scrutiny for it's actions then I feel a much more open examination would take place. Given the nature of the parties charged my thought is that all the factors I brought up will be viewed an "possible" contributing factors in the speculative sense but falling well below the standard required to play directly into cause and effect (or the BEA report would have mentioned them). All these factors will be evaluated at trial and a "fair and reasonable but impartial" judge will certainly ask the prosecution how and why they chose to act specific to the charges.
I'm sure the answer will be well thought out and concise and compelling.....even if 100% wrong. The reality is that nether the prosecution or the panel of judges is really qualified in this regard. In effect we have the exact opposite of the "if the glove....". We have a piece of metal and a burning plane and a smoking crater with dead bodies.
Accordingly "Continental in the library with the titanium strip" is a forgone conclusion IMO...even of this is an unfair and overly simplistic dispersement of blame for a tragedy decades in the making. The alternative that the creeping complacency and erosion of SOP's for a very demanding system made a tragedy a 100% certainty will be viewed with credulity and openly scorned as an attempt to divert responsibility for sub standard maintenance procedures.
This is not in anyway an attempt to downplay the fact that the Continental plane WAS improperly maintained...simply a recognition that a runway contaminated with one or more foreign objects was a statistical certainty over a large enough sample of events. Further given the very real danger a tire failure created for the Concorde any such incident would have a much higher potential for catastrophic failure then with any other plane in service. Accordingly the real question is why a pre-takeoff runway inspection for FO's wasn't SOP? After all it was a question of when...not if this would happen. So how is holding the offending plane/airline responsible prudent vs taking reasonable steps to avoid an incident in the 1st place?
