French Concorde crash

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

DozyWannabe : I was under the impression that something I didn't think of could lie behind your "might". Thanks for clarifying.

M2dude : Thanks also, Sir. Much appreciated.

AZR

[Nick Thomas]

KBPsen
"So the short answer is that you don't know"

Continental may well have stated that they will appeal. We will only know for certain if and when they do. So yes you are right in stating "that you don't know" None of us can know how Continental will proceed.

Starting an appeal is not proof that the verdict is mistaken.

If they appeal, whether they are allowed to procede will be decided at that time. Then and only then will the appeal be heard.

So I still stand by my post 209
"To be in a position to suggest either would require a detailed study of the court findings and the conduct of the hearing. This in my view is very difficult for any of us posting here to have a view on."
My point is that none of us here have enough information to question the court. Of course you and anyone else can speculate as much as you like but please do not claim that your speculation is anything more than that.

In my post 191 I wrote
"What I find unaceptable is the view that the court in reaching this verdict must be corrupt etc".
What am unhappy about is; when speculation is used to claim the court is corrupt or to justify racist remarks. The last sentence is not directed at you KBPsen.

In summary am asking for a civilised debate and not an excuss to air long held views on the corrupt nature of the French and their legal system.

Regards
Nick

[Iron Duck]

Lemurian

http:www.concordesst.com/accident/picture/m1.jpg

A similar shot to the one in the BEA report, probably the next frame on the roll. It has less camera shake; Concorde is 3 - 4 metres higher and yet its fuselage angle relative to the camera has barely changed, showing how far away it is. The size of the film grain is also revealing of this as a crop from the middle of the frame.

In the report it is credited to the picture library Corbis and is the famous picture that was published in all the newspapers. You may be surprised to learn that it probably has not made a rich man of the photographer.

[FP2010NC]

Alright then, but if these factors are so "well known" then why has this case been in court for ages? How can you absolutely prove anything 100%?

[Iron Duck]

DozyWannabe

Well, what we know - with the benefit of the forensic report and hindsight - is that the engines were not substantially damaged by fire. However from the CVR we know that the location of the fire *did* trigger the Engine Fire Master Warning, and a significant drop in thrust was simultaneously noticed by the F/E. As far as he was concerned, all signs pointed to an engine fire, and the tower warning that they were trailing flames indicated a very serious one.

Of course. My comment referred to the alleged fire prior to the tyre burst. Given that there was no physical evidence of engine fire, I was wondering what else might have been on fire, and why, prior to the tyre burst.

I agree with just about everything else you say - well put - except the possibility of reaching Le Bourget. Given the rate at which the airframe was being compromised by the fire, I doubt it would have held together (or control been maintained) long enough to get there.

The BEA report considers two plausible ignition sources for the fire - arcing in the wheel wells and ignition from the afterburners. Tests were able to reproduce wheel well arcing ignition but not afterburner ignition, so the report considers wheel well arcing the more likely but does not discount the other possibility.

It seems to me that the flame's initial appearance and growth would probably be different in each case; possibly an explosive flame from arcing but more gradual development from afterburner ignition propagating forward. I don't know.

The report is a factual document that draws reasonable cause-and-effect conclusions from the evidence it contains. As I read it, the report concludes that all of the other errors and omissions notwithstanding, the aircraft would have taken off without event had it not run over the strip, at which point its fate was sealed. To doubt the conclusions requires the rejection of the report's evidence as being incomplete, inaccurate or tampered with. That would require the CVR, FDR and ATC data and physical evidence to be compromised.

So I reckon the proportion of blame is about right. No strip on the runway, no accident, so CAL is a fault. However, Concorde was knocked down by an unprecedented tyre burst, which is shouldn't have been, and arguably EADS did not ensure that AF Concordes were as resistant to tyre burst as BA's, so EADS are also at fault.

Let's not forget that in any court of law, 50% of the lawyers are proved wrong. Furthermore, it's not a lawyer's job to ascertain the truth - that's down to the Court. Rather, the lawyer's job is to procure the most favourable judgement for their client, and to that end a lawyer will argue that black is white if they think that they can get away with it.

[wings folded]

Mr SLFin AZ

Any self serving analysis that this is acceptable would not fly in any civil litigation....in fact no reputable attorney would let this get to a trial.

I think that I have never read such utter nonsense as this.

Exactly which attorney, acting on behalf of whom, could or would have stopped proper judicial process at Pontoise?

The process at Pontoise was not civil. It was correctionnel.

The forum is France, not Arizona. French procedure applies. Not Arizonian

The accident did not happen in Arizona.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

A point of view:

This aircraft had a serious flaw that everyone knew, there had been incidents, serious incidents and even accidents, it must be repeated, but he continued to fly and "it was doing" ... until the day the crew was unable to prevent the tragedy occurred.

Faced with a situation not foreseen by the manufacturer combines the bursting of a tire, a broken part of tank No. 5, a major fire under the left wing, a loss of engine thrust 1 and 2 and the non- -retraction, which may suggest that the crew had a chance to get out even tiny?

20 July 1979, after the accident in Washington, BEA, in a confidential memo signed by its director at the time Mr. GUILLEVIC, measured in these terms the seriousness of possible consequences of a burst tire, including: risk fire, severe damage to engine, inability to lift the landing gear. And crash it would have added, is not it?

The crew and passengers had they been warned that failure of a tire could have such catastrophic consequences? Certainly not, since the note was confidential! Further evidence of concealment of a problem we did not want to solve!

And the main argument based on the character supposedly unique and unpredictable process of tearing the tank as implemented in the accident of July 25, 2000 does not, since November 15, 1985 in London, the Following the bursting of a tire during rolling, a depression of the interior to the exterior of a fuel tank resulting from a shock on the underside of the wing had already taken place.

And regardless of whether the failure of the tire wheel No. 2 was due July 25, 2000 by a blade, a hole or a step. The Concorde, its crew and passengers should never have undertaken this flight with the defect had been measured with extreme gravity without wanting to solve.

The Concorde accident demonstrated the bankruptcy of feedback, the newest of 447 FA confirms it.

"Our feedback system is not working properly ... and this for years," exclaimed the President of the APNA in December 2009. "A rapid mobilization to improve it is therefore necessary and the sooner the better! "

"The BEA itself, whose role is to provide" recommendations "to improve air safety, does not seem to show eagerness to put it mildly, to be used in this sense, the database Incident air ... "says, he explained.

Even the "commission of the European Communities does not hesitate to write diplomatically that" The current EU system of accident investigation of civil aircraft and reporting of events does not work optimally "...

It was the Justice of our country, during this trial, definitive stop to this serious deficiency in the institutions of our country. It was not the case, alas!

And so, nothing will prevent the DGCA, EASA, BEA and others to mask other problems ahead for failing to solve them.

Source:
Concorde : retour sur le verdict : Les dossiers noirs du transport aérien

[KBPsen]

Nick,

My comment was to wings folded rather verbose way of saying he didn't know.

At the risk of repeating myself, I have not commented on the court proceedings or verdict. I have not speculated or made any claims and, as I also said to wings folded, I would rather appreciate it not being presented as if I have.

Having said that, I certainly do not subscribe to the view that a court or verdict can not and should not be questioned.

[SLFinAZ]

I'm sorry but the "nonsense" here is yours...

The most fundamentally basic standard of human conduct specific to civil litigation is the prudent person standard. In a criminal trial both the level of conduct and the standard of proof can be ratcheted up as the presiding judge(s) deems appropriate.

Since AF would be presumed to have a higher standard of obligation the mere fact that the Concorde was on the runway is grounds for negligent homicide since any reasonable and prudent person would logically conclude that the planes history of damage specific to tire failure called for safety measures.

The source of the tire damage is incidental to the fact that the plane had a history of potentially catastrophic failure in the event of a tire blowout at high speed prior to takeoff.

The truth is that the courts failure to even address the fundamental failure of Air France to maintain any level of professional oversight is a clear indication that the court was unwilling to address the issue in accordance with any recognized minimum application of basic accountability.

Any argument that this was anything other then a kangaroo court fails on this count alone. The simple reality is that the Concorde should not have been flying until basic safety issues specific to percussive failure of the fuel tanks were solved.

Compare this to the recent issues with the A380 where the airline immediately grounded the plane until all issues could be examined. Air France was and is criminally negligent in its conduct specific to the Concorde. The only thing that has saved them is the fact that the incident occurred on French soil...anywhere else in the world and they are the folks on trial...

[DozyWannabe]

SLFinAZ:

Then by your own logic, would Boeing and British Airtours not also be culpable for negligent homicide in the case of the Manchester disaster of 1985? JT-8Ds had a history of vomiting cans if a repair was improperly done, and could easily cause a fuel leak and subsequent fire, even though prior to then it hadn't happened.

Yankee go home. [/tongueincheek]

[Lemurian]

jcjeant,
It's not in my habit to search the garbage bins. It's unhealthy.
If it's conspiracy theories your cup of tea, there are plenty on the www.
On the other hand, simple manners would have made you responding to direct questions on your posts.

SLFin AZ
Had you had the decency to read the previous posts, you'd have found all your doubts answered, by some people of some stature in the accident investigation world. When PBL talks of an unprecedented event, I think he knows the value of each word.
And no, the so-called *pressure ram effect* by a violent shock on a tank wall without puncture was not foreseen by anyone. As a matter of fact, the AAIB representative is still not convinced, he still thinks of apuncture.
As if in the US they have always seen everything and taken into account avery scenario God could have imagined. Pretty arrogant sort of attitude,I think, knowing the shuttle destruction...among others.
Secondly, and that is in fact the gist of your posts, why do you separate the brits from the French on this : as far as I know, before the accident, both fleets had the same standards, except the retreading interdiction that has been inforce much earlier than in France (which did not solve the problem in totality as I remember...)
Sorry, French bashing could be dangerous to the Brits, sometimes.

[Lemurian]

DozyWannabe :

From which we can gather, presuming the information is correct, that the photograph may have been taken from an airliner, but not the AF 747 that was clearing 26L.

The conclusion from ID is in my opinion very correct.
As it happens, there seem to be two different aircraft : one at the S1 holding point, the other still on V1, having just exited 26L.

[DozyWannabe]

Given how busy CDG tends to be, I'd say there were probably a few more on the taxiways!

Also, there was one more modification to the bogey that BA implemented and AF didn't - hard to say if it would have made a difference in this case though.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

When PBL talks of an unprecedented event, I think he knows the value of each word.

Sure he know.

And the main argument based on the character supposedly unique and unpredictable process of tearing the tank as implemented in the accident of July 25, 2000 does not, since November 15, 1985 in London, the Following the bursting of a tire during rolling, a depression of the interior to the exterior of a fuel tank resulting from a shock on the underside of the wing had already taken place.

So the only unprecedent event (when you read above) is that for the AF Concorde catastrophe the fuel tank was not only deformed but was opened and the result was a uncontained fire leading to the crash.
So (with what we have above) it was not too difficult to imagine (after 15 Nov 1985) the possibility to have someday not a simple depression but instead a rupture
Of course until it's happened ... it was a unprecedented event.
That's the value of the words.

[Lemurian]

jcjeant :

So the only unprecedent event (when you read above) is that for the AF Concorde catastrophe the fuel tank was not only deformed but was opened and the result was a uncontained fire leading to the crash.

Didn't I tell you that I'm not interersted in garbage ? Secondly, when you undertstand the physics phenomenon involved in the fuel leak, then you can talk to me. Until then, you're just making smelly puffs of air.
Lastly, everyone on this thread has had the civility to post in an understanble English. Either you understand French and can translate it or you don't.
I suspect you don't.
So stick to the technical report. It explains in great detail why it was an unprecedented event, never considered in the civil aviation field.

[SeenItAll]

Wings Folded: A number of months ago in a different forum on this board, you explained that although the French prosecutors had not levied any charges in this matter against Air France or Aeroports de Paris, no one should be worried that that these entities would escape judicial scrutiny. You stated that unlike U.S. courts in which the judges are powerless to examine the potential contributing guilt or innocence of parties not before the court, the Pontoise judges could be expected to pose questions to these parties so as to assure themselves that they were without any culpability for this tragic event.

I have not had the opportunity to read the transcript of the trial or its decision. Can you inform us if the judges conducted this inquiry as you suggested they would? Or did it occur that their inquiry was limited strictly to the entities that the prosecutors had decided to put in the dock?

[jcjeant]

Hi,

never considered in the civil aviation field

What you write is very important and certainly the words never considered
With all the feedback of the accidents story about tires and fuel tanks of the Concorde it was possible to consider a possible future catastrophe
As we see .. the future can not be only based on graphics .. curves and results of computations and statistics
Crystal ball is also not needed nor a "précis de grammaire" ... just some good sens and imagination are needed
Of course if you never consider or never imagine ...

[infrequentflyer789]

Originally Posted by SLFinAZ

Since AF would be presumed to have a higher standard of obligation the mere fact that the Concorde was on the runway is grounds for negligent homicide since any reasonable and prudent person would logically conclude that the planes history of damage specific to tire failure called for safety measures.

Seems you missed the extensive research done following those previous failures, and the resulting ADs. Risks were assessed following F-BVFC, changes were made. Following tyre-burst incidents were, I believe, less severe (in terms of wing / tank damage). Sounds prudent to me.

The very fact that the plane did have a history of tyre bursts gives more data points to work with as to the risk and level of damage, and for some reason F-BTSC is a massively improbable outlier.

The source of the tire damage is incidental to the fact that the plane had a history of potentially catastrophic failure in the event of a tire blowout at high speed prior to takeoff.

Au contraire, the source of tyre damage may be critical to the outcome. It looks like no one had considered previously the possibility of a tyre not bursting as such (overheating, wear, underinflation, puncture) but being sliced apart through its entire thickness. It appears that this mode of destruction liberated much larger peices of tyre at higher energy.

If you don't accept that, then how do you explain how this incident caused tank penetration / fuel leak over ten times worse than the previous worst case (after which modifications had been made) ?

The simple reality is that the Concorde should not have been flying until basic safety issues specific to percussive failure of the fuel tanks were solved.

What projectile impact tests are done for assessing hydrodynamic ram vulnerability in certification now on civilian aircraft ? What testing has been done on hydrodynamic ram vulnerability on existing already certified civilian types ? What ADs issued on it for existing types ? Or were all other existing types miraculously not vulnerable to it ?

Oh, and are the stronger tyres designed for Concorde now on all civilian types ? That would be prudent, would it not, given what we now know about tyre failure from being sliced by fod ? The stronger tyre design is a solved problem, an extant solution for a known risk, surely we should ground any aircraft that doesn't use it ?

[deSitter]

Very interesting thread. But let's end it - I'll admit to fault - I dreamed of supersonic travel as a kid and look what happened.

-drl

[ChristiaanJ]

Originally Posted by jcjeant

Of course if you never consider or never imagine ...

As happened with a cargo door parting company with a DC-10....
Nobody 'considered' or 'imagined', until a closely similar event brought down the Turkish Airlines DC-10 near Paris.

CJ