French Concorde crash
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iron Duck
I see generally what you mean , but in what way could the BEA and ADP be held in any way responsible for Concorde's airworthiness?
The owner/operator perhaps.
The builder perhaps.
But holding the agency responsible to investigate accidents on their turf as being implicated seems a little far fetched.
Some believe that ADP were slack in not inspecting the runway after each TO.
Imagine screeching condemnations of delays at CDG if a runway inspection took place between each TO.
As I said earlier, Continental didn't directly attack Concorde's airworthiness, which would have required attacking AF, BEA, Aeroports de Paris, etc., probably because their seasoned lead lawyer reckoned they stood less chance of success with that approach than the one they took
The owner/operator perhaps.
The builder perhaps.
But holding the agency responsible to investigate accidents on their turf as being implicated seems a little far fetched.
Some believe that ADP were slack in not inspecting the runway after each TO.
Imagine screeching condemnations of delays at CDG if a runway inspection took place between each TO.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Iron Duck
... attacking AF, BEA, Aeroports de Paris, etc.
Originally Posted by wings folded
... the agency responsible to investigate accidents ...
The BEA is the "Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses", which is the French equivalent of the British AAIB or American NTSB. They investigate, analyse and report, and come up with a "probable cause".
What you are thinking of is the DGAC, the Direction Générale d'Aviation Civile", which is the French equivalent of the British CAA and the American FAA. They are the ones that deal with rule-making, airworthiness, safety, etc.
And one of the five people in the "box" (Claude Frantzen) was indeed an official from the DGAC.
CJ
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christaanj,
If there is confusion, then it is in your head, not mine.
I know full well what BEA stands for.
Idem DGAC.
When I refer to to: "But holding the agency responsible to investigate accidents on their turf as being implicated seems a little far fetched. ", I would have thought that a well informed chap such as you would know I meant the BEA. No confusion on my behalf with the DGAC.
I am familiar enough with both the DGAC and the BEA not to confuse the two.
If there is confusion, then it is in your head, not mine.
I know full well what BEA stands for.
Idem DGAC.
When I refer to to: "But holding the agency responsible to investigate accidents on their turf as being implicated seems a little far fetched. ", I would have thought that a well informed chap such as you would know I meant the BEA. No confusion on my behalf with the DGAC.
I am familiar enough with both the DGAC and the BEA not to confuse the two.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearfoil
Reasonably well, according to the BEA report. As I said here, pages 147-154 deal thoroughly with the left main bogie, and conclude:
"Overall, the balance of forces at the centre of the bogie would result in self-aligning moment and two loads whose resultant is increased drag, that is to say a tendency to make the aircraft yaw to the left. The level of this drag would be at most around 1000 daN, very low in relation to the thrust of the engines. The influence of possible sideslip on the trajectory is thus very low or negligible."
Wings Folded
There was an assertion earlier in the thread that DGAC/BEA were culpable because in the opinion of the poster they allowed an un-airworthy aircraft to continue to operate. There was also an assertion that ADP were culpable because they didn't sweep the runway before Concorde's takeoff.
It strikes me that if you are going to argue that the crash occurred because Concorde happened to be on the runway in the first place you're going to have to question its airworthiness, which means questioning the authorities in the country that issued its C of A.
Similarly, if you're going to argue that the crash wouldn't have occurred if the strip wasn't on the runway, and you're defending the airline whose aircraft dropped it there, you're going to have to argue that ADP failed in its duties by not sweeping the runway.
I can quite understand why CAL's lawyer didn't fancy either of these approaches.
How well was she tracking?
"Overall, the balance of forces at the centre of the bogie would result in self-aligning moment and two loads whose resultant is increased drag, that is to say a tendency to make the aircraft yaw to the left. The level of this drag would be at most around 1000 daN, very low in relation to the thrust of the engines. The influence of possible sideslip on the trajectory is thus very low or negligible."
Wings Folded
I see generally what you mean , but in what way could the BEA and ADP be held in any way responsible for Concorde's airworthiness?
It strikes me that if you are going to argue that the crash occurred because Concorde happened to be on the runway in the first place you're going to have to question its airworthiness, which means questioning the authorities in the country that issued its C of A.
Similarly, if you're going to argue that the crash wouldn't have occurred if the strip wasn't on the runway, and you're defending the airline whose aircraft dropped it there, you're going to have to argue that ADP failed in its duties by not sweeping the runway.
I can quite understand why CAL's lawyer didn't fancy either of these approaches.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wings Folded
Quote:
I see generally what you mean , but in what way could the BEA and ADP be held in any way responsible for Concorde's airworthiness?
There was an assertion earlier in the thread that DGAC/BEA were culpable because in the opinion of the poster they allowed an un-airworthy aircraft to continue to operate. There was also an assertion that ADP were culpable because they didn't sweep the runway before Concorde's takeoff.
Quote:
I see generally what you mean , but in what way could the BEA and ADP be held in any way responsible for Concorde's airworthiness?
There was an assertion earlier in the thread that DGAC/BEA were culpable because in the opinion of the poster they allowed an un-airworthy aircraft to continue to operate. There was also an assertion that ADP were culpable because they didn't sweep the runway before Concorde's takeoff.
And you take all assertions in this thread as being gospel?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iron Duck mentioned BEA somewhat out of context, and I tried to clarify the matter...
CJ
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wings Folded
And you take all assertions in this thread as being gospel?
ChristiaanJ
Sorry, wings folded, I should have used the quotes differently.
Iron Duck mentioned BEA somewhat out of context, and I tried to clarify the matter...
Iron Duck mentioned BEA somewhat out of context, and I tried to clarify the matter...
I wouldn't be surprised if France's airworthiness authorities have institutional problems. Show me a large organisation that doesn't. However, that approach strikes me as stony ground if you're trying to get your client off the hook, which is why I'm not surprised CAL's lawyers didn't go for it.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wings Folded
Quote:
And you take all assertions in this thread as being gospel?
No. On the contrary. That's why I used the word "assertion". Going back to my categorisation of the 3-way stalemate I think only argument 2 has any real validity: the argument based on the factual contents and conclusions of the BEA report.
ChristiaanJ
Quote:
Sorry, wings folded, I should have used the quotes differently.
Iron Duck mentioned BEA somewhat out of context, and I tried to clarify the matter...
Indeed I did, based on the contents of this assertion. Sorry for the confusion.
I wouldn't be surprised if France's airworthiness authorities have institutional problems. Show me a large organisation that doesn't. However, that approach strikes me as stony ground if you're trying to get your client off the hook, which is why I'm not surprised CAL's lawyers didn't go for it.
Quote:
And you take all assertions in this thread as being gospel?
No. On the contrary. That's why I used the word "assertion". Going back to my categorisation of the 3-way stalemate I think only argument 2 has any real validity: the argument based on the factual contents and conclusions of the BEA report.
ChristiaanJ
Quote:
Sorry, wings folded, I should have used the quotes differently.
Iron Duck mentioned BEA somewhat out of context, and I tried to clarify the matter...
Indeed I did, based on the contents of this assertion. Sorry for the confusion.
I wouldn't be surprised if France's airworthiness authorities have institutional problems. Show me a large organisation that doesn't. However, that approach strikes me as stony ground if you're trying to get your client off the hook, which is why I'm not surprised CAL's lawyers didn't go for it.
I know that elements in west of 30 degrees are peeved that a degree of blame was attached to them. But it was never all one way.
A due process took place, not in haste, some would sat at a leisurely pace, and came up with a finding permised upon the law and the evidence.
Why exactly are we still debating the issue?
I am because I do not want to leave unanswered nonchalent Arizonian (for example) remarks.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wings Folded
I believe:
1. That the BEA report is a factual document, that its conclusions are reasonable, and that arguments and findings based upon it are sound.
2. That in order to defend his client, CAL's lawyer had to find an alternative narrative to that expressed in the report. That was not easy. It seems to me that among his choices were to assert that Concorde was not airworthy or adequately operated and tackle the consequences of that assertion. I think he wisely chose not to pursue that.
3. Another possible line of approach might have been to have a go at ADP for not having swept the runway. I think the lawyer rightly concluded that there probably wasn't much mileage in that approach, either.
4. Having abandoned these possibilities the lawyer was left little option but to try to build a narrative around the idea that the titanium strip was incidental to the accident, rather than its primary cause, and so brought into question the provenance of the fire. Despite the effort expended to build that narrative the Court found it inconclusive and dismissed it.
5. Incidentally, and off the subject of this thread, I think it is not controversial to be unsurprised if large organisations have institutional problems of one kind or another. However, I think that such problems, if they exist, are of no material bearing in this case.
I hope I've made myself clear.
1. That the BEA report is a factual document, that its conclusions are reasonable, and that arguments and findings based upon it are sound.
2. That in order to defend his client, CAL's lawyer had to find an alternative narrative to that expressed in the report. That was not easy. It seems to me that among his choices were to assert that Concorde was not airworthy or adequately operated and tackle the consequences of that assertion. I think he wisely chose not to pursue that.
3. Another possible line of approach might have been to have a go at ADP for not having swept the runway. I think the lawyer rightly concluded that there probably wasn't much mileage in that approach, either.
4. Having abandoned these possibilities the lawyer was left little option but to try to build a narrative around the idea that the titanium strip was incidental to the accident, rather than its primary cause, and so brought into question the provenance of the fire. Despite the effort expended to build that narrative the Court found it inconclusive and dismissed it.
5. Incidentally, and off the subject of this thread, I think it is not controversial to be unsurprised if large organisations have institutional problems of one kind or another. However, I think that such problems, if they exist, are of no material bearing in this case.
I hope I've made myself clear.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the context of this particular thread (responsability, verdicts, etc.), there's still one thing I personally keep scratching my head about....
Who blew the tyre, that caused the fuel leak?
Continental's incompetence - not arguing that at the moment.
But.... who lit the fire? In the sense of "who was responsible?".
Had the fuel leak not caught fire, we would have had a very messy repeat of Dulles 1979, but no crash.
As the BEA report states, the "most probable cause" is arcing of wiring of the 115V brake fan supply in the wheel well.
"Blow-back" from the n°2 engine surge, or "flashback" from the reheat are mentioned as other, possible but less likely, ignition sources (once the fire caught hold, it would obviously be 'sustained' by the wheel well, regardless of the original cause).
Did the tyre burst scatter enough debris to also damage the wheel well wiring, in which case we're back to the starting point... no tyre burst, no leak AND no fire?
Or was there a 'pre-existing condition', not present in any of the previous incidents?
If so, who was responsible?
Any evidence obviously got lost in the resulting fire and the crash.
Apologies to all you reading this.... just mulling it right here.
- The tyre burst and fuel leak didn't cause the crash, as such.
- The subsequent fire did.
If the two are directly linked, there's no further argument. I just wanted to throw this into the 'arena'....
The subsequent actions by Airbus included shielding the landing gear wiring, and turning off the brake fans during take-off, but those were only actions "post quem" as in blocking one of the possible 'swiss cheese holes', so they don't really tell us anything.
CJ
Who blew the tyre, that caused the fuel leak?
Continental's incompetence - not arguing that at the moment.
But.... who lit the fire? In the sense of "who was responsible?".
Had the fuel leak not caught fire, we would have had a very messy repeat of Dulles 1979, but no crash.
As the BEA report states, the "most probable cause" is arcing of wiring of the 115V brake fan supply in the wheel well.
"Blow-back" from the n°2 engine surge, or "flashback" from the reheat are mentioned as other, possible but less likely, ignition sources (once the fire caught hold, it would obviously be 'sustained' by the wheel well, regardless of the original cause).
Did the tyre burst scatter enough debris to also damage the wheel well wiring, in which case we're back to the starting point... no tyre burst, no leak AND no fire?
Or was there a 'pre-existing condition', not present in any of the previous incidents?
If so, who was responsible?
Any evidence obviously got lost in the resulting fire and the crash.
Apologies to all you reading this.... just mulling it right here.
- The tyre burst and fuel leak didn't cause the crash, as such.
- The subsequent fire did.
If the two are directly linked, there's no further argument. I just wanted to throw this into the 'arena'....
The subsequent actions by Airbus included shielding the landing gear wiring, and turning off the brake fans during take-off, but those were only actions "post quem" as in blocking one of the possible 'swiss cheese holes', so they don't really tell us anything.
CJ
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
This whole tragedy may be summarized briefly
The bursting of the tire has lost a strip by a Continental plane.
It appears for all (according to the reports and trial) as obvious.
The mechanic for Continental is primarily responsible for the outbreak of the tire.
Also known as the bursting of tires is a common thing in aviation.
If the planes are well designed .. the bursting of a tire should not end with a total loss of an aircraft.
Continental mechanic is only responsible for the outbreak of the tire .. the following is another story.
This whole tragedy may be summarized briefly
The bursting of the tire has lost a strip by a Continental plane.
It appears for all (according to the reports and trial) as obvious.
The mechanic for Continental is primarily responsible for the outbreak of the tire.
Also known as the bursting of tires is a common thing in aviation.
If the planes are well designed .. the bursting of a tire should not end with a total loss of an aircraft.
Continental mechanic is only responsible for the outbreak of the tire .. the following is another story.