Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

French Concorde crash

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

French Concorde crash

Old 10th Dec 2010, 20:23
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 73
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Continental mechanic is only responsible for the outbreak of the tire .. the following is another story.
A friend of mine was on a jury that found a man guilty of manslaugter in a case where the victim died of injuries that normally would have been relatively minor.

The victime however had a severe bleeding disorder, unknown to the defendant.

The judge's instructions to the jury were very clear: An unexpectedly fragile victim is not a defense when you do something you know is wrong.

Obviously US and French law are not the same but I believe the general principle would apply in most countries.
MurphyWasRight is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2010, 20:30
  #302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ChristiaanJ

But.... who lit the fire? In the sense of "who was responsible?".

[snip]

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?
An excellent question. I think QF32 makes a useful parallel.

A rotor burst occurs. The extent of the potential debris field can be predicted, but not the specific trajectories of individual fragments, or their exact energies. The potential debris field encompasses vital components. In the event, a fragment damages wiring such that an otherwise undamaged and expensive engine (No. 1) cannot be shut down and has to be drowned, trashing it.

In the same way, the potential debris field from a Concorde tyre burst can be predicted and encompasses the wheel well, which includes wiring looms. In the event it appears likely that a tyre fragment damaged wiring, causing arcing that ignited spilling fuel.

Who pays for loss of engine No. 1? RR? - the rotor burst in No. 2 started the chain of events - or Airbus? - their wiring was found to be vulnerable, and was directly responsible for the economic loss of No. 1.

It will be interesting to find out.

QF32's rotor burst caused a major fuel leak. What if arcing wiring had ignited that?
Iron Duck is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2010, 21:18
  #303 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Procuring Cause, Duty of Care, and Holy Cheese.

Wiring is not expected to be protected from High Energy Debris: Airbus Exempt

Engine #1 damaged in the course of Emergency services protecting lives, See above, Procuring Cause. And RR will probably have to pay for the Fire Retardant used to damage its engine, as well.

The owners of the Engines, RR, Trent or Olympus have a chain of liability they will protect.

The Stub Pipe? A Toss up, to be divided between the manufacturer and the numpty who passed it to the line. OR, if Wear, and not a defect, LuftHansa needs to pay attention, if not damages.

The last one holding the Bag gets the "Shaft".

bear
 
Old 10th Dec 2010, 22:27
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bearfoil & Iron Duck

In the end I would suspect all will pay a share. I say this based on a settlement resulting from the fatal AA accident at Chicago's O'Hare airport years ago. This accident involved a DC-10 where a GE engine broke away from the rear pylon attachment point went over the top of the wing (engineered to do just that), but in the course of this, severed the hydraulic lines that were the main flight control lines located in the leading edge of the wing. The entire DC-10 fleet, all airlines, was grounded until some resolution and checking was completed.

The root cause was identified as AA maintenance removing and installing engines using a forklift truck instead of a special lift provided for this purpose (cost reduction/time reduction decision on their part).

In the end, AA, McDonald Douglas and GE all contributed through their liability insurers to final financial resolution.

You could look at it this way: McDonald Douglas should of had these critical hydraulic lines in the rear area of the wing like the L-1011. GE's engine went over the wing, severing the hydraulic lines and of course AA for their crude engine install/removal practices. Fair? Hard to say.

Turbine D
Turbine D is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2010, 22:28
  #305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Iron Duck,
Thanks.
And I agree QF32 does constitute a parallel.
You already pointed out the similarities.

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2010, 23:17
  #306 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Turbine D

An excellent analysis of that flight. Only one short step to the ultimate costs.

Those who Fly. No one lost a cent in that deal but John Q. Oh, and the "Spread". The dilution of cost throughout the Insuror's Market. Them too.

Rumour. It is said that when Captain took back the controls, his foot slipped for half a second off the Right Rudder Pedal, allowing the Heavy to lurch just beyond recovery to port. Roll, nose drop, and oblivion.
 
Old 11th Dec 2010, 00:16
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Near Puget Sound
Age: 86
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Who was responsible. I need to qualify my answer by saying that I am not a lawyer (and I have no other bad habits). Several years ago a lawyer friend told me that in common law (I hope I got this right) if anythng falls off you airplane, the operator is responsible for damages, period.

If this is true, then I think all the plaintifs have to do is prove that the part, indeen, fell of the DC-10

Any lawyers out there?


Goldfish
goldfish85 is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 00:24
  #308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Just a Thought! Whose to say that the Titanium strip when run-over was not thrown up into the under-wing surface; thus penetrating the fuel tank. Also I believe the Flight Engineer shut down the number 2 engine even though it was still producing some thrust.
Out Of Trim is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 00:37
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You mean the pilots were flying illegal, and not putting the passenger's safety first..

I am shocked...shocked I tell you!
SinglePilotCaptain is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 00:47
  #310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Out Of Trim
Just a Thought! Whose to say that the Titanium strip when run-over was not thrown up into the under-wing surface; thus penetrating the fuel tank. Also I believe the Flight Engineer shut down the number 2 engine even though it was still producing some thrust.
Read a bit more of the thread... or even the BAE report, please.
* A large rectangular piece was 'punched' out of the fuel tank by the impact of the lump of tyre (by a hydraulic shock or whatever one wants to call it). The damage from the titanium strip impacting the under-wing surface would have been totally different.
* The n 2 engine shutdown was discussed in some of the most recent posts Whether it was still producing any thrust at that moment is debatable with 20/20 hindsight.

Please don't state your "beliefs" here, before getting your facts right.

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 01:30
  #311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A friend of mine was on a jury that found a man guilty of manslaugter in a case where the victim died of injuries that normally would have been relatively minor. The victime however had a severe bleeding disorder, unknown to the defendant. The judge's instructions to the jury were very clear: An unexpectedly fragile victim is not a defense when you do something you know is wrong.
No, you are wrong. The situations are not comparable.

In America the standard is whether a consequence is foreseeable or not. That's what establishes liability. In the case you outline I agree with the result. When you attack someone to do harm you cannot later complain that the harm was greater than what you intended. It's foreseeable that that your damage might be greater than intended.

The proper analogy to the Concorde case is as follows. Imagine you were playing with fire works on the Fourth of July in your backyard. You toss a sparkler up in the air, the wind catches it, and blows it into the neighbors yard. It just so happens that their was a leak in the neighbors propane gas tank and the wind-driven sparkler set the gas tank alight, there is an explosion, the entire house is destroyed and the neighbor and his young kids killed.

I'd argue that blowing up your neighbors house and killing them all is not a foreseeable consequence of playing with a sparkler, absent any other modifying conditions. If you string together cause and effect long enough anyone can be put to blame for anything. The verdict against the mechanic in this case just doesn't pass the "smell test" for me.
MountainBear is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 02:30
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,088
Received 29 Likes on 23 Posts
It seems to me that if this had gone to trial in the U.S. you'd have had experts on both sides saying entirely different things about the duty of care for an aircraft mechanic. Who knows what a jury would have ended up doing.

It's safe to say (at least it think it is) that the mechanic would not have been criminally liable in the U.S. But different countries have different laws.
Chu Chu is online now  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 07:40
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
goldfish85,

Who was responsible. I need to qualify my answer by saying that I am not a lawyer
That is obvious:

I think all the plaintifs have to do is prove that the part, indeen, fell of the DC-10
Who exactly were the plaintiffs?
wings folded is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 08:02
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 1,445
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
If a part fell off the Continental 'plane and was not spotted or cleared off the runway it only burst the tire? What happened after the bursting of the tire is down to the design of the aeroplane?
Load Toad is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 08:16
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The fire...

If you think Reheat can not ignite a massive fuel leak....

Mr Aussie Ardvark will show you how it can...
Alber Ratman is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 10:28
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East of There
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the end I would suspect all will pay a share. I say this based on a settlement resulting from the fatal AA accident at Chicago's O'Hare airport years ago. This accident involved a DC-10 where a GE engine broke away from the rear pylon attachment point went over the top of the wing (engineered to do just that), but in the course of this, severed the hydraulic lines that were the main flight control lines located in the leading edge of the wing. The entire DC-10 fleet, all airlines, was grounded until some resolution and checking was completed.

The root cause was identified as AA maintenance removing and installing engines using a forklift truck instead of a special lift provided for this purpose (cost reduction/time reduction decision on their part).

In the end, AA, McDonald Douglas and GE all contributed through their liability insurers to final financial resolution.

You could look at it this way: McDonald Douglas should of had these critical hydraulic lines in the rear area of the wing like the L-1011. GE's engine went over the wing, severing the hydraulic lines and of course AA for their crude engine install/removal practices. Fair? Hard to say.

Turbine D
As critical as the the use of the fork lift (or more so) in AA's shortcut maintenance procedure was their changing out the engine/pylon as a unit, rather than separating the two. This was not recommended by McDonnell Douglas (note the correct spelling) but M-D said it lacked the authority to enforce maintenance procedures.
Checkerboard 13 is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 10:57
  #317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wings Folded

If you don't mind me asking, what is your view of the financial liability for the loss of QF32 engine No. 1, and how do you think it relates (if it does) to the liability for the fire that caused Concorde to crash?

By that I mean as ChristiaanJ characterises it - that the fire caused the crash, not the tyre burst and fuel leak, which had it remained unignited might well have resulted in little more than a messier Dulles.
Iron Duck is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 11:28
  #318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah, AA proceedures caused damage to the fusible pylon pins. Bet they would have used butal force to fit them. Failure of them caused the accident. The pylon was never designed to be taken off with the engine on it.
Alber Ratman is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 11:33
  #319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wings Folded
If you don't mind me asking, what is your view of the financial liability for the loss of QF32 engine No. 1, and how do you think it relates (if it does) to the liability for the fire that caused Concorde to crash?

By that I mean as ChristiaanJ characterises it - that the fire caused the crash, not the tyre burst and fuel leak, which had it remained unignited might well have resulted in little more than a messier Dulles.
I do not mind you asking but I am afraid that you will be disappointed by my answer.

The QF32 incident did not result in loss of life. Even had it done so, I am not competent to express a view on which law would prevail.

Nor on what the outcome could be.

There is clearly an economic loss which will in due course be resolved by civil litigation, or quite probably arbitration.

I am not a aircraft techo, and if you read my postings, you will find, I hope that I contain my remarks to those areas where I have some knowledge.

I have recently learned that CJ has some technical knowledge of Concorde.

I have never disputed his remarks.

I have disputed remarks of some who confuse criminal and civil process, and some who believe that US practice applies in all countries.

So, before I am again accused of being verbose, my short answer is "I do not know".

But I will always tend to believe that pragmatic applicable outcomes will prevail.
wings folded is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 12:22
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wings Folded

Thank you.
Iron Duck is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.