French Concorde crash
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both civil and criminal aspects come into play. In a perfect world the forum for litigation of either kind should not impact the result. As a general matter of law the operator of a commercial vehicle holds final responsibility and liability for its operation.
The Concorde was only operated by the two carriers. My understanding is that BA went ahead and modified its planes in order to minimize issues specific to tire failure. I am unaware of AF undertaking any such modifications. This is a clear indication that both operators were aware of the potential liabilities and one acted in a prudent and reasonable manner while the other failed to exercise prudent and reasonable judgement.
The prudent man standard completely refutes any attempt by AF to hide behind the arguments you make. The information was available to AF and given the availability of the information AF had a clear cut legal obligation to act in a prudent manner.
The Concorde was only operated by the two carriers. My understanding is that BA went ahead and modified its planes in order to minimize issues specific to tire failure. I am unaware of AF undertaking any such modifications. This is a clear indication that both operators were aware of the potential liabilities and one acted in a prudent and reasonable manner while the other failed to exercise prudent and reasonable judgement.
The prudent man standard completely refutes any attempt by AF to hide behind the arguments you make. The information was available to AF and given the availability of the information AF had a clear cut legal obligation to act in a prudent manner.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iron Duck...
Based on my observations here "French law" (at least as it relates to this matter) is an oxymoron.
I have never seen a matter of this nature framed in such a narrow and imperfect manner. The entire proceedings as structured are/were clearly pointed at identifying a very specific cause and effect without delving into the decisions that led up to the incident. We have a statistical certainty of tire failure leading to damage and fuel tank ruptures yet the carrier completely ignored its responsibility to take every reasonable step to mitigate potential danger.
The real issue here is not what caused the blowout (given the statistical certainty of it) but why no attempt to safeguard the plane and passengers from catastrophic failure was undertaken.
Based on my observations here "French law" (at least as it relates to this matter) is an oxymoron.
I have never seen a matter of this nature framed in such a narrow and imperfect manner. The entire proceedings as structured are/were clearly pointed at identifying a very specific cause and effect without delving into the decisions that led up to the incident. We have a statistical certainty of tire failure leading to damage and fuel tank ruptures yet the carrier completely ignored its responsibility to take every reasonable step to mitigate potential danger.
The real issue here is not what caused the blowout (given the statistical certainty of it) but why no attempt to safeguard the plane and passengers from catastrophic failure was undertaken.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me try and clarify a few things by reviewing a few of the variables here....
1) Was the problem with the spacer a known item that was MEL'd, a maintenance mistake that was not caught or a known problem not yet fixed?
2) My understanding is that the last information from the tower to the Concorde was an 8 knot tailwind...is this correct
3) The Concorde used the extended portion of the runway whose surface was not properly finished and very rough
4) An unknown amount of luggage was not properly logged for weight calculations
5) The plane based on documented weight at push off was over its max operating limit and relying on fuel burn during taxi to be legal at takeoff
1) Was the problem with the spacer a known item that was MEL'd, a maintenance mistake that was not caught or a known problem not yet fixed?
2) My understanding is that the last information from the tower to the Concorde was an 8 knot tailwind...is this correct
3) The Concorde used the extended portion of the runway whose surface was not properly finished and very rough
4) An unknown amount of luggage was not properly logged for weight calculations
5) The plane based on documented weight at push off was over its max operating limit and relying on fuel burn during taxi to be legal at takeoff
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Age: 53
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLFinaz, why don't you go read the accident report. All the crap you spew in the above post was either proven to be false or irrelevant to the accident.
As someone with no professional connection to the airline industry at all I refrain from posting here, it is simply an interest. But after reading the same drivel again and again eventually I had to speak up.
I swear that the Concorde accident and Sept 11 bring out the lowest common denominator in people.
As someone with no professional connection to the airline industry at all I refrain from posting here, it is simply an interest. But after reading the same drivel again and again eventually I had to speak up.
I swear that the Concorde accident and Sept 11 bring out the lowest common denominator in people.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on my observations here "French law" (at least as it relates to this matter) is an oxymoron.
And your observations about the cause of the accident do not appear to be based upon technical knowledge.
And your confusion of civil and criminal process reveals a total absence of knowledge in that arena too.
And your total ignorance on legal process not in your country shines brightly.
This thread has many differing points of view, some technical, some legal, some procedural.
I learn a lot from the technical debate, which may be a little late, but I learn nothing from your "IMO" remarks which bring neither technical knowledge, legal knowledge, nor knowledge of jurisprudence in different domains.
I have learned nothing from your contributions, in short.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry but here are the simple realities based on the above...
1) The plane was improperly maintained
2) The flight engineer had improper information for computing max weight
3) The plane took off on a runway with a poorly prepared initial surface
4) The last information the pilot had from the tower indicated a tail wind
Simply looking at the actual flight involving the accident we have operational, procedural and cultural indications of negligence. This plane left the gate above max takeoff weight, taxied to a runway position that involved using a rough surface and had tires being subjected to extra stress due to the combination of extra weight, friction and lateral stress on a plane not suitably modified for maximum safety. Based on the best available information from the tower the pilot did not have proper conditions for take off.
My questions are simple....are the above facts incorrect or not. don't give me BS about french law and other trivia....
From everything I see you have a pattern of admissible evidence that points to a reckless disregard for standardized operating procedures, maintenance and flight safety that clearly points to professional negligence by all 3 elements of the organization. The question wasn't if a major accident would happen but when....
1) The plane was improperly maintained
2) The flight engineer had improper information for computing max weight
3) The plane took off on a runway with a poorly prepared initial surface
4) The last information the pilot had from the tower indicated a tail wind
Simply looking at the actual flight involving the accident we have operational, procedural and cultural indications of negligence. This plane left the gate above max takeoff weight, taxied to a runway position that involved using a rough surface and had tires being subjected to extra stress due to the combination of extra weight, friction and lateral stress on a plane not suitably modified for maximum safety. Based on the best available information from the tower the pilot did not have proper conditions for take off.
My questions are simple....are the above facts incorrect or not. don't give me BS about french law and other trivia....
From everything I see you have a pattern of admissible evidence that points to a reckless disregard for standardized operating procedures, maintenance and flight safety that clearly points to professional negligence by all 3 elements of the organization. The question wasn't if a major accident would happen but when....
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
selfinaz,
If you talk about the spacer, there was a fault there... which had not had any effect on the flight.
Rubbish. Had you had any knowledge of AF procedures and read the report, you wouldn't write such an asinine claim.
Rubbish ! that runway at that time was like a billiard table.
Yeah ! but during flight prep, we are kept au fait of the hour's conditions. We know the wind from both ends of the runway and we know the average. Only an armchair pilot would accept the tower wind without prior information.
... and had you had some - just some usable math, the recorded acceleration of that flight adheres to the fraction of a second to the values for a nil wind takeoff at a weight close to MTOW for the day's conditions.
What I find extraordinary is this persistent attack on Air France. After all, the accident came from a fallen piece of a Continental DC-10... piece that was so shoddily repaired TWICE I might add that the entire maintenance department of that airlin e is in dire need of some virile auditing.
As the report states : In fact, over a period of little more than a month, the part had been replaced during a C check, had become detached and twisted and had again been replaced, this time by a part which was not in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, this one being the one which fell off on 25 July 2000. Of course, this is not a critical part from the airworthiness perspective, but true safety implies strict respect for procedures, without any personal interpretation
In fact when you write...
...
I would heartily agree with you, but the blame comes from across the Atlantic, not from France.
Unfortunately, we're quite accustomed to that sort of supercilious attitude.
(finger)
1) The plane was improperly maintained
2) The flight engineer had improper information for computing max weight
3) The plane took off on a runway with a poorly prepared initial surface
4) The last information the pilot had from the tower indicated a tail wind
... and had you had some - just some usable math, the recorded acceleration of that flight adheres to the fraction of a second to the values for a nil wind takeoff at a weight close to MTOW for the day's conditions.
What I find extraordinary is this persistent attack on Air France. After all, the accident came from a fallen piece of a Continental DC-10... piece that was so shoddily repaired TWICE I might add that the entire maintenance department of that airlin e is in dire need of some virile auditing.
As the report states : In fact, over a period of little more than a month, the part had been replaced during a C check, had become detached and twisted and had again been replaced, this time by a part which was not in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, this one being the one which fell off on 25 July 2000. Of course, this is not a critical part from the airworthiness perspective, but true safety implies strict respect for procedures, without any personal interpretation
In fact when you write...
From everything I see you have a pattern of admissible evidence that points to a reckless disregard for standardized operating procedures
I would heartily agree with you, but the blame comes from across the Atlantic, not from France.
Unfortunately, we're quite accustomed to that sort of supercilious attitude.
(finger)
Easy Street
Did the flame propagate forward in the boundary layer in your fire? A fire started by the reheat flame would not benefit from any boundary layer effects in its attempt to 'catch up'.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLFinAZ
Based on my observations here "French law" (at least as it relates to this matter) is an oxymoron.
Marshall Plan or no Marshall Plan, people in non-US countries continue do things differently to Americans. It may come as a surprise to you to discover that not all of the rest of the world wishes to be American; that non-Americans are often comfortable with their own cultural constructs; and that as far as they are concerned their laws and conventions are just, reasonable and appropriate. And that is not to say that their laws cannot be improved, but one has to engage with reality. French law, oxymoronic or not, holds sway in France, the legal jurisdiction in which Concorde crashed.
Simply looking at the actual flight involving the accident we have operational, procedural and cultural indications of negligence. This plane left the gate above max takeoff weight, taxied to a runway position that involved using a rough surface and had tires being subjected to extra stress due to the combination of extra weight, friction and lateral stress on a plane not suitably modified for maximum safety. Based on the best available information from the tower the pilot did not have proper conditions for take off.
I have to say, SLFinAZ, that you sound like a cracked recording of someone with their hands over their ears going "la la la la"...
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
This spacer problem is really a problem for me ...
which had not had any effect on the flight
Finally one may wonder why people who have developed the Concorde have foreseen this spacer as apparently it is a useless part .. actually .. who has just added weight ......
If you talk about the spacer, there was a fault there... which had not had any effect on the flight.
which had not had any effect on the flight
Finally one may wonder why people who have developed the Concorde have foreseen this spacer as apparently it is a useless part .. actually .. who has just added weight ......
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLFinAZ
From everything I see you have a pattern of admissible evidence that points to a reckless disregard for standardized operating procedures, maintenance and flight safety that clearly points to professional negligence by all 3 elements of the organization. The question wasn't if a major accident would happen but when....
originally posted by WSM
The British national character is one of arrogance and an arrogant political system .......
`
After reading this whole thread. I couldn't agree with you more.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My questions are simple....are the above facts incorrect or not. don't give me BS about french law and other trivia....
But I read all contributions.
Does he regard American law as trivial?
Anyway, to move to a higher level, I hope, the Marshall Plan has been mentioned once or twice. I just wanted to mention that the headquarters of the Marshall Plan mechanism was in the Hotel de Talleyrand in Paris.
And what is the address of that building?
Well, Place de la Concorde...........
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While we're at it, since a twin can fly on one engine, why bother having two ? I'm sure MOL could come up with a contraption to carry half a dozen pax on the spare pylon.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A whole bunch of aircraft have wheel spacers, nothing new there and they get forgotten, also nothing new there. Awkward and can cause small damage but more embarrassing than anything else.
As to the British character that's an interesting one. However a few facts; british aviation safety leaves France way behind not even smelling the dust because it has long settled before the french come into town.
Air France has a safety culture that shall we say, is a culture all to its itself.
Fact is you have more hull loses, more incidents. What are you trying to say?
And note what I am saying, culture. That is not necessarily talking about skill, intelligence, training etc. etc. It is making a statement about safety though.
As to the British character that's an interesting one. However a few facts; british aviation safety leaves France way behind not even smelling the dust because it has long settled before the french come into town.
Air France has a safety culture that shall we say, is a culture all to its itself.
Fact is you have more hull loses, more incidents. What are you trying to say?
And note what I am saying, culture. That is not necessarily talking about skill, intelligence, training etc. etc. It is making a statement about safety though.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you post consists of quotes from the Aviation Week editorial, let's look at another one:
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wings Folded
I cannot quite grasp what importance anybody should want to attach to the personal views of the editor of an American magazine
As PBL has pointed out, the editorial's assertion that
At no point in this string of events did anyone knowingly do something wrong or shirk his or her responsibilities
Given his training and licensed status it is inconceivable that he did not knowingly use the wrong material and fasteners and execute his work to a demonstrably inadequate standard. He knowingly did something wrong. And, as PBL says:
I think it is obvious, as it appears does Iron Duck, that the Continental mechanic did not exercise his duty of care to perform the repair according to applicable procedure. If "not exercising his duty of care" is what is meant here by "shirking his or her responsibilities", then this second statement is false. And if it doesn't mean that, then I don't know what it would mean.
One would expect better of such an editorial.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iron Duck,
You underline my point entirely.
The personal views of a journalist on an American magazine, within the editorial seem or a likely to be seen as the definitive word on the topic to many readers of the magazine.
More serious people interested in the case would read more widely.
They might read the BEA report, the hearing transcripts and the verdict.
I disagree. The editorial is exactly what one would expect. The opinions expressed are entirely consistent with the views his readers already held. He sells magazines, mostly to Americans. They buy what they want to read.
The sanctimonious nonsense about no blame reporting is a puff of wind on a stormy day.
This journalist did not spot accurately that jail time demanded by the Procureur was suspended.
To an American mechanic wherever he is, this is a symbolic penalty. He would neither serve "prison ferme" nor whatever suspended sentence in any event.
He also sidesteps the regime in place in his jurisdiction, wherein civil liability needs to be established for determining the various insurance contributions to be made.
Elsewhere, it is done differently.
You underline my point entirely.
The personal views of a journalist on an American magazine, within the editorial seem or a likely to be seen as the definitive word on the topic to many readers of the magazine.
More serious people interested in the case would read more widely.
They might read the BEA report, the hearing transcripts and the verdict.
One would expect better of such an editorial.
The sanctimonious nonsense about no blame reporting is a puff of wind on a stormy day.
More to the point, the specter of fines and jail time will have a chilling effect on the voluntary reporting of errors and retaining and sharing safety-related information. Today, a no-fault approach is producing some of the most significant improvements in safety.
To an American mechanic wherever he is, this is a symbolic penalty. He would neither serve "prison ferme" nor whatever suspended sentence in any event.
He also sidesteps the regime in place in his jurisdiction, wherein civil liability needs to be established for determining the various insurance contributions to be made.
Elsewhere, it is done differently.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 78
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Columbia/Concorde, similar root causes?
Dear folks,
Not being a pilot at all, just an observer who is interested in technology and who loves flying, I dare to write some thoughts here:
Reading the Final Report of the Columbia Accident (CAIB) and this thread, it drives my attention the fact that I believe there are some common root causes in both disasters: excess confidence, procedures not adhered to, political decisions instead of technical ones, etc.
I know, the CAIB report is a very extensive one, but I think many of you have already read it.
I'd like very much to read the opinion of the many experts in this Forum.
With kind regards to you all,
Not being a pilot at all, just an observer who is interested in technology and who loves flying, I dare to write some thoughts here:
Reading the Final Report of the Columbia Accident (CAIB) and this thread, it drives my attention the fact that I believe there are some common root causes in both disasters: excess confidence, procedures not adhered to, political decisions instead of technical ones, etc.
I know, the CAIB report is a very extensive one, but I think many of you have already read it.
I'd like very much to read the opinion of the many experts in this Forum.
With kind regards to you all,