Continental may be charged for Concorde Crash (Press Report)
 

Courtesy of www.airdisaster.com

Continental 'outraged' at report of charges in Concorde crash.

"PARIS (AP) -- Continental Airlines Inc. said Wednesday it was "outraged" at reports that French authorities want to prosecute the airline and several employees over the Concorde crash that killed 113 people in Paris four years ago.
The airline issued a strongly worded statement after a French newspaper reported that investigating judge Christophe Regnard had summoned several Continental officials for interrogation and plans to place them under formal investigation along with the company.

"We strongly disagree that anything Continental did was the cause of the Concorde accident, and we are outraged by the media reports that criminal charges may have been made against our company and its employees," the airline said.

Continental said it had no independent confirmation of the charges reported in French daily newspaper Le Parisien, which did not cite sources.

The French justice ministry and the prosecutor's office handling the case declined to comment.

The newspaper said other companies or individuals were also likely to face prosecution over the accident on July 25, 2000, when an Air France Concorde plane crashed in flames onto a hotel shortly after taking off from Paris Charles de Gaulle airport, killing all 109 people on board and four on the ground.

An investigation by France's Accident Investigations Bureau concluded almost three years ago that the accident was caused by a badly installed titanium "wear strip" that had fallen off the engine housing of a Continental Airlines Boeing DC-10 that took off from the same runway minutes earlier.

The metal bar caused a Concorde tire to burst, the report said, propelling rubber debris into the supersonic plane's fuel tanks.

Le Parisien did not name any of the Continental employees it said would be summoned by Regnard, who is heading a manslaughter probe into the disaster.

In its statement, the airline said it was "confident that there is no basis for a criminal action" against the company. "We will defend any charges in the appropriate courts," it said.

Continental shares rose 4 cents, or 0.3 percent, to close at $12.25 Wednesday on the New York Stock Exchange -- near the middle of its 52-week trading range of $7.63 to $18.70."


Might this type of case, even of brought to court, nevermind proved or otherwise cause a precedent for any other incidents?

Surely their defence would be that CDG didn't check their runway before Concorde (or anyone else) departed. Right or wrong, I can see it happening.

That was exactly the first thing that went through my mind as well. The foreign object could have been anything.

Ah, there's a Culture at work.
 

When bad stuff happens, it seems a real human thing these days to have to 'blame' someone.

Much easier to point at someone and say 'it's their fault' than to say 'sh*t happens' however tragically.

In this more and more litigious society 'blame' means big bucks.

That said, that form of 'society' was learned beyond 50 West anyway - a slight irony there.

Not sure that anyone could be held responsible for that tragedy - but if they can pin it on Continental, then there's someone to share the bill with.

Does that sound cynical?

Where does it stop? Should the the check airman of the FE who shut down the wrong engine also be charged? What about the DGCA rep who had oversight of the check airman?

Human Factor,

how many airfields check a runway after EVERY departure?? - None! Just imagine what the flow rate would be.

No, that argument is a non starter.

What about the guys who put together the Concord undercarriage with parts missing?

After all, that's the real reason for the crash, isn't it?

Would appreciate all those 'high blood pressure/angry' types getting it through their heads that posting rubbish about "liberating France in WWII" or "whining French" etc. is a futile effort on here as it is only going to be deleted. If you want to have rant to get xenophobic tendencies off your chests then go to the Jet Blast forum. (No guarantees that your posts will be allowed to remain there either but it keeps the 'trailer-trash/redneck' comments off this forum!)

Discuss as intelligent adults or else find yourselves an 'anoraks' website. :*

Danny
 

I know some spotters who are really quite intelligent!

What are you trying to say?

A colleague of mine who is the maintrol manager of the company who service major undercarriage for most european airlines, stated to me that the "part" not installed (-and- the non modifed spray deflector) could and most probably were the primary cause of the tyre failure. It was already tracking off line before the FOD to tyre impact. Most likely the high speed of Concorde on take off would have caused a possible catastrophic failure of tyres 1/2 and possibly 5 and 6 prmiarily due to the tyre angle and track being estimated at over 20 degrees off centre and increasing aircraft accelerated down the runway. INcreasing rudder inputs to maintain runway heading would have been large if not to be full deflection towards the end of the run.

I am definately not going to belittle the french legal system but on past historic events, if they can blame someone else for a failing and not their own product they will. Litigation is very likely in this case and I think it may pull open a few closed cupboards that the french may not like if I know the US legal system.

If I may add my own two pence worth, I remember reading about the part apparently from the CO departure prior to Concorde.

Was there not a story running at the time that the part was in fact a non standard component? i.e. that the part ending up on the runway was made of a much tougher metal than what would normally be used?

I'm not sure how this "allegation" ended up but if true, then perhaps CO would be liable but that is the only scenario I could see them being taken to court for.

Anything other than that would be pointless.

(p.s. I'm not saying anything against CO, just what I remember reading!!!)

Why not sue the Wright brothers estate for inventing the whole business??? Or Charles Lindbergh for starting Atlantic crossings, the CO DC10 was going to cross wasn't it? So surely old Chuck could be discredited?

How about just suing the people that designed Concorde for their omissions and lack of testing in this area or instructors that didn't cover this scenario in the simulator?

Come on... French justice system muct be idling or someone is looking to move to the politics and is trying to make a name and get the old face on screen.

AD

Also rumours about:
TOW in excess of TOPL
Some unaccounted baggage
Tailwind ignored

AF nearly lost a second one, just after the aircraft returned to service. Landed with minutes to go after a fuel leak.
That's why the plug was pulled for BA too, great shame for a company that not only obeyed the rules but exceeded them.

I see a can of worms being opened,
bon chance- Air France

ptc

If somebody at the local garage put my brakes back together incorrectly and the car crashed as a result I don't think I would be after Henry T. Same thing if the bonnet fell off and the car behind hit it.

I can see why the French wants to sue Continental. It was alleged that the piece of metal that caused the tyre failure was said to be manufactured and installed incorrecly. Assuming that is really what happened, Continental could be found liable for the accident. After all, it was their aircraft and it is their job to make sure everything on it is proper. I don't really understand how the court system works in the EU but if this were to happen in the States, it will most likely to end up in civil court. FAA would probably fines Continental for improper maintinence.

Personally, I haven't read the accident report so what I just said could be entirely garbage.

What about the Runway inspections at CDG that day?
It emerged that the only inspection was carried out many hours prior to the departure of Concord , & the excuse was given that there was a fire drill which meant the Fire Dept couldn't carry out the inspection :mad:
Although it has been mentioned that the piece of metal which had just come off the DC-10 just prior to Concords departure, had been a major factor in the incident, in my opinion does not let CDG off the hook, if this happened here in the UK, I feel that the airport concerned, with its runway inspection proceedures like CDG , given the movement rate as well, would be looking at a possible charge of "Failure of duty of care".
Also how many airports of this size have their Fire Depts doing Runway inspections?
Not really dedicated stuff in my opinion :confused:have they heard of dedicated Airside ops / Safety units ?
Perhaps its the French way of doing things :(

:{ OK chaps this is the plan......... If this action proceeds then;

Every pilot, every airline, every handling agent, every airport, infact anybody to do with aviation should refuse to fly Lawyers / solicitors / Barristers etc etc

This "litigation business" has gone far enough. And it is this group of people who are fuelling and sustaining it all. We all accept that gross negligence has no place in this business of aviation and we do more than any other industry to prevent it. But an accident is an accident, and while humans are in "the loop" they will probably occur, hopefully very very occasionally.

So, lets reclaim our future back from the grubby hands of the legal profession and get back to straight and level again. I've got a feeling they might begin to miss their frequent trips to Tuscany, Provence, Aspen or wherever......... paid for by you and me of course. Who is with me on this one?

:*

The lump of metal from the DC10 was definitely the prime cause of the accident. It was a titanium rubbing strip, about the size of a 1-foot ruler, from a thrust reverser. It was designed to be easily replaceable because it got rubbed in normal use. The part that fell off was rather crudely made and was not an OEM part, but the book said you could make one yourself if you wanted to. I am not sure if it was supposed to be made of aluminium and someone had made a titanium one to get a longer life out of it or whether they are all made of titanium.

This one was always going to be a lawyers' benefit but I would be rather surprised if individuals are to be charged at this stage. It would be difficult if not impossible to prove culpability at this stage. Company lawyers seeking damages from othercompanies is another matter.

I don't believe that the missing spacer on the U/C had much to do with it and the aircraft was not overweight. It was right on the limit, and that did not help. It had a long taxi, and that didn't help as the tyres would have heated up. However, it was the lump of bent titanium that sliced up the tyre and threw big lumps of rubber up that really did the damage.

The strip of metal had been badly cut giving it a serrated edge that caused it to cut into the tyre and burst it. The cut mark matched the tangled mess the strip ended up in, and it was the reason why the piece of tyre that hit the wing was so large. The tyres on Concorde were supposed to break into small fragments should they burst. Also, the screw holes had been haphazadly drilled and didn't even form a straight line which is probably why it fell off in the first place.

Following the AF Concorde story when it happened and post factum postings, there seemed to be a general agreement that the runway should have been cleared of any debris after each heavy took off, and especially before a Concorde took off. According to all those pages and posts, this was not done. I don't remember who said it, but the gist was that almost every heavy aircraft loses something on takeoff. Therefore the snuff patrol, but the main point is that before every Concorde takeoff the runway was to be clean. Somebody screwed up.

Interesting. How then would we explain previous history of burst tires puncturing fuel tanks? Also, how much do you feel shutting down a perfectly operating engine contributed to the crash?

Slightly off topic;

A few years ago a First Officer on a shorts 330 was killed after a collision with an MD80 at CDG, the primary cause of the accident was due to language and misunderstandings due to the controllers speaking a non standard language ie FRENCH. The report strongly advised that CDG adopt the international standard language, ENGLISH, have they done that? no!! so who is liable for that accident and should another happen god forbid because lessons have not been learned would the french courts charge the controllers and French pilots? prob not. Double standards here i think.

I really don't think that Continental and Air France apply to this scenario on take off. If two planes from two different countries are trying to land, then I may agree on the language spoken, but in this case, I don't think it carries any water.

As more and more aircraft accidents end up as criminal prosecutions rather than life saving/improving safety excersizes the whole process of accident investigation is changing.

It also makes increasingly harder to support things like FDR's, CVR's and cockpit camera's when their ultimate use is no longer in the safety realm but the PUNISHMENT realm.

It is a very different mentality overseas from America in an accident investigation, but the valujet investigations have changed the dynamics in the USA as well.

This is a VERY bad idea, but not suprising. The difference in culture was quite well represented during the 587 investigation (the first time I was involved in the investigation an Airbus product)

But when you realize that all things end in courts and penal systems don't have the same protections around the world, these things become somewhat easier to understand.

Think about that the next time a Greek controllers goes berzerk at you. He might go to jail... He's got a lot of pressure on him, over and above just safety...

Cheers
Wino

Posted by Koyo: I´m definitely no lawyer, but what about the word accident? I´m sure the CO technician who installed that piece of metal did not intend to crash an AF Concorde! It was most probably an unintentional mistake, and now the French authorities want to sue someone for that? It does not make sense!

As some people have pointed out, with this mentality there is no end in sight about blaming someone for an accident!

For those of you who missed the memo:

a journalist published a charming little article a few years back about how this flight was a "death ride" because of the missing spacer, leaving the gate above take off weight, taking off with a tail wind, and Jacques Chirac's jet on a neighboring taxiway causing a rotation before V1.

To clear the air:

A) The weight the aircraft had was not that at the end of the runway -- it had burned to exactly MTOW.
B) Winds were calm. The winds as measured at various points along the runway indicate that, for most of the run, the concorde had a headwind. Whatever mild tailwind tower was announcing, it wasn't the headwind as measured at the threshhold and halfway down the strip.
C) The missing spacer may have had something do with it -- I dunno.

Now, as for blaming Continental: yeah, there probably was a shortcoming in maintenance. And it probably led to leaving a big nasty foreign object on the runway. And that Concorde undoubtedly suffered a tire blowout from FOD, a tire blowout which punctured the wing, set the aircraft on fire, and ultimately led to a catastrophic failure and loss of life.
But -correct me if I'm wrong- tire failures are rather common events, and it was only on Concordes that they tended to take parts of the wing with them.
And aircraft do at times make messes behind them. While operators should make every effort not to do so, the responsibility for providing a safe runway lies with the airfield operator, just as the decision to take off on that runway is that of the pilot. It has to be that way.

Of course, criminal inquiries by investigating judges do not equate to findings of liability.

The piece of metal caused the tire to fail. The tire caused the aircraft to crash.

As a layman, it seems to me that if the piece of metal had caused the crash by an immediate destructive process, i.e. entering and engine, then there would be some culpability…somewhere. But where the demise of this aircraft was caused by the failure of one of its tires, then the question has to be asked: if a tire fails, should it bring down the aircraft? I think not.

You're right about the word "accident". CO had no intension of hurting anyone. However, if it can be foreseen that an event can occur as a result of negligence you can still be liable. It's like excessive speeding. I'm sure the driver don't intend to kill anyone but he/she can foreseen that it could happen. So it comes down to this. Could CO had predicted that the strip of metal can cause such tragic accident. I'm not blaming CO completely here.

The piece of metal and the spacer

Hold on guys, please go back to Slingsby’s post above. It is a known fact that the spacer was missing, but it is not a proven fact, as far as I know, that any tyre actually hit the piece of metal. It is only an assumption, and a convenient one at that. The piece of metal was found on the runway after the event. That is accepted, but IMHO there is enough evidence that the tyre failure and resulting fuel tank rupture could be attributed to the missing spacer alone.

As far as I recall, the missing spacer produced something like three degrees of LHS bogie misalignment. Running the tyres with that much misalignment produces a lot of side force. It’s a distant memory, and I am happy to be corrected, but I would expect a side force of something more than 20% of the vertical load on the tyres with that much misalignment. If you don’t believe me, try doing it with your car. A little bit of steering track rod adjustment should do it. Then try driving it at between 100 to 200 mph.

As the aircraft accelerated down the runway, the two bogies would have been fighting each other and pulling to one side, with corrective rudder inputs to try and keep the aircraft tracking straight. Thereby applying side force predominantly to the LHS bogie tyres.

Evidently, the scrubbing action on the LHS tyres was also sufficient to lay rubber on the runway, to me that is very significant. I saw the photographs showing the tyre marks going off the runway to the left. Not just one tyre, but the whole LHS bogie set. Scrubbing the misaligned tyres at that speed for a considerable distance, as evidently happened, would have also generated a lot of heat in the tyres. Easily enough to cause tyre failure.

Then did the tyres also hit the runway edge lights?

IMHO, scrubbing the tyres alone would be enough to explain the tyre failure. If they hit the piece of metal as well, then that was double bad luck.

I’m 100% with Slingsby. The skeletons in the cupboard are waiting for the lawyers. Personally, I think it is about time that this tragedy was properly laid to rest.

Sad Fact coming . . .
 

Reading round what you've all written, I daresay the 'truth' is covered in there somewhere.

The piece of metal is pretty much agreed to be the cause of the first INCIDENT, the ACCIDENT happened a bit further down the line - the error chain.

Sad fact about error chains is that they are most obvious to investigators and lay-people alike all possessing 20:20 hindsight (that's not a dig at anyone).

The saddest fact of all this (if true) is that the ONLY winners in this whole sorry tale are going to be law firms and lawyers AND of course, the MEDIA, who will feed on it like parasites.

I'm sorry if I offend anyone who happens to be from the Media, but your track record of accuracy versus drama value in aviation topics leaves you condemned - utterly (and I'm specifically citing accident reporting here, not industrial topic coverage).

Facts, Truth and Accuracy seldom are allowed to interfere with a good 'story'.

There is no wonder that many in the aviation industry (ie 'doing the job') regard the press as a species of pond life.

Lawyers come a close second.

OK - I am cynical.

The Concorde might have been very close to or slightly above MTOW, but I understand that it was very definitely well above RTOW for the conditions passed to the crew. If they chose to ignore that, they would have commenced the take-off roll in contravention of JAR-OPS requirements. A decision which would reflect adversly upon the AF Commander's risk management strategy.

The incorrectly repaired undercarriage assembly and the a/c weight delayed acceleration so that they hit a piece of metal from an incorrectly repaired Continental a/c. That caused the tyre burst which in turn led to the fire. The FE shut down an engine which, whilst damaged, was still producing thrust without being so ordered. That guaranteed disaster...

It would seem from the above posts that we have an error chain involving

An incorrectly assembled bogey on the Concord

A take off probably above RTOW

A piece of metal on the runway from a CO DC10

NO runway inspection for a long period

A tyre failure for some reason

an uncommanded (by the PF) shut down of an engine still doing useful work

And the only non native link in that chain appears to have attracted the spotlight of litigation?:yuk:

Right on Arkroyal, and I would add a history of burst tires resulting in punctured fuel tanks. BA chose to retrofit their Concordes to add integrity to the fuel tanks during these events,
Air France chose not to.

Its what we call the Domino effect, remove 1 piece & it should not happen. :(

Before too many people join in on the ever so popular sport of french bashing, have anybody actually been charged with anything? is there any evidence that anybody will be, besides a report appearing in a news media that is usually treated with utter contempt on this forum.

While litigation seems to be an increasingly depressing trend that may destroy us in Europe, and fueled by increased insurance premiums has already driven prices on products and services in the US stupidly high, it would be interesting to see if this legal challenge is fact or simply speculation.
How they will prove that it was that metal strip alone which caused the disaster, and that it was in fact Continental's will also be interesting? A number of other pertinant facts surely directly affected the outcome of that tragic day. The spacer and evidence of it's effect seems to have been clear, had the TO distance not increased might the aircraft in fact not have rotated before reaching the object which, may, or not, have burst the tire?
What sadly is true is that those who would profit most from a case like this, is most likely to be the press and the legal profession.

Seems to me that this is a classic "chain of events" or "domino" accident, where a number of systematic failures are exacerbated by human factors. Any one of them not occurring could have stopped the entire sequence.

Many other unfortunate accidents, such as Chernobyl, Piper Alpha, Space Shuttle(s), etc followed such chains as well. To not learn from these properly is the real shame.

Without wishing to incur the wrath of Danny, I do feel that there is not a French arrogance to this, or that the lawyers are driving it. More the Grand Ecole (the politicians) attitude (We are right, we don't make mistakes, everyone else is wrong).

Now, exactly what might be the FO in FOD? Metal? A bird? The fox I saw last year? At CDG. Any one of those could cause similar devastating circumstances. The fact that I saw a fox running across the runway - should we balme the French for a lackadaisical attitude? Should they do more? SHould we stop flights from CDG at once?

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The blame process here seems only to be trying to divert attention in the most silly way. Perhaps driven in the most nationalistic, and ironic given the name of the airport, of ways. In so doing, the real issues, and ALL of them, may be missed.

So, Messieurs, grow up, vous ne devez pas etre "comme des garcons", and make sure that this does not happen again.

Ridiculous......

Times will come that the pilot`s parents will be charged because he was born....

Unbelievable...


:yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

While we the public ultimately pay for such waste and nonsense, I'd like to see the matter brought to trial, so I can enjoy seeing Continental's lawyers publicly spank those suggesting that they are to blame for this terrible accident.

Having enjoyed 44 flights on Concorde mostly New York routeing but some Washington ones as well, I feel strongly that the French are by a massive percentage the ones at which responsibility for the crash must be laid. A tyre burst at a critical point on the take off roll should not result in the deaths of over 100 people.
The typical French arrogance in not following BA's example to mod the guards to prevent wing puncture if a tyre burst at a critical point in the TO run, didn't help.
The possible engineering cock up during U/C assembly that caused the offset tracking, made matters worse.
The Air France use of many more retreads per tyre carcase than BA may have been a factor.
The French Flight Engineer that shut a working engine down without being told to, sounded the death knell.

By contrast, Continental is but an innocent bystander.

Aviate 1138