Well over to the left.

concorde trial
 

The whole sad affair is reminiscent of the tragic loss of Flight 981, the Turkish Airlines DC10 which crashed into Grove of Damartin in the Forest of Ermenonville north of Paris on 3 March 1974. Initially a poor baggage handler was blamed. Now we have a hapless welder who stands in his place. In the case of the 1974 crash the subsequent investigation revealed the complexities of truth and proved that truth is never simple but it is always pure. It is my sincere hope that this trial will achieve the same.

forget
 

I didn't yet check the P64 of your document but there were 4 previous flights without spacer before the accident.

Again, SFLY, like all armchair critics you just do not get the point. We've (the rest of the world that is) established that the 'final' BEA report (that I'm sure you lovingly downloaded) was totally tainted; more about protecting AF than giving a totally honest objective report. The previous incidents were minor perforations in comparison. There were NOT EVER any British events of gushing fuel, ever. Tank inlet valves illegally being set to O/R resulted, for reasons that you just would not understand. all of the tanks becoming pressurised. Tank 2 exploded OUTWARDS, this was not a simple tye burst, but DESTRUCTION of the tyre. Please stop criticising something you clearly do not understand, or do you have a private agenda?.

Sorry Forget, my bad. That's what happens when you type too fast.

The only truth that will come out of this tragic affair.

The only reason now is to decide who pays.

Says it all, and that's not only confined to French investigations, either.


I think that this thread should end right here.

Buddy, I was among the firsts to criticize the final report even before its public release.
Now you can tell me whatever you want about the size of the holes in BA's concordes tanks, there were still 5 occurrences of tank perforations caused by tire incidents. How can you seriously pretend these shouldn't have been considered as major issues? If appropriate mitigation of the fuel tanks perforations risks had been enforced, the Paris accident would only have been another non-fatal tire issue.

It's precisely because previous occurrences (which you consider as minor) have been voluntary ignored by authorities and operators than nothing was done to prevent the accident to occur following another tire incident.

The whole point is to try and get the WHOLE truth out in the public domain. This has arguably been one of the biggest accident cover ups in aviation history. Trying to put the bulk of the blame on Continental Airlines is both wrong and pathetic; you have to look back at a state run airline being prepared for eventual privatisation. Did you not notice that AF are in no way implicated in court?
I'm sure the thread will continue sir.

SFLY; the incidents were all considered serious, and where necessary dealt with as far as possible with several modificaions. This was a case of several mistakes all happening together. I seriously doubt that any wing undersurface would have been intact, given the combination of fuel tanks pressurised and such a massive tyre explosion. This was NOT a blow out, it was the total destruction of the tyre.

No need to blame Continental.
AF, BA, the BEA, the AAIB, the DGAC, the CAA and the manufacturer should all be held accountable for ignoring the serious issues which occurred for almost 3 decades.
Not only the rate of tire incidents was insane, but the extent of potential dramatic consequences were clearly known. Tolerating fuel tank perforations on an afterburner civilian transport aircraft is a very innovative approach of flight safety.

Oh dear SFLY, back to our armchair rant again are we? You clearly seem unable to grasp anything here, a lot has been explained to you (by people, unlike you, who DO know what they are talking about). You play statistics like a musical instrument (you're playing off key too).
The fact that Concorde had Reheat/Afterburner is irrelevent. Again, and read this now, there were NEVER any cases of ANY British aircraft streaming fuel. Maybe a shrink can cure your SST complex.

Isn't Continental's defense an uphill battle? Ok, so apparently there were many factors in the crash including tire issues, aircraft design issues, runway issues, pilot issues, and on and on and on....

...But it is fairly clear that the metal piece that fell off their plane caused the AF tire to blow and that metal piece was not authorized for use in repairs to this A/C; right?

Can someone explain the sanctions the French court might impose for each party charged?

Thx...

A few years ago, I was talking at length to a former Concorde SFO who took me through the entire "Swiss cheese" scenario. He stated that the source of the ignition was not the afterburners as I had presumed. The ignition source was (at that time) believed to have been in the wheel well, possibly through an electrical short.

Has this been disproven or is it still believed to be the case ?

I asked by how much in relative terms was the aircraft overweight. I think the answer was around 4% based on what had been officially recorded.

Hi B Fraser, a very interesting point. Your Concorde SFO friend was dead right about the Swiss Cheese and the ignition source. Although the ignition source was never 100% proven, it seems that the most likely source was the 200VAC supply to the wheel brake fans, as the wiring on the L/H U/C leg was severely damaged. After the crash, the fans were selected to OFF for T/O, and also the wiring harness was reinforced.

Totally boring to read through arguments by posters talking past each other for numerous posts. Most of these arguments will be adjudicated by the court.

To me they are all valid arguments so once stated there is little to gain by trying to covince each other of who is more right.

I learned that taking valid arguments to a jury trial is still a large chance in the outcome.

But is this really a trial by jury of whose arguments carry the most weight, or is this a deterministic trial by judges against the law of the land?

Either way once the arguments are put foward there is liittle that our say will weigh on the matter.

ready to hear more arguments without the bashing :)

The whole point (for most people) in this debate to to hope that the whole truth will out. Everyone has to accept the points you make about jury trial (NOT 100% if this is one though, I'd have to check). The whole point here is that technical facts have been hidden from the official BEA report. I'm sorry if you find this all boring sir, but most of 'us' are very passionate about what is being said about this amazing aircraft.

I'm sure you're more knowledgeable than me and I do hope you'll be kind enough to educate me on the few questions I may have.

Could you for instance explain me why BA's concordes tanks perforations couldn't have led to fuel leakage? How is it possible to dissociate "fuel tank perforation" and "possible fuel leak"?

It's not because something didn't happen that it couldn't happen. That's precisely the point of enforcing safety & risk management procedures.

I've been a long time lurker of PPRUNE and wish it wasn't this that made me register I guess but I would have anyway I'm sure, however this event has always stuck in my mind
I agree with SFLY, not based on special knowledge but as someone with a very logical way of thinking (have to for my job)

The facts seem very clear to me:
Firstly, the tank penetration in the late 70's caused fuel to be seen spraying out from the wing. Obviously this is about as serious as it gets, especially on take off. I'll get no arguments about this I'm sure

Secondly following the sad day in France all Concordes were modified at great expense to have titanium protection under the tanks - surely a guaranteed fix that should have been carried out the first hint it could happen

Therefore all the other 'fixes' were half measures and down to purely financial motives they flew around with a serious fault

The blame on Continental or the airport is misplaced because a tire shredding is an unpredictable event and objects left on the runway is always a possibility - the plane should have been able to manage it!

But it wasn't the plane's fault and surely a lack of willpower to correct the problem fully and it's very sad poor management and cost cutting ever led to this situation

All that work to make the engines safe and the plane viable compromised by something so simple. Bottom line - never cover up and downplay concerns but address them no matter what the cost, that should be the attitude of the manufacturers of aircraft

If I was running things it would be a terse one line memo - 'fix it to the satisfaction of the chief engineer and get on with the the show!'

I have no idea the point of this trial

SFLY You cannot possibly say that, as the aircraft had flown previously (if indeed it had) without bogie problems then the bogie made no contribution to the accident. Simple reason being, the missing spacer caused a mobile fault and it may well have produced an aligned bogie for any previous (?) flights.

Look at the tyre scuffing on the runway, day of the accident. Are you suggesting that the aircraft had taken off and landed with the bogie misaligned to this degree?

OK, of course I will. Seeing as you are so fond of your statistics, perhaps you would care to look at the last time the British had tank damage... 1993. (As I've TRIED to explain, these puntures, although I admit were serious, because any tank or wing damage is serious, were structutaly minor, with little or no fuel loss in most cases). After the water deflectors were modified there were no further instances of such damage.
But EVERY single incident was acted on, as I'm sure you've read.
Let's just agree to disagree here; people have died, and probably innocent people are now accused of involuntary manslaughter in a French court.

Stick flier, if you are here to tell us all how the world should really be run then get the facts right. Kevlar, not titanium.

Yes I can. The aircraft flew on the 21,22,23 and 24. While the missing spacer wasn't a factor during takeoff phases (slow acceleration) the landing efforts caused the ring to slip due to the lack of spacer. Marks are clearly visible on the ring: http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-...s/figure75.jpg

As a consequence, the tire might have been exposed to a succession of lateral efforts resulting from the axis misalignment during the previous landings.

While having been uneventful, each of the previous landings might have weakened the tire.

ok Forget I stand corrected, I must admit I prefer to post 'by the seat of my pants' rather than check my facts first, however this proves my point, why didn't they make the Kevlar mod originally? Did they over-react?
There's obviously some very knowledgable people posting here but to a 'lay man' such things stand out, illuminated if you will, and logic seems to have been, well, forgotten

Welcome Stickflyer, you've made a very well presented first thread, and make your points well. The AF incident at IAD in 1979 was never fully explained; no other tyre blow had produced such damage.
As far as titanium reinforcement; this was never proposed or implemented; The weight penalty would have been staggering, when you look at the size of the wing). What WAS done was to fit Kevlar linings to the INSIDE of the 'vulnarable' tanks, to make these tanks effectively self-sealing. But the 'real' fix was the NZG tyre, the technology for which just was not available in the 70's, 80's and 90's. The fixes were never really meant as half-measures; every mod' reduced the chance of systems damage.
But your post is very well balanced, addressing both sides of the arguement.

Good to hear the outcome, when you in court?

SFLY,we know you are an expert reader of the tainted BEA report but the spacer did, repeat DID contribute in a large way to what happened; again, there were large rudder inputs before the 'strip' without corresponding HDG changes, also witness the scuff marks. And no more of your hyperlinks; we've all read it before. Now back to your armchair.

Oh, and Cymmon, I don't need to be in court. there are other expert witnesses for the defence already. What's your point?

Darling, would you be kind enough to take the time to understand what I've written?
I'm precisely explaining to forget why the missing spacer during the previous landings played a major role in the accident while the official report only consider the effects of the missing spacer on takeoffs. The hyperlink is simply illustrating this.

10 April 2003 - One of the saddest days in aviation.
 

This sort of thing goes on more often than you might think and is not limited to French courtrooms.

For the sake of the thread, perhaps the author of
would care to follow his own advice?

I am aware that a number of contributing factors brought about the sad end of this aircraft. At the risk of being accused of finger-pointing, which I am not. Would it be true to say that the engine shut-down,(for whatever reason), sealed it's fate?

Just a couple of questions for the knowledgeable posters on this thread;

1. Was it proven that the tanks were over-ridden and therefore over-filled?

2. Was this commonplace amongst Concorde crews?

3. Was this manufacturer approved or approved without technical objection from the manufacturer?

Thank you for your input.

It may have sealed the fate of the crew and passengers. Assuming that with a bit more power on, they woud have managed to reach nearby Bourget airport (airport limits less than a mile and runway 21 less than 1.5 mile from crash site), I doubt very much the plane would have survived the fire.

In My Last Airline; to try and answer your questions as well as I can:

1. Yes it was proven; Tank 5 O/R switch found at O/R in wreckage. These were lever locked switches, Impact could not have changed switch position. (De-Air pump in Tank 11 would do the pressurising).
2. Was not commonplace in the UK.
3. It was definately not approved; The O/R position was there to cater for fuel level switching failure, not 'hiding' fuel from the FQIS.

Valvenuz yes, that is a very valid but sad point. On this tragic day, the V1 for the day was 150 KTS, VR 198 KTS and V2 was 220KTS. The A/C took off at only 201 KTS and the maximum speed achieved was only 211 KTS. So at the very BEST, the A/C was 9 KTS below the MINIMUM safe engine out speed, and this on only 3 1/2 engines (#1 engine severely damaged by ingested runway light), and with landing gear stuck down. When # 2 engine was shut down (stricly against SOP's) there was nothing that anyone in the world could have done to save the A/C. As stated before, the A/C needed to climb and accelerate in order to survive; it could now do neither.
It's possible to debate that the A/C (and all of the poor souls onboad) was doomed once airborne and may never have made Le Bourget, but with the shutting down of #2 went any chance at all. Even after nearly 10 years it is still such a tragic, sad story.

nnc0: I think I have read somewhere that criminal charges are required to be laid in many European countries where a death other than by natural causes occurs. The last high profile case was in relation to Aryton Senna's F1 crash in Italy

I will not be postulating technical explanations of what happened. I do not have the competence.

I will not rise to the bait about the BEA, AF, BA ADP, CAA, and others failing to react in the past.

I will simply explain that French judicial process requires that responsabilities be identified.

There is a corrolary in the sense that the insurers of the responsible party take up the burden of indemnifying the victims. Here, I do have some competence.

Note that the charge is "involuntary" manslaughter. (OK it is a translation from the French, and therefore not too precise.)

It would be a different matter if any firm, individual or entity were to be accused of deliberately causing this tragedy.

The form is a legal one, according to the way French law (and many others too) phrase these issues.

Anybody claiming a typical French "cover up" cannot be taken too seriously.

We are almost at the tenth anniversary of the event. Huge amounts of investigation have been carried out. The trial has been programmed for something like 4 months.

That, to me, smacks of rigour, need to establish what happened, learn from it, take steps for the future, and above all hear expert evidence about exactly what did happen.

And I mean "Expert"

Thank you M2DUDE,

Can you therefore conclude with any certainty that IF the tanks hadn't been filled 'beyond the brim' that the accident would not have occured?

It seems that all the other factors, CG; spacer; tyre failure; tailwind performance; rough runway; metal strip; in themselves or even combined would not have caused the catastrophic loss of the aircraft.

The fuel shockwave theory (or was it fact M2DUDE?), the overfilled and overpressured tank that set off a 'tank explosion' was what ultimately caused the next sequence of events, the crash sequence.

So who was responsible for allowing/ordering a fuel overload surely THEY/HIM or HER are directly to blame for the crash?

Additionally if this was a 'normalisation of deviation' known to Concorde crews in AF and obviously the BEA, then there is accountability there too, I would imagine?

Two questions to understand your points:

1 Where is it documented?
3 Where was it disapproved (in writings)?

The report mentions that tank 5 switches were damaged and unreadable. Where did you get different information?

If it made it to Le Bourget
 

I suspect the death toll would have been massive.

A fire ball, totally out of control, bouncing off the airfield, with a very large built up area so very close, I think the captain was very clever in aiming for the hotel car park.....(Irony).....

I have my own beliefs: mosty if the Engineer had not shut down the engine (without the Captains authority), then the crash would have happened somewhere else, so it was good that he ensured the landing was in the car park.

glf

Gulfstreamaviator,

Don't know if everyone will share your ironic humour :hmm:

If I remember well, Concorde was very tight out of CDG to carry a full payload. So, if a little "fiddle" had been found to squeeze more fuel in :rolleyes: well, you tell me. Quite apart from weight & balance issues, it seems nobody thought of the other consequences.
Trouble is, who will admit to this procedure ? as anyone who did it was by association breaking the rules too.
Maybe they have to seek someone who feels strongly enough to tell the truth, and offer them "witness protection", or maybe they won't try too hard to investigate all these "nasty rumours" and continue to protect AF, and jeez, with some of the stuff they have done since then, they could do with having their safety culture reputation protected.