Point is SLFinAZ, this really was not 'just' a case of Concorde running over a piece of FOD. As has been pointed out by many people 'ad nauseam', it was the result of a large combination of totally avoidable factors. (The traumatised L/H undercarriage with vital component missing, an overweight aircraft already starting it's T/O roll over very rough surface etc etc). The titanium strip was just another factor; the tyre was DESTROYED, not a simple blowout. Are the real culprits in the dock? I wonder
It is so easy to state here that 'Concorde was just a disaster waiting to happen', but this is absolute and total rubbish. Witness the fact that after BA modified the Main U/C water deflectors in 1993, there was never another case of a BA aircraft suffering skin damage due to tyre failure. And as has been stated before, BA operated more A/C, an infinitely greater number of services, with a corresponding increase in the flying hours than AF. The airplane operated from the UK like a very well oiled swiss watch, day in, day out it was routine. (Even a single aircraft doing a 'world tour' was a completly routine event).
As I stated in my initial post; Concorde in the hands of true professionals, was an extremely safe and reliable aircraft indeed. This part is purely subjective, but in the opinion of this aviation professional, Concorde was the finest aircraft that was ever built. Don't jump down my throat here guys, this is my opinion only.

You make some valid points, and some totally erroneous points.
So where does that leave monarchies, principalities, federations?

You are once again applying your local knowledge and familiarity therewith to areas which transcend national boundaries.

Systems of law which are not based upon the US model can and do recognise a different process of law.

"Adverserial" is one form of process of law.

"Inquisatorial" is another, different process of law.
That may be true in your jurisdicition. I do not know.

I do wonder how you can assert that "that s true in any system" given your manifestly abject ignorance of non US processes of law.

As to you valid points,

I have nothing but respect for the truth, humility and humanity of that remark, and your courage to express it.

If that sounds patronising, it was not intended. I am sincere.

petitb
 

Has the link to the Concorde photo been removed?, or could someone kindly direct me to it. Thanks.

The original image is on airliners dot net.

Photos: Aerospatiale-BAC Concorde 102 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

All gone a bit quiet, aren't the press allowed in to this courtroom, or is it seen as "un-newsworthy" after all this time ? :hmm:

French judicial procedure is only very exceptionally held in camera, and this process is not one of those.

It has perhaps gone quiet because the process is methodically and attentively taking its course, and the court is knee deep in expert evidence which inevitably is a little bit contradictory, depending on whose expert is being heard.

My most recent update is now a few days old, but consisted essentially of an expert witness averring that the fire broke out before the aircraft reached the site of the alleged titanium debris, but upon being challenged, was unable to offer any alternative explanation for the fire.

Patience is called for. The level of detail being examined is minute.

"My most recent update is now a few days old, but consisted essentially of an expert witness averring that the fire broke out before the aircraft reached the site of the alleged titanium debris, but upon being challenged, was unable to offer any alternative explanation for the fire."

Now see how the system works..........

There seems to be only a reporter from French news agency AFP constantly following the proceedings, so there are sometimes reports in French media, mostly when something juicy happens, like when the defense wanted the trial to be thrown out of court because of alleged partiality of BEA experts (the court declared they wouldn't stop, but factor that in their deliberations) or when Continental presented a 3D animation (which they paid 800,000 $ for) depicting an accident version where the aircraft was on fire several hundred meters before reaching the location with the metal strip (based on witness testimonials not included in the accident investigation report).

Interesting: Continental defense strategy is to declare Concorde unfit to fly. Continental lawyer is quoted saying that Concorde should have been taken out of service 1979 after the first tire incidents.

This is a trial about involuntary manslaughter, the defendants are charged with criminal offences under the French Penal Code, the operative provisions of which are:

ARTICLE 111-5

Criminal courts have jurisdiction to interpret administrative decisions of a regulatory or individual nature, and to

appreciate their legality where the solution to the criminal case they are handling depends upon such examination

ARTICLE 113-4

French Criminal law is applicable to offences committed on board aircraft registered in France, or committed against
such aircraft, wherever they may be. It is the only applicable law in relation to offences committed on board French

military aircraft, or against such aircraft, wherever they may be.

ARTICLE 121-3

(Act no. 1996-393 of 13 May 1996 Article 1 Official Journal of 14 May 1996; Act no. 2000-647 of 10 July article 1 Official
Journal of 11 July 2000)

There is no felony or misdemeanour in the absence of an intent to commit it.
However, the deliberate endangering of others is a misdemeanour where the law so provides.
A misdemeanour also exists, where the law so provides, in cases of recklessness, negligence, or failure to observe
an obligation of due care or precaution imposed by any statute or regulation, where it is established that the offender
has failed to show normal diligence, taking into consideration where appropriate the nature of his role or functions, of his
capacities and powers and of the means then available to him.
In the case as referred to in the above paragraph, natural persons who have not directly contributed to causing the
damage, but who have created or contributed to create the situation which allowed the damage to happen who failed to
take steps enabling it to be avoided, are criminally liable where it is shown that they have broken a duty of care or
precaution laid down by statute or regulation in a manifestly deliberate manner, or have committed a specified piece of

misconduct which exposed another person to a particularly serious risk of which they must have been aware.

PENAL CODE
SECTION II
INVOLUNTARY OFFENCES AGAINST LIFE Articles 221-6 to
221-6-1

ARTICLE 221-6

(Act no. 2000-647 of 10 July 2000 Article 4 Official Journal of 11 July 2000)
(Ordinance no. 2000-916 of 19 September 2000 Article 3 Official Journal of 22 September 2000 into force 1 January
2002)

Causing the death of another person by clumsiness, rashness, inattention, negligence or breach of an obligation of
safety or prudence imposed by statute or regulations, in the circumstances and according to the distinctions laid down
by article 121-3, constitutes manslaughter punished by three years' imprisonment and a fine of €45,000.
In the event of a deliberate violation of an obligation of safety or prudence imposed by statute or regulations, the

penalty is increased to five years' imprisonment and to a fine of €75,000.

Do any of the defendants fit the bill ?
If so which ones and why.
It would be interesting to see how the forum judges the issues, within the constraints of the legislation.

Hi,

For those of you able to read french language ... here are the report day by day of the trial ... :)
mars 2010 Procès du crash du CONCORDE

Wow absolutely fascinating stuff... lots of gems... Thanks for that !

Thanks from me too :ok:

Please forgive me if this is in the wrong thread, but I found this news item significant.

French prosecutor seeks suspended jail for 'father' of Concorde
(AFP) – 2 hours ago

PARIS — French prosecutors called Friday for a two-year suspended jail term for an 80-year-old engineer known as the father of the Concorde, at a trial into a deadly crash of the supersonic jet in 2000.

Henri Perrier, who directed the Concorde programme at Aerospatiale, now part of EADS, from 1978 to 1994, is accused of ignoring warning signs from a string of incidents on Concorde planes before the accident outside Paris.

Prosecutors also sought a 175,000-euro (220,000-dollar) fine against Continental Airlines, siding with experts who said the Concorde plane crashed because of a strip of metal that fell off a Continental jet that took off just before it.

More here.

What an ongoing farce...

So at the end of the day you blame it on an old guy and "defective overall maintenance" of the DC-10.

Are there no honest, decent, objective people left in the world ?

Look at where we are, the world is filled with special interest groups, lobbyists, pressure groups and is so run by the media that we now have no one left to make informed decisions, take calculated risks etc.

Everything is CYA and shift the blame. Imagine when Concorde was being built if we had the world we live in today. It wouldn't have stood a chance.

What we need is a revolution and send all these sorry bureaucratic idiots to the sweat camps, or better still to charity projects around the world where they can see the real face of humanity.

OH Nooooooo!!!!

Many charities and other NGOs are already totally f'ed up by their supercargo of incompetents and do-gooders who fail to confront the realities of the problems they purport to 'deal with'.

I guess once a Blame Culture gets started even prosecutors and Courts get infected with the same people and attitudes.

I'm sure the world is coming to its end in one way or another, but I'd like to point out that the prosecutor is just trying to execute his/her own prosecution (or part of it - charges against two defendants were dropped).

"Translated" into the discussion of this thread, this means that the prosecution continues to argue that (1) Concorde was defective and the accident could had been prevented if earlier incidents had led to modifications of the aircraft, and (2) the piece of metal on the runway was the "immediate" cause on the day of the accident.

Before getting into another round of discussion of this already discussed theory (and alternative views), I'd like to suggest to wait for the verdict (which, according to AFP, isn't expected before the end of this year).

1) There is a significant question regarding the role the titanium strip played in the tragedy. Not only are there a significant number claiming the plane was already on fire prior to reaching the location of the strip but more then one is an airport fire brigade member and as such are observing events in a professional capacity for which they are trained accordingly.

The mere fact that the prosecution is arguing against this overwhelming testimony indicates a political agenda at work. Combine this with the documented maintenance failures that directly contributed to the poor tracking that caused the plane to literally run of the runway on the takeoff roll as well as the lack of common sense SOP's like checking the runway for debris prior to takeoff and you have a clear indication (same as with the A320 accident) of a corrupt judiciary...

So, let's see...

We dismiss charges against the French "frontline" people who probably had a much better idea of the plane's susceptibility to FOD, and instead place suspended sentences upon A) the program's head, and B) a couple of maintenance joes on another continent.


Knowing this, neither operator could be bothered to request a FOD check before each Concorde flight? Yeah, yeah, operations, yadda-yadda.

It's not as if there were dozens of Concorde flights taking off spaced throughout the day. Two guys in a pickup truck could have driven the runway at 45mph and would have spotted the strip. International airports are teeming with spotters, many of whom would pay to go along on such a ride, so it's not cost.

And of course, the official report on the crash of FLT 459 excluded alternative possibilities.

It strikes me that there won't be much practical good to come out of this trial.

True

The professional investigation already evaluated the evidence and took what action was deemed appropriate to restore safety

The trial is to satisfy the public's need for blame and punishment under their laws, much like our executions do.

So let the trial proceed towards that end in order to satisfy the law of the land and we can revisit whether the punshment fits the crime after it is handed down. Else all we might do is whine about a law that we neither created nor live under :)

If runway inspections were only carried out before Concorde take-offs, as I read into the above (?) wouldn't that infer that there was a potential problem with the Concorde on every take-off ? If so ..... a) would you want to fly in it or...... b) fix the problem !!

But then, fixing the problem would cost money, and presumably a weight penalty if under-wing strengthening was required, which of course leads to payload penalty, which comes back to money ....... !!

Not suggesting that AF or BA would ever let safety be second to financial considerations, of course. :eek:

Hi,

28 mai 2010 Procès du crash du CONCORDE

I really think it boils down to a perception of prestige, which both carriers played completely wrong.

"The only way we can offer flights on this very expensive aircraft at the price we do is by taking every opportunity to avoid the wear and tear normal airliners are subject to. Therefore, we inspect and clean the runway whenever possible."

How f*cking hard is that?


No, at least not in my mind.

If we're going to stay with the titanium strip theory, then whomever scheduled the training session which delayed the runway FOD inspection should have been charged.

As well as whomever failed to make it clear that an aircraft highly susceptible to damage was scheduled at XX for takeoff, and that nothing should interfere with runway inspection.

Really, to play the titanium card, you have to admit to knowing that it could have caused the damage which "caused" the crash, and its presence on the runway indicates a degree of negligence.

Ground ops has far more control over FOD than a departing aircraft.

If we're going to go with the missing spacer and the 3 degrees (?) of caster it caused, then the person who inspected the landing gear should have been charged.

Either way, I hope this whole thing makes those who need it feel better.