Five people to face Concorde crash trial
 

Just breaking on BBC World news. 2 ex Continental Airlines personnel , 2 connected with the Concorde program and one other are to face involuntary manslaughter charges in connection with the Air France Concorde crash in Paris eight years ago. Trial expected to take place next year.

Five people to face Concorde crash trial
 

BBC News Website
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Five to face Concorde crash trial


US airline Continental and five people will stand trial over the 2000 Concorde crash near Paris which killed 113 people, French judicial officials say.
The five are said to be two employees of Continental Airlines, two from Concorde maker Aerospatiale, and the French civilian aviation authority.
The trial will take place in two to three months' time, the officials say.
The plane caught fire after its tyres were punctured by a piece of metal on the runway from a Continental plane.
Rubber from the tyres ruptured the plane's fuel tanks shortly after take-off from Paris's Charles de Gaulle airport.
A French accident inquiry in 2004 found that the strip of metal had fallen on the runway from a Continental plane that took off just before the Concorde flight.
All 109 people on board the Concorde flight and four people on the ground were killed.

At last. Now the true reason for the crash will be heard!

Yeah, it was a conspiracy by the Duke of Edinburgh! Everyone knows that.

csquared,

... and that reason is... ?

Oh do please enlighten us.

And this will achieve what exactly?

Big Boeing it will achieve loadsa money for the legal eagles and naff all for the bereaved cos it aint gonna stop another Concorde crash thats for certain

BigBoeing - oh yes I see your point. Un-approved modifications to a DC10 resulting in FOD, which at best contributed to (if not caused) the destruction of an aircraft and over a hundred lives lost...
Yeah... let 'em off. No biggie.

A piece of metal (albeit reportedly one that should not have been attached to the airframe) falls from an aircraft and damages another with fatal consequences.

The tragedy that ensued would not have happened if.....if.....if. As the old saying goes, "If ifs and ands were pots and pans....."

The lessons were learned years ago, what is the need to pillory individuals?

If an action is "involuntary" (dictionary definition "done without exercise of the will") how can someone be found guilty of manslaughter?

Guilty of gross stupidity maybe for fitting an unauthorised part; guilty of slack checking procedures certainly.

One party will be missing in court - ADP which did not ensure the runway was swept, as required, prior to the departure of the Concorde flight.

Presumably in the legal and bureaucratic minds acts of omission cannot be classed as contributing to manslaughter.

and the missing shims from the undercarriage truck? C of G aft? tailwind? overload by 11 tonnes?

and the missing shims from the undercarriage truck? C of G aft? tailwind? overload by 11 tonnes?

Surely, ultimately, the Captain has to take responsibility for the last three.

This was a tragic accident and the only people who will benefit from this are the damn lawyers.

<<ADP which did not ensure the runway was swept, as required, prior to the departure of the Concorde flight.>>

Presumably a French local requirement? It never happened during all the years I worked with Concorde at Heathrow

As I understand the new act all it really does is remove the loophole under the old legislation under which it was impossible to convict unless you could show a "controlling mind" at work. Since it was impossible to pin entire responsibility for an accident on one controlling mind, nobody ever got done. This act is surely an improvement, and unless there was gross negligence I would have thought it unlikely there would be a prosecution. Anyway, it's the corporation that would be found guilty, not individuals.

Moldiolidi, this is a criminal case and thus not a legal pot of gold.

...it happened in France...:confused:

I'm quite upset to see that some pretended professionals can believe Continental is responsible of this accident !

At least take some time to read the facts before posting !
This aircraft suffered dozens of similar issues with some leading to fuel tank perforations. Nothing was done over the years.

That day, this aircraft departed with tail wind, overload leading to tires over-speeding. The incriminated tire was also overstressed during the roll since a missing boogie part was causing a tire deflection and ripping.

When gathering all these conditions, it is obvious that this tire would have exploded sooner or later as it happened so many times previously, and one cannot say it was unpredictable !

......also,............the engine was shut down immediately and the gear wasn't raised----definitely caused by the piece of metal----vive la France.

Please keep your comments toward France for yourself, I wonder how you would have handled the situation... (sorry, I forgot how good glider pilots you are on the other side of the channel...). Just read the report before refering to shut down and gear retraction.

So why is nobody from CDG airport facing trial? After all it was their contaminated runway that caused the incident?

Shell Management:

Do you (or does anyone) know if anyone has been successfully prosecuted under the Corporate Manslaughter Act?

We have the "Westray Law" in Canada, named after the mine in which an explosion killed 26 miners. The owners of the mine were forewarned about the risk potential but ignored the information.

We can only assume that commercial reasons were at the heart of such a corporate decision. I wonder if such legislation means anything to CEOs who are more interested in share price and their bonuses than employees.

WindSheer
Paris is in France, really?
Seriously the point is that this is a trend that is not just a feature of the Napoleonic code.

PJ2
The act came into force on 8 April 2008 - so not yet, but is a subject that has grasped the attention of many companies doing business in the UK, though perhaps not as many airlines but as the recent GSM prosecution shows even the CAA are talking tough.

This may result in reporting culture issues though.