I think more likely it's an attitude that's been pervasive in the Daily Telegraph for years. Do you think for one minute that if Mr President and Michelle had wanted to visit the Taj on his recent trip to India it wouldn't have been similarly cleared, causing similar "anger and panic"?

...not exactly breaking news, so did Churchill and if you know your French history you'll know DeGaulle wasn't popular with a a significant portion of the French population, both during and after WWII....

Umm, two questions, did they venture beyond the tourist traps and can they speak French?

Personally I think there are 3 issues that come to mind when looking at the "verdict"....

1) The witnesses to the possibility of a fire before the Concorde encountered the titanium strip are the on duty fire fighting crew at the airport. So not only do you have multiple witnesses but they would qualify as testifying in an area of professional expertise.

2) As mentioned there have been multiple instances of tire failure causing perforation to the fuel tanks prior to this incident (6 I believe).

3) The cause of the fire is not necessarily the same as the tire failure. Even if we discount the eyewitness testimony some combination of tire failure and an another event is needed to cause the actual fire. It is my understanding that the Concorde took out multiple runway lights during its takeoff run and that the "tracking" problems were not specific to the tire failure.

This leaves the distinct possibility that the final "hole in the cheese" was in fact the missing spacer or other technical deficiency that caused the plane to strike the runway lighting....

This is all separate from the obvious common sense that a plane with a demonstrated history of potentially catastrophic damage due to tire failure needed not only design modification but common sense safe guards like runway inspections prior to take off.

Hazards of FOD on runways
 

All aviators and all those in aviation must take FOD hazards very seriously. At the high speeds the airliners can sustain lethal damage to the undercarriage and the control surfaces when impacted by FOD. Any small pieces of material sucked into engines running at high rpms are going to be catastrophic. I am also amazed at the laisse faire attitudes when aircrafts have engine pod contacts with the runway or tailstrikes.....the cursory inspections done by the safety vehicles can easily miss tiny metal pieces that come off on impact.

Bear
I wonder if you would be kind enough to expand on your comment "given the moment and the idiocy afoot in France"
Regards
Nick

I remember at the time of the crash a Captain whilst doing his walkaround at CDG came back to the UK with a sick bag that contained 36 metal items of litter (or FOD) which he had found. The next day having done another walkaround on different apron at CDG he had collected 38 items.
As these flights were being conducted for AF the items were photographed and emailed to AF, allegedly so that they could raise this issue at CDG's monthly safety meetings. Nothing was ever heard again by way of feedback.
For someone to be found guilty of a criminal offence the evidence should show guilt beyond reasonable doubt. How was it proven that that particular piece of titanium was the cause of the burst tyre? Given that the runway at CDG was usually only inspected/swept once early in the morning and again late in the day, how can anyone say there was not another piece of metal which caused it (bearing in mind the exceptional amount of FOD that was clearly everywhere on the apron) or that the tyre simply shredded itself (assuming this was the sole cause of the fire/failure)?
A runway is not a public road but owned and controlled by the Airport Authority. Airlines must pay to use it.The Authorities therefore owe a duty of care to ensure that it is not dangerous to operate off it.I would argue that only two such inspections comes nowhere near this requirement.
It would appear that this prosecution gets an awful lot of people off the hook, including the airport, AF, ATC, the manufacturers, the DGAC and the crew.

wiggy
 

Read the article!

As I understand it the shape of the titanium strip matches the profile of the cut in the burst tyre. Therefore it may well be reasonable to assume that this strip caused the tyre burst.
Regards
Nick

Nick

"Heat of the moment"

idiocy: criminal trial? not by any acceptable standard.

"The purpose of this investigation is not to assign fault, but to identify.....etc."

Criminalizing this accident is a farce, imo.

cheers bear

As a matter of personal interest who was responsible for the runway inspections at CDG at the time of the incident?
Has there been an improvement in the FOD situation airside since the incident?

Engine & tail scrapes
 

It is imperative that pilots not only log in onto their maintenance log these misadventures BUT REPORT TO ATC ASAP so that runway inspection can be done! Neglecting to do so is CRIMINAL!

icarus5 - even the discovery documentaries about this crash show enough details to show what happened with respect to the strip found. The form and shape of the titanium strip found match exactly the tyre cut pattern on the burst tyre for a very large 70lb chunk of rubber that also matched the indentation on the wing.. They put the strip up against the rubber and it followed it exactly. That evidence is pretty clear in that regard.

This was not normal FOD - it was a roughly cut, jagged extremely stiff chunk of titanium instead of a properly manufactured aluminium strip. It was sharp and hard enough to slice a pretty substantial aircraft tyre on contact, where as the specification strip would have been crushed by the tyre.

Like any disaster, there is more than one aspect that contributes to the end result, but this strip is a major factor and in my view the critical one. Dismissing it and the raft of physical evidence relating to it is not rational. The legal and blame games are another matter, but don't just dismiss a critical fact because it disagrees with a jingoistic view of the matter.

Bear
Thanks for your prompt reply.
Regards
Nick

How on Earth were the pilots to know that a strip of titanium had come off their aircraft?

It's just the same as repairing a wing item with Speedtape, you'd never knew it had come off. Can you really assign blame for that?

ECC - I don't think anyone is blaming the Continental pilots. The maintenance worker who made and applied the strip and airline management who approved its use are the ones under charges.

Have a look at the Sunny Boyle post a few up.

Titanium focus misses the point
 

The wrong question appeared to be asked here. The simple question to ask is whether a plane ought to be able to survive running over a piece of metal on the runway of that type and size. I don't think it reasonable to assume the runway is clear of debris like this.

The info must be around somewhere, and I haven't found it... but I have yet to see the dimensions of the titanium strip, and any pictures of the Concorde tyre that came into contact with the strip.
The information I have gleaned, is that the investigators report that the strip profile matched a massive slash in the tyre, and was undoubtedly the item responsible for the blowout.

As always, there is never one exact, precisely-responsible cause, for a disaster. It's always an escalating chain of events, with an amazing line up of those events.

One has to question how Concorde survived numerous (figures range from 57 to 65) previous tyre burst events.. yet this particular one was so catastrophic. Surely Concorde blew tyres previously, fully loaded, on TO? ... yet survived to continue flying?
Was it that the titanium strip provided a far more EXPLOSIVE burst, than a regular tyre burst, caused by overheat, overload/other factors?

I have no doubt the tyre burst event was THE crucial factor in the crash. To my mind, runway checks for debris, must be an equivalent factor to Continental negligence, that must also occupy a high level of responsibilty for the crash.

If the titanium strip was found, prior to the Concorde departure, it's reasonably obvious that the Concorde would have flown. Thus, in my view, there has to be equal responsibility shared between Continental and CDG management for the disaster.

Was this verdict ever in question? I'm sure I, and many others predicted this years ago. French law is obviously a joke..on the bright side..if Continental could hold out for a few months, the fine will become minimal as the Euro plummets :}

On the other hand..Poor Mr Taylor..stitched up..there must be some Air France Engineers shifting uncomfortably in their beds tonight

Shame!!:=

I notice that accusations of 'French justice' have reared their ugly heads already as if the French somehow don't adhere to 'proper' standards of justice. Continental themselves are peddling that line though they didn't dispute the negligence charges. However, given the evidence, one finds it difficult to see how the French court could have ruled any other way. I seriously doubt any court in any country with a reasonable system of justice would have ignored the evidence presented.
The question that interests me is whether the court should have been involved in the first place. No blame reporting certainly leads to the truth coming out quicker but is it appropriate in a case where lives are lost? I put this as a question for serious consideration - shouldn't a seriously negligent (if that proves to be the case) individual or organisation be punished for their casual attitude to important matters? No blame can lead to no responsibility which is not where we want to go. In fact the unedifying thing about this business is not the conduct of the court which was exemplary but the efforts of all those involved to deny or mitigate their responsibility in this issue (and this includes the French participants as well as the Americans).

Loose bogie
 

All the info "onetrack" needs is in the BEA accident report. Google it.
Concerning the missing spacer the accident report clearly illustrates it and clearly shows how omission of the spacer caused the MLG bogie to be misaligned. It seems to me that without the loose bogie Concorde would have followed a different path along the runway and would not have hit the debris!

Hi,

The epitaph that can be read on the tomb of the Concorde

I was born disabled with a delicate landing gear ..
The doctors could do nothing .. and this failure has caused my death and that of those I carried :uhoh:

Would anyone hazard an opinion that, had this accident not occurred, Concorde might still be flying?

Titanium strip

http://www.1001crash.com/latest/2000/concorde/lame.jpg

Tyre remains

http://www.concordesst.com/accident/...s/ligne180.jpg

CONCORDE SST : Accident Report

SLFinAZ

I don't doubt the expertise of the witnesses, although it is well known that memory is imprecise and can shift subject to "expectations". Might they have conflated their memory of seeing reheat with the fire they subsequently saw?

If the aircraft was on fire prior to the tyre burst, what might have caused it? Were there any indications of fire on the FDR prior to hitting the strip?

Concorde doomed
 

There is no way that Concorde could have continued in service any longer than it did. Quite apart from economics and the Paris crash it could not comply with aging wire rules.
It's widely overlooked that after Concorde returned to service, on 13 June 2003 a BA Concorde had an undetected fuel fire! Plane was flying LHR to JFK when a fuel gauge failed. Defect persisted as an allowable deferred defect for 3 more flights until investigation on 23 June belatedly found that aircraft had suffered in-flight fire. Fuel had leaked into wing to body fairing and been ignited by chaffed, shorting wire. Miraculously the fire self extinguished.
AAIB Report at http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_029047.pdf gives details and has pictures showing extent of undetected fire damage.
That fright was the true end of Concorde because the cost of checking and refurbishing wires would have been prohibitive.

Faulty Fasteners, Rough Tarmac
 

Perhaps the court could have had some regard for the roughness of the French tarmac/runway that caused the titanium strip to come off.

After all, it had remained in place for many hours after it was attached.
And perhaps the fasteners were faulty and failed early. Not the problem of the engineer who applied the strip.

FN

You're kidding..........right?

I really do recommend to anyone wishing to comment on the details of the accident that they read the report, which has been available on the BEA WWW site for nine years now. Before you write your opinions, please!

I am surprised to find people admitting that the word "unprecedented" makes no sense to them. Dictionaries are available on the WWW.

I have it on authority that none of the tire-burst incidents, which are a common-enough occurrence and obviously were explicitly considered during design and test, had shown any problem with the lower wing skin. It was not penetrated in any of them. This includes the Washington Dulles incident. [Edit on 13.12.2010: This is incorrect. As stated by others, the lower skin was penetrated in 6 previous incidents.] Indeed, I don't believe it was penetrated from the outside in the Gonesse accident either. It was penetrated from the inside, by a shock wave in the liquid fuel punching out a roughly 32cm-square portion of the tank wall/skin. Such effects were known to the military through battle damage, but knowledge had not made it into civil aviation. Associates of the BEA were able to create a comparable effect using a 4.5kg rubber chunk travelling obliquely (apparently round about 30° is optimal) at about 140 m/s. That is somewhat over 300 mph and is thought to be representative of what might be attained by a cleanly cut chunk of rubber of the size found amongst the debris expelled by the tire under circumstances of takeoff.

The BEA performed experiments on Concorde tires and titanium strips to validate the clean-cutting mechanism observed on the recovered debris. It is in the report, with pictures to satisfy every taste. It is titanium that does it, not other metals or alloys.

Such an event has never happened before or since in civil aviation. In 105 years of it. Indeed, I don't know of another occasion when an aircraft tire has been inadvertently cut by a titanium strip during normal operations.

Is it now more clear why the word "unprecedented" is suitable?

ozaub, the reason Concorde flights stopped is that the manufacturer was unwilling to continue supporting the aircraft. This is all known history. BA wouldn't have stopped on their own. They had just paid to refurbish their entire fleet with tank liners.

PBL

ozaub, can you point to a report on this? All seems a bit unlikely to me.

@sitigeltfel

To a degree, yes. Just extending the Cause and Effect already applied in this legal case.

FN

IMO debris like this is pretty much certain to burst a tyre if it is run over, and I doubt you could design a tyre that could survive it.

Other types have had hull losses due to tyre burst on takeoff, and I think it is likely that more (if not most) are actually vulnerable given the right amount of bad luck.

Even if you manage to engineer out (in theory) all directly fatal consequences of a tyre burst, you still have the issue of a burst at or near V1 leading to a high speed RTO with all the risk that entails. Sure, in that case we can all look at it afterwards with benefit of an armchair and hindsight and say "bad RTO decision" and put it down to pilot error, but pilots shouldn't really be having to cope with titanium caltraps falling off the plane in front.

Debris like this is always going to be potentially lethal and should not be on the runway, or bodged onto a plane so that it can fall onto the runway.

Well to achieve 100% safety you would have to perform a check before every take off.
That would mean a take every what, about 10 mins? Long waiting line at the holding point me think.

You think the Euro will go the way the dollar did?;)

Unless my memory has been playing tricks,I was under the impression the Air France Concord that crashed had arrived with a Fuel Pump problem that had meant the Reheat control on one engine could not be controlled properly.I was actually operating an Aeropostale route at the time and was South Side at De Gaulle,but in the Altaea Hotel when it happened.The talk was that the Aircraft had arrived with the Fuel or ?Pump problem,but was required to be dispatched again later that afternoon.As a result the line maintenance apparently changed the problem items,but did NOT move the aircraft over to the area east of the Carrousel,near I think the Sierra Parking ,where full bore runs can be done-there are JBDs there for that purpose as I remember.The was no time to move the aircraft to that point to do full bore runs,as it would mean a delay on the departure slot,so as I was lead to believe, checks were only done with idle ground runs,done presumably on stand!?Furthermore several aircraft reported an engine afterburner fire on the immediate part of the take off run,so there would have been a likely accident before running over the debris,that snowballed the problem into the catastrophe that occurred.With Le Bourget just a short distance away with a runway capable for the aircraft to make an emmergency landing,why a small bank was not made to effect such an emmergency landing,we will never know.BUT the talk at the time was one of incredulity that nothing was done by the Crew or Air Traffic to try to stop the Aircraft as it must have been before V1 that the other pilots reported the Fire from one engine,or was it??I accept that after V1 other issues take precedence and that the Fire has to be taken into the air,but I suggest this would not have happened at other large International Airports.

Multiple eyewitnesses with relevant military experience saw TWA800 get hit by a missile. Guess that must be another corrupt French cover-up inquiry ? :}

Reality is eyewitness evidence in events like this (matter of seconds) is notoriously unreliable and you should be looking for physical evidence to back it up, or rule it out. No physical evidence backs the earlier fire theory.

But not to the same catastrophic extent. There have also been incidents on other aircraft...

The problems all started at the tyre failure. If you think the missing spacer caused the aircraft to go off track, then you need to show a reason why it happened when it did on this flight. The aircraft had already flown without the spacer, without incident. What was different ? The tyre burst. Causitive or massively improbable coincidence ?

So you think runways should be inspected every time before, say, a Lear 60 takes off ?

Once while playing golf in Singapore at the Laguna National Golf and Country Club, which is right under the flight arrival or departure for one of the runway's, on the Masters Course on hole 2, I found on the green a piece of metal. It had a serial number on it and the only way it got there was by falling of an aircraft. Being in the Airside operations (runway lighting etc) I called Changi and informed them, put on hold, and then told they would call my mobile back. They did, I told then the serial number (which was in full) and then continued my golf game. By this time my putting was off, my drive ruined and my concentration gone. Should I blame Boeing or Airbus for this happening? If I was French, why not, it's their fault. I feel they (the French) have just simply lost the plot. Guess I’m not French huh. In Future could all aircraft shedding parts please do so over Batam Island like Qantas who has the courtesy to do this, that way my golf will improve!

Keep swinging

Paul

Paulftw
If you want to propose that the French have "simply lost the plot" then at least get your facts straight. The titanium strip should not have been fitted to the DC10. In fact the part should have been aluminium which being a lot softer might well have not cut the tyre.
Enjoy your golf
Nick

I appreciate the suggested use of a dictionary but I am well aware of the usual definition of the word 'unprecedented'.

The truth is that a tyre blow out (of which there were 65 over the life of the Concorde) had become an all too familiar event. It seems specious to argue that an explosive blowout could not have been foreseen and the risk analysis undertaken to look at the likely scenario/s that might and finally did transpire. (I appreciate the detailed analysis in your post).

There had been sufficient previous evidence of the likelihood of damage for this event, violent as it was, not to be regarded as 'unprecedented'.

The fact that it was caused by titanium and not a mechanic's screw driver or a sharp piece of swarf or even a common or garden nail is ultimately irrelevent to the fact there was a definable risk of puncture on a runway (and this risk is increased on a runway that is is not cleared and surveyed regularly).

Some punctures certainly are worse than others given factors like speed, size of the object etc. but to say that contact with a sharp object and consequent tyre destruction of this magnitude could not have been foreseen just pushes the boundaries of credibility.

What was unprecdented was that this particular blowout (whatever the cause) caused the aircraft to crash which should not have been possible!

Still, like the French lawyers, we are tilting at windmills. The sad fact is that the accident did occur, people still grieve and Concorde is gone.

Why did BA do that ?


hmmmmmm

Hi,

A little of topic (but is about money .. so not too much far from one of the trial objective :) )

Sure he will .. after the bankrupt of Portugal and Spain (Spain will be the big bail out too far !)

It does happen to be the consensus view of everyone I know working in and around the aircraft at the time, as well as that of the investigators, as I understand it.

PBL