This reminds me of the Turkish DC10 cargo door crash in Paris in 1974.

Despite a known technical problem with the cargo door and paperwork showing it had been modified (when it fact it hadn't) the French media put the blame and responsibility for the accident on the Algerian baggage handler who closed the door.

This Concorde investigation also seems to put the blame in the wrong arena.

I have just read Hi Lok's post and it seems to me to be yet another post in a long line that assume that aviation is above the law. Of course it's not and quite rightly so.
I have read the arguments that no blame should be attributed so that incidents are reported and aviation safety can therefore be improved and I agree with that.
In this case (and any other major aviation incident) this line of reasoning fails on many levels.
For example
The incident is in the public domain.
The catastrophic nature of the incident.
Surely the point of a no blame reporting culture is to avoid incidents such as this one. Therefore in this case a different response is required.

To say that the engineer is the subject of a witch hunt is unwise and if taken to it's logical conclussion would mean that every person in front of a court of law is subject to a witch hunt. I can also accept that he may have had many sleepness nights over the outcome of this trial yet this does not mean that it's unfair to bring a case against him.

Regards
Nick

No am not surprised that some posters may have some legal knowledge. In fact I have extensive experience of the civil legal system in England and Wales, I have stated that to back up the following:
That it's unwise to draw conclusions about one legal system when your experience is based on another.
Am also of the view that it's foolish to criticize any legal proceedings without careful study of those proceedings.
Regards
Nick

Nick, I tend to agree and to be honest don't really know IF that person was negligent ? Obviously it has been proven that he was.
Having vast structural repair experience and seeing fatigue and repairs after time it could happen to any aircraft.

BUT I do agree with you and yes we are all accountable and sometimes these things remind us what we actually do.

Again haven't read the in depth report and just think that an Airline has been named (Not the CEO or managers) and the engineer has.

Thanks, Hi Lok

Prosecution indeed went beyond the individual technician. From an older news article (one of many with same details though):

Interestingly, nowhere in anything I've read have I seen anything from Continental or their lawyers disputing that the repair was illegitimate or that the tyre was destoryed by running over the part. Their sole reported defence seems to have been that the Concord was on fire before it hit the part, which seems to be based on purely eye-witness evidence, not physical (the physical evidence reported all seems to show the tyre burst as the start of the problems). May just be me, but that seems to be a bit of a flimsy defence.

Also, it looks like although it was Continental and agents who got hit by fines etc., the court apportioned damages split between Continental and EADS (mfr. - and partly French). So they've decided Continental were partly responsible but not solely.

Having just read your last post Hi Lok am glad that you agree with me that aviation is not above the law.
I apologise for mentioning you personally but in mitigation I would add that I inadvertentally assumed that your first post was another in the long line of posts condemning this verdict out of hand.
Regards
Nick

I wonder what would have happened if instead of the prev A/C had NOT BEEN an American airline but it was a French airline or even Air France ??? :E:E:E

<<I seem to recall at LHR ground vehicles performing visual inspections of the runway from time to time.>>

Well, of course, runway inspections took place several times each day, but none specifically prior to a Concorde movement. Whilst I was there, the only flights which enjoyed such treatment were those carrying the US President. Concorde was just another aeroplane.

Hi Spit
Am wondering if your last statement is just another way of saying that this verdict is corrupt?
Regards
Nick

No problem. I just feel that sometimes when or if things go wrong for engineers all around you step backwards. It would be interesting to know IF the engineer had legal representation form the airline, I would imagine he did? Still don't know why they need to name that guy?

No worries about naming me though :hmm:

Hi Lok

"Homicide involontaire" (the charge actually brought) should not be too difficult a concept to grasp even if it is French.

The clue is in the "involontaire" part.

If you think that means you might try looking up "involontaire" in a dictionary. If you don't have a French one to hand, look up "involontary"

French hypocrisy
 

I witnessed the crash from my hotel room at the Copthorne, Roissy. I was flying for AF at the time, as a member of a 6-month wet-lease contract. AF were a shambles to work with, but that is not relevant.

The CDG airport taxiways were oftened contaminated with dirt and rubbish; the runways appeared no better when we were at slow speed. NO runway inspections were evident before the accident. The day after, the inspections STARTED. Try getting the French responsibles to investigating or admitting to this. Not a chance. A nation of cowards and liars, I am afraid, with little honour to their name, and little sense of shame.. My personal indictment covers French aviation, and this shameful verdict is in perfect fitting with the French way.

NorodnikNo, we do not all know that.

Do not presume to speak for others.

What exactly is your level of familiarity with French judicial process?

Wether the legal system is French, British or American, is frankly irrelevant. The point is, it is all about the LAW, very little to do with actual JUSTICE, and absolutely bu@@er all about basic COMMON SENSE.

How long before the entire Western World finally chokes to death on it's own legal systems?

Is Rolls Royce familiar with French Jurisprudence? Re: Airbus? What did the Engine maker know and when did they know it? Thread selection has become problematic, I see a Fraud prosecution, French style, relative to QF32? Marque damage?

The typical Brit in the street assumes the judiciary is above political interference.

The typical français in the street accepts the judiciary can be influenced by politicians.

Whilst that might not suprise, it isn't relevant to the accident. The continental flight took off only a few minutes before Concorde, so unless they were inspecting between every departure it wouldn't have helped (see previous posts where others have confirmed that they didn't do that elsewhere, e.g. LHR).

It was bad luck for everyone that the continental flight happened to be followed by a plane that takes off unusally fast, making the consequences of tyre burst much worse. Had it been any other plane, I think we'd still be looking at a burst tyre, but not a hull loss with 100+ dead. Continental (had the debris been found) might still have been in the dock for breaking the rules, but not for manslaughter.

I don't think racism is the issue. In view of the history Roy's comments are not unfair.

I think Roy's comments are not out of line at all, given the moment and the idiocy afoot in France. Strong, not out of line.

Speaking of the idiocy
 

As Long as We're Bashing the French...

Taj Mahal visit by Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni causes anger and panic - Telegraph

I think the problem is an attitude which has been pervasive for many years in France.

Eisenhower had his problems with DeGaulle in WWII. Friends of mine just returned from a visit to France and tell me they loved everything about it except the French.