A French appeals court has cleared US airline Continental of criminal blame for the July 2000 crash of a Concorde jet shortly after take-off from Paris.
Full story here:
By: J Boyle - 22nd December 2012 at 19:03
Didn’t the judge in her verdict question Concorde’s airwothness and say something to the effect that its Permit to Fly should have been revoked because of the tire/fuel tank issues?
By: Matt-100 - 29th November 2012 at 22:41
Whilst I agree that it’s unacceptable for a modern airliner to crash due to a 10 inch strip of metal. AF are ultimately responsible for the crash.
The AF crew over-estimated the amount of fuel they’d consume on the journey to the runway. Meaning the aircraft was over-weight by more than a ton by the time they reached the runway.
During the taxi, the AF crew decided to cross-feed more fuel into the no. 5 tank. However, they once again miscalculated and transferred too much fuel. Meaning the aircraft was heavily unbalanced to the port side.
Finally, AF engineers had failed to install a legally required bogie ‘spacer’ for Concorde’s wheels. The spacer is a specially designed metal guard that keeps the wheels straight during take-off (Concorde had a tendency to veer to one side at high speeds). The lack of spacer would have worsened the already difficult to control aircraft, and may have been a reason why the flight never reached V1.
All three three errors are gross negligences on Air France’s part, the flight may not have crashed if either one of the errors had been eradicated.
By: J Boyle - 29th November 2012 at 18:51
If something fell off a Continental aircraft, then there is some fault there.
But what about the airport’s responsibility to keep runways clear of foreign objects?
But in reality, it comes down to the design of the Concorde.
If a car were on the road with a fuel tank that could be ruptured by road debris, it would have been recalled or taken off the market until fixes were made.
I undestand the vunerablilty was well known and similar (but obviously less serious) events had happened in the past.
By: Matt-100 - 29th November 2012 at 18:25
Good, Continental should never have been blamed.
It’s just CDG and AF finding a scapegoat for their own wrong doings. Although, as it happens UA still has to pay AF $1.2 million for damages to the company’s public image.
If the strip of metal fell of the DC-10 due to Continental’s maintenance negligence, then fine – but that’s not the case here.
The fines are mounting for AF, on the other hand. $15 million for the Concorde crash plus a minimum fine of 50 million euros for flight 447.
Sign In
November 29, 2012 at 4:15 pm