Concorde criminal trial to proceed

8 years ago today, on July 25, 2000, an Air France Aérospatiale Concorde crashed on takeoff from Paris, France. All 109 passengers and crew aboard, along with 5 people on the ground, were killed.
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/afsst/2.shtml
Sadly the Concorde will never fly again and any investigation will not reverse this decision.
Let’s remember the Concorde with pride and pay our respects to the dead in that crash

A sad anniversary…

Today is the 8th anniversary of the Gonesse disaster – Concorde

8 years ago today, on July 25, 2000, an Air France Aérospatiale Concorde crashed on takeoff from Paris, France. All 109 passengers and crew aboard, along with 5 people on the ground, were killed.
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/afsst/2.shtml
Sadly the Concorde will never fly again and any investigation will not reverse this decision.
Let’s remember the Concorde with pride and pay our respects to the dead in that crash

The Froggies are past masters at passing the buck

Remember when you point a finger there are 3 others pointing back at you.

Brill – that should go down in a book of quotes!

Bri:D

Typical French escapegoatism. (Is that even a word?)

I still have my doubts about whether it was indeed that famous metal strip that brought concorde down. That metal spacer the mechanic left out when reassembling the LMLG would have allowed the wheel and tyre to castor and at the high speeds Concorde reached on the runway, could well have caused the fatal blowout. Indeed, an airport Fireman testified to witnessing flames from concorde 5 seconds before it ran over the famous strip of metal.
Yet both these nuggets of info, plus the evident missing spacer on the burnt out LMGL of the crashed concorde, have been conveniently forgotten. The runway was instantly relaid to remove any evidence of the tyre scrubbing along as the wheel castored.

It’s Habsheim all over again. They blamed the pilot for that one.

What about the mechanic who forgot to put a spacer back on the u/c – oh wait he is french so must be innocent. What about Air France themselves for operating an aircraft that had already had a similar incident a few years before which led BA to strengthen their tanks but not AF.

Remember when you point a finger there are 3 others pointing back at you.

It is unlikely that any busy airport could ever keep to any schedules (they would be hours late after just one day) if a check or sweep of all runways was necessary between take offs and landings of every aircraft.

Since weather conditions deteriorate frequently even video cameras on either side of a runway could not guarantee to pick up everything but may be a very expensive but necessary thing in the future. Possibly cheaper than a visual check after each aircraft uses a runway.

Continental Airlines more-so being American should respect the phenomenal lawsuit/s they would face in America if this had happened over there and I quote today’s Daily Telegraph :“The American airline and two of its employees, John Taylor, a mechanic, and Stanley Ford, the chief of maintenance, are being held responsible for the fitting of the non-standard metal strip”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/2240530/Five-to-stand-trial-over-Concorde-crash.html

Cutting corners is a trait if adopted ends up being no respecter of life.

It was a sad day and I have driven past Gonesse the site of the AF crash and even in 2003 it was still a sad spectacle.

What about the mechanic who forgot to put a spacer back on the u/c – oh wait he is french so must be innocent. What about Air France themselves for operating an aircraft that had already had a similar incident a few years before which led BA to strengthen their tanks but not AF.

Remember when you point a finger there are 3 others pointing back at you.

Great minds think alike…

Seems Kev 35 has much the same thoughts as me, but was quicker on the posting…

And J.Boyle has perhaps read my mind too…:diablo:

Paul F

Can anyone enlighten me….?

Can anyone explain to me what purpose this trial will serve – other than providing an income for any number of lawyers/legal experts etc?

And why not prosecute someone at the airport for not running more frequent runway debris checks on the day of the accident- surely the airport was responsible for provision of a “safe” (including debris-free) runway? Had the metal strip not been there then the accident might not have happened as the tyre might not have failed. Surely it all boils down to the assessment of risk. The frequency of runway FOD/debris checks was presumably deemed “adequate” at the time, based on the number of incidents attributed to FOD damage on takeoff from that airport/runway – a “risk-based judgement”.

A strip made of aluminium may have been “less likely” to cause a similar puncture/deflation/burst, but there is no certainty it would have prevented the same outcome. Another “risk-based” judgement/decision. The engineer might have been expected to notice the strip was made of an inappropriate material and query the matter – or he might not, another “judgement” decision with associated “risk”.

Following similar logic, given that no previous fatalities had ocurred on any previous flight by a Concorde as a result of tyre burst on takeoff, then the surely risks of the accident happening must have been deemed “acceptable”? There was (IIRC) at least one earlier case of a Concorde wing having been punctured by tyre debris, but no fatalities had resulted. I assume the design had been assessed a number of times before and after that earlier incident and deemed safe on the basis of acceptable “risk”. So, is there really a case for the design authority holder to answer – statistically the data seems to suggest that the design was not fatally defective under “most” circumstances, including one earlier tyre burst that punctured the wing?

I would have no issue with the outcome of the accident being a review of procedures (in areas of aviation maintenance and aviation design development), but does it really take a risk of prosecution to achieve that sort of review? If things have not changed since the accident, then yes, there probably is a case to answer, but how can anyone be prosecuted on the basis of hindsight so long after the event?

Every time I fly in any type of commercial airliner I know I am taking a risk – hopefully it’s a very very small risk, but it’s still a risk. Yes I rely on the expertise of the crew, the engineers, the aircraft designers, and the licensing authorities, but ultimately I choose/agree to take that risk, no-one forces me to do so. If I cannot accept that risk then I should not fly.

It seems that people are no longer willing to accept any responsibility for their own risk-taking these days, so someone has to be seen to take the blame if that million-to-one chain of events happens and thinsg go wrong. I accept there is no excuse for negligence – but probability- and risk- based judgements will rarely be “black and white”, so in the absence of any irrefutable evidence of gross negligence what purpose does a trial serve?

How long before we see disclaimers on airline tickets….”In the event of an accident we accept no responsibility….”?
Paul F

Going after Continental is another example of French aviation accident investigation…
blame everyone but the French…

Would the airport as a corporate entity not also have a duty of care to ensure that the runway was clear of foreign objects? Or is that just a once or twice a day thing?

I can perhaps see a case against the manufacturer regarding the fuel tanks but going for someone from Continental seems a bit over the top?

Regards,

kev35