Continental 'responsible' for Concorde crash in 2000

Hey guys, I have 3 young daughters and when I ask them who has done the dirty, they normally all point to each other.
Must be human nature and I think we all do that at least some of the time.

For those who read the article all the way to the end, EADS as maker of the plane is also condemned and made at least partly responsible for compensation. Also a specific mechanic was condemned for the faulty repair job.

rgds
EC

What disgusts me is that it’s always about who’s to blame and “it wasn’t us” etc. They couldn’t care less about the poor 113 people who lost their lives. They are only bothered about them not being seen as responsible. They come out with these “our sympathies go to the families” etc. Load of tosh – they are just reading from a sheet and feel absolutely nothing of the sort. Disgusting.

A perfect analogy is the scene in Fawlty Towers where Basil Fawlty is jumping up and down and crying “oh joy oh joy” over the dead guest because he’s just realised the death was not due to his out of date kippers.

As is usual, there is more than one link in the chain of events that lead to this terrible disaster. Should Continental face action for the piece of metal leaving that DC10? No question in my mind that they should. As is blatantly obvious to anyone with a shred of common sense, there is definitely a mix of culpability on the part of Air France, ADP and I feel the BEA. Who else can the public at large, French or otherwise, trust for an accurate and fair assessment of this tragedy and others like it. I really do think that there should be a thorough investigation of how the BEA carried out its duties and its verdict be made public, with those being found responsible for any ‘covering up’ or involvement with vested interests held accountable. None of the parties involved in this are guilt free. A right and proper investigation is the very least that that the victims and their families deserve.

London: Continental Airlines criticised Monday’s “absurd” verdict by a French court which fined the carrier over the 2000 Concorde crash in which 113 people died, and confirmed it would appeal.

The US airline said the court ruling was aimed at shifting blame away from Air France and French aviation authorities.

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/concorde-verdict-absurd-says-continental-airlines-70981?cp

As has been said above this is an entirely predictable result. I hadn’t known about the issues over the overloading and the missing spacer until I watched Concorde’s Final Flight on C4 back in July. Something that’s always stuck in my mind was the fact that Concorde barely missed a 747 incidentally with Jacques Chirac on board, that had been waiting to cross the runway. I got the impression that the filmakers were hinting that when Capt. Marti realised he was going to hit the plane he carried out the take off to avoid a greater disaster. Could that have been a factor or was he committed to take off at that point?

As for Continental what legal options do they have now?

Perhaps the cause of the accident lay in both in the stray piece of metal and the fact that Concorde should prove so vulnerable to stray pieces of metal?:confused:
Generally speaking, most other airliner types hardly ever catch fire or explode upon contact with a piece of metal lying on the runway (except for a tyre or two)? After all, Concorde has had a history of difficulties when taking off and landing.

Maybe the families of the passengers should sue the makers of Concorde and Air france of the Concorde for producing such a “possibly flawed” aircraft. Other companies have been sued for a lot less – ask Audi, Toyota or McDonalds.

Or perhaps the accident lay in the fact that the aircraft wheel assembly was missassembled, the aircraft was grossly over weight and taking off with the wind behind it, – Nope that would be air frances responsibility

Or that in having to do a greatly extended take of run began its roll on a very poor surface – Nope that would be the airfields responsibility (possibly).

Or how about the generally poor standard of air frances maintenance (alleged) again not a factor.

How about the fact that air france failed to reinforce their wings, despite BA having a similar incident years ago and instigating just that precaution, and the continued to use remoulds something BA did not do on Concorde.

How about crew error ie shutting down of engines (+ afformentioned overloading).

Nope its all down to that bit of metal, flying in the face of all eyewitness statements and evidence that the aircraft was in trouble (and on fire according to some witnesses) well before it ever hit that piece of debris.

Excuse the rant I am livid with the (not unexpected) result – i am not normally one for conspiracy theories but in this instance i see nothing but a cover up / whitewash to protect air france.

thank god for that piece of debris eh, what would they have done without it.

As an aside, why so leniant a sentence, bcause they darent actually try to jail him methinks.
Good luck to his appeal I say.

The court ruled that the crash was caused by a piece of metal left on the runway after falling from a Continental jet. Investigators said this caused a tyre-burst in the Concorde, which in turn ruptured a fuel tank.

Perhaps the cause of the accident lay in both in the stray piece of metal and the fact that Concorde should prove so vulnerable to stray pieces of metal?:confused:
Generally speaking, most other airliner types hardly ever catch fire or explode upon contact with a piece of metal lying on the runway (except for a tyre or two)? After all, Concorde has had a history of difficulties when taking off and landing.

Maybe the families of the passengers should sue the makers of Concorde and Air france of the Concorde for producing such a “possibly flawed” aircraft. Other companies have been sued for a lot less – ask Audi, Toyota or McDonalds.

Did anyone expect a French court to find Air France or ADP guilty?

Nope!

Did anyone really expect anything else?

This entire investigation has been flawed from the get go. They’re focused entirely on that metal strip literally since the wreckage was still smoldering!

Unfortunately true…:(

surprise surprise where’s that tin of white emulsion
Cover up of the century

Did anyone expect a French court to find Air France or ADP guilty?

It’s sad when all that’s been sought is a scapegoat

It’s sad when all that’s been sought is a scapegoat.

Not much use as the real causes haven’t been clearly identified, and the overall result is that Concorde is no more.

Did anyone really expect anything else?

This entire investigation has been flawed from the get go. They’re focused entirely on that metal strip literally since the wreckage was still smoldering!