Concorde trial verdict

Subject: Concorde trial verdict
From: Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 06:04 AM

A French court has just found the American airline Continental guilty of csusing the 2000 Concorde crash in Paris. A mechanic whose negligence had cause the crash (a piece of metal from a DC-10 he was been repairing fell off and caused the damage that led to the crash) was given a 15-month suspended sentence. His boss was acquited. The airline was fined $175,000.

Pretty soft result.

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: alanabit
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 07:59 AM

This will soon have to go beneath the line!

I do not know that I need to have an opinion on this one Chris. I think it is a pretty hard one to get right. On the face of it, it looks like a minor error, which had catastrophic consequences. It may be that the court felt that it was more important to make the airline tighten up its working practices than to mete out exemplary punishment. Because a terrible disaster happened, we do not have to assume that someone was either negligent or callous.

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: G-Force
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 09:29 AM

So the (French of course) airport workers who are supposed to scan the runway for debris are not at fault in any way. Result for the French.

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 12:12 PM

"Welder John Taylor was given a 15-month suspended prison sentence for having gone against industry norms and used titanium to forge the piece that dropped off the plane."

Titanium is very hard to weld properly. And I'm sure it is also very hard to constantly scan runways for small items on a busy airport.

Since a company IS responsible for an employee's carelessness, I guess that verdict was about as close to 'fair' as possible.

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: gnu
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 12:28 PM

"The Houston-based airline was ordered to pay Air France €1.08 million ($1.43 million) for damaging its reputation, in addition to a fine of around €200,000 ($265,000)."

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: gnu
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 12:34 PM

"The airline and mechanic, John Taylor, were also ordered to jointly pay more than €274,000 ($360,000) in damages to different civil parties.

Taylor was also handed a 15-month suspended prison sentence, and a €2,000 ($2,650) fine. All other defendants — including three former French officials and Taylor's now-retired supervisor Stanley Ford — were acquitted."

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 01:37 PM

Continental has called the verdict "absurd."
Expect to see extended litigation on this verdict.

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 05:37 PM

No mention of keeping boots on necks or ensuring that those responsible pay full damages.

The sting in the tail of this one of course will come in the civil suits that will be filed against Continental

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: gnu
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 06:18 PM

Does that mean the dead have not have financial recourse to this date? If they have or will have judgement, will it be difficult to enforce? Most were German... will Continental pay or avoid such if there are no assets seizable on German soil?

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 08:33 PM

I am intrigued that neither Air France nor the designers of the Concorde were found in any way liable, even though one would not expect that debris from a blown tire could do as much damage as it allegedly did. A brief web search didn't give me any firm numbers, but there certainly are a lot of reports of tire problems out there.

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 08:49 PM

The 'decision' is just the first shot of a long war.

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 12:41 AM

One would not expect such a small piece of debris to do the damage it did. Was it the tyre debris or the piece of metal that ruptured the fuel tank? In either case the "Continental" flight tech should not have used titanium to effect the repair and both he and Continental knew that.

Lots of reports of tyre problems resulted in how many aircraft turning into fire-balls as they sped down the runway?

Note the big difference here between the corporate attitude of Continental and the corporate attitude of BP. Will Continental be asked to post a multimillion dollar bond to cover potential claims? Somehow I doubt it. The initial investigation laid the blame at their door and now the French Courts have ruled that they are fault.

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 05:15 AM

The plane, of course, was designed in the 60s and built in the 70s. I guess design has moved on since then and maybe a more modern machine would not have been so vulnerable to a piece of titanium rupturing a fuel tank. Having said that, there are plenty of old Boeings and Airbuses still flying around that were built at the same time and it could just as easily been one of them that was brought down the same way. If you are going to hold the designers and operators responsible because an elderly design didn't meet modern standards then the thing should have been retired years earlier.

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 07:20 AM

It has been stated that there was more technological development required to produce the Concorde as a working commercila airliner than to land on the moon. Problems such as the aircraft expanding by nine inches in length in flight etc. are only the start.
The problem with the titanium strip falling off was to do with it not being an appropriate material to use for what it was being used for.
Should you expect such debris to be on the runway as a normal possibility?

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 07:56 AM

I can believe that Concorde was a bigger achievement than the moon landings. Before Concorde there was nothing comparable. There'd been big rockets around since the 40s.

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: Brian May
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 07:59 AM

It's interesting the there was no mention of the French Firemen's observations that the aircraft was already on fire before it reached the area where the FOD was laying . . .

As someone said above, I think this'll be the first shot in this sorry episode.

Fact is, there are no winners, but a lot of 'duckers and divers'.

Understandable on a human basis, but sad to watch unfold nevertheless.

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 09:05 AM

I doubt that a fireman or anyone else would have been able to make out the exact position of a small piece of metal on a two-mile runway.

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 03:38 PM

The fireman's observation was that the plane was already on fire before it reached the piece of debris. This could be determined easily by watching the full video of the plane's takeoff, which I presume was available to the investigators. I haven't seen a comment or picture either way from the released material; only the reconstruction cartoon.

The BBC carried an item that the gas tanks were insuficiently insulated from debris entering the wheel well.

As I said, only the first shot has been fired, and there will be much more to come. I don't know who was most responsible; none of us commenting here are able to determine that.

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 05:14 PM

Not the first shot at all. The crash investigators have completed their report, there will be no further investigations. This trial was to determine criminal responsibility.

Facts are as follows:

Continental employee used a strip of titanium metal to effect a repair on one of Continental's aircraft. Both the employee and Continental knew full well that he should not have done that.

Crash investigators determined that this strip of titanium came adrift and fell onto the runway as the Continental jet took-off.

Crash investigators determined that the strip of metal punctured the tyre on the Air France Concorde causing the tyre to disintegrate and it threw tyre debris and the strip of titanium up into the wheel well where it punctured the fuel tank causing kerosene to flood out of the tank where it was ignited by the jet exhaust of the aircraft.

The Crash investigators have reviewed all the physical evidence from the crash site and from the runway. They have reviewed all witness statements and viewed all recorded images covering the short flight of that Air France aircraft.

The only thing now that remains are the legal battles where Continental Airlines, or more correctly their insurers if their cover still holds good considering the botched repair, attempts to reduce their liability. As stated previously there will be no President chipping in grandstanding on this one, to ensure that those who lost loved ones will recieve the full compensation due.

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 10:54 PM

Yes, obviously the tank was poorly insulated from puncture.


I doubt anyone over here will accept the verdict of a French court (heading for the bomb shelter).

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 10 - 12:21 AM

Concord had been flying for how long?

As with other types of aircraft Concord tyres had burst previously. How many Concords burst into flames because of it?

Of course nobody "over there" will accept the verdict of a French Court, they have, after all, put the blame firmly at the door of an American Company and the person at fault has been found to be an employee of that Company (Had he not acted as he did then the accident would not have happened)

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 08 Dec 10 - 09:53 AM

While this may be thread drift, I cannot forbear asking that posters refrain from saying "over here", "over there", "on this side of the pond", and the like, when the context of the message doesn't make the reference clear.

I, for one, have no idea where Q is located, so his/her reference to "over here" is as clear as mud. The only bit of distinction "over here" offers us in this instance is "not in France".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 10 - 10:48 AM

With any aircraft in history it is inevitable that statistically speaking disaster is going to happen at some point perhaps in 10/20 years it will be something else who knows. The human loss in the Concorde disaster was just too much to risk again apart from the cost, being restricted to the very few who could afford to travel on it, it just wasn't going to survive the recession. Up until then it had been fine all along although still catering for the more well-heeled. The extent of the human loss put the nail in the coffin because it doesn't matter how well-heeled passengers are it is still loss of life and grief for their families.

I was a little girl watching Concorde's first flight and it was such a beautiful sight. The sonic boom rumbled low in my stomach and it was one of those wonderful moments.

Subject: RE: Concorde trial verdict
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Dec 10 - 01:48 PM

From the context, 'over here' in my post is clearly the U. S. of A.