The Corcorde Crash - Continental Airlines Fined

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,071
4,009
113
Continental Airlines Inc. and one of its mechanics were convicted in a French court of manslaughter Monday because debris from one of its planes caused the crash of an Air France Concorde jet that killed 113 people a decade ago.

The Houston-based airline was ordered to pay Air France $1.43 million US for damaging its reputation, in addition to a fine of around $265,000. The victims of the crash were mostly German tourists.

Firefighters spray water on the debris of a crashed Air France Concorde on July 25, 2000. A French court has blamed Continental Airlines and one of its mechanics responsible for the crash that killed 109 people. (Christophe Ena/Associated Press)
The presiding judge confirmed investigators' long-held belief that titanium debris dropped by a Continental DC-10 onto the runway at Charles de Gaulle airport before the supersonic jet took off on July 25, 2000, was to blame. Investigators said the debris gashed the Concorde's tire, propelling bits of rubber into the fuel tanks and sparking a fire.

The plane then slammed into a nearby hotel, killing all 109 people aboard and four others on the ground.

Ronald Schmid, a lawyer who has represented several families of the German victims, said he was "skeptical" about the ruling.

"It bothers me that none of those responsible for Air France were sitting in the docks," he told The Associated Press by phone from Frankfurt.

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

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

The court said Taylor should not have used titanium, a harder metal than usual, to build a piece for the DC-10 that is known as a wear strip. He was also accused of improperly installing the piece that fell onto the runway.

Air France Concorde flight 4590 takes off with fire trailing from its engine on the left wing at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris in this July 25, 2000, file photo. (Toshihiko Sato/Associated Press
Continental's defence lawyer, Olivier Metzner, confirmed the carrier would appeal. He denounced a ruling that he called "patriotic" for sparing the French defendants and convicting only the Americans.

"This is a ruling that protects only the interests of France. This has strayed far from the truth of law and justice," he said. "This has privileged purely national interests."

Continental spokesman Nick Britton, in a statement, echoed that sentiment, and said the airline disagreed with the "absurd finding" against it and Taylor.

"Portraying the metal strip as the cause of the accident and Continental and one of its employees as the sole guilty parties shows the determination of the French authorities to shift attention and blame away from Air France," he said, noting that Air France was state-run at the time.



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/12/06/concorde-crash-ruling.html#ixzz17L5G2SKk
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,071
4,009
113
Good.

There's been a lot of yelling over this one and it's interesting that Continental is still trying to cover its ass and turn this into a political issue (not that Concorde was never anything but political throughout its entire life span).

If buddy had not done an improper job fixing the aircraft he was repairing, none of this would have happened.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,749
3
0
Left out of the above story is that United Continental Holdings, and EADS (aerospace group) must split 70-30 damages payable to the families of victims of the crash.

We will see what happens on appeal, but it is not a verdict which inspires me with confidence.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
25,280
3,227
113
So many factors cause this crash. One of which was a spacer in the undercarriage being left out. This cause the plane to drift left on its takeoff run, forcing the pilot to take off early at min speed. Then to top it off the @#**^$*&@#^*$& flight engineer shut of one of engines... one shut itself off.. leaving the plane with highly assymtric thrust... at this point they were fucked. Very sad...then to FURTHER top it off, they had about 2T too much fuel on board. Concorde was magnificent though. I wish I got to fly on her, but whenever I saw that plane in the sky it really made my day.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
25,280
3,227
113
Is it me or is french law absurd?

James I submit it was you that cause the accident. You farted and that contaminated the alloy used in the fastening bolts causing them to break off of the DC-10.

Oh and while we're in the blame game, who put that hotel there? They should be fined and charged too, if the hotel wasn't so close to the airport the plane wouldn't have slammed into it.

OH OH OH who made the concord, they shouldn't have built it. Done no one would have died.

WTF.
you are not allowed to have pieces of your airplane falling off. Kinda important no? if that piece of titanium fell of the plane and embedded itself 6 inches into your body....would you say "...ahh well....I am so unfortunate, Dr. please remove the strip and return it to Contenintal airlines....I have no plans to sue as it was just a mistake."
 

alexmst

New member
Dec 27, 2004
6,939
1
0
you are not allowed to have pieces of your airplane falling off. Kinda important no? if that piece of titanium fell of the plane and embedded itself 6 inches into your body....would you say "...ahh well....I am so unfortunate, Dr. please remove the strip and return it to Contenintal airlines....I have no plans to sue as it was just a mistake."
Good point
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,749
3
0
you are not allowed to have pieces of your airplane falling off. Kinda important no?
Aviation Law is not my specialty, however, does not CDG have a responsibility to check runways for FOD?

Further, when you combine this with the points you made in # 4 this does seem a very questionable verdict of "lets blame this all on Continental."
 

Anynym

Just a bit to the right
Dec 28, 2005
2,959
6
38
Even if we allow that the Titanium strip was a proximate cause of the crash, how does that make its presence on the runway into a criminal act?

How does a simple maintenance failure become criminal negligence?

Under Canadian law, we generally require not only the actual act but also the criminal intent in order to convict someone of a criminal act. And while there are criminally negligent acts, they tend to (as they should) require a high level of negligence before the criminal threshold is crossed.

The ruling today in the Concorde case suggests that French "justice" system is a joke.

That other proximate causes of the crash (as outlined above, as well as design flaws on the Concorde which allowed runway debris to endanger the aircraft) appear to have been exonerated raises further questions surrounding the French system of "justice" as applied in this case.
 

Moraff

Active member
Nov 14, 2003
3,648
0
36
Even if we allow that the Titanium strip was a proximate cause of the crash, how does that make its presence on the runway into a criminal act?

How does a simple maintenance failure become criminal negligence?

Under Canadian law, we generally require not only the actual act but also the criminal intent in order to convict someone of a criminal act. And while there are criminally negligent acts, they tend to (as they should) require a high level of negligence before the criminal threshold is crossed.

The ruling today in the Concorde case suggests that French "justice" system is a joke.

That other proximate causes of the crash (as outlined above, as well as design flaws on the Concorde which allowed runway debris to endanger the aircraft) appear to have been exonerated raises further questions surrounding the French system of "justice" as applied in this case.
I haven't followed the case, but I would think that if the repair was done negligently and there was no reason the mechanic should have entertained the idea of fixing the plane in that manner, that's when it could become a case of being criminally negligent.
 

Anynym

Just a bit to the right
Dec 28, 2005
2,959
6
38
I haven't followed the case, but I would think that if the repair was done negligently and there was no reason the mechanic should have entertained the idea of fixing the plane in that manner, that's when it could become a case of being criminally negligent.
That would be an interesting argument if every case of a mechanic not following the specified procedure would be eligible for consideration as criminal negligence. A cursory review doesn't suggest that to be the case. For example, there was an instance in Britain of the wrong size bolts being used to secure a windshield, resulting in explosive decompression when the windshield gave way at altitude. There were no suggestions of criminal behaviour on the part of the mechanic. (Thankfully, the jet did land safely, and the pilot - who had been partially sucked out - survived.)
 

Greekstar

New member
Aug 21, 2010
487
0
0
Yah like that was the first instance of a pilot getting sucked out while in flight.....

What we really need is a Multi-Billion dollar Titanium "bits" Registry.
 

The Fruity Hare

Well-known member
Dec 4, 2002
5,110
33
48
Yah like that was the first instance of a pilot getting sucked out while in flight.....

What we really need is a Multi-Billion dollar Titanium "bits" Registry.
What we really need is a Multi-Billion dollar Windshield Registry. Could be used for cars too when people decide to jump into windshields when vehicles are driving at high rates of speed.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
25,280
3,227
113
Aviation Law is not my specialty, however, does not CDG have a responsibility to check runways for FOD?

Further, when you combine this with the points you made in # 4 this does seem a very questionable verdict of "lets blame this all on Continental."
If the blame were 100% on Continental, the penalties would have been MUCH higher... but their negligence was the trigger for the entire sequence of events. Runways are checked periodically, but having loose items on your plane is definitely a no no for safety.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
25,280
3,227
113
You are missing the point because you don't know enough facts about the titanium strip - we are not talking about a chunk of an aircraft that fell off. You probably also don't know that CDG is supposed to do a sweep of the runway before concord takeoffs.

The Ti strip may have been involved, but it is not the sole culprit. The concorde could have been designed better as well, and trying to pin this down to one guy and a strip of metal to blame him and it, is excessive.

Read some history about the case its very old and more political now than anything.

I must say though - I think Taylor should get a swift kick in the ass for making this type of unauthorized mod, but it probably wasn't him that authorized it.
No, as far as I have read it was 100% his initiative to use the titanium strip. The runway sweep rule was borught in AFTER the crash. I know quite a bit about this crash as I have read and seen many documentaries about it. Of course politics always play a role. But without the tire blowout cause by the strip, the flight would have gone off without incident.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,749
3
0
If the blame were 100% on Continental, the penalties would have been MUCH higher... but their negligence was the trigger for the entire sequence of events. Runways are checked periodically, but having loose items on your plane is definitely a no no for safety.
That still begs the question was it even negligence. Further, I do not know without researching it the nature of non-absolute contributory negligence/comparative negligence under the French Civil Code. But I find most peculiar (at least from a common law perspective) that others who obviously (at least to me and a great many others) bear some responsibility were acquitted by the judge.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,071
4,009
113
Is it me or is french law absurd?

James I submit it was you that cause the accident. You farted and that contaminated the alloy used in the fastening bolts causing them to break off of the DC-10.

Oh and while we're in the blame game, who put that hotel there? They should be fined and charged too, if the hotel wasn't so close to the airport the plane wouldn't have slammed into it.

OH OH OH who made the concord, they shouldn't have built it. Done no one would have died.

WTF.
Buddy glued the titanium patch on. Didn't even rivet it. Glued it.

If he had done a proper job, this would not have happened.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,071
4,009
113
No, as far as I have read it was 100% his initiative to use the titanium strip. The runway sweep rule was borught in AFTER the crash. I know quite a bit about this crash as I have read and seen many documentaries about it. Of course politics always play a role. But without the tire blowout cause by the strip, the flight would have gone off without incident.
Exactly.

Concorde had been flying for 25 years without a hitch. First and only crash. (Can't think of too many planes that can say that.) It was a remarkable aircraft and it was retired well before its time.

To say that there is was a "design flaw" is frankly bullshit. I don't know if there are design regulations pertaining to the design of aircraft or not (I'm sure there are). If there were design constraints in "the code" to which concorde was designed in 1967 and it (concorde) did not meet those codes, then yes, there is a design flaw. But if it met the code at the time of its design then NO, there was not a design flaw. I have not read anywhere that somehas has said that "according to Clause 12345 of the 1967Airplane Design Code, Fuel tanks on airplanes must be able to withstand blah blah blah.

Saying, oh, the tire exploded and ruptured the fuel tank - there's a design flaw is nonsense. The thing flew without a hitch for 25 years. Only when it hit a piece of junk on the runway that fell off of another plane put on incorrectly (and not as per acccepted industry practice) did concorde go down in flames.

So unless someone can say that the design violtated the code to which concorde was designed, there is not a design flaw.
 

Kilgore Trout

Active member
Oct 18, 2008
2,490
0
36
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,749
3
0
Concorde had been flying for 25 years without a hitch.
That really isn't true, a BA Concorde landing at Dulles Airport had a very similar episode in which a tire exploded and punctured a fuel tank. However that was at the end of the flight and the tank was almost empty (as opposed to the Air France Concorde which was not only overweight (entirely full fuel tanks) but also had the afterburners/reheat on full bore). BA modified its Concordes after this incident, Air France chose not to do so.
 
Toronto Escorts