The Corcorde Crash - Continental Airlines Fined

[nottyboi]

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.

I would say the biggest mistake was made by the flight engineer. When he shut down the 2nd engine, he basically killed everyone on that plane including himself. None of the other errors really were insurmountable... they just compounded the issue. If the spacer had been in place, the plane would have taken off with more energy... but it still probably would have crashed, just a few km further then where it did. Even IF the engine was not shut down...there is a question if the wing would have survived the fire long enough to make it to Le Bourget.....Then if it landed with fuel gushing out of the tank... good lord.. I dunno. I think there was no way out of that one once the tanks ruptured and fuel ignited.

 

[Mister K]

There are many valid points made above. I don't think there was a design flaw, but frankly, I haven't spent enough time reviewing the aircraft's specifications and performance over it's lifespan.

A brief note regarding France, her civil system, and politics. The French hate (absolutely HATE) being wrong about anything. Those that I have met and worked with, generally speaking, are disporortionally arrogant about themselves and their country's place in the world. I have no trouble believing that a concerted effort was made to ignore evidence that would tend to make France look bad. Thus, blame it on Continental - a US company.

 

[nottyboi]

There are many valid points made above. I don't think there was a design flaw, but frankly, I haven't spent enough time reviewing the aircraft's specifications and performance over it's lifespan.

A brief note regarding France, her civil system, and politics. The French hate (absolutely HATE) being wrong about anything. Those that I have met and worked with, generally speaking, are disporortionally arrogant about themselves and their country's place in the world. I have no trouble believing that a concerted effort was made to ignore evidence that would tend to make France look bad. Thus, blame it on Continental - a US company.

Yeah the Americans are just ok with being wrong...lol...most countries are like that...the French are maybe a bit more so. They blame and deny vs the US which blames no one and slathers on the whitewash... at most it is a cultural difference.

 

[Moraff]

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.)

Well just because everyone who could be charged with a crimed doesn't get charged doesn't mean that someone can't be charged no?

I'm not familiar with the details of the windshield incident. Why did the mechanic use the wrong screws? How "wrong" were they? Obviously wrong enough that they didn't do the job, but was it bad enough to be obvious that they weren't going to work?

I'm not trying to say that every person who makes an error in judgement is criminally negligent. But if that error in judgement is so bad that it never should have been made in the first place I could see the charge being laid.

 

[nottyboi]

Well just because everyone who could be charged with a crimed doesn't get charged doesn't mean that someone can't be charged no?

I'm not familiar with the details of the windshield incident. Why did the mechanic use the wrong screws? How "wrong" were they? Obviously wrong enough that they didn't do the job, but was it bad enough to be obvious that they weren't going to work?

I'm not trying to say that every person who makes an error in judgement is criminally negligent. But if that error in judgement is so bad that it never should have been made in the first place I could see the charge being laid.

Sometimes it is just luck of the draw. Sometimes we do stupid things and there are no consquences.... sometimes they have horrendous consequences. It's unfortunate. There is no way the mechanic could have imagined his little experiment would kill hundreds of people. I feel sorry for him. Some jobs like that have a burden that is WELL out of whack with their compensation... air traffic controllers are the similar in that regard. Their burden is much greater then a doctor... as a error can result in hundreds of deaths.

 

[nottyboi]

Your logic that if the design met (then) current certification standards, then the design is perfect (ie: there can be no design flaw) Your "bullshit" claim is flawed and based on a lack of understanding of the certification process.

In the US, aircraft certification is governed by the FAA. Their requirements evolve over time. These laws and regulations are based on "Tombstone Law" which is to say based on past deaths. So if a design flaw becomes known after a crash, then the agency may issue an "Airworthiness Directive" to correct that problem. And the certification rules are amended to take this unforeseen flaw into consideration for future certified aircraft.

Much of aviation litigation defences are based on your premise and are soundly defeated by plaintiffs. The manufacturer claims that the design is "safe" because it meets the certification standards is incorrect. All that it means is that they are not guilty of failing to meet a certification standard. The plaintiffs argue (successfully) that the certification does not absolve the designer or manufacturer of ultimate responsibility.


Go ahead and argue it all you want but this is the reality of aviation litigation.

I am not sure if it was a design flaw. It was hard to anticipate the sequence of events. The tires striking the bottom of the wing ONLY had these catastrophic consequences because the tanks were full.. is there was an airgap they would not have failed so catastrophically. Even still if the second engine was shut down it is possible they would have been able to accelerate to a speed that would have extinguished the fire... or if the were able to retract the gear they may have been able to make it to Le Bourget... it is really just a heart breaking sequence of events.. I think the revised tires (designed after the crash) alone would have made this highly improbable accident 1000x less likely.

 

[james t kirk]

Your logic that if the design met (then) current certification standards, then the design is perfect (ie: there can be no design flaw) Your "bullshit" claim is flawed and based on a lack of understanding of the certification process.

In the US, aircraft certification is governed by the FAA. Their requirements evolve over time. These laws and regulations are based on "Tombstone Law" which is to say based on past deaths. So if a design flaw becomes known after a crash, then the agency may issue an "Airworthiness Directive" to correct that problem. And the certification rules are amended to take this unforeseen flaw into consideration for future certified aircraft.

Much of aviation litigation defences are based on your premise and are soundly defeated by plaintiffs. The manufacturer claims that the design is "safe" because it meets the certification standards is incorrect. All that it means is that they are not guilty of failing to meet a certification standard. The plaintiffs argue (successfully) that the certification does not absolve the designer or manufacturer of ultimate responsibility.


Go ahead and argue it all you want but this is the reality of aviation litigation.

You are the TERB Resident Expert on EVERYTHING.

So I will defer to you.

 

[xssive]

For those of you who are interested (and it seems many of you are), this report from 2001 in The Guardian may change some of your opinions on how much the debris from the Continental Airlines plane contributed to the accident and whether the plane wasn't already doomed before it hit the metal strip.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/may/13/davidrose.focus

I think some of you may begin to wonder whether the French weren't just looking for a scapegoat. It's fascinating reading and eye opening as well.

 

[xssive]

"But once that fuel tank was breached and the fire started it was over. No way that the plane would have made it anywhere but to the scene of a big fireball."

Not necessarily. You should read the article in the link. Some pilots felt that was recoverable.

 

[nottyboi]

For those of you who are interested (and it seems many of you are), this report from 2001 in The Guardian may change some of your opinions on how much the debris from the Continental Airlines plane contributed to the accident and whether the plane wasn't already doomed before it hit the metal strip.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/may/13/davidrose.focus

I think some of you may begin to wonder whether the French weren't just looking for a scapegoat. It's fascinating reading and eye opening as well.

Yeah shutting of that engine really cooked them. WTF shutting off an engine at 25 feet just at takeoff without telling the captain I wonder what on earth he was thinking... so many errors though...

 

[Anynym]

Well just because everyone who could be charged with a crimed doesn't get charged doesn't mean that someone can't be charged no?

I'm not familiar with the details of the windshield incident. Why did the mechanic use the wrong screws? How "wrong" were they? Obviously wrong enough that they didn't do the job, but was it bad enough to be obvious that they weren't going to work?

I'm not trying to say that every person who makes an error in judgement is criminally negligent. But if that error in judgement is so bad that it never should have been made in the first place I could see the charge being laid.

Not to confuse this thread with two incidents, but in the windshield incident the mechanic was wrong by a very small amount: Two one-hundreths of an inch. He had "eyeballed" bolts to match the bolts which he had removed from the jet (which were also the wrong bolts, but had held for years without incident), rather than getting the bolts which were specified in the service manual (or which another mechanic had suggested).


In the case of the Concorde, it isn't fair to say that it flew for 25 years without incident while other classes of planes don't have such a great service record. In fact, there were only a few Concordes ever built, so in fact a very high percentage of them had severe or life-threatening problems.

 

[nottyboi]

I read the article and others.

I guess I should have said "in my opinion".

I hate to divulge personal information so I'll just say I have deep knowledge of aviation.

After seeing the video I'm reasonably certain that that fire would not be extinguishable and that it would burn something that would render the aircraft uncontrollable before it could ever be landed.

It depends, if they had at leat 3 engines they could have accelerated to about 250 knots which would have extinguised the fire or pushed it far enough back from the plane it would not have damaged anything..but it is really impossible to know for sure. I also don't know how much fuel was in the tank that was breached. 10T? 25? I know the plane carries close to 100T... (it's a flying fuel tank really). Interesting fuel consumption comparison for Concorde:

Aircraft: Concorde Gulfstream G550 business jet Boeing 747-400
passenger miles/imperial gallon 17 19 109
passenger miles/US gallon 14 16 91
litres/passenger 100 km 16.6 14.8 2.6

 

[Anynym]

It depends, if they had at leat 3 engines they could have accelerated to about 250 knots which would have extinguised the fire or pushed it far enough back from the plane it would not have damaged anything..but it is really impossible to know for sure. I also don't know how much fuel was in the tank that was breached. 10T? 25? I know the plane carries close to 100T... (it's a flying fuel tank really).

And your knowledge of aviation says that a Concorde could fly with one tank full and the other empty?

 

[Aardvark154]

For those of you who are interested (and it seems many of you are), this report from 2001 in The Guardian may change some of your opinions on how much the debris from the Continental Airlines plane contributed to the accident and whether the plane wasn't already doomed before it hit the metal strip.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/may/13/davidrose.focus

I think some of you may begin to wonder whether the French weren't just looking for a scapegoat. It's fascinating reading and eye opening as well.

As I read it some if it came back to me, a facinating article.

It mentions the critical point that Air France CGG Airport etc. . . do not want there to be multiple causes, so that littigation over passenger compensation might be reopened.

 

[Mister K]

Yeah the Americans are just ok with being wrong...lol...most countries are like that...the French are maybe a bit more so. They blame and deny vs the US which blames no one and slathers on the whitewash... at most it is a cultural difference.

I thought about the US being arrogant when I was writing my original post, but frankly, having worked with individuals and companies (including Airbus, Boeing, US National Transportation Safety Board, Mitsubishi, and many others) I found the French to be the most difficult to deal with, and Airbus as a whole is a real strange experience because much of the company is split up in various countries in Europe like the UK, Germany, Spain and of course France. Each tends to bring their own nationalism to the table and cultural influences (naturally) but from a business POV the French were the hardest to deal with. Next in line would probably be the Japanese, particularly when they have made a mistake but do not want to acknowledge it (loss of face)

 

[nottyboi]

And your knowledge of aviation says that a Concorde could fly with one tank full and the other empty?

They have more then 2 tanks, and they are situated quite close to the centerline. I think it could handle the imbalance aerodynmically yes.

http://www.concordesst.com/fuelsys.html

 

[nottyboi]

It is clear that you are not even a pilot nottiboi, so why do you feel the need to comment so authoritatively on technical matters you (with all due respect) know no more than what you read in the newspaper?

EVERY time I've ever been directly involved with an aircraft accident that has been reported by the mainstream press, there are substantial mistakes not only in the details but in the inferences drawn by the reporter. The reporter then goes to the next stry about a lost kitten. About the ONLY thing I ever trust about them are the dates and the pictures.

Other experts feel the same way so why don't you get of your high horse? Most of my commentary is based on the opinions of other experts. I think I will accept the opinion of someone who spent their career flying Concorde over yours. The fuel tank that was punctured was #5....9000 liters...based on the flow rate estimates the tank would have been empty in 90 seconds. ......no one knows for certain if the plane could have survived.

 

[nottyboi]

I like it up here on my high horse!

Look nottiboi, what I am trying to say is that IN MY OPINION the many factors that led to this crash were topped by a huge fire that would have taken the plane down anyways. Aside from the fire damage breaching a single hydraulic line for an elevon, the tank that was breached was forward of the longitudinal center of gravity which was also already too far aft. There is a technically inaccurate but common term in flying called being behind the power curve. This means that your wing is at too high of an angle of attack for the power of the aircraft to pull you over at a particular weight and drag configuration. This delta winged plane took off too early, could not raise the gear, was over weight and at teh aft limits of its C of G and was ON FIRE.


End of story. We know for certain that the plane did NOT survive.

(IMHO, the root cause of this crash was the incorrect overhaul of the main landing gear assembly and the missing spacer.)

The plane was on 50% of available thrust. Most 4 engine planes can power through a loss of a single engine..not two... add the fact they had no thust on one side compounded the problem HUGELY. There was an interview with a BA concorde captain who seemed pretty certain the situation was recoverable. I think I will take his word over yours...how many hours do you have on Concorde? Right.. thought so.

 

[Cassini]

I don't know if there is much point debating if the situation is recoverable. Some situations are recoverable, some situations aren't, and others:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_EXtBEaBbs
You toss out the rule book, and go for what works.