Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Concorde crash manslaughter trial begins in France

  • 02-02-2010 4:52pm
    #1
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭


    I thought that they had concluded much of this already. It is expected to go on for at least four months. It won't do anything to bring this magnificent plane back to the skies.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8492561.stm


Comments

  • #2
    pclancy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,941 ✭✭✭pclancy


    Interesting to see how this pans out. I find it hard to decide whether the blame is with Connie for losing the strip of metal from the plane, or BAe for the poor design of the fuel tanks that allowed the damage to happen. Either way it's horrible for the families of the victims to have to wait ten years for answers.


  • #3
    castie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 3,807 ✭✭✭castie


    Arent Connie claiming that the fire began before the plane struck the piece of metal?


  • #4
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,537 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    are the airport not in any way responsible for not checking and clearing the runway?


  • #5
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    are the airport not in any way responsible for not checking and clearing the runway?
    Technically they should be somewhat responsible but I couldn't see it being practical to have a truck carrying out visual checks on runways each time a flight takes off or lands.

    The alternative would be to fit optical sensors along the runway to detect debris but this could cause only add more to delays if it malfunctions due to wildlife setting off false alarms etc.


  • #6
    Turbulent Bill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,638 ✭✭✭Turbulent Bill


    pclancy wrote: »
    Interesting to see how this pans out. I find it hard to decide whether the blame is with Connie for losing the strip of metal from the plane, or BAe for the poor design of the fuel tanks that allowed the damage to happen. Either way it's horrible for the families of the victims to have to wait ten years for answers.

    I'm guessing that the case will end in stalemate. It'll be virtually impossible to prove that either Continental or BAE was negligent enough for the incident to qualify as manslaughter, given that each has a good safety record independently. It just sounds like terribly bad luck.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    globemaster1986
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 351 ✭✭globemaster1986


    castie wrote: »
    Arent Connie claiming that the fire began before the plane struck the piece of metal?

    Ya they're saying the plane was on fire before it hit the metal strip and have 28 odd witnesses to that effect. Will be a very hard case to prove and its particularly harsh on the individuals rather than the companies


  • #8
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    It appears that there is some quite interesting evidence from Fire Service personnel as to the prior-fire theory.

    Supposedly there is also a question mark over missing evidence and the refusal of French authorities to make documentation available to investigators.

    This one could run and run ?


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • #9
    rubensni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭rubensni


    The charge reads that titanium was used in the repair on the Continental jet and as it's not an authorised metal for where it was used, it was negligent.


  • #10
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    rubensni wrote: »
    The charge reads that titanium was used in the repair on the Continental jet and as it's not an authorized metal for where it was used, it was negligent.
    That would be relevant if they could prove that this piece of metal was the cause of the crash.


  • #11
    rubensni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭rubensni


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    That would be relevant if they could prove that this piece of metal was the cause of the crash.

    Maybe that's why there's a trial on?
    And of course it's relevant, it's the key piece of evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    probe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭probe


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    are the airport not in any way
    responsible for not checking and clearing the runway?

    While reading the trial reports it occurred to me that it might be possible to use laser beams to detect foreign objects on runways by scanning the runway optically.

    Googled around and found someone had registered a patent for a similar system. Their system would require vehicles to scan the runway. There is no time for that in a busy airport. The system would have to work like radar, only surface scanning radar like laser beams picking up objects in the runway zone.

    If one has a perfectly flat runway, it should be possible to send one or more laser beams (scanning left to right) end to end, using a system that would create an alert in the event of an interruption. One would have problems using the system in snow etc.

    On the legal front, if someone throws a box of nails on the road, and it leads to a vehicular accident, I would have thought the person who threw the nails would be responsible. Not the local authority who maintain the road. If the nails fall off the back of a truck and cause similar damage, methinks the people responsible for the truck are still responsible. They should have made sure that the cargo on the truck was secure. If the box of nails fell off the truck due to a defective lock in the truck's doors or whatever, I would have thought the liability rested with the truck manufacturer. Who in turn may have a right of action against the lock manufacturer. etc etc......

    *http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090323046


Advertisement