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

Continental found criminally responsible for Air France Concord crash.

  • 06-12-2010 11:43am
    #1
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭


    "A French court found Continental Airlines "criminally responsible" for a deadly 2000 Concorde crash which killed 113 people, ruling it was caused by a piece of metal left on the runway by one of the US carrier's jets.

    The court has fined Continental Airlines 200,000 euros and given a Continental employee a 15-month suspended jail sentence    .

    What about the other factors like a weak skin that was penetrated, unsuitable tires, etc. Would any other conventional plane have withstood these debris left by the Continental DC10. Is Continental the scapegoat for this case?

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/06/3086278.htm


Comments

  • #2
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 10,005 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Is Continental the scapegoat for this case?

    I think so.

    What about the tyre company? Or AF themselves? Wasn't the aircraft too heavy or not balanced correctly?

    The 200K seems very paltry though. A symbolic finger pointing perhaps?


    It has been theorised that if AF had implemented that same safety features that BA had on their Concordes then this crash could have been prevented. BA had panels/strips on the landing gear to prevent debris being kicked up into the aircraft and had reinforced their fuel tanks with kevlar (I believe it was)


  • #3
    Davidth88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,181 ✭✭✭Davidth88


    Tenger wrote: »
    It has been theorised that if AF had implemented that same safety features that BA had on their Concordes then this crash could have been prevented. BA had panels/strips on the landing gear to prevent debris being kicked up into the aircraft and had reinforced their fuel tanks with kevlar (I believe it was)

    Wasn't that done in response to the crash and to get Concorde flying again ?

    Yes it's a scapegoat thing , did CX not maintain the aircraft as per the manuals ?


  • #4
    donkey balls
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,554 ✭✭✭donkey balls


    I heard the W&B was all over the place AF would have responsibilty for that,Also the debris on the RWY CDG airport ops are responsible for a FOD on RWY/taxi ways and the ramp/apron etc.
    Then they blame the Continental acft mech over the strip that fell off the DC10:eek: so what there trying to say is that he went out of his way to sabotage is own companies acft jesus you could not make this up.
    Also find it weird that no French person was held responsible stinks of a cover up,Bit like the Airbus that crashed into the forest at a display in France seemingly the CVR&FDR was swapped.


  • #5
    A320
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 708 ✭✭✭A320


    I thought they said years ago the part the mech fitted wasnt 'approved'???


  • #6
    andy_g
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,561 ✭✭✭andy_g


    Kevlar was fitted to the tanks after the crash however BA had an incident on the concorde a few years prior to the AF crash and installed small metal tubular pipe to the cables in the landing bay.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    mickdw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,688 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    I believe the story from people in the know about concorde is that the underside of the fuel tank did not actually get penetrated by the tyre but it was more a case of the tank being full to the brim and therefore there was no compressible volume left to allow for the temporary reduction in tank volume at the time when tyre hit. This then caused cracking of the tank structure at other locations - on top I believe. The kevlar lining it was hoped would limit any fuel escaping in any other similar incident.

    There is nothing wrong with concorde, certainly following the upgrades of 2001. Its grounding was political/financial which the french forced on BA


  • #8
    martyoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 872 ✭✭✭martyoo


    I was surprised by the amount of the fine. Was expecting it to be a lot more.


  • #9
    poisonated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,277 ✭✭✭poisonated


    I would have thought that the fine should be a lot more but I also think that it would be the responsibility of the French airport authority to clear the run way? Now having said that, I don't know much about aviation.


  • #10
    Turbulent Bill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,638 ✭✭✭Turbulent Bill


    The Continental mech should have been hung out to dry by Continental themselves for messing up the repair job (if the linked story is true), but holding him and Continental responsible for the Concorde crash is a joke - they should be two separate issues. It was totally unforseen that the failure on one aircraft could cause the crash of another. Given Concorde had a history of landing gear issues, you'd think this would take most of the blame.


Advertisement