Read the forum code of contact
By: - 30th January 2010 at 11:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"The survivors expect... a fair trial and an investigation into this accident. They want to learn why their relatives had to die and who is perhaps responsible for that," said Schmid.
Then perhaps Air France should explain why the wheel spacer was left on a work bench when the left MLG was re-assembled the night before. This caused the forward wheels of the bogey to rattle under speed like supermarket trolley wheels, dragging the plane to the left of the runway, which is when it hit the famous strip of metal.
Had the wheels not dragged the plane to the left, the plane would never have gone over said metal strip.
However, despite the spacer being found missing on the intact MLG in the wreckage and the spacer being found later in the hangar in which the same plane had received maintenance on its landing gear the evening before and the clearly visable scuff marks on the runway leading off to the left, the french authorities as taken no interest in finding the truth.
Fair enough, this titanium piece of metal was not a licenced replacement, but it was only a means to an end. It was a link in a chain.
The chain started with the captain taking an overweight aircraft to a runway with a tail wind, then the MLG dragged his aircraft to the left. The wheels were punctured. The fuel leak was initiated. With the aicraft continuing to drag to the left, they had to take off. Then, the engineer shut down the perfectly servicable engines without command from the Capt or Co Pilot and when the aircraft was far too slow. I'm certainly not judging the crews actions, they were under pressure, but it was that unfortunate mistake that sealed the aircraft's fate. She stalled out of the air.
Air France Maintenance, the flight deck crew and Continental all share blame.
The airport too, for not sweeping the runway for debris often enough.
To me all this makes me think the french authorities are focused on blaming someone else, someone not under the french flag, at the very least a cover up to protect certain parties.
By: - 30th January 2010 at 13:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, case solved Sherlock! Seriously, where was all that info. published?
By: - 30th January 2010 at 14:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There was a lot of information on the web around the time. A lot of the articles have since been deleted as it is quite some time ago.
Some of the info is retained here:
http://www.concordesst.com/accident/latest.html
By: - 30th January 2010 at 14:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Then perhaps Air France should explain why the wheel spacer was left on a work bench when the left MLG was re-assembled the night before. This caused the forward wheels of the bogey to rattle under speed like supermarket trolley wheels, dragging the plane to the left of the runway, which is when it hit the famous strip of metal.
Had the wheels not dragged the plane to the left, the plane would never have gone over said metal strip.However, despite the spacer being found missing on the intact MLG in the wreckage and the spacer being found later in the hangar in which the same plane had received maintenance on its landing gear the evening before and the clearly visable scuff marks on the runway leading off to the left, the french authorities as taken no interest in finding the truth.
Fair enough, this titanium piece of metal was not a licenced replacement, but it was only a means to an end. It was a link in a chain.
The chain started with the captain taking an overweight aircraft to a runway with a tail wind, then the MLG dragged his aircraft to the left. The wheels were punctured. The fuel leak was initiated. With the aicraft continuing to drag to the left, they had to take off. Then, the engineer shut down the perfectly servicable engines without command from the Capt or Co Pilot and when the aircraft was far too slow. I'm certainly not judging the crews actions, they were under pressure, but it was that unfortunate mistake that sealed the aircraft's fate. She stalled out of the air.
Air France Maintenance, the flight deck crew and Continental all share blame.
The airport too, for not sweeping the runway for debris often enough.To me all this makes me think the french authorities are focused on blaming someone else, someone not under the french flag, at the very least a cover up to protect certain parties.
I think we all knew that the French would not be taken any of the blame for this accident .It was a well known fact in the industry that Air France maintance record on Concorde was some what lacking to say the least
By: - 30th January 2010 at 15:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Frankly, who needs a judicial system and a safety board when we have such brilliant bloggers who can tell you exactly what happened and apportion blame faultlessly (French and/or Airbus, therefore cheating and culpable), this without accessing primary data but relying on an article published by the excellent Observer?????
Never mind the data that shows that the plane remained centered until it hit the metal strip. Never mind that the structures of the planes was so badly damaged that the plane was doomed as it took off. Never mind the facts...
By: - 30th January 2010 at 16:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The beauty of free will and speech is not having to accept what the authorities feed us as gospel.
By: - 30th January 2010 at 16:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We do need evidence to back up our opinions if they contradict those of people who know more than we do. I'm yet to see that. (Not referring to you specifically here by the way, Sandy).
Paul
By: - 30th January 2010 at 16:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another case of posters submitting seemingly strong evidence, which may or may not be supportable - not everything on the net is gospel. So again we should wait to see what the case reveals - perhaps posters are right, perhaps there will be a French fudge, but we don't know yet. Presumably the defence will have all the alleged evidence posted here and much else besides. And perhaps the prosecution will have a few tricks up their sleeves as well.
It does seem to have taken a heck of a long time to be brought to court.
By: - 30th January 2010 at 17:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is a major difference between asking questions and challenging some elements of an inquiry, and submitting an entire alternative narrative without backing it with any data or hard proof.
Also, this is disingenous insofar as you do not question the gospel of authorities writ large - you question the existing narrative as a matter of principle because we speak of the French authorities.
By: - 30th January 2010 at 17:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am not taking any side or questioning any one side in particular. I suggest that the truth MIGHT come out by the end of the trial, since all parties will have all the available evidence - much of it perhaps not in the public domain.
A debate without all the evidence achieves little.
By: - 31st January 2010 at 09:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Decency would request, before making allegations as reported in post nr 2 above, to read the inquiry report. If you don't trust the BEA/aviation authorities, you can then avail yourself of the raw data appended to the inquiry report.
This raw data show the allegations made in post nr 2 to be a lot of bull. For instance,
Then perhaps Air France should explain why the wheel spacer was left on a work bench when the left MLG was re-assembled the night before. This caused the forward wheels of the bogey to rattle under speed like supermarket trolley wheels, dragging the plane to the left of the runway, which is when it hit the famous strip of metal.
Had the wheels not dragged the plane to the left, the plane would never have gone over said metal strip.
when FDR data (appendix 4 to the report) shows that there was no rudder input until the plane hit the metal strip, and that both center line and acceleration were maintained up to that point.
And then, again
Then, the engineer shut down the perfectly servicable engines without command from the Capt or Co Pilot and when the aircraft was far too slow. I'm certainly not judging the crews actions, they were under pressure, but it was that unfortunate mistake that sealed the aircraft's fate. She stalled out of the air.
when transcripts show that the F/E shut down engine 2 one second before the FO asked him to do so (as requested by procedures) and when data shows that the plane would not have made it irrespective of the shutting (or not shutting down) engine 2.
But ranting against the frogs is so much easier than reading a report.
By: - 31st January 2010 at 09:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ten years after a Concorde crash killed 113 people, Continental Airlines faces a trial on Tuesday to determine its responsibility in a disaster which ended an era of luxury supersonic travel for the super rich.
Previous investigations have concluded that one of the Concorde's tyres was punctured by a small piece of metal that had fallen off a departing Continental Airlines flight, hurling debris into the plane's fuel tanks and causing a raging fire.
At the end of the day all we see here is a money grab by lawyers....
Items fall off aircraft all the time! Wether its because its overlooked, not seen, simple bad luck etc.... It was NOT negligence on the part of Continental Airlines that caused the ACCIDENT!
A squence of events occured which yes, caused the plane to ultimately crash, but to directly blame the preceding aircraft is a absolute load of rubbish!
By: - 31st January 2010 at 09:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Decency would request, before making allegations as reported in post nr 2 above, to read the inquiry report. If you don't trust the BEA/aviation authorities, you can then avail yourself of the raw data appended to the inquiry report.This raw data show the allegations made in post nr 2 to be a lot of bull. For instance,
Of course it does, because it leads straight to Air France' door handing a big portion of blame to them.
As you say, Concorde should have made it with No.2 shutdown. I admit I got the sequence wrong by a second or so, it had been a while since I read the report.
The aircraft should have been able to turn round with one, perhaps even two engines shut down. But why didn't they?
Perhaps because she was overweight?
From the report:
The bottom scale being the stated real scale according to data.
The report then says in the following pages:
What I find very frightening and significant is the CVR Transcript has the Captain in the pre-flight briefing stating the total weight to be 180,100kg!
So F-BTSC was overweight when taxiing and overweight on take off. A rather alarming set of facts seemingly ignored as the conclusion eroneously stated the weights were in accordance to operational limits. They state it was one ton overweight at take off and the effect was negligable, yet the figures above show a 6 ton difference between what the crew were operating the plane at and what it actually was at, not forgetting that the plane was over its maximum allowable weight.
My point and primary beef is: The authorities are blaming the metal strip and it appears only that metal strip. The entire report states "damaged by the metal strip" from the very first pages, to the last.
They dismiss everything else within one page, sometimes a single paragraph and continue to focus on the metal strip.
It stinks of coverup and protectionism.
It will be interesting to see what happens in this trial.
By: - 31st January 2010 at 10:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have not read the reports etc,but I would have thought that a major fire at the trailing edge of a tail less delta would likely 'take out' the flying controls on that side.
Then you might be screwed because you might still have roll control... but no control in pitch .
Obvously nothing to do with the original cause(s) of the fire which is a completely different subject !!
rgds baz
By: - 31st January 2010 at 15:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In your first post, you claim that the accident is due to the plane veering sideway before hitting the Continental metal strip. I challenged you to prove this was correct (as the FDR shows that this is a lot of bull) and you are suddenly changing your tune arguing that it is a weight issue. That is what we call having a lot of backbone.
As you say, Concorde should have made it with No.2 shutdown. I admit I got the sequence wrong by a second or so, it had been a while since I read the report.
The aircraft should have been able to turn round with one, perhaps even two engines shut down. But why didn't they?
Perhaps because she was overweight?
Certainly not. That is the contrary of what I said. The plane would not have made it whether No. 2 had been shutdown or not, irrespective of the weight. Even if it had not been switched off, nr 2 would not have provided power as it was ingesting kerosene. Nr 1 was never able to give sufficient power as it was also affected. This was compounded by the fact that the gear could not be retracted because of the damage created by the bursting tire. And the wing structure was losing in shape as a result of the fire, all of which made the plane totally uncontrollable.
My point and primary beef is: The authorities are blaming the metal strip and it appears only that metal strip. The entire report states "damaged by the metal strip" from the very first pages, to the last.
They dismiss everything else within one page, sometimes a single paragraph and continue to focus on the metal strip.It stinks of coverup and protectionism.
It will be interesting to see what happens in this trial.
You are either willfully misleading, have been misled or have not red the report. The report says that the Continental metal strip is one element among several. This is why, contrary to what you state, the current legal procedure has not only indicted Continental representatives but also :
- Aerospatiale/EADS representative for not taking decisive action as the repeated tyre incidents showed that the plane was unsafe (exploding tyres and burst tanks on dozens of occasions, both on AF and BA Concordes)
- DGAC (French aviation authorities) for basically the same reason as for EADS.
I guess that, should France judges have indicted Air France but not EADS and the DGAC, you would have here again claimed that it was all a cover-up.
By: - 31st January 2010 at 15:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agreed.
The weight of your argumentation in the case carries the day.
By: - 31st January 2010 at 15:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
... That is what we call having a lot of backbone....You are either willfully misleading, have been misled or have not red the report. ........
You have your opinion, I have mine.
You feel the report is just.
I feel the report smudges over a few important facts.
I did not comment further on the spacer as I did not feel it necessary.
If you want to accuse me of not having a backbone because of that then fair play to you. But allow me a retort by saying that your attitude in this thread has been one of utter contempt to anyone with a view different to yours.
I will concede however, that my recollection of the spacer causing the plane to veer from the centerline was in error. A combination of a long day and a migraine impeeded my judgement. For that I apologise.
Nevertheless, I still think the investigation washed over that matter with too much ease.
I highlighted the above issues to show what I think is a rather dismissive attitude in the report which I still maintain lends too much weight to the significance of the famous metal strip.
By: - 31st January 2010 at 16:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You have your opinion, I have mine.
You feel the report is just.
I feel the report smudges over a few important facts.I did not comment further on the spacer as I did not feel it necessary.
If you want to accuse me of not having a backbone because of that then fair play to you. But allow me a retort by saying that your attitude in this thread has been one of utter contempt to anyone with a view different to yours.I will concede however, that my recollection of the spacer causing the plane to veer from the centerline was in error. A combination of a long day and a migraine impeeded my judgement. For that I apologise.
Nevertheless, I still think the investigation washed over that matter with too much ease.
I highlighted the above issues to show what I think is a rather dismissive attitude in the report which I still maintain lends too much weight to the significance of the famous metal strip.
The problem is that you do not start with question marks or doubts. You come up with an entire alternative narrative that simply do not withstand even basic scrutiny. You have not come up with serious challenges to the report, but simply try to collate elements here and there that do not make any sense. Basically, you try not to find holes in the report because there may be holes in it, but start from the premise that it is French, therefore its is a cover up and any (even if mindless) alternative narrative will demonstrate. This is just not serious and shows simple prejudices. It's basically the same process as some anti-americans have in France. The 9-11 report, being american, is necessarily a cover up and loopholes are found to prove that (even though these loopholes are ridiculous).
Now, for whatever this is worth, my take in this story is that those that are to blame are the manufacturer(s), the operators (on both sides of the channel) and the aviation authorities (on both sides of the channel) for not addressing an underlying issue with Concorde that was bound to create such an accident. If you look at it, of the 60 something incidents having affected BA between 1978 and today, all but 8 concerned Concorde (and the same thing applies to Air France) - and when you look at the number of flights of Concorde compared with the rest of the fleet, that tells you a lot.
But I guess it is easier to bash frogs for the end of the Concorde than to face reality, which is that Concorde was unsafe and all parties that exploited or had the task to supervise its exploitation failed in making the necessary modifications mandatory.
By: - 31st January 2010 at 17:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Moderator Message
Gentlemen,
This is starting to get a little too personal now.
Please discuss the subject of the thread, and not one another.
Thanks
GA
Posts: 12,842
By: steve rowell - 29th January 2010 at 23:13
Ten years after a Concorde crash killed 113 people, Continental Airlines faces a trial on Tuesday to determine its responsibility in a disaster which ended an era of luxury supersonic travel for the super rich.
Previous investigations have concluded that one of the Concorde's tyres was punctured by a small piece of metal that had fallen off a departing Continental Airlines flight, hurling debris into the plane's fuel tanks and causing a raging fire.
Continental has denied responsibility for the crash and last week its lawyer, Olivier Metzner, said he had 28 witnesses disputing that version of events.
The results of the trial could have wide-ranging implications on the way the airline industry maintains its planes and the stringency of security measures.
"(The trial) will revolve around the question of who knew what and who -- despite knowing something -- did not act and whether that person could therefore be prosecuted," aviation security expert Ronald Schmid said.
On trial for involuntary manslaughter are Continental Airlines; John Taylor, a welder who worked for Continental at the time of the crash and his supervisor, Stanley Ford.
Henri Perrier, the head of testing of the Concorde programme before becoming its director and Jacques Herubel, the plane's former chief engineer, are also accused. The sixth defendant is the former head of France's civil aviation body Claude Frantzen.
Metzner said Continental was determined to show that it was not to blame for the crash and he said there were many questions over the safety and maintenance level of the Concorde.
"The stake is above all a moral one. Continental Airlines is a company that has an excellent reputation and doesn't want its image destroyed, which is respected by passengers and would not stand being held responsible," he said.
The Air France Concorde was attempting to take off from Paris on 25 July 2000, carrying mostly German tourists bound for a deluxe Caribbean holiday cruise, when an engine caught fire.
Unable to gain altitude and trailing a fiery plume as long as its fuselage, the plane crashed into a hotel in the town of Gonesse, six kilometres (four miles) southwest of Paris' Charles de Gaulle airport.
Black box recordings showed that the plane's captain tried desperately to turn the plane to land but did not have time. All 109 passengers, including three children, perished along with four hotel employees on the ground.
"The survivors expect... a fair trial and an investigation into this accident. They want to learn why their relatives had to die and who is perhaps responsible for that," said Schmid.
Prosecutors say the metal strip was fitted incorrectly on the Continental plane and was made of titanium, which is tougher than regulation aluminium and more likely to cause punctures.
Continental's lawyer Metzner said his witnesses, who include pilots and members of the fire brigade, will attest that the strip of metal was not to blame for the fire on the Concorde.
The crash hastened the demise of the highly uneconomical Concorde and its two operators, Air France and British Airways, took the plane out of service in 2003.
"We must and should learn out of this accident first of all that safety has absolute priority and is more important than money-making and prestige concerning an aircraft," said Schmid.
(Reuters)