Posted on 12/08/2004 5:09:03 PM PST by COEXERJ145
HF
AA should sue airbus for the NYC crash after 9-11...french turds...I haven't had French wine in 10 years and I'm damned proud of it.
Also, the DC-10 got a really bad rap that it didn't deserve. Only Turkish Airlines crash in 1974 was caused by a design flaw. Every other DC-10 crash has been caused by factors not related to the design's airworthiness. Even the infamous 1979 American Airlines crash in Chicago was the fault of the airline, not McDonnell Douglas and the DC-10 design.
To this day, Airbus has never admitted fault for a single accident even though several were clearly caused by design flaws in their aircraft, mostly in the Fly-By-Wire systems of the A320 series.
The May 25, 1979 crash I remember well. Our family grew up in northern Illinois, and most still lived there at the time. As I recall, it was faulty maintenance on the pylon pins that set all the rest in motion. (google, google)
NTSB: "...contributing to the cause of the accident were the vulnerability of the design of the pylon attach points to maintenance damage; the vulnerability of the design of the leading edge slat system to the damage which produced asymmetry; deficiencies in Federal Aviation Administration surveillance and reporting systems which failed to detect the use of improper maintenance procedures; deficiencies in the practices and communications among operators, the manufacturer, and the FAA which failed to determine or disseminate the particulars regarding previous maintenance damage incidents; and the intolerance of prescribed operational procedures to this unique emergency."
What I remember even more clearly was the brief pride expressed shortly before the accident, in the newly developed camera system which would allow passengers to see the takeoff from the pilot's vantage point on their nice TV screens. I don't recall it being confirmed they were using that system, but no major airline's flight since that day has used it, to my knowledge.
HF
No, I think that is mistaken. AA used it some in the early '80s. I can remember the first time(s) I saw it, and those were on business trips whose times and places I well remember.
History channel had a show on this crash. The pylon attach points cracked because maintenance crews routinely used forklifts to lift the engine instead of using some safer method. The forklifts lifted the pylons too high, and over time created cracks in a piece that should never crack at all and so wasn't carefully inspected. lots of similar cracks were found in other DC-10s. The crew nearly saved the airplane, but the slats were damaged on the left side as well, so their climb-out speed was too low and they stalled.
Funny!!!
Whenever I see "vulnerability of the design" mentioned numerous times in an accident investigation, that makes me a little suspicious...
In such cases, it certainly becomes incumbent on the manufacturer to be eminently clear to the customers what the maintenance procedures need to be, with acceptable tolerances specified at every point down the line. One hopes an appropriate, even pedantic, elaboration would never be minimized so as to keep potential a/c customers from dissuaded to take on the product.
Vulnerability is not, of itself, a crime, and is certainly a question of degree, set in the context of contemporaneous, commonly employed maintenance practices (in non Third World countries). We could hardly fault McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing, of course) if a stray Ghanaian goat were ingested into a DC-10 engine as the craft were taking off, despite the fact the craft was "vulnerable," to such events.
After an overwhelming and expensive, chock-full-of-lawyers process, an equilibrium is reached between McDonnell's coffee cups being labeled "Contents Hot--Spillage May Result in Burns" and enticement to $2.7M lawsuits, for example.
HF
If the Froggies are going to be able to haul up Continental on criminal charges over a 6" strip of metal, after they admit they eliminated a FOD sweep because their precious Concorde was running late, American air carriers had better seriously re-think their policy of doing business with France. As should every American company. The potential liability of dealing with such a bizarre legal system is not worth the marginal profits available in the moribund French economy.
I thought the EU was going to eliminate all this nonsense...
Associated Press
Continental Execs Face Concorde Probe
Tuesday December 14, 2:51 pm ET
By Pierre-Antoine Souchard, Associated Press Writer
Top Two Continental Executives to Be Questioned in Deadly Concorde Crash in July 2000
CERGY-PONTOISE, France (AP) -- French prosecutors summoned Continental Airlines' CEO and its chief operating officer for questioning in the investigation of the July 2000 crash of the supersonic Concorde, two lawyers said Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
The decision to question Gordon Bethune, who is also chairman, and Larry Kellner came after a panel of experts concluded that a "wear strip" that fell from a Continental plane had a direct role in the accident. Three technicians for Continental also are to be questioned.
However, the experts' report also points out a critical defect in the Concorde that had been ignored.
The airline exploded in flames two minutes after takeoff from Charles de Gaulle airport on July 25, 2000, and slammed into a hotel, killing all 109 people on board and four on the ground. The crash also spelled an end to the career of the sleek but costly supersonic aircraft.
A spokesman for Continental, based in Houston, said the airline does not believe it had responsibility in causing the crash.
"As we previously stated, we strongly disagree that anything Continental did was the cause of the Concorde accident," said London-based spokesman Nick Britton, reading a statement by telephone.
"We're confident that there's no basis for criminal action and we will defend any charges in the appropriate courts," he said, adding that the airline had received no "communications from the court."
The prosecutors office in Pontoise, the region covering Gonesse, north of Paris where the accident occurred, opened an investigation for manslaughter after the crash. Those questioned in the case risk eventually being placed under investigation -- a step short of being charged -- by Judge Christophe Regnard, who is heading the probe. However, they could simply be dismissed after answering questions.
Pontoise Prosecutor Xavier Salvat made public what was labeled the "definitive report" on the crash by a panel of three experts.
The experts concluded that a titanium strip that fell off a Continental Airlines DC-10 that had used the runway barely four minutes ahead of the Concorde was a main cause of the fiery crash.
Lawyers Jerome Boursican and Roland Rappaport said the two Continental executives were called to appear before Judge Regnard on March 8 and 10, Three technicians for the airline were summoned for questioning Feb. 16 and 18, the lawyers said.
Boursican represents the pilots union Alter and Rapoport represents the family of the Concorde pilot, Christian Marty, who was among the victims.
"We have a clear report that clearly envisages responsibilities" in the crash, Rappaport said.
Prosecutors acknowledged that Continental officials had been called, though they did not specify which ones.
The conclusion of the report by judicial officials was similar to that reached by accident investigators three years ago, with the "wear strip" that fell from a Continental plane considered the chief culprit.
Both reports found that the metal bar caused a Concorde tire to burst, propelling rubber debris into the supersonic plane's fuel tanks.
The prosecutors argued that Continental had violated U.S. Federal Aviation Administration rules by using titanium in a part of the plane that normally called for use of aluminum. Titanium, which is far harder than aluminum, made the accident more likely, they argued.
"Technical assessments have shown a direct causal link between the rupture of the No. 2 wheel's tire on the left side when it passed over the metal strip made of titanium alloy," prosecutors in the suburb of Cergy-Pontoise said in a statement.
An investigation nearly three years ago by France's Accident Investigations Bureau had cited the cause of the crash as the "wear strip" that fell off the Continental jet's engine housing during take off on the same runway that the Concorde used minutes later.
However, Tuesday's report also cited weaknesses in "the training and preparation of the Concorde teams," and insufficient protection of the supersonic jet's tanks.
Experts pointed to 67 cases of tire or wheel ruptures which in 24 cases "provoked one or more impacts on the structure," the report said. It added that in seven of the incidents "the fuel tanks were pierced with one or more holes."
"According to the experts, the number and seriousness of damages caused by bursting tires of the Concorde's main landing gear to the engines as well as the structure are beyond the norm in the 24 years of the aircraft's use," the prosecutor's statement said.
Hopefully Bethune in his classic style will tell the Frogs to F*** Off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.