Posted on 03/11/2008 8:57:01 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
CERGY, France (AFP) — A French prosecutor has called for US airline Continental to be put on trial over the 2000 crash of an Air France Concorde, a court official said.A French inquiry found that the disaster, which killed 113 people, was caused in part by a strip of metal from a Continental plane, which fell off and later shredded one of the Concorde's tyres.
A deputy prosecutor in the city of Pontoise, Bernard Farret, said a request was made to bring to trial the airline as well as four individuals, including the Continental mechanic who allegedly fitted the strip to the plane.
The request must still be approved by judges.
The memorial commemorating the 25 July 2000 Air
France Concorde crash
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/continental-faces-charges-over-concorde-crash-which-killed-113-794564.html
Continental faces charges over Concorde crash which killed 113
By James Macintyre
Wednesday, 12 March 2008
Having worked for Continental and found out that it is run by scum, I hope they do get prosecuted.
Shouldn’t they be suing the airport instead, for failing to keep the runway clear of debris?
If you want on or off this aerospace ping list, please contact Paleo Conservative or phantomworker by Freep mail.
You want a runway walk inspection between every takeoff?
So, like, was the Continental pilot supposed to see the metal strip fall off in his rear view mirror, do a turn-around and go pick it up? You mean objects don’t occasionally fall off airplanes and cause damage? MAYBE it there is demonstrable negligence on the part of Continental that caused the debris can I see a suit. But I could also see a suit against the tire manufacturer, the Concorde designer for not specfying blow-out proof tires, and even the deisgner of the Mille Bournes game for not having an appropriate card - oh, wait, they do. OK, Milton Bradley is off the hook.
Perhaps before a Concorde takeoff, because a single point failure could cause it to crash. I'm surprised it every got certification to fly more than 60 minutes from a diversion airport. The engines were so close togther that an uncontained failure of one engine was likely to cause the loss of the other engine.
“...Shouldn’t they be suing the airport instead, for failing to keep the runway clear of debris?...”
Of course not! The airport is in France.
/s
Using america as a scapegoat for everything wrong in the universe is now a part of French culture.
No, it's mainly the fault of the Continental ground crew for screwing up so bad. You don't repair your aircraft in such a way as to allow large pieces of metal to fall off... if that happened regularly, planes would crash regularly.
Hello—— who’s responsibility is it to keep the runways clear? Methinks the airport operator.
This could potentially be very serious for any individuals involved. European legal systems allow criminal prosecutions for what in the US would only be civil negligence. The mechanic could potentially face jail time if the French court system got a hold of him.
On another note, I remember reading an analysis of this crash at some point that claimed to show the tire failing before the point on the runway where the debris was. It was pieces of the tire, not any metal debris, that punctured the fuel tank (and I don’t think anyone disputes that), and this analysis claimed that a spacer on the wheel bogey was not replaced after maintenance done just prior to the accident. As I understand it the missing spacer was later found in the maintenance shop. The missing spacer let the axle vibrate, overstressing a tire and causing it to burst before hitting the debris.
But I don’t remember who did this analysis or where I read it, or if it had ever been proven or disproven. Anyone else remember seeing something like this?
They can rot in Hell!!
Yeah, I saw it. I think it was published in Air&Space or Aviation Week. It pretty much showed Air France’s maintenance crew to be responsible... can’t have that, now, can we?
seems to me that the origional designers of the plane should be on the hook... who designs a plane that can’t handle a tire blowout on takeoff or landing without bursting into flames?
They’ve done it before - imprisoned their own pilot - after doctoring the flight data recorder ...
http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml
Socialist thinking - the government should guarantee by law a risk-free society. Therefore, any accident is a crime.
Here's my favorite picture, sorry some of you nay sayers:
Has Continental actually admitted that the metal came from their aircraft?
Has there been forensic work done to show the link?
The metal did indeed come from a Continental DC-10.
The French chose not to strengthen the underside of the wing like the British did, for just this scenario.
The French fire department was charged with driving down the runway before each Concorde takeoff to check for debris. That day, the French fire department was having a picnic and didn’t show for the runway inspection.
Continental fully liable? Not hardly.
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.
