This will get ugly

[ozzy72]

I think if we shot most of the lawyers on the planet we could save ourselves a lot of trouble...

French prosecutors investigating the manslaughter of the 113 people killed in the Air France Concorde crash four years ago are to summon senior executives of the US airline Continental.
Judicial experts concluded yesterday that the disaster was caused by a titanium strip which fell off a Continental jet and was left lying on the runway of the Charles de Gaulle airport.
The metal strip burst a tyre on the Concorde and sent debris flying into a fuel tank, causing the aircraft to become engulfed by a fireball. The 185-tonne aircraft crashed into a hotel outside the airport 85 seconds after take-off.
Continental Airlines' chief executive, Gordon Bethune, and chief operating officer, Larry Kellner, are to be called to appear before an investigating judge in March.
Three of its technical staff will be called to appear in February.
The prosecutors allege that Continental was breaking the US federal aviation authority's safety regulations by using titanium for the "wear strip" on its DC-10 instead of aluminium. Because titanium is harder, it made the accident more likely.
Continental said in a statement yesterday: "We strongly disagree that anything Continental did was the cause of the Concorde accident, and we are outraged that media reports have said criminal charges may be made against our company and its employees.
"We are confident that there is no basis for a criminal action and we will defend any charges in the appropriate courts."
Many of the 109 passengers on the Concorde flight AF4590 to New York were German tourists on the first leg of a Caribbean holiday.
The families of some of the victims have opted to seek financial recompense from Continental Airlines, despite a $120m (

[Woodlouse2002]

If I were the judge I would declare it an act of god and close the case.

[C]

Money, money , money......

The French judicial report was critical of the Corcorde's design, pointing to insufficient protection of its fuel tanks and weaknesses in the "training and preparation of the Concorde teams".  

Like to see the legal people try to design it better...

This really is pathetic. It was an ACCIDENT! It was virtually impossible to foresee such a thing. Its a bit like saying "Lets sue the Wright brothers for giving us aviation"

Why not sue God for giving us the sky!

[Craig.]

Couple of points i have to make.
Firstly: If they want to blame continental, then they also need to call into question how good their airport op's are, this is the sort of thing that can happen to any aircraft, so technically after every departure a check vehicle should be sent down the runway, but alas this inst practical. Thus again it was an accident as it could have happend to any plane.

Secondly, you know it is about money thanks to this line.

Many of the 109 passengers on the Concorde flight AF4590 to New York were German tourists on the first leg of a Caribbean holiday.

This has absolutly no relevance to the crash, the cause of the crash or a solution to the problem of the crash. This is in there to sway public emotions in the hope they in turn can sway the judges ruling.

Sadly the people suffering the most, are the families of the victims, constantly bringing this up will never let them move on with their lives. I dont want to really go into this, but i fear this is just another rung on the French US relationship ladder.

[C]

Firstly: If they want to blame continental, then they also need to call into question how good their airport op's are, this is the sort of thing that can happen to any aircraft, so technically after every departure a check vehicle should be sent down the runway, but alas this inst practical. Thus again it was an accident as it could have happend to any plane.

Thankfully a radar is being tested/developed in the UK that scans the runway surface between movements...

[forfun]

Like to see the legal people try to design it better

Lol yea

But you have to admit the fuel tanks were always it's weak point.

[Woodlouse2002]

But you have to admit the fuel tanks were always it's weak point.

It was a passenger airliner, not a fighter plane. The fuel tanks wern't designed to be self sealing or anything resistant, they were only meant to hold fuel.

It's like saying the Titanic's hull was a weak point because it couldn't survive an impact with an iceberg.

[forfun]

It's like saying the Titanic's hull was a weak point because it couldn't survive an impact with an iceberg

But why make a supersonic passenger airliner, with a dangerously thin fuel tank. There are always going to be at least one puncture in it's lifetime. And inevitably something was going to hit that fuel tank, they should have made it alot stronger in my opinion.

You say they aren't building a fighter jet, but they should still make it as safe as possible.

Other than that the concorde was a fantastic aircraft, don't getme wrong

cheers
forfun

[forfun]

It's like saying the Titanic's hull was a weak point because it couldn't survive an impact with an iceberg

Lol, titanics hull WAS a weak point because it couldn't survive an iceberg, it was made of iron, which is not as strong as say, steel. These days the average cruise ship can stand an iceberg of that nature.

[C]

But why make a supersonic passenger airliner, with a dangerously thin fuel tank. There are always going to be at least one puncture in it's lifetime. And inevitably something was going to hit that fuel tank, they should have made it alot stronger in my opinion.

Adds weight = costs more.

and one day they got caught out. It was a calculated risk...

Charlie

[Saitek]

I read that...but thought I might get shouted at for putting up another BBC news link
One might as well say.. sue the airport for not having a clean runway.....
Some things are accidents - they have to remain that way. This buisness of suing here there and everywhere is ridiculous.

[C]

Some things are accidents - they have to remain that way. This buisness of suing here there and everywhere is ridiculous.

Just a reflection of society. I heard someone on the radio the other day trying to deny that a "compensation culture" exists. Yet isn't it starnge how we don't get RTAs (as in road traffic accidents) anymore, they're RTIs (incidents)...

Charlie

[eno]

The thing that everyone is missing is that the French legal system demands this sort of questioning in all types of accident. They are not trying to lay blame .... just establish the complete picture.

[Woodlouse2002]

Lol, titanics hull WAS a weak point because it couldn't survive an iceberg, it was made of iron, which is not as strong as say, steel. These days the average cruise ship can stand an iceberg of that nature.

The Titanics hull wasn't a weak point. The ship wasn't designed to take a collision with an iceberg. Today's cruise ships can only withstand an accident of that nature today because of what happened to the Titanic. Now every vessel has proper water tight bulkheads and more than enough lifeboats.

So Titanics hull wasn't built to withstand icebergs. After all, she was a passenger ship, not an ice-breaker. Concorde was a passenger plane, not the sort of role you'd expect to find pieces of titanium to go flying through fuel tanks.

There is no way the accident could have been foreseen, not by the designers, not by the pilots, not by the plane in front and definately not by the airline that owned the plane that dropped the metal in the first place.

[Craig.]

But why make a supersonic passenger airliner, with a dangerously thin fuel tank. There are always going to be at least one puncture in it's lifetime. And inevitably something was going to hit that fuel tank, they should have made it alot stronger in my opinion.  

You say they aren't building a fighter jet, but they should still make it as safe as possible

Firstly it didnt have dangerously thin fuel tanks. They were well within tolerance of all foreseeable situations. remembering that when concorde was designed and built titanium was not used quite so much in jets, if at all. Our historians can help there. As for the not building a fighter comment. up until recently all passenger jets were designed and built to much tougher rules and restrictions. and the there was always going to be a puncture in its lifetime comment. No there wasnt, it was an accident, nobody could have known it would happen, if anything it was down the bottom of the list of likely scenarios