Author Topic: Concorde Accident: Continental's Fault?  (Read 1949 times)

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
Concorde Accident: Continental's Fault?
« Reply #30 on: December 14, 2004, 06:09:33 PM »
Curval, I'd say about 90% of the blame is with Concord.

How many other planes would explode after a tire blows out....for whatever reason?

Blame Continental for the part falling off, blame Concord for ignoring a known problem resulting in the plane going down from a blown tire.

Unexceptable for Concord to let that problem go. If I were a family member, I'd go after Concord for negligence because they apparently let a VERY serious problem just go.

I'm not bashing the French, just looking at it from the point of view that Concord had an unsafe,  potentially catastrophic design flaw that they refused to fix.

Offline Dinger

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1705
Concorde Accident: Continental's Fault?
« Reply #31 on: December 14, 2004, 06:09:46 PM »
Hey, there's no problem is making a "call" here to determine the exact chain of events. The problem only arises with making criminal charges. Yeah, thrust reversers blowing crap off planes shouldn't happen.  But it does, and most of the time, it doesn't bring aircraft down.

It's like being charged for manslaughter for leaving a microwave under the visiting hoop at the school gym after a church bake sale. There's a basketball game, and one of the spirit squad members waves a hotdog at the two-minute warning, and a man with a pacemaker has a heart attack.  Instead of calling for help, he walks to the nearest payphone, dials 911, and dies before the ambulance gets there.
The fact that your son plays for the visiting team doesn't enter into it.
I don't want to read anti-americanism into this one, especially since the employer's nationality doesn't determine that of the employees (see for example the CDG THY DC-10 ramp rat failure a few decades back, where the Algerian baggage loader was incapable of reading english or french, and thus failed to shut the cargo door properly, causing a complete loss of aircraft and passengers, with blame apportioned -- and rightly in that case -- to the american MD engineers; there, the employer was Turkish, but the employees were French citizens)

Offline Curval

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11572
      • http://n/a
Concorde Accident: Continental's Fault?
« Reply #32 on: December 14, 2004, 06:19:47 PM »
Nuke, we disagree entirley on those percentages.  Air France flew Concordes for how long?  40 years or so?  They had one fatal accident caused by a large chuck of freaking titaium falling off a Continental Airlines jet.

You make them out to be ticking time bombs for heaven's sake.
Some will fall in love with life and drink it from a fountain that is pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Concorde Accident: Continental's Fault?
« Reply #33 on: December 14, 2004, 06:31:58 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Curval
You make them out to be ticking time bombs for heaven's sake.

Technically....  it was ticking, then it went off.  I think it WAS a tragic accident, but I'm surprised that there's any argument that there was a flaw in the Concorde that resulted in the death of all aboard (and some on the ground).

It WAS a flaw, as evidenced by the fact that it was FIXED.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13294
Concorde Accident: Continental's Fault?
« Reply #34 on: December 14, 2004, 07:07:57 PM »
The article says that previous tire failures had caused punctures in the wing and fuel tanks on several occasions. To ignore this design flaw is criminal and to blame another airline is ludicrous.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6143
Concorde Accident: Continental's Fault?
« Reply #35 on: December 14, 2004, 07:27:56 PM »
Quote
The first recorded instance of the fault being noticed was in a 1979 memo that warned of the sort of wing-penetration accident that occurred in 2000, according to the report.


Quote
"Technical solutions to reinforce the wing's lower surface on the aircraft ... were researched in 1979. The work was never carried out until 2001, after the accident," it said.


Quote
The Concorde suffered 67 tyre blowouts or wheel damage during its years of service. In 24 of those cases, the plane suffered impacts and in seven instances "the fuel tanks were pierced with one or several holes," the experts consulted in the report said


Thats GROSS negligence imo. 22 years Concorde knew about the problem but never bothered to fix it until 109 people died.


Quote
According to Regnard's office, "the fact that the strip from the DC-10 was of different material, titanium, than that originally used, had a direct incidence in the Concorde's crash."


The component was replaced with the much harder titanium strip by Continental maintenance in Houston, Texas.

Obviously since a part fell off of a Continental jet they are partly responsible. To say they are at fault for putting a superior quality part on is rediculous imo. Was Continental grossly negligent or even negligent? From the information we have we cant say one way or the other.

From the information we do have I'd say Concord is overwhelmingly responsible with Continental sharing a small portion of the fault.

If the titanium part was installed incorrectly then Continental was also negligent. If it was installed correctly but failed then Continental wasnt negligent imo.

Also, is it acceptable by FAA standards to replace an aluminium part with an identical titantium one? Just curious on that. Seems to me that titanium is an upgrade to aluminium.
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.

Offline Rino

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8495
Concorde Accident: Continental's Fault?
« Reply #36 on: December 14, 2004, 08:02:33 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Curval
This is silly.  If a part of Continental's plane fell off and caused the accident, which it did in my opinion, then that airline is partially responsible.  That's it...no issue.

If this had been any other country's aircraft you would never have questioned the courts decision.  Just more vieled France bashing.



     I'm glad to see so many safety inspectors here that know
exactly who's piece of material that strip was.

     I seem to remember that it was less than 3 hours after the
incident that the French authorities were able to determine the
"facts".  Maybe we should put them on Roswell or the Grassy
Knoll too.
80th FS Headhunters
PHAN
Proud veteran of the Cola Wars

Offline LePaul

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7988
Concorde Accident: Continental's Fault?
« Reply #37 on: December 14, 2004, 08:07:27 PM »
Wow.

Talk about grasping.

And is that DC-10 *missing* the said part?  That doesnt seem to be confirmed from that story.

I dunno, lots of debris causes accidents.  I dont recall having any luck chasing down all the car owners for the oil spot in the parking lot I slipped on the other night.  ;)

FOD is a fact of life on a runway.

So we have a known wing defect for 24 years that isnt addressed...and a situation finally pans out that equates the worse case scenario for said failure.



No French bashing, just a bit of logic.

Offline Muckmaw1

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
Concorde Accident: Continental's Fault?
« Reply #38 on: December 14, 2004, 09:56:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Curval
lol..SoA. Come on.

Muck actually posted the issue three times in his indignant rush to relate this story and vent at the French for daring to place blame on an American company.  That is what this thread started as and was meant to be.  

I like Muck and my opinion on French foreign policy is pretty low too (no offense to anyone here) so don't get me wrong...I'm just calling a "spade" a "spade".

I agreed that Concorde shares in the blame but I want Continental to share in it too.  I fly alot.  I'd prefer to fly in planes that don't have things "drop off" on takeoff and I certianly don't want to be in a plane behind one.

The causes, as detemined by the court in question were twofold:

"a structural fault in the Concorde's design, and a titanium metal strip left lying on the runway from a preceding Continental plane."

Hey, they got it right!  

So what is the problem?

The problem for the thread starter and a few others is that it is a French court making a "call" on an American company.  

I'm not implying that Americans have no feelings and that they didn't feel sorrow for what happened four years ago, but all that happened recently is that a court is determined who they felt was actually responsible.



Sorry, Curv.

Your wrong.

I posted this while we were having puter trouble at the office. Did'nt realize the thing went through cause I never got the "Thanks for Posting" message.

I posted it not because it's a French thing. *shrugs*.

I posted it because I thought I might find someone on this board that's interested in aviation and wanted to share their views on the case.

If you want to believe this is another France thing, be my guest.

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Concorde Accident: Continental's Fault?
« Reply #39 on: December 15, 2004, 12:19:58 AM »
Honeslty..it does feel like the whole thing has a "got to be some way to take a dig at americans"
really it does. The friggen plane blew up into a fireball from a flat tire.

as a general rule.
flat tires should not blow up your airplane.

Its like the pinto joke in Top Secret.

The terrorist in the Phantom in Airport 79 should just have put a tack under the tire and saved the sparrows.

I am sure its taboo to crack jokes about it. But blaming the Continental plane is just farcical.

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
Concorde Accident: Continental's Fault?
« Reply #40 on: December 15, 2004, 12:26:45 AM »
Pongo, it doesn't seem like a chance to dig at Americans to me.....it just seems like they want to blame anybody other than Concord for the design flaw.

Offline -tronski-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2825
Concorde Accident: Continental's Fault?
« Reply #41 on: December 15, 2004, 01:02:59 AM »
Full rwy inspections take place at Sydney KFS only three times a day (0500-0600hrs, midday, midnight) inspecting not so much just for FOD, but general issues - lighting-HIALS, maneuvering area serviceability (cracks, failures), signage
FOD as a rule is often reported by the tower, or by an aircraft if the RWY/Taxiways are not near an apron - and FOD such as a strip of metal would be nigh near impossible to spot in most places of the main RWY strip due to the slope/angle of the rwy strip itself unless you were actually on it.

Last week there were two tyre incidents, a 737-800 which had burst a tyre on takeoff from Brisbane, and upon landing the main RWY was closed untill the RWY was inspected for FOD - and the aircraft eventually removed from the RWY. 2 days another 737-800 had pucntured a tyre taxiing to the rwy, and was spotted  shredding it's main port inner by a operations officer as it was turning onto the main rwy for takeoff. Again the RWY and adjacent twys were inspected while the passengers were disembarked - and the airline engineers escorted onto the taxiways to change both port wheels (the other port tyre had deflated due to the weight)
 
 Tronsky
« Last Edit: December 15, 2004, 01:12:14 AM by -tronski- »
God created Arrakis to train the faithful

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
Concorde Accident: Continental's Fault?
« Reply #42 on: December 15, 2004, 01:14:41 AM »
So what are you saying Tronsky?

Offline -tronski-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2825
Concorde Accident: Continental's Fault?
« Reply #43 on: December 15, 2004, 01:17:16 AM »
That planes break frequently, and airports do their best but can't cover every circumstance.

 Tronsky
God created Arrakis to train the faithful

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
Concorde Accident: Continental's Fault?
« Reply #44 on: December 15, 2004, 01:21:04 AM »
Agreed.

What do you think of the issue regarding the Concord craft going down due to a blown tire?

In my mind, Concord was negligent in an extreme manner.