Concorde Accident: Continental's Fault?

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by NUKE
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.

Hard to say....plenty of aircraft have flown with design faults that are either unfound, ignored or "managed" until they go down and take alot of people with it.

Service wise it was the only fatal accident that concorde occured - and the fact the aircraft has been withdrawn from service makes the aircrafts design failures at best a moot point.

One thing is for certain, blaming the airport operator and FOD seems a little short sighted in this case.

 Tronsky

[NUKE]

Originally posted by -tronski-
Hard to say....plenty of aircraft have flown with design faults that are either unfound, ignored or "managed" until they go down and take alot of people with it.

 Tronsky

Really? Comercial airliners?

Concord ignored a known DANGER since 1979 and paid the price for it in 2000

[NUKE]

Originally posted by -tronski-

Service wise it was the only fatal accident that concorde occured -  Tronsky

If I remember correctly, it has the worst record in history based on number of flights....plus they knew there was a problem 22 years ago.

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by NUKE
Really? Comercial airliners?

Concord ignored a known DANGER since 1979 and paid the price for it in 2000

Sure, 747 cargo doors design fault which could lead to an uncommanded opening...questions about A300 rudder problems, 737 Rudder problems...

 Tronsky

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by NUKE
If I remember correctly, it has the worst record in history based on number of flights....plus they knew there was a problem 22 years ago.

Unfortunately it could've been kept under the wonderful heading of Risk Management

 Tronsky

[straffo]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Typical French government response.  Refuse to accept responsibility, and blame Amreeka.  Morons build an airplane so that a flat tire causes it to turn into a fireball, then they want to blame somebody else.  

hmmm ... 4/10 ... student FunkedUP don't use rolleyes it's bad for your notation.

[straffo]

Originally posted by NUKE
If I remember correctly, it has the worst record in history based on number of flights....plus they knew there was a problem 22 years ago.

Why don't you dig your very own concord thread and re-read it ?

Here Concorde

[Gh0stFT]

I dont know whos fault this incident was, i think its about money
only today, all i can say is the concorde was a beatyfull plane.
As a kid i dreamed to fly (with) the concorde. Who here can say
they flown supersonic? Me not, and i doubt it will availible in the
near future again. In the '70 designed way ahead of its time
and today still best looking civil plane, only in the museum though

R
Gh0stFT

[Gixer]

I think it has left alot more questions answered and from what I've read just most air accidents it wasn't caused by just one piece of metal there are other factors which all contributed to the concorde crash just as much as a the metal strip.

Bad news for Continental if it sticks, they will be facing law suits from the relatives,Air France and British Airways. Suprised if it dosn't throw them into bankruptcy.



...-Gixer

[Heater]

Originally posted by Muckmaw1

Investigations showed that the strip, used in engine housings, should have been made of aluminium, a softer alloy which would not have cut the Concorde's tyres.

What a crock of s***,

I do not think it would have mattered as both would cut the tire! sure the aluminium would be softer but it would still have cut the tire.....

The major problem was the fix for the fuel cells was not done because of cost and the out of service time for the aircraft.

[JB66]

I know that the tires used were manufactored by Goodyear at the plant in Danville Virginia.  After the accident they (goodyear) went through a complete evaluation of their manufactoring process to determine if there was an issue that would have cause a tire failure.  
 
Haven't heard anything since that, and its been a couple of years since they have mentioned anything.  I guess Goodyear was worried about the lawsuits that they could be facing.

[Toad]

Some days you eat the bear, some days the bear eats you.

[Naso]

We have been asked to ignore the possibility to consider this thread as flamebait, so...

The main problem lay in the fact that the 2 contenders are the (almost) nationalistic France, and the almighty, untouchable USA....

No, wait, the contenders are 2 airlines company, an aircraft producer, and a judge, correct?

Pick your choise.

IMHO, the main responsability lay decisively (sp?) in the Air France that decided to accept the risk, instead to adopt a probably difficult solution (weight, balance, cost), for a known potential danger, and partially in the Concorde builders.

Anyway, as tronsky pointed, such potential dangers are commonly accepted "under the desk".

OTOH, it's supposed that an arcraft dont loose pieces (IIRC it even happened before).

Resuming:

I'll hold Air France greatly responsible, knowing the problem, and not having a team inspecting the RWY before each take off.

Concorde constructors can be held responsible only if they have stated somewhere in the operative specs that the concorde can operate from non standard RWYs.

The Airport share with AirFrance the part of rersponsability to not having controlled the RWY, 7/7 24/24.

Even Continental have it's share, but only if such parts losing as happened before (why use a stronger component? it broke before?), and/or if the crew realized that the part had detached and did'nt informed the tower.

The DC10 constructor may have the same kind of responsability as the Concorde constructor, but, again, only if this part has in other cases showed this nasty tendence to fell off.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Whether Continental ultimately shares in the blame for this accident remains to be seen.  In the response to the claims, Continental doesnt show any heistation at all in denying any responsibility.  There is no "we are reviewing our service records.......blah blah blah" to indicate they have any fear of legal action.  Which doesnt really say much in the end, I know.

In fact though, the judge's statement makes no reference to liability because of a part falling off the plane, instead it refers only to the composition of the material (i.e. it is titanium instead of aluminum, as the original specs called for).  As I stated earlier, if Continental can show this change was brought about due to the manufacturer (Douglas, now part of Boeing) specs being changed over time, then they have no worries.  There have been a few high profile crashes involving the DC-10, the first ones that come to mind are the Sioux City crash and the crash at O'Hare in '79.  How many times has a problem cropped up that has required the grounding of an entire line of planes until they could be inspected and fixed if necessary?  Even if the judge should go back and try to blame them for the part falling off, again, if they can show proper maintenance procedures were followed they can try to play it off as a manufacturer problem.  

Personally, I believe Continental shares a small part of the blame, how much remains to be seen when their service records are reviewed.  They may end up with nothing against them, and a whole slew of other lawsuits opened.

[Thrawn]

I don't see why nationality has to enter into this at all.  

The bulk of reponsibility is with the Concorde, and Continental is contributing factor.  Why the angst?