Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Muckmaw1 on December 14, 2004, 01:48:22 PM
-
Report lays part of blame for Concorde crash on Continental Airlines
2 hours, 50 minutes ago Top Stories - AFP
PARIS (AFP) - A French legal inquiry into the July 2000 Concorde crash outside Paris that killed 113 people presented findings Tuesday that put part of the blame on the US airline Continental.
The report by judge Christophe Regnard concluded, after four years of questioning experts and witnesses, that the causes of the crash were two-fold: a structural fault in the Concorde's design, and a titanium metal strip left lying on the runway from a preceding Continental plane.
The metal strip played a "direct" role in the accident, which killed all 109 people on board the New York-bound Concorde and four people on the ground, the report said.
But it also said the Concorde suffered a "relative weakness" on the interior surface of its distinctive delta-shaped wings which shielded the fuel tanks.
When the Air France Concorde, speeding down the runway at Charles de Gaulle airport on July 25, 2000, hit the titanium strip, shredding one of its tyres, chunks of rubber were sent through a wing fuel tank.
With the tank ablaze and engine power failing, the supersonic plane plummeted into a hotel near the airport in a fireball.
The spectacular disaster ultimately contributed to the aviation icon being pulled from the skies last year.
Regnard's report said the problem with the weakness of the Concorde's wings was discovered during its years of service but "were not sufficiently noted by relevant parties" such as its maker, Aerospatiale, and France's air safety office, the BEA.
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.
"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.
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.
Nevertheless, the judge said the design problem was "not a construction defect" and he concluded that the 2000 accident would not have occurred without the presence of the 44-centimetre (17-inch) titanium strip that had fallen off a Continental DC-10 using the same runway five minutes earlier, it said.
The object had a "direct causal role" in the accident, his report said.
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.
The component was replaced with the much harder titanium strip by Continental maintenance in Houston, Texas.
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."
That finding could expose Continental to a criminal lawsuit for manslaughter and possibly millions of euros (dollars) in damages.
The US airline last week rejected any responsibility in a strongly worded statement.
"We formally contest that Continental Airlines played a role in the Concorde accident," it said.
*** My comments: Seems to me like we've got 2 parties to blame here. Aerospatiale for knowing about a problem since 1979 and not correcting it.
And possibly Continental for replacing a part with titianium.
So Aluminum would not have cut the concorde tires?
Parts falling off airplanes....pretty common, is'nt it?
-
The first two were better.
-
Originally posted by ra
The first two were better.
Seconded. This is why people with parkinsons should be extra careful when posting to the BBS.
-
that is one gay-assed conclusion.
-
At first I thought it was BGB triple posting threads of the same subject....then I seen it was Muck.
Now I'm worried.
:(
:rofl
-
The tire could have blown for many reasons and still caused the damage... It was the tire that blew a hole into the wing tanks not the metal. Not saying that continental does not share some responsibility it just seems to be a bit of a cop out.
-
From the wording though, it sounds like the judge isnt blaming Continental for having a part fall off the plane. He's blaming them for using titanium when the specs called for the part to be aluminum. I suppose if Continental can show they used titanium instead of aluminum because the original specs were flawed in some way, and not just because "stronger is better", the judge's opinion could be overturned.
I would think there has to be a reasonable expectation that any mechanical device, no matter how routinely it is inspected and maintained, will have failures of parts that cannot be forseen. What about the airport's policing policy? Aren't they held at all responsible?
-
You cannot expect the airport to walk the runway everytime a plane lands or takes off.
It seems to me, tire blow outs, no matter the cause, should not lead to catastophic failure of the aircraft.
Continental's titanium would be a contributing factor, of course, but was'nt it just a matter of time before the weak fuel tanks ruptured from a blow out?
-
Okay, being strictly a sim pilot, I don't know much about airport operations.. but isn't there supposed to be a crew that makes sure the runway in clear? If not, there should be. It's not exactly a cone'd up autocross course. It's a freakin' runway.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
What about the airport's policing policy? Aren't they held at all responsible?
I would hope that the airport would ensure safety for all aircraft by making sure sharp metal objects are not on the runway, before an aircraft takes off. Why aren't there safety procedures for this?
-
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.
-
With all those expert eagle eyes around an airport, isn't the airport responsible for keeping its runways and taxiways clear of foreign objects, i.e. debris?
If a part falls off your automobile and you didn't know it and another car has an accident because of it, is it your fault?
If you replaced a part on your car with another part that is stronger but it falls off and causes an accident because it was stronger, is that your fault?
Carelessness and intent are obvious causes for litigation, but sheer chance, i.e., pure accident without precedent, seems a stretch.
Better that vengeance energy like this be transferred to preventive energy such as outlawing truck hi-ride modifications that elevate their bumpers in line with most normal vehicles' windshields.
-
Originally posted by Halo
If you replaced a part on your car with another part that is stronger but it falls off and causes an accident because it was stronger, is that your fault?
Yes. Basically it is a pretty useless "stronger" part if it falls off.
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
The object had a "direct causal role" in the accident, his report said.
Well no chit!
The main reason the plane went down was that is could not survive a tire blowout, from what I'm reading here. They knew it was a problem back in 1979 an did not fix the problem.
I'd say that Concord was negligent.
-
To all of you Americans posting in this thread:
Stop and imagine this was a British Airways flight instead of a US carrier being given "partial" blame.
Would your angst be the same? In fact would this even be posted and discussed?
My guess is no.
-
All I am saying is that a tire blowout brought the plane down. Concord knew the plane was vulnerable to tires entering the wing and fuel tanks and did nothing to fix it.
-
Concord shares in the blame then, but having bits of one's jet fall off on takeoff also seems pretty darn negligent too, wouldn't you say?
-
Airports run 24/7. Do you want FOD radar on a 10000 acre airport or somthing?
If there is an civil aircraft design principle that dictates that likely to fall off pieces must be made of a material with certain(malable) qualities then Continental and the part maker are in trouble.
If there is not then they are not.
IE if airliner tires are designed to withstand X kind of obstruction to be certified and Airliners are designed to only drop X kind of obstruction to be certified then there is an issue.
We dont have to guess that there is a design prinicple that a blown tire should not engulf an aircraft in a fire ball..
Sure seems like a cop out though.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Concord shares in the blame then, but having bits of one's jet fall off on takeoff also seems pretty darn negligent too, wouldn't you say?
Sounds right, but we're down to degrees of guilt at this point. What's a greater problem? A company intentionally ignoring a problem until after the fleet is grounded, or, a 17" piece of metal falling off a plane.
"Well, our plane wouldn't have crashed had you used aluminum instead of titanium during maintenance!"
"Your plane wouldn't have crashed had you fixed the problem in 1979!"
"Yeah! Well... had you used the right part, we wouldn't have had to fix our problem!"
"Right. Well, had you fixed the problem, we could've gotten away with using the wrong part!"
You can go in circles for hours.
I think Continental should be liable, but Aerospatiale & the BEA should be paying the bulk of the damages. They let the problem go for quite a long time.
-
Whole thing sounds like another jab at the USA by the French.
-
Continental's response...:
http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/for5/200412081403DOWJONESDJONLINE000953_FORTUNE5.htm
-
How many people would have paid 10000 dollars for a plane ticket knowing that the thing could explode from a blown tire?
-
Just a bunch of dead rich folks...who need em? " Look at me..I can afford to fly the Concorde..I'll be home ***** my secretary behind my wifes back while you are still over the atlantic sitting in coach".
-
First, I like France, and I like the French. I don't like Chirac, and there are many French who share my dislike for the same reasons (which are not those for why the Bushies dislike Chirac and France).
Now, as for the case at hand, the following failures occurred:
A) A Continental Aircraft was repaired in a manner not according to spec.
B) Said continental aircraft repair failed and spat out the jagged piece of titanium on the airstrip.
C) Airfield Authorities, whose job it is to keep the runways hazard-free, do not detect said piece of titanium.
D) a Concorde, at or (probably) above RTOW rolls down the runway and hits the strip.
E) Due to a design defect, documented for over 20 years, the tire doesn't just puncture, it explodes, and shrapnel punctures the wing, setting it on fire.
F) Asymmetric thrust causes the aircraft to veer.
G) Maintenance shortcomings on the Concorde probably aggravate the veering.
H) PF, past V1, elects that damage isn't sufficient to risk a potentially disastrous overrun, and continues takeoff.
I) PNF, although not ordered to do so, shuts down the engine with the fire warning, reducing thrust further.
J) Aircraft takes off, struggles, and crashes.
A-I all involve problems. Some of them (G) may be red herrings, but they're all pretty serious.
Continental's role is pretty minor. The Airfield's job is to keep the strip free of hazards. The Aircraft design crew's job is to make sure that FOD missed by the airfield is not capable of inducing catastrophic failure.
With the Concorde, which has a history of nasty problems from burst tires, and which needs a lot of runway, it would have made sense to run a check of the runway before takeoff. Then again, if you have a hazard that's a lethal problem for only one type of aircraft, then the problem is with that A/C type.
There are a lot of Americans a french investigating judge could bring up on criminal charges. But if the maintenance folks for Continental are so convicted, then our friend the investigating judge would be convicting them as political prisoners, either for some personal grudge of collective guilt, or the even worse crime of collective innocence of his compatriots.
-
Yes, it was tire failure that caused Concorde to crash. But it was not a "normal" failure. Concorde had problems early on with blowouts and a new design was made to prevent it from happening again. Unfortunately, they did not factor in a titanium cutting device on the runway.
This isn't a France vs USA thing. It's a sloppy Continental maintenence thing.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Just a bunch of dead rich folks...who need em? " Look at me..I can afford to fly the Concorde..I'll be home ***** my secretary behind my wifes back while you are still over the atlantic sitting in coach".
They were not that rich all where German retirees
-
Regardless of who was operating what plane under which flag, there was a serious problem with the Concorde and tires throughout its operating lifetime.
I'm not excusing Continental.
However, to have one blowout bring down an aircraft (and having a history of single blown tires nearly causing this same sort of tragedy constantly for the operating life of the plane) shows a serious design flaw. It is a flaw that everyone deeply involved with the Concorde knew was a serious problem nearly from the beginning. The truth is, they've had tires blowing out without hitting foreign objects or hitting very small foreign objects since the beginning of operation. And those blowouts have been doing serious damage and endangering the planes the whole time.
This time it was a large foreign object, but still, for all intents and purposes, one blown tire trashed the plane.
It was a very sad, tragic, and disappointing end to the operational career of the Concorde. That's a shame.
-
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.
Smells like bait to me. Bad bait at that. Shame on you Curval. I expect better from you.
-
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. :rolleyes:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
"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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
So what are you saying Tronsky?
-
That planes break frequently, and airports do their best but can't cover every circumstance.
Tronsky
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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. :rolleyes:
hmmm ... 4/10 ... student FunkedUP don't use rolleyes it's bad for your notation.
-
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 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86643&)
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Some days you eat the bear, some days the bear eats you.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?