Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Airline to dispute Concorde crash cause

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

DUBLINFLYER

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Posts
395
By Henry Samuel in Paris
Saturday January 23 2010

American airline Continental will challenge the cause of the Concorde crash which killed 113 people in 2000, when it faces manslaughter charges next month.
The airline, two of its staff and three others are due to stand trial in France on February 2 over the disaster near Charles de Gaulle airport outside Paris. Investigators have concluded that a titanium strip left on the runway from a Continental plane cause the crash.
It is thought the 17in (43.5cm) 'wear strip' attached to the interior casing of an engine shredded a tyre on the Air France Concorde as it was taking off. Tyre fragments then punctured the supersonic aircraft's fuel tanks, with the plane bursting into flames and crashing, investigators believe.
The German-chartered Concorde had taken off just after a Continental DC10 departed for Houston. Yesterday, Continental said it had evidence corroborated by 28 witnesses, including pilots and firemen, to show that "neither Continental nor its employees were responsible for the accident.
"It will show that there was a fire on the Concorde before it reached the point on the runway where it supposedly rolled over the wear strip, and that a series of issues relating to the Concorde itself and its abnormal operation that day made the accident unavoidable".
A source close to the inquiry said the witnesses cited by Continental had already been questioned and their version of events rejected by many other witnesses. The investigation was, according to the prosecution, based on indisputable technical evidence.
Continental's lawyer, Olivier Metzner, said: "The version of these witnesses was troubling.
"The fire on the Concorde began eight seconds before it met this (metal) strip on the runway, 700 metres before contact with this part," he alleged.
He claimed the plane's tyre may have burst due to an uneven runway.
Among those facing manslaughter charges are a mechanic and maintenance official with Continental Airlines, two Concorde officials working for Aerospatiale and a former member of the French civil aviation authority. (© Daily Telegraph, London)
- Henry Samuel in Paris
Irish Independent
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/airline-to-dispute-concorde-crash-cause-2028698.html
 
It's an absolute travesty of their legal system that this is just now coming to trial almost eleven frick'in years after the fact.
 
What's amazing with France, is that can make it fantasy land for Roman Polanski over all the years, but bring manslaughter charges even though the Concorde was not designed properly to handle a small strip of FOD.
 
the french dont take responsibility. AF447 - never wanted to find the boxes, either.
 
What's amazing with France, is that can make it fantasy land for Roman Polanski over all the years, but bring manslaughter charges even though the Concorde was not designed properly to handle a small strip of FOD.

They forgot to mention a required runway sweep was not done, there was a spacer missing on one of the landing gear assemblies, and they were over weight for the runway and wind. Why let facts get in the way.
 
The French are the French and they absolutely deserve this ridicule... But let's also not forget that if it weren't for French, there would be no United States of America...
 

Latest resources

Back
Top