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

Dam French

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

siucavflight

Back from the forsaken
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Posts
3,512
What do you guys think about this article regarding the Concorde crash, and Conntiental Airlines.

They want to prosecute the employees for what may or may not have happened? And either way a complete accident.

http://www.airdisaster.com/news/1204/09/news.shtml
 
:) I think your "N" at the end of "dam" ran away, and is hiding in "Continental"
 
siucavflight said:
What do you guys think about this article regarding the Concorde crash, and Conntiental Airlines.

They want to prosecute the employees for what may or may not have happened? And either way a complete accident.

http://www.airdisaster.com/news/1204/09/news.shtml
How do you figure leaving metal objects on a runway is an accident? I'll buy "negligent act". Whether it was a design flaw or a lack of inspection or reasonable care by the maintenance department...you can’t fling debris on runway and expect not to be hauled into civil court. We had a case here in Wisconsin where a guy hauling a mattress in a trailer was criminally prosecuted because the mattress went airborne and landed on a highway, causing a lady to lose control of her car and die in a single car accident. Just because an airliner is a big object and it uses a road different from a car, it doesn't alleviate their responsibility for operating it safely. Parts’ falling off of airliners is a "negligent" act...not an accident. Whether it is because of faulty design, faulty inspection or faulty maintenance, a negligent act occurred.


I'll also buy that this case could be remedied in civil court as opposed to criminal court. I just did a paper on "Overcriminalization" and I do believe that things like this should be handled in civil court, not criminal court. Read more...

From: http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/legislation/Overcrim_04_06?opendocument

Recent securities and accounting scandals, as well as prosecutions of environmental and health care offenses, have led to significant legislative and enforcement changes and have revived the debate over the role of the criminal sanction in enforcing economic regulations. While proponents of broader criminal enforcement proclaim that the criminal sanction is necessary to deter misconduct and restore confidence in our markets and society, opponents of overcriminalization” fear that the application of criminal punishments for regulated activities creates disincentives and/or overstates blame for morally neutral conduct.

This view of overcriminalization is reflected in many contemporary developments:

• Though, traditionally, for a crime to have been committed there must be some act done in furtherance of the criminal purpose, contemporary criminal law has begun to impose criminal liability for the acts of another based upon failures of supervision that are far different from the common law’s historical understanding.

• Historically the law required that before an individual is deemed a criminal he must have acted with an intent to do wrong. In contrast, contemporary criminal law has moved further away from necessitating a mens rea.

• The line between malum prohibitum conduct and civil sanctions has become increasingly blurred, with criminal sanctions being imposed on conduct that previously would have been remedied civilly.
 
Last edited:
Skyboss said:
Maybe we should sue France for AA 587???
Why, for putting rudder pedals on the co-pilot's side of the plane...I agree, the placement of rudder pedals on the co-pilot's side of any aircraft is a negligent design.

jetexas said:
...And the Roselawn Eagle ATR crash.
I hope you were being FACETIOUS? If not, make sure you let me know which flights you are flight crewing on, because I don't want to ride in the back of an airliner with pilots who think it's ok to slow down and hold in bad icing conditions with flaps deployed.
 
Last edited:
"We strongly disagree that anything Continental did was the cause of the Concorde accident..."
--as stated by CAL in the article that is linked above

Continental may not have done it on purpose, but had that piece of metal stayed on the airplane, we wouldn't be talking about this now.

Do I agree with what they (the French) are doing? No. Should it be a criminal case? No, as said by FN Fal.
 
Last edited:
Flying Illini said:
Continental may not have done it on purpose, but had that piece of metal stayed on the airplane, we wouldn't be talking about this now.
Numerous 10's in all fleets were missing this same rub strip.

Also, it was only a matter of time before this happened again. British Airways in Dulles some time ago had the exact same thing happen to them. The tire disentegrated and punctured the fuel tank. Luckily, the aircraft did not catch fire.

Some other issues have been brought up which I can not verify but some one may. I take no responsibility for the content.

1) The runway was not inspected prior to a Concorde departure as mandated by Air France.

2) Tire debris was found 100 meters prior to the location of the strip.

3) Air France conducted an internal investigation and concluded there was a missing spacer on the wheel assembly.
 
Last edited:
Boeingman said:
Numerous 10's in all fleets were missing this same rub strip.
So you're saying it's a design flaw or that poorly performed maintenance on airliners is an industry wide problem, not specific to any particular airline?
 
On a more serious note, and I'm sure CAL has already advised this, but it would be very prudent for those CAL employees that face potential ciminal prosecution to STAY OUT OF FRANCE. Their identities I'm sure have been flagged, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they were "picked up" upon entering the country.

If the persons are CAL employees at the France CAL station, they would be well advised to get back to the US on the next CAL flight!

This will likely get ugly, and all these employees would much happier watching it go down on friendly soil. Trust me.
 
A part leaving an aircraft can also be an accident, as opposed to a negligent act. If the part was improperly installed then it could be either, depending on the circumstances. You are saying that if an aircraft left a piece of a tire on the runway after a landing that it is a negligent act.

A matress that isn't tied down in the back of a pickup truck is not the same situation. All state laws require cargo transported on public roads to be properly secured. If this part fell of the CAL plane on it's first takeoff then I might agree that the failure to install it properly was a negligent act. If it was it's 20th cycle, however, it turns more the the realm af an accident.
 
FN FAL said:
So you're saying it's a design flaw or that poorly performed maintenance on airliners is an industry wide problem, not specific to any particular airline?
I'm sure the lawyers will figure that one out. But obviously it is a problem somewhere when all airlines discovered the same part missing after inspections.
With so many falling off, I would have to suspect a design flaw.

Now that you have brought up design flaws, should a tire disentegrate after passing over a thin, non edged piece of metal? This link states that it occured 57 times from 1979 - 1993 with 12 of those resulting in structural damage to the fuel tanks.

It would appear to me this was an accident years in the making and the metal strip is a scapegoat for liability.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/france/01/05/concorde.report/
 
Last edited:
Numerous 10's in all fleets were missing this same rub strip.
A part leaving an aircraft can also be an accident, as opposed to a negligent act. If the part was improperly installed then it could be either, depending on the circumstances. You are saying that if an aircraft left a piece of a tire on the runway after a landing that it is a negligent act.
Most aircraft don't leave tire chunks on the runway, and if you get to the gate/ramp and find that you have a blown tire, wouldn't you let someone know so that they could perform a FOD check on the runway?

If this was the first time that this part had departed an aircraft, then maybe it was an accident. Or if this part came off because of a bird impact during the take-off roll, then it was an accident. Unfortunately, from the first quote, this seems like it had occurred quite often. If it was known that this rub strip was notorious for departing the aircraft, why not develop a fix for it (or remove it all together). If you continue to leave pieces of debris on the runway, something bad is eventually going to happen. Now, if this part was missing from many aircraft in all fleets, maybe the manufacturer, not CAL is responsible.


I still don't agree with what's happening, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
 
Flying Illini said:
If it was known that this rub strip was notorious for departing the aircraft, why not develop a fix for it (or remove it all together). If you continue to leave pieces of debris on the runway, something bad is eventually going to happen. Now, if this part was missing from many aircraft in all fleets, maybe the manufacturer, not CAL is responsible.


I still don't agree with what's happening, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
I don't know about the specifics, but I remember people familiar with the 10 saying that the piece was so small and basically a "wear strip" it didn't get a lot of attention from the FAA when they were discovered missing.

Any DC 10 mechanics care to comment?
 
FN FAL-

I hope you're kidding. Both AA 587 and AE 4184 had major design flaws in the aircraft as factors, and in both cases, the French completely rejected the idea that their product was anything other than perfect. This despite the fact that all ATRs are now flying with greatly improved de-ice boots over those that were installed on the accident flight, and the fact that my airline is flying a number of ATR 72-212As that were given to us by Aerospatiale after the crash. That sure sounds like an acknowledgement of blame to me, even though the French never said anything in public.

The investigation is still underway on the Concorde accident. It's apparent that the aircraft did run over the metal strip (there was earlier speculation that it was already airborne when it reached the strip) because the cut in the tire matched the shape of the strip. Even so, it's unprecidented for a single tire failure to cause a loss of the aircraft. Does this kind of vulnerability even meet Part 25 certification standards?
This has been a known issue with Concordes ever since they entered service. One was almost lost taking off from IAD in the '70s under identical circumstances. A tire blew at rotation, debris struck the wing, and fuel began gushing out of the hole. The only reason the plane made it back to the airport was that the fuel didn't ignite. No changes were ever made to the aircraft to reduce its vulnerability to tire failures.

Why don't the French also look into prosecuting employees at Charles de Gaulle airport? Isn't it the responsibility of airports to make frequent runway inspections and keep them free of debris? Oh, that's right- the airport in question is in France!
 
I found this interesting:


Concorde Safety Assessment shows probability of a major accident from single tire failure is 3000 times higher than regulations allow. That analysis drove this week's grounding. Because of a small fleet and low number of flights, Concorde now has the worst safety record of all transport airplanes after a single accident. The Concorde has 12.5 fatal accidents per million flights (One accident, 80K flights total), compared to 0.33 for the newer generation Boeing 737 models (30.8 Million flights total), and 0.55 for the Airbus 320 models (7.3 million flights total).

- Special French-English Study Group set up to look at practicality of getting Concorde up again


http://www.safe-skies.com/concorde_crash.htm

More very interesting reading about known problems with the Concorde and tire/ fuel tank rupture issues:

A 1997 report by the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Office of Aviation Research referenced the particular hazard regarding the Concorde. The report, titled "The Potential for Fuel Tank Fire and Hydrodynamic Ram From Uncontained Engine Debris," contains a wealth of obviously related information regarding the hazard to vital aircraft systems posed by debris from exploding tires (hydrodynamic ram is the overpressure produced by the motion of a fragment inside a fuel tank).

With respect to Concorde, the FAA report said, "The risk of fire and explosion in aircraft fuel tanks in the Concorde SST (supersonic transport) due to uncontained failure of the Olympus 593 engine was initially recognized in a British Aerospace report by Wallin (1976). The probability of ignition for Jet-A was estimated... to vary from 0.05 to 0.8 depending on fragment trajectory and fuel temperature."

The fragments for this analysis were hot blades from an uncontained failure in the turbine section and "consequently, the potential for ignition is high". Nevertheless, the point is relevant to exploding tires.
 
Last edited:
...additionally, assigning blame to the airport has happened before with Air France.
Date: 03 June 1995
Aircraft: Concorde
Airport: John F. Kennedy (NY)
Phase of Flight: Landing roll
Effect on Flight: Aircraft was towed to gate
Damage: Engines
Wildlife Species: Canada geese
Comments from Report: Aircraft ingested a Canada goose into the #3 engine which had an uncontained failure causing parts to go into the #4 engine. Both engines were destroyed. Flames and smoke were seen coming from both engines. Cost was over $9 million. Aircraft was out of service for 5 days. The NY Port Authority paid $5.3 million in compensation for losses.
Why not in this case I wonder? What's good for the goose....
 
atrdriver said:
A part leaving an aircraft can also be an accident, as opposed to a negligent act. If the part was improperly installed then it could be either, depending on the circumstances.
No...that's a design flaw, poor maint or a poor inspection...it's a negligent act. Don't tell me the planes are designed to just shed paraphrenallia.
atrdriver said:
You are saying that if an aircraft left a piece of a tire on the runway after a landing that it is a negligent act.
First of all, we're not talking about tires, but since you brought it up...how does part of a tire come off of a tire? What causes that? Design flaw? Improper use of the tire by pilots? Bad maintenance? Is parts of tires laying on the runway, acceptible? If tire parts laying on a runway is acceptible, then we are talking apples and oranges.

atrdriver said:
A matress that isn't tied down in the back of a pickup truck is not the same situation.
Yes, both the situation of not tying down the object and improperly tying down the object are the same thing...negligent acts. In this particular case, it was a city worker that "accidentally" borrowed a city trailer to haul his mattress up to the cottage for some sum sum summa time fun. But in his niggardly attention to detail, he only tied it down as good as a city worker could...which was negligently. To wit: the mattress came out of the trailer on an interstate, in fact he never knew it came out untill he was advised of his rights.
atrdriver said:
All state laws require cargo transported on public roads to be properly secured. If this part fell of the CAL plane on it's first takeoff then I might agree that the failure to install it properly was a negligent act. If it was it's 20th cycle, however, it turns more the the realm af an accident.
No...negligent design, negligent inspection, negligent maintenance. As one poster already mentioned, there were tons of these things falling off.

The 20th cycle thing makes it an accident? You want to apply that logic to the Beech 1900 Crash at CLT and think about it for a while?
 
This has been a known issue with Concordes ever since they entered service. One was almost lost taking off from IAD in the '70s under identical circumstances. A tire blew at rotation, debris struck the wing, and fuel began gushing out of the hole. The only reason the plane made it back to the airport was that the fuel didn't ignite. No changes were ever made to the aircraft to reduce its vulnerability to tire failures.
Tire failures were no stranger to the concord due to the high speeds the tires were forced to endure.
After the above incident happened, the tires were redesigned to be able to handle the high speeds.
After the redesign, there were no additional tire failures.

on a side note: My understanding was that the chunk of rubber flew off the tire, hit the underside of the wing (but didn't puncture it) which caused a pressure wave inside the full fuel tank that caused an inspection panel on the forward, top of the wing to pop off which then caused the fuel to spill out. The fuel was then ignited by a severed wire (severed by rubber chunks) inside the landing gear comparment that was sparking.
 
EagleRJ said:
FN FAL-

I hope you're kidding. Both AA 587 and AE 4184!
You can sugar coat Roselawn all you want...holding in icing conditions, with flaps deployed and the autopilot on, is bad procedure. So is sitting there and watching the trim wheel whir away.

As far as flight 587...the final report is not out yet, I reserve the right to speculate.
 
pot calling kettle....

do you really expect the French can find a small piece of metal on a runway (if a runway inspection was to be done) when they can't find something as large as a suitcase?
 
EagleRJ said:
...additionally, assigning blame to the airport has happened before with Air France.
Why not in this case I wonder? What's good for the goose....
So what you are saying is the Federal government should pass an international law that says when you civilly sue someone, you must civilly sue everyone, everytime, all the time? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of a civil suit? If you sue a guy that causes you to wreck in one accident, then you sue a manufacturer in another separate accident, does that mean that you should be made by law and to go back and sue the manufacturer in the first case? I don't get what you are getting at with the New York case, you didn't post the details in a citable format. There may have been mitigating circumstances that put the New York airport in a culpable position. LIKE NO NOTAM! How about posting the court documents on the New York case...not an OPINION EDITORIAL.

France is considering CRIMINAL charges against Continental and it's employee's. That's a little bit different than suing someone civilly.

First of all, in civil suits, you only need preponderance of the evidence...preponderance is 50.00000000000001%. Evidently Air France sued the NY airport and they either settled out of court or won a settlement in front of jury, based on a preponderance of the evidence.

In the case of the criminal charges against Continental, that's a whole new ball game...If their court system works like ours, if the case is accepted by the courts, they will need to prove to a jury beyond a shadow of doubt...that's sh!t load different than 50.00000000000001% of ponderance.

Also...in criminal court, the case is prosecuted by the state, not the airline, not the manufacturer, not the CEO...the state.

So you're comparison of the NY airport paying out money after getting sued by the airline in civil case, is a little different than a government prosecutor getting a case in front of judge for state prosecution. Apples and oranges.
 
Boeingman said:
I'm sure the lawyers will figure that one out. But obviously it is a problem somewhere when all airlines discovered the same part missing after inspections.
With so many falling off, I would have to suspect a design flaw.

Now that you have brought up design flaws, should a tire disentegrate after passing over a thin, non edged piece of metal? This link states that it occured 57 times from 1979 - 1993 with 12 of those resulting in structural damage to the fuel tanks.

It would appear to me this was an accident years in the making and the metal strip is a scapegoat for liability.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/france/01/05/concorde.report/
That's all true...but they aren't suing Boeing in civil court over liability...they are attempting to go after Continental and it's officers in criminal court.
 
I'll bet the French would LOVE to use the International Criminal Court to settle this matter.

It's a good thing that a certain President had the foresight to make sure that something like this can't happen.
 
FN FAL said:
That's all true...but they aren't suing Boeing in civil court over liability...they are attempting to go after Continental and it's officers in criminal court.

I know nothing about International law, but it seems like a stretch to try that.
 
Simple fact is, runways and taxiways sometimes have FOD on them, whether from natural causes or pieces coming off an airplane. That's why they do runway inspections. Someone stated that it was standard procedure for a runway inspection before a Concorde takeoff. If this is true, then the only one "negligent" here is the one who performed the inspection.
 
atrdriver said:
Simple fact is, runways and taxiways sometimes have FOD on them, whether from natural causes or pieces coming off an airplane. That's why they do runway inspections. Someone stated that it was standard procedure for a runway inspection before a Concorde takeoff. If this is true, then the only one "negligent" here is the one who performed the inspection.
...or if it wasn't done, the crew for not following company procedure and performing the take-off anyway.
 
Boeingman said:
I know nothing about International law, but it seems like a stretch to try that.
French law is not international law. The french court system could convict all the defendants in absentia...even the company. I'm no expert on french law, but I would think they coud do that. Heck, in the US we try DNA samples and find them guilty!

check out this posting by the Heritage Foundation...more on overcriminalization...

http://www.heritage.org/Press/NewsReleases/nr042103.cfm?

Ask Edward Hanousek what happens when the concept of enforcing laws veers so far off course. Hanousek was employed as a road master by the White Pass and Yukon Railroad, which runs from Skagway, Alaska, to Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada. As such, Hanousek was responsible for maintenance and construction of the track and other facilities of the railroad.

A high-pressure pipeline carrying fuel oil ran alongside the track. One evening, after Hanousek had left work for the day, Shane Thoe, a backhoe operator who worked for a contractor hired to load rock onto railroad cars, loaded a train with rock. After the train departed, Thoe noticed some rock remained on the track. He drove the backhoe down and removed the rock. In the process, he ruptured the pipeline, spilling fuel oil into the adjacent Skagway River.

Hanousek, not Thoe, paid the price in criminal sanctions because, according to the courts, he had failed to supervise Thoe sufficiently. Hanousek and his superior—Paul Taylor—were charged with negligently discharging pollutants into a U.S. waterway and making false statements to Coast Guardsmen investigating the incident. Taylor was acquitted of both charges, and Hanousek was acquitted of making the false statements. But Hanousek was convicted and sentenced to six months in prison because he failed to appropriately supervise the project.

He did nothing morally wrong. He had gone home for the day and had no knowledge of Thoe’s actions. Thoe was charged with nothing. Yet, Hanousek spent six months in prison. This, says Rosenzweig, is the type of use of criminal law that must be reformed
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom