Concorde crash blamed on U.S. jet

Did a search, nothing showed up, so here goes.

France is trying to blame a Continental airplane that took of minutes before, dropping a piece of titanium. I think the maintenence crew is to blame for not picking it up. Not like the pilot could stop and pick the piece up. Maybe they should have more time between takeoffs to check the runways for debri.

CERGY-PONTOISE, France (Reuters) -- A metal strip that fell off a Continental Airlines jet and a design fault in Concorde led to the supersonic jet's crash outside Paris in 2000, which killed 113 people, an official report on Tuesday.

Public prosecutor Xavier Salvat said expert testimony had shown "a direct causal link" between the bursting of one of the Concorde's tires and the crash, which happened after the supersonic jet ran over a titanium alloy strip which fell off a Continental Airlines DC-10 that took off minutes before.

Salvat told reporters in Cergy-Pontoise, just outside Paris, that the metal strip had played a "major role" in the bursting of the tire, fragments of which punctured the fuel tanks on the Concorde.

www.cnn.com...

[edit on 14-12-2004 by valkeryie]

hrm, this is certainly nothing new. They've been saying that for years, and had lots of evidence for it.

So they're not 'trying to blame' Continental Airlines, they are directly responsible for the disaster.

I really dont know why this is in the news again, like I said, this is nothing new...

Rather than spin this as a 'they're trying to blame.....good decent God fearing US companies blah blah blah' are you not glad they properly investigate why these things happen and hopefully implement proceedural changes which mean it might not happen again....to any other aeroplane....even an American aircraft?!



[edit on 14-12-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Isn't the airfield the ones that are responsible for maintenance of the airstip and airport and such? I mean, i understand that the debris came off a continental plane, but surely they had to meet saftey standards from the airport, and surely the airport was monitoring the planes and their maintenance too no? So the airport deemed the plane acceptable for take off. Indeed, thats literally what they do.

The titanium strip, that caused the crash, came off the Continental Airlines aircraft, which took off just minutes earlier than the Concorde did. (if I remember correctly).

I dont think you can blame the airfield for this, it wasnt propperly bolted to the airframe, and maintenance on the aircraft (which was done in the US) wasnt inspected correctly.

However, I thought there had been occurences of tire derbits penetrating the fuelage of the plane before when a tire failed. 2 Incidents if I believe. I don't keep my old AWST mags, so I don't have a reference just yet.

Airline and planes are responsable for items that fall off of them by international law. However you couple that with a design issue and I doubt highly that Air France will go after Continental.

Originally posted by FredT
However, I thought there had been occurences of tire derbits penetrating the fuelage of the plane before when a tire failed. 2 Incidents if I believe. I don't keep my old AWST mags, so I don't have a reference just yet.

Airline and planes are responsable for items that fall off of them by international law. However you couple that with a design issue and I doubt highly that Air France will go after Continental.

I disagree Fred. It looks like they want to hang the cause on Continential. Keep in mind the French/English governments owned the aircraft and they would be liable for the lawsuits that followed from the familes of passengers and crew. Have to keep those subsidies down ya no.

Originally posted by shots


I disagree Fred. It looks like they want to hang the cause on Continential. Keep in mind the French/English governments owned the aircraft and they would be liable for the lawsuits that followed from the familes of passengers and crew. Have to keep those subsidies down ya no.

With all due respect mr shots its a british government if you are going to dig us atleast pick the right country.

DC-10 is a very old design at the end of it's usefull life.

I assume it's safe to say that the aircraft will also have been heading towards retirement and as a result will not have been in prime condition

Originally posted by FredT
However, I thought there had been occurences of tire derbits penetrating the fuelage of the plane before when a tire failed. 2 Incidents if I believe.

I think your right I remember watching a show about how they had to redesign how strong the fuel tanks where after those events.

Basically they (French) are saying the debris from the continental jet was the cause of the tire failure on the Concorde.

Then the rubber debris penetrated the fuel tank of the Concorde.

So a flat tire makes continental responsible - thats assuming that the titanium debris really did cause the tire failure.

My recollection is that there were other case's of tire failure causing severe damage prior to this crash of the Concorde.

Did the consortium ignore these instances for economic reasons on a program that was losing money hand over fist - is the Continental angle a way to spread the monetary resposibility?

I think so...........

www9.sbs.com.au...

Originally posted by Lucretius
DC-10 is a very old design at the end of it's usefull life.

I assume it's safe to say that the aircraft will also have been heading towards retirement and as a result will not have been in prime condition

Oh you would be surprised Fed Ex is still using them. UPS Still has a few, not sure about foriegn carriers. Some consider it the C-47 of the jet age.

Outside of the one major problem in Chicago the plane has proven itself over and over to be very reliable. It's usefull life is no where near its end from what I have heard from UPS and Fed Ex Mechanics.

It also has a very low maintenance cost compared to other aging freight aircraft.

The one major thing which may go against Continental in this case is the fitting of non standard parts to the aircraft. Apparently, the piece of metal which detached itself from the DC-10 was made form Titanium, a very long lasting and hard material, however, the correct part should be made from Aluminium, a much softer material which doesnt last as long, but which may not have punctured the Concorde tyre.

I am unsure as to the repercussions of fitting non manufacturer spec parts to aircraft, but if this part was designed and built from Aluminium with this scenario (falling from the aircraft in high stress situations) in mind, and thus would be expected to disintegrate or at least flatten, surely, if Continental have fitted a Titanium one to save on wear and replacement costs, they are going to be liable ?

www.sundaytelegraph.news.com.au...

CERGY-PONTOISE, France (Reuters) -- A metal strip that fell off a Continental Airlines jet and a design fault in Concorde led to the supersonic jet's crash outside Paris in 2000, which killed 113 people, an official report on Tuesday.

And there you go....

The fault is on many shoulders here...Continental for the maintenance lack, the airfield for the failure to note and take care of the debris (in my book, this is the biggest area right here), and then the design fault in the plane.

In major airports it is almost an impossibility for the runways to be checked after each flight. Flights literally take off almost immediately after each other.

It is therefore a good reason that aircraft operators ensure they do their maintenance regularly.

It is definitely the responsibility of the airline company.

Originally posted by Kriz_4
In major airports it is almost impossibility for the runways to be checked after each flight. Flights literally take off almost immediately after each other.

If something like this happened more often I'm sure we'd have a couple guys in place at every runway watching for debris & removing it when it occurred - especially if we had fleets of exploding planes due to tire failure. It's not impossible to have clean runways - they do it on racetracks to make sure race cars don't crash, why can't they do it at airports with planeloads of people. They can it's just not necessary, because most planes don't explode after getting a flat tire.

Flat tires happen all the time - in the Concords case they probably had to replace tires more often due a poor design that they clearly were aware of. I'm sure if any passenger had been aware that the fuel tanks routinely get ruptured due to flat tires - they would have never flown on that jet. As far as I'm concerned they're just passing the buck or shifting the blame so they don't have to take full financial responsibility. If I had a relative on that flight I'd be blaming the manufacturer of the aircraft for the poor design - it was only a matter of time before something like this happened. Yes, Continental should share some of the responsibility, but clearly not whole.




[edit on 15-12-2004 by outsider]

In major airports it is almost an impossibility for the runways to be checked after each flight. Flights literally take off almost immediately after each other.

Sure, by that reasoning we could say, In major airlines it is almost an impossibility for the airplanes to be checked after each flight. Flights literally take off almost immediately after each other.
It would probably be easier to check the runway than it would be to inspect every plane with a fine tooth comb.

Originally posted by shots
Keep in mind the French/English governments owned the aircraft and they would be liable for the lawsuits that followed from the familes of passengers and crew. Have to keep those subsidies down ya no.

- Sorry shots, I know it makes for yet another tedious little American anti-French/European dig and all but this is simply not true.

At the time of the crash the British gov did not own Concorde and had not done so for many years.

www.britishairways.com...

The same nominal fee and assuming of responsibility also happened in France.

At the time of the crash the French gov did not own Concorde and had not done so for many years.

www.logicjungle.com...

[edit on 15-12-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

New development in the Concorde Paris crash case. Arrest warrant issued.

Career Review

Originally posted by Hellmutt
Mr Taylor is wanted for questioning over the replacement of a titanium alloy strip that fell off a Continental DC10 that took off from Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris, shortly before the ill-fated Concorde.

They may want to check with NASA to see if he's still applying foam to space shuttle tanks.