Continental criminals?

[flyover]

Newspaper report that French officials may attempt to prosecute Continental and some of it's employees for the Concorde crash.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/041208/franc...e_crash_2.html

[kellwolf]

Great. Make sure ya pick up any FOD on the runway. You might just get hit with a manslaughter investigation. Isn't this reaching a little bit (or even a LOT)? I love how they threw in the line about CAL's stock slipping. I doubt this was the reason. There's plenty of reasons for any airline stock to be slipping on a daily basis.....

[adreamer]

There is a TV program called "Seconds from disaster" on National Geographic channel which talked about this particular accident.

Well, I would like to ask this question - Who is responsible for FOD? Airlines? airport authority?

I know military has FOD sweep before they launch their aircrafts. However, do you think you have time to inspect and pick up any FOD on 10000 feel long runways in about 90 seconds or so?


adreamer

[flyover]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a TV program called "Seconds from disaster" on National Geographic channel which talked about this particular accident.

Well, I would like to ask this question - Who is responsible for FOD? Airlines? airport authority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Airport authority keeps the runways clear. Often pilots report FOD on runways and the authority sends someone out to pick if up.

But it's ridiculous to say that a small piece of FOD or a tire separating should cause an airplane to become a fireball. Clearly there were design problems with the Concorde as evidenced by the modifications made after the accident. Any manslaughter charges are BS, especially if it is against Americans and an American company just because it plays well in France.

[Screaming_Emu]

Crap falls off airplanes, it happens. Its tragic that a piece of metal coming off an airplane lead to the air france crash but I dont think there was any negligence involved. This is going to lead to a new regulation requiring every aircaft to be covered in duct tape...

[Mr_Creepy]

I don't think you can claim design flaws about a plane that flew 30 years without an incident.

How about just an old plane with a maintenance slip up? I know the lawyers like "design problems" because the manufacturer/designer always has deep pockets.

[flyover]

Reminds me, a UPS friend told me the DC-8's were called "galleons" because the left "pieces of 8" everywhere they went.

[flyover]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you can claim design flaws about a plane that flew 30 years without an incident.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made the same argument when this accident happened. However, your statement isn't quite accurate. There were a number of serious incidents involving separted tires. It was known that a tire tread could penetrate the fuel tanks and engines. Several steps were taken including special tires, higher standards for replacing tires, doing runway sweeps before each takeoff and I think one of the carriers had installed deflectors above the wheels to try to keep tire pieces from hitting the wing.

At any rate, by making some changes they had successfully operated the Concordes for a long time. That doesn't mean there wasn't a "flaw". But when they discovered it they took measures that they considered cost-effective and adequate.

I'm against manslaughter charges for anyone invoved in this deal. But it will be outrageous if they try to bring charges agains Continental or any of their people. So I'm pretty much expecting it.

And this isn't a civil action they are talking about. It's not about pockets, it's about jail time.

[kellwolf]

An herein lies the problem: verbage. Tire "incidents" that don't cause significant damage are not "accidents," therefore the ICAO doesn't require them to be reported. Now if the plane blows a tire, runs off the runway, hits a taxiway sign and has a strut knocked off, THEN it's an accident.

As far as FOD responsibility, I guess the PC answer is that it's everyone's responsibility. Work on the ramp for any airline and they'll tell you how much $$$ they lost last year from FOD ingestion. Pilots report runway FOD to the tower, they call the airport authority, then they go driving down the runway at like 90 mph looking for it. Next time you're at an airport for a long time, I can almost guarantee you'll see an official looking SUV with lights on top doing a high speed pass down a runway or taxiway.

[Minnesota_Flyer]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you can claim design flaws about a plane that flew 30 years without an incident.

How about just an old plane with a maintenance slip up? I know the lawyers like "design problems" because the manufacturer/designer always has deep pockets.

[/ QUOTE ]Ummmm . . . a ruptured tire caused the whole plane to explode. What would you call that if not a significant design flaw?

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you can claim design flaws about a plane that flew 30 years without an incident.

How about just an old plane with a maintenance slip up? I know the lawyers like "design problems" because the manufacturer/designer always has deep pockets.

[/ QUOTE ]Ummmm . . . a ruptured tire caused the whole plane to explode. What would you call that if not a significant design flaw?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so fast, MF. Concorde isn't unique in having tire fragments blown into wing tanks following a failure. On 17 July 1985, a NASA Convair 990 was taking off from March AFB, California. At 140 knots, about 15 knots below V1, it experienced a blown main gear tire. Pilot rejected takeoff but decided not to use max braking due to the 12,000' runway. On rollout, tire fragments penetrated the right wing tank and the fuel ignited. The plane became engulfed in fire, and the flightcrew of 4 and 15 NASA scientists barely escaped after the plane came to a stop. My point is, this could've happened to nearly any aircraft. The CV-990 certainly wasn't a design flaw.

More:

Excerpts from NASA technical memorandum (TM-100189),

"A technician, watching a television monitor linked to a camera focused on tire 3, noticed deformation...early in the takeoff roll before the tire blew out. Another technician occupying a right-hand cabin seat aft of the wing had a fleeting perception of a 'black object flying over the wing.' "

"Statistics indicate that RTO's (rejected takeoffs) in response to tire problems are four times more likely to result in an accident or incident than those in response to engine problems. However, in general, RTO training is predicated on an engine failure before reaching V1. At the present time, there is no requirement to familiarize pilots with other anomalies such as blown tires that could demand an RTO."

"The accepted industry procedure dictates that once an abort decision has been made, maximum braking should be applied immediately...The reasons for this procedure include:

1. Possible puncture of wing fuel tanks is minimized.

2. Wheel braking is most effective while the tires are on the wheel rims.

3. The risk of additional failure, including brakeline rupture...is minimized.

4. Onboard personnel can evacuate sooner.

5. Aircraft are built and certified to endure brake fires."

"All pilots should be made aware of accident/incident statistics with particular emphasis on failed-tire RTO's. The necessity for maximum deceleration in response to an RTO decision should be emphasized."

[Mr_Creepy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you can claim design flaws about a plane that flew 30 years without an incident.

How about just an old plane with a maintenance slip up? I know the lawyers like "design problems" because the manufacturer/designer always has deep pockets.

[/ QUOTE ]Ummmm . . . a ruptured tire caused the whole plane to explode. What would you call that if not a significant design flaw?

[/ QUOTE ]

Concordes had blown tires before and survived. This was a freak accident, don't you agree?

I just wish people wouldn't be so quick to blame the manufacturer for something as mundane as a bad tire.

[flyover]

Wow, that is an impressive report.

It seems kind of dated though. First of all I think modern jet designs (and the CV-990 is most decidedly not modern) do take into account possible damage from ruptured tires. Among other things I believe they use thicker skin over the tire area, and take into account where engines are located relative to tires.

Secondly, the latest thinking in RTO philosophy (heavily advocated by Boeing) is to NOT RTO for tire problems unless well below V1. As you approach V1 tire problems are one of the first things you ignore as a reason to RTO. Boeing looked at most of the known events and found that an RTO for a tire problem didn't work out too well. The most obvious reason being that the airplane doesn't stop well with one or more ruptured tires, and it's hard to steer.

The Concorde has engines in a very vulnerable spot relative to main tire separations. Add the proximity of fuel tanks and their thin skin and Concorde operators were well aware that a main tire separation could be unusually catastrophic. Their answer was to design and maintain the tires to a standard where they felt a separation could not occur. Best laid plans and all.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, that is an impressive report.

It seems kind of dated though. First of all I think modern jet designs (and the CV-990 is most decidedly not modern) do take into account possible damage from ruptured tires. Among other things I believe they use thicker skin over the tire area, and take into account where engines are located relative to tires.

Secondly, the latest thinking in RTO philosophy (heavily advocated by Boeing) is to NOT RTO for tire problems unless well below V1. As you approach V1 tire problems are one of the first things you ignore as a reason to RTO. Boeing looked at most of the known events and found that an RTO for a tire problem didn't work out too well. The most obvious reason being that the airplane doesn't stop well with one or more ruptured tires, and it's hard to steer.

The Concorde has engines in a very vulnerable spot relative to main tire separations. Add the proximity of fuel tanks and their thin skin and Concorde operators were well aware that a main tire separation could be unusually catastrophic. Their answer was to design and maintain the tires to a standard where they felt a separation could not occur. Best laid plans and all.

[/ QUOTE ]

The report was 1 January 1987. Real good info.

[Minnesota_Flyer]

[ QUOTE ]
Concordes had blown tires before and survived. This was a freak accident, don't you agree?

I just wish people wouldn't be so quick to blame the manufacturer for something as mundane as a bad tire.

[/ QUOTE ]No, I don't agree. A meterorid strike would be a freak accident. A blown tire is, as you say, a mundane event. It happens all the time. The problem with Concorde's design is that the aircraft was subject to a catastrophic failure as a result of an entirely mundane event. And this wasn't a surprise . . . there had been several very close calls in Concorde's history. It's amazing this hadn't happened sooner.

MF

[Mr_Creepy]

You must be a lawyer.

Or maybe your one of those millions of americans who is planning on getting "rich" from a settlement.

Seriously - the Concorde had hundreds of thousands of flights, and one fatal accident. Not a bad safety record if you ask me.

[Minnesota_Flyer]

[ QUOTE ]
You must be a lawyer.

Or maybe your one of those millions of americans who is planning on getting "rich" from a settlement.

[/ QUOTE ]Ah, yes -- the ad hominem attack. The last bastion of a weak mind. I am an attorney. I represent business in employment litigation and securities regulation. None of which have any bearing on my position here.

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously - the Concorde had hundreds of thousands of flights, and one fatal accident. Not a bad safety record if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]A blown tire caused a properly functioning airliner to explode. I can't believe that you don't see the problem with that.

[mrivc211]

do you guys think the French would have pursued this differently had the previous plane taking off was an air france airplane?

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
A blown tire caused a properly functioning airliner to explode. I can't believe that you don't see the problem with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

A blown tire caused a Convair 990 to catch fire on a rejected takeoff. Sometimes, odd stuff happens. That's just the reality of the concept of grey areas. Not everything can be black and white, though it'd be nice if it could be.

As for the Concorde itself, due to design limitations in order for the aircraft to operate at the speeds and altitudes it did, it couldn't be as robust as an equivilent transport-category aircraft. It would be the same as saying the F-16 is inferior to the A-10 simply because of it's lighter weight and construction, and the fact it can't sustain the same amount of battle damage as the Hog, when both aircraft have completely different performance requirements.

I'm no lawyer. Just a trained accident investigator.

[Mr_Creepy]

[ QUOTE ]
I am an attorney. I represent business in employment litigation and securities regulation. None of which have any bearing on my position here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where a man stands is where he sits. I think it has every bearing here. You're a litigating attorney. Enuff said.

[flyover]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the Concorde itself, due to design limitations in order for the aircraft to operate at the speeds and altitudes it did, it couldn't be as robust as an equivilent transport-category aircraft. It would be the same as saying the F-16 is inferior to the A-10 simply because of it's lighter weight and construction, and the fact it can't sustain the same amount of battle damage as the Hog, when both aircraft have completely different performance requirements.

I'm no lawyer. Just a trained accident investigator.

[/ QUOTE ]

This all got started over a report that the French were considering criminal charges against Continental for the Concorde crash. That is outrageous. What makes it even more outrageous is the problem that brought down the airplane was a known deficiency. There is no way to call it anything but a flaw. It was well known because there had been other close calls.

A decision was made to operate the airplane anyway without investing in modifications (that were finally made after the accident). Their "plan" was to just be really careful and make sure that no tires ever blew!

I'm a little surprised at your reaction MikeD given how outraged you were at American's cost-cutting maintenace that lead to the Chicago DC-10 crash. This was a similar deal with the Concorde. In fact worse because they had already nearly lost airplanes over this problem. They knew it was vulnerable. They had ways to fix it. They decided not to because of cost considerations.

I know at one point it was standard practice to do a runway sweep before every Concorde departure, to avoid just what happened in the accident. I'm wondering why that was stopped. But to blame Continental for their mistake is so... well, French.

[flyover]

[ QUOTE ]
do you guys think the French would have pursued this differently had the previous plane taking off was an air france airplane?

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt. What a great PR deal if they can successfully prosecute some Americans for a French accident.

[Minnesota_Flyer]

[ QUOTE ]
This all got started over a report that the French were considering criminal charges against Continental for the Concorde crash. That is outrageous. What makes it even more outrageous is the problem that brought down the airplane was a known deficiency. There is no way to call it anything but a flaw. It was well known because there had been other close calls.

A decision was made to operate the airplane anyway without investing in modifications (that were finally made after the accident). Their "plan" was to just be really careful and make sure that no tires ever blew!

I'm a little surprised at your reaction MikeD given how outraged you were at American's cost-cutting maintenace that lead to the Chicago DC-10 crash. This was a similar deal with the Concorde. In fact worse because they had already nearly lost airplanes over this problem. They knew it was vulnerable. They had ways to fix it. They decided not to because of cost considerations.

[/ QUOTE ]

[GrantHubbell]

How can you blame a piece of debris for the crash of a concorde? Its not like some debris will fall of aircraft after a not so smooth landing. Anyway, blaming a peice of debris for a crash is like saying you stepped on a thumb tac and broke your leg.

[Doug Taylor]

Anyone who hates lawyers probably hasn't needed one yet!

The debris is certainly a causal factor, but there's probably a number of other factors well.

This is from my feebile memory, but something as little as low tire pressure could kill you. There was a DC-8 (or 707) departing some airport in Africa that ended up with a tire fire and it resulted in an airframe fire after gear retraction.

I need to work on my English.