Continental 'responsible' for Concorde crash
#1
12-06-2010, 06:09 AM
Continental 'responsible' for Concorde crash
BBC News - Continental 'responsible' for Concorde crash in 2000
I meant to be on one of the last Concorde flight but this crash turned me off... looking back it would have been nice if I went ahead.
Dont think we will see a plane like that again anytime soon
A Paris court has said Continental Airlines was "criminally responsible" for the crash of a Concorde supersonic jet 10 years ago, and fined it 200,000 euros (£170,000).
The court ruled the crash was caused by a piece of metal left on the runway after falling from a Continental jet.
The Concorde caught fire shortly after take off from Charles de Gaulle airport in July 2000, killing 113 people.
Two airline operatives and three French officials were also on trial.
Continental had fiercely disputed this interpretation of what caused the accident, and during the trial its lawyer had put the blame on the jet's operator, Air France.
The trial was supposed to conclude the protracted debates over responsibility for the crash.
But following Monday's verdict, Air France, who paid out 100 million euros in compensation to victims' families, may decide to seek to reclaim some of that money from the US company
The court ruled the crash was caused by a piece of metal left on the runway after falling from a Continental jet.
The Concorde caught fire shortly after take off from Charles de Gaulle airport in July 2000, killing 113 people.
Two airline operatives and three French officials were also on trial.
Continental had fiercely disputed this interpretation of what caused the accident, and during the trial its lawyer had put the blame on the jet's operator, Air France.
The trial was supposed to conclude the protracted debates over responsibility for the crash.
But following Monday's verdict, Air France, who paid out 100 million euros in compensation to victims' families, may decide to seek to reclaim some of that money from the US company
I meant to be on one of the last Concorde flight but this crash turned me off... looking back it would have been nice if I went ahead.
Dont think we will see a plane like that again anytime soon
#5
12-06-2010, 10:37 AM
I'm willing to bet they could tie that part to something that needed regular up-keep.
#6
12-06-2010, 11:34 AM
I can see why Continental should be responsible for not having parts falling off its airplane. If a plane is cruising through the air and its engine falls off and goes through your roof, who is responsible for that? The manufacturer would only be responsible if the airline could prove that the part falling off was a result of a design flaw of some sort.
Whether they are criminally responsible is really at issue and would be determined by how judges interpreted the law.
Not sure why someone would think the airport would be responsible. If the airport had to stop and check the runway for debris between every takeoff or landing, well, it would be an impossible situation.
Incidentally, I flew on the British Airways Concorde to London about 6 months before the planes went out of service, and I have to say it was an incredibly worthwhile experience.
Whether they are criminally responsible is really at issue and would be determined by how judges interpreted the law.
Not sure why someone would think the airport would be responsible. If the airport had to stop and check the runway for debris between every takeoff or landing, well, it would be an impossible situation.
Incidentally, I flew on the British Airways Concorde to London about 6 months before the planes went out of service, and I have to say it was an incredibly worthwhile experience.
#7
12-06-2010, 11:48 AM
The way i saw it on the news, the debris caused the tire to breakup and delaminate. I would think that the underside of the airplane should be able to sustain tire failure. These things can happen even if there was no debris in the first place.
Last edited by calypso; 12-06-2010 at 03:52 PM.
#9
12-06-2010, 12:31 PM
"Criminally responsible" is a fairly ludicrous way of phrasing it. That implies deliberate intent to cause harm, which is just flat out silly. Negligently responsible? Sure, in part.
In order of increasing culpability:
Continental has a duty to make sure parts don't fall off their aircraft, barring manufacturing defects.
CDG has a duty to keep crap off their runways. Airports have FOD sweepers for a reason.
Aérospatiale-BAC had a duty to design and build a plane that didn't freakin' explode when hit with relatively minor debris.
That said, Continental is still my favorite airline, and flying on Concorde back in the day was worth every penny.
In order of increasing culpability:
Continental has a duty to make sure parts don't fall off their aircraft, barring manufacturing defects.
CDG has a duty to keep crap off their runways. Airports have FOD sweepers for a reason.
Aérospatiale-BAC had a duty to design and build a plane that didn't freakin' explode when hit with relatively minor debris.
That said, Continental is still my favorite airline, and flying on Concorde back in the day was worth every penny.
#10
12-06-2010, 03:38 PM
I keep hoping for either a replacement for Concorde, or a supersonic private aircraft. Who cares that it's only viable over unpopulated areas.
I would still pay to fly to Tokyo or London faster.
I would still pay to fly to Tokyo or London faster.