Concorde Trial Starts in France 10 Years after Crash

By Sophie Taylor | February 2, 2010

  • February 2, 2010 at 1:59 am
    Fanucci says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The alledge chunk of metal was from an earlier aircraft why was the concord allowed to take off? The airport must have some sort of debris removal equipment. The runway should have been cleared once the knowledge of debris on the runway. Anyone who has worked around jets knows that the engines are giant vacume cleaners. I’m a former Navy jet mech, and before we ever continued with flights operations we always made sure that all debris was removed. This sounds like the airport grounds crew failed, and it’s easier to blame Continential since they have deep pockets.

  • February 3, 2010 at 7:41 am
    Former Status Quo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Not only does Continential have the deep pockets, but they are also not owned by the French government like the airport is…god forbid government accountability.

  • February 3, 2010 at 9:21 am
    Molecule says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Many years ago (in the late 60’s) I had a summer job walking a runway owned by an aircraft manufacturer to look for any debris that might have come off of one of their experimental jet aircraft. This runway was part of a municipal airport that hosted every airline I had ever heard of. A pretty busy place. I don’t think any of the commercial airlines’ runways were inspected for debris between takeoffs.Furthermore I can’t imagine the chaos that would ensue if every runway had to be physically inspected between every departure.

    Based on the little I know about this unfortunate accident it seems that it just simply an accident and that no one can be faulted.

  • February 3, 2010 at 12:52 pm
    SWFL Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Good points Molecule. Futhermore, while it may be easy to prove that the metal came from another aircraft, it’s certainly hard to prove that the Welder and Supervisor were negligent, and therefore responsible, for the metal coming detached. Unless the welding was made immediately prior to takeoff, in France, then any number of in-flight issues could have caused the part to fail. I thought the US was the king of lawsuits but I see the French aren’t far behind.

  • February 3, 2010 at 12:59 pm
    Fanucci says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Being a former Navy jet mech all work perfomed on aircraft has to be checked out, and signed off by a qualified Quality Assurance person. The same person is cannot QA thier own work. The FAA mandates this aspect, for civil as well as military.

  • February 3, 2010 at 1:25 am
    Molecule says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hi Fanucci. First, thank you for your service in the Navy.

    I’ve never had to inspect an airplane, but in the past I have been involved with motorsports (SCCA, SVRA, NHRA)where very fast vehicles had to undergo rigorous tech inspections. Once in a very great while a critical part failed even though the part had been visually inspected and in some cases the part had been magnafluxed before being installed on the car.

    I’m not questioning your expertise on aircraft but is it not possible that the part that fell off was just a chance thing that could not have been predicted?

  • February 3, 2010 at 2:20 am
    Fanucci says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You are right Molecule. All the inspections check out, and the part failed during the flight. You can never predict what is going to happen onc the aircraft is in flight. This accident was unfortunate, but to blame two specific mech’s is not right.

  • February 3, 2010 at 3:03 am
    Frank says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    C’mon, people. We work in insurance. Somebody is responsible and somebody must pay. There are no accidents, only mistakes.

    Sad, isn’t it?

  • February 3, 2010 at 4:00 am
    SWFL Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yes Frank, sadly it is always “somebody else’s fault”. I suspect that the average PI attorney spends more time convincing/selling to a prospective lient that “someone else is to blame” than they do interpreting the law.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*