http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25508979/
Printable View
I'm sorry...why must 5 individuals stand on trial for something that is probably beyond anyone's control?
This is nothing new, they have been trying to get Contintal mechs to stand trial but have no right to have them stand trial. As I understand it, it would be very bad for them to visit France as they would be tried but if they do not willingly fly to France, they can not send them to a different country.
Its been proven that a Titanium metal strip from a Continental DC10 (which took off before Concorde) was the cause of the accident (as it cut in to her tyres and this caused all hell to brake loose).Quote:
Originally Posted by RDU-JFK
If the mechanics has used the metal specified by the engine makers that would not have caused the tyres to blow and hence the accident, so it was in some ones control (people who fitted the wrong metal strip).
As for the other names in the trial, until the paris crash Concorde was the safest airliner in history and the design flaw which the courts say in 20 years didnt cause this type of accident.
For over 20 years Concorde flew safely and that was from the time she left the factory up to 2000.
But I feel the courts needed 5 people to blame and they got them.
Then why don't we put the security screeners in EWR and BOS on trial for allowing the 9/11 hijackers to board their respective flights?
Tragedies happen. This was a tragedy. What does a trial accomplish, other than ruining 5 people's lives? Were they acting in a negligent manner? No. Was it intentional? No. And any strict liability should fall on CO or the manufacturers.
Shame on the French.
Your right the trial won't bring those poor people back but its understand-able that the families and friends of the victims need to see justice is being done.Quote:
Originally Posted by RDU-JFK
I agree about your comments for 9/11 but America and the world are already going after that (very bad sware word) bin laden and his evil men.
Because the screeners were following FAA procedures at the time. Box cutters were not prohibited items at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by RDU-JFK
Complying with hijackers demands was also recommended.
There is definitely some culpability in my mind to the situation of wrong part attached to the Continental DC-10 (but not suggesting I have any legal opinion or judgment here), but the larger issue to me is that there was indeed a design flaw with Concorde.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetinder
The fact that statistically the concorde went from "safest" to ?... is reflective of how misleading statistics can be. If there were as many concordes built and operating as Boeing 737s, there would be a horrific crash due to damage to the wheels every few weeks wouldn't there? Until the flaw was fixed as it would be, but you'd still have the "incident" (most likely a similar crash - either way...)
A terrible loss of life though.... For my part no matter the merits (demerits) of the trial, I'd rather not bash the French in general. The law can be an ass most anywhere you go....
Tom
I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Turner
Not really ....... even though the design fault may have been known due her speed Concorde was better looked after and better tested than any other plane in history, until Paris crash and after Paris crash she carried countless millions across the world in total safety with no loss of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Turner
I think a few times she did loose bits of her in flight, but due to her design she carried on flying safely and got people home.
After 9/11 an Airbus crashed in New York after loosing part of her tail, when that happened to Concorde she just kept on safely going........ thats how well tested and designed she was.
I feel if only 14 747s or 737s had been built they would have crashed a lot more than Concorde as in the same period of time as Concorde more 747s, 737s etc crashed than Concorde so Concorde had a 1st class safety record.
If that strip of metal had not been there, Concorde would have had a 100% no loss of life record.
Instead of Concorde, if any other plane had run over the same metal, the same crash would have happened, but Concorde was in the wrong place and time.
The press always had a love / hate thing about Concorde, when she was good they hardly cared, when she was a tiny bit bad the press went nuts over this and made a mountain out of mole hill, but the same was never done for the 747 etc.
Look at what happened in Jan 2008 with the BA 777 landing....... until now they still aint found the cause or fix of the crash landing but 777s are still flying across the world......... if that was Concorde........ she would have been grounded until when ever.
On every BA flight there where 2 Concordes, one for the main flight, one as a backup.
If the first one failed then the backup was used with no questions asked and this setup worked, not sure if Air France used the same procedure.....
That's a statement that you cannot back up with any fact. Certainly other aircraft types have blown tires on take-off and the aircraft hasn't ruptured fuel tanks and crashed like the Concorde did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetinder
But with only two carriers the calibre of Air France and British Airways [marvelously maintained, excellent trained crew etc]?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetinder
But the same time period is there...with thousands upon thousands - hundreds of thousands...of 737s and 747s...movements...
If after the first such incident as what happened in Paris, (which again, would not have taken very long at all in comparable numbers to the 737 or 747), and after the fix was in place, then afterwards, perhaps, concorde might've had a better record than the others. We'll never know.
Tom
Air France and British Airways are like any airlines, but due to them getting Concorde in 1976 both their engineers and pilots had 27 years total experience of SST.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Turner
There is no reason why other airlines could not have operated Concorde and they could have used British Airways staff to train their engineers and pilots.
Personnaly i feel British Airways had better Concorde engineers and pilots, but I'm biased as i'm a UK citizen.
When Concorde was being developed a lot of airlines including British Airways, Air France, Pan AM, Air India, Quantus, Iberia etc where very very interested.
Trouble was 3 things
:-
1) 1970s Oil Crises
2) The 747
3) Pan Am.
As soon as Pan Am U turned on the deal....... I feel all the others followed them like sheep, so only 14 where ever made and BA and AF got them.
If the others had stuck by Concorde, many more would have been made and Concorde would have evolved in the same way the 1st 747s evolved in to the 747-400s of today.
For years every one thought Concorde was white elephant and a looser, but in the 1980s BA marketed the plane right and BA started making money from Concorde. Then all the other airlines felt very silly and looked in envey at not buying a few Concordes for them selfs, but by then it was to late as BA nor AF where going to give up their flagships to any one......
This proves "men of power" are not always right...........
Concorde carried I think over 2 million people in her life......... thats still a lot of people and flights flying at mach 2 with zero loss of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Turner
After the Paris crash BA, AF and Airbus did a brilliant job in making safety modifications and by the time Concorde came back she was safer than ever before and could have gone on forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Turner
What ground Concorde where a number of things but the main ones where
:-
1)
Osma Bin Laden and 9/11 (as a lot of people who flew on Concorde where in the twin towers.)
2)
In March-April 2003 Air France wanted to ground their Concordes, British Airways still wanted theirs to fly on for another 10-15 years but i feel Airbus demand British Airways to pay Air Frances share of the costs ........ British Airways couldn't afford do this so Concorde was grounded for life.
I feel if Airbus had let British Airways fly Concorde (without double-ing the cost of parts etc) then she still would have been flying now as I feel the demand for Concorde was there and i feel they where making money on her.
On other forums a lot of people have had different views but i feel the above are about right.
I meant had your 14 737s & 747s been operated by only Air France and British Airways... :D , but anyway...
I agree BA would've gone on with the program, had it not been for Air France and Airbus, although from what I understand, many technical problems were occurring sooner than expected with the airframes in the final year or so....
What killed the SST's viability overall was the US Congress. Then Port Authority tried to independently keep concorde out of JFK to appease the local population/activists (most of whom had chosen to live next to the airport which was already there). But in fairness to the nimbys, people now forget or are not aware how loud that 1st generation of jet airliners were. Every few minutes, each day, was like the Blue Angels flying overhead. And, at or near the airports themselves, forget the roar and thunder of those aircraft, there were also ear-splitting whines and screeches associated with them as well while taxiing or at the gate. Some of those aircraft could clear out the observation decks that were prevalent at US airports in those days. The public at large that did not live near airports was afraid of thousands of "sonic booms" over heartland as well...
But apart from that, there are a number of challenges facing supersonic passenger transit. One is that so long as the service would remain at a premium, you have to look at the jet set and top tier business travelers - but certain destinations as they connect with each other at the business capitols of the world do not afford a proper benefit for SST as it would have existed in a concorde type aircraft. What good would it do, or advantage would it afford (to enough passengers) to depart or arrive in the middle of the night? That was just bad geographical luck. Perhaps the times would now work better from Dubai if that turns into the world center of culture and commerce?
Tom
Tom
I agree with you :) in early 1970s (when i first saw Concorde at Heathrow with my dad), it wasnt as loud as other planes, when 727s and 707s took off they sounded as loud as Concorde.
In 2003 when 747-400s took off even they sounded as loud as Concorde.
Apart from London to New York, Concorde's speed would have been a huge benefit on London to India, London to Japan, London to Perth (Australia) and other far off places like that. But in order for it to do this efficiently she would have needed to be stretched to carry extra fuel tanks so she could have flown non stop....... but all this is now academic as it never happened.
Sonic boom has always been a huge problem with SSTs (and i heard NASA are working on reducing this), but i feel countries with huge empty spaces (with hardly any one living in them) could have allocated airspace for SSTs to use this and then charged a toll so every one could have benefited, But again this now all academic.
Coming back to the point of this thread i found the following accident report of her crash
:-
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_82753359