The Paris court has found Continental responsible for the Air France Concorde crash back in July 2000.They have been fined £170,000 and ordered to pay £1m Euros to Air France.Full article can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-11923556

Isn't it the airports' responsibility to make sure all FOD is cleared from areas where jets operate? :blink:I guess this explains in a way the rush to merge with United. In comparison Flight 800 was the death nail for TWA.

I still think there should have been more shared responsibility as the Concorde had a known design flaw since the 1970's and nothing was done to reinforce the tanks until after this incident. But the Concorde was never a conventional aircraft. It's design was such to allow it to achieve supersonic flight.Sucks to be the mechanic though. He did breach protocol in patching an aircraft with a titanium strip he cut with hand snips and riveted rather crudely to an aircraft. Therefore majority of the blame lays with him. Their also comes the issue of this happening in a foreign country outside the USA so he has to abide by their laws. That piece of metal was installed in the USA but broke off in France. Next will be the lawsuits as those passengers where all from wealthy families. Now they have someone to blame.....What a mess

Isn't it the airports' responsibility to make sure all FOD is cleared from areas where jets operate? :(

I think the argument here would be reasonable amount of time. Any airport can't do an inspection of a runway after every aircraft uses it and the Continental aircraft departed several minutes before the Concorde. If it was days before you could argue the airport was negligent but not by several minutes. It is logistically impossible to inspect every runway after every landing and departure.There is only one aircraft in the world that requires a full runway inspection before use and that is Air Force One. The rest of us don’t get that treatment.

The Paris court has found Continental responsible for the Air France Concorde crash back in July 2000.They have been fined £170,000 and ordered to pay £1m Euros to Air France.Full article can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-11923556

I think the argument here would be reasonable amount of time. Any airport can't do an inspection of a runway after every aircraft uses it and the Continental aircraft departed several minutes before the Concorde. If it was days before you could argue the airport was negligent but not by several minutes. It is logistically impossible to inspect every runway after every landing and departure.There is only one aircraft in the world that requires a full runway inspection before use and that is Air Force One. The rest of us don’t get that treatment.

The argument is that a certain Continental mechanic used titanium instead of aluminium whilst repairing the DC-10. Aluminium being a softer metal would not have caused so much damaged and possible would not have ruptured the tyre. Not sure how much I really believe this...

The argument is that a certain Continental mechanic used titanium instead of aluminium whilst repairing the DC-10. Aluminium being a softer metal would not have caused so much damaged and possible would not have ruptured the tyre. Not sure how much I really believe this...

This is true....It is possible an aluminium strip could have burst a tyre as well. But that doesn't matter. This strip was installed in violation of the manufacturer's rules. This aircraft was operating in France and was found to be negligent.If he had used aluminium and that was found to be responsible he could have at least had the defence he installed it according to Manufacturer's rules. But he used the wrong piece of metal. Also consider if he used aluminium it may never have fallen off the plane in the first place, and if it did it would most likely have fallen off somewhere else and at a different time al together, and the accident would never have happened. Aluminium has much different properties then Titanium and would have worn down much differently, causing it to fall off at a different time.....if at all.

The Paris court has found Continental responsible for the Air France Concorde crash back in July 2000.

I can see a large portion of the crash responsibility being placed on this non-standard repair, but to call it criminally responsible seems overly strong and full of political bluster.

I can see a large portion of the crash responsibility being placed on this non-standard repair, but to call it criminally responsible seems overly strong and full of political bluster.

Good thing France still doesn't use the Guillotine :( But it is a different country and different laws. The USA must respect the rules of every country they operate in just as other countries must respect US law when they operate in the USA. A similar case was Japan Airlines Flight 123 that was due to a bad repair job as well. The Boeing Employees were criminally responsible according to Japanese Law in that case however Japanese Authorities did not pursue charges sighting obvious personal guilt on the part of the Boeing technicians who truly took the accident very hard on themselves. Japanese authorities recognized that and took it into consideration. Continental on the other hand has taken a different approach by trying to deny responsibility from the beginning and will continue to appeal.

I can see a large portion of the crash responsibility being placed on this non-standard repair, but to call it criminally responsible seems overly strong and full of political bluster.

If a driver is negligent and some one dies as a result he's likely to face criminal charges.If a doctor is negligent and some one dies as a result he's likely to face criminal charges.If a mechanic is negligent and and some one dies as a result he's likely to face criminal charges.

Iam not at all convinced the French proved that the Piece of metal found on the runway caused the tire failure. Unless I missed the forensic study in the report, the photos of the tire fragment, and the rub strip are not proof! Show me a spectroscopic study showing microscopic rub strip metal fragments imbedded in the rubber or visaversa. What I think happened was the ac was over weight, performing a down wind departure, with a missing wheel spacer on a left outboard tire. And the French just can't admit that it is their fault.http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/concordespacer.htmlhttp://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/18/what-price-supersonic-grandeur/print

http://www.iasa.com....ordespacer.html

Thats a great link to a very interesting account. Many thanks for sharing.

Well of course it's criminal. You aren't allowed to make any unauthorized repairs to any aircraft. Every repair has to be documented... if it's not documentated you wait until it is.

The argument is that a certain Continental mechanic used titanium instead of aluminium whilst repairing the DC-10. Aluminium being a softer metal would not have caused so much damaged and possible would not have ruptured the tyre. Not sure how much I really believe this...

The facts are that the mechanic used a type TA6V alloy composed of titanium, aluminium, vanadium, and iron. He should have used stainless steel. It was also found that the engine cowl support was drilled with thirty-seven holes whereas the installation of the strip requires only twelve.

Iam not at all convinced the French proved that the Piece of metal found on the runway caused the tire failure. Unless I missed the forensic study in the report, the photos of the tire fragment, and the rub strip are not proof! Show me a spectroscopic study showing microscopic rub strip metal fragments imbedded in the rubber or visaversa. What I think happened was the ac was over weight, performing a down wind departure, with a missing wheel spacer on a left outboard tire. And the French just can't admit that it is their fault.http://www.iasa.com....ordespacer.htmlhttp://spectator.org...-grandeur/print

The links are to press publications. They must be correct because we all know how reliable and accurate the press is in its reporting.

Thanks to the bonehead suites at United so quick to merge, United is now the responsible party in this case (take down two airlines for the price of one). No matter how big this new airline is this will be a huge dent for them financially. I wonder how many appeals are allowed in France before there's no other recourse but to pay up.

Thanks to the bonehead suites at United so quick to merge, United is now the responsible party in this case (take down two airlines for the price of one). No matter how big this new airline is this will be a huge dent for them financially. I wonder how many appeals are allowed in France before there's no other recourse but to pay up.

My sister-in-law works over there at United. Haven't spoke to her yet but United knew this was coming. It has been going on for 10 years. Doesn't take a crystal ball to figure it out. United eliminated a competitor that was facing huge legal battles. The lawyers create the terms of the merger and have most likely created contingencies for all these outcomes. It is all in the Lawyers hands. Continental will cease to exist in the near future. Lawyers get rich. End of story. And all it took was a 31 year old Welder who patched an aircraft, went home, and thought nothing of his work. People will argue if that patch was the direct cause or not but that is irrelevant. He shouldn't have been patching the aircraft in the first place. France found a suspicious piece of metal on their runway following an accident....Outside of USA jurisdiction. What are you going to do?