France charges 5 with manslaughter for Concorde crash

[btacon 1,764]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,375671,00.htmlPARIS

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Typical... Not one mention or accountability of the Airport authorities who have ultimate responsiblity for the safety of runways, taxiways and parking areas. Of course not... To do so would remove any opportunity to stick it to a U.S. carrier - Continental. I don't blame them for being outraged.

[Guest V4DIV-CVN-70]

This is all kinda of scary......what if I put a screw in wrong on a PC i fix then 2 years later someone buys this used pc and ships it to his cousin in Yugoslavia who then gets shocked when plugging it in.....I get convicted in Yugoslavia .... so they come to the USA and drag me out of my house....All to scary.....

[Roger Mazengarb 0]

I don't see any political bias entering into their actions. They had a go at aerospatiale (the manufacturer) as well and also the Aviation Authority.Whilst airport authorities may be responsible for the saftey of runways I don't see it that this extends to the inpection/sweeping of runways prior to every departure/landing.If the debris on the runway was off a Continental aircraft and it was this debris that started the chain of events that lead to the crash then surely Continental must carry liability.If a truck loses its load on the highway and a following car crashes into the deposited load then who is to blame? To me it's that simple.Roger

[Guest V4DIV-CVN-70]

RodgerI agree with you on that go after the "entity" (continental) not Joe Dirt the overworked under paid mechanic.:)

[BIGSKY 316]

What about the Air France Mechanics that left the wheel spacer out,in the process of a MLG R&R which caused the tire assy to wobble and the tire to disintegrate,pulling the a/c almost into the dirt,on takeoff? http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issu...ordespacer.html

[michal 44]

>> I don't see any political bias entering into their actions.The problem is not the political bias - the problem is "criminalization" in France of many aircraft accidents. No one in the world does it. This is some sort of specialty of French legal system. There were many editorials on this subject for example in AW&ST. The A320's famous crash at Strasbourg has been litigated for over 15 years and some criminal sentences were issued also none were warranted. This is nuts. The French legal system is not set up for the modern world. Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[tf51d 284]

>Rodger>>>I agree with you on that go after the "entity" (continental)>not Joe Dirt the overworked under paid mechanic.>>>:)>While I agree I wouldn't go after the individual mechanic, I don't have a problem with them going after the person or persons that have suggested, ordered and approved the installation of a non standard item to an aircraft, especially in a location (Like the exterior) that could compromise safety, just to keep the bird flying. We're hearing things everyday it seems like how the airlines are not properly inspecting aircraft, or cutting corners on maintenance to keep up with their schedules. Sooner or later these things will comeback to bite them in the rearend! That day it was Continentals turn. If it was a standard industry approved repair and it still happened, then I would say they have no case. If it was though a make shift non standard repair, as suggested, then the people who suggested, ordered it and approved it must be held accountable.

[mgh 89]

The world, at least in western Europe is changing and oddly enough French law may be lewading that change. There is increasing pressure for action to be taken after serious fatal accidents. In the UK, rail companies have been fined upto

[mgh 89]

The facts are that it isn't only Continental staff who are being prosecuted."The two Continental employees, both U.S. citizens, are John Taylor, a mechanic who allegedly fitted the non-standard strip, and the airline's chief of maintenance Stanley FordFormer Concorde officials Henri Perrier, 79, and Jacques Herubel, 73, are accused of knowing about problems with the jets and failing to detect and fix them.Claude Frantzen, 71, director of technical services at the civil aviation authority DGAC from 1970 to 1994, was also ordered to stand trial."Do you expect the runways, taxiways and parking areas to be inspected after every aircraft has used them?

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

"Do you expect the runways, taxiways and parking areas to be inspected after every aircraft has used them?"Of course not. I threw that in there to point out the fact that the French legal system is selective and not inclusive. If there were equal distribution of blame in this, then the airport itself must be held liable too. My personal opinion is that the airport cannot be held liable for not observing a small metal object on the runway prior to releasing an aircraft to takeoff. However, if the French legal system were fair, that airport authority would also be included in the legal action. They are not; that is selective to me.

[mgh 89]

The French are prosecuting employees of the airline, of the manufacturer of Concorde, and of the French civil aviation authority (DGAC) which is part of the Ministry of Transport. That's not being selective to me. Also, having ruled out inspections after every aircraft, what actions do you suggest the airport should have taken to detect a small object on the runway? Do you have any evidence that the airport would be held liable in any other country - say the USA?

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Did you really read my post? Did you read the ages of those that are being prosecuted, and when they retired, including those of the aviation authority? Go back and re-read my post that you are reacting to.

[byork 2,258]

I can see Tom's point, but at the same time I don't see this as a manifestation of any anti-US sub-text inherent in the French legal system.I just hope this episode doesn't escalate into another "Freedom Fries" campaign... I'm still reeling from the embarrassment over that one, and I'm not even an American.Cheers,Bryan

[Donmo 6]

To me, the ONLY one who should be on trial here is the maker of the Concord. According to the article, they knew about the weakness and of the potential threat to the tanks being damaged by objects, and they did NOTHING about it. Don