France charges 5 with manslaughter for Concorde crash

[KevinAu 441]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4052354-105091,00.htmlThe Concord had a known major defect, plane and simple. If they're going to go after Continental like this, they may as well go after the mothers of the mechanic who worked on the plane and of the pilots that flew the plane for having birthed those people. That would be the logical end to the French logic.

[mgh 89]

I did read your post and was aware of the ages of the others involved but I don't see the relevance. The negligent acts of which they are accused occured before they retired. Are you saying that retirement should absolve them from any responsibility for their acts?The airline employees are accused of fitting a non-standard part, presumably in defiance of company procedures. It is alleged that the part fell of and was responsible for the deaths of 113 people. Why should they not face charges which the court will decide are proven or not?

[michal 44]

>I did read your post and was aware of the ages of the others>involved but I don't see the relevance. The negligent acts of>which they are accused occured before they retired. Are you>saying that retirement should absolve them from any>responsibility for their acts?It is up to the FAA or Continental to charge them if they violated some US laws. It is simple as that. Their only offense would be fitting the wrong part and not causing the crash of Concorde. Any other airliner would go over this part and would not cause any crash only Concorde was abnormally sensitive to pieces of its own rubber/tires. Such very dangerous tire blow-ups occurred before with Concorde and nobody bothered to fix the problem. Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[tf51d 284]

>>I did read your post and was aware of the ages of the>others>>involved but I don't see the relevance. The negligent acts>of>>which they are accused occured before they retired. Are you>>saying that retirement should absolve them from any>>responsibility for their acts?>>It is up to the FAA or Continental to charge them if they>violated some US laws. It is simple as that. Their only>offense would be fitting the wrong part and not causing the>crash of Concorde. Any other airliner would go over this part>and would not cause any crash only Concorde was abnormally>sensitive to pieces of its own rubber/tires. Such very>dangerous tire blow-ups occurred before with Concorde and>nobody bothered to fix the problem. >>Michael J.>http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpgWrong, they were in France when this happened, therefore they have jurisdiction, and as such it doesn't matter if they broke a US law or not, it matters whether they broke a French law. Same as if you were in a foreign country on vacation and you broke one of their laws. Had the peice not fall off the tire wouldn't have blown, and therefore is the event that begun the chain reaction leading to the crash, which makes them liable if negligence was involved. making a non industry standard repair, indicates there may have been.

[michal 44]

>Wrong, they were in France when this happened, What kind of nonsense is this? They were in USA, the plane was serviced and fitted with this part on US soil.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[Guest lgvpilot1]

Welcome to the wonderful world of blame culture !!!Im sure most of us have had to "endure a saftey inductuction" of some sort where we are told the obvious and then have to sign to say we understand 'said obvious'.It was a terrible loss the day Concorde crashed and nobody, i think would deny that, but to try to blame 'Joe' mechanic is strecthing a point .If we want to go backwards to appoint blame then STAND up Wright bros,we got some questions for you!!If there is one thing I,ve learn't over the years then hindsight is 20/20 vision.I just find it hard to believe that anyone could forsee and ignore all the tragic events that led to that terrible day .Just my thoughtsMark

[Roger Mazengarb 0]

Speaking as a Licensed Aircraft maintenance engineer this thread is one of the most interesting I've seen. For once we are not talking about someone with four bars on his shoulder being responsible for an accident. Whenever I signed and put my licence number as a certification then I was assumimg total responsibility for the adherence to the requirements of the aviation authority. (they are the entity who issue the licence) If a non standard part or part with unknown history is fitted then the certifying engineer takes full responsibility!!! You can't pass the buck and say my boss told me to fit it. That is a total abrogation of responsibility. Every licensed engineer knows or should know that.I'm not "au fait" with the details of this case but the CERTIFYING mechanic is the legally responsible person. If the mechanic who actually fitted the part is unlicensed then he carries no responsibility. The mechanic who certifies the fitting of the part is legally responsible. I'm not sure that I agree about poor underpaid engineers. I'm now retired but I made a comfortable living in my time as a LAME with QANTAS and as an expatriate with SIA.Currently a LAME with QANTAS would be earning apprx. $100,000 to $120,000 per year depending on licences and shift allowances. They are paid good money and for good reason -it's a very responsible job. All the above said, so far in Australia - to the best of my knowledge, no LAME has ever faced manslaughter charges (dispite being legally open to such a possibility ). There's really not much point - other than vindictive retribution. But in this case it is the French state that is intent on making individuals face manslaughter charges.Roger

[tf51d 284]

Well said! While I think a charge of manslaughter is a bit over the top, as there was obviously no criminal intent, I think a charge of culpable negligence would have been more appropriate, if they are charged at all. As I said, I would as you said only target the person or persons who approved and certified the repair. If that person was the mechanic that installed the piece then so be it. It will be interesting to see if the US agrees to extradite them to France to stand trial.

[michal 44]

>It will be interesting to see if the US agrees to extradite>them to France to stand trial. No US won't extradite them. Extradition works only when both countries involve recognize the action of the subject as a crime. The US doesn't recognize this as a crime, doesn't see the mechanics guilty of "criminal negligence". If they show up in French court it will be by their own choice.Some people here seem unable to grasp difference between criminal and civil proceedings. Aviation accidents are routinely handled by civil courts, very, very few accident end up going through criminal channels. Very rarely negligence is raised to "criminal" level. Some believe that the more people die, the more fiery crash the more negligence there is but unfortunately things don't work this way in aircraft accidents.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[mgh 89]

The deaths occured in France so the French have jurisdiction. The US recently charged and convicted two UK bankers for fraud in relation to the Enron collapse. Their actual faudulent activities occured entirely in the UK but the actual fraud occured in the US. This shows that if wrongful activity occurs in one country but the effects occur in another country, then both can have jurisdiction. In the case of the bankers, the UK declined to charge them because all the facts and evidence were in the US.

[BobK 0]

Wounded national pride plays a big part in proceedings like these...

[january 19]

Bob- Right on: in France, it appears the ego has landed!Alex Reid

[BIGSKY 316]

I think there is a possibility that the cowl strip could have been right next to the runway light,that the mains took out,along with all the rest of the debris that accumulates along the side of the runway:-roll I still think the spacer was the cause,and the French are covering that fact up.

[CV990A 0]

<

[mgh 89]

F r those interested in the facts, an English version of the accident report is at:http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2000/f-sc000725...f-sc000725a.pdf