France charges 5 with manslaughter for Concorde crash

[BIGSKY 316]

After reading that report,I retract my statement.it looks from the photos,that the a/c was on fire before contacting the runway edge lights. I would like to state that I am not a France hater,I admire their accomplishments,and the willingness of the French worker to strike when wronged. A quality that American workers should emulate.As far as the individual that installed the unauthorized rub strip,weather they were licensed or not,It's the mechanics moral and legal responsibility to perform the job correctly,even if threatened by management with termination. Your soul is worth more than a job,or money,and human lives are irreplaceable!

[michal 44]

>while I agree menslaughter is a bit too much, I think the>French have the right, to at least summon those people who>played a key role in this tragic accident.There is a BIG difference between "summoning" them and charging them with manslaughter in the criminal court. Considering how French court performed in other aircraft accidents (1992 Strasbourg A320 crash) frankly I would rather stay home if I were one of those Continental mechanics. Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[mgh 89]

If it's shown in court that they were grossly negligent and responsible for the deaths of 133 people shoudn't they be convicted of manslaughter?

[michal 44]

>If it's shown in court that they were grossly negligent and>responsible for the deaths of 133 people shoudn't they be>convicted of manslaughter?Go learn the difference between "criminal negligence" and "gross negligence". Fitting titanium part instead of aluminium never reaches even the level of 'crime'. Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[Guest Adrian Wainer]

I do not know the details of what was done to the American Jet, so I am going to leave those involved with that out of the equation. An aircraft is not a tank, it has to be light enough to fly and for a commercial airliner it has to have a possability to make a profit on its services. There was an upgrade done after the accident, in which the fuel tanks were armoured, well then does that not prove the responsability and blame of those who allowed the aircraft to fly without makeing such a modification, the answer is no if the aircraft complied with certification rules at the time of its introduction and later rules introduced since for this aircraft up to the time of the accident, if the answer is yes to both those questions those responsible for Concorde might have been "guilty" of bad judgement in not fitting upgraded protection for the Concorde, they would certainly not be guilty of civil or criminal law breaking. Why I say "might" when I suggest a possible case of bad judgement, is that there are lots of ways a plane can come to grief and there may well have been several areas in which the Concorde was vulnerable and say they had armoured the fuel tanks but the aircraft had crashed for another reason? In that connection, there are a lot more Boeing 747 aircraft in service than Concorde and the Boeing 747 passenger deck floor is not designed to survive an explosive de-compression of the cargo hold without damage, should Boeing be prosecuted? No since it complied with the relevant regulations, what one does have a right to ask of Boeing in that case is that every precaution and due care is taken in respect of the integrity of the cargo deck doors from the get-go of the airliner in to passenger service, an area where there are questions to be asked. Best and Warm RegardsAdrian Wainer