It's been ten and a half years.......

[BUSHWHACKER]

...but a verdict has been reached....
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20101206/...a-41f21e0.html

[GBV8]

Involuntary manslaughter for the mechanic. Not a good addition to any cv.

[Nick V]

As usual the little man gets it, and of course the three French officials got off!! Why doesn't that surprise me!!!!

Cheers, Nick

[slobodan]

Many years ago, I used to nail the wings onto BA146 aircraft for a job.
We were told that if you made a mistake, and they found that to be the cause of an accident, you would be liable.

[Apache]

Smacks of scapegoat to me.

It was a freak chain of events that could have happened anywhere in the world to any aircraft.

A small part fell off an aircraft - happens more often than you'd think.

1) Perhaps it was fitted incorrectly?
2) Perhaps the airfield's FOD inspections should have spotted it?
3) Perhaps the ATC should have informed the pilot of the fire quicker?
4) Perhaps the pilot could have attempted to stop - he was near V2 but elected to carry on.
5) Perhaps ATC could have been more forceful regarding the intensity of the fire?
6) Perhaps the pilot would have reconsidered taking off if he knew the seriousness of the fire.
7) Perhaps the pilot could have elected to 'go around' rather than aim for Le Bourget?

So many contributing factors, too many to nail the blame on one person. Glad to see Concordes designers were exonerated - shouldn't have been in question! It flew for getting on for over 30 years without a single fatality - thats a pretty good safety record for any branch of aviation - let alone the ground breaking area Concorde was alone in.

They were looking for a reason to bin it - the accident was seen as a reason, even though the aircraft wasn't *directly* to blame.

[dieselboy]

Many years ago, I used to nail the wings onto BA146 aircraft for a job.
We were told that if you made a mistake, and they found that to be the cause of an accident, you would be liable.

I asked a family member this who works at Rolls Royce in / near Glasgow years ago. He told me the same thing as each part is marked unique to the builder.

[Vultch]

Guys theirs a lot more to this..

(i) The Concorde that crashed had a component missing from its undercarriage on one side causing that wheel assembly to oscillate and induce drag. admitted by airfrance, not a small component a tube in the bearing approx 20cm long 5 cm diameter. This oscillation more than likely caused the tyres to be distressed

(ii) this drag marks on the runway tally with this.
(iii) French airport firemen's eye witness statements were ignored, they claimed Concorde was on fire well before the area were the strip of metal was found.
(iv) the aircraft was not balanced load wise and she was carrying too much
(v) Concorde is very tricky at low speeds so take off into the wind is essential, on that day she took off with the wind behind her.

[Albannach]

I read part of the incident report a few years ago; it was part of an incident investigation course I was on.

Concorde had burst tyres and ruptured fuel tanks, on take-off, before (I don't recall exactly how many times, but 14 burst tyres and 6 ruptured tanks rings a bell), the only difference with this one is that the fuel caught fire.

[Apache]

Yes, but you shouldn't read too much into what is often sensationalised - burst tyres. Aircraft burst tyres quite a lot, which is one reason they have multiples of them on each gear leg. 14 burst tyres over 30 odd years sounds pretty on the money to me.

Lets see. There were 3 total-loss incidents with Boeing 737s (rudder actuator overcentre fault) and several near misses due to the same fault. They didn't scrap the aircraft.

[Albannach]

It possibly burst many more on landing, the bit I read was specific to the tyres bursting on take off and the shreads of tyre hitting the wings and, on a few occasions, rupturing fuel tanks. The tyres used were specific to Concorde too. I'm trying to find my course notes!

That said, I do agree that they were looking for an excuse to ground them. Once they did fit the bladders, which had been mooted many years before the fatal crash, the tanks were as safe as any other 'plane's.

(I read part of the official incident report, not a sensationalised one)

[Vultch]

I just got that info of a Discovery TV programme .. normally if a journalist reported it..well I'd treat it with a pinch of salt, but people who flew the aircraft and maintained it made these accusations on camera.
But I've never been party to anything official... I do remember reading about other tyre bursting incidents damaging the wings.

[BUSHWHACKER]

I think it's amazing that it's been ten years already!
Where does the time go?

[slobodan]

I think it's amazing that it's been ten years already!
Where does the time go?

I know, Nearly time to change/upgrade the wife again.

[mickyd]

my thoughts are the same as others in that they were looking for an excuse to ground concorde, My belief is that it was terrorism, as concorde flew again commercially after 9/11 but not for long and I believe that the authorities thought if it ever got hijacked 9/11 style it would be almost impossible to shoot it down with scrambled fighter jets due to it's supersonic cababilities as it would take too long for the fighters to catch it and it would hit its target long before they could get anywhere near it.

Has anyone seen what BA have done with their concorde at Heathrow? its just sitting outside by the maintenance hanger, visible from the A30, Concorde was a flying icon, the likes of which will probably never be seen again, the least they could do is find a corner of a hanger and preserve it.

[Albannach]

It would be a doddle to shoot it down, it's not that fast!