Continental Airways Responsible For 2000 Concorde Crash!

[Huntn]

I hate to say it, but all of the airlines are guilty of this. Cost drives everything. If an airline determines that crashing an airplane costs less than what it takes to implement safety measures to prevent it from crashing to begin with - you better believe they'll accept the possibility of a crash. Fortunately for the flying public, crashing an airliner is very expensive!

You are either a cynic or you don't know what you are talking about. First of all, safety directives are mandated by the FAA and airlines have no choice but to comply. Secondly the last thing any airline wants is a crash. It can effect their business for year.

I'm not saying there has never been a corner cut, several airlines at times have not complied with required maintenance directives. Mostly what I object to in your statement is that you lump all airlines into the same bucket. All airlines are not equally bad. Disclaimer: I work in the airline industry but don't ask for who.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

You are either a cynic or you don't know what you are talking about. First of all, safety directives are mandated by the FAA and airlines have no choice but to comply. Secondly the last thing any airline wants is a crash. It can effect their business for year.

I'm not saying there has never been a corner cut, several airlines at times have not complied with required maintenance directives. Mostly what I object to in your statement is that you lump all airlines into the same bucket. All airlines are not equally bad. Disclaimer: I work in the airline industry but don't ask for who.

umm dmr is a pilot and his wife flys some of the bigger planes so I think he knows what he is talking about.

The fines for no complying are high enough to not make it worth it.

Now to get back on topic the more I read about this case the more I think it is a crap case and just an attack on a USA company. It was the Airports fault in my book for failure to make sure the runway was clear and no way of knowing is some other part was used if the damage would still not of been done.

Just a crap case and to me seems like pure politics and scape goatting by the French government (owner of the airline at the time of the crash)

 

[yg17]

Everyone who's saying it was the airport's job to make sure the runway was clear.....do you ever see somebody inspecting the runway after every takeoff and landing? I sure don't. The problem isn't that there's parts of a plane laying on the runway, the problem is that parts are falling off a plane when they shouldn't be. You can't check the runway after every aircraft movement, especially at a busy airport like CDG.

Luckily whatever fell off the CO DC-10 wasn't a vital piece of the plane, or else there might have been two crashes that day. I think that's what people are missing here...thanks to negligence on the part of Continental, that day could've been much more tragic.

 

[dmr727]

You are either a cynic or you don't know what you are talking about.

Perhaps I'm a cynic, or hell, perhaps it's both. The problem is that I quoted yg17 and immediately went off on an internal tangent while typing, so the end product wasn't meant to address his comment directly. Now that I read it again with his comment above, I understand why you took me to task.

For the record, I'm not an airline pilot (Rodimus is mistaken, I don't fly big airplanes), and I know you are, so I'm more than willing to defer to you on airline matters. My wife flies for a major, as do most of my friends, but as far as this discussion on a message board is concerned, I'll openly admit that I'm a step removed from the internals of a 121 operation.

The intention behind my post, and I'm sure it could have been worded better - was not that a crash is acceptable in anyone's eyes, but everyone weighs the increased risk of a crash against the financial costs associated with ensuring that it never happens. And I'm not saying that's even a bad thing (it just sounds bad) - I do it too. Especially this time of year, I fly to resort towns in the mountains several times per month. I dragged my company through the IS-BAO certification, so I'm well versed with the risk management process. For example I can tell you that I'm quite a bit more likely to crash my bird flying into ASE than say, PHX. But the question is, what is the increase of risk by operating into ASE, and is it worth it financially to eliminate that risk, at the cost of losing all the ASE revenue? The answer is no, so we operate into Aspen.

I didn't mean to lump all operators into one group beyond saying that everyone plays this risk analysis game to some extent. Yes, the lines are drawn by the FAA, but there's still quite a lot of wiggle room in there, and the exact position of those lines will vary from operator to operator. This is just as true on my side of the fence as it is on yours (we're even more different from each other, since the FAA gives more wiggle room to 135, and much, much more to 91).

 

[bradl]

Everyone who's saying it was the airport's job to make sure the runway was clear.....do you ever see somebody inspecting the runway after every takeoff and landing? I sure don't. The problem isn't that there's parts of a plane laying on the runway, the problem is that parts are falling off a plane when they shouldn't be. You can't check the runway after every aircraft movement, especially at a busy airport like CDG.

THIS.

In fact, the ONLY time a runway inspection is required after an aircraft's departure (at least in the US), is currently for the A380. That's mainly because of the wingspan it has over the runway, and also allots for the time to wait for wake turbulence separation. Other than that, it is up to the airport authority on when to schedule a runway inspection.

That being said, they could have alloted for a runway inspection in this case, because you had a heavy jet departing after a heavy jet. Smaller wake turbulence separation would apply, but there would have been a small window for it.

Luckily whatever fell off the CO DC-10 wasn't a vital piece of the plane, or else there might have been two crashes that day. I think that's what people are missing here...thanks to negligence on the part of Continental, that day could've been much more tragic.

That is another way to think about it. Bringing negligence into it, you have to think back to the days of AAL191. COA was one of those airlines that took the shortcut to servicing the engine. That brings to question other maintenance practices they had on the DC10.

BL.

 

[JoeG4]

Taking risk as the pilot just pointed out here probably isn't all that unusual - how many times have you gone on a trip that you know wasn't as safe as it could be if you went the day after? What about all those crazy freaks at the airport when they're snowed in acting all pissed off at their airline for not sending them out in the storm on an icy runway?

 

[Huntn]

Everyone who's saying it was the airport's job to make sure the runway was clear.....do you ever see somebody inspecting the runway after every takeoff and landing? I sure don't. The problem isn't that there's parts of a plane laying on the runway, the problem is that parts are falling off a plane when they shouldn't be. You can't check the runway after every aircraft movement, especially at a busy airport like CDG.

Luckily whatever fell off the CO DC-10 wasn't a vital piece of the plane, or else there might have been two crashes that day. I think that's what people are missing here...thanks to negligence on the part of Continental, that day could've been much more tragic.

I admit my knee jerk reaction was to say that just because something falls of a plane, does not mean it was negligence. It was a titanium wear strip that had fallen off a Continental McDonnell Douglas DC-10. I don't know what exactly this particular wear strip did. The court says this wear strip was unapproved so the blame goes to the mechanic who attached it to the airplane and Continental, the operator. There are a couple of issues here. Was this an unauthorized alteration to the aircraft? Was a prescribe maintenance procedure violated? Continental says no.

For negligence to be proven, it would have to be shown that Continental either did not follow the prescribed maintenance plan for the aircraft and something related to that plan was responsible, they ignored an ongoing open maintenance issue, or possibly they made an unauthorized alteration to the DC-10. And just as important, was this wear strip, usually a flat piece of material capable and probable it was responsible for bursting the Concord's tires? Yes, negligence is a possibility, but before anyone focuses their scorn on Continental, these quotes should be of interest:

link:

The court cleared three French aviation officials of any wrongdoing. But it found EADS civilly responsible in part for the accident after concluding that Concorde developer Aerospatiale–since absorbed by the European consortium–had ignored warnings over burst tires and potential consequences for weaknesses in its fuel tank. It ordered EADS to pay 30 percent of the damages.

link:

Continental had disputed this interpretation, saying the airliner, operated by Air France, was already in flames before it hit the small piece of titanium.

Based on what I've read the exact cause of this accident is debatable.

Perhaps I'm a cynic, or hell, perhaps it's both. The problem is that I quoted yg17 and immediately went off on an internal tangent while typing, so the end product wasn't meant to address his comment directly. Now that I read it again with his comment above, I understand why you took me to task.

For the record, I'm not an airline pilot (Rodimus is mistaken, I don't fly big airplanes), and I know you are, so I'm more than willing to defer to you on airline matters. My wife flies for a major, as do most of my friends, but as far as this discussion on a message board is concerned, I'll openly admit that I'm a step removed from the internals of a 121 operation.

The intention behind my post, and I'm sure it could have been worded better - was not that a crash is acceptable in anyone's eyes, but everyone weighs the increased risk of a crash against the financial costs associated with ensuring that it never happens. And I'm not saying that's even a bad thing (it just sounds bad) - I do it too. Especially this time of year, I fly to resort towns in the mountains several times per month. I dragged my company through the IS-BAO certification, so I'm well versed with the risk management process. For example I can tell you that I'm quite a bit more likely to crash my bird flying into ASE than say, PHX. But the question is, what is the increase of risk by operating into ASE, and is it worth it financially to eliminate that risk, at the cost of losing all the ASE revenue? The answer is no, so we operate into Aspen.

I didn't mean to lump all operators into one group beyond saying that everyone plays this risk analysis game to some extent. Yes, the lines are drawn by the FAA, but there's still quite a lot of wiggle room in there, and the exact position of those lines will vary from operator to operator. This is just as true on my side of the fence as it is on yours (we're even more different from each other, since the FAA gives more wiggle room to 135, and much, much more to 91).

My apologies, yes I agree that risk analysis is part of business, but it lends itself more to how an operator operates, as you mentioned where they fly to than when describing aircraft maintenance and safety which is highly regulated by the FAA. I recognize that aviation regulations have been and always will be written in blood. There are many many cases were new regulations result from fatal accidents. The debate can be is this a cynical decision to put passengers lives in risk to make a buck or is it a situation where the accident focused attention on a previously unknown problem? Maybe both, maybe...

 

[kolax]

It's a fine aircraft, just too small for TATL flight. Even if it's comfortable, I think a narrowbody feels too claustrophobic on a long flight like that. Having that extra aisle on a widebody just makes the plane feel much larger and doesn't make you feel like you're closed in.

British Airways is operating the Airbus A318 on the transatlantic route, going from London City Airport to New York. The only reason it makes a fuel stop over in Ireland (when going to NY) is because London City's runway is too short. Coming from NY to LON there's no fuel stop overs.

 

[duncanapple]

This is where the B787 comes in.. oh wait.. it's delayed and people are cancelling their orders...

BL.

This statement is a bit disingenuous. I know you didnt specify the amount of "people" but its about 6%. Its the most successful launch of a new aircraft ever (in terms of sales) and out of the nearly 910 pre orders (keeping in mind we are talking about a wide-body, not a smaller margin cheaper narrow body) they have had 63 cancelations. And most US carriers haven't even placed orders yet. There is disappointment in the delay for sure, but whether they are ordered now or later, they will be ordered. The important part is they are still going to fly before the A350. This plane is a game changer and is setting the footprint for the way every new jet will likely be built for the foreseeable future.

 

[alphaone]

You guys are a bit off topic

Let me just say that this decision by the French court leveled against Continental is in my opinion absolutely absurd. I did some quick research on the subject. Many don't know that the Concorde, while an amazing aircraft, had a rather checkered safety record. By my quick count the aircraft suffered fifty tire blowouts and/or deflations due to FOD or other mechanical failure. TWENTY-NINE times this resulted in debris damaging and/or puncturing the aircraft and causing a variety of different types of damage and failures, such as fuel leaks, hydraulic failures, engine loss, etc. To be honest, it's a miracle that an accident like AF4590 didn't occur earlier.

You can see all of the reports here if you'd like: http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Type=081

 

[bradl]

This statement is a bit disingenuous. I know you didnt specify the amount of "people" but its about 6%. Its the most successful launch of a new aircraft ever (in terms of sales) and out of the nearly 910 pre orders (keeping in mind we are talking about a wide-body, not a smaller margin cheaper narrow body) they have had 63 cancelations. And most US carriers haven't even placed orders yet. There is disappointment in the delay for sure, but whether they are ordered now or later, they will be ordered. The important part is they are still going to fly before the A350. This plane is a game changer and is setting the footprint for the way every new jet will likely be built for the foreseeable future.

Uhh.. all but one of the Legacy carriers in the US have ordered the B787: UAL with 25, COA with 25, and DAL (absorbed NWA's order) with 18, with options of over 100 total. Only AAL has not. USA isn't a legacy carrier, having have been bought by an LCC. Primaris was the first customer to sign a MOTU for the B787 (the then-7E7). Since then, Primaris dropped its order, QTA is looking at dropping theirs, and China Eastern is looking at dropping theirs.

Gamechanger? In some parts, I will agree; but others (composites)? hardly. But a total game changer remains to be seen. and I've seen it firsthand.

BL.

 

[garybUK]

This statement is a bit disingenuous. I know you didnt specify the amount of "people" but its about 6%. Its the most successful launch of a new aircraft ever (in terms of sales) and out of the nearly 910 pre orders (keeping in mind we are talking about a wide-body, not a smaller margin cheaper narrow body) they have had 63 cancelations. And most US carriers haven't even placed orders yet. There is disappointment in the delay for sure, but whether they are ordered now or later, they will be ordered. The important part is they are still going to fly before the A350. This plane is a game changer and is setting the footprint for the way every new jet will likely be built for the foreseeable future.

Gamechanger? Concorde was a game changer, A380 is a game changer, Boeing 747 was a gamechanger, no the 757 isn't a game changer, simple fact is that Boeing have been playing catch up for some time. A big advantage of the Airbus aeroplanes is the common cock-pit, cheaper for training etc.

 

[quagmire]

Gamechanger? Concorde was a game changer, A380 is a game changer, Boeing 747 was a gamechanger, no the 757 isn't a game changer, simple fact is that Boeing have been playing catch up for some time. A big advantage of the Airbus aeroplanes is the common cock-pit, cheaper for training etc.

How is the A380 a game changer? It is just a bigger 747.

The 787 is a game changer. It's not a game changer when it comes to the market because there are planes that already does its job. But, it is when it comes to aircraft design. Composite materials alone makes it a game changer.

 

[takao]

i wouldn't call the 787 a game changer.. neither the 380 (apart of setting size records etc. )

the 707 ? yes
the 747 ? yes
the same cockpit design accross models by Airbus ? yes

so far the boeing 787 has been overpromised in its abilities (range + weight) and is heavily delayed ... remember how boeing bad mouthed the 380 because it was delayed and praised it's own 787 ?

the 787 is using more and newer composites but honestly that is pretty much expected from a new plane ... after all the A350 is little different

 

[snberk103]

How is the A380 a game changer? It is just a bigger 747.

...

I think the A380 is a small game changer because it requires an airport to be upgraded in order to handle it. Some airports that can currently handle the A380 upgraded while it was still being designed since they were in an upgrade cycle anyway. Others are only now upgrading, and others will not be able to handle a fully loaded A380 anytime soon, if ever.

 

[bradl]

How is the A380 a game changer? It is just a bigger 747.

The 787 is a game changer. It's not a game changer when it comes to the market because there are planes that already does its job. But, it is when it comes to aircraft design. Composite materials alone makes it a game changer.

Composites? Boeing fans have been complaining about Airbus using composites in their A320 series planes for ages, and now that the B787 uses it, it's a gamechanger? Like I said, hardly. Airbus had been using composites since 1988; 21 years before the B787's first flight.

so far the boeing 787 has been overpromised in its abilities (range + weight) and is heavily delayed ... remember how boeing bad mouthed the 380 because it was delayed and praised it's own 787 ?

Now add in the fact that the B787-3 has been cancelled completely... crow/humble pie..

BL.

 

[duncanapple]

Since then, Primaris dropped its order, QTA is looking at dropping theirs, and China Eastern is looking at dropping theirs.

Gamechanger? In some parts, I will agree; but others (composites)? hardly. But a total game changer remains to be seen. and I've seen it firsthand.

BL.

"Thinking of dropping" and "dropped" are two totally different things. What else are they going to buy? Airbus is still behind the 787 and if you think that wont also have its own problems as development moves along, well, let me point you to the a380. My opinion is most airlines wont cancel but instead may to try to leverage their position and get something out of it. Fortunately, unlike the A380, the 787 will have opportunity to make it back as the long range market is quite a bit bigger for this jet than the A380.

Speaking too that, the A380 is not a game changer imo. Its bigger than a 747 sure. But its a niche plane. In addition, direct point to point flights (of which the 787 excels upon) seems to be trumping the hub and spoke model on which the A380 relies on. Will there be some need for it? Sure. Will Airbus ever make their money back? Probably not. But hey, I guess they don't have to worry about that, seeing as how the tax payers will swallow the cost.

When I say the 787 is a game changer, I think its warranted. The weight will come down, as it has the entire development program. a 20% increase in efficiency is a big deal. As far as manufacturing no other jet is built like it. This is including the A350, which uses carbon panels - a different animal all together. The 787 is made of continuous barrel sections that are laid on what is basically a giant lathe and then baked in huge "ovens." I am not saying composites are anything new, but using them on this scale on something like a commercial jet, is. BOTH manufacturers have used composites before this - just not to this degree.

An to Takao's point - I don't think even once Boeing "bad-mouthed" Airbus for A380 delays. If they ever did it certainly wasn't frequent. I thought most times when asked for comment they were pretty gracious and acknowledged the issues development programs encounter. And this was well before the 787 snags. Heck, I think Boeing was likely rooting Airbus on with the A380. They knew the market for it was tiny, and it distracted airbus enough that they got a good head start on the 787.

 

[alphaone]

What exactly does this topic have to do with the 787?

 

[obeygiant]

Still a thing of beauty.