Ok, this thread is to follow the trial that began today in a courtroom just outside Paris. This is NOT a thread for people to bash lawyers or the justice system, so please do not make those inappropriate comments.

Blame disputed as Concorde crash trial opens - Europe- msnbc.com

 

Ditto.

Well this would be part of French Law that I could disagree with then:
...right after the French themselves say:
Doesn't criminal require something of an intent?

USMCFLYR

 

Not criminal negligence or similar concepts. I agree it's BS in this case, any mistake at all aviation can be fatal, but it shouldn't be criminal unless there was blatant and flagrant disregard for safety.

 

Criminal negligence is not a specific intent crime. It is a general intent crime and would require for the accused acts to have some foreseeable consequence that includes death or serious bodily harm.

For those maintainers to be charged with this I think they would have to prove that they KNEW that if the maintainer installed this widget wrong, and the inspector KNEW that if he didn't properly check the installation of the widget, then they KNEW that said widget would fall off and cause a mishap that you might be able to pin criminal negligence on them.

In the end - the personally think that the French are reaching on trying to find someone criminally negligent on this terrible mishap. Find the problem, FIX the problem. Those maintainers actions (or lack of actions) were only one hole in the entire chain of events that led to that mishap. IMO.

USMCFLYR

 

Very true, there had been previous tire failures which resulted in fuel leaks so obviously a known design flaw. But french national pride is at stake...best to shift some blame to a couple of americanos. never mind that unlike the mechanics, AF and the designers KNEW there was a problem.

 

Let's see ...

1. Aircraft had a critical vulnerability which could result in a hull loss if a tire explodes -- a situation that was known for many years as a result of an almost identical accident which resulted in some modifications.

2. The left MLG didn't have a required part installed (faulty maintenance), which meant that the wheels weren't tracking straight. This is the same MLG which had catestrophic tire failures.

3. The aircraft was rotated before Vr.

4. The FE shutdown an operable but crippled engine before commanded by the PIC.

5. The aircraft was overweight and C.G. balance in question.

So yeah, this is all CAL's fault. Good grief. :(

 

This is about nothing but Air France trying to shift blame. They want to blame America for bringing down the mighty concorde. I must say after driving trucks into and out of quebec years ago, and dealing with the french thought processes, this actually doesnt surprise me. The bigger issue here is the possible precedent it might set into international law. This could have big consequences for generations, all to allow a couple Air France executives to try to "save face"...They would never admit that they knew for years about problems with the Concorde.

 

FT.com / Companies / Airlines - Continental Airlines faces Concorde crash charges

A decade later? Really...It's tragic, but are these people really responsible for it?

Isn't there a statute of limitations in French Law? A statute in a common law legal system that sets forth the maximum time after an event, that legal proceedings based on that event may be initiated.

 

How about the fact they neglected to comply with their own pre-takeoff runway contamination inspection rules?

 

Ygtbkm.....