What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
46 Comments
- p47plane, on 07/04/2008, -3/+36This is ridiculous, the Concorde has one of the best safety records in aviation, and it is a technological and engineering marvel. Every aircraft ever built has fundamental design flaws that aren't recognizable until an accident occurs. The Concorde crash was just a very unfortunate accident, and immediately after the crash the entire fleet was redesigned to prevent such a thing from ever happening again. This sounds like people trying to juggle blame and dodge lawsuits.
- Spawn2105, on 07/05/2008, -1/+25As sad as the accident was, i think its very wrong to convict these individuals of any crimes.
Blaming engineers for design flaws or maintenance workers for fitting a part that was titanium instead of aluminium is really trying to draw in something from "thin air" i'd say.
Yes, its an incredible shame that so many people died and the accident brought about the end of the concorde aera, but is it really the fault of the engineers that designed the plane? Maybe we should also blame the Airport for not sweeping its runways? Or the Tyre company for not making a tougher rubber?
It just sort of makes you wonder where the line is, as far as trying to find someone to blame. - Ex3poo, on 07/04/2008, -4/+20Not only did they cause the deaths of 113 people,but they ended the era of the most beautiful aircraft ever seen.
- DeskFlyer, on 07/03/2008, -0/+13If charges are brought, would they be against these individuals or is their testimony going to be used to determine if Continental Airlines as a whole is charged? I don't know jack about criminal trials, sorry.
- grumpyrain, on 07/05/2008, -0/+7Like almost all aviation mishaps, the horrific accident had multiple points of failure that coincided. Had the Continental followed the safety regulations, it would not have taken off and dropped the debris. Had the Concorde not been overloaded, it may have been airborne prior to hitting the debris. Had the fuel tanks and electrical cables been designed differently, perhaps the piece of tyre would not have caused a fire in the wing and an emergency landing could have been possible. Had the airport noticed the debris, they could have diverted planes to a different runway.
Of course Continental should be charged for the breaches in safety that was such a significant factor in this crash, but let's not forget the elephants in the room. - Spawn2105, on 07/05/2008, -1/+6You are apparently oblivious to the fact that there is more then just American English spelling...
- BinaryFragger, on 07/05/2008, -0/+5How strange, a British website using the British spelling of a word.
- scottc, on 07/05/2008, -1/+6Three of the five people on trial are French.
- greydonkey, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4Amazing isn't it. There are no accidents anymore. Someone always has to be to blame.
Was it preventable? Maybe, possibly, but only in a world where we are all wrapped in cotton wool and all people are infallible. - scottc, on 07/05/2008, -1/+5According to the article it was an unfortunate accident caused by Continental not following safety rules.
- AaronMan24, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3According to the airline they discontinued the Concorde because it was an old plane (built in the 60s) and it wasn't profitable to keep it around. I'm sure this terrible accident expedited the retirement of the plane as well.
- teamparadox, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4It was a terrible accident, there is no question. I just find it odd that they permanently grounded the Concorde because of one accident. It was the best way to travel to europe and its safety record was pretty good.
If anyone should be taken to trial for this it would be the guy installing Titanium parts of a plane when the rules clearly state they must be made out of aluminum. On the flip side of that, this was an accident. I understand many died and it was tragic but should we ruin someone else's life over a mistake that was in no way done to harm? This is a tough one. - shadowmoose, on 07/05/2008, -0/+38 years later and they are just now getting to a trial that doesn't need to be held? What the hell is wrong with the world? Couldn't we be spending out time on productive things?
- Myonosken, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Yes largely because of this crash. The airline weren't solely based on concord though.
- moomeep, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2i see you're totally clueless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde - Ex3poo, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3Being unaware of the debris,was the problem.
- Ex3poo, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2We cannot blame the engineers who designed the Concorde,becuase the Concorde had a flawless safety record. ,and its a rare accurance that you will have the time to sweep runways on a very busy airport like Charles de Gaulle,who is getting airplanes from all over the world at alltimes .The part that caused the crash was off a continental DC-10 thrust reverser which landed on the runway moments before flight 4590 was to take off.
I believe only the two people from Continental should have to stand trial.It's was there job to make sure airplanes were save to travel without incident. - DeskFlyer, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2You're an idiot.
- mizarone, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3I'm sorry, but I find that "not having enough time" to ensure the safety of planes and passengers is not a valid excuse to not take a preventative measure. The airport personnel (with the help of the airlines) could have easily scheduled departures and arrivals to be able to at least run a high speed crew to remove something as large as a thrust reverser from the runway.
- sbassi, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1I don't know France, but In Argentina this is common for a complex issue like this. We had a plane accident in 2001 and it is on trial right now.
Members of military junta (76-83) are being judged after 30 years. - jetmech, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2What about the Air France Mechanic that forgot to reinstall the spacer for the wheel that exploded. Why is he not named in the court papers or the inspector that ok the maintenance work. Looks like they are covering for their own.
- iamrot, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2Nice grammar
- dakbonsa, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1They didn't ground the flight just because of the accident. In fact, it was still on service for the next three years.
But
#1) The accident was way too vivid. It was one of the few accident where the actual crash was filmed and many people watched on their evening news in horror.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEHoaYMsP9Q
One great publicity
#2) 9/11
By the time Concorde withdrew from the service in 2003, Airline industry was in its one of worst times. 9/11 made people fear air travel, and Concorde, which people still remembered by the accident three years ago, lost almost all of its passengers.
#3) Money
Sure it was fast. Sure it was beautiful. But it was one gas guzzling, inconvenient and very small airplane. Although the French and British government subsidized the flights, they could make way much more money by just using conventional aircrafts.
P.S. They've made quite an interesting documentary on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhaQKNpjoFU - liuite, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1surely space ventures like Virgin Galactic will go without a hitch taking passengers into space. a buddy of mine in aviation says a disaster is waiting to happen. space exploration is not without hazard.
- yoda17, on 07/05/2008, -2/+3The A380 has an even better safety record.
- Ex3poo, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Yea, i heard around 8000$ a ticket.
- SteelChicken, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1lame. its called an accident for a reason. lets put everyone involved on trail.
WTF - sab0tage, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Why aren't the operators of the airport in the list, surely they should have checked for debris on the runway before the concorde flight was due to leave? I know it's standard practice in the US and UK to send people down runways looking for things that could cause a problem, and there are many companies developing systems to automate the search, doesn't this happen in France?
- mongrel, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Beautiful and loud as ***** apparently - the 99% of people not ridiculously wealthy enough to ever take one were pretty happy to have them not flying over their cities anymore...
- 955701, on 07/05/2008, -2/+2So basically the operators of the concorde didn't field check the entire runway before clearing their multimillion franc phallic symbol to take off. Would they file charges against Mother Nature if it was a bird in the intake?
- inactive, on 07/05/2008, -0/+0The Concorde was copied from a captured German V-2 rocket with slight modifications (see photo above)
- BedPost, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1Well, it's funny that you should say something like "Blaming engineers for design flaws... [is wrong]." In reality, engineers can be criminally charged for serious safety oversights - specifically, onsight engineers. A rather infamous incident in which many engineers were convicted for criminal negligence was the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway ...
Right or wrong, it has happened. Personally, I believe that in cases of gross misconduct and negligence - such as the above incident - the engineer(s) that approved the specific flaw should be held responsible - in the form of a stripping of their license. Criminal prosecution seems a little much (unless it can be determined said negligence was intentional, in which case, nail 'em to the wall). Mistakes happen - but there should be some sort of punishment, to make sure engineers don't become lazy. - mizarone, on 07/05/2008, -3/+3Actually, isn't the airport responsible for ensuring that there isn't anything on the runways that can damage a plane? Sounds like the airport should be at fault, not the mechanic, nor the engineers, they were just doing their jobs.
- Jason2008, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1Should Guaishui?
- wastelander, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1"It is claimed that the metal was titanium, when safety rules dictated it should have been aluminium which is softer, and less likely to puncture tyres."
This sounds like BS. Are they saying this part is supposed to be aluminum because it frequently falls off and might damage tires? That seems unlikely-- I don't think airplane parts are designed to fall off. I suspect they specify an aluminum replacement part but that titanium would likely work just as well. Its just bad luck that this piece of metal ended up where it did. Obviously the fault is with the aircraft design--that it can be brought down by a chunk of FOD on the runway. An as far as Concord's safety record, I am sure you will find that 1/20 or a 5% crash rate its the worst of any commercial airliner.
Too bad.. it was a cool airplane.. but even 30 years after it was built, it was still just a little too ahead of its time. - neopolaris, on 07/05/2008, -2/+1Now there's a passenger manifest I'D like to see.
- iamrot, on 07/05/2008, -2/+0Ment the post above yours.. Sorry hehehe
- JamesZB, on 07/05/2008, -3/+1So people are going on trial now after 8 years? Better late then never I guess.
- Kanele, on 07/05/2008, -3/+0itd, americans, king of lawsuit, deny some frogs one.
- yoda17, on 07/05/2008, -5/+2The Concorde has a terrible safety record statistically (crashes/passenger mile).
After the accident, the death rate was 12.5 fatal events per million flights, more than three times worse than the second worst aircraft. However no aircraft's safety can be accurately measured from a single incident and safety improvements were made in the wake of the crash.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde - long10horns, on 07/05/2008, -6/+2*insert FOTC comment here*
- inactive, on 07/05/2008, -6/+1What is it with the French is everybody's faults but theirs?
- yoda17, on 07/05/2008, -9/+3The concorde has a horrible safety record. Yeah, there's been only one crash, but then there were only 4 concordes and they did not fly that often.
- favoriteshare, on 07/03/2008, -10/+1o ,sad things !
- Yzzim, on 07/04/2008, -12/+1tyres?
- businessman2008, on 07/04/2008, -16/+1concorde? i thought they don't fly no more?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is