Concorde Crash a Tragedy, But Is It a Crime?

Posted by: Carol Matlack on July 03

It’s hard to imagine a more unlikely group of criminal co-defendants. John Taylor and Stanley Ford are aircraft maintenance workers in Texas. Henri Perrier and Jacques Herubel, both in their 70s, are former French aerospace executives. Claude Frantzen is retired from France’s civil aviation authority.

On July 3, judicial authorities in the Paris suburb of Cergy charged all five men with manslaughter in connection with the crash of a Concorde supersonic jet near Paris, eight years ago this month.

The crash occurred after the Concorde ran over a piece of debris on the runway as it took off from nearby Charles de Gaulle airport. The debris damaged one of the plane’s tires, loosening a piece of tread that punctured a fuel tank. That sparked a fiery explosion that killed 113 people – all 109 on board, as well as 4 on the ground.

The debris turned out to be a titanium strip that had fallen off a Continental jet that took off shortly before the Concorde. Investigators determined that the strip – which had been fabricated and installed as a replacement part at a Continental maintenance facility in Houston – did not meet the aircraft manufacturer’s specifications. That’s what led to charges against Taylor, the mechanic who installed the strip, and Ford, Continental’s maintenance chief. Continental has promised to fight any charges.

Perrier and Herubel, who were involved in developing the Concorde in the 1970s, come into the picture because the crash exposed a design flaw in the plane: the lack of shielding to protect the fuel tank from flying debris. Frantzen has been charged because, as head of technical services for the civil aviation authority, he was responsible for certifying the plane’s airworthiness.

It seems pretty clear that some mistakes were made on the Concorde’s design, and in Continental’s maintenance shop. But was it manslaughter?

Just two years ago, a French court acquitted 6 former aviation officials – including Frantzen – of manslaughter in connection with the 1992 crash of an Airbus A320 in France’s Vosges Mountains, in which 87 people died. The ruling reassured aviation-industry officials who had grown alarmed over an increasing number of criminal charges filed after airline crashes. Now, it’s happening again.

Reader Comments

Joe

July 3, 2008 01:31 PM

I am at a complete loss. Is was a very sad accident, but that is exactly what it was an accident!

eric

July 3, 2008 01:37 PM

I believe there was a criminal act within the French "FAA": failure to demand that design deficiencies be corrected. After years of repeated fuel tank punctures on takeoff, the Concorde was still permitted to fly. These incidents were investigated, and the corrective actions were not demanded by aviation authorities. My guess is that this was handled a lot like the pre-Challenger O-ring problems: the problems were swept under the rug. Where the safety of the flying public is concerned, this lack of action seems criminal.

Yirmin Snipe

July 3, 2008 02:18 PM

I guess those wacky French don't realize that New York isn't a part of France. If there was any crime it was committed on US soil and would only be actionable in a US court... Although... if the want to play it this way... I think maybe the shareholders of Continental should file legal papers against the French judge... and then maybe go for SEC violation for attempted market manipulation... Oh... and while we're at it... I stained a tie with French's yellow mustard last weekend... can I sue those crazy French for that?

Claire

July 3, 2008 02:29 PM

Come on! It was a tragic crash but surely these men are not to blame? Just another example of today's society where somebody has to 'pay' for bad things happening to other people. Sometimes life just sucks - its not necessarily someone elses fault.

Tim Conroy

July 3, 2008 03:05 PM

It is strange that CDG is not arraigned.

There should be radar/instrumentation, or whatever, to detect if there is any "extraneous matter/material" falling off a plane, or left on the runway after a takeoff.

I am not a statisctian, but surely bits have fallen off planes before? And this should be global standard practice,

The AF Concorde should NOT have been cleared to use the runway.

The errant body is ADP.

Thank you - Tim Conroy

Sensi

July 3, 2008 06:02 PM

Continental have replaced parts of one of its plane with cheaper ILLEGAL parts, playing with security for profits, one of their illegal parts has fallen on the runway and it is at the origin of 119 death. But for some people here "nobody is to blame", no accountability or responsibility for blatant errors if not criminal negligence, nothing... :rollingeyes: Well folks, justice will tell.

@ Yirmin Snipe

Your ludicrous while francophobic nonsense made we laugh. You should rather sue your parents for such a failure.

Post a comment

 

About

Get the latest inside view on European from our on-the-ground team of reporters. From economic and political news, to technology and innovation, to lifestyle and culture, read insights from Europe channel editor Andy Reinhardt; Europe and Frankfurt bureau chief Jack Ewing; London bureau chief Stanley Reed, senior writer Kerry Capell, and correspondent Mark Scott; Paris bureau chief Carol Matlack and tech correspondent Jennifer L. Schenker; and Moscow bureau chief Jason Bush.

RSS Feed: Europe Insight

BW Mall - Sponsored Links