(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   Appeals court says Continental Airlines not responsible for 113 deaths in plane crash, rejecting prosecutors' arguments that "Continental" and "Concorde" look the same if you squint right

29 Nov 2012 01:57 PM   |   6727 clicks   |   BBC
Showing 1-28 of 28 comments
Refresh
Gyrfalcon     
Oh, ffs.

Look, everyone, it was an ACCIDENT. I can understand why Continental challenged the criminal charges. There was no intent to murder people in the accident that caused the crash. Why the mechanic was even charged, I cannot fathom. But sometimes bad things happen and really, it's nobody's "fault". A piece of metal fell off a plane and got thrown into the fuel tank of the Concorde. It was terrible. But it was an ACCIDENT.

Stop trying to make it into some kind of heinous act of malicious sabotage.

29 Nov 2012 02:05 PM
kokomo61    [TotalFark]  
Most of the passengers were German tourists

Man, France is STILL sore about that whole affair.....

29 Nov 2012 02:05 PM
snowybunting    [TotalFark]  
www.oocities.orgView Full Size


Farewell, sweet Concorde!

29 Nov 2012 02:08 PM
LesterB     
Wanted for questioning?

userserve-ak.last.fmView Full Size


/hot hot hot

29 Nov 2012 02:10 PM
Super Chronic     
Geez, we gave back all those Tour de France medals, what more do you people want?

29 Nov 2012 02:10 PM
LessO2    [TotalFark]  

Gyrfalcon: Oh, ffs.

Look, everyone, it was an ACCIDENT. I can understand why Continental challenged the criminal charges. There was no intent to murder people in the accident that caused the crash. Why the mechanic was even charged, I cannot fathom. But sometimes bad things happen and really, it's nobody's "fault". A piece of metal fell off a plane and got thrown into the fuel tank of the Concorde. It was terrible. But it was an ACCIDENT.

Stop trying to make it into some kind of heinous act of malicious sabotage.


Yeah, tell that to the families of the people who were killed.

Look, people who are mistreated by the airlines for a simple delay who have this "we want answers" mentality. Why shouldn't a government go after a responsible party in a spectacular crash of a high-profile aircraft?

If there is solid proof the strip of metal caused the fire, then why shouldn't CO be blamed? A strip of metal doesn't sound like a lot, but things like that are much more meaningful when it comes to aviation safety.

29 Nov 2012 02:20 PM
vwarb     

LessO2: Look, people who are mistreated by the airlines for a simple delay who have this "we want answers" mentality. Why shouldn't a government go after a responsible party in a spectacular crash of a high-profile aircraft?


Because legal decisions shouldn't be dictated by emotionally charged and irrational calls for revenge, no matter how loud they are?

29 Nov 2012 02:27 PM
ForgotMyTowel     

LessO2: Gyrfalcon: Oh, ffs.

Look, everyone, it was an ACCIDENT. I can understand why Continental challenged the criminal charges. There was no intent to murder people in the accident that caused the crash. Why the mechanic was even charged, I cannot fathom. But sometimes bad things happen and really, it's nobody's "fault". A piece of metal fell off a plane and got thrown into the fuel tank of the Concorde. It was terrible. But it was an ACCIDENT.

Stop trying to make it into some kind of heinous act of malicious sabotage.

Yeah, tell that to the families of the people who were killed.

Look, people who are mistreated by the airlines for a simple delay who have this "we want answers" mentality. Why shouldn't a government go after a responsible party in a spectacular crash of a high-profile aircraft?

If there is solid proof the strip of metal caused the fire, then why shouldn't CO be blamed? A strip of metal doesn't sound like a lot, but things like that are much more meaningful when it comes to aviation safety.


I think you nailed it. The families lost loved ones and want someone or something to blame. Something to look at and say "that's the reason they died!". It' smuch more fulfilling than simply saying it was a random, freak accident that sometimes happens. The problem is, as Gyrfalcon pointed out, it was an accident. Sometimes bad things happen in life. Does convicting the mechanic or manslaughter bring the loved ones back? Does it prevent it from happening again? Does fining Continental prevent the accident or prevent it from happening again? The answer to all of those is no. A mistake can be made by anyone at anytime and can slip through the cracks, regardless of how robust your QA is. I can pretty much guarantee the self punishment that mechanic has put himself through is magnitudes worse than a criminal conviction would ever be for him. Similar, in the aviation industry, people dieing has a much greater impact on safety and processes than fines ever do. I know it's fun to say that corporations and CEOs prefer deaths to loss of revenue but in the real world, those companies are made up of humans who, if a mistake that lead to people dieing happened on their watch, would make damned sure it never happened again. Those that wouldn't care, wouldn't care if they were fined instead.

Isn't the 113 dead plus countless other lives ruined enough? Why do we always seem to feel we need to ruin other lives to make things even?

29 Nov 2012 02:36 PM
Biness     
flew concorde in 1990. best way to fly by far. miss the bird.

29 Nov 2012 02:42 PM
buzzcut73     

LessO2: Gyrfalcon: Oh, ffs.

Look, everyone, it was an ACCIDENT. I can understand why Continental challenged the criminal charges. There was no intent to murder people in the accident that caused the crash. Why the mechanic was even charged, I cannot fathom. But sometimes bad things happen and really, it's nobody's "fault". A piece of metal fell off a plane and got thrown into the fuel tank of the Concorde. It was terrible. But it was an ACCIDENT.

Stop trying to make it into some kind of heinous act of malicious sabotage.

Yeah, tell that to the families of the people who were killed.

Look, people who are mistreated by the airlines for a simple delay who have this "we want answers" mentality. Why shouldn't a government go after a responsible party in a spectacular crash of a high-profile aircraft?

If there is solid proof the strip of metal caused the fire, then why shouldn't CO be blamed? A strip of metal doesn't sound like a lot, but things like that are much more meaningful when it comes to aviation safety.


Or they could have gone after the builders of Concorde (BAE and EADS) for having a design flaw that caused the fuel tank to rupture from a shock wave (not direct penetration) caused by FOD on a runway, or the operator of the airport for not doing a FOD check before the Concorde took off (there was also a known issue with tires being especially susceptible to bursting during takeoff). Of course both of those entities are French so not their fault.

This really was one of those 'swiss cheese' type of accidents. Everything lined up properly (or improperly depending on your viewpoint) and a crash occurred. There was nothing at all criminal there.

29 Nov 2012 02:44 PM
TWX     
Wouldn't the airport, which is responsible for maintaining the grounds on which aircraft operate, which charges airlines for the use of those grounds, be somewhat responsible for not removing debris from those grounds?

29 Nov 2012 02:44 PM
fsbilly     

ForgotMyTowel: LessO2: Gyrfalcon: Oh, ffs.

Look, everyone, it was an ACCIDENT. I can understand why Continental challenged the criminal charges. There was no intent to murder people in the accident that caused the crash. Why the mechanic was even charged, I cannot fathom. But sometimes bad things happen and really, it's nobody's "fault". A piece of metal fell off a plane and got thrown into the fuel tank of the Concorde. It was terrible. But it was an ACCIDENT.

Stop trying to make it into some kind of heinous act of malicious sabotage.

Yeah, tell that to the families of the people who were killed.

Look, people who are mistreated by the airlines for a simple delay who have this "we want answers" mentality. Why shouldn't a government go after a responsible party in a spectacular crash of a high-profile aircraft?

If there is solid proof the strip of metal caused the fire, then why shouldn't CO be blamed? A strip of metal doesn't sound like a lot, but things like that are much more meaningful when it comes to aviation safety.

I think you nailed it. The families lost loved ones and want someone or something to blame. Something to look at and say "that's the reason they died!". It' smuch more fulfilling than simply saying it was a random, freak accident that sometimes happens. The problem is, as Gyrfalcon pointed out, it was an accident. Sometimes bad things happen in life. Does convicting the mechanic or manslaughter bring the loved ones back? Does it prevent it from happening again? Does fining Continental prevent the accident or prevent it from happening again? The answer to all of those is no. A mistake can be made by anyone at anytime and can slip through the cracks, regardless of how robust your QA is. I can pretty much guarantee the self punishment that mechanic has put himself through is magnitudes worse than a criminal conviction would ever be for him. Similar, in the aviation industry, people dieing has a much greater impact on safety and processes than f ...


This is actually more about the French trying to save face when it was really a design flaw of the shiatty farking airplane the BA and AF should really never have flown. The strip of metal didn't pierce the tanks. The tanks were overfilled making them prone to burst and the Concorde had a long long history of violent tire explosions. France is scapegoating everyone they can to deflect responsibility. There is no reason that piece of metal should've take out a plane. None.

29 Nov 2012 02:45 PM
LessO2    [TotalFark]  

vwarb: LessO2: Look, people who are mistreated by the airlines for a simple delay who have this "we want answers" mentality. Why shouldn't a government go after a responsible party in a spectacular crash of a high-profile aircraft?

Because legal decisions shouldn't be dictated by emotionally charged and irrational calls for revenge, no matter how loud they are?


Legal decisions should be made by the facts and the applicable law.

If parties can prove CO as being negligent, then I can see the decision being against them.

But, again, a piece of metal on the runway might sound like nothing. But there is a reason that pilots will call ATC and inform them of FOD on the runway (and they will temporarily close the runway to clear the debris).

29 Nov 2012 02:45 PM
Moopy Mac     

Gyrfalcon: Oh, ffs.

Look, everyone, it was an ACCIDENT. I can understand why Continental challenged the criminal charges. There was no intent to murder people in the accident that caused the crash. Why the mechanic was even charged, I cannot fathom. But sometimes bad things happen and really, it's nobody's "fault". A piece of metal fell off a plane and got thrown into the fuel tank of the Concorde. It was terrible. But it was an ACCIDENT.

Stop trying to make it into some kind of heinous act of malicious sabotage.


I didn't know that purposeful intent was now a requisite for criminal charges.

I guess that gets a lot of drunk drivers off the hook.

29 Nov 2012 02:46 PM
limeyfellow     

Gyrfalcon: Oh, ffs.

Look, everyone, it was an ACCIDENT. I can understand why Continental challenged the criminal charges. There was no intent to murder people in the accident that caused the crash. Why the mechanic was even charged, I cannot fathom. But sometimes bad things happen and really, it's nobody's "fault". A piece of metal fell off a plane and got thrown into the fuel tank of the Concorde. It was terrible. But it was an ACCIDENT.

Stop trying to make it into some kind of heinous act of malicious sabotage.


The whole trial was revolving around Continental cutting safety corners yo save bucks and time. They had a bad problem with DC9s in the past with this and resulted in the engines falling off planes. There a number of famous cases where techs, engineers, and corporations had to face trial because their actions resulted in something going badly wrong. In this case something fell off the Continential and shredded tyre and metal went into the Concorde's engines.

29 Nov 2012 02:47 PM
ForgotMyTowel     

LessO2: vwarb: LessO2: Look, people who are mistreated by the airlines for a simple delay who have this "we want answers" mentality. Why shouldn't a government go after a responsible party in a spectacular crash of a high-profile aircraft?

Because legal decisions shouldn't be dictated by emotionally charged and irrational calls for revenge, no matter how loud they are?

Legal decisions should be made by the facts and the applicable law.

If parties can prove CO as being negligent, then I can see the decision being against them.

But, again, a piece of metal on the runway might sound like nothing. But there is a reason that pilots will call ATC and inform them of FOD on the runway (and they will temporarily close the runway to clear the debris).


I think the broader issues is, should the law be applicable here? Should you hold people criminally responsible for an accident?

29 Nov 2012 02:55 PM
the ha ha guy     

LessO2: Look, people who are mistreated by the airlines for a simple delay who have this "we want answers" mentality. Why shouldn't a government go after a responsible party in a spectacular crash of a high-profile aircraft?



There's a difference between responsibility and criminal liability.

If a tree falls from your property onto an electric line, cutting power to an elderly woman on a ventilator, who is responsible for her death?

One could argue that since it's your tree, you're responsible, because your inaction led to the tree falling.
One could also argue that the power company is at fault for not identifying the unstable tree.
Or one could argue that the woman herself and/or her caregivers are at fault for not ensuring there was an acceptable backup in place.

Technically, all three arguments would be correct, since all three did take actions (or inactions as the case may be) that contributed to her death.

However, since nobody involved broke any laws, ignored any guidelines, or intentionally tried to cause harm to another, it would be absurd to charge any of these people with a crime.

Yet in this case you're calling for criminal prosecution against people who committed no crime, on the basis of 'the families want revenge'. Is it really wise to ask the courts to rule on the basis of vigilante justice rather than the laws and facts as presented to the court?

29 Nov 2012 03:04 PM
efgeise     

Gyrfalcon: Oh, ffs.

Look, everyone, it was an ACCIDENT. I can understand why Continental challenged the criminal charges. There was no intent to murder people in the accident that caused the crash. Why the mechanic was even charged, I cannot fathom. But sometimes bad things happen and really, it's nobody's "fault". A piece of metal fell off a plane and got thrown into the fuel tank of the Concorde. It was terrible. But it was an ACCIDENT.

Stop trying to make it into some kind of heinous act of malicious sabotage.


The problem I have with blaming Continental is that IT ISN'T THEIR FAULT. The Concorde was supposed to have a complete runway check before it was cleared for takeoff (because it was such a ridiculously touchy aircraft), which wasn't completed.

Sure, you can charge Continental some kind of punishment for losing a piece of an aircraft, but the brunt of this is still on Concorde for failing to complete its safety checks. This is why there are safety checks on aircraft. Anytime a small/private plane crashes because safety checks were ignored, its called Pilot Error.

Also, the tire didn't puncture anything. It got slammed into the underside, which sent a pressure wave that damaged the overfilled fuel tank.

29 Nov 2012 03:10 PM
Lord Dimwit     
The only argument I can see here is that the titanium strip that had fallen off of the Contential plane had not been installed according to manufacturer specifications. That could be viewed as negligence, and therefore cause some responsibility for anything that resulted from that negligence.

Of course, there's a pretty big disconnect - the strip of metal didn't hit the Concorde directly, it was just lying on the runway. Debris ends up on the runway all the time. The airport admitted that it did not do the required runway inspection prior to the Concorde's takeoff, which to me places the majority of the responsibility with the airport.

29 Nov 2012 03:19 PM
mark12A     
It's wasn't Continental. It was that farkin' DC-10/MD-11/MD-12 series of airplanes. Those Mcdonnell aircraft has been finding new and exciting ways to kill people for years. Blown out cargo doors taking down two aircraft (Paris and somewhere else), I think, exploding engine taking out all three hydraulic systems (cornfield crash), inflight fire in the entertainment system (Newfoundland crash), enguine falling off and causing crash (Chicago). And recently a cargo MD-12 wiping out at Narita after a poorly flown approach to landing. And the one landing short of the runway in Newark. Having run out of new ways to kill, the damm plane dropped a metal strip on the runway to kill a Concorde. They are unforgiving and really touchy with weight and balance. Those planes are evil.

/flew Concorde in '02. Niiiice.
//windows get warm, not cold

29 Nov 2012 03:28 PM
gibbon1     

LessO2: If there is solid proof the strip of metal caused the fire, then why shouldn't CO be blamed? A strip of metal doesn't sound like a lot, but things like that are much more meaningful when it comes to aviation safety.


Yeah like making sure that when a tire assplodes it's not going to rip open the fuel tank.

29 Nov 2012 04:18 PM
LessO2    [TotalFark]  

the ha ha guy: Yet in this case you're calling for criminal prosecution against people who committed no crime, on the basis of 'the families want revenge'. Is it really wise to ask the courts to rule on the basis of vigilante justice rather than the laws and facts as presented to the court?



Read again what I said....
Legal decisions should be made by the facts and the applicable law.

If parties can prove CO as being negligent, then I can see the decision being against them.


IF they broke the law and/or IF there is negligence, then there should be penalties. I'm not saying CO should be found guilty just out of spite.

29 Nov 2012 05:55 PM
the ha ha guy     

LessO2: Read again what I said....
Legal decisions should be made by the facts and the applicable law.

If parties can prove CO as being negligent, then I can see the decision being against them.

IF they broke the law and/or IF there is negligence, then there should be penalties. I'm not saying CO should be found guilty just out of spite.



The court already determined that they are not criminally liable, as stated in the headline.

Either you're wrongly accusing the government of not doing something that they have been doing for years, or you're calling for vigilante justice. Either way, you're wrong.

29 Nov 2012 07:44 PM
mbillips     
Upon careful reading of TFA, a piece of metal from a Continental jet damaged the Concorde and caused it to blow up. Or not, maybe the Concorde's tire blew and shredded rubber into the jet intakes for some other reason, BEFORE it hit the bit of Continental titanium. TFA is not clear on these points.

29 Nov 2012 07:50 PM
gibbon1     

mbillips: Upon careful reading of TFA, a piece of metal from a Continental jet damaged the Concorde and caused it to blow up. Or not, maybe the Concorde's tire blew and shredded rubber into the jet intakes for some other reason, BEFORE it hit the bit of Continental titanium. TFA is not clear on these points.


Bit's I've read elsewhere hint that the operators of the Concord knew that there was a danger that rubber from an assploding tire could rip a hole in the fuel tank, and they did nothing about it. The reality is tires fail and explode.

Could put it another way, say a certain model of car had an issue where if a tire explodes, pieces of the tire could rip away the filler tube going to the fuel tank, causing the gas to pour out. Let say the manufacture knew about this, but did nothing. Then one of their cars ran over a piece of trim that fell of an old pickup truck, tire assplodes, rips off the fuel filler tube, the fuel tank explodes and everyone in the car dies. No one would blame the owner of the pickup truck.

29 Nov 2012 09:11 PM
Quantum Apostrophe     
Can't we just 3D print a newer, safer Concorde? Make it faster while we're at it?

30 Nov 2012 02:45 AM
Tsu-na-mi     
I guess "Not responsible" and "Not criminally responsible" look similar if you squint right too. RTFA.

30 Nov 2012 09:15 AM
Netrngr     
Lets not forget its the airports responsibility to control FOD on the flight line. When I was in the military I walked many miles of flightline to ensure no scraps of metal or bolts etc were lying around to damage aircraft.

30 Nov 2012 04:42 PM
Showing 1-28 of 28 comments
Refresh
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined