The verdict by a French appeals court last week that Continental Airlines wasn’t responsible for the crash of an Air France Concorde in July of 2000 that killed 113 was a just decision. A French court had originally ruled that Continental and one of its mechanics was responsible for the crash. A mechanic had installed a metal strip on a Continental DC-10 that came off, later puncturing the tire of the Concorde as it was taking off, sending rubber into the engine and starting the fire that brought the airliner down shortly after it had lifted off from Paris.
The assigning of blame for what is clearly a freak accident is something that sticks in the craw of most pilots. We do what we do with the knowledge that there’s a little bit of luck in our staying safe. Near mid-air collisions are far more common than mid-air collisions, thanks to the big sky we fly in, but for a couple of airplanes every year, the sky isn’t quite big enough. The Continental mechanic who made the repair to the DC-10 did so in good faith that it was a good repair. The chances of that repair failing and causing another airplane to crash catastrophically were, statistically speaking, zero. That mechanic won the reverse lottery. It happens.
In the United States, unlike in France, we typically leave enforcement of pilots and mechanics to the FAA and let the courts do their thing with actual criminals. Bust a TFR and you’ll have your ticket suspended. Steal an airplane and the FBI will be talking to you. That is as it should be.
Letting the FAA have its rightful position as enforcer of aviation regulations makes things very clear about which agency you’ll answer to if you screw up.
In other countries this is not always the case. In Brazil, courts pressed criminal charges against a pair of U.S. pilots who survived a midair between the business jet they were flying and a Brazilian airliner, that subsequently crashed, killing all aboard the 737. The pilots, so far as anyone can tell, made the mistake of simply flying the clearance they were issued. In my view, they should be collecting an award instead of being threatened with jail time.
The charges had the appearance of an attempt by the Brazilian courts to cover up for the controller’s grievous error, putting two jets on intersecting courses at the same altitude.
That was a tragic mistake. Was it criminal, though? It depends, I guess, on where the mistake was made. Here, it would probably lead to the controller being fired. In France, it might mean criminal charges, despite the fact there was no intent and arguably no negligence. How, then, was there a crime? Same for the Continental mechanic. In the latter case, at least the French court got it right in the end.
The bottom line is, sometimes tragic mistakes are simply that.
All Comments
What you said in the Brazilian case also fits the Concorde accident. I think most people would find that the real fault was in the design of the plane. The fact that a simply blown tire could damage the fuel system (& potentially lead to a fire) had been known & ignored by the plane's designers & operators for years. But as if for national pride, the French courts sometimes fail to blame high profile French corporations. A good example of which is the finding in the 1988 Paris Air Show crash of an A320 where it failed to climb after performing a low pass & crashed into trees. The pilot who claimed the new fly-by-wire system had failed to accept his throttle input, was found guilty & sentenced to prison time. It is incomprehensible to me that a well trained pilot would allow his plane to fly into trees when all he had to do was increase power. But that's what the courts said.
In my entire working career I had only one boss I had little respect for. This was primarily because his reaction to every bad happening was to insist that I aggressively pursue someone to “nail”. Dealing with the root cause of the incident was never on his radar. When as frequently happened his demands were inappropriate, inordinate amounts of time and effort had to be expended in deflecting him.
It would appear too many of his clones are out there in positions of authority.
As noted, sometimes stuff just happens.
Excellent article! 100% on the money! Thank you!
Wayne Gorsek
Embraer Pheom 300 owner and pilot
Founder & CEO
http://www.drvita.com
Considering the aircraft took off with an 11 knot tailwind, from a rough part of the runway due for resurfacing, without a spacer, with 10 extra items of unweighed luggage it was predestined for disaster.
Air France (and BA when it flew Concorde) also ignored a safety report years ago with many recommendations one including inserts in the fuel tanks to avert damage. This was due to numerous incidents based on a history of 48 plus tyre burst incidents, numerous other tyre wear and inflation issues.
While many aircraft have incidents Concorde had an Achilles heel, that partially due to it being a huge money pit from day one, no expenditure was seen as justified until the boundaries were pushed too far and lives were lost. The most serious ones being:
1979 Burst tyres 5 and 6 engines 1 & 2 replaced wheel and brake damage locking hydraulics
Engines 1 & 2 replaced
1979 burst tyre 6-wing damage hydraulic servo valve and landing gear
1979 Washington burst tyre 5 destruction of wheel, tanks 2,5,and 6 penetrated, hydraulic, and electrical circuits torn from aircraft and engine 2 damaged
1979 Washington Burst tyre 6 damage engine 2-intake and rubber marks/denting on wing.
1979 burst tyre 3 engine 3 damaged landing gear damaged
1979 Burst tyre 4 Wheels n° 7 and 8 damaged and engines 3 and 4
1979 Burst tyres 5, 6, 7, and 8 electrical failure and wheel deflector
1980 Burst tyre 8 braking systems jam, hydraulic system failure and wheel
1980 Burst tyre 8 Burst Takeoff damage engine 3, gear door and tyre deflector
1981 Burst tyre 2 Engine 1 & 2 damaged
1981 burst tyre 5 damage engine 2 and gear
1981 Burst tyres 1 & 2, tank 5 penetrated, hydraulic damage and elevon and engines 1 & 2
1981 Burst tyre 6 fuselage damage, damage engine 2 and brake servo valve and wheel deflector
1981 Burst tyres 1 & 2, hydraulic damage and tyre deflector
1982 Burst tyre 6 Burst damage landing gear and hydraulics
1984 Burst tyre 2 wing damage and engine 2 and deflector
1984 Burst tyre 1 damage brakes and tyre deflector
1985 Burst tyre 8 servo valve, landing gear wheel and hydraulic damage
1985 Burst tyre 7 damage landing gear and hydraulics
1985 Burst tyre 5 Burst damage fuselage, door, engines 1 & 2 and tank 5 penetrated
1987 11/08/87 G-BOAC New York Burst tyres 1,2,4,5,6 and 8 damage brakes, wing, engine 3, and gear doors
1,2,4,5,6 and 8 Burst Braking
1988 Deflation tyre 3, loss of wheel bolts, wing impact and damage to tank 7
1988 Burst tyre 1 damage brakes and hydraulics
1988 tyre 7 pressure loss damage brakes and hydraulics
1993 burst tyres 7 & 8 damage fuselage, landing gear and actuator, air intake tyre mark, air intake engine 3, wing root fairing and deflector
1993 Burst tyre 4 damage brakes, landing gear jam, wing damage, tank 8 penetrated, hydraulics, engine 3 damaged
1993 burst tyre 2, damage servo valve and landing gear and brake piping
1993 Burst tyre 2 damage wing and tank 1 penetrated
1995 Burst tyre hydraulic leak
1998 Burst tyre 8 damage servo valve
2000 Burst tyre 4 Burst Servo valve and landing gear
2000 Takeoff Deflector
Concorde was a brilliant innovation from it's prototype in 1968 into service in the late 70's but neglected and became antiquated rather quickly.
Good article. Also reminds me of the 2005 crash of a Tuninter Airlines ATR 72 that ditched in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Palermo Italy. The accident resulted from fuel exhaustion due to the installation of fuel quantity gauges from the smaller ATR 42. The crew did not know that their fuel quantities were lower than indicated as a result of the bad gauges and so they ran out of fuel over the sea, but managed to ditch the aircraft near some boats. As a result 23 passengers survived including the flight crew, but 16 passengers died . The Italian government however, sentenced the pilots to 10 years in prison for manslaughter! That's crazy! Glad I fly in the U.S.A.
While I have very little experience, I agree with this article 100%
I love your magazine, but this article is completely out of order. Under European law, pilots and mechanics are also judged by EASA (EU FAA) and not in a criminal court. The French lawsuit was against Continental as a company, not against the mechanic. It should state the great responsibilities companies have to savety in aviation. In the Brazilian case your also not quite on the spot. Of course ATC srewed up and assigned two aircraft the same flightlevel, but you forgot to mention that the crew was very unfamiliar with the brand new jet and did by accident, switch off the transponder leaving ATC unaware of it's altitude and disabeling the TCAS system. Off course the pilots didn't do that on purpose and shouldn't face time in prison, but your report should be more objective and less chauvinistic than this one!
Aveen,
The Continental Airlines mechanic, John Taylor, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and given a 15-month suspended sentence. It was a criminal conviction of him, personally. The airline was also found criminally responsible for Taylor's actions.
The convictions of both Taylor and the airline were overturned recently by the French appeals court.
Thomas Boyle,
Thanks. You're right and justice has been done. My comment was on the fact that the article states that US regulations are more fair to pilots and mechanics than EU laws, which isn't true to my opinion. I wonder what happens under US law when the FAA concludes after investigation that a pilot made a severe imputable mistake leading to an accident. Will there be no criminal investigation and possible prosecution then? I can hardly imagine. As a European pilot and a surgeon, I always hear horrible stories from my American collegues about lawyers hunting them down, just for doing their job the way they where teached to do it.
In the Italian case of the ATR 72 posted bij "glideslope", the pilots did run out of fuel when their faulty gauges showed they had more than enough. The investigation revealed however that the crew didn't do the math! They didn't crosscheck the quantity they really had on board with the gauges, nor did they monitor if the amount of gas they burned was in accordance with the fuel left. The marvelous job they did on ditching the plane doesn't discharge the pilots from performing as they should have done, in which case they would have found the faulty fuel-indication.
As a European and a pilot -- and also as a professional journalist -- I have a humble suggestion for some of the people who commented Mr Goyer's article. Please look into a well know American/Canadian series called "Myday" that, despite the rather stupid title, deals quite in depth and seriously with the investigations on worldwide accidents. One episode was recently dedicated to the Tunisian ATR 72 accident that occurred in 2005 near Palermo, Sicily. It came out that the pilots, and especially the captain Chafik Al Gharbi , made two very bad mistakes. One, already mentioned by New, was not to have manually checked the fuel quantity despite some obvious discrepancies in the flight log. Nor they cross checked with some simple math the available fuel for the flight, an operation that every pilot performs before committing plane and passengers to flying. The second mistake , even more ominous, was to voluntarily ditch the plane despite the fact that they could have possibly reached Palermo airport gliding at the most efficient speed. No, Mr. Chafik Al Gharbi, preferred the otherwise noble endeavor of muttering prayers instead of -- again -- consulting the airplane manual or follow the advice of Palermo controllers who suggested him to try a glide. Mr. Goyer is right, bad things happen and too often pilots are blamed. But if a pilot who is in charge of a commercial plane is so inept that 16 people die because of his incompetence (certified first by investigators and later by the judiciary) then, by Golly, he has better stay out of the cockpit, and perhaps in jail.
Americans are often shocked, and perhaps rightly so by foreign cases of criminal charges being brought in what are clearly accidents with no intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. It is however important to recognize that the balance between civil and criminal law is different in many countries than it is in the US. In some cases, a full investigation may not be undertaken unless someone is accused of wrongdoing, and civil damages may not be accorded unless wrongdoing is established through criminal charges. In such cases, a fact-finding investigation of the NTSB/BEA type is unsatisfactory to those who have suffered losses, and may have no other recourse. Contrary to some opinions expressed in comments here, it is not unusual in these cases for criminal charges to take aim at large manufacturers and government officials, sometimes going very high up the command chain, as was the case here, with charges being brought against the head of the French civil aviation authority. As Americans are often shocked by criminal charges in these cases, Europeans are equally shocked by the fact that American citizens may vicariously attack companies and individuals in civil courts, seeking gigantic financial retribution, often endangering a company’s ability to continue doing business after what was, after all an accident.
YOU WEREN'T THERE. I find it utterly disgraceful that anyone would comment on what anyone else did in a cockpit. You have no idea how much training or knowledge the guys in Brazil had (U.S. Pilots), you have no idea how the guys in Italy operate or what the procedures are for emergencies. Until your the PIC in an investigation or have made the judgement call in a similar situation, please keep the backseat flying to yourself.
Aviation accidents and tragedies should be investigated to improve safety, training, and the business as a whole, not to place blame.
It is quite common for Judge and lawyer to find scapegoat so that people can adress their hate to somebody instead of something not physical
