I disagree with you. If the metal part that came off the Continental DC-10 aircraft wasn't on the runway, that accident had never happened. The reason why Continental is blamed is because they used a part that wasn't FAA approved, explaining why the metal part was found on the runway. (Continental is guilty here). Also to add, Air France isn't responsible for keeping the runway clean, so another reason why Air France isn't liable for the accident.Finally, the metal part damaged some wires and hit the fuel tanks, the sparks coming off the wires ignited the fuel leaking from these tanks. This is clearly relating the design of the aircraft, again you can't hold Air France liable for that.
Conclusion: Next time if you want to blame an airline, please choose a better example
I will use this argument to defend myself if the police stops me because I'm not wearing my seat belts while driving
Tk, I dont want to try to go into semantics, but British Airways and Air France basically co-engineered the Concorde. There were suggestions to reinforce the fuel tanks well before that sad day.
I will though and I’m raising the BS level to BS level 2
Where to begin...
Correct, the strip came off the CO jet
Correct, the strip was made of titanium instead of the normal aluminum and was not a "FAA Approved" part
Incorrect, Per AF operating procedures, it was required that before every Concorde operation that a runway FOD inspection was supposed to take place. On that day one was not carried out prior to takeoff.
Now to expand... Here are all the contributing factors that came from Air France and were conveniently ignored by the BEA. Concorde was over 1 ton overweight on that flight when it took off. Because of being over weight, its center of gravity was out of its aft limits. A Spacer was missing from the left gear assembly which caused the gear to swivel 3 degrees to either side. It was proven that Concorde was swerving left when it ran over the metal strip on takeoff roll by a long 4 tire skid mark left on the pavement before the impact area. It also took off with the wind instead of into it.
Some eye witnesses also claimed that it had taken off past the normal point that it would have lifted off. Also, the point of impact with the metal strip was further down the runway than the normal takeoff point was for Concorde.
Now on to what happened. When the tire ran over the mettle strip, it instantly ruptured. While rupturing, rubber blew everywhere. two large pieces did heavy damage. One struck the power lines to the gear retraction mechanism while the other large piece impacted the left wing. The impact of the wing sent a shock wave through the fuel tank and caused a fuel cap to rupture open on the underside of the wing. A few moments later, the severed electrical lines made contact with each other and made a spark igniting the fuel. At that point of time, Concorde was doomed.
Now lets talk about her design. In 1979-81, 4 incidents occurred all with Air France in the USA with tires exploding. The NTSB sent the BEA information on the issues that had occurred and stressed their concern that an imploding tire on the Concorde would do just what it did on that day. It was recommended that the underside of the wing be reinforced with a thicker skin and that better tires be made for Concorde due to the higher speeds she takes off at. It wasn’t until after the accident did the BEA mandate the changes were done.
So Air France is just as liable as every other party involved with this tragic event. I mean after all, they were the ones that also had to operate Concorde for a less just because of their national pride. If it was any other plane that ran over that strip, the outcome wouldn’t have been the same.