French magistrate investigating Continental..

[astanley]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/10/france.concorde/index.html

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Continental Airlines says it has been placed under investigation by a French magistrate judge for the suspected role played by one of its jets in the July 2000 crash of the supersonic Concorde that killed 113 people.

John Lowery wrote one of the few (Air and Space did a decent job as well) articles that really took the French, EADS, and Air France to task over the Concorde crash in Aviation Safety. The overall games that EADS, the JAA, and Air France are STILL playing over the Concorde crash astound me - a flawed design with poor oversight and a government with it's hands in the middle of the mess.

Total garbage... just trying to cover up for an ill concieved design and the flaws of EADS in designing the Concorde... and I wonder why I will not fly EADS built aircraft...

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[Ken Ibold]

John Lowery wrote one of the few (Air and Space did a decent job as well) articles that really took the French, EADS, and Air France to task over the Concorde crash in Aviation Safety. The overall games that EADS, the JAA, and Air France are STILL playing over the Concorde crash astound me - a flawed design with poor oversight and a government with it's hands in the middle of the mess.

When John first started talking to me about running that, I was a little hesitant because it was rather early in the investigation cycle to be taking potshots. But the more he talked, the more I listened. I agree it was a fine piece of work.

 

[poadeleted3]

Total garbage... just trying to cover up for an ill concieved design and the flaws of EADS in designing the Concorde... and I wonder why I will not fly EADS built aircraft...

Cheers,

-Andrew

Did you get rid of your TB20, or am I misremembering?

Like French aircraft or not, they surely could teach the rest of us a thing or two about cockpit ergonomics, from what I've seen of the Socatas.

 

[astanley]

Did you get rid of your TB20, or am I misremembering?

Like French aircraft or not, they surely could teach the rest of us a thing or two about cockpit ergonomics, from what I've seen of the Socatas.

I never owned a TB20 - you must have me confused with someone else. I'm not sure I mind being confused with an airplane owner, though...

I think that EADS has done some very, very interesting human factors work on their aircraft - my real issue stems from the way the government and EADS play together, and how, I think, they collude against proper investigations.

(I will say that the TB700 I saw on the ramp was VERY sexy indeed. Much nicer looking than the Pilatus)

I guess you could say the same thing about Boeing and the 737 investigations, but I'm not entirely sure they are the same thing.

Have you seen the "response" to the Roselawn crash crafted by EADS?

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1996/AAR9602.pdf

IMO, it's pretty scary.

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[astanley]

When John first started talking to me about running that, I was a little hesitant because it was rather early in the investigation cycle to be taking potshots. But the more he talked, the more I listened. I agree it was a fine piece of work.

Ken,

I don't write letters to the editor - but that article prompted me to do so. One of the top 5 during the time I subscribed - and one of the issues I saved at home. I think I'll just have to go re-read that article when I get home.

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[gibbons]

(I will say that the TB700 I saw on the ramp was VERY sexy indeed. Much nicer looking than the Pilatus)
-Andrew

Oh, Oh... me! me! TBM700 - you're talking my language. I'm only a few hundred thou short.

Chip

 

[Arnold]

I never owned a TB20 - you must have me confused with someone else. I'm not sure I mind being confused with an airplane owner, though...

I think that EADS has done some very, very interesting human factors work on their aircraft - my real issue stems from the way the government and EADS play together, and how, I think, they collude against proper investigations.

(I will say that the TB700 I saw on the ramp was VERY sexy indeed. Much nicer looking than the Pilatus)

I guess you could say the same thing about Boeing and the 737 investigations, but I'm not entirely sure they are the same thing.

Have you seen the "response" to the Roselawn crash crafted by EADS?

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1996/AAR9602.pdf

IMO, it's pretty scary.

Cheers,

-Andrew

Okay, I read the report. I'm curious, what about their rebuttal did you find scary? I did find some of the assertions (especially the comments about the f/o) objectionable, but it seems to me, that considering the source, it was mostly what one would expect, a different point of view, a clear, but I think sincere, attempt to shift blame away from themselves, but I did not find it scary.

 

[astanley]

Okay, I read the report. I'm curious, what about their rebuttal did you find scary? I did find some of the assertions (especially the comments about the f/o) objectionable, but it seems to me, that considering the source, it was mostly what one would expect, a different point of view, a clear, but I think sincere, attempt to shift blame away from themselves, but I did not find it scary.

Arnold,

The thing that has always bugged me about this report, and others, is how the Bureau Aeronautique (nee JAA now, correct?) in Roselawn, the first Concorde incidents (Dulles - blown tires), and in their historical oversight (John Lowery and the Air and Space articles covered this pretty well) has essentially lock-stepped with EADS and whatever their perogative is. An in so many crashes, they've thrown the crew under the bus - which is just despicable.

Roselawn, by itself, isn't scary. But taken in the context of their other actions (I should really go dig these two mags out, I've saved them upstairs in my "to be archived" avaition mags bookshelf) it sacres the daylights out of me.

If I get some time this week, I'll pull them out and write something more substansive than my conjecture above ;-)

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[Arnold]

Arnold,

The thing that has always bugged me about this report, and others, is how the Bureau Aeronautique (nee JAA now, correct?)

Not quite, it seems the French have a civil accident investigation system like our own. The BAE is the French equivalent of our NTSB and the DGAC is the equivalent of our FAA and to some extent DOT combined. Info on the JAA can be found here: http://www.jaa.nl/whatisthejaa/jaainfo.html but essentially it is the EU's FAA.

in Roselawn, the first Concorde incidents (Dulles - blown tires), and in their historical oversight (John Lowery and the Air and Space articles covered this pretty well) has essentially lock-stepped with EADS and whatever their prerogative is. An in so many crashes, they've thrown the crew under the bus - which is just despicable.

I agree that they look for anyone else to blame, (but U.S. airlines and manufacturers do as well and pilot unions expend considerable recourses during accident investigations making sure pilots are not used as scape goats) and I think they made some comments in the report which were despicable - especially as to the F/O's lack of a type rating, they are suggesting that the lack of type rating implies a lack of competence, and this is not true in the U.S. system (I do't know about France) where F/O's operating domestic regional flights are not routinely type rated. I flew ATR's for AE/Simmons at the time and knew and flew with the F/O and not only did I like him, I found him to be a superbly competent F/O, even though when I first flew with him it was his first week out of IOE. [I don't comment on the CA becaue I did not know him]

But there is a fundamental difference between the French and U.S. that colors the whole discussion. Here we look at a particular situation and say, if it isn't prohibited, it is permitted. There they say if it isn't permitted, it is prohibited. So they view the flap 15 hold as a violation, while most U.S. pilots would not, to us it simply was a different technique. The French also take it a step further and say well, even if the manual did not prohibit holding flaps 15, there are no performance charts for the maneuver so you were in fact prohibited from doing so. The U.S. pilot is likely to counter by saying, well if I know I have enough fuel for the maneuver, and that is really the only data on the chart, then who cares what the chart says.

So what you have is a fundamental difference in the view of the pilot's role. The French view it as only doing that which is explicitly permitted, while the U.S. views it as not doing that which is explicitly prohibited.

If I get some time this week, I'll pull them out and write something more substantive than my conjecture above ;-)

I have not seen those articles and would be very interested in seeing them.

Arnold