If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   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   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 8
    More: Followup, Concorde, Charles de Gaulle Airport, Continental Airlines, Air France, appeals court  
•       •       •

6723 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Nov 2012 at 1:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-29 03:04:11 PM
3 votes:

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?
2012-11-29 02:27:39 PM
3 votes:

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?
2012-11-29 09:11:51 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-29 03:19:32 PM
1 votes:
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.
2012-11-29 03:10:57 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-29 02:45:55 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-29 02:10:43 PM
1 votes:
Geez, we gave back all those Tour de France medals, what more do you people want?
2012-11-29 02:05:21 PM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 8 of 8 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report