Continental, welder guilty in Concorde crash trial

PONTOISE, France Mon Dec 6, 2010 1:27pm EST

1 of 5. Flames come out from the Air France Concorde seconds before it crashed in this file photo taken at Gonesse near Paris Roissy airport, July 25, 2000.

Credit: Reuters/Andras Kisgergely/Files

Related Video

PONTOISE, France (Reuters) - A French court on Monday found Continental Airlines and a mechanic at the U.S. airline guilty of involuntary manslaughter for their part in the 2000 Concorde crash, in a ruling Continental called "absurd."

The verdict more than a decade after a deadly accident that spelled the end of the supersonic airliner could now affect how planes are maintained and inspected.

The court ruled that a small metal strip, which fell onto the runway from a Continental aircraft just before the Concorde took off, caused the crash, which killed 113 people.

Continental, which was fined 200,000 euros and ordered to pay Concorde's operator Air France a million euros in damages, said it would appeal a verdict it described as unfair and absurd.

Welder John Taylor was handed a 15-month suspended prison sentence for having gone against industry norms and used titanium to forge the piece that dropped off the plane.

"I do not understand how my client could be considered to have sole responsibility for the Concorde crash," lawyer Francois Esclatine told French iTele television.

Continental, which has since been swallowed to form United Continental Holdings, will have to pay 70 percent of any damages payable to families of victims, the ruling said. Airbus parent EADS would have to pay the other 30 percent.

The verdict exposes Continental and EADS to damages claims that could run to tens of millions of euros if insurance companies seek reimbursement for sums already paid to relatives.

Individual damages in such cases can reach some $3-4 million in the United States, but tend to be lower in France where damages for wrongful death are closer to $50,000 and economic losses are compensated on a strict scale, legal specialists say.

A Continental spokesman said the ruling showed "the determination of the French authorities to shift attention and blame away from Air France ... as well as from the French authorities responsible for the Concorde's airworthiness and safety."

The crash sped up the demise of the droop-nosed Concorde -- the fastest commercial airliner in history and a symbol of Franco-British co-operation -- as safety concerns coupled with economic downturn after 9/11 drove away its wealthy customers.

CONCERN OVER CRASH TRIALS

The Air France Concorde, carrying mostly German tourists bound for a Caribbean cruise, was taking off from Paris on July 25, 2000 when an engine caught fire. Trailing a plume of flames, it crashed into a hotel near Charles de Gaulle airport.

All 109 passengers and four people on the ground died.

After modifications, the plane returned to service but its operators, Air France and British Airways, retired it in 2003.

The court said EADS, which now owns the French factories that partly built the Concorde airliners, had some civil liability in the crash, which hastened the end of an era of glamorous supersonic travel between London, Paris and New York.

EADS lawyer Simon Ndiaye said the company was still deciding whether to appeal.

Three French aviation officials, including the former head of the Concorde program, Henri Perrier, were acquitted by the court, as was Taylor's supervisor at Continental.

The trial has led to warnings in the aviation industry that taking crash investigations out of the hands of regulators and placing them in the courts could discourage workers from coming forward with information needed to prevent future accidents.

Kenneth Quinn, a former Federal Aviation Administration chief counsel who advises the Flight Safety Foundation, called the verdict "an affront to our outstanding aviation safety records" and said it could impede co-operation on plane crashes.

"If there is willful misconduct then criminal laws apply ... but attempting to put people behind bars or even handing out suspended sentences for honest mistakes is going to dry up the sources of information need to prevent the next crash."

The court in the town of Pontoise north of Paris blamed sub-standard maintenance practices for the fact that a 44 cm-long strip of titanium dropped off a Continental plane taking off before the Concorde and punctured its tires, sending debris into the Concorde's fuel tanks and sparking a fatal fire.

(Additional reporting by Tim Hepher; Writing by Catherine Bremer and Brian Love)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (6)
SanPa wrote:
So, the Michelin tyre was not puncture resistant? How can a court assign blame for a source of “road debris” when the subject vehicle is not designed to tolerate shrapnel from a disintegrating tyre?

Dec 06, 2010 10:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
5tudentT wrote:
More information, please.

There’s enough here to get excited about, and to spark all kinds of speculation, but it’s like watching one of these ‘cooking’ shows. We know all of the drama, but have no clue how to prepare anything.

What, exactly did this part do? Where was it? How does the work done differ from what should have been done? How much authority did the welder have in deciding how to do the work? Who inspected when he was done? And on and on and on….

This isn’t news, it’s meta-news, and too much of what we get is meta-news.

Dec 06, 2010 10:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
Giant1NPRfan wrote:
The french courts are a JOKE in the eyes of the world!

The plane was defective in design from the beginning and the designers and operators KNEW THIS and did NOTHING about it… on purpose !!!!!!

The tire failure first occurred 2 years after its first flight.
The tires failed 3 more times before the crash, punching holes in the wing and spewing fuel.

The joke of a legal system conveniently ignored ALL OF THESE FACTS !!!

What an OUTRAGE!!!

Dec 06, 2010 11:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Pictures