France 2000 Concorde crash trial begins outside Paris
The jet took off in flames from Paris Charles de Gaulle airport and crashed minutes later, killing 113 people.
The presiding judge began the proceedings by reading out the names of all those who died.
An official report said Concorde had hit a metal strip from a Continental plane that had taken off earlier.
But Continental's lawyers say they can prove the supersonic jet caught fire before it struck the titanium strip.
"I am here to prove that Continental Airlines is not responsible," the airline's lawyer Olivier Metzner said as he arrived at the courtroom in Pontoise, west of Paris.
The stricken Concorde flight 4590 crashed in the town of Gonesse in July 2000, hitting a hotel and killing four people there as well as all 109 on board.
Most of the passengers were German tourists heading to New York to join a luxury cruise to the Caribbean. Nine French crew members also died.
The entire fleet of Concordes was grounded until an inquiry established that one of the plane's tyres had burst, causing rubber debris to shoot out and rupture a fuel tank.
Leaking kerosene then ignited and caused the catastrophe.
After nearly a year and a half out of service, in November 2001, the jets took to the air once more with new reinforced fuel tanks, but inquiries continued.
In December 2004, a judicial investigation concluded that a piece of metal left on the runway by another aircraft had caused one of Concorde's tyres to burst and shred.
Investigators said the 43cm (17in) metal strip had fallen from the engine casing of a Continental Airlines DC-10 and in March 2008 a French public prosecutor asked judges to bring manslaughter charges.
Houston-based Continental Airlines is denying responsibility.
Mr Metzner said he would challenge the official view that the metal strip led to the crash.
"We are going to fight it and establish that the Concorde caught fire eight seconds before this scrap of metal met with the Concorde - so about 700m (2,300ft) before," he said.
This is denied by Air France, which is not facing charges.
As well as Continental, five individuals are being prosecuted.
They include John Taylor, the Continental mechanic who allegedly fitted the metal strip to the DC-10, and Stanley Ford, a maintenance official from the airline.
Also facing charges are Concorde's former chief engineer Jacques Herubel, and Henri Perrier, a former head of the Concorde division at Aerospatiale - now part of the aerospace company EADS.
Claude Frantzen, a former member of France's civil aviation watchdog, is the fifth individual defendant.
Manslaughter charges can carry penalties of up to five years in prison and a 75,000-euro ($104,000) fine - but correspondents say that in the case of guilty verdicts, suspended prison sentences are more likely in this case.
Only some of the victims' families will be represented at the hearings, as most took compensation from Air France after the crash in return for not taking legal action.
Stephane Gicquel of Fenvac, a French federation representing the interests of the families of crew members, said relatives would watch the trial with great interest.
"This tragedy is part of their personal history and of their family history," Mr Gicquel told the BBC.
The trial is expected to last four months.
The disaster was the only crash ever to involve a Concorde supersonic airliner.
Air France and British Airways retired their Concorde fleets in 2003.
comments powered by Disqus
- Could another English king be buried under a parking lot?
- Huckabee says archaeology supports the Bible
- George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public
- Unfinished film about the Holocaust made in 1945 to finally be seen by audiences
- Two-Thirds of European Men Descend From Three People
- Daniel Pipes calls the rulers of Iran "madmen" on official Iranian TV
- A Professor Tries to Beat Back a News Spoof That Won’t Go Away
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- Sean Wilentz is being called “Hillary’s Historian"
- Hundreds of British historians challenge assumptions of “Historians for Britain” campaign