Charles De Gaulle Airport Essay

On May 23, 2004, the Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, France, whisked travelers away to their destinations and received tens of thousands more. People were busily walking to and from their appointed terminals, paying little attention to the vast ceilings protecting them from the elements; the cold, rushing wind outside, threatening to send chills down a passenger’s spine along with the accompanying noise of the departure and return of planes at Charles de Gaulle Airport. The accumulation of noise in the airport, as well as the visual distractions surrounding each individual, proved to be the distraction of 20,00 people as dust floated down from the ceiling of Terminal 2E. No one expected the roof to collapse that morning at 7:00 a.m. The

There is a line, however, where confidence begets obstinacy, which begets failure and human error. No matter how well experienced an engineer becomes, he or she should always remain humble and willing to listen to other engineers. By ignoring the advice of other engineers, he is forsaking the project and is doing what he thinks is best for his self, not the people who will use the structure. An experienced engineer, such as the “legendary” airport architect Paul Andreu, forgot this lesson. His egotism not only made him difficult to deal with, but it also made him dangerous to work with. The airport decided to hire Paul Andreu he was already responsible for the construction of the majority of airport. Andreu, having already designed and constructed the other terminals of the airport successfully, wanted to create something the world had never seen before. His work on the terminal would be an engineering marvel; it would feed his pride and boost an inflated ego. Such a large project made this engineer a dangerous man. He had a job to do; it was his duty to do what was right. He knew from the beginning that everything in the design had to go perfectly; else the whole structure would collapse. His design was a disaster; the outcome was horrendous. It killed four people and injured three others. After the collapse, an investigation

History gives us a record of their partnership; they have always worked together. This leads to the assertion of improper supervision during the project on the construction site. When two companies have worked together for an extended amount of time, the probability of taking risks increases and they become careless. Their history together has mostly been successful; most of their work on other airports has survived, so there was little need for ADP to worry about the construction of ADPi. Their egotism led to the downfall of the structure. Nothing is perfect, not even a design orchestrated by head architect Andreu. ADPi may have gotten confused during the process and instead of asking questions, they continued with their work as usual, despite the risks involved. Two problems may have occurred; the supervisors were misinformed of the design and relayed the information incorrectly, or the construction workers were misinformed and the supervisors didn’t notice. In the event that the supervisors were misinformed or confused by the design, they should have asked questions. They confidently dictated directives that may have been incorrect. Their confidence may have obliterated any confusion they felt prior to issuing commands. Contractors should always have a full understanding of the design and the process; the head architect and the head engineers should