Originally Posted by
topoverhaul
This low speed could have been flown out of with the power available but when the FE shut down number 2, which had been affected by the fuel tank surge, before obtaining any confirmation from another crew member, the fate was sealed.
The low speed, maybe. But the BEA also estimated the fire intensity would have destroyed "soon enough" the left wing/control surfaces for the aircraft to be doomed anyway.
May I remind that, as per the BEA technical report:
- No strip = no accident; even with the tail wind, the
(slight, given their calculations) overweight, the missing spacer... etc.
- OTOH, still as per the BEA report, once you include the titanium strip => tyre explosion => fuel leakage => fire into the scenario, then the aircraft is doomed, whatever anyelse. Even if she was not overweight, if the wind was head, if the #2 was kept running, and if the spacer was where it should have been.
And by the way: I'm nevertheless "happy" with the appeal, which seems more "honnest" in assessing responsabilities/faults. Indeed, I think AF/French authorities in general took "too lightly" some issues with the plane (namely: tyres, and the Michelin NZG fitted for the return to flight were an excellent thing). IIRC, the exact same scenario (rolling on the strip) with NZG tyres would not have had such catastrophic outcome.
I disregard the "pre-strip fire" reports, as those reports always were not precise enough to be relevant IMO (unless one wants to "make a story", of course
).
Capot, on that very topic, if you have any evidence/documentation (i.e. something more tangible that "every knowledgeable people know..."), I would be more than pleased to take them into account to, if needed, change my mind & be corrected. Indeed, why not try to answer BEA's "denegations", if the "truth" is so easy to demonstrate? (bearing in mind that once again, in my eyes selected testimonies of witnesses are not that conclusive). And I'm no expert either, I just can read & understand