PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Concorde crash: Continental Airlines cleared by France court
Old 4th Dec 2012, 17:07
  #76 (permalink)  
AlphaZuluRomeo
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CONF iture
Sorry, but his words leave no space to interpretation
If your read precisely what I wrote, you must have noted that I'm not trying to justify the lawyer's words. In fact, I'm not interested in lawyers fights.
I'm concerned, however, about aviation safety.
One can say (and be right about it): BA was more serious about procedures than AF.
One cannot stretch to the point of saying: BA aircrafts were not at risk.


Originally Posted by CONF iture
I take note of the technical report quote.
In the meantime, let me quote the following :
Yep, I know that last quote too. What about the entire chapter? The comment from the BEA about that point is interesting, too:
BEA Comment: after an aircraft accident in France a judicial inquiry, separate from the technical investigation, is usually conducted by one or more examining magistrates. The constraints of this procedure did not, however, prevent the BEA from carrying out a full investigation, in association with its foreign counterparts. The BEA nevertheless regrets the difficulties encountered by the AAIB investigators and their advisers.



Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
AZR - you cannot simply dismiss the downwind takeoff, the overweight, and especially the missing spacer as irrelevant to the crash. They were all factors, and if any one (never mind all) had been absent it might have changed the outcome.
It's not me who dismisses anything. I do no more than quoting the BEA, here. And my reading of the BEA final report is precisely that: those "factors" being absent would not have changed the outcome.
Of course, you can always argue that "we'll never know for sure", and be right about that. But that's not my point.
My point is the strip/tyre interaction alone was enough to put the aircraft at risk. Be it an AF incorrectly operated Concorde or a BA perfectly operated one. Hence the grounding of both fleets was justified (and both countries certifications authorities could be regarded as guilty for not having exiged modifications sooner, if one wants to stretch the point).

May I aslo remind what was the first Preliminary Recommendation following the accident? (my bold)
Consequently, without prejudice to further evidence that may come to light in the course of the investigation, the BEA and the AAIB recommend to the Direction Générale de I'Aviation Civile of France and the Civil Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom that:
• the Certificates of Airworthiness for Concorde be suspended until appropriate measures have been taken to guarantee a satisfactory level of safety with regard to the risks associated with the destruction of tyres.
Ref: §4.1 of the final report, reproducing Preliminary Recommendation from earlier interim report.


Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
The overfilling of the tanks so that there was insufficient air space to allow some compression and therefore obviate the hydraulic overpressure is a crucial factor.
I'll say it again: Until proven wrong, I consider that the #5 tank was full (94% = full) but not overfilled as per the BEA report.
What's more is that an overfill procedure existed (was approved, I assume) and F-BTSC was fueled according to that procedure. Once again, if that procedure is deemed wrong, then surely it applies to both countries/companies aircrafts.

Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
I am confident, having spoken extensively to BA crews who express similar views to the above, that no such situation existed in that airline.
I don't share that confidence regarding the specific and very important issue of the #5 tank filling, as written above.
AlphaZuluRomeo is offline