PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Concorde crash: Continental Airlines cleared by France court
Old 4th Dec 2012, 21:54
  #79 (permalink)  
AlphaZuluRomeo
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
AZR, you seem to saying that 'the BEA report says XYZ, so XYZ was the cause'.
Yep, that's it. Until proven otherwise, of course: Errare humanum est, BEA is composed of human beings (I think).
It's not about blind confidence, it's because the report is the most detailled work about the accident I've come across to, and because its conclusions seem accurate & logical (damn my Cartesian mind, once again).
Now, if you want to convince me that BA's Concorde were safe and should not have been grounded following the 2000 AF accident, there is a simple thing to do: to demonstrate that BA's Concorde never took off with 94% full #5 tank (or that RWYs were inspected/wipped before every such take-off).

Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
I think a few of us on this side of the channel (...) would't consider that BEA report even good enough to be used as bog paper!
I'm aware of that. My problem is when those people - from whatever side of whatever sea/border/planet (we have such people here too) - fail to bring anything consistent (in my eyes) to support their theories. So far, I acknowledge question marks alot, but few (if any) definite/hard evidences answers.

Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
(...) including perhaps our own AAIB (...)
Uh? I'm not aware of the AAIB having such a negative PoV about the whole report. Remarks they made, yes. Some specific points of analysis differed, and were dully noted. But disagreement on the facts or conclusions/recommendations?

BTW, I feel useful to also remind that I'm perfectly OK with your comment here:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
The court has rightly pointed the finger of blame for Paris back where it belongs.
Yes indeed. Whatever specific role the (in)famous titanium strip played on this sad day of summer 2000, that should not be an excuse to forget or dismiss AF (french) other faults/mistakes when operating that wonderful aircraft. It feels right that the court - finally - acknowledged that.
Nor should OTOH those other - and numerous - faults/mistakes be an excuse to forget or dismiss the inherent risk (which is no more french/AF than british/BA or Kinglon for that matter) of the strip/tyre/tank interaction.



Originally Posted by jcjeant
This is a very good recommendation indeed
Unfortunately, this recommendation would be made ​​already after the Washington incident.
This neglect or lax of BEA was paid cash at Gonesse
Even with the intense political pressures at that time, recommendations were made after Washington. And after other occurences, in both AF & BA fleets.
What wasn't "imagined" is the massive leak resulting from the 2000 specific scenario (it was significatively different from the Washington and other incidents, as already said here). Measures were not taken to contervene an unkown risk. Is it a fault? A neglect? Perhaps.
Perhaps it's also a bit "too easy" to say so... afterwards.

Last edited by Jetdriver; 9th Dec 2012 at 13:57.
AlphaZuluRomeo is offline