I'm afraid I fail to see your point, RH...
I'm convinced things should (must) change @ DGAC (perhaps change is already on the way, at last I hope so) but that's not the point.
DGAC was not able to let the Captain reject T/O after V1 in case of tyre explosion.
I was under the impression that V1 meant just that: no more reject T/O.
Why would DGAC (alone?) change that? I'm not sure that advocating for an exception (a derogation, once again?) is such a good idea.
LFPG had the best firemen in France, would they had to extinguish the plane fire on the RWY 08 and not in Gonesse they could save lifes.
I can't comment on firemen quality. But the BEA calculated the speed at which Concorde would have overrun if the T/O had been rejected (two hypothesis, depending on when the T/O reject would have been initiated).
The figures were impressive (74 kt or 115 kt) (the entire § is quoted in my
post #138). And there is the cargo zone 1,200m after the threshold, with parkings & buildings. I understand from the report that Concorde overruning would not have created a situation with better chances of survival. The exact wording is:
These figures show that an aborted takeoff would have led to a runway excursion at such a speed that, taking into account the fire, the result would probably have been catastrophic for the aircraft and its occupants.
What makes you suppose otherwise?