Basil
1) Most of the questions I have raised were also raised by current, practising ATPLs or heavy jet military pilots. Pilots, mark you, not flight engineers, and most of these questions involve an element of judgement as to CRM, the responsibilities of the aircraft captain, and the handling of large commercial aircraft.
2) My 'naive' comments are clearly a product of my training (RAFGSA, RAFVR (UAS), BAFC, etc.). Strangely all of those organisations stressed the need to slavishly adhere to legal maxima and minima and dictated that in emergency, one should stick to established procedure, and not to 'make it up as you go along'.
3) To state that taking off several tonnes overweight, (perhaps with an out-of-limits c of g) careering off the runway thanks to the missing spacer, rotating early (for whatever reason) and having the FE shut down an engine when it was still producing thrust had no effect on the eventual outcome makes you look foolish, not me. As does your apparent contempt for the technical knowledge and abilities of your fellow industry professionals, and your arrogance "I stand by that statement regardless of whatever anyone else says." Mate.
Twisted,
From your profile, I don't know if I'm arguing with a fellow aviator or not, but if your line is that the accident report is right, end of story, then your confidence in it is an example to many highly qualified and experienced pilots.
Naturally I have read the report (in all three versions) and must say that the disparity between structural MTOW, ATOW and RTOW which it reveals is quite breathtaking, as was the manner in which the crew took over the planning from the despatcher when he started being 'troublesome' about the weight. Suffice it to say that many professionals are uneasy about the way in which elements in the chain which clearly had some influence on the disaster were either ignored or dismissed. I suggest that you read the last two Concorde accident threads (one started by me, then one by BEagle) and examine the profiles of those commenting on these factors. Perhaps you'd explain why the factors raised are irrelevant, rather than enjoining us to believe and accept the official report uncritically.
Why do you choose to believe the BEA report over the report prepared by AF Concorde aircrew for the French magistrate, by the way?
I happen to accept that the tyre burst probably was caused by FOD (the magistrates report does not, quoting evidence showing that the tyre had already burst by the time it ran over the strip) and even that the strip came from the Continental DC10 (again, many do not accept this as the origin of the strip).
Moreover, one must question whether a 37 cycle tyre (no BA Concorde tyre does this many landings) would have burst had it not been subject to the stress of an overweight take off (perhaps even a succession of overweight take offs) 'scrubbing' sideways thanks to the missing spacer? Or even whether a Dunlop tyre would have shed debris large enough to cause this kind of result on the tank?
One must also ask whether the hydraulic/hydrostatic shock which caused the tank to explode outwards was a function of its having been filled past its maximum capacity? A slightly emptier tank may have absorbed the shock of the tyre hitting its underside, whereas the fuel in the 'full to bursting' tank had 'nowhere to go'.
Concorde has survived tyre bursts and massive fuel leaks before, however, and what was different in this accident was that there was an ignition source and that the aircraft failed to gain and maintain sufficient airspeed to stay in the air long enough to reach Le Bourget. Hence the relevance of the engine shutdown, and the question of airspeed/altitude and the final turn.
Ask yourself the question. Had it been within its legal, certificated weight limits, and had the crew opted to take off into wind, and had the tyres been newer, and had the fuel tank been emptier, and had the aircraft's undercarriage been serviceable (and thus had the aircraft accelerated more normally) and had the FE not shut down the engine, and had the Captain reached a higher airspeed, and had he turned for Le Bourget even as he crossed the road, would the aircraft still have departed and killed everyone on board?
And they call it a single-cause accident.
Barking!
