Enigmatic, if the weight, cg, silly engine shut down, etc. were factors, that needs to be widely known, 'cos one day, some-one else's life might depend on it. What does it matter if the boat is rocked now? They've made mods which will make the aircraft safer, they're hardly going to remove them, are they?
Static Discharge, what a helpful contribution! Perhaps if you could explain why these questions are irrelvant, we'd all be able to have the same faith in the investigation and report that you do.
Mgloff, sorry if I've upset you, but my understanding that they were 11 kts below the appropriate VR for the tailwind, and perhaps even lower than that for the excess weight. Do correct me if I'm wrong. Also I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by 'lear'.
Magplug, you have hit the nail on the head. If these were contributory factors, why doesn't the accident report make this clear, and why the unseemly haste to blame the entire accident on the tyre failure alone? And is it reasonable to say that if a tyre failure (however caused) leads to a catastrophe, certification should be withdrawn? Was it the tyre or the poor FOD prevention on the runway? With everything else (weight, cg, engines) all going for them, would they have survived this accident - that's the key question I'm trying to get to the bottom of.
Gordo, you say that: "with the fire causing the different systems to fail and along with the parts of the aircraft structure that were falling from the aircraft due to this initial tyre burst". What systems had failed at the time of impact as a result of the fire, rather than the decision to shut down both port engines? What pieces of structure (other than skin from the lower surface of the wing) fell off before the final plunge?
With more airspeed (and thus control) why would it have been so difficult to make it the few thousand yards to Le Bourget - or even its under-run - it's always best to go in flat with minimal rate of descent than straight down with a high rate!
Captain P, can you elaborate/translate as appropriate?
"Thirdly the refuelling procedures that allowed no expansion gaps in the wing tanks, leading to the hydraulic rupture process of the skin."
"classic rafistolage Français"
"I hear that the Captain was something of a folk hero in AF. I also hear, though I cannot substantiate, that the first officer was very unhappy with the aircraft weight and the performance calculations, but was unable to impose his concerns on the other flight crew." Could you E-mail me if you have any suggestions as to how I might get further confirmation of this (admittedly anecdotal) evidence, please?
I'm not trying to generate a massive scandal, I'm just concerned that I should consider all the evidence and not just accept the BEA's version without subjecting it to some degree of rigorous analysis. Thanks for all your help.
[ 21 August 2001: Message edited by: Jackonicko ]