Magplug,
Many thanks for your polite and helpful reply - I no longer take such courtesy for granted.
I do indeed seem to be having trouble getting my head arpound the very issue which you highlight - "It is a cornerstone of aircraft certification that the failure of one single component (however precipitated) should not lead to the loss of an aircraft."
My question is whether the failure of a single component (the tyre) did directly (and ON IT'S OWN) lead to the accident. Concorde tyres have burst before, and tanks have leaked as a result before - sometimes just as badly. But there was also an ignition source, and, it seems, that the fire alone would not have caused the crash if the aircraft had not:
a) taken off dramatically overweight, making it difficult to attain V2
b) taken off outside its C of G limits - making a violent uncontrollable departure more likely
c) Had a dragging undercarriage which reduced acceleration, pulled the aircraft away from the runway centreline and forced the Captain to rotate early, making it even less likely that he would attain a safe airspeed
d) had one functioning engine shut down before V2 was reached.
On top of that, there is the question of whether ADs already incorporated on BA aircraft would not have prevented the tyre failure from leading to catastrophe anyway.
Without any of these links in the chain, would we not just be talking about (yet ) another Concorde tyre failure, albeit one which resulted in a severe fire and a skillful landing at Le Bourget?
And even if I'm wrong, and even if the tyre failure was the primary cause, why are these other factors not highlighted in the accident report, and why do they not form part of the chain of events described in the report and its synopses and conclusions?
I do hope I'm not being blind and/or stupid here.....