I take issue with any tribunal that utilizes it's administrative arm to determine issues of fact. If we look exclusively to the BEA report we can identify a couple of points of curiousity. The maximum gross weight is significantly reduced for an 8 knt tailwind entirely due to tire concerns. However the results of the overweight status (seperate from the late bags) is viewed an unimportant....yet we had a tire failure?.
Of the 57 documented failures 19 are specific to debris yet we had no preflight inspection for debris...even though both previous experience and engineering study showed both a very low safety margin and an abnormally high potential for catostophic failure in the vent of an incident. The prefight captains brief focuses on tire failure procedures and outlines options but at no time in the CVR is the tire failure mentioned or is a warning triggered by any sensor.
Based on the captains brief I'd expect an intricate sensor system monitoring tire pressure, temp etc that would have indicated a tire failure? The tremendous focus specific to potential tire failure prior to takeoff indicates how serious the issue is and begs the fundemental question on why a takeoff roll that exceeded the tires maximum certified performance threshold was even initiated?
So to me the real question/observation is that the proceedings have been artificially restricted to ignore very real and significant oversights that led directly to the crash. The argument that FOD was the direct cause and not coinsidental is unprovable within the context that the tire was being operated outside of its maximum certified perfromance envelope and that a significant history of failue within that envelope is documented in the absense of FOD. Further the failure to inspect the runway prior to every concorde takeoff is absurdly irresponsible given the potentially catostrophic outcome that was statistically unavoidable over a large enough sample set. In fact every effort appears to be in place to prevent an honest and objective review. The real three questions are simple...
1) Why was the runway not inspected
2) Why was the plane allowed to depart when "out of spec"
3) Why would a portion of runway unsuitable for standard operations be used for a plane with such potentially dangerous tire issues.
While a panel of administrative judges may very well discount these questions a jury (even a French one) is much more apt to contemplate these issues honestly. Jury nulification is the very real counterbalance to administrative judicial process that can place the "letter of the law" over the spirit of the law.