Concorde Crash
The technical arguments have been done to death. We all know and understand what and how it happened. The purpose of the BEA investigation was to learn from it and avoid a recurrence. It achieved precisely that. The purpose of the criminal trial now is to deal with the issue of blame.
Roland Rapport, a lawyer for the victims said " it is unimaginable that all it takes is a burst tyre to crash an airplane ". Particularly so apt when considered in the context of SST Concorde. Back in the early days of the wide body jets, a 747 on take off removed most of a light gantry but remained airborne. This is the very reason why France has put on trial her very own plane makers responsible for its design and her own Civil Aviation authority for allowing it to fly. The five incidents 1979-1981 evidenced the weakness in design and the lack of adequate fuel tank protection. The charges eminate from their alleged neglect in failing to act in their knowledge or at least their awareness of this design weakness. The subsequent AD to reinforce/protect the fuel tanks is proof enough.
Continental`s part is relatively small ( no pun intended ) even if they are found guilty I do not believe they will carry the whole burden of responsibility for the accident. After all it could have been any other FOD from any other source, or a simple tyre burst, the whole question must be was Concorde an accident waiting to happen.
This I believe is the question that the French Judiciary will bravely and openly deal with.