I think the 1981 NTSB recommendations were already clear enough:
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/1981/A81_150_152.pdf
Now it's not because this letter was sent to the French authorities that "other" operating authorities shouldn't feel concerned by the listed occurrences, which by the way happened more often in serious stages (fuel leaks) than with the French operations.
The 1981 letter mentions: "
potentidly catastrophic incident resulting from blown tires during takeoff" What else does need to be added? Why should the court segregate responsibilities on AF only while its a entire systematic risk management failure? To me it is very clear that all parties involved in the operations of this aircraft were fully aware of the risks mentioned in the NTSB recommendations.
I would really appreciate if one could stop attempting to discharge other parties by demonstrating AF's heavy violations. AF failure to work properly doesn't clear other parties from there responsibilities and AF isn't the only one missing in the court.