Ex writes:
Not suggesting that AF or BA would ever let safety be second to financial considerations, of course.
I really think it boils down to a perception of prestige, which both carriers played completely wrong.
"The only way we can offer flights on this very expensive aircraft at the price we do is by taking every opportunity to avoid the wear and tear normal airliners are subject to. Therefore, we inspect and clean the runway whenever possible."
How f*cking hard is that?
Chronus writes:
Do any of the defendants fit the bill ?
If so which ones and why.
No, at least not in my mind.
If we're going to stay with the titanium strip theory, then whomever scheduled the training session which delayed the runway FOD inspection should have been charged.
As well as whomever failed to make it clear that an aircraft highly susceptible to damage was scheduled at XX for takeoff, and that nothing should interfere with runway inspection.
Really, to play the titanium card, you have to admit to knowing that it could have caused the damage which "caused" the crash, and its presence on the runway indicates a degree of negligence.
Ground ops has far more control over FOD than a departing aircraft.
If we're going to go with the missing spacer and the 3 degrees (?) of caster it caused, then the person who inspected the landing gear should have been charged.
Either way, I hope this whole thing makes those who need it feel better.