Originally Posted by
bizdev
On the other - truly brilliant - Concorde thread, there was a comment made which indicated to me that those contributing to the thread, i.e. those that had either flown or maintained Concorde, had a different theory or opinion to that of the official crash report? Or have I mis-interpreted?
bizdev,
Let's not forget that, as with virtually all crashes
- the final report will try to establish a "
probable cause" and the most plausible theory for what happened,
- we are dealing with a
chain of events, and not with a single event one can point at and say unequivocally : "that's the cause".
So it's normal, that there are different opinions and theories.
The BEA (with the judiciary breathing down their necks....) did make an effort to come up with the best and most plausible answers. Some of those answers were theories, because the evidence had been destroyed by the crash itself, and hence it was impossible to prove whether those answers were right or wrong.
So yes, in Concorde circles there were certainly differences of opinion, and different theories, some equally plausible, but equally unprovable.
Also, let's not forget the
judicial enquiry had less to do with establishing the most probably cause and more with determining who was going to pay the bill......
CJ