CJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lomapaseo 
...I'm not sure that I agree with you that the fire would have been catastrophic to the ability to land.
The flames were certainly spectacular but it appears to me that the fire was entirely outside the structural interior and streaming in the slipstream.
Your answer is already here :
Quote:
Originally Posted by
G-SXTY
From the BEA report - numerous pieces of aircraft were found between the end of the runway and the crash site, including; access panels, fuel tank fragments, tail cone structural parts and anti-collision light, ducting, hydraulic lines and shut-off valves, and parts of the left wing and fuselage structure. Many of these parts were damaged by fire.
The aircraft was already coming apart, well before it could even have reached Le Bourget.
CJ
Well since we are a having a sharing of open minded opinions I will venture an opinionated reply.
Stuff found on a runway after a plane takes off is typically mechanically liberated over a very short time. I thought it unlikely that a fuel rich fire dependant on swirling airflow would generate enough heat to release debris while still on the runway. Albeit ccorching of local areas of the wing including some flap damage. So I continue with my own opinion that the thrust performance degradation of the flight during climb out was the archilies heel.
Neither the initiating first layer of swiss cheese nor the final layer of cheese where the aircraft falls out the sky is of interest to me either. Instead my thoughts are to the multiple layers of cheese that were thought to be unlikely to line up in the middle.
Unfortunately the courts have a myopic way of assessing blame to satisfy the greater public and that is fed by the favorite plantif lawyers term of "
if not for the *** " (pick one layer of cheese) and assign the blame. While my modus operandi looks for the barrier layers that were intended as "
in-spite-of"