Originally Posted by
NamibFox
So should we ignore the fact that in the previous 24 years of Concorde flights prior to July 2000 there were 65 burst tyre incidents of which 6 events led to the perforation of fuel tanks? Even if you dispute these numbers surely even one previous fuel tank breach would be one too many?
Tyre bursts were/are not unique to Concorde, and they can result and have resulted in structural damage on other types. The main difference was the frequency.
Certification testing had shown, that an exploding tyre would at the most result in fuel leaks of a few litres/sec.
The severity of some of the earliest incidents (where the wheels themselves, and the water deflectors, did most of the damage) WAS addressed by modifications.
And it was not ignored ... three of the "accused" were from EADS (as the legacy manufacturer) and the DGAC (French CAA).
They could be accused of "errors of judgment", in not being more "pro-active" (the NZG tyres were available well before 2000), the same as Continental can be accused of "professional incompetence" at several levels.
However, I agree that a ten-year criminal trial turned the whole thing into a bitter farce, without contributing anything to aviation safety.
CJ
PS I'm not French, even if I live there.