PBL
These are excellent pieces of writing:
http://www.abnormaldistribution.org/...-ten-years-on/
http://www.abnormaldistribution.org/...ars-on-part-2/
I think we can all agree that lacking an inquest system as it does, that in France it is necessary to hold a criminal trial to apportion the costs of compensation is deplorable.
Your first piece effectively reaffirms the BEA report and the findings and verdict based upon it. I think the "cross-examination" in your second piece rather comprehensively plants a stake through the heart of the "Concorde wasn't airworthy because it was susceptible to severe damage from a relatively common occurrence" argument. That only leaves the CAL allegation of a pre-existing fire. In several posts I have asked, given that the engines show no physical signs of fire damage, what the nature of the alleged fire might have been and what might have caused it.
There have been two answers:
here, FAStoat said that there might have been an afterburner fire. Apart from whether such a fire could have been caused by an improperly fitted fuel pump (I don't know - I'm not an engineer), this raises the questions of whether such a fire would have left any physical evidence behind, and whether the existence of such a fire would have been causally necessary, given that it seems ordinary afterburner might well have been able to ignite the fuel spill unaided.
Bearfoil reckons
here that sparks from the misaligned bogie could have been an ignition source. It seems to me that that would require spilling fuel to be able to travel almost vertically down from the hole in the fuel tank to the bogie several metres below, against a 200Kph airspeed. Is such a thing likely?
Does anyone else fancy having a pop at the pre-existing fire theory, before we allow Concorde to rest in peace?
This has been a very interesting and informative thread. I've learned quite a bit here. Thank you all, for that.