Hi,
Implacable logic .... ?
In its ruling, the Court asserts that the tinker could not ignore "potentially catastrophic consequences of the bursting of a tire"
Also J. Taylor could ignorerles Risk-protection in the presence of objects (FOD) on the slopes and it can be validly argued by his counsel that he could not imagine that a tire burst on a FOD or causing a chain of events like those that occurred July 25, 2000 provided he could not ignore the potentially catastrophic consequences of the bursting of a tire.
This is a serious mistake because, as the BEA page 177 of his report, it is precisely the accident July 25, 2000 which showed that the destruction of tires could be catastrophic!
The accident of July 25, 2000 has shown that the destruction of a single tire event which can not be said that it could happen has had catastrophic consequences in a very short time while the crew is able to restore the situation.
Consequently and without prejudice to additional elements that might appear during the BEA survey and AAIB recommend to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation and the French Civil Aviation Authority of United Unique:
Certificates of airworthiness of Concorde be suspended pending may have been put in place appropriate measures to ensure a satisfactory level of safety regarding the risk the destruction of Tyre.
How Mr. Taylor would have known it when all the players of prevention were unaware of it ?
Comment:
If the President of the Tribunal is satisfied that the bursting of a tire could have catastrophic consequences for Concorde, she joined the camp of those who expose the bankruptcy of feedback in the drama of July 25, 2000.
This now includes all stakeholders unambiguous monitoring of the airworthiness of the aircraft.
Source:
Concorde : la grave erreur des juges ! : Les dossiers noirs du transport aérien