Originally Posted by
SLFinAZ
The underlying issue here is the flawed presumptions...
A decision was made that the worst case scenario specific to a tire failure might result in a significant fuel leak (DC) but would not reach an order of magnitude capable of a catastrophic loss of the airplane. The simple fact is that this determination was wrong.
No, the determination would have been that it was "Extremely improbable". The fact that it happened, once, doesn't necessarily disprove that.
However, since the
way that it happened was through a damage mechanism not well known (if at all) in the civilian world, it is likely that, yes, the determination was wrong. It was, however, wrong due to the existence of an unknown phenomenon, not to to negligence or incompetence in making the determination.
A prudent and reasonable person faced with the reality that tire failure would with certainty lead to ruptured fuel tanks and the resultant fuel leaks would look for a method to protect against the leaks.
Tire failure does not lead to ruptured fuel tanks with anything like "certainty". Not even on Concorde.
Substitute "turbine disc failure" and now we're talking - maybe better that 30% probability of tank penetration, by hot fast moving deris, and subsequent fuel leak.
So, yourself being prudent and reasonable, which types do you fly on that have fuel tanks that are protected against leaks due to turbine disc impact ? I'd love to know what it's made of and how it gets off the ground.
The most significant underlying fact is that the technology existed to minimize the danger of a fuel leak specific to damage caused by tire failure.
The tires did not in fact exist - and they are the biggest improvement. The tank lining technology did not exist when the a/c was built and certified, and some reckon it has little benefit anyway.
Other a/c are now fitted with the new tire tech. Not so the tank linings.
Surely it would be "prudent and reasonable" to fit both to all types - so why not ? [clue: economics]. Are all operators as guilty as you think AF is ?
The issue here is not the cause of a specific failure but the stark reality that the airline chose not to maximize the safety of the aircraft for purely economic reasons by relying on a flawed analysis of the possibilities of catastrophic failure.
Aircraft safety is never maximised, there is always more that could be done, and that is for economic reasons. Adding stuff adds weight, reduces number of pax - economics.
Air France had a legal and moral responsibility to operate the aircraft taking all reasonable measures to protect its customers. I have zero doubt that a jury presented with the facts available would find AF guilty of failing to act in a prudent and reasonable manner.
AF have responsibility to operate the a/c according to its certification & other operational regs. They are not responsible for its certification.
AF (if they were involved in the risk calculations at all) evaluated the previous tire burst incidents, took remedial action based on the calculated risk based on what was known at the time. They were caught out by a freak accident and an unknown (to them) phenomenon.
If anyone's to blame for the risk calculation, blame the military guys for not disseminating knowledge of hydrodynamic ram.