Straw man argument, jcjeant.
I would appreciate that you do not stretch what I wrote until the point of putting words in my mouth that aren't mine. Thanks
Originally Posted by
jcjeant
Leaks of fuel are unkown risk ?
Fuel is not a combustible ?
Fuel can't burn ?
Can't planes crash? It's a known risk, after all.
Should we ground them all and drive/sail instead?
Oh, wait, aren't car and boat also prone to accidents, sometimes?
I'm certainly not kidding, simply recalling that the BEA indicates that the leak was
so massive in Gonesse that It was unheard of. You may check this by comparing the description of the 2000 accident and the list of previous tyre-related events, also available in the 2000 accident report.
Now, is that to say I think the actions taken after Washington (
and other occurences, some of them concerning BA planes) were enough?
Of course not: Gonesse sadly proved that. But my judgment is biased here, because I know about Gonesse, as we all do. That's my point: it's a bit easier to say "I was sure about that"... afterwards.
Is that to say that I pretend Concorde's Achilles heel (the tyres, indeed) was unknown?
Of course not. Best proof of that is that the solutions implemented between 2000 and 2003 weren't "discovered" after Gonesse: The kevlar liner had been studied years before. The reinforced tyres too (even if NZG technology perhaps wasn't available at the time).
I too, presented with the facts, first ask myself "why wasn't
anything done?"
Then I check, and discover that recommendations were made, implemented (and I assume: deemed sufficient, even if history prooved otherwise) on both sides of the Channel, despite the fact that the severity of some (if not many) events had been reduced/hidden at first for "political" reasons.
-> It's wrong to pretend
nothing was done (as in so many media reports).
-> It's wrong to pretend only one side of the Channel was at risk in 2000, even given the fact that safety records (accidents & incidents) show that AF was (and sadly surely still is) far more casual, even laxist, about flight safety than BA.
Exemple: Yes, it took AF 15 more years than BA (1981->1996) to stop using retread tyres. No, I'm not satisfied to learn that (among other things). But stopping using them in '96 didn't prevent Gonesse accident 4 years later.