Originally Posted by
Lyman
This is the maddening thing about BEA. The two pieces 'fitted' together means they were lined up manually. It does not mean that they 'fit together'.
Really? You did look at the picture included in the report (as shown by another part of your post). I cannot then understand how you came to your conclusion that "It does not mean that they 'fit together'".
They fit. I see that on the pic.
Originally Posted by
Lyman
Does that mean that the elastomeric deposits were similar also to the Goodyear tyres on the DC-10? Also similar to other Goodyear fod on the runway from neither DC-10 or Concorde?
Lost from the DC-10 right hand engine, I cannot imagine how the strip would have made contact with any tyre of the same DC-10. Geometry. Speed. That sort of things.
About the 747 (only aircraft on the RWY between the DC-10 and Concorde), I don't know if the spectra would have been same as Concorde or not.
What I do know, however, is that no tyre problem was reported on that aircraft.
What I do imagine is that Continental would have seeked to prove it was not Concorde rubber on the strip. I'm not aware they did that (nor try to). Are you?
Originally Posted by
Lyman
To slash the sidewall of tyre number two is counterintuitive, since it presupposes that the Titanium strip was airborne before hitting the lead tyre.
Huh? Where does that come from? The transverse cut is on the
tread of the tyre. The strip was not magically airborne. The tyre from wheel #2 (i.e. front right tyre of the left hand main landing gear) rolled on the strip, and was cut.
See also §1.16.5 "Tyre destruction Mechanism" with experimentations conducted (pictures provided, there too).
Originally Posted by
Lyman
Looking at the photo of Tyre 2, one notices the complete lack of siping on the tire's carcass.
I fail to notice that. Quite the contrary, in fact. Tyre 2 was not new (37 cycles old). But it doesn't show a complete lack of siping either. Comparing to picture 4, page 25, or pictures 48, 49 and 50, pages 99 & 102 makes me say: "it looks normal, from the siping PoV".
Originally Posted by
Lyman
A shop that wil leave a critical component of a truck on the shop floor may well refit a retread, in a "pinch".
Yeah, sure. What does that hypothesis imply? Nothing much: simply falsificate the papers about that tyre (date of purchase, date of installation on the plane), hide the invoices/workshop who did the retreading, and make false GoodYear invoices for new tyres.
Big bad Frenchies, huh?
Take care, in case AF or GoodYear decide a recent irish exemple is to be followed
Originally Posted by
jcjeant
But "maybe" they had the right to examine at long .. other scrap metal .. etc ...
Weird ins't it ?
What's weird? Are you implying the BEA lied, and made falsificated material proofs? How is that even possible with the strip under the (too strict, we already covered that) control of the judicial that the AAIB, and you, and me did regret?
If you're going that way, well it's your choice. May I then adress to you the same piece of advice I just gave to Lyman?