Hi Dalek,
Originally Posted by
dalek
The initial accident report took great pains to say the missing spacer had absolutely no relevance to the crash.
It was the final report, not an initial one. Agreed that it "took great pains" (or made a detailled analysis, as I would have written it) about that point.
Originally Posted by
dalek
Other experts disagree and say that the missing spacer led directly to the tyre failure.
I've seen disagreements on that point too, and I cannot imagine the spacer having "no use at all": why was is there in the first place, then?
But, do you have a link/ref to something
substantial about that?
So far, I'm "only" aware of:
- general public intented TV broadcasts, with most "experts" being not so experts in fact, and some real experts having no time to really explain their points;
- polemic blogs, usually animated/promoted by people well known to have an agenda (against AF most of the time, or against other french organisations such as DGAC, BEA...).
I'm looking for an honest and
documented analysis about that point, by an expert (not only in name). Without it, we have no ground to refute the final report saying, after a detailled/pusblished analysis, that the absence of the spacer didn't change the trajectory of the plane nor the state of its tyres on july 25, 2000 (or on flights that preceded the accident (but after the bogie replacement work).
[edit] Thanks, pulse1, wrote my post before reading yours. That's a start
Were there docs published after those lectures?
And I think I see who you're talking about.