Originally Posted by
Lyman
BEA said only that the elastomer on the Titanium was consistent with Goodyear rubber, not that it was proof that the Titanium had entered the carcass of BTSC's tyre. With possible proof available, the forensics are untried and the result is insufficent, unsatisfactory.
But that's the limit of forensic science right now. Just as it is in criminal murder trials, the furthest the evidence can be taken is that the "wounds" are consistent with having been caused by the object in question (unless a portion broke away inside the "wound" and can be physically matched up). Further speculative conclusions may be drawn, but they will not be legally admissible as evidence.
I think a test should have been done, rather than being so easily satisfied that Titanium from CAL sliced the tyre.
Several tests *were* done as part of the investigation and the results from every test supported the conclusion.
It suggests satisfaction at a low threshold, that a preconceived theory was proved by the presence of material that is found all over the runway, as well as in the GoodYear #2.
Not true. In accident investigation the theories are derived from the evidence, not the other way around. The BEA applied due diligence in trying to prove or disprove the sequence of events that led to the evidence with which they were confronted.
I remember reporting of this case very well, and it was at least weeks following the accident before the possible role of the titanium strip was publicised. As usual the press published a lot of incorrect information in the rush for an exclusive story - one of the most repeated was the allegation that there was a 747 with then-President Chirac on board nearby. I still see this repeated in articles today but it was never true.
Were the tyre remnants rubber only, or complete through and through sections of the tyre to include fabric?
The latter. They simulated the wheel and tyre behaviour with and without the missing spacer and the loads were never sufficient to precipitate catastrophic failure of the tyre.
The outcome of this legal process simply stated (correctly in my opinion, as criminal law and accident investigation should not mix except in significant extenuating circumstances) that Continental should not be held *criminally* liable for the unorthodox repair of the titanium strip - it does not alter the facts of the case itself.
Originally Posted by
Lyman
By what mechanism were the port engines impeded, or damaged, by fire?
The fire heated the air in front of the intakes to a temperature that was outside the normal operating range. This caused both engines to surge during the take-off roll, from which engine one eventually (briefly - once airborne) recovered, but engine two did not.