Hi Lyman,
I've quoted a number of sources, established facts and so on.
I'm convinced of the role of the strip. So is the BEA, the AAIB, and a number of other detailed analysis.
You have doubts? Fair enough, you're entitled to that.
But I you want me (or anyone) to share those doubts, you don't need to ask for "more proof".
You need to demonstrate, first, that what we consider as proof is not good enough. And you need to do that with more than "just" your doubts and convictions, because you're "fighting" material evidences.
That's not easy. And by the way, I'm perfectly happy with you having doubts about the strip. I'm not a lawyer, I don't think PPRuNe is a court either.
I suggest we put that point at rest until your doubts are backed by either hard evidence, of a logical demonstration able to counter all of the evidences/conclusions of the final report.
Now, the matter in discussion when you joined this thread, the point I was trying to make is this one:
BA Concorde was not more immune to tyres events leading to damage to the wing/tanks/electric that AF Concorde. Basically, they were the same aircraft, even if operating procedures differed (in definition or in the quality of their execution).
Therefore, it was the right decision to ground both fleets until the tyres were replaced by NZG ones (resistant to blow-up IIRC) and a kevlar liner fitted inside the fuel tanks.
Even if you think BTSC didn't roll on the strip (or have doubts about it), you surely agree with the above? I mean, the strip was one FOD, there was no way to ensure that never such an aggressive FOD will find its way to Concorde's tyres, with the potential catastrophic consequences we're all aware of since july 2000 (or since '79 or any other tyre incident since, depending your view).
Originally Posted by
B Fraser
Had power been maintained and the ruptured tank had fully drained, there may have been a better chance of a survivable outcome but it's a purely academic discussion.
Calculations were made about that (and other theories)
here if you're interested.
Short answer is: the tank would not have fully drained before the aircraft was rendered uncontrollable by fire damage to the wing & elevons.