AZR
"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)."
There are several ways to see this, my preference is to agree with you.....
Any patent vulnerability to disaster requires mitigation, in a sane and honest way. My perspective is that the Concorde was
especially vulnerable to tyre issues. Likewise, as a unique design, she had other vulnerabilities exclusive to her mission. Air France purposely avoided their most basic responsibilities. Evidence? Continuing with the use of recycled tyres well past the first disintegration of the installed problem......
stuckgear broaches what I expect is the nucleus of the discussion.
BTSC was overweight......
substantially
She was without a required part in her left bogie....
unconscionable
Regardless, she
pushed back, and initiated a Take Off on the 'wrong' runway.
What follows in the take off is the genesis of a spirited discussion, and Legal action.
All of it MOOT......
Characteristically, partisans focus on the irrelevant and inconsequential, in a practiced way, to distract and confuse the course of Aviation as it relates to duty of care, fundamental safety, and honestly derived profit.
The Court has decided the evidence is not sufficient for criminal retribution, as regards the errant metal shard.
Works perfectly well for me.......
Tip of hat to you, sir......
