Correction:
I have been reliably informed that the cause of the Dulles tyre failure was investigated and determined to be an underinflation of the neighbouring tyre to that which failed - the (arguably inadequate with hindsight) fix was a mechanical device which detected mismatched tyre inflation.
This does not alter the extent of my research indicating that there was no attempt to determine the preceding cause of a tyre failure on Concorde which could not be explained.
Addendum:
Originally Posted by
Lyman
The spacer was NOT inconsequential. It may have played a direct part in crashing the aircraft so quickly after take off.
As stated earlier, the required time periods for the damaged fuel tank to drain, the potential additional altitude had #2 not been shut down and, crucially, the time taken for the fire to irreparably destroy the controls were thoroughly calculated. There was no way for the aircraft to have reached Le Bourget before control was lost.
That the authority allowed the operator to get off claiming it was FOD is contemptible.
The report documents thoroughly the shortcomings of all parties involved and simply lists them, with no implicit or explicit guidance as to relative importance - the initial decision to prosecute CO was judicial - neither regulatory nor investigative.
Does BEA address the shimmy?
Yes (as Clive twice stated, check section 18.2.3.3).
Pay close attention to Clive correcting me a short while ago:
Originally Posted by
CliveL
That's a trap I fell into also - it wasn't a wheel with a missing spacer it was the bogie pivot, so all four wheels on that bogie were affected.
Any shimmy or instability would therefore have affected all four tyres to some extent, but it was only the tyre that contacted the metal strip which failed.