CliveL
Thank you for a reasoned and patient response. Here are some concerns I have.
I would not have entered the thread if France had upheld the verdict. Their reasons, I assume, have to do with a lack of compelling evidence in the public domain such that a standard of proof is unmet.
I would not be here if the accident had occurred in the USA. That France considers an accident scene as a crime scene is the threshold for my interest.
As such, the BEA document is thready, and missing some important work that imo should be present in a criminal prosecution.
Evidently France considers culpability on a par with crime. That makes no sense, imo.
The major issue is the apparent speed with which the report issues opinions, yet there is no lab or field work to support.
The strip was tested for evidence of non indigenous elastomer, with success. Yet an opportunity to take a further step was ignored, I think, when they apparently rejected the opportunity to test the tyre for presence of foreign material that may have been supplied by the chemically coated Tittanium strip.
As an example, then, BEA failed to provide irrefutable evidence that the Titanium strip destroyed the tyre(#2). WHY?
Simple. If they tested and found material, the case is made. If material was not found, the strip is found only to have generic elastomer, not necessarily Concorde elastomer.
So why risk it? The mission is not compatible with the purpose of the Court. Since BEA knows criminal prosecution is a given, their standards are low, by definition.
The Shimmy? Again an example of evidence that was taken, and left 'alone'....
You see the tyre skids, and can imagine the loads put on this airframe. I think your conclusion is that the shimmy would even itself out, and provide no net effect. What about vibration? Vibration may supply no net 'load', but have a very profound effect on the pilotage.
I contend that shimmy is not normal to heavy aircraft, and can be quite destructive, yet somehow the conclusion is that since the only evidence is after the fire, it was "inconsequential". Lack of evidence through lack of attempt is not sufficient; again, the prose in the report is used to put people in prison...
I don't disagree, necessarily, but again, the possibility is demanded to be explored to lack of consequence, not assumed to be so....
I value your time, as you know, and am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this with you.
Best regards