Capt. PCock - I've tried to stay out of this debate because there really is nothing to be gained except hightened tensions by the to-ing and fro-ing on the performance issue. I entirely agree with you that no aircraft should be operated outside of limits and that is that - there can be no disagreement on that score. However, I do not believe that the outcome would have been any different in this accident.
What is important, though, is that you get your facts right. You state that [quote]..the aircraft had been over-fuelled. This resulted in the wings being inflated and so compromising their structural integrity.<hr></blockquote>Not so - the Concorde's fuel capacity is given as a function of the fuel's SG (from my manual - at .801 it is 95930kgs) and there is an extra load of up to 1200kgs which may be taken on top of that using a special, certified, procedure.
BUT these figures are not limitations - they are capacities given as guidelines for planning - the actual limit is when the refuel valves trip off, there are no operational limitations here and talk of wings being "inflated" by "over-fuelling" is misleading.
The Washington incident is a red-herring because the puncture there was caused by a failing wheel-rim - a small metal fragment is very different to a comparatively huge piece of rubber. The leak from the small hole was bearable - a very different situation in cause and effect to Gonesse, and nothing whatsoever to do with fuelling procedures. A different sequence of events entirely - and as I understand it down to a faulty batch of wheel rims which was corrected. (interesting to note that to this day a Concorde fuel tank has never been punctured by tyre debris).
[quote]Such procedures are not in use by other operators of Concorde, and therefore the incident at Washington is unlikely to have resulted in the same outcome.<hr></blockquote>
There are no significant differences in refuelling procedures between operators, and the Washington incident was very different to the Gonesse accident for the reasons I outline.
[quote]As it happens, as a result of that incident, modifications were undertaken to all Concordes on that operator’s fleet to prevent a reoccurrence. Evidently the Concorde at Gonesse did not have these modifications fitted.<hr></blockquote>
The modification to the water-deflectors you allude to would have been irrelevant in Paris. They are designed to contain a failing water-deflector, and not all operators fitted them, it is thought now that the mod. itself is just as likely to cause damage as the deflectors (which are of light-weight composite contruction) and have been deleted.
[quote]In the rare cases where extra fuel is needed, then other operators load special high specific gravity kerosene.<hr></blockquote>
It is certainly not rare to need extra fuel
- but believe me, we have no capability or availability to demand "special high SG kerosene" we are stuck with what the bowser guy tells us and fit in with that for capacity, CG and takeoff loading calculations. I could explain it all to you, but you would definately fall asleep (in case you haven't already if you've nmade to the end of this message!!!)........zzzzzz