Not after every departure there isn't. Prior to every Concorde depatture might have worked, but still - the systems failure exposed by this accident was not fully understood, and even if it were the application of such a procedure could well have harmed passenger confidence in the type.

Possibly, but definitely not for much longer. The truth is that operating the type was incredibly expensive to start with - and even with BA's operation able to turn a profit, the increase in fuel costs over the last decade combined with the dwindling supply of spare parts would have rendered her obsolete well before the airframes became unserviceable. I admit and accept this reality despite being a huge fan of the aircraft (I watched the last three flights pass over Battersea Park where I was working at the time and felt a lump in my throat and a wrench in my gut as each one passed).

She may have been able to temporarily survive any one of the aftermath of the accident, the rise in oil prices or the slump in executive air travel post 9/11, but there was no way she could survive all three.

Hmmm. So there should be a runway check if there's debris on the runway ? That doesn't make sense.

The original poster has simply poorly worded his sentence (bad syntax)
If there was a check of the runway before takeoff of the Concorde Titanium piece was discovered
But there was no such inspection .. and there were three options
1 No one piece of Titanium (nothing can happens)
2 Piece of Titanium and tire does not touch (luck)
3 Piece of Titanium and tire passes on (bad luck)
Luck is not a safety factor

I understand that you have picked out an error in my comment thank you for pointing this out as I meant to say that even in regular runway check ups whether Concorde was to take off or be a regional jet the fact that debris on the runway is hazardous in every situation that occurs on a runway and therefore a runway check should have been made.

But the point I am trying to get at is that aircraft safety on the ground is as every bit as important as it is on approach take off cruise etc... The Concorde had been accident free for around 30 years it's a shame that it's only accident had triggered the chain of events leading to the demise of concorde.

Based strictly on what they have been given to examine.
But as they were "severely restricted" in their access to the evidences ...

So transparent that the Judge withold data from the proceedings.

Where is it then ... ?

No, not simply a grammatical error. As the poster has subsequently confirmed, he is suggesting a runway inspection prior to every takeoff:

No airport could possibly function with a requirement to check the runway between every departure.

OK I take good notice
So as it is commercially impossible and thus for economic reasons there is a general agreement to allow aircraft taking off even with objects on the runway that could cause a serious accident
From a commercial point of view it is indeed a good point of raisonement .. since the "Concorde case" occurs rarely and therefore it is profitable in terms of insurance costs that could result (in case of "bad luck")
Safety first as usual .. with "luck added"

Safety first make sure all parts removed from the aircraft e.g spacers are replaced in the right order.

Indeed, it is the first link in the chain ..( as other pieces)
A chain has several links .. so let us be sure this no other in bad condition

There are no absolutes where safety is concerned, it is always a trade-off against cost/economics.

It's very easy to look back, with hindsight, and say that a runway inspection after the CO DC-10 would have prevented the accident. While that may very well be true, it ignores the reality of how airports and airlines actually operate.

If the AAIB inspectors were unable to give an informed conclusion, they would have said they have doubts "about everything", they would not have written they agree with the general scenario, don't you think? ;)

What's the relation of that with the problem of "the judicial affected the technical" from Concorde days?
At the risk of repeating myself, I'm interested in aviation safety, not in lawyers fights.


Agreed 100% :D:D:D

The strip of metal probably played no part in the accident. It is more likely that the damage was caused by the undercarriage disintegration??

Assuming that you mean the tyre disintegrating, rather than the entire undercarriage, what do you consider caused that ?

Did I read in an earlier post the Concorde's tires were not original, but were 'resurfaced'? That is not possible? 'Retreading a tire' is purely financial, and not compatible with rotation speeds. It would seem extremely unwise to fit this aircraft with such a component, given its history of undercarriage and tank issues?

That's why it wasn't.

I can't comment on the new/retread issue, I just don't know, but long ago my one time Concorde captain friend told me that there were two makes of tyres used by the airline he worked for ( he doesn't speak French ) and one manufacturers product gave more problems than the other, so each flight he would accompany the flt. eng. on the walk-around, and identify the 'mix' of tyre types.

When he eventually had a tire failure on take off he was able to make a guess based on knowledge of how many, and where, the 'worst' tyres were on that specific flight and which bogey might now have a failed tyre, and was prepared for some possible controllability problem on landing due to a failed tyre on 'that' side, and passed the info. to the emergency services, who positioned themselves accordingly.

Could have been wrong of course, and thankfully there was no problem -but the damage from the flailing and disintegrating rubber had only barely missed vital hydraulic controls, another Japanese 747 or Sioux City DC-10 loss of all hydraulics narrowly averted.

My search function isn't, and I am quite sure there were tire quality issues prior to Gonesse.....also unsure if related to 'recycled' tires.


"The appeals court's decision clears the way for a separate $19.4-million civil lawsuit being brought by Air France for damage the tragedy caused to its reputation."

I found "chutzpah" but is there a word for "shameless" in French?

merci....pas de quois

Indeed! As I read it, the judiciary would not allow the AAIB to view some of the wreckage directly - but they'd have had access to the rest of the wreckage, plus the BEA's photographs and diagrams of the wreckage they were prevented from seeing. If they had concerns about missing anything important (or at least anything that might prevent them doing their job) they would have said so.

Thank's for the info
Now I know that airports and airlines don't operate with max safety possible due to commercial reason
So .. as passenger and knowing this .. it's better to be in your lucky day when you board a aircraft and that your relative check as a preventive for a good lawyer ...

Sometime for aviation safety it's good that justice (with the help of lawyers involved) can remove from the loop some people when found guilty for prevent they make more mistakes .....
Justice can help aviation safety

they were "severely restricted" in their access to the evidences ...
How they can know they have missed anything important .. as they were "severely restricted" to acces of evidence ?
How you can know about something visual is important or not .. when you can't seen it yourself ?
Why they can see only photos (courtesy of BEA .... ) .. but not the real thing ?
Experts working (investigate) on photos .. when all material is available somewhere to be examined
Forensic working with photos of a deadman cause restricted to touch the body in the morgue ?
Weird isn't it ?