Hello,Google translation !

Concorde trial (continued): BEA on a pedestal! The investigation showed that the manufacturer had developed a "passive" wait "in relation to events in operation and that those responsible for tragedy of July 25, 2000 had not taken all steps necessary and essential to force the manufacturer to adopt measures which were necessary to remedy any problems.Since the Concorde crash in 1979 in Washington, all those responsible for the operation, feedback, monitoring and maintaining the airworthiness of the aircraft knew that 2 necessities needed: either the strengthening of the wing including the underside either stop flights. For technical and financial reasons, the first has been abandoned. For the prestige of France, the second could be considered.What then of all accidents and serious incidents precursors that have succeeded for 21 years? Ignore! That's what they did.Let us not say that it is not only neglect or underestimation of risk. No, we have voluntarily ignored the catastrophic risk generated by the bursting of a tire. Michel Bourgeois, BEA investigator, confirmed to the magistrate that everyone knew he had to stop the aircraft in 1979 and make the changes necessary and indispensable! Michel Bourgeois also confessed publicly in other circumstances for 21 years BEA has not budged on order. "There were no deaths or injuries ... so we did not move. . That was the attitude of BEA throughout the 24 years of operating the Concorde.Thus, no technical investigation report on accidents and serious incidents precursors has been made public until 2005, when the accident that Washington has been digitized and posted on the BEA website.Thus, BEA made no recommendation on the certification of the airplane.Concealment is obvious why BEA is not on the dock? The BEA must be protected and remain an institution that "the world we want" as proclaimed by the current Secretary of State for Transport Sir BUSSEREAU?Indeed, the operation of BEA has not been questioned during the investigation and worse, throughout this process, BEA is placed on a pedestal as the President of the Tribunal made constant reference to his work so that we can no longer give him any credibility. 21 and 90 seconds to dieJuly 25, 2000 A 14 h 42 min 30 sec Concorde F-BTSC operated by Air France began its takeoff on runway 26 right at the airport of Charles de Gaulle.At 14 h and 44 min it crashed on a hotel in Gonesse.It took only 90 seconds to occupants of the plane to die after 21 years of waiting, because contrary to what the BEA said in its report, the drama was of course predictable. Since we had decided to ignore the seriousness of the problem, which we had to absorb the risk? The crews of course! This aircraft had a serious defect that everyone knew, there had been incidents, serious incidents and even accidents, it must be repeated, but he continued to fly and "it was doing" ... until where the crew was unable to prevent the tragedy occurred. Faced with a situation not foreseen by the manufacturer combines the bursting of a tire, breaking a portion of tank No. 5, a major fire under the left wing, loss of thrust of Units 1 and 2 and not Train-back, who can believe that the crew had a very small chance of escape? On July 20, 1979, after the accident in Washington, BEA, in a confidential memo signed by its Director, Mr. GUILLEVIC time, measured in these terms the seriousness of possible consequences of a burst tire, including: risk of 'fire, serious engine damage, unable to lift the landing gear. And crash it would have added, is not it?Crews had they been warned that the failure of a tire could have such catastrophic consequences? Certainly not because the note was confidential! Another evidence of concealment of a problem that we did not solve!

Source (French)http://henrimarnetcornus.20minutes-blogs.f...-piedestal.htmlEdit:Lil more ...http://translate.google.be/translate?u=htt...l=&ie=UTF-8Regards.Gus.

Hello,Google translation !Source (French)http://henrimarnetcornus.20minutes-blogs.f...-piedestal.htmlEdit:Lil more ...http://translate.google.be/translate?u=htt...l=&ie=UTF-8Regards.Gus.

Concorde had no "serious" defect!!!!!! It was the complete and utter failure of the CDG airport authorities to check the runway (they admitted to 3 times a day!!). Something that is done at major UK airports continuously and CERTAINLY before any Concorde take-off!! The French were simply not bothered. Concorde was a financial burden to them and they were glad to find an excuse to ground it. BA on the other hand initially wanted to continue flying but because Concorde spare parts were controlled by the French owners of Airbus. Surprise surprise Concorde is no more!Vololiberista