This and the concordski incident have a few features that seem similar to me
Both accidents could have been avoided , the chain of events that lead to the crash of both aircraft start with the French ,then the cover up which pointed fingers at anyone but themselves.
This time there is some one to point the finger back at the French and make them take responsibility for their failings

You may wish to read the English translation of the BEA report http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2000/f-sc000725a/pdf/f-sc000725a.pdf
In particular sections 1.10.2.1 and 1.10.2.2 on runway inspections.

I have read it and it shows to me a lackadaisical approach to set procedure ,which seems to me be a constant thread through out this incident
It was A known Fact That the maintenance regime was far from rigorous at AF (did you ever wonder why BA offered to Buy the French Concorde’s to use as Spares for their own Concorde’s,not fly them) yet a missing part from the landing gear and that a Reverse thruster unit that had just been changed, were thrown out for consideration by the BEA

Again These are My personal opinions But I’m sure there are others who are thinking along the same lines as me

At the end of the day the Concorde disaster was caused by Air France and the French authorities at Charles de Gaul failing to comply with set procedures

Talking to a Concorde engineer and if the timings are correct then Concorde was well alight by the time it hit the metal strip , Before its departure Engineers had been working on the right hand Reverse thrusters, where the fire is reported to has started
I believe that these engineers also failed to comply with procedures yet again which caused the first fire , it then hit a piece of metal lying on the runway ,which if proper procedure had been carried out should have been located and removed ,
This piece of Metal punctured the tyre and threw Debris into the underside of the fuel tank causing the already overfilled tank to rupture and let fuel escape which was the ignited by the fire which had already started
THESE ARE MY OWN OPIONS based on what I have heard and have read about the disaster

I say Again Airfrance and the French authorities were to blame, I have no doubt in my mind that they are to blame

Well the A330 cant be that bad, I don’t see daily headline that a a330 has dropped out of the skies due to turbulence And Im sure if it wasn’t up to it then someone some where would have withdrawn it CofA a long time ago

Good captures there Scotty , Heard they might be staying for a few days

kev

Peoples lives are always at stake. No one can categorically say it is safe to fly…..ever. There is always risk to be managed. IMHO, the problem with this event is that someone very important made the blanket statement that it is NOT safe to fly, when there is very little visible ash aloft or on the ground at the various airports. The important considerations are how much ash is present and where?

You are correct….it is all just supposition. But at some point, some level of risk has to be accepted. The easiest thing in the world to do is ground the airplanes……in normal ops the easiest thing for a controller to do is say their sector is overloaded……….in normal ops the easiest thing for a pilot to do is refuse an MEL…..but they don’t pay everyone to do the easy thing. At some point an operator has to make an aviation judgement and deal with the consequences. And it is appearing more and more like those in charge of the airspace have made a ridiculously conservative judgement. Keep in mind that this volcano may blow for months, at some point they are going to have to learn to manage the situation instead of just making the easy decision to bring all the traffic down.

I agree that there has to be some degree of risk ,but The people in the Know are basing this ban on facts that they already know ,which is You don’t fly through ash clouds
We are now seeing airlines testing what is Know about flying through volcanic ash clouds and what is actually happening and until facts are established to the contrary I have no problem with the ban
TO me that is managing the risk