Compliments Punkalouver for your work. The BEA should pay you for this !
Just, on the side a small poosible explanation why Habsheim, Mt St Odile .reports were not translated : Operators were French, so report remained in French. In Perpignan Operator is ANZ, preliminary and final reports needs to be in English as well.
For Blagnac, the 340 still belonged to AI , so formally the BEA does not even need to be involved ( it was not for the A330 crash during fligh test a few years back ) as theses aircraft were still under test flight rules ( Essais et receptions ). But as the 340 was registered in France ( F-WWCJ ) the report does not need to be in English.
But I can guarantee you the BEA guys speak very good english ! I think lack of ressources to provide translations is more likely to be the reason , rather than lack of willingness. At least, I sincerely hope this is true.
ATC Watcher, I think you're entirely right in your assessment.
Once there is no formal requirement for a translation, and there wasn't one in these cases, no formal translation is provided.
Because, one) it would be only be a translation, not the formal document, two) people would not bother to read the caveat at the head of the translation, and still refer to it, rather than to the original, and three) doing a sufficiently close and expert translation IS a fairly major job (and expensive...), and might well be counterproductive, with endless arguments about details in the translation not sufficiently matching the original.
punkalouver, CONF iture, Had a look at the pdf.... looks like an ancient format.... not sure I can extract it in text format to have a go.... Any help welcome.
Seriously, what would you do about it? I think you'll probably find, that the formal requirement is for the report to be published in an ICAO language, of which French is one.
NTSB or AAIB don't translate their reports into other languages either, even if a lot of people in the aviation industry with little English could do with the "education", as you put it.
punkalouver, CONF iture, Had a look at the pdf.... looks like an ancient format.... not sure I can extract it in text format to have a go.... Any help welcome.
CJ
The only thing I can suggest is to ask the question in the computer/internet issues forum on PPRuNe.
This particular one didn't receive a lot of attention ... This particular one is nowhere to be seen in the official report. This pecular one doesn't show any braking action by opposition to what is stipulated in the same official report ?
We'll probably have to read again carefully through what the MLG brake pressures were doing over the last second or three. NLG shows skid marks (braking?) before it goes completely sideways.
We'll probably have to read again carefully through what the MLG brake pressures were doing over the last second or three. NLG shows skid marks (braking?) before it goes completely sideways.
Symmetrical braking traces from both MLG are present from around 60 meters until the wall ChristiaanJ, this seems to be an accurate translation from the report. The question is : Where are the braking traces ???
As you know, NLG is not equipped with brakes, so the earliest visible marks are not from braking action but well from skidding. Just a mere degrees sideways in the early stage are enough to produce these marks.
No not in the least bit "curious". Those photos have been doing the rounds for quite some time. Have you got some new ones or something else that is worthy of Rumours & News?
Re the other tyre traces, I think we already discussed that, but I haven't been back through the earlier 26 pages yet...
The report says:
When the aircraft began to move, the ground testing technician pushed on the brake pedals and released the parking brake
The ground testing technician turned the NWS to the right. This action, by inhibiting the CLG braking, limited the braking effectiveness
The actions on the brake pedals were not sustained to the maximum level
and, as you quoted:
- Symmetrical braking traces from both MLG are present from around 60 meters until the wall.
IIRC, my reaction was then and now that, since "the actions on the brake pedals were not sustained to the maximum level", the MLGs were not skidding, or at least not much, hence didn't leave any heavy black tyre marks that would have shown up on the photo you posted again (I'd already seen that one too). Braking traces were likely visible at ground level (those that hadn't already been washed away), but not enough to show up on the photo.
I haven't checked yet whether the brake pressure traces corroborate that "analysis".
Ah, another A vs B extremist ! There's a very good-looking 777 at LHR too.
I always wonder if indeed they end up as Coke cans, or whether the scrap alloy can be processed and re-used without being totally 'ruined' in processing.
Also, the water and foam would have washed some of them away, making them difficult to see from the air. They were probably still identifiable on the ground.
ChristiaanJ, I disagree on that. I would say the best way to identify traces is to take some distance or some altitude as in this picture. Also there was not much water and foam on the left hand side of the a/c and if there actually was, it didn't wash any of the NLG marks
Anyway, lets assume the braking was too light to leave visible traces from the air, but then, you or anyone here, has still to comment on the early crab movement of the aircraft 120 meters away from the wall, and so with only 3 tires (all of them from the Right MLG) marking the ground ?
I always wonder if indeed they end up as Coke cans, or whether the scrap alloy can be processed and re-used without being totally 'ruined' in processing.
Will be melted and re-casted in ingots to be used for various applications depending on the alloy "corrections" added. It is never ruined in processing.
