Brand new Etihad A340-600 damaged in Toulouse; several wounded

[keskildi]

An Airbus A340-600, ready for delivery, ''escaped'' during a ground test and crashed in a wall alongside the engine test area in Toulouse today

the aircraft involved is (F-WWCJ c/n856) third A346 HGW version for Etihad Airways

it would ... be registered A6-EHG (?) Seen here performing a go-around at the end of its first flight...

no link in english right now I'm afraid

http://www.archive-host2.com/membres/up/40190134/Airbus_A340-600_MSN856.jpg

[keskildi]

in english...



http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ie9xLk6D1PVbXAaowuROhZIU31BAD8SU8OU80

[bjones4]

From Airbus,
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT AT AIRBUS FACILITY

AIRBUS press release #1

Issued at 15 November 2007, 20:15

Accident at Saint-Martin Airbus site

Toulouse: Airbus deeply regrets to confirm that an accident occurred at its Saint-Martin site in Toulouse this afternoon.

The accident occurred at 5:00 pm local time, when engine-run-ups were being carried out on an A340-600, MSN 856, which was due to be delivered to Etihad in the coming days.

There were nine persons on board out of them five people sustained injuries. There are no fatalities.

At this time, recovery operations are still in progress and Airbus staff is working closely with the emergency services and local authorities at the site.
Airbus expresses its sympathy to the families and friends of the persons concerned.

Airbus will provide the full support to the official investigation authorities in France.

[aerotransport.org]

Picture:
http://s.tf1.fr/mmdia/i/40/6/accident-avion-a340-toulouse-2419406.jpg
/ATDB

[Palyvestre]

It's three wounded !

A short video coming from the french television evening news. They said it's probably a w/o

http://www.crash-aerien.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=22354#22354

[Airbubba]

Another pre-delivery mishap in Toulouse. I remember sitting in a CDG bar in the summer of 1994 and hearing of the A-330 crash...

[aerotransport.org]

not just the flight deck on the other side..
http://i19.servimg.com/u/f19/11/30/85/75/346110.jpg
/A

[Broomstick Flier]

When you think you have already seen everything in life...
Oh boy.. this is weird. :ugh:

Fortunately no fatalities..

I always thought engine runs were performed with the aircraft firmly chained down to concrete blocks, not only chocks.

BF


PS. On side note, please note the engines worked as advertised :}

[bjones4]

PS. On side note, please note the engines worked as advertised

There are reports elsewhere from some Toulouse locals that one of them was still running tonight due to 'technical difficulties' in shutting it down.

[Jando]

Reuters now reporting 10 people injured, three of them seriously.
Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1588716920071115

[Terry McCassey]

No Broomstick they are not chained down, neither do the chocks touch the wheels. Parking brake only is all that stops them !

[mackey]

Someone will be in for tea and biccies!!
Wouldn't want to be filling out that insurance form or paying the excess!!,
Glad no-one was killed in what was a very nasty accident.
I take it Etihad don't want it now!

M.

[Rainboe]

Can't you just feel the feeling as it jumped the chocks/brakes and raced away? An awful sight to see a spanking new machine in that state. Considering the state of the nose section, the injuries must have been serious- I hope they all make it.
Even I can't quite see this one being repaired! That is one seriously stressed fuselage, going through a concrete wall like that, and ending up in that state.

[Fargoo]

Don't know about the 340 but on the small bus we are obliged to hold the aircraft on the brakes during high powered runs and to have the park brake selected off.
My thoughts are with those injured :(

[TURIN]

No Broomstick they are not chained down, neither do the chocks touch the wheels. Parking brake only is all that stops them !
IF the 340 is the same as other Airbus' from what I remember the park brake is a lower pressure than the foot brakes. When carrying out high power engine runs one person has to stand on the pegs for the duration. :suspect:
"There for the grace of......" :sad:





Edited to say.. Must type faster, you beat me to it Fargoo.

[RogerTangoFoxtrotIndigo]

Even I can't quite see this one being repaired! That is one seriously stressed fuselage, going through a concrete wall like that, and ending up in that state.

If it had gone straight into the wall then I would have agreed but it seems to have ridden up the ramp and over the wall but I'm not a structural engineer. I am however a trained bean counter and would take a bit of convincing that $135m+ of damage has been done here assuming a sale price of $180m.

Putting that aside it must have been a scary moment for all those on board or in the general area, I hope they all make a full and speedy recovery.

[HS125]

Dont forget that airbus will value the aircraft at cost so there needs to be less dammage for it to be considered a write off;

Its not just the value of the damage, there are liability issues that will be taken into account, I'd say that would most definitely rank as 'severe damage' Remember what happend to Japan Airlines who were flying a repaired 747?

Plus I'd have to ask the question who would want to buy an A340 with that kind of history, especially one that hasnt even been delivered yet. Looking at the pics I can't see that one flying again.

I'd also wager that Ethiad will have something pretty unsympathetic to say about this given that the bent aircraft has their name all over it!

[Loose rivets]

Yeh, the last thing you need is an unlucky aircraft.



I remember looking at an ATR down at the factory. It was just ready for delivery and got seriously twisted after a heavy landing. I just would not have wanted it after that.

I would imagine their insurers are beginning to look askance at their practices. Having said this, I don't know just how much whoomf they were giving it, but it must have been a serious amount to lose control like that.

Does anyone know how many engines were opened up at one time?

In any event, I feel that any such power run should be done in wide open spaces. Edit to say that I realize that it was a test area, but nevertheless I wouldn't like to be in charge of something like that on full chat in a confined space.

[lamer]

"der spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,517703,00.html)" says that 7 out of 9 onboard were etihad employees.

[two green one prayer]

When doing something like this why not point the aeroplane at somewhere that there is no scenery to collide with? This would allow time to close the throttles.

[lomapaseo]

I'm interested in the time duration to duplicate this accident vs the sequence of failures.

I assume that at the initiation point that the aircraft is sitting on its brakes at near full thrust. then something happens to the brakes and it starts rolling. Why can't you just chop the engines in 5 secs or so and that would be enough to keep it from going that far over a barrier in front of you. And that brings up another point, why is there a barrier in front instead of behind to deflect the thrust?

I really don't have any idea how they do these tests vs what could go wrong to explain the level of accident that resulted here.:confused:

[armchairpilot94116]

What a shame, beautiful new jet meets its demise without ever entering service. Hopefully nobody seriously hurt. Looking at the picture of the front section it is a miracle no deaths !!

Even Rainboe says this one is a goner.

[missterrible]

Did they say MSN 856? That would suggest 855 similar tests on that type alone where this didn't happen, and we don't even know what happened yet. Its a bit daft offering solutions when we don't know what the exact problem was.

[Horas]

Hard to believe parking brakes only for a static engine ground run you don't even do that with a Cessna .:(

[Cpt. Underpants]

Not unprecedented. In 1994 a Thai Airways MD11 doing engine run ups jumped the chocks and totaled an A300-600 (also Thai Airways) at the old Don Muang Airport.

The MD11 was repaired and returned to service.

[mavrik1]

The 340-500/600 is probably the only aircraft that has the potential to drag an aircraft with brakes on! It is a seriously over powered machine compared to its little brother a under powered 340-300. Engine running 340 new gens at max thrust is a scary job.

[GAMABIRD]

Doesnt need to be an airbus to drag along on the brakes,years ago at hatfield we had a new hawker 800 do a similar thing.It dragged along on its brakes for a considerable distance before mounting a grass bank ripping the noseleg back crushing the fuselage like a coke can,braking the wing mounts.Basically it was a cold damp day(loads of thrust, wet ground) low fuel load,there were 2 engineers one up the rear bay adjusting engine computers for throttle stagger & one in the cockpit doing the runs.The guy in the cockpit was watching closely the gauges & became fixated with them & didn,t even realise the aircraft was moving & gaining speed till it climbed the bank.
Problem afterwards was both engines were running at 100% & they couldn,t shut them down using the conventional methods.
Yes he was asked to leave by the company.The aircraft was totalled.
So not the first time this sort of thing has happened!!

[ATSU Misc]

The park brake handle is a switch. So are the toe brake pedals. Computer logic decides how much pressure goes to the brake system, whether you keep the park brake switch on or stand on the pegs. Today's machines have a way of fooling us that we are in control when all we are doing is managing the computers. And when they decide to revolt, you end up with this.

After 855 times, on a whim, George decided he would let BSCU release the brake pressure and at the same time let FADEC go TOGA, overriding the brake switches and thrust lever switches, just to see who actually is in control.

I have control..., I have control..., l have...:E:E

[Airbubba]

In 1994 a Thai Airways MD11 doing engine run ups jumped the chocks and totaled an A300-600 (also Thai Airways) at the old Don Muang Airport.

The MD11 was repaired and returned to service.

That is certainly consistent with popular opinion concerning the build quality of Mad Dogs and Airbuses. Like a lot of us here, I've flown both.

Continental had a mishap at EWR where a 727 plowed into the terminal on an engine run. An earlier shift had positioned the throttles forward to work on one of the pilot seats. What was supposed to be an idle engine turn became a serious accident and one of the mechs was badly injured.

[CV880]

When I was last involved with Airbus deliveries, Airbus used to invite the customer's delivery team to participate in all the acceptance tests including engine run ups. The aircraft were taxied from the delivery centre to the run up area and back and the customer's ground crew even got to try their hand at taxying which may have something new for many of them. So the question perhaps should be who's hand was on the throttles (and feet on the brakes)?
All the jet aircraft I worked on could be held quite satisfactorily on the park brake. Park brake pressure is usually a lot less than than max. The brake pressure required to prevent stationary disc's from rotating is a lot less than that required to slow rotating disc's down. For instance, I seem to recall the DC8 only applied 700psi with the park brake set pressure whereas max brake pressure was 2,000psi.

[LindbergB767]

I did several engine run up on DC8 and we were doing it on a taxiway with plenty of space in front of us SO if something happen you have plenty of room to stop the beast

[GlueBall]

I wouldn't runup all 4 engines simultaneousley at full thrust during a static test; it is not necessary to do that, two engines at a time will be sufficient, especially when the airplane is empty. :ugh:

[ATC Watcher]

Airbus Spokesman in French media this morning : first investigation made , cannot explain what happened, need more time. Never hapenned before , we deliver 500 a/c a year and do this 2 or 3 times a day, etc...
Need to do this in a walled box (instead as in empty space ) because of noise .
Confirmed a/c is a complete write off .
No news on the injured , mostly Etihad employees.

[Jet II]

I'm not familiar with the layout of Toulouse but in all the engine-run pens I've ever used over the years you parked the aircraft tail-in rather that nose-in as appears in this case.

By backing in if anything does go wrong you have a clear pan in front of you to try and correct the problem.

[cwatters]

Would they have had to accelerate for some distance to cause that much damage? Doesn't look like a low speed impact. No room to turn or no steering?

Edit: Now that I think for an extra 5 seconds I guess parking it against a wall might be the best option if they can't stop it.

[Tom Sawyer]

No need to stand on the brakes when doing a high power EGR on the A340, just have them covered. Done an A346 aircraft acceptance EGR at high power in that very bay. Only had about 20T of fuel on so trying to read the Eng parameters at max chat was interesting. There was part of the acceptance that requiered to have all 4 at high power at the same time, but can't remember why.
As for not pointing it at the wall, high by-pass engines when being run at high power with the aircraft stationary need to be pointed into wind to prevent surging. Wind speed & direction can be quiet limiting, there is a chart in the Maint Manual with the limits and directions. Also min of 2 engines required at high power to prevent an asymetric thrust situation.
Specualtion I know, but I wonder if someone reached for the camera switch and released the parking brake instead, after all it appears to have been done the other way round on landing by China Eastern I think.
Hope the injured are OK.

[Togalk]

NO Etihad employees were on board.

[aircraftrecords]

Hard to say what hapened at this point...

But a few years ago we had a similar accident in YVR (that's Vancouver, Canada) when doind a ground run on an A310. They only put in Line Mtce chocks during the run... (AIRBUS has special Ground Run Chocks, that can't be jumped. (I'd guess they didn't use 'em here either...). The coneheads (avionics mechanics) were messing with CB's during run and pulled a breaker that put the aircraft into flight mode...

Presto! Engines to flight idle, no reverse thrust, no brakes & no steering... It jumped the chocks so fast the mechanics in the left and right seats didn't even know what happened (they didn't even know the coney's were messing around with the CB's) They are busy trying to steer, brake, reverse -- ANYTHING... Uncontrolled taxi -- right into a ground equipment building -- hard enough to shear off 6" steel I-beams.

Over $1 million CDN damage...

If I was a betting man, I'd guess something similar happened here...

Damn! I hope those mech's/ground crew are okay...

[saddlebrooks]

7 Etihad employees on board.

[thetravellingwilbury]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/16/219605/picture-etihad-a340-600-jumps-chocks-hits-wall-5-injured.html

[BAEGJJ]

Not been the best of weeks for the 340-600.

The Iberia one off the runway in Quito, The SAA in the mud in Cape Town and now this.

[Busbert]

From the Accident Information Telex issued today:

AIRBUS REGRETS TO INFORM THAT AN AIRBUS A340-600 PRODUCTION AIRCRAFT WAS INVOLVED IN AN INCIDENT DURING GROUND TEST ON NOVEMBER 15TH.
THE INCIDENT TOOK PLACE IN AIRBUS PRODUCTION FACILITIES IN TOULOUSE THE AIRCRAFT INVOLVED IN THE INCIDENT, REGISTRATION NUMBER F-WWCJ BEARING MSN 856 HAD COMPLETED FINAL ENGINE RUN AND WAS EXITING THE ENGINE RUN ZONE AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT.
THE AIRCRAFT IMPACTED A CONTAINMENT WALL AND HAS BEEN SEVERELY
DAMAGED.
ACCORDING TO AVAILABLE INFORMATION, THERE WERE NINE PERSONS ON BOARD FROM WHICH FIVE SUSTAINED INJURIES. THERE WERE NO FATALITIES.

Interesting that the engine run was completed...

[OsPi]

Isn't this an accident rather than incident? :confused:

[Oyster Shucker]

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=20384
Picture: DR

[slingsby]

Glad everyone got out OK, sorry to hear of the injuries.

If they can repair it, maybe, I would imagine they would replace the hull from the production frame surrounding door 2 forward. If not able to repair, then imagine how many spare parts from this aircraft, nearly new, will be flying around on subsequent A340-6 aircraft. You may not want to fly a jinx, but you sure are gonna gets some parts

Edited first line.

[tallsandwich]

Issued at 11:45, 16 November 2007

Update on industrial accident at Saint-Martin Site

We regret to confirm that an accident occurred at the Saint -Martin site in Toulouse yesterday.

The accident occurred at 5:00 pm local time, and involved an A340-600 (MSN 856), which was carrying out engine-run-ups and was due to be delivered to Etihad in the coming days.

There were nine people on board the aircraft at the time of the accident - two Airbus employees, and seven employees of Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies, a service provider to Etihad Airways.

Five people sustained injuries, of which three, two from Airbus and one from Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies remain in hospital. The other two were released between yesterday night and this morning. There were no fatalities.

Airbus is providing all necessary support to the people involved and their families and a special team is providing emotional support to the flight test team.

An investigation started last night and Airbus is providing full support to the official investigation authorities in France.

Chief Executive Officer Thomas Enders, and Chief Operating Officer Fabrice Bregier are visiting the site and those in hospital this morning.

Airbus expresses its sympathy to the families and friends of the persons concerned.

[Sandy United]

A mate of mine works for Etihad and sent over a few of their update statements - these were issued from JH himself (!) to all-staff.

All starting to make some sense now. :D

There were three:

This one's the FIRST - sent it out last night...


Etihad Airways has been made aware of an incident involving an Airbus A340-600 type aircraft at the manufacturer’s headquarters in Toulouse, France, earlier today.

We understand the aircraft was undergoing pre-delivery engine tests and sustained airframe damage as a result of the incident.

No Etihad Airways staff have been involved in this incident although I understand a number of people may have sustained injuries.

The aircraft, in Etihad Airways livery, was scheduled to be delivered to our main Abu Dhabi base in the UAE next week.

We are liaising closely with Airbus.

I will provide further information as soon as it is available.



This one was the second...

We are continuing to liaise closely with aircraft manufacturer Airbus and the French authorities following damage to an Airbus A340-600 type aircraft at the manufacturer’s headquarters in Toulouse, France.

The aircraft - scheduled to be delivered to us next week - was undergoing pre-delivery tests when the incident occurred.

The airline has been made aware that a number of people have been taken to hospital following the ground incident in which the aircraft sustained significant airframe damage during routine engine performance tests.

I am deeply concerned to hear about injuries following this incident and my sympathies are with those in hospital and their families.

I remain in contact with our team in France, as well as Airbus, in order to keep fully informed of the latest developments.

Our Paris based country manager for France is en route to the Airbus headquarters in Toulouse.


This is the third...


I am very pleased to report that injuries sustained to a number of people during the pre-delivery ground tests of an Airbus A340-600 aircraft are not life-threatening.

We send those involved our very best wishes for a speedy recovery. Their welfare is our primary concern and our thoughts are very much with them, their family, friends and co-workers.

Injuries were sustained by workers from Airbus and Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies. I have today written to the chief executives of both companies to express our sincere sympathy on behalf of every at Etihad Airways.

No Etihad Airways staff were involved in the incident.

We continue to liaise closely with Airbus in order to keep fully informed of the latest developments following the incident at the manufacturer’s headquarters in Toulouse, France.

Representatives from the airline, including our Paris based country manager for France, are at the Airbus headquarters.

The aircraft involved in the incident was undergoing pre-delivery tests and was scheduled to be delivered to us next week.

My thanks to all those concerned for co-ordinating our response to this unfortunate incident.

[Human Factor]

The wider shot makes it appear that it speared into the left wall of the testing bay. Standing by to be corrected by someone who knows TLS better than I.

:confused:

[Fatfish]

Once again, investigations Im sure will show its Fly By Wire, computers and Human /Aircraft interface to blame. Just like the other Airbus accidents. Cutting age design, only if it works. When will they ever learn. :ugh:

[lamer]

43°37'23.79" 1°21'33.43" will take you there in google earth.
aircraft appears to be heading north.

[Basil-Fawlty]

lomapaseo (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=48942)
"IF the 340 is the same as other Airbus' from what I remember the park brake is a lower pressure than the foot brakes"

The PB designed to prevent the aircraft from rolling when on T/O position (among other activity). When active it will inhibit all other braking modes (No CLG braking in this mode only in normal, alternate or Ultimate), By the way the CLG Brakes and Ultimate braking mode which this airbus has additional to all other previous airbuses (normally used by the flight crew when all brakes modes have fail and or RTO(spoilers off course being deployed)! As for the brake pressure is equal and can be observed on the Triple gauge.

Horas (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=127482)
"Hard to believe parking brakes only for a static engine ground run you don't even do that with a Cessna" .:(

Not correct, it can be used when the engine is not static.

mavrik1 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=198436)
"It is a seriously over powered machine compared to its little brother a under powered 340-300. Engine running 340 new gens at max thrust is a scary job"

This aircraft is no more seriously powered than any other wide body aircraft.
The Trent 553 and 556 are common to both the 500 and the 600 series. the thrust normally around 53000Ib for the 500 and 56000Ib for the 600 series (understandably bigger), B7474 RR 58000Ib, A330 with GE from 63000Ib to 66000Ib, A330 PW 68000Ib. Any one with basic knowlage of the aircraft can Run the engine on these later FADEC airplanes (even Manuel from Barcelona can!) BUT knowing what to do when the shi!!!!!!!!!!t hit the fan is the Question. Remember Hindsight is always 20/20.

Tom Sawyer (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=116681)
"No need to stand on the brakes when doing a high power EGR on the A340, just have them covered. Done an A346 aircraft acceptance EGR at high power in that very bay".

Respectful disagree.I also have carried out an EGR on the same baby.unless you are miles from no where and nothing in front of you or in high power zone I would say yes but parking brake alone with hi power like A340-5/600....your asking for problem.I'm glad you do not live next door to my hotel!!

BAEGJJ (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=162347)
"Not been the best of weeks for the 340-600".

It must be the 600 season!

The photo presented by aerotransport.org (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=108529) , I have to say that reminded me in a way with the Pan Am B747 when it exploded over Lockerbie, on how the nose section of that aircraft separated from the fuselage which I believe lead to the MOD Section 41, please correct me if I am wrong. The A340-600 Aerial view picture represented a weakness in that section on impact !!!

I could be wrong but I feel some serious procedural mistake occurred which lead to this accident with the weak possibility of technical failure.My sincere thoughts and a wish of speedy recovery for the Ground crew tech acceptance team on board the airbus. I have no doubt that serious procedural changes will be coming out of this accident very soon and not only to Airbus.

But then again I am only a hotel owner what do I know about airplane.

Safe flying to all from Sybil,Polly and Manuel!:ok:

[saddlebrooks]

The statements issued by JH are exactly what he released to the Press.

Nothing like the personal touch......

[Terry McCassey]

Turin - The A345/6 has the parking brakes powered by the blue hydraulic system. The parking brake selector valve, when set, acts as a pressure reducing valve and drops the upstream pressure in the brake lines to 175 bar ( 2535 psi ), this being the pressure that holds the brakes on. The system is designed to hold the aircraft with one engine at full power provided the others are all at idle. All this of course pre-supposes that you have ample blue system pressure to start with !

[PAXboy]

If Busbert's posting From the Accident Information Telex issued today:

HAD COMPLETED FINAL ENGINE RUN AND WAS EXITING THE ENGINE RUN ZONE AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT.Is correct, then any and all discussion about parking brakes and chocks are irrelevant. It may then look like a handling problem when leaving the bay - possibly under own power? Those who state that they have carried out this EGR procedure 'in that very bay' might wish to comment on the procedure for entering and leaving the bay. So I would ask (as an amateur) that those who jump on the old A/B argument to close the valves feeding their mouths (or keyboard fingers if you prefer).

[Dream Land]

Thank you for that PAXboy. :ok: Hope all crew members involved have a speedy recovery!

[TUGNBAR]

Were there any guys on the ground?

The reason I ask is that we are made to stand in front any a/c during high powered engine runs either in sight or in RT contact, (for safety reasons!!!)

Something I totally disagree with doing

Everytime I have done it though, I :mad: myself. and always think what if..........

[GMDS]

Can someone enlighten us what kind of company "Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies" is. Do they maintain and technically "receive" the aircraft for Etihad?

[hetfield]

@GMDS

http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20071105122317

[windowseat]

GMDS - It's the new name for GAMCO, long established overhaul centre in Abu Dhabi. They were created with Gulf Air but since Abu Dhabi pulled out of Gulf Air ownership and created Etihad, GAMCO now look after Etihad and decided to changed their name a week or two ago.
As they have no affiliation with Gulf Air anymore the rebranding makes sense although GAMCO was a well known name in the industry.

[barit1]

Can someone enlighten us what kind of company "Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies" is. Do they maintain and technically "receive" the aircraft for Etihad?

At the Dubai airshow, there was an announcement that GAMCO was being divorced from GulfAir and renamed "Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies" as an independent shop.

I spent a month or so in the GAMCO shop in the early 90s.

[barit1]

aircraftrecords cites:
(at VYR)...The coneheads (avionics mechanics) were messing with CB's during run and pulled a breaker that put the aircraft into flight mode...

Presto! Engines to flight idle, no reverse thrust, no brakes & no steering... It jumped the chocks so fast the mechanics in the left and right seats didn't even know what happened (they didn't even know the coney's were messing around with the CB's)...

There have been other dire events associated with uncoordinated pulling of CBs - like disabling overspeed protection of engines :eek:

Best practice is to have a thorough briefing before any such action.

[GlueBall]

Tom Sawyer: There was part of the acceptance that required to have all 4 at high power at the same time, but can't remember why.

Captain Sawyer: When you mention "high power" . . . you are talking about what percentage of thrust? Can you confirm that no chocks and no brakes will hold this empty airplane with max thrust simultaneously on all 4 engines...?

[The AvgasDinosaur]

I'm amazed the man with the big brush and bucket of white paint has not been out and about yet :sad:
Be lucky
David

[F4F]

Actually the capacity of the brakes/tires assy being able to hold the aircraft in position at high thrust is proportional to the load of the aircraft, the capacity of the brakes, and the state of the surface (and some other minute parameters).
On a normal static TOGA thrust takeoff, on a non contaminated runway, most aircraft are heavy, thereby the friction is high enough for said plane not to move during the application of thrust.
Same aircraft loaded only with some fuel will happily move forward, even with the brakes set. I well remember our empty A300-600 moving forward (actually it set up a kind of hicupped motion) when we had to do a full thrust engines run-up a few years ago :eek:

And yet to find a seriously over powered machine in the civilian world...

Best wishes to the injured :ok:


live 2 fly 2 live

[Jet II]

Can someone enlighten us what kind of company "Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies" is.

As has been pointed out they were formally known as GAMCO - as to what kind of company they are, well GAMCO are well known for doing everything on the cheap - hence the state of Gulf Air's aircraft........................

[Togalk]

Saddlebrooks, I say again. NO Etihad employees were on board.

[ChristiaanJ]

The 340-500/600 is probably the only aircraft that has the potential to drag an aircraft with brakes on!
Sorry if this was already said (didn't yet read the full topic) but a Concorde with full afterburner would "drag" on the brakes. It could not be held on the brakes at the start of take-off to check evrything was "as desired".
A few very nifty lights at about 60kts (IIRC) told you whether to carry on or reject.

[ROSUN]

Airbus Spokesman in French media this morning : first investigation made , cannot explain what happened, need more time. Never hapenned before , we deliver 500 a/c a year and do this 2 or 3 times a day, etc...
Need to do this in a walled box (instead as in empty space ) because of noise .
Confirmed a/c is a complete write off .
No news on the injured , mostly Etihad employees.

A quick Google search tells me that this airport has been in its current location since 1939. So why then is the "noise" of engine run-ups such an issue for the residents that it has to be performed in a concrete cell?

[V1 Rotate]

Maybe those naughty French Computers played some mischief here??:8:8

[Fatfish]

Frenchie never heard of "Keep It Simple". The more complicated, the more can go wrong. Whats this stupid concept of non moving Throttles and Flight Controls? :ugh:

[Ghostflyer]

Fatfish,

You are right!

Better to do what Boeing do and have exactly the same computers but give the aircraft the world's biggest force feedback joystick and thrust levers to give the pilots the illusion that they actually have direct control. A more complicated switch attached to the same computers must be the way ahead. After all there has never been a mechanical or hf error on a Boeing.

[spannersatKL]

HAD COMPLETED FINAL ENGINE RUN AND WAS EXITING THE ENGINE RUN ZONE AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT.



Sadly at very high thrust and not via the exit!!!:eek:

[Ignition Override]

Aside from that terrible accident.

This has probably nothing to do with it, but why did the original design engineers for the A-320 want to install pushbuttons instead of "throttles"/thrust levers?

[SMOC]

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1293784/L/

[Tom Sawyer]

To answer a few points raised from my original post, although it is probably irrelavant if it is a "taxying" incident.
1. There is no point standing on the pedals to assist the parking brake. The green system brakes do not operate if the parking brake is selected on. Checked this out on a live aircraft today and is correct. The MM also does not mention having to assist the parking brake during high power runs. So at the ground EPR limits they must consider the brakes capable of holding the aircraft, which must also be chocked.
2. High power is not the same a full power. Test 7 in the MM operates the engine in the 1.249 - 1.232 EPR which equates roughly to 80 - 83% n1 depending on temp. Software in the FADEC also limits thrust on the ground to 1.33EPR & 83% N1.
3. The engine running bay is tight, but lines are there and give clearance for the -600. Can't say I noticed that much as following a marshaller and at night. When we were running at high power we were chocked and the steering active.
4. The aircraft is overpowered:confused: On what basis? The A343 was supposedly under powered.
5. I'm not a Captain...... me sir, no sir, how very dare you :)

[GMDS]

So GAMCO it is, thanks.
Hopefully AB didn't do the usual customer gimmick and let them taxi the bird back to the hangar ..... it would be some liability issue.:\

[missingblade]

Hopefully AB didn't do the usual customer gimmick and let them taxi the bird back to the hangar ..... it would be some liability issue.

Seeing that Etihad already have some 340's I don't think getting to taxi it back to the hangar was such a big and exciting first time experience for them....IF Etihad crew were in seat...which apparently they were not.

[BAe146s make me cry]

Attn: Type rated A345/A346 LAEs

Are there recent reliability issues surrounding the BSCU?
Faulty discriminants? Prox sw's? LVDTs/RVDTs?

What with Quito, Cape Town and Toulouse, is there
maybe an underlying common cause?

Regards

BAe146??? :{:{:{

[Joetom]

For interest.
.
Normal park brake is only applied to wing gear.
.
Centre gear can get applied via parking brake system if a certain set of conditions exist, another computer will allow that to occour (FCPC), think it's called the ultimate brake when the parking brake applies to all 12 wheels, think aircraft will be at speed and parking brake applied in the flt deck.
.
Best wishes to all involved.

[Philscbx]

Been a while now, I used to do a few of the line testing on the old L1011's.
I assisted in holding the brakes, and I was quite amazed the first time testing just one Rolls Royce at a time, trying to hold it back with both feet on the brakes. He's a heavy, and he was angry I was holding him back.

Seems to me I had to also monitor reserve pressure and transfer backup reserve as the pressure bled off from standing too long on the brakes.
They were 15 years old then in the mid eighties. Maybe one ship left in Holland.

Being you cannot see the engines from the pilots seat, I had to see for myself up close as to why we are basically being thrown out of the seats from the oscillations. Who ever designed the engine mounts knew what they were doing. I never saw so much twisting of major components at that power range.

I don't think I would ever try 2 engines at once, let alone 3 it had. From all the severe oscillations, I would think this would break loose the tires at some point. If an inch of traction is ever lost, It would be one big out control city bus in a hurry.

From TUGNBAR:
we are made to stand in front any a/c during high powered engine runs either in sight or in RT contact, (for safety reasons!!!)

This too really did not sink in as the possible reality, and I was also in this position on the next tests that I decided to position myself directly in front of the engine hardwired into the cockpit. I hope I had the truck in gear ready to escape.

I was reluctant to report what I did see, and at night one can see from off the front fan,, the dancing lightning.
Wish we had digital camera then.

This current incident is odd, and may have to get out the black, I mean Orange boxes to see what really happened. It better not be blamed on a iPod.

[wingview]

It still surprices me that the it was nose into the bay instead of the tail. Costly fault anyway...:}

[aeroa320]

ADAT is the new name for GAMCO(GULF AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE COMPANY ABU DHAI)

[CEJM]

Wingview, do you care to read the posts in this thread??:confused:

First of all according to the telex from Airbus the incident happened while leaving the engine run up area.

Secondly, earlier somebody made a description why it sometimes necessary to park the aircraft nose in.

Not sure if you are familiar with the Schiphol layout but have a look at the engine test bay at the beginning of runway 27, opposite McDonalds.
This engine test bay is constructed in such a way that regularly during engine test you are facing a wall. Especially when facing South - East. If the brakes would fail and the chocks would not stop the aircraft than you will end up in the same position as the Etihad aircraft.

After having done a fair amount of engine runs in this position myself, and seen other operators do it, i would advise you to be very carefull with appointing blame. :=

de groeten. CEJM

http://maps.google.nl/maps?hl=nl&t=h&ie=UTF8&ll=52.316022,4.797935&spn=0.006729,0.006866&z=16&om=0

[Joe Monsoon]

I wish those injured a speedy recovery.
But this exactly the kind of thing you would expected from GAMCO no matter what they change there name to.

[armchairpilot94116]

GAMCO had nothing to do with this incident. They were unwitting passengers far as I know?

[forget]

....... earlier somebody made a description why it is sometimes necessary to park the aircraft nose in.

So why is it sometimes necessary? An aircraft in a walled off run-up pad should be backed in. Anything else is nonsense. It's easy to check which is right. Just note the end with the very expensive blast deflectors and put the pointy part of the aircraft at the other end.

Not like so .......

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/Untitled-1-9.jpg

[mary_hinge]

Quote:
....... earlier somebody made a description why it is sometimes necessary to park the aircraft nose in.
So why is it sometimes necessary? An aircraft in a walled off run-up pad should be backed in. Anything else is nonsense.


Wind direction.

[Fox3snapshot]

Wouldn't the blast deflectors, ummmm....stop the wind :rolleyes:

[MarkD]

Maybe Airbus should lay down an EMAS surface at either end of its engine testing facilities leaving enough room to enter and exit... just in case :hmm:

[mary_hinge]

Fox3snapshot: Wouldn't the blast deflectors, ummmm....stop the wind

In a word, no. There is a big gap, although obviously not big enough, to get the aircraft in and out.
Seriously though, on older aircraft during EGRs it’s not unknown to have to reposition the aircraft into wind. During new aircraft acceptance, lease transfer etc, any variance on the engine parameters could carry a financial penalty.

[forget]

Wind direction? Just where, precisely, is the anemometer in this walled-off pad?

Engine runs aren’t (weren’t) my thing but I’ve spent enough time on airfields to have an opinion on this whole sorry cock up.

If someone suggested to me that I could carry on working with my ‘wires’ while they moved the aircraft into a walled of run-up pad for high power engine runs, I’d consider it.

When they told me that, due to a shortage of tugs/tow-bars they were taxiing nose in, I’d reconsider it.

When I saw that the aircraft was then pointing at a sloping concrete wall - with a six feet high three inch thick steel guillotine on the top, I’d get out and watch from a safe distance.

What the hell happened to common sense?

Whoever sanctioned/supervised/approved this operation needs introducing to the rag man’s trumpet. Pathetic - Incompetent - Negligent. :ugh::ugh:

PS. During new aircraft acceptance, lease transfer etc, any variance on the engine parameters could carry a financial penalty.

So this one's saved a few bob then! :bored:

[the bald eagle]

"Not sure if you are familiar with the Schiphol layout but have a look at the engine test bay at the beginning of runway 27, opposite McDonalds?"

Would that be a drive thru or Fly thru :}

[ChristiaanJ]

I've read the entire subject..... and so far I'm no nearer to what really happened.
Does anybody have any factual information?
Like why an aircraft managed to climb up and over blast defectors that should have been behind the aircraft?

[CEJM]

Forget,

Have a look google earth at the engine run bay at Schiphol at beginning of runway 27. You will see that while facing South-East and with the exhaust pointing to the blast deflector the nose points to the wall on the other side.

http://maps.google.nl/maps?hl=nl&t=h&ie=UTF8&ll=52.316022,4.797935&spn=0.006729,0.006866&z=16&om=0

[Fargoo]

Too many people jumping the gun here, have heard it was taxiing following ground runs. I wasn't there though so will wait a while before condemning those on-board.

[GotTheTshirt]

JET II
You are a bit out of date:)
Gamco have not maintained Gulf Air aircraft for several years :=

[CEJM]

ChristiaanJ,

Its going to be very difficult when the engine test bay is U shaped with the lower right hand corner of the U not being walled. To have the tail of the aircraft facing the blast deflectors you have to point the nose to the opposite wall, either 90 degrees or a smaller angle but it will face a wall. Have a look on Google Earth Toulouse airport and follow the Airbus facility. You will find the engine test bay and probably will understand why it was facing a wall.

http://maps.google.nl/maps?hl=nl&t=h&ie=UTF8&ll=43.623945,1.362498&spn=0.001802,0.01457&z=16&om=0

[forget]

You will find the engine test bay and probably will understand why it was facing a wall.

Point taken (for now) - neck wound in (for now).

[lomapaseo]

I believe that the wind consideration in engine runups have to do with the engine stability, most notably fan issues at high power.
When you are standing still at high power the inlet is sucking air and any wind across the inlet is akin to angle of attack changes on the inlet itself. Some engines might not like this and even backfire/surge/stall (its hard to sell this product afterwards to a customer). While in other cases minute angle of attack changes could oucurr to the fan blades themselves setting up a flutter zone which might rapidly wear out the whole fan blade set.
Steady state winds are easily accomodated but gusting winds are not so easily defined in directionality. Its not a question of being boxed in and not getting enough air, it's the need to have smooth airflow at high power if you are anywhere near the fan blade flutter speeds.

[CEJM]

If we believe the Airbus Telex, than it doesn't matter if the aircraft was facing a wall while they performed the engie test. Because the accident happend while they were vacating the engine test bay.

We will have to wait for the report from the authorities.

Lamapaseo, you hit the nail on the head. Thats the reason why the aircraft needs to point into wind. :ok:

[forget]

Hmm. Could have come from any direction!

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/runup.jpg

[CEJM]

Thanks Forget, I couldn't get the picture in the reply, hence the link.:confused:

By looking at the daylight picture of the incident, the aircraft is facing north. Because you can see the hangar (with the two aircraft in front) on the right hand side of the accident picture.

[Flapping_Madly]

Are you all quite sure the engine test bay involved is the one shown on Google?

I cannot work out the shape of the blast barriers or the whereabouts of the hangers shown in the background in the photo.

Is the Google image 5 years out of date as usual? or has a further length of blast barrier been built? The plane has hit a short section with a long section on its left hand side. The negative can't be reversed unless the aircraft belongs to Dahite airways.:confused:

Or am I talking out of my orifice again?:confused::confused::confused::confused:

[Magoodotcom]

Something I haven't seen suggested yet...

Notice the snow on the ground in the pics? Could the a/c have hit a patch of ice whilst taxiing in/out, and skidded across it? I know you'd still need to be moving excessively fast in order to end up and over the barriers, but may be a contributing factor?

[akerosid]

I may be wrong, but I don't think it's snow; I assumed it was foam sprayed by the emergency crews?

[forget]

Mag, Toulouse is in the south of France. That 'snow' is foam. ;)

[Admiral346]

I departed toulouse this morning, we had to deice, the cars in the hotel parking lot were covered in rime, though no snow on the ground.
But just being southern france doesn't make it snow free.

Nic

[forget]

The Airliners.net shot was a taken with a very long lens. Checking out the building roof etc (yellow arrow) against Google Earth - aircraft ended up at red line.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/Untitled-1-10.jpg

[Magoodotcom]

Mag, Toulouse is in the south of France. That 'snow' is foam.
It may be foam, although it looks to extend quite a long way towards the camera and way beyond the wingtip in the daytime pic.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1293784/L/

Plus, I've been at Toulouse in November when it's snowed quite heavily, so don't discount the snow/ice theory so readily.

[Rwy in Sight]

Anyway we can check the metar at the time of the incidence?


Rwy in Sight

[Profit Max]

The Airliners.net shot was a taken with a very long lens. Checking out the building roof etc (yellow arrow) against Google Earth - aircraft ended up at red line.Correct. And if you go further North-East, you will see that the picture was most likely taken from the terminal of TLS airport (or one of the office buildings adjacent to it).

So what happened if this was after the test was completed? One possibility would be that while slowly turning the aircraft towards the exit, thrust was applied too early (either inadvertently by the pilot or due to a technical failure).

Can anybody guess what speed would have been necessary to push the nose over the concrete wall?

[forget]

Here's a same scale shot of the pan with an A-340. Plenty of room to get a few knots on board - depending on where you start from.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/tou.jpg

[BOAC]

It says a lot for the strength around the nose gear and the keel beam - I would have expected collapse there and concertina-ing rather than 'up-and-over'.

A really frightening experience for those on board, particularly up front.

[bsieker]

The Airliners.net shot was a taken with a very long lens. Checking out the building roof etc (yellow arrow) against Google Earth - aircraft ended up at red line.

I think it's quite a bit further in. If you look at the way the tele lens "compresses" the depth.

Take a look at how close to the fuselage the the wing tip rests on the ground, compared to the distance from the wing tip to the near edge of the test bay.

Also compare the amount of fence on the barrier in front and behind the aircraft. The width of individual panels of the fence seen in the far end of the bay helps judge the amount of fence that is seen in front of the plane.

So it appears to be closer to the centre of the north-western ("right") barrier, rather than at the near edge.


Bernd

[flt_lt_w_mitty]

It reminds me (NB: NO suggestion this was the cause!) of an engineer who taxied a 727 onto stand in TXL but forgot to put the hydraulic pumps on.......................it took a while to get the jetty out of the wing.:eek:

[bsieker]

[...]
Is the Google image 5 years out of date as usual? or has a further length of blast barrier been built?

Considering that currently google earth images show at least two A380 standing in the open (besides several A340/A330 and countless A320-series), and that the (c) notice says "2007", it can't be more than a few months old.

For scale: the aircraft on forget's screenshots in the top left corner is a "Beluga" Super Transporter.

The plane has hit a short section with a long section on its left hand side.

No. That's the kind of perspective illusion that a long telephoto lens produces. It has hit a long section, with a short section to its left. The long section appears short because it is photographed almost edge-on.

Here's my best estimate as to the photographer's location, this corresponds to a field-of-view of about 2.2 degrees, at a distance of about 1.45 km.
http://panchromat.org/.misc/Blagnac-Photo.jpg

Bernd

[forget]

Here's an aerial shot of the NE corner of thepad. The red arrow is (I think) the orange Ground Services unit shown in the Airliners net photo.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/yyy.jpg

[bsieker]

Here's an aerial shot of the NE corner of thepad. The red arrow is (I think) the orange Ground Services unit shown in the Airliners net photo.

This is rather academic, since the relevant people already know where exactly it was, but this is an interesting experiment nonetheless.

Look at the telltale markings on the wall, circled in blue and red, respectively, their position relative to the airframe (now permanently a "groundframe"), and their relative position on the wall, seen in the backdrop overview:

http://panchromat.org/.misc/Wall-Markings.jpg


Bernd

[Airbubba]

It reminds me (NB: NO suggestion this was the cause!) of an engineer who taxied a 727 onto stand in TXL but forgot to put the hydraulic pumps on.......................it took a while to get the jetty out of the wing.

Was that a -235 model by any chance?

The 727 has a famous design issue where you need to open a hydraulic interconnect under some circumstances to get normal braking. There are pneumatic brakes but by the time you find that yellow handle it's usually all over but the shouting.

[BOAC]

I also remember the (TXL) incident and I think it was a 235.

[Been Accounting]

bsieker
... so the viewpoint was the multistory carpark

... and it has been -5C every morning for the last few days in Toulouse

[tallsandwich]

Between -5 and -1 here every morning for a quite few days but generally very dry. Even if there was moisture it would have gone by 17:00 from that location. For what's it's worth the estimates posted for the location of the aircraft are accurate.

Some of the folks where I work suggested that the plane should have been moved overnight as it was bad PR to leave it where it was; when I asked where they would get a crane that big in the middle of the night they simply pointed to the nearby TLS terminal building site :ugh: Yes, some were blonde :} As you can imagine we didn't get into the discussion of emptying the plane of fuel and the need for an accident investigation :ok:

[Loose rivets]

I would have expected collapse there and concertina-ing rather than 'up-and-over'.


Interesting that, I suppose it didn't have a load of aft ballast for some reason.

[ChristiaanJ]

I would have expected collapse there and concertina-ing rather than 'up-and-over'.If you start thinking about the dynamics of it... given a low speed, some thrust and not too much weight on the nosewheel, the nosewheel would just have run up the deflector, tilting the aircraft backwards but hardly slowing it.
With a sudden nasty drop once the nosewheel went over the edge, chopping off the cockpit.

[BOAC]

Well, I have been 'thinking' about it and "the nosewheel would just have run up the deflector" I'm having difficulty with!

I suppose with a real stack of power and some knots plus an aft c of g the n/wheel could have collapsed on impact and the whole thing just slid up the slope. Amazing.

[pax2908]

Out of curiosity ... not that it is relevant in this case. Are there some special requirements for the CG position for this type of test?

[ChristiaanJ]

BOAC,
We're guessing anyway....
If it arrived at the barrier at an angle, as the pictures seem to indicate, the "effective slope" would have been considerably less, so maybe the nosewheel didn't come off.
But until we get some more info, your suggestion certainly has equal merit!

[Anotherflapoperator]

Would it not have been probable that the lower nose hit first, possibly bouncing the a/c up till the nose leg touched and then drove on up and over.

The sudden drop off and chop seems quite expected once it got up there!

[forget]

The sudden drop off and chop seems quite expected once it got up there!

Quite! What an insane design! I'll bet the sheet steel (??) blast deflectors don't make a bit of difference to the outside world. The sloping wall has already done the work. Didn't anyone ask during design 'Yeah, but what happens if we really do get a runaway aircraft and it does climb the wall?' Clearly not. :(

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/lkk.jpg

[fantom]

Forget,

I hope you don't have a job with anything involving aircraft.

That would worry me.

Best wishes.

[alright jack]

PAX 2908 ; Quote: Out of curiosity ... not that it is relevant in this case. Are there some special requirements for the CG position for this type of test?

Not really for engine runs only just adequate fuel on board. Weight and balance would be consired for high speed taxi tests only where the a/c could lift off.................;)

[Been Accounting]

Tall sandwich
Difficult to move without a nose wheel.
I expect it will be butchered on the spot

forget
The deflectors are concrete. The only thing that should climb the wall is hot air

[radioexcel]

To the AIRBUS designers......why did the front part broke so fiercely????:confused::confused: For such a long plane, it should be strong enough to hold.... Will it break or crumble like that in a very hard landing as well??:E:E

RE

[mmciau]

Because it would not have just "pushed up" over the ledge - it would have leapt up into the air over the ledge and then "crashed down"

Get a tube and hit it on the edge of a desk or bench - you'll see the tube buckle at the impact point!

Mike

[forget]

fantom. Forget, I hope you don't have a job with anything involving aircraft. That would worry me. Best wishes.

Having considered the wisdom in this remark I have to assume that you were part of the run-up pan design team.

Perhaps this was your train of thought ……..

When in the run-up pan;

1. No aircraft will ever ever ‘jump-chocks’ or suffer engine/computer run-aways. However, if 1 is wrong;

2. No runaway aircraft will ever ever climb the sloping wall. However, if 1 and 2 are wrong;

3. No runaway aircraft will ever ever climb the wall and then break its back on the totally unnecessary knife edged (steel reinforced, Thank you, Been Accounting) concrete additional blast deflectors. However, if 1, 2 and 3 are wrong;

4. No runaway aircraft will ever ever break its back due mainly to the totally unnecessary knife edged steel reinforced concrete additional blast deflectors and so cause serious injury to the occupants.

Was this how it went? Is this what you signed off?

Best wishes back.:)

[ChristiaanJ]

forget,
Really......

1. No aircraft shall ever move during engine run-ups. However, if 1 is wrong;

2. Your insurance should cover the damage.

[sidestick driver]

Any idea how one shuts off the engines when the cockpit has been seperated from the fuselage? Cockpit has no control.
Just wondering if the engines were still running after the aircraft had climbed the wall.
Had a call today from someone today saying he heard it took a while for the engines to be stopped, and then again I wasn't sure if they just pumped water into them, to stop them.
Anyone know???

[missingblade]

wasn't sure if they just pumped water into them, to stop them.

You would need much more water than you average fire truck can pump to stop those engines - they are huge.....?

[N1 Vibes]

You would need much more water than you average fire truck can pump to stop those engines - they are huge.....?

Trent 500 is certified to continue running without flameout in all conditions at a water flow of 1,200l/min.

Oshkosh 4500 (4,500 gall capacity) airport firetender can deliver water at 4,500 l/min. Should be enough me thinks.

Trent 500 fan diameter about 1.6m, thrust 56,000lbs. GE90-115B 115,300lbs, 3.5m

JFGI - just flippin' google it.....

[OsPi]

The fan diameter of a Trent 500 is 2,47 meters.

[Rainboe]

Forget, you can't seriously expect the first requirement of designing and building a run-up area enclosure is to handle a runaway plane? I think the most important requirement is sound proofing. Let's be real! It is not such a likely occurence that it should be priority 1. Do you get fed up that when you drive your car, there is a concrete low wall (pavement) right next to you almost as if it is designed to take your tyres out should you strike it? This is a well designed run-up pan, such events do not happen regularly.

[forget]

If you say so, but re-locating a 1940's tank-trap from the Normandie beaches to an airfield doesn't strike me as very sensible. Particularly when these are just as effective - and a helluva lot cheaper I'd guess.

http://www.blastdeflectors.com/GRE%20Brochure.pdf

And look! Airbus agrees with me! Same company.

This facility in Toulouse was designed for Airbus Industrie specifically for full power engine testing of the A380.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/APS20A380.jpg

And while on the site - the mystery of the Toulouse 'dance floor' is solved. Guess what! It's the new A-380 run up pad. Proper job:ok:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/GRE20Airbus20Aerial.jpg

[DuncanF]

Thanks Forget, that answers my question. Not sure what happened to my earlier post asking about this structure. Possibly zapped by over-zealous/humourless mods for inappropriate levity ... :rolleyes:

Duncan

[bobmij]

I wonder how much of this aircraft will be salvaged and absorbed back into the production line? I would assume most of the componnents are almost nil time and would present no problem (airframe excepted) in re-use. I think this is a case of making the best of a bad job and that would seem the best way to do it!

[bsieker]

Forget, you can't seriously expect the first requirement of designing and building a run-up area enclosure is to handle a runaway plane? I think the most important requirement is sound proofing.

If you say so, but re-locating a 1940's tank-trap from the Normandie beaches to an airfield doesn't strike me as very sensible. Particularly when these are just as effective - and a helluva lot cheaper I'd guess.

You're not seriously telling us that a customised high-tech installation by a specialised company is a lot cheaper than just putting up some blunt concrete dams?

And look! Airbus agrees with me! Same company.

This facility in Toulouse was designed for Airbus Industrie specifically for full power engine testing of the A380.

Nowhere in the BDI brochure, a link to which you provided does it mention any other objective for their solutions than noise mitigation and creating suitable wind conditions. The words "safe" and "safety" are curiously absent from their sales blurb.

That does not say anything about whether or not these new installations are any more or any less safe than the old concrete walls, or how much emphasis Airbus puts on safety.

The "mosh pit" for the A380, when closed, doesn't even have an exit, so a runaway aircraft would always hit a wall. (Unlike most GRE installations of BDI's brochure, which are usually open at the aircraft front.)

[aerotransport.org]

Next time they will feed us at the chalets..
:p
http://aerotransport.free.fr/Zmisc/Etihad.JPG

[vs69]

Ah she'll do a trip....

[squeaker]

I've spoken to the Line Engineers and they reckon she'll be ready in about 30 mins....

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

It reminds me of the old Roger Bacon comment at the back of Flight magazine : "There'll be a short technical delay, folks."

[FCS Explorer]

soon on sale: the first 4-engine A321 !:}

[Basil-Fawlty]

:sad:

To be perfectly honest, looking at that photo presented by .aerotransport.org. it made my skin crawl. I fail to see the sense of humour by some. Any news or update on the condition of the engineers or the entire crew of this doomed taxi event??? Any update will be highly appreciated.
Safe flying to all from Sybil,Polly and Manuel!:ok:

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Looking at the last picture, they don't need a ladder that tall now to clean the flight deck windows do they?

[armchairpilot94116]

Its amazing anyone survived in the cockpit and I hope nobody else was in the front . I wonder where the other people were sitting?

[aerotransport.org]

Some gossips:
a) 3 injured, not life threatening, still in hospital
b) GTA (Gendarmerie du Transport Aérien) in charge of investigation - why is the BEA not involved ?
c) rumour says staff from ADAT was acting PIC
d) engines left running until fuel exhausted
e) CVR, DFDR said to have been active
f) investigation said to be centered around the nosewheel steering which was unlocked in order to move out from the area after the tests had been completed, then locked again for an unknown reason putting the aircraft in front of the wall with engines running
/ATDB

[hetfield]

@Golf Charlie
@squeaker
@FCS

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Self Loading Freight]

While we're waiting for a fact or two to leak out, how far will this set back the whole production line? Is there somewhere else to do the engine tests, or is everything on hold for investigation and/or removal of the detritus?

[magicE]

I'm sure they could use the A380 Dance floor previously seen so i wouldnt of thought that there would be much of delay if one at all!

[Tediek]

Looking at the last picture you can speak of a miracle that nobody died. There is simply not much left of the whole front of the aircraft. I read somewhere else that they had difficulties switching of the engine(s) due to the severe damage. Does anyone have any info on this?

[ChristiaanJ]

aerotransport.org,b) GTA (Gendarmerie du Transport Aérien) in charge of investigation - why is the BEA not involved ?Same question here.
Usual turf war I suppose.Only three still in hospital at least sounds positive.
I think the photo you posted is the first one to show the scale of how far that cockpit dropped....

[Carpe]

Airbus finally breaks the Sound Barrier!! :)

[aroo]

Was this story important enough to make the news in the UK? At least the "Europe" section of the bbc website say: Apparantly not.
Once again the airbuscentric press in this country; I should stop being so naive I suppose, the bbc after all do think there is only one plane in the world now the a380 has been born.

[Rainboe]

I think the photo you posted is the first one to show the scale of how far that cockpit dropped....
Well I think you'd droop a bit if you slammed into a concrete barrier nose first, crawled up the wall and burst through a wall!
More a Police thing than an Air Accident Investigation maybe? 3 serious injuries, and more a 'road accident' than a plane crash- it wasn't really a plane, more a self powered moving surface transport device.

Quite a lot can be salvaged. Wouldn't expect much from the electronics bay, but engines and engine parts, APU, aircon packs, wing, tail, flight control units, flight control surfaces, doors, seats, windows, galleys, flight recorder. Quite lucky no serious fuel leak.

[Coquelet]

The French BEA has launched an investigation :
http://www.bea-fr.org/anglaise/actualite/actu.htm

[BOAC]

Indeed, ato - an amazing accident. I am stunned that the injuries (although serious) are as light as reported and that no-one died. I wish all a speedy recovery.

[ChristiaanJ]

Rainboe,Wouldn't expect much from the electronics bayYou'd be amazed....

[forget]

Well I think you'd droop a bit if you slammed into a concrete barrier nose first,

:confused: Wasn't this advertised as a run-up pan? Is that the same concrete barrier that's 1,200 feet from the main runway.

Forget, it I give up. :hmm:

[Rainboe]

And your point is? You have this thing about concrete barriers. Do you know, there are places where they have buildings beside roads? And walls next to roads! It doesn't mean you should necessarily drive into them, or that they should be removed and replaced with water filled plastic walls.

[aerotransport.org]

Don't scratch the wall
http://aerotransport.free.fr/Zmisc/Etihad2.JPG
or face the consequences
http://aerotransport.free.fr/Zmisc/Etihad3.JPG

[ATC Watcher]

Rumour running in TLS indicate a/c was taxiing away from area AFTER the tests, person fell in cockpit on the pedestal , All this in conditional.

Heard from the Fire brigade :
Electrics severed, so at least one engine continued to run for hours ( I heard 7h mentioned ) after the accident until ran out of fuel.
3 of the 10 injured are still in hospital, fractures and bruises but not life threatening .That at least is good news.

[tubby linton]

In the above photograph(the one with the fire engine)is what appears to be a black stripe in the foreground and onto the wall.Is this evidence of an attempt at braking?Anti skid is deactivated at low speed so it may indicate a locked wheel.

[DrKev]

Was this story important enough to make the news in the UK? At least the "Europe" section of the bbc website say: Apparantly not.
Once again the airbuscentric press in this country; I should stop being so naive I suppose, the bbc after all do think there is only one plane in the world now the a380 has been born.

You mean like this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7098547.stm
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7098547.stm)

I think it even made front page on the day. Still listed in the Europe section too.

[TwoOneFour]

Rumour running in TLS indicate a/c was taxiing away from area AFTER the tests



It's not a rumour according to this article (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/19/219705/toulouse-accident-occurred-as-airbus-a340-was-exiting-engine-test-pen.html).

[aroo]

You mean like this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7098547.stm
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7098547.stm)

I think it even made front page on the day. Still listed in the Europe section too.

Sarcasm dear boy......

.....have been hearing people on the streets saying, well it seems obvious, but i feel i may have to point it put for you? that bbc love airbus. XXX

[Capn Bloggs]

that bbc love airbus
And we love Rojer Bacon. Bring him back! :D

[old,not bold]

Press cutting from the wires, for what it's worth

Toulouse accident occurred as Airbus A340 was exiting engine test-pen



Reuters, 20 November 2007


Airbus has told Etihad Airways that the A340-600 wrecked at Toulouse during pre-delivery checks had completed its engine test-runs and was exiting the test area at the time of the accident.
A spokesman for Etihad confirms that the aircraft has been written off.
Neither Airbus nor French investigation agency BEA has given further information about the circumstances of the accident.
But the Etihad spokesman says that Airbus has told the carrier that the engine test-run had already been completed beforehand, and that the A340 had been making its way out of the pen. The pen is located 500m southwest of a point lying about 1,000m along the length of Toulouse Blagnac Airport’s runway 32L.
The spokesman says: “The whole aircraft and its contents were insured by Airbus as the aircraft was operating under a temporary French registration [F-WWCJ] until 21 November when Etihad was set to have the aircraft delivered.”
But he says that the short-term impact on Etihad’s network arising from the loss of the aircraft is “not expected to be significant” because the A340 was initially due to act as a spare to cover heavy maintenance of the A340-600 fleet. Etihad has two of the type.

[eight16kreug]

Nigel, old boy, I think we've hit a bloody wall.
You don't say. I do believe it's time to get off.
Oh by the way, just keep that engine running, we could use the run data.

:)

Pilots HAVE to see the humor in all things, else they wouldn't be pilots!

[The AvgasDinosaur]

I have seen the price £107 million quoted as the value of the hull.
How long does it take to actually build an A340-600?
When is the next vacant delivery slot?
Going to cost some loss of revenue refund I fear.
Why was it still at Tolouse first flown on 21 Sep 2007
Their first two c/n 829 F/F 4/5/2007 delivered 29/06/2007
c/n 837 F/F 1/8/2007 delivered 28/08/2007
Be lucky
David

[ChristiaanJ]

AvgasDinosaur,How long does it take to actually build an A340-600?How long is a piece of string?
You can say it ends with first flight, but where do you start?
With the arrival of the first section on the final assembly jigs?
With first metal being cut?
With the first purchase orders going out for long-lead items, that have the aircraft's number on it?
Work on some long-lead items may easily start a couple of years before.

[sidestick driver]

An amazing thought had just crossed my mind. Imagine if the Iberia A340 runs off the end of the runway with full reverse thrust and the cockpit separates from the fuselage, as was the case in Toulouse.

This would certainly be a problem for evacuation, engines running with thrust both forward and aft direction and no way to stop them, as was the case in Toulouse. (they let the engine run the tank dry in order to stop).

Chances are good that they would suck up sand and dirt and stop, but the SAA flight, the engines were off the ground.

Food for thought!

A346 driver

[Mike Newbigin]

We were there in Toulouse airport waiting for the 18.30 BA flight to arrive. The relief crew were standing around. Talking to one of them we were told the plane was delayed due to "no ground fire cover". All the the commercial side fire trucks had gone across the runways to the A340 which was at a 30 degree angle opposite the windows to our departure lounge. Question, what fire cover does Toulouse have such that all the domestic side crews are required for a single incident on the production side of the airport?

[barit1]

ssd ponders: Imagine if the Iberia A340 runs off the end of the runway with full reverse thrust and the cockpit separates from the fuselage, as was the case in Toulouse.

I don't think the problem is unique to Airbus; any aircraft has this potential. A colleague did a safety study on a military aircraft: What happens if the aircraft bellies in, pilot is incapacitated, engine(s) still running, inlets just behind the cockpit, how does the fire brigade shut down engines to rescue the pilot? :ugh:

[The AvgasDinosaur]

Quote ChristiaanJ
With the arrival of the first section on the final assembly jigs?
That one will do for the purposes of my question.
Thanks for your time and trouble.
Be lucky
David

[ChristiaanJ]

barit1,
Perfectly plausible scenario, too......
Did your colleague come up with any ideas worth passing on?
Always good to have a few ideas before it happens, rather than have to try and cope when it happens.

[Agaricus bisporus]

how does the fire brigade shut down engines to rescue the pilot?


Direct two or three foam branches into the intake. That'll do the trick.

[sidestick driver]

I believe this scenario would have to be dealt with at the scene, by what ever emergency response vehicles arrive. That would be the fire trucks would have to blow maximum, water and foam through the intakes. But this related to size of water hose volume, the engine thrust setting at the time....., I suppose many problems to be considered.
There were no escape slides used to get ten people out of this mangled wreck. They were all bound for the ripped and gashed openings of a severed cockpit. More dangerous getting out, than being involved in the actual accident, so it seems.
I gather no one used a seat belt on the ground and the cockpit would have more than two people in it, but what about the rest of the engineers.
Lots of questions left in the open on this one!
I think the "what if" scenario just arrived.

[TwoOneFour]

Flight International's page has an update to the investigation:

Wrecked A340 was unchocked, with engines at high thrust: Investigators (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/20/219755/wrecked-a340-was-unchocked-with-engines-at-high-thrust-investigators.html)

:uhoh:

[Loose rivets]

Having engines still running is a very real problem for occupants and rescue services alike. Even my old Volvo had a (beta I think it was called) signal to allow the fuel pump to run.

There would have to be a tipple system for each engine to duplicate such a feature, but since Gerona and now this, I believe it would be worth it.

[pax2908]

An short update has been published by the BEA
http://www.bea-fr.org/francais/actualite/com20071120.html

Rough translation:
The aircraft was stopped; wheels were not choked. A last engine test, with brakes, was ongoing. The first CVR/FDR data show that the four engines were at high power since approx 3 minutes. The aircraft started to move and hit a blast deflector thirteen seconds later [...].

[lomapaseo]

I'm still trying to understand the typical way that these tests are run.

Is somebody always stitting in a seat prepared to handle an emergency like an unexpected release of the brakes?

Do we still accept yesterday's report of somebody falling over a pedastal?

13 sec seems like a long time if the guy in a typical command seat is able to reach the throttles and put a foot on a brake. I suppose that they might have been playing musical chairs at the time, I ve even seen this happen in flight by pure accident with both pilots standing up at the same time and running into each other. I'm still puzzled why any such abnormal situation couldn't be corrected in a reasonable amount of time.

[barit1]

My old Ford Taurus got rear-ended a dozen years ago - not much structural damage, but the impact tripped the G-switch that disabled the fuel pump.

As luck would have it, there was a Ford dealer right across the street so I consulted with them about how to reset it. :}

[Loose rivets]

13 sec seems like a long time if the guy in a typical command seat is able to reach the throttles and put a foot on a brake. I suppose that they might have been playing musical chairs at the time, I ve even seen this happen in flight by pure accident with both pilots standing up at the same time and running into each other. I'm still puzzled why any such abnormal situation couldn't be corrected in a reasonable amount of time.

My guess is that the bird was experiencing a bit of clear air turbulence and the real movement was not recognized.

[Torquelink]

London buses have a little hatch outside at the back marked "Emergency Engine Stop" . . . . !

[FCS Explorer]

FROM : AIRBUS FLIGHT SAFETY DEPARTMENT TOULOUSE
SUBJECT: A340-600 - MSN 856 - ACCIDENT IN PRODUCTION OUR REF.: F-WWCJ AIT 2 DATED 20th OF NOVEMBER 2007 PREVIOUS REF: F-WWCJ AIT 1 DATED 16th OF NOVEMBER 2007

THIS AIT IS AN UPDATE OF PREVIOUS AIT N°1 CONCERNING THE A340-600 PRODUCTION AIRCRAFT MSN 856 INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT IN AIRBUS PRODUCTION FACILITIES IN TOULOUSE ON THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2007 AT 17:00 LOCAL TIME.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS ACCORDING TO THE RECORDERS, WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY THE FRENCH INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES (BEA).

FOR ABOUT 3 MINUTES BEFORE THE END OF THE EVENT, ALL FOUR ENGINES EPR WAS BETWEEN 1.24 AND 1.26 WITH PARKING BRAKE ON AND WITHOUT GROUND CHOCKS.
THE ALTERNATE BRAKE PRESSURE WAS NORMAL. (WITH PARKING BRAKE ON, BRAKE PRESSURE IS SUPPLIED BY ALTERNATE).

13 SECONDS BEFORE THE IMPACT THE AIRCRAFT STARTED TO MOVE. WITHIN 1 OR 2 SECONDS THE CREW APPLIED BRAKE PEDAL INPUTS AND SELECTED PARKING BRAKE OFF. THESE ACTIONS LED THE NORMAL BRAKE PRESSURE TO INCREASE TO ITS NORMAL VALUE.

2 SECONDS PRIOR BEFORE THE IMPACT, ALL 4 ENGINE THRUST LEVERS WERE SELECTED TO IDLE.
THE AIRCRAFT IMPACTED THE CONTAINMENT WALL AT A GROUND SPEED OF 30 KTS.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY AIRCRAFT SYSTEM OR ENGINE MALFUNCTION.
AIRBUS REMINDS ALL OPERATORS TO STRICTLY ADHERE TO AMM PROCEDURES WHEN PERFORMING ENGINE GROUND RUNS
ENGINE GROUND RUNS AT HIGH POWER ARE NORMALLY CONDUCTED ON A SINGLE ENGINE WITH THE ENGINE IN THE SAME POSITION ON THE OPPOSITE WING OPERATED AT A LIMITED THRUST SETTING TO AVOID DAMAGE TO THE AIFRAME
WHEEL CHOCKS ARE TO BE INSTALLED THROUGHOUT THE TEST.
YANNICK MALINGE
VICE PRESIDENT FLIGHT SAFETY
AIRBUS
...sitting there, full thrust, low gross weight. then i notice the brakes can't hold it. and then it takes 11 seconds till someone cuts the power?

[Tediek]

Interesting news FCS explorer.

is there any news where the a/c is today? still parked at the wall? Further to all previous msg's, I find it unreal to read, that noone pulls the plug when this a/c started to move, being empty and full thrust.:ugh:

[lomapaseo]

Interesting news FCS explorer.

... Further to all previous msg's, I find it unreal to read, that noone pulls the plug when this a/c started to move, being empty and full thrust.


I felt the same until I considered what Loose Rivets said in post #191.

It made me think about the A/C shudder of running all 4 engines at high power and .....if nobody was looking out a window (after all there is no scenery to look at).

30kts criminey!!

so where in hell did the story about falling over a pedastal come from that was posted earlier:confused:

[forget]

AIRBUS REMINDS ALL OPERATORS TO STRICTLY ADHERE TO AMM PROCEDURES WHEN PERFORMING ENGINE GROUND RUNS. ENGINE GROUND RUNS AT HIGH POWER ARE NORMALLY CONDUCTED ON A SINGLE ENGINE WITH THE ENGINE IN THE SAME POSITION ON THE OPPOSITE WING OPERATED AT A LIMITED THRUST SETTING TO AVOID DAMAGE TO THE AIFRAME.

So what does the Manual actually say?

[Jump Complete]

Ref shutting down engines with no access to the normal methods:
Not really appropiate in this situation and certainly not in the cited overrun, pax on board sceinario, but I read of a bush pilot in Canada or Alaska who shut down the runaway PT6 on his Twin Otter by shooting it to death!

[bsieker]

FCS Explorer, Tediek,

just to be strict on terminology: high power is not "full thrust"! The AIT said between EPR 1.24 and 1.26.

If the Trent 500 is anything like the V2500, EPR 1.25 would still be somewhat below Max Climb thrust. So quite a bit, but still well below "full", if I take it to mean MCT. A340-600 drivers could shed light on this.

I don't know if "full thrust" is defined at all. Is it MCT? TOGA?


Bernd

[Tediek]

Bernd,

you wrote it, I thought it. No problem will look after this. :=

[Joetom]

Lack of Chox is the same as lack of Seat belts, they both need to be fitted before they are needed.
.
However worth remembering Chox come in different sizes, if large energy is involved, suggest big Chox used.
.
Also to note, during Engine runs, Chox should be a little distance from tyres, touching the tyres has caused many aircraft to move.
.
Good to hear all involved getting better.
.
I hope Airbus has a Learn Culture, not a Blame one.

[normally right blank]

Chox should be a little distance from tyres, touching the tyres has caused many aircraft to move
Could You explain, please? :confused:
Best Regards

[forget]

What Joetom is saying; if a tyre is pushing against a normal angled chock then it's trying to lift from the ground. If it does ...............

( Correct me if I'm wrong Joetom. :))

[TURIN]

Also to note, during Engine runs, Chox should be a little distance from tyres, touching the tyres has caused many aircraft to move.


Utter BOWLARKS!!:ugh::eek:

[groundfloor]

How to shut down engines, they need fuel,air and fire...Once they are running they can be the devil to stop. The simplest method is to turn off the fuel which is exactly what we airframe drivers do. If its a wreck then get off panel at the fcu and turn it off manually (did this personally once on a B105 wreck in a tree) dont ask :} - obviously fire crews would need some tech help. At an Air Force Base where I was based we used to have the fire guys around and showed them. On smaller engines PT 6 etc you can also kink the fuel line - on the big boys hmmm, I dont know so much. Spraying stuff in at the front end might just result in a very shiny clean compressor section...

[lambert]

Post 42 - the ac had completed the engine trials and was exiting the test bay!
Who to believe now!

[forget]

Utter BOWLARKS!! TURIN, If you can't see the simple physics involved in this picture then I'd suggest you stay in the hangar - or crew room. ;)

[Bearcat]

from the latest flight report...re the dgac enquiry am I to presume the biggest clowns in history were innvoled in this run up....thats eveyone included in the test.


I feel a mod's axe forth coming. The truth some times hurts.

[TURIN]

Forget, I have read some of your earlier posts. You should stay in your institution!:}

If the chocks are not hard against the tyres then they can be pushed away.
If they are hard against the rubber you're going nowhere.

Risk assesments and ramp experience prove it. :ok:

Of course this has nothing to do with this case as apparently they were not in place. :D

[ChristiaanJ]

Since there was no fire... maybe just let the engines get rid of the remaining fuel?
While dealing with the injured crew?

They did empty a few fire tenders worth of foam around the aircraft, judging by the photos.

[Joetom]

If Chox are placed next to tyres, during Mod or Hi powered eng runs, they tend to allow the base of the tyres to reduce contact with the surface on the ground and will allow the aircraft to move.
.
Best option during hi-powered eng runs is big chox placed a few inches infront of tyres and a person outside and inside the aircraft looking to see if aircraft is moving, if aircraft moves they should advise person in control of engines to reduce power.
.
All very simple.
.
Chox use has reduced over the years, expect more of the above.
.
Cheers.......

[balsa model]

Warning: a light-weight pilot contribution
Doesn't it simply depend on the size and material of the said chocks?
If the wheels are so in touch with the chocks that they lean on them under power, then they transfer some of the aircraft weight to the tarmac via said chocks, and the contact area of the chocks as well as their coefficient of friction with respect to the tarmac will start to matter. If they are made of aluminium, for example, then the holding ability of the tire will probably suffer, as together they will slide along the asphalt / concrete.
Such chocks should still be somewhat useful when brakes fail and the wheel is free to roll, me thinks, so placing them a bit of a distance from the wheels would make sense.

[barit1]

If nothing else, if the tire (sorry, tyre :O) rolls over the chock, there's a noticeable bump that may alert the crew that the aircraft is no longer stationary.

[Spanner Turner]

quote below is from the Maintenance Manual. (a 747 manual, but you get the picture)
My highlighting.:ok:


C. Prepare for Engine Operation
(1) Check that airplane is parked in clean area with wheels on areas
that are free of oil, grease, or other slippery substances.

(2) Make sure the wheel chocks are installed at the main landing gear
wheels and ground locks are installed.

(a) Do these steps if you will operate the engines for a high power
engine run.

1) Make sure that the forward wheel chock is six to twelve
inches in front of the tires.
NOTE: This will cause the thrust of the engine to be held
by the frictional force between the airplane tires
and the ground, and not the wheel chock. The wheel
chocks do not have the same frictional force as the
tires. If the tires touch the wheel chock, some of
the frictional force between the tires and the
ground is lost, and the airplane can skid. The
wheel chocks are only used to prevent the airplane
from rolling if the airplane brakes were
accidentally released before or after the engine
run.

[Dream Land]

1) Make sure that the forward wheel chock is six to twelve
inches in front of the tires.
NOTE: This will cause the thrust of the engine to be held
by the frictional force between the airplane tires
and the ground, and not the wheel chock. The wheel
chocks do not have the same frictional force as the
tires. If the tires touch the wheel chock, some of
the frictional force between the tires and the
ground is lost, and the airplane can skid. The
wheel chocks are only used to prevent the airplane
from rolling if the airplane brakes were
accidentally released before or after the engine
run. Ah, PPRune, always an educational experience! :ok:

[forget]

Forget, I have read some of your earlier posts. You should stay in your institution!

How exceedingly satisfying. :):):)

Take Note TURIN, and get back to the crew room.

Risk assesments and ramp experience prove it. :eek::eek:

Owe you one Spanner Turner.:ok:

[Victor India]

Ok... of course I stand to be shot down because I wasn't there and shouldn't judge. I am not judging, simply asking a question:

Would any pilot feel particularly comfortable doing engine runs relying on the park brake? From experience, I would prefer to hold main brake pressure instead of relying on the park brake, and would guard the thrust levers at all times, ready to retard.

11 seconds elapsed between the first sign of aircraft movement and retardation of the thrust levers.

Not sure if the 'commander' was a ground engineer or a pilot, but as a pilot I would try to avoid 'heads down' time if I was in control of the aircraft during an engine run. Let someone else look at the instruments...

Are ground engineers encouraged to display similar caution?

VI

[bsieker]

Spanner Turner,

thanks, that's very interesting.

That also means that chocks are no safety measure for engine run-ups, but merely to secure a parked aircraft. They're only designed to keep an unbraked aircraft from rolling away by gravity (downhill) or (perhaps) idle thrust, if the parking brake fails.

Since apparently high power was still applied on all engines, it follows that chocks would not have prevented this accident. If they reduce friction when pushed against, they might even have exacerbated it.

Makes me wonder if there are specially designed chocks (perhaps with rubber "feet") made to hold an aircraft against high engine power?

As to the parking brake: istr that for (at least CFM-equipped) A320 it is not advised to power up the engines beyond 75% N1 with the parking brake on. I imagine there's a similar limit for A340.


Bernd

[mumbo jumbo]

Would you listen to some of you? No wonder there's never going to be a pilot only forum on here. I would hazard a guess that less than 0.1% of all airline pilots have EVER performed high power ground run tests of engines. It's an an engineering function not a pilot function.

So, here we have some of the so called 'expert pilots' giving us the benefit of their engine ground run experience which amounts to about the same as a gnats fart! :rolleyes: The next thing is we have them telling us about how to chock the a/c. Thanks to an engineer who took the time to take the relevant bit out of Boeing's engineering manual.

Whilst this incident is sad for the injuries and the loss of an airframe, it has NOTHING to do with pilots or piloting. Yet, here we have a huge thread full of inane drivel and highly speculative pomposity about how it should have been done from the mouths of sad people who are either pilots with absolutely no experience of conducting high power, static, engine ground runs or else just anoraks who think they know everything because they have completed half their spotters handbook of registrations! :ugh:

What we have here is some engineers and technicians messing up big time. That's it. End of story. But nooo... the anoraks have to start telling the rest of us how they would have conducted it and what they did wrong in Tolouse when in fact, the sum total of their experience in these things is ZERO. :rolleyes:

[TURIN]

I humbly bow to the pprune great and good for putting a miserable old fart such as myself firmly in his over inflated place.
forget, joetem etc. I apologise profoundly. :oh::O
Will thrash myself with a birch for the rest of the week.

mumbo jumbo
The next thing is we have them (pilots) telling us about how to chock the a/c.

If that is referring to me I resent the remark as I'm not a pilot. (Which when I think about it makes my load of old bowlarks look even worse). :ugh::ugh:

[NOFAULT]

The company I work for have specially made chocks, we park the wheels of the A/C on top of these and the combination of the A/C weight and forward force during engine runs ensure no movement. I might add that these chocks are about 500 mm in height.

[barit1]

But do they still rely on static friction with the tarmac? Go back and read Physics 101 about static friction coefficient - it is independent of the friction surface area.

While visiting Edwards AFB a few decades back, I witnessed a static runup with the bird harnessed to a massive anchor (with a straingaged link for thrust measurement BTW). That test wasn't going ANYWHERE. :D

[Victor India]

Mumbo,

Not sure where you're post was aimed at, but I'll bite at a couple of concepts contained therein:

* Those pilots commenting here about their experience conducting ground runs may not necessarily be airline pilots. I agree that if they were they would almost certainly have very slim experience. Believe it or not - in some organisations, the pilots are most certainly present (and interested!) in such testing. The concepts are the same on an A340 or something 1/2 or 1/10 the size. F=MA...

*
Whilst this incident is sad for the injuries and the loss of an airframe, it has NOTHING to do with pilots or piloting.

Sorry mate, but I reckon you're about 1000 miles down the wrong track with that opinion. Engineers are obviously indispensable to a safe and successful aviation operation, but your comment regarding pilots was either deliberately or unknowingly arrogant and unintelligent. Who flies the bloody things?

What we have here is some engineers and technicians messing up big time.

No sh*t mate!

I wasn't out to criticise, merely float some ideas. Many aircraft have crashed into the ground over the years through crew preoccupation/distraction with stuff other than what's happening outside the aeroplane. Through years of education and cultural change, the statistics have improved immensely.

Stuff like this happens. Unfortunate but true. Open communication and discussion on these issues may prevent someone like you screwing up one day - but only if you can swallow your engineer ego for a moment and listen...

VI

[lomapaseo]

This thread has twisted around so much that I can't discern fact from opinion.

I'm still trying to figure out what procedures were being used vs what procedures were recommended by Airbus.

I presume that what is recommended and published is based on sound engineering principals and years of experience, so I'm still trying to read beyond any opinions that do not quote these exact procedures for this aircraft in a specified ground run test.

So, is this a judgemental problem associated with a lack of awareness in the cockpit, or is it a problem associated with bypassing a procedure? I tend to supspect the former based on the delay in applying braking action.

[Tediek]

an interesting article in the dutch media reported, the French test pilots failed the brake in time. :mad:

[ChristiaanJ]

Lomapaseo,
So far I don't think there is anything much known yet about who did what. With people still in hospital at the moment, I would expect they will take their time to piece the story together before making statements.

Tediek,
Read post #193 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3718970&postcount=193).
Airbus themselves say they were on the pedal brakes almost immediately, but took a long time before closing the throttles.

I expect the Dutch media are just like the rest, you cannot even trust them as far as you can throw a crumpled newspaper.

[Profit Max]

I doubt that using brake pedals instead of parking break would have had any effect. The wheels were probably not turning anyway, but were being pushed on the concrete. So the only thing that matters for acceleration is the friction between the rubber and the concrete and the thrust of the engines.

[ChristiaanJ]

Profit Max,
Please... we do NOT know yet "who" did "what".
Of course we can now switch to endless speculation on what happened, like with the Congonhas, Brazil A320 crash (remember the number of pages that generated?).

Like we can speculate endlessly on how the people in charge interpreted the aircraft moving as a parking brake failure. So they stood on the brake pedals. Took a few seconds to realise that didn't work either, so their diagnose was wrong. By the time somebody changed his mind and chopped the throttles, they were at 30 kts.

It's hardly as if it were a day-to-day issue for the average pilot. How many here on the forum do pre-delivery engine runs for a living?

So let's hold off, until the guys in hospital have had a chance to have their say.

[Profit Max]

Please... we do NOT know yet "who" did "what".Where did I say anything like that?

I purely stated that switching to the pedals would have no effect on stopping the aircraft as the wheels would be skidding anyway, and not turning. That the switching to pedals happened is based on the Airbus memo quoted earlier, the only real factual information we have anyway.

[ChristiaanJ]

Profit Max,Where did I say anything like that?
My sincere apologies. You did not.
And since we still don't know why the aircraft started to move in the first place, even my "hypothetical speculation" is out of place.

[magicE]

I totally agree with Profit Max. Those wheels would not have been turning but skidding along the concrete. Doesnt make a difference it was park brake or the pedals.

[normally right blank]

Thank you for the explanation from the Boeing manual. I didn't understand the "not touching" bit, as the last full power test i saw was this one a couple of months ago:
http://www.draken.dk/index.htm
The chocks are larger than normal "parking" ones, almost vertical, definitely touching the tires and chained.
Best regards

[PJ2]

magicE, profitmax;

Those wheels would not have been turning but skidding along the concrete. Doesnt make a difference it was park brake or the pedals.

Not quite correct.

The park brake applies pressure only to the main gear and not the center gear, (except when the ground spoilers are deployed where, in an emergency (assumed to be on the runway), park-brake application will set all wheel brakes including those on the center gear).

The brake pedals apply wheel and center gear brake pressure. The left pedal applies left main brakes plus forward center gear brakes, the right pedal applies right main brakes plus aft center gear brakes.

Anti-skid braking is available on all wheel brakes, (mains and centers), above 10kts groundspeed, and, with heavy braking only, below 10kts. Anti-skid is obviously not available on the park brake.

Given this, the main and center gear wheels would be turning even under maximum pedal deflection, just above the skid point. On-site, there would be signs of heavy braking if indeed it was applied through the pedals, but there would not be skidding.

If the park brake remained set throughout the accident sequence, the wheels would essentially be locked and not turning however.

Hope this helps.

PJ2

[barit1]

Permit me a question - I hope it's not stupid:
The park brake applies pressure only to the main gear and not the center gear ...

Is this perchance to permit retraction of the center MLG while the aircraft is parked? :confused:

[PJ2]

barit1;

There is no mention of the reason for this design. I suspect given the sophistication of the aircraft, the answer is no, because there would be many ways to ensure the brakes on the center gear were not applied for retraction (gear swinging) on the ground. But I'm a pilot, not an AME so simply don't know.

PS - no question, earnestly asked, is ever stupid :)

[Horas]

It all seems to be asking a bit much from a parking brake to do a high power run up with a large 4 engine jet facing a jet blast wall. I say high power because that aircraft litterally climbed the wall.

[bsieker]

It all seems to be asking a bit much from a parking brake to do a high power run up with a large 4 engine jet facing a jet blast wall. I say high power because that aircraft litterally climbed the wall.

Well, not quite. At 30 kts such a heavy beast has quite a lot of energy, and the wall is sloped. So until the tailskid would strike, the aircraft only had to "swing" around the main landing gear for the front section to "climb" the wall; not all that much energy involved, depending on the centre of gravity. Only after the tailstrike almost the entire airframe would have to be lifted.

The kinetic energy at 30 knots is enough to lift the centre of gravity by about 12 metres (this is true for any object in earth standard gravity). Well, without friction, but it seems quite possible that it would have climbed that wall the way it did, even with the engines completely shut down, once it had reached 30 knots and failed to stop normally.


Bernd

[missingblade]

The kinetic energy at 30 knots is enough to lift the centre of gravity by about 12 metres.

Please support statement with some math.....I know its basic physics but I want to see it done. This thread has become so boring I think a bit of formulae will spice it up:}:}

[llondel]

Kinetic energy = 1/2 * mv^2
Potential energy = mgh

assume g=9.81, you can convert all the kinetic energy into potential energy when 1/2 * mv^2 = mgh

Mass cancels out, v^2 = 2gh

v = 30 knots = 15.4m/s, so v^2 = 237.16

so h = 237.16/(2 * 9.8) = 12.1metres.

This ignores friction and other losses.

[spud]

That`s cleared that up then

[bsieker]

missingblade, with pleasure :)

Converting Energy
(A tribute to Bob Hoover (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZBcapxGHjE))

Kinetic energy is

http://panchromat.org/.misc/Airbus-Toulouse/Ekin.png

where m is the object’s mass and v is its velocity. For simplicity SI or SI-
derived units (m, kg, s) are preferred.

Potential energy in earth gravity (assumed homogeneous for small heights)
is

http://panchromat.org/.misc/Airbus-Toulouse/Epot.png

where m is the object’s mass, h its altitude above an arbitrary reference,
and g is standard earth gravitational acceleration (9.81m/s/s).

To find out to which elevation a certain kinetic energy can propel an
object, we set the two energies equal, and do simple transformations:

http://panchromat.org/.misc/Airbus-Toulouse/Equivalencies.png

So for v = 30knots ≈ 15.43m/s and g = 9.81m/s/s we get:

http://panchromat.org/.misc/Airbus-Toulouse/Result.png

This is so basic, it's probably the entrance examination to be allowed to attend Physics 101 ;)

[CAT II]

Barit1,

Not sure of the design similarities with the MD-11 but here goes. The body gear on that aircraft type, better known as the "peg leg", needed to be free moving to allow it to walk, so to speak. This was needed during loading/off loading/fueling due to weight changes and shifts. Especially the freighters. I have been flying the 747-400 for many years since then but it does not do the same. However, I have never flown an AirBus and consequently cannot comment.

[DrKev]

Those wheels would not have been turning but skidding along the concrete.

Which suggests that brakes alone are useless under engine test conditions and presumably chocks should be used to stop forward motion of the aircraft? I thought the consensus earlier in the thread was contrary to that?

In any case, I find it difficult to believe that something so large with so much inertia AND brakes on can attain 30 knots in such a short space of time unless the wheels were turning.

[Joetom]

Another little Gem.
.
If park brake was selected on and aircraft moved forward with 4 or more wheels rotating, pressing the toe brakes would have no effect as normal brakes are not avail in said condition.
.
Parking brake or Anti-Skid to off, then toe brakes should work we would like to think.
.
PS. Reason the centre gear don't work with parking brake is the centre gear leg is a different rake angle to mains, as aircraft gets loaded/unloaded all gear would be stressed a lot.

[L Peacock]

I've seen quite a few photos taken from various angles on here and other places and I haven't noticed any skid marks. Has anyone else?

[G-BPED]

Quote: "I've seen quite a few photos taken from various angles on here and other places and I haven't noticed any skid marks. Has anyone else?"

Check the underwear of the those on board, plenty to be found there one would think !

[mini]

Guys, forgive me, I have not read every single post.

But, if you're going to do run up tests surely the manual states the braking/anchorage requirements.

Were these requirements met?

I was going to say its black and white, but...

[tubby linton]

I've seen quite a few photos taken from various angles on here and other places and I haven't noticed any skid marks. Has anyone else?

The photograph taken from behind the aircraft shows a long black stripe around where the left bogie may have started.Locked wheel???

[L Peacock]

tubby

can you provide a link to that pic or tell me which post?

[forget]

Post 168 perhaps?

[tubby linton]

Look at this photograph.Can you see a solid black strip going towards the wall outboard of the left hand bogie?It may not be in line with the current hull position but if you move the hull to the left towards where it was when the no1 engine contacted the wall I think they line up.Locked wheel???http://aerotransport.free.fr/Zmisc/Etihad2.JPG