Etihad A340
 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926896/posts


woops

This is what happens when engineers are put under

pressure to get things done NOW, from above!!!!! :\

Probably a write off...? I doubt even James Strong would try to fix that one.

In an effort to reduce greenhouse gases, Airbus unsuccessfully trials it's new airliner takeoff ski-jump...

In some stories about what happened it has been said the aircraft "jumped its chocks" and ended up crashing. But in reality it was just the second set of much bigger chocks doing their job! :ouch:

If Airbus had a publically perceived perfect safety record that they used as a key marketing point, then yes, he would.

a]

Airbus should not damage Etihads name like that. Its a shame really. They should know better.:uhoh:

As an experienced ground runner and engineer of over 23 years I'm afraid I have to wonder what on earth the engineers were doing?
I don't think it's anything to do with pressure. From first reports, the aircraft appears to have been unchocked (big mistake:=). From my experience with big twins at least (and I suspect quads are similar) the engines not being tested are at part power to counteract the effects of asymetry on the engine being thrashed.
As you may all realise, you cannot have the park brake set for hi power runs because if you did and the aircraft began to skid under all that power the antiskid would detect such and release the brakes. This is why we have the unnerving, taught, practiced and approved pastime of holding the footbrakes whilst at high power. If you have two guys on the flight deck, one will be operating the engines, one will be holding the footbrakes and between them monitoring the instruments and calling out the figures. A third man would be invaluable but is not always available for this last task.
My personal belief is that they've run this with the park brake set. Visual clues to the aircraft skidding have been lost as they've been concentrating on the instruments and the clue the aircraft was in motion lost as a warning due to the way these cans buffet around at hi power.
What alarms me even more is the amount of people on board the aircraft. Nine! What were the other 6 doing? As the aircraft was so close to delivery I'm assuming all the telemetry stuff would have been off and this was an almost last set of tests.
You all know the regulators are very keen to have the minimum onboard and then only as many as required to carry out the task, i.e flight testing, ground running et al.
I'm sorry for the injuries but I think this accident has been caused by either a lack of experience or over confidence/failure to adhear to procedures.
A very expensive and embarrassing mistake for the Big Bus company.:O

surely a palet load of speed tape'll fix it :rolleyes: :confused:

Similar incident a few years ago in the middle east, smaller airbus me thinks, turned out the MM was not followed, there should have been a certain amount of fuel to allow the brakes to be effective.