Reports of A400 Crash, Saville, Spain
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I understand right, a C-17:
- costs half as much as an A400M
- carries a heavier load
- carries a bigger load
- carries the load further
- needs fewer trained crew because of the above
- Has inter-operability
- Is fully developed
COOOLLL!
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 400 is likely better for tactical airstrips. Although the C-17 touts rough strip capabilty, it is mostly used as a hub and spoke type transport.
But during the entirety of the Iraq and Afghan wars, C-17s flew from major air depots in Europe and Turkey directly to very austere forward airfields in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which USAF calles "direct delivery" and at which the C-17 excels. And C-17 is flying into plenty of very austere fields deep in Africa right now. The C-17 cannot hope to match the A400's ground flotation (reportedly 100 passes on a CBR 6 field?), but there are plenty of 3000 ft CBR 9/10 fields all over the world.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A-400 claims lower operational costs. I would not want to pay the refueling bill on either, but a C-17 burns more fuel.
From Aviation Week
Incorrectly installed engine control software caused the fatal crash of an A400M airlifter in Spain on May 9, a senior Airbus Group official says.
In an interview with the German financial newspaper Handelsblatt, Airbus Chief Strategy Officer Marwan Lahoud said the incorrect installation took place during final assembly of the aircraft, which led to engine failure and the resulting crash.
Lahoud said that data extracted from the flight data recorder this week and seen by Airbus engineers confirmed the internal hypothesis that there had been no problem with the aircraft.
“The black boxes attest to that there are no structural defects [with the aircraft], but we have a serious quality problem in the final assembly,” Lahoud told the newspaper.
The news emerged two days after Airbus CEO Tom Enders criticized Spanish agencies for withholding the flight recorder data.
“We would like to see the data and compare it with our hypothesis and proceed quickly to understand the causes of accident, so our aircraft can get back into the air,” he told shareholders at the company’s annual general meeting in Amsterdam on May 27.
Four Airbus Defense and Space flight-test personnel died when MSN23, an A400M destined for the Turkish air force, crashed during its first flight from Seville’s San Pablo Airport. The aircraft suffered technical problems shortly after takeoff and came down on agricultural land just north of the airport.
The accident cause hypothesis prompted the company to send out an Alert Operator Transmission on May 19 to the five A400M operating air arms, which requested all operators to perform one-time specific checks on the electronic control units (ECUs) fitted to each engine on the aircraft before the next flight.
For Airbus, the findings will come as a relief, as a hardware issue on the aircraft or in the Europrop International TP400 engines would have resulted in costly delays. But it may be several more days before A400M operators are satisfied with the cause and return to operations. Of the five A400M operators, only France has continued flying its fleet of six aircraft. Germany, Malaysia, Turkey and the U.K. are still pausing flight operations.
Spanish authorities are still withholding the company’s permit to test fly new-production aircraft from Seville, but flight tests of the prototypes are continuing.
Incorrectly installed engine control software caused the fatal crash of an A400M airlifter in Spain on May 9, a senior Airbus Group official says.
In an interview with the German financial newspaper Handelsblatt, Airbus Chief Strategy Officer Marwan Lahoud said the incorrect installation took place during final assembly of the aircraft, which led to engine failure and the resulting crash.
Lahoud said that data extracted from the flight data recorder this week and seen by Airbus engineers confirmed the internal hypothesis that there had been no problem with the aircraft.
“The black boxes attest to that there are no structural defects [with the aircraft], but we have a serious quality problem in the final assembly,” Lahoud told the newspaper.
The news emerged two days after Airbus CEO Tom Enders criticized Spanish agencies for withholding the flight recorder data.
“We would like to see the data and compare it with our hypothesis and proceed quickly to understand the causes of accident, so our aircraft can get back into the air,” he told shareholders at the company’s annual general meeting in Amsterdam on May 27.
Four Airbus Defense and Space flight-test personnel died when MSN23, an A400M destined for the Turkish air force, crashed during its first flight from Seville’s San Pablo Airport. The aircraft suffered technical problems shortly after takeoff and came down on agricultural land just north of the airport.
The accident cause hypothesis prompted the company to send out an Alert Operator Transmission on May 19 to the five A400M operating air arms, which requested all operators to perform one-time specific checks on the electronic control units (ECUs) fitted to each engine on the aircraft before the next flight.
For Airbus, the findings will come as a relief, as a hardware issue on the aircraft or in the Europrop International TP400 engines would have resulted in costly delays. But it may be several more days before A400M operators are satisfied with the cause and return to operations. Of the five A400M operators, only France has continued flying its fleet of six aircraft. Germany, Malaysia, Turkey and the U.K. are still pausing flight operations.
Spanish authorities are still withholding the company’s permit to test fly new-production aircraft from Seville, but flight tests of the prototypes are continuing.
Sandiego - thankyou for your reply
And then there's the support costs.
A-400 customers mostly needed a C-130 and C-160 replacement/augment, with a bit more capability than what those have, not the huge leap the C-17 brings. For many scenarios you do not need the capability the C-17 brings. The A-400 is a "tweener" between the C-130 and the C-17, and for some customers that makes sence, especially for many of the European customers that are not flying continental distances that often. The UK has decided they need both (and that makes sense for them).
The A-400 claims lower operational costs. I would not want to pay the refueling bill on either, but a C-17 burns more fuel.
The 400 is likely better for tactical airstrips. Although the C-17 touts rough strip capabilty, it is mostly used as a hub and spoke type transport. What you read and whom you believe may influence you thoughts here.
Political and industrial implications are also important. "Buy American" is not always the answer- and I am one (American), but understand that.
You don't need a semi-truck (lorry for my UK friends) for every run to the home improvement store....
The A-400 claims lower operational costs. I would not want to pay the refueling bill on either, but a C-17 burns more fuel.
The 400 is likely better for tactical airstrips. Although the C-17 touts rough strip capabilty, it is mostly used as a hub and spoke type transport. What you read and whom you believe may influence you thoughts here.
Political and industrial implications are also important. "Buy American" is not always the answer- and I am one (American), but understand that.
You don't need a semi-truck (lorry for my UK friends) for every run to the home improvement store....
["artic" might be a better UK-English translation ;-) ]
It seems to me like a mix of C130J's - or old airframes upgraded to near C130J standards - and C17s would do a better job, for less money, and cost less to maintain. And be easier to fix if you land with a few holes in the airplane.
Back in the 1970s, in the UK, I think we made wrong decisions by scrapping TSR2 in favour of not-working (then) F111, and scrapping supersonic heavy harrier (think V/STOL, super-manouevrable F4). Not that TSR2 was perfect...
Now, in Europe, we've been making wrong decisions by throwing vast subsidies at Eurofighter and A400M. We could have saved money, and gotten a better plane by just buying F22, instead of building Eurofighter.
Last edited by PAX_Britannica; 2nd Jun 2015 at 08:52. Reason: minor spelling error
Back on thread but I am puzzled about this accident. I can't believe that post production/assembly and pre first flight, there is no systems testing and ground runs that would have highlighted incorrect engine operation. I am not talking about full software testing but just overall system and function testing.
Pax Brit'
TSR2,P1154 and the 681 ( think I've got the last 2 right ) were all cancelled by Harold Wilson's Labour government shortly after their election in October 1964.
Many years later IIRC the ST Insight team published an article that claimed Labour promised to 'The Cousins' that we would scrap TSR2 and buy the F111 if they gave us a free hand in selling the Lightning to the Saudis. They claimed that we reneged on the deal once the Saudi contract was secure.
I think the F111 was in service with the USAF in the late 60s.
Many years later IIRC the ST Insight team published an article that claimed Labour promised to 'The Cousins' that we would scrap TSR2 and buy the F111 if they gave us a free hand in selling the Lightning to the Saudis. They claimed that we reneged on the deal once the Saudi contract was secure.
I think the F111 was in service with the USAF in the late 60s.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back on thread..
The Oberon:
There is a comprehensive post-FAL inspection and aircraft systems testing, which includes high power engine ground runs, taxying checks, and a rejected take off amongst other things. Clearly, throughout these procedures and checks, nothing untowards was identified, otherwise the first flight would not have been authorised.
There is a comprehensive post-FAL inspection and aircraft systems testing, which includes high power engine ground runs, taxying checks, and a rejected take off amongst other things. Clearly, throughout these procedures and checks, nothing untowards was identified, otherwise the first flight would not have been authorised.
Brian ,
you have indeed got the HS 1154 and 681 (STOL) correct. They were cancelled by the Wilson government but it is debatable if the British aircraft industry could have delivered these two very advanced a/c on time and on budget.
you have indeed got the HS 1154 and 681 (STOL) correct. They were cancelled by the Wilson government but it is debatable if the British aircraft industry could have delivered these two very advanced a/c on time and on budget.
Incorrectly installed engine control software caused the fatal crash of an A400M airlifter in Spain on May 9, a senior Airbus Group official says.
In an interview with the German financial newspaper Handelsblatt, Airbus Chief Strategy Officer Marwan Lahoud said the incorrect installation took place during final assembly of the aircraft, which led to engine failure and the resulting crash.
In an interview with the German financial newspaper Handelsblatt, Airbus Chief Strategy Officer Marwan Lahoud said the incorrect installation took place during final assembly of the aircraft, which led to engine failure and the resulting crash.
It doesn't really matter if it's engine controls, flight controls, or another system - Level A is Level A and the assumption is if you get it wrong, it could cause a crash, so the processes make sure it's really had to get it wrong. I keep thinking there is more to this than is being publicly released.
If they did manage to botch the s/w load on multiple engines in such a way that it wasn't readily apparent, I sure hope the root cause is freely and widely, shared and doesn't get caught up in any Military or Proprietary restrictions.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Caterham
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was wondering whether this is the first time that the prime cause of a major accident has been software, I can't think of another case as serious as this.
I don't see why Airbus seem so happy that this isn't a major structural fault. If the wing spar had failed we could be confident that it could be prevented from happening again. But what yawning chasm must exist in their quality control if badly loaded software can bring a state of art aircraft down like this.
I thought the days were long gone where the test pilot didn't know whether he had a machine capable of flying until after the first flight had successfully ended.
I don't see why Airbus seem so happy that this isn't a major structural fault. If the wing spar had failed we could be confident that it could be prevented from happening again. But what yawning chasm must exist in their quality control if badly loaded software can bring a state of art aircraft down like this.
I thought the days were long gone where the test pilot didn't know whether he had a machine capable of flying until after the first flight had successfully ended.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris, France
Age: 62
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
elconfidencial article
Accidente de avión en Sevilla: El accidente del A400M, un fallo en cadena desde Alemania a Sevilla. Noticias de Andalucía
in Spanish; for the adventurous, a Google translation:
https://translate.google.com/transla...-text=&act=url
Among assertions made by an anonymous source in the aeronautic sector (my translation): In Seville's Final Assembly Line, "Numerous security protocols have been skipped. If ground tests of the plane had included running engines at high speed before the maiden flight, the engines would have paralyzed before the plane got airborne". The journal states A400Ms produced before the troubled MSN23 had undergo such test.
I remark that this statement contradicts an earlier one reported by elconfidential, that the FADEC failure could not have been detected until the plane is airborne. A false news, a dismiss, two scoops.
Accidente de avión en Sevilla: Airbus detecta un fallo eléctrico en los motores del A400M siniestrado en Sevilla. Noticias de Empresas
https://translate.google.com/transla...-text=&act=url
I wish Airbus made an official statement of the known facts to cut on speculation.
in Spanish; for the adventurous, a Google translation:
https://translate.google.com/transla...-text=&act=url
Among assertions made by an anonymous source in the aeronautic sector (my translation): In Seville's Final Assembly Line, "Numerous security protocols have been skipped. If ground tests of the plane had included running engines at high speed before the maiden flight, the engines would have paralyzed before the plane got airborne". The journal states A400Ms produced before the troubled MSN23 had undergo such test.
I remark that this statement contradicts an earlier one reported by elconfidential, that the FADEC failure could not have been detected until the plane is airborne. A false news, a dismiss, two scoops.
Accidente de avión en Sevilla: Airbus detecta un fallo eléctrico en los motores del A400M siniestrado en Sevilla. Noticias de Empresas
https://translate.google.com/transla...-text=&act=url
I wish Airbus made an official statement of the known facts to cut on speculation.
Last edited by fgrieu; 3rd Jun 2015 at 05:48. Reason: add link to google translation
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OAP
Yes. The process for MSN23 would be no different from the other aircraft that preceded it.
Elconfidential's source is clearly clueless as to the post-FAL, Pre-first flight procedure...
Elconfidential's source is clearly clueless as to the post-FAL, Pre-first flight procedure...
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus doesn't want to pay ! They will only deny any responsibility. Why should we hope to know the truth and their work uses with smoke blankets subcontractors ? Investigation from independent international experts must go on like in the Ariane501 report.
Before sending test pilots and test engineers to death every possible soft test must be done ! Test crew don't exist to be sacrificed on reception test flights.
Imagine that : 19000 lines of code to fly !!!!! SOS Wright brothers !
Before sending test pilots and test engineers to death every possible soft test must be done ! Test crew don't exist to be sacrificed on reception test flights.
Imagine that : 19000 lines of code to fly !!!!! SOS Wright brothers !
Airbus Says Crashed A400M Aircraft Had Power Freeze in 3 Engines
By Andrea Rothman
(Bloomberg) -- Airbus Group SE said early findings from Spanish investigators probing the crash of an A400M military transport plane suggest all systems except engine controls already identified as troubled performed normally, probably ruling out intrinsic design flaws.
Three engines experienced power failure after takeoff and didn’t respond to the crew’s attempts to restore them, while other gear performed as expected in the aircraft that crashed near Seville in Spain killing four people on May 9, according to a statement from the Toulouse, France-based company. Following the crash, Airbus instructed operators of A400M transports to check the model’s engine-control system before making further flights.
The Spanish investigators looked at data from the plane’s flight-data-recorder and cockpit voice recorder. Indications that everything but the engine-control software performed normally would provide assurances that the plane’s essential design is sound. Airbus didn’t draw any conclusions about the design of the plane and its systems in today’s statement.
The engines were built by Europrop International, which includes Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc, Safran SA of France and Germany’s MTU Aero Engines AG.
The first A400M, handed over to France in 2013, was delivered a decade after the program was begun and four years later than planned after a spate of delays from glitches including engine-control software malfunctions. Even before the crash Airbus warned of new cost issues in ramping up output.
The defense program -- Europe’s most expensive -- has cost the company and governments 25 billion euros ($28 billion), about a quarter more than originally planned, though militaries from the U.K. to France and Germany are keen to get their hands on a modern transport plane to replace aging equipment.
Airbus has a backlog of 162 of the aircraft, with 12 already handed over to buyers. A schedule to deliver a total of 14 A400Ms this year is under review.
The A400M fits in between Lockheed Martin Corp.’s aging C-130 Hercules model and the larger Boeing Co. C-17 Globemaster and satisfies an acute requirement that spans the airlift of military hardware through troop transport to disaster relief.
For Related News and Information:
Link to Company News: AIR FP <Equity> CN <GO>
Top Stories: TOP<GO>
--With assistance from Christopher Jasper in London.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Andrea Rothman in Toulouse at +33-5-6365-7668 or
[email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Benedikt Kammel at +49-30-70010-6230 or
[email protected]
By Andrea Rothman
(Bloomberg) -- Airbus Group SE said early findings from Spanish investigators probing the crash of an A400M military transport plane suggest all systems except engine controls already identified as troubled performed normally, probably ruling out intrinsic design flaws.
Three engines experienced power failure after takeoff and didn’t respond to the crew’s attempts to restore them, while other gear performed as expected in the aircraft that crashed near Seville in Spain killing four people on May 9, according to a statement from the Toulouse, France-based company. Following the crash, Airbus instructed operators of A400M transports to check the model’s engine-control system before making further flights.
The Spanish investigators looked at data from the plane’s flight-data-recorder and cockpit voice recorder. Indications that everything but the engine-control software performed normally would provide assurances that the plane’s essential design is sound. Airbus didn’t draw any conclusions about the design of the plane and its systems in today’s statement.
The engines were built by Europrop International, which includes Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc, Safran SA of France and Germany’s MTU Aero Engines AG.
The first A400M, handed over to France in 2013, was delivered a decade after the program was begun and four years later than planned after a spate of delays from glitches including engine-control software malfunctions. Even before the crash Airbus warned of new cost issues in ramping up output.
The defense program -- Europe’s most expensive -- has cost the company and governments 25 billion euros ($28 billion), about a quarter more than originally planned, though militaries from the U.K. to France and Germany are keen to get their hands on a modern transport plane to replace aging equipment.
Airbus has a backlog of 162 of the aircraft, with 12 already handed over to buyers. A schedule to deliver a total of 14 A400Ms this year is under review.
The A400M fits in between Lockheed Martin Corp.’s aging C-130 Hercules model and the larger Boeing Co. C-17 Globemaster and satisfies an acute requirement that spans the airlift of military hardware through troop transport to disaster relief.
For Related News and Information:
Link to Company News: AIR FP <Equity> CN <GO>
Top Stories: TOP<GO>
--With assistance from Christopher Jasper in London.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Andrea Rothman in Toulouse at +33-5-6365-7668 or
[email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Benedikt Kammel at +49-30-70010-6230 or
[email protected]
AOT Update
Further information from AD&S:
See: Military Aircraft Airbus DS | Press Center
Airbus Defence and Space has sent an Accident Information Transmission (AIT) yesterday evening (2 June) as an update to the Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) of last 19 May to all operators of the A400M. This AIT informs that the DFDR (digital flight data recorder) and CVR (cockpit voice recorder) readouts have been successfully completed and that preliminary analysis has been conducted by CITAAM with representatives from Airbus Defence and Space providing technical advice.
CITAAM confirmed that engines 1, 2 and 3 experienced power frozen after lift-off and did not respond to the crew’s attempts to control the power setting in the normal way, whilst engine 4 responded to throttle demands. When the power levers were set to “flight idle” in an attempt to reduce power, the power reduced but then remained at “flight idle” on the three affected engines for the remainder of the flight despite attempts by the crew to regain power. This statement is consistent with those three engines being affected by the issue addressed with our AOT.
Preliminary analyses have shown that all other aircraft systems performed normally and did not identify any other abnormalities throughout the flight. Accordingly, Airbus Defence and Space does not have any additional specific recommendations beyond those specified in our AOT of May 19th.
The investigation continues and further updates will be given if significant new information becomes available.
CITAAM confirmed that engines 1, 2 and 3 experienced power frozen after lift-off and did not respond to the crew’s attempts to control the power setting in the normal way, whilst engine 4 responded to throttle demands. When the power levers were set to “flight idle” in an attempt to reduce power, the power reduced but then remained at “flight idle” on the three affected engines for the remainder of the flight despite attempts by the crew to regain power. This statement is consistent with those three engines being affected by the issue addressed with our AOT.
Preliminary analyses have shown that all other aircraft systems performed normally and did not identify any other abnormalities throughout the flight. Accordingly, Airbus Defence and Space does not have any additional specific recommendations beyond those specified in our AOT of May 19th.
The investigation continues and further updates will be given if significant new information becomes available.
