The only question which matters is whether the aircraft was military or civil registered. If civil, an Annex 13 investigation is a given and report publication would follow. If military, the Spanish military process would be followed and, on previous experience, publication unlikely. I don't know the answer on registration but I'm willing to guess.
EAP |
Originally Posted by EAP86
(Post 10247110)
The only question which matters is whether the aircraft was military or civil registered. If civil, an Annex 13 investigation is a given and report publication would follow. If military, the Spanish military process would be followed and, on previous experience, publication unlikely. I don't know the answer on registration but I'm willing to guess.
EAP To be honest it is a pretty gray area |
Originally Posted by EAP86
(Post 10247110)
The only question which matters is whether the aircraft was military or civil registered. If civil, an Annex 13 investigation is a given and report publication would follow. If military, the Spanish military process would be followed and, on previous experience, publication unlikely. I don't know the answer on registration but I'm willing to guess. EAP
|
The link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015...us_A400M_crash provides a plausible explanation of the cause and of the differing views of which agency would investigate. The aircraft was still on test and destined as a military version, thus an ‘in house’ investigation might be appropriate (no public report), which may be a similar procedure to that under U.K. ‘B’ conditions (civil cert) [US ‘Experimental’?], but with military interest, and thence civilian EASA interest because of the dual certification, and some local infighting, no clear EASA policy, etc, etc... The software explanation is also plausible (Ref 32, 33); preflight test calibrations / checks could reset systems or dump critical data so that the FADEC could not control the engine (other than on the ground / takeoff power), and being ‘Full Authority’ this might result in a frozen engine or auto shutdown in the air. The latter appears most likely. Has the type actually achieved civilian certification, or a civilian aircraft formally registered ? |
Originally Posted by safetypee
(Post 10247463)
Has the type actually achieved civilian certification, or a civilian aircraft formally registered ? |
Originally Posted by safetypee
(Post 10247463)
The link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015...us_A400M_crash provides a plausible explanation of the cause and of the differing views of which agency would investigate.....The software explanation is also plausible (Ref 32, 33)
|
Further to what Ken wrote, pretty much every new aircraft - civil or military - has FADEC engine controls. The only way to prevent a future occurrence on another aircraft - civilian or military - is to publish a report pointing to root cause, so they everyone can make sure they don't make the same mistake - not just Airbus.
Like I said before, if the cause is known but not made public, and another aircraft crashes for the same cause - it's murder (manslaughter in US parlance). |
Originally Posted by KenV
(Post 10247440)
Why would the Spanish military be involved in this accident at all? The Spanish military has no design or engineering authority for this aircraft. It was never signed over to them so they don't have operating authority for this aircraft. No Spanish military personnel were at the controls, so there was not even peripheral Spanish military involvement in the flight. So why no Annex 13 investigation report?
Complex multinational military aircraft procurement programmes tend to breed complex qual and cert procedures. A friend was a senior airworthiness person in Airbus and in the early days of A400M he said that Airbus would cover the whole project under civil processes, none of these silly military processes. I patted him on the shoulder and suggested he tell me that in 10 years time and we'd see whose vision of the future was correct. EAP |
Originally Posted by sedburgh
(Post 10247485)
The EASA Type certificate is here: EASA TYPE - CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET No. EASA.A.169 for AIRBUS A400M
EAP |
EAP - I think that it is potentially possible to buy a A400 for civil use only, however I imagine it wouldn't be allowed by OCCAR for some time. Obviously the mil spec kit would have to be replaced for civ and I guess the biggest impact will be in the avionics.
It was certified as a civil aircraft first before clearance of military specific roles and equipment. Possibly, the test aircraft had mil kit to make the MEL such as radios and transponder under exemption if necessary, rather than civil only equipment to be replaced by the customer specific equipment later on. I just did some structures calcs on the wing so am not in the actual knowledge here...just what was talked about in the office at the time. |
Originally Posted by atakacs
(Post 10247218)
My understanding is that it was registered to CASA (Airbus). But can't find any more details about this. To be honest it is a pretty gray area I guess there is no point insisting there - although there would be many objective reasons to have an Annex 13 investigation it will not happen. |
Originally Posted by atakacs
(Post 10248786)
The registrant is listed "Airbus Military", which was dissolved in 2014 to become Airbus Defence and Space SAS (so It's a bit unclear how it could still be used in 2015).
Edit. Is it possible that due to the OCCAR contract, EASA regard the A400M as a State Aircraft which isn't subject to Annex 13? Just a thought... EAP |
Regardless of the registry (civil, military, state, whatever) what is the reason the investigation is being done in secret and the resulting report not published? It makes no sense unless someone is trying to hide something nefarious, or someone is trying to protect someone who is guilty of at best malfeasance and at worst of murder.
The truly amazing part? They seem to be getting away with it. |
Ken, #332; it depends on who ‘they’ are. ICAO, the State(s) of manufacturer / operation / location; regulator, civil / military, manufacturer(s), airframe, engine, FADEC, software, validation, … There’s probably a link to NTSB in there somewhere: who’s ball, who’s playing field. What requirements apply to fight test - see all of the above. Off thread, who investigated the Nov 9, 2010, Boeing 787, ZA002 battery fire ? |
Can I ask a ignorant question ,
why does no (that i know of) transport aircaft have no ejection seats? we are constantly being told the years of training and expense of getting a pilot to a good standard is the most important thing on a aircraft(rightly so). But yet no transport aircraft have them, fighters,bombers and trainers its a standard.I can understand if you have a full load of troops and its crashing it might not be looked on with favour if the crew eject, and the troops perish but if it's just equipment surely it's better for the crew to get out? |
An absolutely safe aircraft does not exist and, for good engineering reasons, aircraft are designed to be safe enough (roughly 1 in a million per fh likelihood of fatality). Transport aircraft are generally safe enough without ejection systems whereas most fast jets need ejection systems to make them safe enough. Note that 'safety' in this context is purely associated with the risk to life.
EAP |
Originally Posted by KenV
(Post 10249228)
Regardless of the registry (civil, military, state, whatever) what is the reason the investigation is being done in secret and the resulting report not published? It makes no sense unless someone is trying to hide something nefarious, or someone is trying to protect someone who is guilty of at best malfeasance and at worst of murder.
EAP |
Originally Posted by KenV
(Post 10249228)
Regardless of the registry (civil, military, state, whatever) what is the reason the investigation is being done in secret and the resulting report not published? It makes no sense unless someone is trying to hide something nefarious, or someone is trying to protect someone who is guilty of at best malfeasance and at worst of murder.
The truly amazing part? They seem to be getting away with it. |
Some of the questions asked here in September 2018 have actually been answered in the full version of the Reuters report partially quoted in Post #296 in November 2017 ("Airbus knew of software vulnerability before A400M crash")
Originally Posted by KenV
(Post 10246654)
I get that. But it's one thing to say: "Your aircraft did not get the latest software load and are therefore safe to fly," and an entirely different thing to say: "Any and all new software loads we give you in the future are guaranteed not to result in a similar failure." Absent a detailed accident report, what assurances do the current and future operators have that the guarantee is worth anything?
Originally Posted by Lynxman
(Post 10246641)
A400M was built to EASA civil certification standards.
Originally Posted by KenV
(Post 10247440)
Why would the Spanish military be involved in this accident at all? The Spanish military has no design or engineering authority for this aircraft. It was never signed over to them so they don't have operating authority for this aircraft. No Spanish military personnel were at the controls, so there was not even peripheral Spanish military involvement in the flight. So why no Annex 13 investigation report?
According to the Reuters report, Spanish officials say the A400M assembly line is a defense facility and not subject to civil rules. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:55. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.