Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

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

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

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

Old 24th Nov 2007, 19:13
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tubby linton
are there any brakes fitted on the body gear?
It seems there are, they talk about that earlier in the thread.
But as I say, these mark is not from a braking action.
Originally Posted by hetfield
But it seems, the whole thing swept to the right. Look at the markings of engines 1 and 2.....
Absolutely, but note that the initial "climb" on the wall by #1 is in line with the overall movement of the approaching airplane.
As #1 "climbs" the 45 deg or so wall, Left set of wheels lift up, most off the weight transfers on Right set of wheels, and Center set of wheels drags side ways ...

And to get such a result, I would not be surprised at least #1 is still pushing ... a lot.

I know ..., not really what Airbus and BEA pretend ... ?

BTW, very interesting picture !
CONF iture is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2007, 21:08
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,115
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Yes "lomapaseo" l agree with what you believe, and that you can not take anything for granted from a press release.
I have seen to many over the years, even some from my own company giving even the incorrect aircraft type, so l take them with a pinch of salt.
My point earlier was we do have some official confirmation, in that it was not chocked, was using parking brake and that the persons on board we being vigilant as they did notice the a/c moving within seconds and applied the main brakes.
We have no idea why they did not retard the throttles straight away as most of us would do however.
The reason this was official confirmation is because it was released to the airlines and not the dam press.
Mr @ Spotty M is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2007, 21:31
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Amsterdam
Age: 54
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Does anyone know if they have pulled the a/c loose from the wall?
Tediek is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2007, 07:34
  #264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The nose section was removed mid week and the main fuse removed late on Friday, It now waits continued investigation within the facility/
c130jage is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2007, 07:39
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Amsterdam
Age: 54
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
thanks for the info, are there any pictures available of this operation?
Tediek is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2007, 13:13
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
spot on bsieker
CONF iture is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2007, 18:15
  #267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: U.K.
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It was an A300-B4 not a 600
navtopilot is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2007, 18:32
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: BRU
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by navtopilot
It was an A300-B4 not a 600
Why would you think that??
Profit Max is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2007, 19:27
  #269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry navtopilot, I think you'll find Airbus stopped building A300 B4s a while ago. Even the A300-600 is now but a happy memory. This was an A340-600; 4 fairly big donkeys and the longest fuselage in production. It looked really nice before the nose job.
saman is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2007, 22:58
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: toronto
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
update

From Aviation Law Service;

An unconfirmed account has it that a person in the cockpit fell onto the pedestal; in a 16 November press release, Etihad maintained that none of its staff were involved in the accident. The investigation is centered around the nose wheel steering, which was reportedly unlocked in order for the airplane to move out of the area after the tests had been conducted. It was apparently locked again for an unknown reason, putting the aircraft in front of the wall with engines running. The accident site makes sense if someone forgot to re-engage the nose wheel steering before heading to the exit taxiway. Then, the person lunging for the switch (to help the apparent lack of directional control) fell across the throttles – this at least is a reasonable scenario.


A few years ago there was a similar accident at Vancouver, Canada involving an engine test run on the ground of an Airbus A310. In that case, only line maintenance chocks were used during the engine run (as opposed to Airbus special ground run chocks that cannot be jumped). In the Vancouver case, avionics technicians pulled a circuit breaker that put the aircraft’s computers into flight mode. Presto! The engines went to flight idle, there was no reverse thrust, brakes or nose-wheel steering. The airplane jumped its chocks so fast the mechanics in the left and right cockpit seats did not know what happened (and they were not aware of avionics technicians fiddling with the circuit breakers). The airplane basically was on an uncontrolled taxi, right into a ground equipment building, and with enough force to shear off 6-inch steel I-beams.
robbreid is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 03:16
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
An unconfirmed account has it that a person in the cockpit fell onto the pedestal; in a 16 November press release, Etihad maintained that none of its staff were involved in the accident. The investigation is centered around the nose wheel steering, which was reportedly unlocked in order for the airplane to move out of the area after the tests had been conducted. It was apparently locked again for an unknown reason, putting the aircraft in front of the wall with engines running. The accident site makes sense if someone forgot to re-engage the nose wheel steering before heading to the exit taxiway. Then, the person lunging for the switch (to help the apparent lack of directional control) fell across the throttles – this at least is a reasonable scenario.
The pedestal story is back again

This is like reading a mystery novel where the stars are supposedly killed off only to reappear again in later chapters in new sub-plots.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 12:02
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: toronto
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Source of Pedestal

As it states; "Unconfirmed", however with that said, it comes from one of the foremost aviaition litigation firms.
http://www.aviation-safety-security....airbus-fa.html

Quote from another aviation forum;

"Ah yes, the cockpit of tomorrow equipped with a pilot and a large dog.

The pilot's there to feed the dog.

The dog's there to bite the pilot if he attempts to touch the controls."

Last edited by robbreid; 27th Nov 2007 at 12:12. Reason: Added quote.
robbreid is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 15:58
  #273 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,486
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Hm...like the cat-and-duck IFR method , a very old story.

Whether someone fell on the thrust levers will be a simple matter to resolve using the QAR/DFDR, (which, unlike the TAM accident, doesn't seem to have emerged quite as quickly...)
PJ2 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 16:05
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The French will manage to explain it quickly..........
hetfield is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 17:28
  #275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PJ2
Whether someone fell on the thrust levers will be a simple matter to resolve using the QAR/DFDR
And do not discard CVR ...
If at least one guy from Toulouse was in the flight deck, I cannot imagine a loud "Putaing con !???" would not have emerged !?
Didn't BEA say after all:
Elles sont de bonne qualité
True, looking at "the minimally-damaged tail" it would be embarassing to pretend otherwise.
CONF iture is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 17:48
  #276 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,486
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
No, not discounting the CVR but recognizing that words provide reactions to data, not data itself. The CVR will absolutely be of high collaborating interest. It is the TLA's which were either already at 45deg or suddenly became 45 deg (or close), closely followed by forward movement as sensed either by wheelspeed or IRS groundspeed plus the 'g' in all 3 axiis. We already know that the TL's were closed 2 seconds before impact, so it will be interesting to see when they were moved up into the EPR = 1.26 regime. I suspect it will be more than a minute before the aircraft began moving as I don't subscribe to the "falling on thrust levers" theory, but the data including any expressions of surprise on the CVR will tell us - if it's ever released.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 18:31
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 724
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
OK, let's look at it from a legal, judicial standpoint.
The airplane was not yet delivered to its new owner. Therefore this could be regarded as an internal Airbus manufacturing "incident". It certainly was not a comercial flight with paying passengers on board. Therefore certain legal guarantees are not provided.

I only fly airplanes, and I have no knowledge whatsoever about legal stuff. But I can imagine that Airbus is not obliged to provide any information as to the chain of events that led to this incident.

So maybe we will never find out what happened? Perhaps someone who knows more about legalities can comment on this....
fox niner is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 18:58
  #278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A somewhat related case in KLAX 2006

In both cases the engines were running for purposes of ground test, not for flight. Ergo, the definition of "aircraft accident" was not strictly met.

In the LAX case, the NTSB immediately became involved because of obvious safety-of-flight implications, even though the US OSHA would ordinarily cover it.

In TLS - who knows? Would the French equivalent of OSHA have primary responsibility?
barit1 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 19:26
  #279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the French can cover it up in a teccie way they will! But their press releases so far leave them little room for manoeuvre?
manrow is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 19:32
  #280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Legal Responsibility

The accident, since in occurred in France, will be covered under, that is, subject to French law. The contract between Airbus and Etihad may well have specific provisions concerning loss and responsibility; normally one would expect to see an arbitration clause given a buyer in the Middle East. The technicians, though, were from a different company.

Under French law, where a tort (a wrong) is committed a remedy exists. There are so-called 'force majeure' events for which no one is deemed to be responsible. In these cases, the insurance--probably Factory Mutual in the U.S., but maybe not--would 'simply' pay the loss.

But here it's possible that the technical company's employee's are at fault, especially if one of them fell on the pedestal; unless the fall was precipated by a tortious act of an Airbus employee. If Airbus can show that the accident was caused by one of the non-Airbus technical employees, i.e., the tests were finished when such an employee acted imprudently and fell on the pedestal--then the technical company will be responsible in whole or part for the loss. If the third-party technical personnel were merely observers and had nothing to do with the accident, then they would not be liable.

While it may seem that the fact the technicians were from a different company would shield Etihad, because of the theory of agency, these employees may be deemed to be under Etihad's control, and if they are, then Etihad may ultimately share some of the responsibility. Based on the 'facts' as they have been developed, at this point there's really no way to tell. In this regard, it's not uncommon in the Middle East to have employees "seconded" from one employer to another. If this was the case, it's possible that the technical case were "seconded" to Etihad, and thus, assimilated to Etihad employment.

There may be a good deal of finger-pointing down the line; the main thing, in order to determine tort liability, is to try to determine exactly what happened.
mokane99 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.