Brand new Etihad A340-600 damaged in Toulouse; several wounded
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tubby linton
are there any brakes fitted on the body gear?
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.....
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 !
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would you think that??
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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."
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.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 75
Posts: 2,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 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...)
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...)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,939
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 75
Posts: 2,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 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.
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....
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....
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 81
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?
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?
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.
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.
