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 19th Feb 2008, 14:46
  #361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: spain
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Yeh don't tell me. The pilot got promoted and became fleet manager on another fleet and then nearly ran out of fuel in West Africa on one of his new twin engined airbus aeroplanes. Did he get promoted again - I can't remember.
Fly380 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2008, 14:57
  #362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,107
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
You can say that if you like, Fly380 (whoever you are); I couldn't possibly comment...

He wouldn't have been the first ex-short-haul pilot to get caught out in West Africa with lousy weather-forecasting in the Harmattan season. The Airbus... is immaterial!
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2008, 20:37
  #363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: spain
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Well Chris Scott - it seems we both remember the event and as a direct result the system changed. Any high speed taxi checks had to be crewed and prepared for a normal flight with a load sheet and 2 pilots. For anyone interested in this particular event the aircraft became airborne when the flaps were selected (don't know why). It was out of trim and the pilot managed to stay airborne narrowly missing the Gatwick control tower - the old one! - before completing a very hairy circuit and landing safely. A very narrow escape. I am not aware of a similar occurence since - fortunately.
Oh and by the way I didn't think The Hamattan reached Libreville.
Fly380 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2008, 23:26
  #364 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,107
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Lessons (not always) handed down

Yes, Fly380, you are spot-on.

I hope the Moderators will accept that this discussion is not entirely off-topic. When maintenance procedures suddenly turn into what equates to an operational incident/accident, lessons have to be learned (or, sadly, relearned) and, if necessary, new procedures worked out:
a) by those intimately concerned, the fleet, and the company;
b) by the whole industry, via the MOR system;
c) the lessons must be handed down from generation to generation. There is nothing new under the sun.

Unfortunately, every generation thinks that its predecessors were (a) idiots and (b) operating archaic kit that bears no relevance to the latest miracles of technology.

What happened was, I think, unprecedented on a jet airliner at the time, and the gentleman concerned was no fool. Normal practice had been to park the A/C after flight with the TPI (stab trim) at a nose-up-trim angle suitable for T/O well-laden, rather than zero. The A/C was naturally tail-heavy when empty. The flaps would have been at zero. The aeroplane rotated spontaneously, like even a B707 can do, but at a low speed... The flaps were, I think, selected deliberately to stop the aeroplane stalling when it was already well airborne.

The revised procedure for high-speed taxiing, as you say, was effectively to prepare the aircraft for flight. Will this concept be handed down the generations?

We have all learned a lot from reading on this thread about Airbus's mixed fortunes at Blagnac, and the way they could have avoided losing an aircraft. We understand a lot more about the role of chocks on large aeroplanes. Let's hope the next generation, somewhere in the world, doesn't make history repeat itself. Can't say I'm confident...
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 18:01
  #365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Have they found the cause?

There is a email rumor circulating on the internet which seems to come from someone with inside knowledge of this accident. Anyone hear of a possible "official" report?

I have cleaned it up a bit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Employees of the airline were in the aircraft, but no employees from the manufacturer were on board.

All four engines were set to takeoff power in this virtually empty aircraft. The run-up protocol prohibits this.

No chocks were set. Brakes will not hold aircraft at full power.

Takeoff warning horn was sounding in the cockpit because all four engines were at full power.

The flight computer thought they were trying to takeoff but the plane had not been configured properly (flaps/slats, etc, etc).

One of the crew pulled the 'Ground Sense' circuit breaker to quiet the alarms.

The aircraft now assumes itís in the air.

The flight computer automatically releases the brakes. This is a safety feature to prevent the brakes from operating before landing.

The throttles were not retarded by manual control until about 2 seconds before impact.

Last edited by jfill; 27th Mar 2008 at 21:08.
jfill is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 20:27
  #366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
jfill,
Would need several holes in the cheese lining up.
But, ye know, it sounds plausible... !
CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 22:18
  #367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,107
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Could they have been frustrated aviators, like some of our fellow posters? And facing towards the ramp was all part of the cunning plan...
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 22:49
  #368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chris Scott,
I like that one....
"If they can do it with a Harrier, then why not us..."
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2008, 23:32
  #369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: France
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
quote " But, if you're going to do run up tests surely the manual states the braking/anchorage requirements.

Were these requirements met?"

I think the manual probably says only run-up one engine at a time in which case the brakes are adequate to hold the a/c
peebs24 is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2008, 12:39
  #370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: France
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi JFILL,

This could be the cause imho. Have a look at posting 312.

Good Flying!

John
Good memories is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2008, 15:48
  #371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting Post - Good memories

Post #312 by "Good memories" previously raised a similar focus on the cause. The email source is thought to be an active pilot who doesn't follow internet forums. Maybe we are closely circling around the actual events.

These types of post get to be massive in size and a little hard to follow. Some argue let's just wait for the "official" report but that would take all the fun out of it. But more importantly there is significant educational value in many of the well thought out and insightful post.

I think it is the nature of pilots to want to troubleshoot problems real time. When flying, you don't have the luxury to wait for the "official report."
jfill is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2008, 21:21
  #372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chris Scott and Fly380
IIRC the flaps were selected to silence the T/O Config Warning - Flap extension happened about 80 kts. and with the TPI nose-up (set after landing to allow water to drain?) the aircraft was destined to fly...
TP
TyroPicard is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2008, 22:26
  #373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 10 Posts
Was it flight crew doing the runup or maintenance crew or both?
punkalouver is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2008, 08:36
  #374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

Employees of the airline were in the aircraft, but no employees from the manufacturer were on board.
I find that very hard to believe. I doubt very much Airbus would allow anyone to go off in an aircraft, that still belongs to them, unsupervised.
There is a email rumor circulating on the internet
Exactly that, a rumour.
spannersatcx is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2008, 09:55
  #375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,107
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Lessons (not always) handed down.

Thanks for setting me straight on that one, TP. Your memory seems to be better than mine. We did indeed leave the TPI (tailplane) parked at 3deg nose-up (trim) for water draining. [Why did we not do the opposite, i.e., leave the trailing edge down? That would have kept the nosewheel on the ground.]
But we three are at risk of running a parallel topic here...
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2008, 11:27
  #376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Andalucia
Posts: 728
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post #46 Spanners confirms your thoughts (and mine !)
Wodrick is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2008, 11:59
  #377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jfill
Some argue let's just wait for the "official" report but that would take all the fun out of it.
As this aircraft was not officially 'in service' and this was just really a factory accident then you may never get an 'official report'

I can't really see the French releasing something that officially shows Airbus in a bad light - but we live in hope
Jet II is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2008, 12:08
  #378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Employees of the airline were in the aircraft, but no employees from the manufacturer were on board

That's cobblers.

There were nine people on board. Two from Airbus, the other seven from ADAT - formerly GAMCO. None from Etihad, afaik.

Both Airbus employees were among the five taken to hospital afterwards.
GobonaStick is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2008, 09:29
  #379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Italy
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A340-600 demaged at Toulouse

Hi, As far as i know, looking the photos from different sides i could not see any chocks around on ground.
To my knoledge choks should be fitted on, in testing engine area.
Also the aircraft is facing the testing area, instead been backwards.
Really i'im very interested to know if chocks were on, as is an important matter on my job.
Thanks , Alex
epicfco is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2008, 14:42
  #380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
See post #345 for prior discussion - namely crosswind limits
barit1 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.