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 9th Aug 2008, 07:40
  #381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tr_no 688
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Obviously, there is something very "strange" with these 13 seconds !?" Very strange indeed, I find the 2 "facts" 1. it took 13 seconds to travel across the pan and 2. it was doing 30mph on impact .....totally unreconcileable
Lone_Ranger is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2008, 10:13
  #382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Age: 68
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tire Mark

It appears to me that the tire mark in the photo :MyAviation.net - Aviation Photo Gallery is from the nose gear as they tried to turn away from the wall - if you look at it you can see that it goes from a double mark to a single mark as it approaches the wall; apparently as the nose steering is turned more, the tires begin to scrub more - then when the nose gear breaks off from impacting the wall, it moves more to the right, and ends up near #4 engine...
CargoFlyer11 is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2008, 19:48
  #383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I do not believe that the fligth computer will release any brakes.

Firstly that might be very dangerous in specific situations and secondly
there where two incidents recently that shows us that it cannot be true:

1. Some months ago a A319 or A320 landed with the parking break set.
The outcome where a hard nosewheel touchdown, blown tires and control
problems. The report is available on the internet (I suppose it happened in
the UK).

2. The Iberia A340-600 Crash landing in Ecuador: Due to a very hard
touchdown they lost the Air/Ground logic. That left them with no Groundspoilers,
no Reversers but WITH THE Brakes. - And that also was an A340-600.

Marcus
EDML is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2008, 12:11
  #384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: france
Age: 74
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
unidentified origin. So, true or not ?

Nine employees of the xxx airline were in the aircraft, but 'no
> > employees' from Airbus were present.
> >
> > The xxx taxied out to the run-up area.
> >
> > Then they took all four engines to takeoff power with virtually an empty
> > aircraft. (They obviously didn't read the run-up manuals.)
> >
> > No chocks were set, (not that it would have mattered at that power
> > setting).
> >
> > 'Brakes will not hold it back at full power anyway'.
> >
> > As it turns out the takeoff warning horn was blaring away in the cockpit
> > because they had all FOUR engines at full power.
> > Th e aircraft computers thought they were trying to takeoff but it had
> > not been configured properly (flaps/slats, etc, etc).
> >
> > Then one of these xxx decided to pull the 'Ground Sense'
> > circuit breaker to quiet the alarms.
> >
> > This fools the aircraft into thinking it is in the air.'A big, big
> > mistake'!
> >
> > As soon as they did that, the computers automaticlly 'released' all the
> > brakes. ('this is a Safety feature so that pilots don't land with the
> > brakes on'.)There was No time to stop and no one smart enough thought to
> > reduce
> > the max power setting.....
> >
> > So the rest is xxx.
> >
> > No one is talking, so who knows if there were survivors.
SPA83 is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2008, 18:11
  #385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Internet rumour mill:
> > As soon as they did that, the computers automaticlly 'released' all the
> > brakes. ('this is a Safety feature so that pilots don't land with the
> > brakes on'.)
Ridiculous on the face of it - landing is precisely when a pilot *does* need the wheelbrakes.

Sounds to me like some bright spark has decided to cherry-pick the debate about the Hamburg and Conghonas incidents and tried to apply it to a completely unrelated scenario. Added to this the language has all the hallmarks of the most poorly-informed Airbus bashing ("fooling" the computer, the computer "thought" it was in the air or taking off). It doesn't even differentiate between spoiler braking (which is affected by the ground sensor, but is not relevant in this case) and wheel braking (which to the best of my knowledge is either not, or only marginally affected by the ground sensor and is very relevant in this case).

Finally - if you're going to pop a CB to shut the alarm off (unwise, but for argument's sake plausible), why would you waste time second-guessing the computer logic and pop the ground sensor when you could just pop the alarm? I'm committing a bugbear of mine by making an assertion of what a pilot would or wouldn't do there, but it just doesn't seem to follow to me.

The closest wild guess I would make is that the big hole in the cheese was human error of some kind, whether that error was in the cockpit (CRM's just as important in a test environment as in line flying), or a communication error on the ground.

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 10th Aug 2008 at 18:23.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2008, 18:44
  #386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ridiculous on the face of it - landing is precisely when a pilot *does* need the wheelbrakes.
You have no idea.
This is the same scenario that crashed the Lufthansa in Warsaw.
The brakes will not deploy until the status "on the ground" is reached !!!
(as stated before, to protect from landing with brakes on)
Hence once the status "in the air" is faked to the computer by pulling the breaker,
the brakes turn off.

As simple as that!!!
Ptkay is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2008, 18:49
  #387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, and Airbus changed the logic in the face of the (decade old) Warsaw incident. The unfortunate TAM crew at Conghonas were getting wheelbraking to some degree, but minus the spoilers the braking action was insufficient.

This still doesn't answer the question of why one would pop the ground sensor CB (if there is such a thing) rather than the alarm CB, if one were simply trying to silence the alarms.

I'm quite prepared to accept I might have the logic wrong, but I think it's a bit unfair to state that I know nothing...
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2008, 20:51
  #388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi,
that is simply not true - the Aircraft systems will not block using the brakes when the plane is in "Air mode".

Even in Warsaw that was not the case.

After the Warsaw accident they did not change the logic - only the
sensitivity and logic of the Weight on Wheels sensors was changed.

The brakes can always be used (see the accident in Equador - they had
brakes but no Ground spoilers and no Thrust reversers).

Only Ground Spoilers and Thrust reversers are locked out while aircraft is
not in Ground mode. - And that makes sense: Braking in the air is no problem
while the use of Reversers or Ground Spoilers surely is.

Marcus
EDML is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2008, 22:29
  #389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
This still doesn't answer the question of why one would pop the ground sensor CB (if there is such a thing) rather than the alarm CB, if one were simply trying to silence the alarms.
To me, what really makes this whole scenario more and more unlikely... :

In the supposedly chaotic environment, with alarms blaring, would the non-expert non-Airbus personnel doing the engine test:
1) immediately realise what the alarm was... ?
2) instantly know which CB to pull to silence it... ?

I personally admit to a sneaky liking for the scenario as the ultimate SNAFU, but I don't really believe it happened that way.

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2008, 09:54
  #390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: wales
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
First observation there are no c/b's on a 346 flight deck. Only resets. To silence the horn the c/b is in th e/e bay. Dont think someone is going to climb down the hatch during a ground run !!! Only thought is if they pulled both LGCIU resets ?? Have to look at the schematics to see what that would do. Having said that you would probably have c/b pulled as part of checklist for high power runs as on most other airbuses and boeings . Be interesting to know the REAL story , if it ever comes out.
bvcu is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2008, 10:41
  #391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 76
Posts: 2,108
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
I agree with much of what has been said above. We can speculate endlessly on "crew" errors of commission or omission in the above accident, but we shall always run into the twin hurdles of (a) our incomplete understanding of systems logic in this scenario and (b) our ignorance of what was actually done in the cockpit.

This inevitable conjecture has done little to enhance Airbus's reputation, as it emits more heat than light. It may even lead to misunderstandings in the Airbus operational community, with possible safety implications.

Perhaps it is time for Airbus, in the interests of themselves and the industry, to volunteer the results of their own investigations into this matter, and any lessons they may have drawn and others might be advised to draw from it.
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2008, 17:18
  #392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
Perhaps it is time for Airbus, in the interests of themselves and the industry, to volunteer the results of their own investigations into this matter, and any lessons they may have drawn and others might be advised to draw from it.
I agree with Chris. This time it was a brand-new, unflown aircraft, still on the factory site. But nothing tells me so far, that the same scenario couldn't be reproduced elsewhere.

Last edited by ChristiaanJ; 11th Aug 2008 at 17:23. Reason: typo
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2008, 18:48
  #393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Among camels and dunes
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
First observation there are no c/b's on a 346 flight deck. Only resets.
bvcu,

Allow me to correct you. There is more than 1 c/b on the A346 flight deck, including A332/A343/A345. There actually two c/b's!

They are located beneath each pilots seat, one under each pilot's seat for electrical, forward aft travel. FACT, 2 c/b's on Airbus flight deck!
Jetjock330 is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2008, 19:45
  #394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JetJock, you are right!

Someone would have had to open the hatch behind the Captains seat and crawl down into the E&E compartment, then go looking through racks and racks of computers and c/bs and find the right one. No way under time pressure, unless you are the engineer who knows exactly where everything is located.
Admiral346 is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2008, 19:51
  #395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JetJock, you trying to get this thread moved to JetBlast?
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2008, 20:20
  #396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: wales
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
touche jet jock !!!!!! forgot about those !!!
bvcu is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2008, 08:36
  #397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ChristiaanJ:
I agree with Chris. This time it was a brand-new, unflown aircraft, still on the factory site. But nothing tells me so far, that the same scenario couldn't be reproduced elsewhere.
Gabby Johnson is right!

But in all seriousness, it could just as easily be Etihad that have requested the results of any investigation to be kept between the two companies, which would put Airbus in the distinctly difficult position of having a bunch of interested parties wanting to know what happened, and a large customer who would rather they didn't tell them.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2008, 13:31
  #398 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What would it have cost to put a couple of trained flight test pilots in the front seats.....

I do full power runs all the time, conducting maintenance test flights on MD-11's. Seatbelts tight, hand on throttles, only two engines max at any one time, big chocks, and lots of space in front of the nose. And never, never let go of the throttles.
Huck is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2008, 14:53
  #399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 76
Posts: 2,108
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Quote from DozyWanabee:
But in all seriousness, it could just as easily be Etihad that have requested the results of any investigation to be kept between the two companies, which would put Airbus in the distinctly difficult position of having a bunch of interested parties wanting to know what happened, and a large customer who would rather they didn't tell them.
[Unquote]

Very much hope that is not the case, DW. Surely Etihad's reputation is not predicated on a small part of its engineering department?

In view of the fortunate lack of fatalities, plus a lack of video footage; would the press release not be relegated to a paragraph in the inside pages of large-circulation newspapers; and fail even to be reported on CNN, Al Jazeera or BBC?


Huck and ChristiaanJ,

I agree. A lot of useful stuff has been posted in the pages above. Including lessons (not always) handed down.
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2008, 17:17
  #400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
Surely Etihad's reputation is not predicated on a small part of its engineering department?
Hummm...
You would not expect a major airline to send the teaboy and a few junior spanner-wavers to do acceptance testing on a new aircraft....
So yes, I think it would reflect on their engineering department, and in the present 'cut-back' atmosphere that might not be such a good idea.
ChristiaanJ is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.