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 17th Nov 2007, 16:22
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 120
It still surprices me that the it was nose into the bay instead of the tail. Costly fault anyway...
wingview is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 17:28
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: india
Posts: 1
ADAT is the new name for GAMCO(GULF AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE COMPANY ABU DHAI)
aeroa320 is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 18:36
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 227
Wingview, do you care to read the posts in this thread??

First of all according to the telex from Airbus the incident happened while leaving the engine run up area.

Secondly, earlier somebody made a description why it sometimes necessary to park the aircraft nose in.

Not sure if you are familiar with the Schiphol layout but have a look at the engine test bay at the beginning of runway 27, opposite McDonalds.
This engine test bay is constructed in such a way that regularly during engine test you are facing a wall. Especially when facing South - East. If the brakes would fail and the chocks would not stop the aircraft than you will end up in the same position as the Etihad aircraft.

After having done a fair amount of engine runs in this position myself, and seen other operators do it, i would advise you to be very carefull with appointing blame.

de groeten. CEJM

http://maps.google.nl/maps?hl=nl&t=h...6866&z=16&om=0

Last edited by CEJM; 17th Nov 2007 at 21:13. Reason: insert link
CEJM is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 19:02
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ocean
Posts: 102
I wish those injured a speedy recovery.
But this exactly the kind of thing you would expected from GAMCO no matter what they change there name to.
Joe Monsoon is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 19:49
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 496
GAMCO had nothing to do with this incident. They were unwitting passengers far as I know?
armchairpilot94116 is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 19:54
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
....... earlier somebody made a description why it is sometimes necessary to park the aircraft nose in.
So why is it sometimes necessary? An aircraft in a walled off run-up pad should be backed in. Anything else is nonsense. It's easy to check which is right. Just note the end with the very expensive blast deflectors and put the pointy part of the aircraft at the other end.

Not like so .......


Last edited by forget; 17th Nov 2007 at 20:04.
forget is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 20:08
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Quote:
....... earlier somebody made a description why it is sometimes necessary to park the aircraft nose in.
So why is it sometimes necessary? An aircraft in a walled off run-up pad should be backed in. Anything else is nonsense.



Wind direction.
mary_hinge is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 20:14
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Wouldn't the blast deflectors, ummmm....stop the wind
Fox3snapshot is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 20:20
  #89 (permalink)  

Rebel PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 46
Posts: 2,816
Maybe Airbus should lay down an EMAS surface at either end of its engine testing facilities leaving enough room to enter and exit... just in case
MarkD is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 20:30
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Fox3snapshot: Wouldn't the blast deflectors, ummmm....stop the wind

In a word, no. There is a big gap, although obviously not big enough, to get the aircraft in and out.
Seriously though, on older aircraft during EGRs itís not unknown to have to reposition the aircraft into wind. During new aircraft acceptance, lease transfer etc, any variance on the engine parameters could carry a financial penalty.
mary_hinge is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 20:33
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
Wind direction? Just where, precisely, is the anemometer in this walled-off pad?

Engine runs arenít (werenít) my thing but Iíve spent enough time on airfields to have an opinion on this whole sorry cock up.

If someone suggested to me that I could carry on working with my Ďwiresí while they moved the aircraft into a walled of run-up pad for high power engine runs, Iíd consider it.

When they told me that, due to a shortage of tugs/tow-bars they were taxiing nose in, Iíd reconsider it.

When I saw that the aircraft was then pointing at a sloping concrete wall - with a six feet high three inch thick steel guillotine on the top, Iíd get out and watch from a safe distance.

What the hell happened to common sense?

Whoever sanctioned/supervised/approved this operation needs introducing to the rag manís trumpet. Pathetic - Incompetent - Negligent.

PS.
During new aircraft acceptance, lease transfer etc, any variance on the engine parameters could carry a financial penalty.
So this one's saved a few bob then!

Last edited by forget; 17th Nov 2007 at 21:05.
forget is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 20:34
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: west sussex
Posts: 156
"Not sure if you are familiar with the Schiphol layout but have a look at the engine test bay at the beginning of runway 27, opposite McDonalds?"

Would that be a drive thru or Fly thru
the bald eagle is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 20:39
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,319
I've read the entire subject..... and so far I'm no nearer to what really happened.
Does anybody have any factual information?
Like why an aircraft managed to climb up and over blast defectors that should have been behind the aircraft?
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 20:41
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 227
Forget,

Have a look google earth at the engine run bay at Schiphol at beginning of runway 27. You will see that while facing South-East and with the exhaust pointing to the blast deflector the nose points to the wall on the other side.

http://maps.google.nl/maps?hl=nl&t=h...6866&z=16&om=0

Last edited by CEJM; 17th Nov 2007 at 21:12. Reason: Insert link
CEJM is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 20:45
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 731
Too many people jumping the gun here, have heard it was taxiing following ground runs. I wasn't there though so will wait a while before condemning those on-board.
Fargoo is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 20:54
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 538
JET II
You are a bit out of date
Gamco have not maintained Gulf Air aircraft for several years
GotTheTshirt is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 20:55
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 227
ChristiaanJ,

Its going to be very difficult when the engine test bay is U shaped with the lower right hand corner of the U not being walled. To have the tail of the aircraft facing the blast deflectors you have to point the nose to the opposite wall, either 90 degrees or a smaller angle but it will face a wall. Have a look on Google Earth Toulouse airport and follow the Airbus facility. You will find the engine test bay and probably will understand why it was facing a wall.

http://maps.google.nl/maps?hl=nl&t=h...1457&z=16&om=0

Last edited by CEJM; 17th Nov 2007 at 21:06.
CEJM is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 21:07
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
You will find the engine test bay and probably will understand why it was facing a wall.
Point taken (for now) - neck wound in (for now).
forget is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 21:13
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,016
I believe that the wind consideration in engine runups have to do with the engine stability, most notably fan issues at high power.
When you are standing still at high power the inlet is sucking air and any wind across the inlet is akin to angle of attack changes on the inlet itself. Some engines might not like this and even backfire/surge/stall (its hard to sell this product afterwards to a customer). While in other cases minute angle of attack changes could oucurr to the fan blades themselves setting up a flutter zone which might rapidly wear out the whole fan blade set.
Steady state winds are easily accomodated but gusting winds are not so easily defined in directionality. Its not a question of being boxed in and not getting enough air, it's the need to have smooth airflow at high power if you are anywhere near the fan blade flutter speeds.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 21:17
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 227
If we believe the Airbus Telex, than it doesn't matter if the aircraft was facing a wall while they performed the engie test. Because the accident happend while they were vacating the engine test bay.

We will have to wait for the report from the authorities.

Lamapaseo, you hit the nail on the head. Thats the reason why the aircraft needs to point into wind.
CEJM is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.