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, 21:21
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
Hmm. Could have come from any direction!

forget is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 21:30
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 288
Thanks Forget, I couldn't get the picture in the reply, hence the link.

By looking at the daylight picture of the incident, the aircraft is facing north. Because you can see the hangar (with the two aircraft in front) on the right hand side of the accident picture.
CEJM is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 22:14
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Are you all quite sure the engine test bay involved is the one shown on Google?

I cannot work out the shape of the blast barriers or the whereabouts of the hangers shown in the background in the photo.

Is the Google image 5 years out of date as usual? or has a further length of blast barrier been built? The plane has hit a short section with a long section on its left hand side. The negative can't be reversed unless the aircraft belongs to Dahite airways.

Or am I talking out of my orifice again?
Flapping_Madly is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 22:35
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 197
Something I haven't seen suggested yet...

Notice the snow on the ground in the pics? Could the a/c have hit a patch of ice whilst taxiing in/out, and skidded across it? I know you'd still need to be moving excessively fast in order to end up and over the barriers, but may be a contributing factor?
Magoodotcom is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 22:46
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,869
I may be wrong, but I don't think it's snow; I assumed it was foam sprayed by the emergency crews?
akerosid is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 22:48
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
Mag, Toulouse is in the south of France. That 'snow' is foam.
forget is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 22:54
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
I departed toulouse this morning, we had to deice, the cars in the hotel parking lot were covered in rime, though no snow on the ground.
But just being southern france doesn't make it snow free.

Nic
Admiral346 is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 23:08
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
The Airliners.net shot was a taken with a very long lens. Checking out the building roof etc (yellow arrow) against Google Earth - aircraft ended up at red line.

forget is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 02:46
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 197
Originally Posted by forget
Mag, Toulouse is in the south of France. That 'snow' is foam.
It may be foam, although it looks to extend quite a long way towards the camera and way beyond the wingtip in the daytime pic.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1293784/L/

Plus, I've been at Toulouse in November when it's snowed quite heavily, so don't discount the snow/ice theory so readily.
Magoodotcom is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 07:49
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,141
Anyway we can check the metar at the time of the incidence?


Rwy in Sight
Rwy in Sight is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 09:52
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: BRU
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by forget
The Airliners.net shot was a taken with a very long lens. Checking out the building roof etc (yellow arrow) against Google Earth - aircraft ended up at red line.
Correct. And if you go further North-East, you will see that the picture was most likely taken from the terminal of TLS airport (or one of the office buildings adjacent to it).

So what happened if this was after the test was completed? One possibility would be that while slowly turning the aircraft towards the exit, thrust was applied too early (either inadvertently by the pilot or due to a technical failure).

Can anybody guess what speed would have been necessary to push the nose over the concrete wall?
Profit Max is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 10:18
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
Here's a same scale shot of the pan with an A-340. Plenty of room to get a few knots on board - depending on where you start from.

forget is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 10:27
  #113 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
It says a lot for the strength around the nose gear and the keel beam - I would have expected collapse there and concertina-ing rather than 'up-and-over'.

A really frightening experience for those on board, particularly up front.
BOAC is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 11:15
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 533
Originally Posted by forget
The Airliners.net shot was a taken with a very long lens. Checking out the building roof etc (yellow arrow) against Google Earth - aircraft ended up at red line.
I think it's quite a bit further in. If you look at the way the tele lens "compresses" the depth.

Take a look at how close to the fuselage the the wing tip rests on the ground, compared to the distance from the wing tip to the near edge of the test bay.

Also compare the amount of fence on the barrier in front and behind the aircraft. The width of individual panels of the fence seen in the far end of the bay helps judge the amount of fence that is seen in front of the plane.

So it appears to be closer to the centre of the north-western ("right") barrier, rather than at the near edge.


Bernd
bsieker is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 11:26
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Anywhere that pays
Posts: 117
It reminds me (NB: NO suggestion this was the cause!) of an engineer who taxied a 727 onto stand in TXL but forgot to put the hydraulic pumps on.......................it took a while to get the jetty out of the wing.
flt_lt_w_mitty is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 11:29
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 533
Originally Posted by Flapping_Madly
[...]
Is the Google image 5 years out of date as usual? or has a further length of blast barrier been built?
Considering that currently google earth images show at least two A380 standing in the open (besides several A340/A330 and countless A320-series), and that the (c) notice says "2007", it can't be more than a few months old.

For scale: the aircraft on forget's screenshots in the top left corner is a "Beluga" Super Transporter.

The plane has hit a short section with a long section on its left hand side.
No. That's the kind of perspective illusion that a long telephoto lens produces. It has hit a long section, with a short section to its left. The long section appears short because it is photographed almost edge-on.

Here's my best estimate as to the photographer's location, this corresponds to a field-of-view of about 2.2 degrees, at a distance of about 1.45 km.


Bernd

Last edited by bsieker; 18th Nov 2007 at 17:50. Reason: Corrected distance estimate
bsieker is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 11:51
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
Here's an aerial shot of the NE corner of thepad. The red arrow is (I think) the orange Ground Services unit shown in the Airliners net photo.

forget is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 13:10
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 533
Originally Posted by forget
Here's an aerial shot of the NE corner of thepad. The red arrow is (I think) the orange Ground Services unit shown in the Airliners net photo.
This is rather academic, since the relevant people already know where exactly it was, but this is an interesting experiment nonetheless.

Look at the telltale markings on the wall, circled in blue and red, respectively, their position relative to the airframe (now permanently a "groundframe"), and their relative position on the wall, seen in the backdrop overview:




Bernd
bsieker is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 13:12
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,433
It reminds me (NB: NO suggestion this was the cause!) of an engineer who taxied a 727 onto stand in TXL but forgot to put the hydraulic pumps on.......................it took a while to get the jetty out of the wing.
Was that a -235 model by any chance?

The 727 has a famous design issue where you need to open a hydraulic interconnect under some circumstances to get normal braking. There are pneumatic brakes but by the time you find that yellow handle it's usually all over but the shouting.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 13:45
  #120 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
I also remember the (TXL) incident and I think it was a 235.
BOAC is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

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