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 18th Nov 2007, 13:50
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: LFBO
Posts: 93
bsieker
... so the viewpoint was the multistory carpark

... and it has been -5C every morning for the last few days in Toulouse
Been Accounting is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 15:33
  #122 (permalink)  
PersonalTitle to help support PPRuNe against legal bullying.
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: France
Posts: 134
Between -5 and -1 here every morning for a quite few days but generally very dry. Even if there was moisture it would have gone by 17:00 from that location. For what's it's worth the estimates posted for the location of the aircraft are accurate.

Some of the folks where I work suggested that the plane should have been moved overnight as it was bad PR to leave it where it was; when I asked where they would get a crane that big in the middle of the night they simply pointed to the nearby TLS terminal building site Yes, some were blonde As you can imagine we didn't get into the discussion of emptying the plane of fuel and the need for an accident investigation
tallsandwich is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 15:43
  #123 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 80
Posts: 4,818
I would have expected collapse there and concertina-ing rather than 'up-and-over'.

Interesting that, I suppose it didn't have a load of aft ballast for some reason.
Loose rivets is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 16:03
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,316
I would have expected collapse there and concertina-ing rather than 'up-and-over'.
If you start thinking about the dynamics of it... given a low speed, some thrust and not too much weight on the nosewheel, the nosewheel would just have run up the deflector, tilting the aircraft backwards but hardly slowing it.
With a sudden nasty drop once the nosewheel went over the edge, chopping off the cockpit.
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 16:17
  #125 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
Well, I have been 'thinking' about it and "the nosewheel would just have run up the deflector" I'm having difficulty with!

I suppose with a real stack of power and some knots plus an aft c of g the n/wheel could have collapsed on impact and the whole thing just slid up the slope. Amazing.
BOAC is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 16:28
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 222
Out of curiosity ... not that it is relevant in this case. Are there some special requirements for the CG position for this type of test?
pax2908 is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 16:47
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,316
BOAC,
We're guessing anyway....
If it arrived at the barrier at an angle, as the pictures seem to indicate, the "effective slope" would have been considerably less, so maybe the nosewheel didn't come off.
But until we get some more info, your suggestion certainly has equal merit!
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 17:47
  #128 (permalink)  
Anotherflapoperator
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Would it not have been probable that the lower nose hit first, possibly bouncing the a/c up till the nose leg touched and then drove on up and over.

The sudden drop off and chop seems quite expected once it got up there!
 
Old 18th Nov 2007, 18:12
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
The sudden drop off and chop seems quite expected once it got up there!
Quite! What an insane design! I'll bet the sheet steel (??) blast deflectors don't make a bit of difference to the outside world. The sloping wall has already done the work. Didn't anyone ask during design 'Yeah, but what happens if we really do get a runaway aircraft and it does climb the wall?' Clearly not.

forget is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 18:44
  #130 (permalink)  

Dog Tired
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,676
Forget,

I hope you don't have a job with anything involving aircraft.

That would worry me.

Best wishes.
fantom is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 18:55
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: sussex,england
Posts: 16
PAX 2908 ; Quote: Out of curiosity ... not that it is relevant in this case. Are there some special requirements for the CG position for this type of test?

Not really for engine runs only just adequate fuel on board. Weight and balance would be consired for high speed taxi tests only where the a/c could lift off.................
alright jack is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 19:11
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: LFBO
Posts: 93
Tall sandwich
Difficult to move without a nose wheel.
I expect it will be butchered on the spot

forget
The deflectors are concrete. The only thing that should climb the wall is hot air
Been Accounting is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 19:36
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hotazel
Posts: 50
To the AIRBUS designers......why did the front part broke so fiercely???? For such a long plane, it should be strong enough to hold.... Will it break or crumble like that in a very hard landing as well??

RE
radioexcel is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 19:46
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Marion, South Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 183
Because it would not have just "pushed up" over the ledge - it would have leapt up into the air over the ledge and then "crashed down"

Get a tube and hit it on the edge of a desk or bench - you'll see the tube buckle at the impact point!

Mike
mmciau is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 20:43
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
fantom.
Forget, I hope you don't have a job with anything involving aircraft. That would worry me. Best wishes.
Having considered the wisdom in this remark I have to assume that you were part of the run-up pan design team.

Perhaps this was your train of thought ……..

When in the run-up pan;

1. No aircraft will ever ever ‘jump-chocks’ or suffer engine/computer run-aways. However, if 1 is wrong;

2. No runaway aircraft will ever ever climb the sloping wall. However, if 1 and 2 are wrong;

3. No runaway aircraft will ever ever climb the wall and then break its back on the totally unnecessary knife edged (steel reinforced, Thank you, Been Accounting) concrete additional blast deflectors. However, if 1, 2 and 3 are wrong;

4. No runaway aircraft will ever ever break its back due mainly to the totally unnecessary knife edged steel reinforced concrete additional blast deflectors and so cause serious injury to the occupants.

Was this how it went? Is this what you signed off?

Best wishes back.
forget is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 21:01
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,316
forget,
Really......

1. No aircraft shall ever move during engine run-ups. However, if 1 is wrong;

2. Your insurance should cover the damage.
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2007, 00:36
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sun, water, and lots of sand
Posts: 66
Engine cut off ???

Any idea how one shuts off the engines when the cockpit has been seperated from the fuselage? Cockpit has no control.
Just wondering if the engines were still running after the aircraft had climbed the wall.
Had a call today from someone today saying he heard it took a while for the engines to be stopped, and then again I wasn't sure if they just pumped water into them, to stop them.
Anyone know???
sidestick driver is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2007, 01:58
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hotel
Posts: 177
wasn't sure if they just pumped water into them, to stop them.
You would need much more water than you average fire truck can pump to stop those engines - they are huge.....?
missingblade is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2007, 05:16
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gweriniaeth Cymru
Posts: 577
You would need much more water than you average fire truck can pump to stop those engines - they are huge.....?
Trent 500 is certified to continue running without flameout in all conditions at a water flow of 1,200l/min.

Oshkosh 4500 (4,500 gall capacity) airport firetender can deliver water at 4,500 l/min. Should be enough me thinks.

Trent 500 fan diameter about 1.6m, thrust 56,000lbs. GE90-115B 115,300lbs, 3.5m

JFGI - just flippin' google it.....
N1 Vibes is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2007, 10:21
  #140 (permalink)  
OsPi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The fan diameter of a Trent 500 is 2,47 meters.
 

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.