Brand new Etihad A340-600 damaged in Toulouse; several wounded
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 1
From: Hampshire, UK
Forget, you can't seriously expect the first requirement of designing and building a run-up area enclosure is to handle a runaway plane? I think the most important requirement is sound proofing. Let's be real! It is not such a likely occurence that it should be priority 1. Do you get fed up that when you drive your car, there is a concrete low wall (pavement) right next to you almost as if it is designed to take your tyres out should you strike it? This is a well designed run-up pan, such events do not happen regularly.
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
From: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
If you say so, but re-locating a 1940's tank-trap from the Normandie beaches to an airfield doesn't strike me as very sensible. Particularly when these are just as effective - and a helluva lot cheaper I'd guess.
http://www.blastdeflectors.com/GRE%20Brochure.pdf
And look! Airbus agrees with me! Same company.
This facility in Toulouse was designed for Airbus Industrie specifically for full power engine testing of the A380.
And while on the site - the mystery of the Toulouse 'dance floor' is solved. Guess what! It's the new A-380 run up pad. Proper job
http://www.blastdeflectors.com/GRE%20Brochure.pdf
And look! Airbus agrees with me! Same company.
This facility in Toulouse was designed for Airbus Industrie specifically for full power engine testing of the A380.
And while on the site - the mystery of the Toulouse 'dance floor' is solved. Guess what! It's the new A-380 run up pad. Proper job
Last edited by forget; 19th November 2007 at 13:12.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
From: Peripatetic
I wonder how much of this aircraft will be salvaged and absorbed back into the production line? I would assume most of the componnents are almost nil time and would present no problem (airframe excepted) in re-use. I think this is a case of making the best of a bad job and that would seem the best way to do it!
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 556
Likes: 1
From: Germany
Originally Posted by Rainboe
Forget, you can't seriously expect the first requirement of designing and building a run-up area enclosure is to handle a runaway plane? I think the most important requirement is sound proofing.
If you say so, but re-locating a 1940's tank-trap from the Normandie beaches to an airfield doesn't strike me as very sensible. Particularly when these are just as effective - and a helluva lot cheaper I'd guess.
And look! Airbus agrees with me! Same company.
This facility in Toulouse was designed for Airbus Industrie specifically for full power engine testing of the A380.
This facility in Toulouse was designed for Airbus Industrie specifically for full power engine testing of the A380.
That does not say anything about whether or not these new installations are any more or any less safe than the old concrete walls, or how much emphasis Airbus puts on safety.
The "mosh pit" for the A380, when closed, doesn't even have an exit, so a runaway aircraft would always hit a wall. (Unlike most GRE installations of BDI's brochure, which are usually open at the aircraft front.)
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
From: Fawlty Towers-Torquay
Crew Condition Update
To be perfectly honest, looking at that photo presented by .aerotransport.org. it made my skin crawl. I fail to see the sense of humour by some. Any news or update on the condition of the engineers or the entire crew of this doomed taxi event??? Any update will be highly appreciated.
Safe flying to all from Sybil,Polly and Manuel!
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
From: Earth
Some gossips:
a) 3 injured, not life threatening, still in hospital
b) GTA (Gendarmerie du Transport Aérien) in charge of investigation - why is the BEA not involved ?
c) rumour says staff from ADAT was acting PIC
d) engines left running until fuel exhausted
e) CVR, DFDR said to have been active
f) investigation said to be centered around the nosewheel steering which was unlocked in order to move out from the area after the tests had been completed, then locked again for an unknown reason putting the aircraft in front of the wall with engines running
/ATDB
a) 3 injured, not life threatening, still in hospital
b) GTA (Gendarmerie du Transport Aérien) in charge of investigation - why is the BEA not involved ?
c) rumour says staff from ADAT was acting PIC
d) engines left running until fuel exhausted
e) CVR, DFDR said to have been active
f) investigation said to be centered around the nosewheel steering which was unlocked in order to move out from the area after the tests had been completed, then locked again for an unknown reason putting the aircraft in front of the wall with engines running
/ATDB
None but a blockhead
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
While we're waiting for a fact or two to leak out, how far will this set back the whole production line? Is there somewhere else to do the engine tests, or is everything on hold for investigation and/or removal of the detritus?
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
From: Amsterdam
Looking at the last picture you can speak of a miracle that nobody died. There is simply not much left of the whole front of the aircraft. I read somewhere else that they had difficulties switching of the engine(s) due to the severe damage. Does anyone have any info on this?
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 10
From: France
aerotransport.org,
Same question here.
Usual turf war I suppose.Only three still in hospital at least sounds positive.
I think the photo you posted is the first one to show the scale of how far that cockpit dropped....
b) GTA (Gendarmerie du Transport Aérien) in charge of investigation - why is the BEA not involved ?
Usual turf war I suppose.Only three still in hospital at least sounds positive.
I think the photo you posted is the first one to show the scale of how far that cockpit dropped....
