I would imagine that the wheels were made to Airbus specification, but Airbus would not design them or contstruct them.

i.e. Airbus says "we want a wheel combo to go on here, and be able to do this, and weigh no more than this amount"

The wheel then failed to meet the specification laid out by Airbus.

On the other hand the problem was obviously fixed, as the 340-600 is flying today, and wouldn't have if it could not pass the tests.

Paul
 

Fair comment, point taken.:ok:

On another note: Those RTO tests must be ridiculously expensive to run. The damage done to that plane must have cost a small fortune to fix, let alone the expected cost of having to replace a full set of wheels, tyres, brakes, lines etc! Must have cost ... what? Million pounds plus?

Cheers,

ABX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lear_accidents

It appears they didn't.

I still believe competence or otherwise has no gender, age or nationality.
Nor is it the exclusive province of a particular profession.

I for one am glad that actual testing takes place and lessons learned can be applied. :) :)

Now, I really don't want to stir the pot but there are really some very amateur spotters contributing to this thread. :rolleyes:

DO Goodrich manufacture the whole landing gear assembly, including the wheel rims? It would appear to me that the the landing gear stood up very well, during and after the test. The wheel rims are another matter of course.

The 'Sapeur Pompier' who is seen in the video is a very brave man. Would you risk everything standing under 300 odd tons of aircraft when everything that is supporting it is in flames and disintigrating in front of you? No, I thought not. :rolleyes:

Anyway, the bit about the landing gear is not really applicable. Are the fuse plugs that are supposed to melt before the pressure inside the tyres becomes too high and prevent the wheels from exploding, a part of the tyre or the wheel rims?

According to Airbus sources the aircraft was fitted with Michelin's NZG radial tyres, which, according to Airbus, were believed to have performed adequately. Isn't Michelin a French company? Just teasing there. If the fuse plugs were a part of the tyre then I suppose that the fault would lay with the tyre manufacturer or if the plugs are a part of the wheel assembly then the fault would be with whoever designed and manufactured that bit. :oh:

As a Boeing driver and one who is distinctly uncomfortable with 'the dark side' and all the new philosophies (only because I'm too old and long in the tooth to have to learn them if I should be transferred to a Tuppaware jet), I was impressed with the B777 V1 reject trials that were filmed. Perhaps Airbus just need to make sure their cockpit video trials are edited suitable before being leaked to the public.

Still, it does make for entertaining watching and then reading some of the comments from complete know-it-alls who obviously don't. :ugh: To those who do know what they are talking about, thank you for your insight. As for the French firefighters, unless any of you have the cojones to do their job then at least have a bit of respect for the danger they are prepared to put themselves in so that the test pilots and their crew have a chance of getting out. :D

The fusable plugs would form part wheels hub.

Saw this test about 2 years ago on a CD (floating) around the office. D'ont think it's that new.

12feb02 F-WWCA A340-642 360 Airbus Industrie
Suffered heavy undercariage damage damage during max landing weight test at Istres airbase, France. Aircraft was loaded to 370 tons while it will be certified for max landing at 254 tons.

Well, 3/4 of a $m was mentioned for the 777, how much to repair the Airbus?


As for the turnout, they should think themselves lucky. I used the whole of the runway to stop one night at CDG, having asked for the fire crews to monitor the left undercarriage etc etc.

We were standing near a lake of hydraulic fluid when, TWENTY MINUETS LATER, a 7foot tall policeman unfolds himself from one of those Vegetarian cars, puts on his hat and adjusts his tunic, before demanding to know why I had parked there.

cargo boy
 

Truly spoken like someone who is reaching for the biggest wooden spoon they can hold. :E

cargo, you are right, there are many and varied spotters AND professionals on PPRuNe. For example, as a long time spotter and fresh student I rank myself low on the list of 'professionals' when it comes to a/c & flying, however I have been an active fireman (volunteer) for well over 20 years and I know that the fireys in the video did an appalling job of it.:ugh:

There never was any danger of the main gear itself failing and bringing the a/c down on the head of that poor lone firefighter, if, in fact he was too close and a little ineffective, it was because his buddies back at the safety of the pumper did not give him enough pressure. The significant damage to the a/c that resulted from the fire tells the story. Put simply; the fireys failed that test. :yuk:

ABX

Hi Sensible
 

If the MLW is 254 tons then I would guess the MTOW would not be 116 tons higher ... did you mean to say 270 tons? Or was the a/c deliberately overloaded for the test? If 370 tons is the correct number, do you know why they went with such a high weight?

I find it interesting is all ... :8

Cheers,

ABX

Aaah! You can't beat that saying!

The stupidest and most ignorant in the aviation world.

The whole point of the test is to see if the aircraft can cope with a wait of 15 minutes after the RTO without having to evacuate (this is to account for the delay in the fire service arriving which might occur in a normal scenario). My French is a little rusty, but at one point I believe you can hear the test pilots asking what the hell is the firefighter doing, as he is interfering with the test (no outside involvement unless absolutely necessary).

As soon as the test is declared a failure, the cavalry arrive, but mainly from behind the MLG and they're obscured by smoke.

Bahrain Lad
 

Thanks for your post, my French is practically non existent. :)

If the fireys (or maybe just the one firey) tried to put the fire out before either the test was completed or declared a failure, then I stand by my comments that they did not put on their best display on the day.

Also, I think the test only goes for 5 minutes.

Cheers BL,

ABX

From the cockpit dialog, it sounded like when they were taxiing, they spotted something in front of them that was not in the plan -- that could easily have been the one fire truck from which our hero came. There are plenty of fire trucks following the bus.

Also, when he does come on camera with the hose, the "five-minute wait" is still in effect (it's about 2:30), and someone on the gorund tries to call him off; there's concern that he'll ruin the test. With the fire, and when the guy starts the hose, the folks on the flight deck try to argue that it's "not a serious fire" -- and they can make it. Then the tires start exploding.

From a logical point of view, it would not make sense to give the test pilots veto rights over fire crew intervention. So the crew's call that it's "not serious" wouldn't prevent the fire folks from stopping the test -- and the crew seems to realize this.
At the same time, you get the feeling that the truck wasn't where it was supposed to be, and acted autonomously. But given the facts of the matter: the tires were still inflated, and the test was going to fail spectacularly, the "rogue hose" could have been prescient instead of stupid, and they could have been positioned to deal with the NLG if need be.

Even so, you do have to wonder why there appears to have been nobody whose primary task was assisting the crew with evacuation: for several minutes after ground gives the call to evacuate, they sit up there, asking for the stairs with no response. My personal favorite is:
"Uh, excuse me, could we have the stairs or something please?"

ABX, I'm more than willing to wave the wooden spoon if I so deserve it. I only fly the darned things and hopefully will never have to try and get out of one with flames coming from anywhere. :oh:

I still believe that there are some very amateur spotters who don't have any credentials, airline pilot or firefighter, who jump in with observations that do deserve the biggest wooden spoon. As was mentioned, we don't see what the firefighters at the rear of the a/c are doing. However, the chap we see with the dribbling hose :ooh: is either very stupid or very brave, whether or not he was doing the right thing.

Standing under the a/c whilst wheels are exploding, whether the landing gear is going to be affected or not, must have an effect on ones perception of the world around you. 200 or 300 or whatever tons of airliner suddenly dropping 4, 5, 6 or 10 inches towards your head should have an effect on any normal humans sense of wellbeing. :bored:

No doubt Gallic passions and excitement were at play during the unfolding scenario and thankfully no one was physically hurt although there are probably some badly bruised egos. I still think the lone firefighter was brave even if he wasn't supposed to be there. Rather him than me. :O

At least two or three times the pilot (?) says "fermez le bouche" which is "shut your mouth" or "shut up."

"Quoi?" is "What?"

"Arret" is "stop"

"feu" is "fire"

"perdu" is "lost"

"escalier" is "staircase"
regardless of whether they asked for a ladder or staircase, clearly they didn't wan't to be in the cockpit anymore.

"D'accord" is "okay"

"sh*t" is "sh*t"

"mal" is "bad" or "sick"



The fireman may have messed up the test, and there may not have been enough water pressure, but there was a fire and he was trying to do what he'd chosen to do as a career.

Like something from Dad's Army. "Don't panic............Don't panic.........Capt Mannering I've got it under control"

I've done it for real on an Airbus
 

For those looking at the whole thing theoretically, a few years ago as a passenger outbound from Doha to LHR on a QA A300, we hit birds at V1. Brill pilot brought us to straight line stop, turned off runway, all tyres quietly went "pop", no fuss, no fire, we disembarked. :):D I have reason to trust Hairbus after that!!!

A question for the "Fire" professionals ......

once a serious fire situation had been identified would not the best course of action be to use roof mounted guns/nozzles and keep personnel well away from the danger areas? .... :confused:

http://www.foxvps.co.uk/images/image040.jpg

http://www.foxvps.co.uk/images/image040.jpg

I dont know a thing about fighting fires but its interesting how the fireman appears to completely ignore the port side main gear (even when the second hose joins in on the starboard) letting the flames lick the underside of the fuselage.....