Barit1,

Not sure of the design similarities with the MD-11 but here goes. The body gear on that aircraft type, better known as the "peg leg", needed to be free moving to allow it to walk, so to speak. This was needed during loading/off loading/fueling due to weight changes and shifts. Especially the freighters. I have been flying the 747-400 for many years since then but it does not do the same. However, I have never flown an AirBus and consequently cannot comment.

Which suggests that brakes alone are useless under engine test conditions and presumably chocks should be used to stop forward motion of the aircraft? I thought the consensus earlier in the thread was contrary to that?

In any case, I find it difficult to believe that something so large with so much inertia AND brakes on can attain 30 knots in such a short space of time unless the wheels were turning.

Another little Gem.
.
If park brake was selected on and aircraft moved forward with 4 or more wheels rotating, pressing the toe brakes would have no effect as normal brakes are not avail in said condition.
.
Parking brake or Anti-Skid to off, then toe brakes should work we would like to think.
.
PS. Reason the centre gear don't work with parking brake is the centre gear leg is a different rake angle to mains, as aircraft gets loaded/unloaded all gear would be stressed a lot.

I've seen quite a few photos taken from various angles on here and other places and I haven't noticed any skid marks. Has anyone else?

Quote: "I've seen quite a few photos taken from various angles on here and other places and I haven't noticed any skid marks. Has anyone else?"

Check the underwear of the those on board, plenty to be found there one would think !

Guys, forgive me, I have not read every single post.

But, if you're going to do run up tests surely the manual states the braking/anchorage requirements.

Were these requirements met?

I was going to say its black and white, but...

I've seen quite a few photos taken from various angles on here and other places and I haven't noticed any skid marks. Has anyone else?

The photograph taken from behind the aircraft shows a long black stripe around where the left bogie may have started.Locked wheel???

tubby

can you provide a link to that pic or tell me which post?

Post 168 perhaps?

Look at this photograph.Can you see a solid black strip going towards the wall outboard of the left hand bogie?It may not be in line with the current hull position but if you move the hull to the left towards where it was when the no1 engine contacted the wall I think they line up.Locked wheel???http://aerotransport.free.fr/Zmisc/Etihad2.JPG

Yep I see it. I know it's a foreshortened telephoto pic but that does look like a very short skidmark. Wheels not initally locked?

That photo shows just how much the aircraft moved over to the right after the impact with the wall. The report and down loads will be interesting!

Any news as to how the injured are?

One still in hospital

miniIf you HAD have read every single post, you would have read the statement from AI that the a/c had completed it's tests and was departing from the the test bay. We await official confirmation.

Paxboy, if you had read all the posts you would have found the post from AI stating that it was not exiting the bay and official confirmation that it should have been chocked as per the AMM.

Mr @ I'm sure you noticed that I wrote: We await official confirmation. Given how much money is at stake, only a final report will do.

If you apply the translation, that mark is not coming from left set of wheels, but from the center one !

And a tire is not that large, these wheels were not braking, but crabing.
Now, try and find any braking mark from left hand bogie ?
There is none.

... I'm afraid that airplane was not braking at all !

Conf I think you are correct.I am not familiar with the braking system of this variant of bus are there any brakes fitted on the body gear?

@confiture

But it seems, the whole thing swept to the right. Look at the markings of engines 1 and 2.....:hmm:

Mr Spotty

I believe that if we read all the post we can conclude that nothing untoward happened since it is only in our dreams.

There are so many contradictions in what has been released to the press that we still have to guess at what might have happened.

I tend to believe what the BEA releases and updates. I don't believe that Airbus has any intent to mislead, but since they can only release what is confirmed by the BEA, their safest course of action, early on, is to confirm the applicability of their recommended procedures under the circumstances of the earliest reports.

Should the investigation later reveal circimstances not covered by these procedures, then I would expect Airbus to release updates to the procedures without compromising the investigative perogatives of the BEA.

Someday mayby somebody will post a timeline synopsis of all published news reports on this accident so we can see that we are mostly pawns to the interpretations of the news by non-aviation professionals as we post on these forums