bsieker
... so the viewpoint was the multistory carpark

... and it has been -5C every morning for the last few days in Toulouse

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 :ugh: 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 :ok:

Interesting that, I suppose it didn't have a load of aft ballast for some reason.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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!

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. :(

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/lkk.jpg

Forget,

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

That would worry me.

Best wishes.

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.................;)

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

To the AIRBUS designers......why did the front part broke so fiercely????:confused::confused: 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??:E:E

RE

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

fantom. 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,
Really......

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

2. Your insurance should cover the damage.

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???

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.....

The fan diameter of a Trent 500 is 2,47 meters.

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.

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.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2.../APS20A380.jpg

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:ok:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...us20Aerial.jpg

Thanks Forget, that answers my question. Not sure what happened to my earlier post asking about this structure. Possibly zapped by over-zealous/humourless mods for inappropriate levity ... :rolleyes:

Duncan

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!

You're not seriously telling us that a customised high-tech installation by a specialised company is a lot cheaper than just putting up some blunt concrete dams?

Nowhere in the BDI brochure, a link to which you provided does it mention any other objective for their solutions than noise mitigation and creating suitable wind conditions. The words "safe" and "safety" are curiously absent from their sales blurb.

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.)

Next time they will feed us at the chalets..
:p
http://aerotransport.free.fr/Zmisc/Etihad.JPG

Ah she'll do a trip....

I've spoken to the Line Engineers and they reckon she'll be ready in about 30 mins....

It reminds me of the old Roger Bacon comment at the back of Flight magazine : "There'll be a short technical delay, folks."

soon on sale: the first 4-engine A321 !:}

Crew Condition Update
 

:sad:

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!:ok:

Looking at the last picture, they don't need a ladder that tall now to clean the flight deck windows do they?

Its amazing anyone survived in the cockpit and I hope nobody else was in the front . I wonder where the other people were sitting?

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

@Golf Charlie
@squeaker
@FCS

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

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?

I'm sure they could use the A380 Dance floor previously seen so i wouldnt of thought that there would be much of delay if one at all!

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?

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....

Airbus finally breaks the Sound Barrier!! :)