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.