Airbus whoops a daisy.
22 May 2009, 01:02 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: l'on n'y peut rien
Posts: 2,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus whoops a daisy.
brand
spanking new Airbus 340-600, the largest
passenger
airplane ever
built,
sits just outside it's hangar in Toulouse,
France,
without a single hour of airtime on the clock....
Enter
the Arab flight crew of Abu Dhabi Aircraft
Technologies
(ADAT)
to conduct pre-delivery tests on the ground, such
as
engine
run-ups prior to delivery to Etihad Airways in Abu
Dhabi.
The
ADAT crew taxied the A340-600 to the run-up area.
Then
they took all Four engines to takeoff power
with
a virtually empty
aircraft.
Not
having Read the run-up
manuals,
they had no clue just how light
an
empty A340-600
really is.
The
take-off warning horn was blaring away in the
cockpit
because
they had All 4 engines at full power.
The
aircraft computers thought they were trying to take
off,
but it
had not been configured properly (flaps/slats,
etc.)
Then
one of the ADAT crew decided to pull the circuit
breaker
on the Ground Proximity Sensor to silence the
alarm.
This
fools the aircraft into thinking it is in the air.
The
computers automatically released all the brakes
-
and
set the aircraft rocketing forward !!
With
the following result..........It hit a blast wall and was TOTALLED!
The Abu
Dhabi Aircraft Technology crew had no idea
that
this is a safety feature so that pilots can't land with the brakes on.
Not one
member of the seven-man Arab crew was smart enough
to
throttle back the
engines from their max power setting,
so the
$200 million brand-new aircraft
crashed
into a blast barrier, totalling it.
The
extent of injuries to the crew is unknown due to
the
news
blackout in the major media.
This
was because coverage of the story was
deemed
insulting to Muslim Arabs.
Finally,
the photos are starting to leak out.
£200
million aircraft meets wall.
Wall
wins.
(But
your secret is safe with me and all
my
other email
pals....)
I have seen the pics to this, and they are amazing. If anyone wants them PM me an e-mail addy. before 3pm, or I'll be away.
spanking new Airbus 340-600, the largest
passenger
airplane ever
built,
sits just outside it's hangar in Toulouse,
France,
without a single hour of airtime on the clock....
Enter
the Arab flight crew of Abu Dhabi Aircraft
Technologies
(ADAT)
to conduct pre-delivery tests on the ground, such
as
engine
run-ups prior to delivery to Etihad Airways in Abu
Dhabi.
The
ADAT crew taxied the A340-600 to the run-up area.
Then
they took all Four engines to takeoff power
with
a virtually empty
aircraft.
Not
having Read the run-up
manuals,
they had no clue just how light
an
empty A340-600
really is.
The
take-off warning horn was blaring away in the
cockpit
because
they had All 4 engines at full power.
The
aircraft computers thought they were trying to take
off,
but it
had not been configured properly (flaps/slats,
etc.)
Then
one of the ADAT crew decided to pull the circuit
breaker
on the Ground Proximity Sensor to silence the
alarm.
This
fools the aircraft into thinking it is in the air.
The
computers automatically released all the brakes
-
and
set the aircraft rocketing forward !!
With
the following result..........It hit a blast wall and was TOTALLED!
The Abu
Dhabi Aircraft Technology crew had no idea
that
this is a safety feature so that pilots can't land with the brakes on.
Not one
member of the seven-man Arab crew was smart enough
to
throttle back the
engines from their max power setting,
so the
$200 million brand-new aircraft
crashed
into a blast barrier, totalling it.
The
extent of injuries to the crew is unknown due to
the
news
blackout in the major media.
This
was because coverage of the story was
deemed
insulting to Muslim Arabs.
Finally,
the photos are starting to leak out.
£200
million aircraft meets wall.
Wall
wins.
(But
your secret is safe with me and all
my
other email
pals....)
I have seen the pics to this, and they are amazing. If anyone wants them PM me an e-mail addy. before 3pm, or I'll be away.
Last edited by tanyatriangles; 22 May 2009 at 01:03 PM.
22 May 2009, 01:06 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Splendid, i look forward to the piccies.
In the mean time here is how to land one!
YouTube - Airbus A380 crosswind start & landing
In the mean time here is how to land one!
YouTube - Airbus A380 crosswind start & landing
22 May 2009, 01:07 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
This happened yoinks ago?
I remember my ex-RAF boss giving me a full, detailed and I might add unwanted explanation of how it happened.
He misses his Harrier - although judging by the panels on his car I suspect it doesn't miss him
I remember my ex-RAF boss giving me a full, detailed and I might add unwanted explanation of how it happened.
He misses his Harrier - although judging by the panels on his car I suspect it doesn't miss him
)
Trending Topics
22 May 2009, 01:13 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Splendid, i look forward to the piccies.
In the mean time here is how to land one!
YouTube - Airbus A380 crosswind start & landing
In the mean time here is how to land one!
YouTube - Airbus A380 crosswind start & landing
Les
22 May 2009, 01:27 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Well, the incident happened on 15 November 2007, so hardly hot news 
There are numerous factually incorrect bits in your post. Firstly there were three on the flight deck, who were two Airbus employees and one from GAMCO (not ADAT). There were nine on board in total, not seven.
There was just 13 seconds between aircraft roll and blast wall impact. There was no 'circuit breaker' pulled. There is reference to 'braking circuit' pressures in the official report.
Most of the rest of your post is tosh. Bottom line is that thrust exceeded brake capacity and tarmac friction thus Newton's Third law of Motion applied.
Below is the extract from the OFFICIAL report. The full official report is rather long
3. CONCLUSIONS
3.1 Findings of investigation
• The aircraft, including its braking system, operated in accordance with its specifications
• The accident occurred in the delivery phase of a unprogrammed test
• The procedure was not in conformity with the task “Fuel and Oil Leak Test” listed in the AMM. In particular, it was carried out at high thrust on all engines without the use of wheel chocks
• Testimonies and video recordings indicate that engine tests are regularly carried out without wheel chocks
• The thrust used on the engines was at the same level as the nominal braking capacity of the parking brake
• When the aircraft began to move, the ground testing technician pushed on the brake pedals and released the parking brake
• The ground testing technician turned the NWS to the right. This action, by inhibiting the CLG braking, limited the braking effectiveness
• The actions on the brake pedals were not sustained to the maximum level
• The flight testing engineer retarded the thrust levers when the plane hit the anti-blast wall
3.2 Causes of the accident
The accident is due to the run up on all 4 engines at the same time, without wheel chocks, and during which the total engine thrust was close to the parking brake capacity.
The lack of a detection process and deviation correction in the ground test procedure, in a context of industrial and commercial pressure, promoted the operation of a test outside of the established procedures.
The sudden onset of aircraft movement led the ground testing technician to focus on the braking system; therefore he did not think to reduce the thrust of the engines.
There are numerous factually incorrect bits in your post. Firstly there were three on the flight deck, who were two Airbus employees and one from GAMCO (not ADAT). There were nine on board in total, not seven.
There was just 13 seconds between aircraft roll and blast wall impact. There was no 'circuit breaker' pulled. There is reference to 'braking circuit' pressures in the official report.
Most of the rest of your post is tosh. Bottom line is that thrust exceeded brake capacity and tarmac friction thus Newton's Third law of Motion applied.
Below is the extract from the OFFICIAL report. The full official report is rather long
3. CONCLUSIONS
3.1 Findings of investigation
• The aircraft, including its braking system, operated in accordance with its specifications
• The accident occurred in the delivery phase of a unprogrammed test
• The procedure was not in conformity with the task “Fuel and Oil Leak Test” listed in the AMM. In particular, it was carried out at high thrust on all engines without the use of wheel chocks
• Testimonies and video recordings indicate that engine tests are regularly carried out without wheel chocks
• The thrust used on the engines was at the same level as the nominal braking capacity of the parking brake
• When the aircraft began to move, the ground testing technician pushed on the brake pedals and released the parking brake
• The ground testing technician turned the NWS to the right. This action, by inhibiting the CLG braking, limited the braking effectiveness
• The actions on the brake pedals were not sustained to the maximum level
• The flight testing engineer retarded the thrust levers when the plane hit the anti-blast wall
3.2 Causes of the accident
The accident is due to the run up on all 4 engines at the same time, without wheel chocks, and during which the total engine thrust was close to the parking brake capacity.
The lack of a detection process and deviation correction in the ground test procedure, in a context of industrial and commercial pressure, promoted the operation of a test outside of the established procedures.
The sudden onset of aircraft movement led the ground testing technician to focus on the braking system; therefore he did not think to reduce the thrust of the engines.
Last edited by Dave T-S; 22 May 2009 at 01:39 PM.
22 May 2009, 01:32 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: l'on n'y peut rien
Posts: 2,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the accident happened on 15 November 2007, so hardly hot news
There are numerous factually incorrect bits in your post. Firstly there were three on the flight deck, who were two Airbus employees and one from GAMCO (not ADAT).
Below is the extract from the OFFICIAL report. The full official report is rather long
3. CONCLUSIONS
3.1 Findings of investigation
• The aircraft, including its braking system, operated in accordance with its specifications
• The accident occurred in the delivery phase of a unprogrammed test
• The procedure was not in conformity with the task “Fuel and Oil Leak Test” listed in the AMM. In particular, it was carried out at high thrust on all engines without the use of wheel chocks
• Testimonies and video recordings indicate that engine tests are regularly carried out without wheel chocks
• The thrust used on the engines was at the same level as the nominal braking capacity of the parking brake
• When the aircraft began to move, the ground testing technician pushed on the brake pedals and released the parking brake
• The ground testing technician turned the NWS to the right. This action, by inhibiting the CLG braking, limited the braking effectiveness
• The actions on the brake pedals were not sustained to the maximum level
• The flight testing engineer retarded the thrust levers when the plane hit the anti-blast wall
3.2 Causes of the accident
The accident is due to the run up on all 4 engines at the same time, without wheel chocks, and during which the total engine thrust was close to the parking brake capacity.
The lack of a detection process and deviation correction in the ground test procedure, in a context of industrial and commercial pressure, promoted the operation of a test outside of the established procedures.
The sudden onset of aircraft movement led the ground testing technician to focus on the braking system; therefore he did not think to reduce the thrust of the engines.
There are numerous factually incorrect bits in your post. Firstly there were three on the flight deck, who were two Airbus employees and one from GAMCO (not ADAT).
Below is the extract from the OFFICIAL report. The full official report is rather long
3. CONCLUSIONS
3.1 Findings of investigation
• The aircraft, including its braking system, operated in accordance with its specifications
• The accident occurred in the delivery phase of a unprogrammed test
• The procedure was not in conformity with the task “Fuel and Oil Leak Test” listed in the AMM. In particular, it was carried out at high thrust on all engines without the use of wheel chocks
• Testimonies and video recordings indicate that engine tests are regularly carried out without wheel chocks
• The thrust used on the engines was at the same level as the nominal braking capacity of the parking brake
• When the aircraft began to move, the ground testing technician pushed on the brake pedals and released the parking brake
• The ground testing technician turned the NWS to the right. This action, by inhibiting the CLG braking, limited the braking effectiveness
• The actions on the brake pedals were not sustained to the maximum level
• The flight testing engineer retarded the thrust levers when the plane hit the anti-blast wall
3.2 Causes of the accident
The accident is due to the run up on all 4 engines at the same time, without wheel chocks, and during which the total engine thrust was close to the parking brake capacity.
The lack of a detection process and deviation correction in the ground test procedure, in a context of industrial and commercial pressure, promoted the operation of a test outside of the established procedures.
The sudden onset of aircraft movement led the ground testing technician to focus on the braking system; therefore he did not think to reduce the thrust of the engines.
My wife is flying with Etihad this summer to Oz, your story puts my mind a bit more at rest
25 May 2009, 12:55 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some pics of the incident that I've not seen before here;
Association of Licensed Aircraft Engineers (ALAE) - Our Aircraft picture gallery
Association of Licensed Aircraft Engineers (ALAE) - Our Aircraft picture gallery
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post