Brand spanking new A340-600 smacked up...
Discussion
Found out about this, this morning... how would you be, brand spanking new A340-600 due for delivery next week smacked up against a wall. Pretty scarey no one got killed if you have a look at the photo of it from the other side of the bank. Not too flash.
www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=300539
www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=300539
Nasty - as the replies in the Pprune suggest, I agree this was either catastrophic brake failure or the throttles stuck in the fully open position.
Glad no-one was seriously hurt - although the view from the other side of the wall would suggest an absolutely frightening drop by those in the cockpit! The so called parking brake is actually more than that & would've had to hold the jet on 100% thrust...even on little Hawks (Red Arrows) the 'parking brake' gives full system pressure (3000 psi) to the brakes...the toe brakes only used on landing to brake the aircraft in a straight line on the runway!
Glad no-one was seriously hurt - although the view from the other side of the wall would suggest an absolutely frightening drop by those in the cockpit! The so called parking brake is actually more than that & would've had to hold the jet on 100% thrust...even on little Hawks (Red Arrows) the 'parking brake' gives full system pressure (3000 psi) to the brakes...the toe brakes only used on landing to brake the aircraft in a straight line on the runway!
Yeah, they would hold back a bucket load of power that is for sure.. It is one of those times I guess that you bloody hope that the brakes hold. I would have thought that for that type of test you would bolt the plane down somehow. Could you imagine if that had happened on a full runway though, with heaps of other planes around as well. Very scarey. Reading it they say that one engine was still running and they couldn't turn it off. Perhaps, this is part of the problem. I would imagine you would be spitting chips if you had worked on putting it together, cause all your work would have been for nothing.
It's a regulation of all commercial airliners that the brakes are sufficient to stop the aircraft when landing at maximum take off weight with the engines at full thrust upon wheels touching down on the runway.
So given that jet engines perform quite badly with limited airflow (like when not moving) and it's likely the aircraft was lightly loaded, the brakes should have been more than up to the task.
Even if the brakes did fail, the pilot should have been able to cut power immediately.
This suggests that the flight systems were hit by multiple serious failures.
So given that jet engines perform quite badly with limited airflow (like when not moving) and it's likely the aircraft was lightly loaded, the brakes should have been more than up to the task.
Even if the brakes did fail, the pilot should have been able to cut power immediately.
This suggests that the flight systems were hit by multiple serious failures.
ads_green said:
Even if the brakes did fail, the pilot should have been able to cut power immediately.
Not neccessarily the pilot - I'm an engineer & I do engine runs! As you say that 1 engine wouldn't shut down - the first thing is then to turn everything off fuel-wise...pumps etc & if it STILL didn't shut down then pull the fire extinguisher bottles...a lot cheaper to fix that than what's on the clip!!Raggyman said:
Yeah, they would hold back a bucket load of power that is for sure.. It is one of those times I guess that you bloody hope that the brakes hold. I would have thought that for that type of test you would bolt the plane down somehow. Could you imagine if that had happened on a full runway though, with heaps of other planes around as well. Very scarey. Reading it they say that one engine was still running and they couldn't turn it off. Perhaps, this is part of the problem. I would imagine you would be spitting chips if you had worked on putting it together, cause all your work would have been for nothing.
Yeah raggyman - there is a point you can 'tie' these jets down - picketing points they're called on each undercarriage leg, although mainly used on military aircraft cos of the obscene amount of power in comparison to civil jets - they would literally attach them to 1" loops of steel set into the concrete of the running pan!Oh dear, they are one of my works customers, not those ones though, normally the longer range stuff A340-500 plus its rivals from the little place to the north of it in the same stuff. What a sad way for a new plane to go, I hope all the people make a full recovery.
On a different note, we have the scheduled "Big fella" come in every night too form Singapore depending which way it goes. It gets along for a massive machine.
motomk
On a different note, we have the scheduled "Big fella" come in every night too form Singapore depending which way it goes. It gets along for a massive machine.
motomk
Paul.H. said:
ads_green said:
Even if the brakes did fail, the pilot should have been able to cut power immediately.
Not neccessarily the pilot - I'm an engineer & I do engine runs! As you say that 1 engine wouldn't shut down - the first thing is then to turn everything off fuel-wise...pumps etc & if it STILL didn't shut down then pull the fire extinguisher bottles...a lot cheaper to fix that than what's on the clip!!
I agree Paul, I too am an engineer and have done many engine runs - have never seen a pilot involved in running engines, except on helicopters. As for shutting down the engine, if there was no elec power avail to the fuel valves, then it will not shut down, fire handle pulled or not, as the engine is self sustaining and will suction feed from the tank until the fuel runs out. Under normal circumstances this shouldn't happen, even if the aircraft lost all generators, the fuel shutoff valves have alternate power from main battery and will still operate. I guess in this case, they lost that aswell.
hsv_rulz said:
Paul.H. said:
ads_green said:
Even if the brakes did fail, the pilot should have been able to cut power immediately.
Not neccessarily the pilot - I'm an engineer & I do engine runs! As you say that 1 engine wouldn't shut down - the first thing is then to turn everything off fuel-wise...pumps etc & if it STILL didn't shut down then pull the fire extinguisher bottles...a lot cheaper to fix that than what's on the clip!!VERY 'off topic' so I apologise now to all those yawning!!
Edited by Paul.H. on Sunday 18th November 19:10
Edited by Paul.H. on Sunday 18th November 19:12
Paul.H. said:
hsv_rulz said:
Paul.H. said:
ads_green said:
Even if the brakes did fail, the pilot should have been able to cut power immediately.
Not neccessarily the pilot - I'm an engineer & I do engine runs! As you say that 1 engine wouldn't shut down - the first thing is then to turn everything off fuel-wise...pumps etc & if it STILL didn't shut down then pull the fire extinguisher bottles...a lot cheaper to fix that than what's on the clip!!
I agree Paul, I too am an engineer and have done many engine runs - have never seen a pilot involved in running engines, except on helicopters. As for shutting down the engine, if there was no elec power avail to the fuel valves, then it will not shut down, fire handle pulled or not, as the engine is self sustaining and will suction feed from the tank until the fuel runs out. Under normal circumstances this shouldn't happen, even if the aircraft lost all generators, the fuel shutoff valves have alternate power from main battery and will still operate. I guess in this case, they lost that aswell.
I agree hsv - I was trying to keep it simple but you're right. As for pilots doing engine runs - why is it that WE need intake guards on but THEY don't? Maybe a 'local' thing! Baffles me every time!!!
Engine guards?? - are they armed or just like nite club bouncers
hsv_rulz said:
Paul.H. said:
hsv_rulz said:
Paul.H. said:
ads_green said:
Even if the brakes did fail, the pilot should have been able to cut power immediately.
Not neccessarily the pilot - I'm an engineer & I do engine runs! As you say that 1 engine wouldn't shut down - the first thing is then to turn everything off fuel-wise...pumps etc & if it STILL didn't shut down then pull the fire extinguisher bottles...a lot cheaper to fix that than what's on the clip!!
- never though of it like that!! However, I've seen a few vids of people going in an engine at the front & coming out in bits at the other!! 
Attn raggyman - have you seen this alleged report?
Wrecked A340 was unchocked, with engines at high thrust: investigators
By David Kaminski-Morrow
"French investigators state that the Airbus A340-600 involved in an accident at Airbus’ plant in Toulouse last week was undergoing a final test of the engines and brakes when it accelerated from standstill into the test-pen wall.
No technical malfunction has been found in either the Rolls-Royce Trent 500 powerplants or the A340’s brakes.
France’s Bureau d’Enquetes et d’Analyses has released preliminary findings after downloading information from the aircraft’s flight-data and cockpit-voice recorders.
BEA says the aircraft, which was due to be delivered to Etihad Airways on 21 November was at a standstill but that the wheels were not chocked.
Initial information from the flight recorders, it says, shows that all four engines were operating at “high power” for around three minutes.
BEA says the aircraft then began to move forward and the A340 struck the blast-wall about 13s later.
“At this stage no technical fault with the braking systems and engines has been discovered,” it adds. “The investigation is continuing to determine the exact circumstances under which the incident occurred.”
Nine personnel from Airbus and United Arab Emirates engineering company Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies were on board the jet at the time, five of whom were hospitalised as a result of the 15 November accident."
Don't know about you but I find this hard to believe...that there was nothing wrong with the brakes on this jet as the report states yet, because of no chocks, the aircraft moved 'on it's own' & ended up in/over the blast wall!!! It's the French covering up again as with Concorde!
Wrecked A340 was unchocked, with engines at high thrust: investigators
By David Kaminski-Morrow
"French investigators state that the Airbus A340-600 involved in an accident at Airbus’ plant in Toulouse last week was undergoing a final test of the engines and brakes when it accelerated from standstill into the test-pen wall.
No technical malfunction has been found in either the Rolls-Royce Trent 500 powerplants or the A340’s brakes.
France’s Bureau d’Enquetes et d’Analyses has released preliminary findings after downloading information from the aircraft’s flight-data and cockpit-voice recorders.
BEA says the aircraft, which was due to be delivered to Etihad Airways on 21 November was at a standstill but that the wheels were not chocked.
Initial information from the flight recorders, it says, shows that all four engines were operating at “high power” for around three minutes.
BEA says the aircraft then began to move forward and the A340 struck the blast-wall about 13s later.
“At this stage no technical fault with the braking systems and engines has been discovered,” it adds. “The investigation is continuing to determine the exact circumstances under which the incident occurred.”
Nine personnel from Airbus and United Arab Emirates engineering company Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies were on board the jet at the time, five of whom were hospitalised as a result of the 15 November accident."
Don't know about you but I find this hard to believe...that there was nothing wrong with the brakes on this jet as the report states yet, because of no chocks, the aircraft moved 'on it's own' & ended up in/over the blast wall!!! It's the French covering up again as with Concorde!
No Stig - I've been contracting at Filton but that was way back in '01 when it was still BAe - Airbus now of course...been all over UK...Hurn to Kinloss; Filton - Stanstead & EMA...Paris CDG on occasions but am now in the middle east. Quite hairy at times I can tell you...keeps you focused!!
Which part are you in Demolitionman? I'm up in the NW frontier...got Iraq a couple of hundred K's to the east, Jordan the same to the north & Israel a bit further north....still get armed Mujahideen wandering around the town at night & once it goes dark I bet even your gorilla won't come out!!! Lol.
Demolition Man said:
Baghdad mate...... it doesn't get much worse than this
(but saving cash fast, as a new S/C VXR8 doesn't pay for itself you know)
hope you dont get hit with the huge tax bill a friend of mine is now avoiding. He's out there to, ex signals working out of Jordan now but he got stung by Paradigm working on skynet - think thats what he was left on. Anyway the promises of Tax free income etc were not as clear cut as it sounded and he's been stuck out for 3 years now and they changed the rules which means he is struggling to avoid the tax hit(but saving cash fast, as a new S/C VXR8 doesn't pay for itself you know)
Which is nice
Demolition Man said:
Baghdad mate...... it doesn't get much worse than this
(but saving cash fast, as a new S/C VXR8 doesn't pay for itself you know)
You got me there then Demo - inside or outside the green zone? I'm saving cash fast too but I'm having to spend mine on my house...doesn't maintain itself either!!! Sad innit?(but saving cash fast, as a new S/C VXR8 doesn't pay for itself you know)
Gassing Station | HSV & Monaro | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff