OT - Bad day at Airbus

I was just checking progress on the still-continuing search for Amelia Earhart. The freighter that ran squarely aground on the smooth flat sandy beach of Nikumaroru reportedly had its hull broken in 2 places by the impact. The Titanic cracked in half while stationary on a calm ocean. By comparison that airliner took the shock pretty well.

Ummm, but that's how Airbus put it together in the first place, and you can see how well that assembly work held...

"It's only a flesh wound... In the fleshy part of the brain..."

-->--

While on the subject of water tight compartments this link is of interest

Jim Wilkins wrote: [snip]

Eh?? The Titanic hit an iceberg at full speed (22kt). Not at all "stationary on a calm ocean". Also, she did not crack in half (until her back broke as she foundered): the iceberg ripped a long gash in her side, opening up several "watertight" compartments - more than the design could handle.

Mmm.. I'm no fan of composite construction, even when the first composite (wood) is involved, but I'd expect minimal maintenance to be needed. OTOH my only real experience with composite maintenance was on a US Marines Harrier when a portion of the upper surface of an elevator disappeared, apparently due to acoustic fatigue. Heh - a Pop-riveted piece of 2024-T3 covered up the hole :-)

Yes, it would be more accurate to refer to the more common version of the language by some other name, but what? American? Nah, the Americans in South America speak mostly Spanish or Portuguese, and some in North America Spanish or French (of course, these languages have also drifted far from their origins.) USAian? Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, does it?

This reminds me of a Usenet exchange where one poster made a similar sneer about an awkwardly worded phrase:

"English isn't your first language, is it?"

"No, it's my sixth."

David

Toulouse A340 throttles not idled until 2s before wall collision By David Kaminski-Morrow

Flight-recorder information from the Airbus A340-600 involved in the Toulouse ground-test accident last week shows that the aircraft?s engines were not retarded to idle until two seconds before the jet struck its test-pen wall.

The aircraft, which had been performing an engine and brake test, was travelling at around 30kt (55km/h) at the time of impact.

French investigators have determined that the A340-600, which was undergoing pre-delivery checks, was being held at standstill with the parking brake on and all four Rolls-Royce Trent 500 powerplants running with a relatively high engine pressure ratio of 1.24-1.26.

Wheel chocks were not inserted under the aircraft at the time of the 15 November accident.

In an information telex to operators Airbus states that high-thrust engine ground runs are normally only performed on one powerplant at a time, with the corresponding engine on the opposite wing running at limited thrust to counterbalance. It adds that wheel chocks should be installed during such tests.

While the parking brake is set, the A340?s alternate brake system provides the brake pressure. This pressure was normal during the Toulouse A340?s engine run.

Investigation agency Bureau d?Enquetes et d?Analyses states that the aircraft, for as-yet undetermined reasons, began to move forward after the engines had been running for about 3min.

The Airbus communication says the crew applied brake-pedal input within

1-2s of the initial movement and switched off the parking brake; the regular braking system?s pressure rose to its normal level.

But Airbus adds that all four engine thrust levers were only retarded to their ?idle? setting about 2s before the aircraft collided with the wall. By that point the aircraft had been in motion for around 11s.

?There is no evidence of any aircraft system or engine malfunction,? says Airbus vice-president for flight safety Yannick Malinge. ?Airbus reminds all operators to strictly adhere to [aircraft maintenance manual] procedures when performing engine ground runs.?

Investigations are still continuing into the accident which destroyed the aircraft and injured several of the nine personnel on board. The jet had been scheduled for delivery to Etihad Airways on 21 November.

"Hello, Etihad Airways? This is Airbus. Yeah, there's been a little problem and your delivery will be a little delayed."

That's a fair speed to be colliding with a very solid and immovable object. In the circumstances I think any aircraft, or indeed vehicle, would be substantially messed up.

Sylvia.

Ummm - Weren't Airbus the operator in this instance???

You'll notice that the article quoted doesn't say if it was Airbus ground personnel or Etihad Airways ground personnel that were conducting this test, and this is going to be very important when it comes time to hand someone the bill for wrecking a brand new aircraft that hadn't been delivered yet - IANAL, but Airbus still owns it.

And if Etihad Airways has any sense, they're never going to own it. Does the term "Bad Omen" mean anything?

Especially considering that the Airbus instructions quoted in the article said to only test the brakes with one engine at full throttle and they had all four cranked up.

IANA Pilot or an A&PM, but common sense says if you are going to do something like this you have plenty of room in front of you in case something goes wrong, either a clear taxiway or runway. It takes a while for those engines to spool down from full throttle to ground idle, and/or get the reversers on.

-->--

Rumor on the pprune airline forum is that a) the plane is a writeoff and b) it's covered under Airbus's insurance, which covers all aircraft until delivered and signed for.

Don't have to worry about that. Airbus has said the aircraft is a writeoff. I imagine they will salvage the wings, tail plane, and engines. I suspect that avionics bay was destroyed in the accident, so none of the avionics will be salvagable. Probably still recover $30-$40 million in parts from the wreck, but still leaves a near $100 million loss.....

I'm no expert either, but that is most likely why they had the barrier close by - to stop it from getting further out of control??? Otherwise, just point the thing at a runway and go for a joyride, I would think.

AFAIK, the basic law of aircraft testing is to (within limits) never do in the air what the airframe has not survived in static tests on the ground. This looks like it was one of those static tests.

Bill

And I bet that the deceleration when striking the barrier will have ruined the wing and engine attach fittings, too.

Dan

Nah. The "barrier" is a jst blast deflector. Keeps cars from being blown off the highway.

The aircraft was in a engine test 'pen', where there were walls effectively on 3 sides, The walls about 200meters apart in the directiion of the accident. If you look carefully at the image, you can see where the aircraft would have impacted the jet blast deflector

see

Whereas if it were Boeing the duct tap bondo and pop rivets would be rattling around in some hidden cavity in the airframe - that's what you get when you let employees round critical areas of the airframe in jeans and a t-shirt. It simply wouldn't happen at Airbus or for that matter anywhere in Europe, Japan or Australia - even if the facility was a Boeing sub-contractor.

STANDARD FLAME POST version 3.432 (c) 1996-1997. Check all that apply.

Dear: [ ] Clueless Newbie [ ] AOL subscriber [ ] WebTV subscriber [ ] Lamer [ ] Me too-er [ ] Mr. President [ ] Geek [ ] Spammer [ ] Racist [ ] Freak [X] Dummy [X] "Expert"

You Are Being Flamed Because: [ ] You quoted an entire post in your reply [ ] You started an off-topic thread [X] You continued a long, stupid thread [ ] You posted a binary file to a non-binary newsgroup [ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message [ ] You posted a "test" message to a newsgroup other than alt.test [ ] You said "me too" to something [X] You claimed "X rules, Y sucks" but failed to support your lame statements with evidence [ ] You brag about things that never happened [ ] Your sig is obnoxiously long [ ] You posted a cyber-sex/phone-sex ad [ ] You posted a MMF (Make Money Fast) chain letter [ ] You claimed that a pyramid scheme is legal [ ] You crossposted this message to at least a ZILLION newsgroups [ ] You obviously don't know how to use your software [ ] YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE THE CAPS LOCK KEY [ ] You didn't do anything specific, but you are generally so worthless that you are being flamed anyway [ ] You posted racist crap disguised as information

To Repent, You Must: [ ] Give up your AOL account [ ] Give up your WebTV account [ ] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it [X] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor [X] Actually post something relevant [ ] Read and memorize the FAQ [X] Ask your husband/wife/life partner to slap you, REAL HARD! [ ] Ask your mommy to up your medication [ ] Be the guest of honor in alt.flame for a month [ ] Stop smoking whatever you were smoking

In Closing, I'd Like to Say: [X] Get a clue [ ] Get a life [X] Grow up [ ] Never crosspost again [X] I pity your dog [ ] Take your stuff somewhere else [ ] Learn how to post or get off [X] This is your LAST warning! [ ] All of the above

"I am Fudd of Borg. Wesistance is usewess!"