ETIHAD A340-600 ACCIDENT PHOTOS

Most extraordinary!!

I bet the insurance company isn’t pleased.

Truly incredible that no one was killed.

Any word on what actually caused the accident to happen?

No PAX on board. During engine test at Airbus plant

Regarding where plane ended up, guess engines worked really well!

“If it’s not Boeing, I’m not going!”

Valet driver was told “no monkey business”; but, he took it out in the back parking lot and did donuts and drifting like he wasn’t suppose to. Excessive speed and drinking on break contributed to a lack of eye hand coordination for the already impaired judgment. Needless to say, he’s not working there anymore.

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.

Oops, I meant to address post #9 to you.

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.

I happen to know that the accident was the result of an error made by the Arab test crew while running an engine test. It had something to do with them disabling a warning system, which fooled the plane’s computer into thinking that the plane was actually in the air, and this somehow led to the brakes being disengaged. I don’t remember the exact sequence of events. The story has been suppressed by the media. If i recall it is because the flight crew was Arab, or so I hear from my top secret sources. I’ll check my facts in the morning.

This story is from October of 2007, so I'm surprised to see you reply to it now. However, you are right that the ground test crew made the error in not chocking the wheels during the engine run-up test.

Violation of test procedures led to Toulouse A340-600 crash

By David Kaminski-Morrow

Investigators have determined that an Airbus A340-600 collided with a test-pen wall in Toulouse after it was powered up while unchocked, and an attempt to steer the aircraft out of danger reduced the effect of the brakes.

The test crew failed to reduce the engine thrust as the jet surged forward, attempting instead to stop the aircraft by pressing the brake pedals and turning the nose-wheel sharply to the right. It smashed into the pen wall, seriously injuring four of the nine people on board.

A division of the French Bureau d’Enquetes et d’Analyses, which conducted the inquiry, has released its final report into the accident, stating that “lack of detection and correction” of test-procedure violations helped lead to the accident.

It points out that procedures for the test, aimed at checking for oil leaks, were not correctly followed, noting that the engines were all operating at high power and the aircraft was left unchocked.

Detailing the events leading to the collision, it says the aircraft arrived in the test-pen at 14:19 on 15 November last year and underwent routine engine tests for about 1hr 40min.

Just before 16:00 the power of the Rolls-Royce Trent 500 engines was increased to an engine pressure ratio of 1.25 - with the thrust levers corresponding to a position between maximum continuous thrust and maximum take-off thrust.

All four engines were operating. While the parking brake was on, registering 2,600psi, the inquiry says the applied thrust was around the limit of the parking-brake capacity.

At the time of the accident an Airbus employee was occupying the right-hand seat of the jet while an Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies technician was in the left-hand seat.

Flight-recorder data shows that, shortly after 16:02, the person in the left-hand seat warned that the aircraft was moving. The ground speed began gradually increasing to 4kt over the next few seconds and, after a second call that the aircraft was moving, the recorder registered pedal-braking and the deactivation of the parking brake.

Brakes on the A340-600 are linked to two hydraulic circuits: the ‘green’ normal circuit and the ‘blue’ alternate. The parking brake is on the blue circuit and only applies to the left- and right-hand main undercarriage bogies, not the centre bogie.

If the parking brake is released and the brake pedals applied, the ‘green’ circuit comes into play. The pedals act on all three main bogies.

Recorder data shows that ‘green’ circuit brake pressure on the A340 rapidly rose to 2,500psi while the ‘blue’ circuit pressure dropped.

About seven seconds after the first movement warning the nose-wheel was turned sharply right. Activating the nose-wheel steering inhibits braking on the central bogie, becoming completely ineffective past 20° of steering.

The aircraft swung 37° to the right but continued to accelerate, its speed increasing from 4kt to 31kt in seven seconds, before the aircraft struck the test-pen wall, demolishing its forward fuselage. The jet was written off.

In its report into the accident, the BEA says the aircraft and its braking system functioned correctly, but states that the nose-wheel steering “limited the effectiveness” of the brakes.

“Surprise led the ground-test technician to focus on the braking system, so he did not think about reducing the engines’ thrust,” it adds. Only after the collision with the wall were the throttle levers retarded to the idle position.

This is the one where they locked the brakes, went to max power on the engines, and it took off on them right?