airbus plane crash on the ground

[Terry7556]

i received this e-mail about a new airbus.it is astonishing that pilots are allowed to check a plane w/o anyone from the airbus company there to assist.
im having trouble sending the photos from my hotmail account to here.ive tried cut and paste and only the text came through, can anyone offer any advice please.do i have to create a link and if so ,how?
the photos are really worth looking at

 

[Monkeh]

What type of Airbus, 'crashing' where, and when?

 

[Terry7556]

airbus 340/600 the new big mother, in france, dont know when but it must be recently
there is an attempted news blackout according to the email
it was caused by an arab flight crew from abu dhabi aircraft technologies who were attempting to conduct pre delivery tests

 

[conny]

Its not recent, it was doing the rounds last year.

Well worth a look if you can post it though.
I'll check to see if I still have it in my emails and see if I can post it.

 

[oompah]

The brand spanking new Airbus 340-600, the largest passenger airplane ever built, sat in its hangar in Toulouse, France without a single hour of airtime. Enter the flight crew of Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies (ADAT) on November 15, 2007 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 takeoff 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 takeoff 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. The ADAT 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 crew was smart enough to throttle back the engines from their max power20setting, so the $200 million brand-new aircraft crashed into a blast barrier, totaling it.

The extent of injuries to the crew is unknown, for there has been a news blackout in the major media in France and elsewhere.




View media item 24415 View media item 24416

 

[Monkeh]

It was two years ago, it was an Airbus test crew, there is no news blackout. Stop believing stupid emails.

 

[Terry7556]

thanks conny i did,nt realisle it was that old but i was amazed last night when i saw the bump in the wall at the end of the runway or taxi area

 

[Terry7556]

nice one oompah,

 

[Johnmelad502]

i received this e-mail about a new airbus.it is astonishing that pilots are allowed to check a plane w/o anyone from the airbus company there to assist.
im having trouble sending the photos from my hotmail account to here.ive tried cut and paste and only the text came through, can anyone offer any advice please.do i have to create a link and if so ,how?
the photos are really worth looking at

Is this it, which happened in 2007?

http://blog.flightstory.net/418/airbus-a340-600-ground-test-accident/

 

[Terry7556]

yes john thats the one. i did,nt know it was old news, as i had never seen it before and monkeh , just because you were aware of it and i was,nt how did it become a stupid email?
other lads on here seem to know about it, why not accuse them of believing stupid emails

 

[JohnD]

Load of rubbish it seems

I was interested to read:

stevie
Mar 24th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
This is info from the accident investigation report, from the French version of the NTSB (I believe), the BEA:

A. Mixed ground test crew of 9 on board: some from Airbus proper, based there in Toulouse, some from the Abu Dhabi-based contractor working on the airline’s behalf.

3 people in the cockpit for the test: 2 from Airbus, one from the contractor.

Running the test, in the right seat of the cockpit, in charge of the all controls: Airbus technician, 15 yr employee, 9 yrs experience testing these engines. When he was alerted that the aircraft was moving, his only actions were to kill the parking brake while simultaneously stomping on the main brakes.

In the left seat, observing the test: contractor employee, alerted the test tech that the aircraft was moving. Has no specified role in the test other than to observe.

In the “service” seat (like the navigator’s seat, only the A340 ain’t got no navigator, I don’t believe): Airbus-employed test pilot, 9 yrs experience as a professional pilot, 7 as a test pilot, not type rated (i.e., not an A340 pilot), perhaps a manager qualified to supervise such tests. Once again, no specific role other than to observe, but in the end it was him who pulled the throttles back.

B. There were two main causes: 1) no chocks were used to hold the aircraft’s wheels in place during the test. 2) All four engines were brought to full power to test one leaky engine. Procedures required the use of chocks and running up two engines - the one leaking and one on the other wing (to prevent torquing and yawing of the fuselage). These two procedures had been frequently ignored by all Airbus technicians at the test center for some time.

Short answer: the test was done improperly, not in accordance with written procedures and standards. The fault of the Airbus technician.

Contributing causes: 1) the full power of four engines is almost exactly equal to the braking power of the A340s parking brake and the frictional coefficient of the test area’s tarmac, hence the aircraft only moved when shaking of the aircraft and the burning off of fuel lessened the overall braking coefficient. 2) The technician tried to use the brakes alone to stop the aircraft rather than retarding the throttles as well.

C. Fun fact: the numbers 3 and 4 engines could not be shut down after impact because the throttle control connection to them had been severed. No. 4 was finally killed over two-and-a-half hours later when enough water and fire-fighting foam had been pumped into it to snuff it out. The No. 3 engine died at 1:25 am the next morning - 9 hrs later - when it ran out of gas: it was too jammed into the wall to get any water/foam into it. Now THAT’S hi-larious. And not a bad advertisement for Rolls-Royce engines, it seems to me.

Yeah, the “news” account above is one of those made up slander e-mails, urban legend-style. No evidence of any cover-up, the photos were widely-disseminated right away (as you can see by the date of this blog report), once the accident investigating was done, no reason why the plane wouldn’t be cleaned up right away. Doesn’t look too good for an airport to have a crashed aircraft anywhere on its tarmac.

Lesson: racists are racists - go ahead and call them that - and don’t believe what you read on the internet, particularly the clearly racist stuff. Oh, and those of you who believed this stuff and called yourselves professional pilots, you’re not. I am

 

[geraint]

how sad....

 

[Blasphemous]

With respect John, WTF was that post about?

 

[JohnD]

it was "info from the accident investigation report"

so the "news blackout" was rubbish, the "pull the circuit breaker" was rubbish, the "fooling the computer" was rubbish, the "computers automatically released all the brakes " was rubbish, the not reading manuals was rubbish, the Stupid Arabs was rubbish

 

[Johnmelad502]

With respect John, WTF was that post about?

Stupid boy, it was about, it was about, err, it was about. That's it it was about

stand by, while I read it againe...