[f-AA] ###Airbus A340 Accident###
Fred A. Larson
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.
_______________________________________________
Aeronca mailing list
Aer...@westmont.edu
http://mail.westmont.edu/mailman/listinfo/aeronca
John Rodkey
list, especially if they contain inflammatory content that slurs the
abilities of any particular people group.
Thanks for bringing in the facts, Fred.
John
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Fred A. Larson <fr...@50248.net> wrote:
> From a blog about the accident:
>
> 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.
>
--
John (poobah) Rodkey - N9361E 11AC at Goleta