Oops....

[Sir_Crashalot]

http://aviation-safety.net/database/rec ... 20071115-0

Crash

[Mictheslik]

ouch....that's an expensive accident....

.mic

[Wii]

Oops is right  :D Can you imagine how hard it would be to move that A340 back to a hanger to get fixed?

[C]

ouch....that's an expensive accident....

.mic

Quite. Nasty, and I presume a write off (although I expect a lot of the airframe may be recoverable). Lucky that their were no fatalities.

[matt2190]

Impressive accident! I am assuming it was a brand new aircraft since it says it was going to be delivered?

EDIT: Found a closer picture on Airliners.net http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1293784/L/

[beaky]

No problem; that'll buff right out...

I'm still trying to figure out how it jumped the chocks if the parking brake was set... it... was set, wasn't it...?  :-/

[FLYING_TRUCKER]

Good afternoon all...

I think my two (2) questions would be:
(1)

[C]

Good afternoon all...

I think my two (2) questions would be:
(1)  Who was on the brakes in the cockpit?
(2)  Was that person qualified to be in the cockpit and doing an engine run-up?  (does not have to be a
      pilot)

And further to that, if it wasn't aircrew, was that person suitably experienced to be able to safely handle the aircraft if it rode the chocks at what appears to have been a high power setting?

[Xyn_Air]

Well . . . looks like there will be a lot that is salvageable, at least.  The engines, most of the interior, possibly a good portion of the hydraulics and electronics.

From the looks of it, the engines must have been putting out a great deal of thrust.  I mean, more than just enough to get the plane moving forward.  It would be interesting to know how far the chocks were from the safety barrier; that is, for how far and how long was the plane moving?

[C]

Well . . . looks like there will be a lot that is salvageable, at least.  The engines, most of the interior, possibly a good portion of the hydraulics and electronics.

From the looks of it, the engines must have been putting out a great deal of thrust.  I mean, more than just enough to get the plane moving forward.  It would be interesting to know how far the chocks were from the safety barrier; that is, for how far and how long was the plane moving?

You wonder if it also needed to be tethered in some way. I don't know if that sort of thing is routine on such a large aircraft though.

[expat]

Good afternoon all...

I think my two (2) questions would be:
(1)  Who was on the brakes in the cockpit?
(2)  Was that person qualified to be in the cockpit and doing an engine run-up?  (does not have to be a
      pilot)

And further to that, if it wasn't aircrew, was that person suitably experienced to be able to safely handle the aircraft if it rode the chocks at what appears to have been a high power setting?

Whoever was at the controls would have had to have an endorsement on their maintenance license to run that sort of aircraft at hight power (low power too). If it jumped the chocks, what would you do, steer the aircraft, forget it, it will go straight on. The only thing you can do is chop the power and brake, nothing else. As for experience, what is the definition of that and how do you get experience without going out and doing it.
OK, so you do the simulator. Well they coast a bomb to get/use which is why maintenance get to use them for an hour or so after the theory has been learnt in the class. Lastly, when you do a run up, you sit in the seat and that it is it. You are not strapped in, so if the aircraft did jump the chocks and hurtle forward, you would most probably be trying to cut the power and trying to hold on. Lastly, you are supposed to apply the brake pedals even though the parking brake has been applied. If you have ever tried to depress the brake pedals of a big jet during a ground run, you would find out that after about 30 seconds your calfs are killing you and you want to relax....................it is only when you then think that you legs are feeling better you notice that the brakes are no longer applied and you push down again.

Matt


Edit.................cigar tubes are not tethered, the brakes are enough..................normally.

[C]

My post was written in the hope you'd reply Matt, as you probably know more about these things than anyone else around here. . I find a couple of things you say quite surprising.

Whoever was at the controls would have had to have an endorsement on their maintenance license to run that sort of aircraft at hight power (low power too).

As I'd expected!

The only thing you can do is chop the power and brake, nothing else. As for experience, what is the definition of that and how do you get experience without going out and doing it.

Just about. Of course if the speed was down below 25kts (there or there abouts) you'd have a fighting chance of avoiding "an obstacle" if you had a hand near the tiller. You'd also hope that the speed wasn't allowed to build up to the point where reverse thrust would have been a player. As for experience, well, that's knowing how to and having the ability to bring an aircraft to a stop safely and as quickly as possible - the suppose the techniques can be taught in the sim, but thereafter, as you mention with the cost and availability of simulators, it's up to the individual to refresh in their minds exacty what they'd do.

Lastly, when you do a run up, you sit in the seat and that it is it. You are not strapped in, so if the aircraft did jump the chocks and hurtle forward, you would most probably be trying to cut the power and trying to hold on.

To hear that it isn't normal to strap in surprises me a lot. Being in the strapped into the seat of any aircraft whilst under your control seems to be the norm in my experience from the aircrew side of things, even whilst on the ground, and this would seem particularly for a relatively high power run, where if things are going to go wrong, it's going to be fairly rapid.

Lastly, you are supposed to apply the brake pedals even though the parking brake has been applied. If you have ever tried to depress the brake pedals of a big jet during a ground run, you would find out that after about 30 seconds your calfs are killing you and you want to relax

Sounds sensible - or at least to cover them so they can be applied at the slightest sign of movement. As for holding the brakes on manually - tell me about it! ATC seem to love getting you to line up on the runway for minutes on end (applying the parking brake on the runway being, as you may know, quite a no-no).

Edit.................cigar tubes are not tethered, the brakes are enough..................normally.

I was thinking that, but then when I saw that the Trents on the A340-600 produce over 50,000lbs each, I was quite surprised. Maybe 3ft high chocks are the answer... :-?

My other thought (which was fairly logical IMO) - why don't they do high power ground runs somewhere where there is a lot of space in front of the aircraft (such as a nice long taxyway), and not a large concrete wall as in this case?

[Ashar]

I guess this means we have 2 A340-600's written off in one week...Shame

[expat]

Charlie, one thing I forgot to say and was prompted by your answer to my post, was about your reference to speed. Bearing in mind that I have never been strapped in (except for a short period of time when problems with the Harrier GR5 due to potential engine runaway if the LP Tacho failed.......only way out was upwards ), this brings another problem. ABS as a general rule does not operate on cigar tubes below 25 to 30 knots. You jump the chocks, stand on the brakes, the wheels stop, but you will not. You would be thrown forward and off the brakes. By the time you have, lets say, regained your composure, you could well be up the embankment as in this example. I have to say, it has made me think, and I will at least be applying the lap belts at future run ups. After all it is always good to learn from someone else's cockup than have others learn from yours.

Matt

[Wii]

Impressive accident! I am assuming it was a brand new aircraft since it says it was going to be delivered?

EDIT: Found a closer picture on Airliners.net http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1293784/L/

It seems the runway may have been icy. I might be wrong but you never know.