It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Major A340-600 Accident Today

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
A brand new Etihad A340-600 jumped its chocks and brakes during an engine run in a bay at Toulouse, travelled up an embankment and slammed through a concrete retaining wall.

Several injuries are reported luckily no deaths - I say luckily because the aircraft is missing 30 to 40 foot of its fuselage, including the cockpit!






www.flightglobal.com...


[edit on 15/11/2007 by RichardPrice]

[edit on 15/11/2007 by RichardPrice]




posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Holy they seem to be a lucky plan when you include things like the over run this past week and the Pearson overun eh? just to expand here is more of the article from flight.


The aircraft sustained damage when it somehow broke free of its parking chocks during engine run-ups around 5 pm, local time. News photos taken at the scene show the aircraft's nose rammed through a blast deflection wall......

Nine people were aboard the aircraft at the time of the accident. The condition of the five injured person was not immediately available.


[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   
i bet real $$$$ that some of the ground crew will get seriously fired for this.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
If I am honest, I hadn't even heard of this aircraft until I read that I was going to fly on one of these things to LA on Monday. Reading posts like this are probably not a good idea to set my mind at rest about its safety beforehand. By the sounds of it though, it was probably the ground crew dropping the ball and not securing it properly...



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Two words: White Elephant

Another two words: Spruce Goose

I predict this aircraft won't be the huge success people have felt it will be. Too many problems, too many delays.

Bigger isn't necessarily better or, it ain't what you've got, it's what you do with it.

-----
Oops, I misread the subject line. I thought it was the A380. I'll stand behind my prediction as it stands for the A380.



[edit on 11/16/2007 by PrplHrt]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by PrplHrt
 


Don't think its really fair to judge the A380 on the same scale as the Hughes Hercules. The "Goose" which only lifted 80ft off the surface of the bay was alot less capable and feasable then the A380 is now. Not saying that Airbus wont have problem but the fact is that you stated openion which is fine after not even really reading the point of the thread. If you would care to explain in another thread I would be happy to compare the 380 to other aircraft there and if it will fail but I'm just naturally skeptical of peoples claims and openions.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Lets keep it on topic shall we? This thread is NOT about the merits of the A380 rather the A340 as the OP posted

Back on topic.

I will assume that the airframe a total write off? Glad no one was hurt



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Deleted sarcastic remark. Had to spank myself. Sorry.

[edit on 11/16/2007 by PrplHrt]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrplHrt

Oops, I misread the subject line. I thought it was the A380. I'll stand behind my prediction as it stands for the A380.



While your post was off topic (and acknowledged as such, thankyou
) it is worth noting that John Leahy, the top Airbus Salesman, has indicated that not only will the A380 pick up in sales next year (in 2007 he indicated a minimum of 20 A380 sales and 2 new customers, when infact he has picked up nearly 30 and 3), but Airbus are already planning a stretch - the A380-900 will be available for purchase sometime between 2010 and 2012, for delivery beginning 2015.

A number of airlines have indicated that this variant is the version they would prefer, and Emirates have suggested in the past that they would cover the investment costs for a stretch 100% by buying the 60 - 100 aircraft necessary to cover it, so it would be essentially a free investment for Airbus to do.

Back on topic, yes this frame has been confirmed as a total loss, Airbus will not try to repair it for delivery.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 

Their production schedule is optimistic. One hopes we'll be weaned from petroleum products by then.

You have to admit the A380 is an ungainly thing. When I was a kid in the 60's I'd hoped for sleeker things by now.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by PrplHrt
 



Originally posted by FredT
Lets keep it on topic shall we? This thread is NOT about the merits of the A380 rather the A340 as the OP posted


As was said if you want to debate production runs etc on the A380 start a thread don't do it in this one. its not the point of this thread.

I've heard very little other then the flight global news post.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrplHrt

Their production schedule is optimistic. One hopes we'll be weaned from petroleum products by then.



Their production schedule is industry standard - any full scale move to an alternative fuel source will take 30 to 40 years from today.



You have to admit the A380 is an ungainly thing. When I was a kid in the 60's I'd hoped for sleeker things by now.


Economics dictates what shape an aircraft is - sleek is generally bad for moving large amounts of people.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Just imagine the face on Ethiad people when they called them to say, hey remember that giant brand new plane u were going to get in a few weeks, guess what I dont think we can deliver it on time...

The A340-600 is the longest plane in the world and the third or fourth largest commercial jet ever built behind the A380, 747 and 777-300 so this is not a Cesna crash...



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by carcharodon
 


This could have been a major disaster and must certainly have been the scariest moment of their lives for all involved, but then again;




Just imagine the face on Ethiad people when they called them to say, hey remember that giant brand new plane u were going to get in a few weeks, guess what I dont think we can deliver it on time...


Oh yes indeedy!



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Hey .. don't diss the Airbus A380.. sweet jet..
got some pics of the SIA A380 at Changi while I was taxiing in on another liner.
Will share on A380 thread.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
One last time:

This thread is about the A340 NOT the A380


Cheers



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Richard et al.

Whent hey write off the airframe what if any can they salvage? The engines I assume, but what of the avionics etc? Or are they considered damaged goods?



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Richard et al.

When they write off the airframe what if any can they salvage? The engines I assume, but what of the avionics etc? Or are they considered damaged goods?


The best answer to that would be 'depends on what wasn't damaged'
The aircraft has already been written off by Airbus, it was mentioned in a statement early Friday morning.

However, the following are certainly likely:

The engine cores - the front fan is likely to have had extra load on it and they will be replaced, with the engine cores undergoing a full overhaul before being declared fit for purpose. These will certainly go back to Rolls Royce for this, as RR either still own them or they will buy them off the insurer for pennies on the dollar.

The cabin interiors - this is a big salvage thing for the airline, as its brand new and will be good for spares or for reducing costs on another aircrafts refurb. In this case the interior is owned by Airbus as the aircraft has not been signed to Etihad yet, so there will most likely be a deal done between Airbuses insurers and Etihad.

Hydraulics and fuel system - likely to be removed, recertified and parted out.

The avionics are almost 100% gone - I can't quite remember whether they are forward of the nose gear or jsut rear of it on the A340-600 (I want to say forward), but in either case the avionics bays are within the damage zone on this crash and will be unsalvagable imho. Secondary avionics in the tail may be salvagable.

Main gear - this will be recertified and if it passes (I wouldnt have imagined it has exceeded any design limitation loads in this crash) then it will be parted out for spares.

Cabin windows - again, another fairly high value item that can be put back into use.

Cabin doors and slides - same as windows.

After that, as much as the salvager can get off the airframe, as thats how they make their money on these deals.

When I talk about stuff being salvaged, it most likely will not go onto another new Airbus aircraft - it is more cost effective for Airbus or the insurers to hand the airframe over to a aviation salvage company to part it out and dispose of the rest, so the parts will go into the secondhand market and aftermarket supply chain. This is because Airbus is geared up to get parts from their suppliers and handle them in a particular way.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Finally more info on the accident from flight global. Some intersting news at that.

Airbus has told Etihad Airways that the A340-600 wrecked at Toulouse during pre-delivery checks had completed its engine test-runs and was exiting the test area at the time of the accident......
But the Etihad spokesman says that Airbus has told the carrier that the engine test-run had already been completed beforehand, and that the A340 had been making its way out of the pen. The pen is located 500m southwest of a point lying about 1,000m along the length of Toulouse Blagnac Airport’s runway 32L.

www.flightglobal.com...

What happened did the pilot or ground crew accidently bump the throttles to full?

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Engine run at a high power setting with no wheel chocks in place. The aircraft began to slide, and wound up going up and through the wall. No mechanical problem with either engines or brakes has been found. Someone screwed the pooch, because they had been running for 3 minutes at high power, and it took 13 seconds for them to hit the wall after they started to slide.

[edit on 11/20/2007 by Zaphod58]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join