An Airbus A340-600 (the longest aircraft in civil service today) has suffered a very unusual accident on 15NOV2007 at 5 pm at the Airbus Technical Center in Toulouse, France. As the aircraft (MSN 856) was undergoing the final tests before being delivered to Etihad Airways in the coming days, it had to pass an engine test (“engine run-ups”) on the ground. While carrying out these engine tests, due to some yet unknown reason it somehow broke loose and crashed into an anti-noise barrier. According to some pre-liminary reports, the engines were on full throttle as part of the – otherwise routine test – with all breaks applied when the plane got out of control. As seen on the first pictures above the plane looks badly damaged, having the nose being slammed into the wall and the back touching the tarmac.
The plane was “seriously damaged” according to Airbus, too, who also said that on top of the 9 people onboard (including 7 Etihad employees) 1 on the ground was also injured. Two of the passengers and this another person on the ground were seriously injured, police said. In all 10 people were injured and four people were taken to hospital, three of whom were in serious conditions, they said. According to the first Airbus press release however, “only” 5 people are hurt, of whome 3 are seriously injured.
Eighty firefighters rushed to the scene after the plane slammed nose-first into the barrier and the tail hit the tarmac. “For an unknown reason the aircraft began to roll and it climbed up the embankment in front of it,” said Airbus France spokesman Jacques Rocca. The company said, however, that only five people had been injured. The four-engined aircraft can carry between 380 and 472 passengers depending on the model and the cabin layout.
“Airbus expresses its sympathy to the families and friends of the persons concerned.” and so do we here at Airlineworld.
By coincidence this is the second incident involving an A340-600 on the ground within a week, following Iberia’s aircraft overrunning the runway in Quito in rainy conditions.
Update: the first high resolution picture on Airliners.net: 
by balint01
Update 2:
French authorities have launched an investigation into a crash involving an Airbus plane due to be delivered to the United Arab Emirates carrier.
Etihad Airways said none of its staff were involved when the A340-600 crashed into a barrier at Toulouse airport, injuring five people on board.
A spokesman for the airline said those hurt belonged to a firm contracted to test the plane before delivery.
None of them suffered severe injuries. The cause of the crash remains unclear.
The aircraft was scheduled to be delivered next week to Etihad Airways’ Abu Dhabi base, the airline said.
Source: BBC News
Update 3:
Airbus and French authorities launched an investigation Friday into an accident involving an A340-600 carrying out engine runup tests at the manufacturer’s Saint-Martin site near Toulouse ahead of the aircraft’s scheduled delivery to Etihad Airways. The jet, carrying nine people, apparently crashed through a barrier. Photographs show the badly damaged A340, bearing Etihad livery, nearly split in two, with the destroyed cockpit and nose area of the fuselage mostly severed.
Airbus called the incident “regrettable” and said five people were injured, with three remaining hospitalized as of Friday. One is an employee of Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies while the other two work for Airbus, the manufacturer said. It said the aircraft was to be delivered “in the coming days,” adding, “Ground tests including engine runups are a normal procedure on all Airbus aircraft.” The plane was one of two -600s headed to EY before year end. It already operates two of the type.
Source: ATW online
Our blog is moving to a new place. Please drop us an email to intairline@gmail.com, if you would like to receive updates about our blog!
This aircraft sounds as if it has a” breaking” problem !
Might be. It looks terrible indeed.
It just lost the full nose… Most probably the pilots are the ones hospitalized. I just can not imagine how big of a power it had when climbing up on that wall and destroying the nose, the cockpit and the front belly structure. Amazing!
You have to ask: Why do these types of failures keep happening at the Airbus factories, but never at Boeing?
Pull your head out.
Made in the USA?
Please! This is just bigotry. Boeing has had their share of issues also.
USA has good planes but so does France. A-380, The Concorde, etc.
These type of comments usually come from people who know little to begin with. You probably saw it on TV and started cheering to yourself “usa-usa-usa), LOL.
We all know your type.
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 Arab crew was smart enough
to throttle back the engines from their max power setting,
so the $200 million brand-new Aircraft crashed into a blast
barrier, totaling it.
The extent of injuries to the crew is unknown due to the
news blackout in the major media in France and elsewhere.
Coverage of the story was deemed insulting to Muslim Arabs.
Arab flight crew of Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies
(ADAT) 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 take off,
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 Arab crew was smart enough
to throttle back the engines from their max power setting,
so the $200 million brand-new Aircraft crashed into a blast
barrier, totaling it.
The extent of injuries to the crew is unknown due to the
news blackout in the major media in France and elsewhere.
Coverage of the story was deemed insulting to Muslim Arabs.
Finally, the photos are starting to leak out.
Do they “keep happening”?? I don’t think it’s an everyday event at Airbus, but it’s true that nothing like this has happened at Boeing recently. In my opinion accidents can happen at anytime, anywhere. Let’s just hope that no such accident will ever happen at any airplane manufacturer/test site again!
Somtimes such accidents have to happen in order to prevent other accidents.
It’s French. It just surrendered. You know the difference between an Airbus and a chainsaw? About 600 trees a minute (remember??). Do you know what you call an Airbus pilot? Lumberjack. You know how you tell a French soldier at the beach? Sunburned armpits.
Oh boy! Another smart one…
Well that’s what happens when “all breaks are applied” and the breaking system overwhelms the braking system.
After reading some of the comments, now I know that I am not the only one who thinks that accidents at Airbus factories are a result of less Boeing orders. Frankly speaking, Old Uncle Tom has always been known around for his cheap tricks.
Airbus investigative guys, wake up and spread your wings, fly high and let the world know whats going on otherwise your eggs will be targeted by big bird
They have planted a rat in there…haha..can u spot it
In our blog there us a moderation queue before comments become visible on the site. Regarding the last 3 I did not know what to do with them, but finally I allowed them to appear. But honestly I don’t really get the real intention behind these comments.
Its a regretabe accident.can happen anytime anywhere weather it is boeing or airbus.But some of the comments given and tagetted airbus are also unbearable.I also involved myself with airbus aircraft delivary.procedures are strictly followed at airbus delivery centre.AIRBUS and AUTHORITY inquiry will conclude the incident.it is meaningless to give and produce their raw ideas.
“MIR”, I’ve forwarded your comments to a few people and none of us are quite certain of your meaning. Could you clarify please.
Thanks, Jack
I added a new post with pictures of the aircraft in it:
http://airlineworld.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/etihad-airbus-crash-pictures/
When airbus industries check the flightdeck voice recorder and hear “madame don’t pull that”….”merd”.
Can anyone shed light on what eithad can claim for delays as well as reputaion damage as these crash pictures shows the livery with no fault of eithad
Thanks
Oh boys!
Why would Airbus be reponsible for compensations when Arabs themselves crash the aircraft by simple stupidity!?
talal, I wrote an email to them and asked them to answer your question either here in the blog or by sending me an email. In the second case I’ll post the answer here.
the big mistake is that Etihad name was connected to this crash .Etihad did not yet receive the plane so it s better we called Airbus (no more no less ).Airbus must assume and next time avoid sticking any name to its plane before the final tests . This crush did not hurt Airbus more than it did for Etiha company .Just have a look at all the title and you will deduce that every single paper is naming the crash etihad s and not airbus .Airbus must be grateful to Etihad as it supported most of the french airliner mistake.I would like to know what would be the position of the frensh if the contrary happened .
Was not the crew from Etihad doing the tests? It doesn’t matter if they were in France or the Emirates, those pilots were Etihad pilots.
Achraf,
I cannot believe a rational person would see Etihad even remotely at fault, or judge them in a negative light. Even people arriving/departing at Toulouse could see this was a manufactures tragedy. People are not that shallow (I hope). To the contrary I see the message that Etihad buys new state-of-the-art equipment. Don’t worry about frivolous possibilities.
Jack whether you are an airbus lawyer or a proud french .No body can swallow your statement for one reason and unless you consider the people behind these pages non- professional .Thing i strongly reject .Why ?.if you go to the top of this page you will clearly see that even the professional people wrote (i quote ) ” Etihad airbus crashes….Why do every single newspaper called Etihad crash ? .Why Etihad first and airbus after …As for the contrary here is the satetment .The title would be “An arab pilot crashes an airbus palne ‘.
the reason ?the breaks were perfect ..the weather was fine …it s a training problrem as he was not used to it .
Dear jack don t be so pround to get blind .No passenger at any airport would recognise an airplane by its manufacturer .unless if it s only airbus engenners that fly .
Don t be french / Airbus be realistic .There is a problem and airbaus has to assume the damage and break the silence.
Achraf,
Your comments are understood fully. I think the press (usually the same the world over) chose to slap a label on the tragedy which was Etihad. The first label should have been “tragedy”, then that it happened at Airbus by Airbus, and third that it was before delivery to Etihad. That would be a perfect world. But I still think most people see it in this light. Those that make jokes at the expense of Airbus/Etihad are fools. By the way I’m American and a fan of Boeing, hardly French and certainly not Airbus. But those that take cheap shots at someone else’s expense are certain to be on the other end of the stick someday. Everyone will learn from this mistake, even Boeing.
I recently got some snaps from one the communites and I really thought that Ethiad Aircraft crashed as I live in UAE – Ethiad being the national carrier of UAE – AbuDhabi ran out from the runway. And after that I just googled in for ” Ethihad Crashes out of runway” I came to this site.. Well the mistake what Airbus did is using a company name during its testing phase which is 100% wrong.
Prachod,
The situation is the following: Airbus has a tested airplane (A340-600), which has been in operations at several airlines for years. Etihad has ordered this airplane, which was to be delivered to the airline, so it was already painted in Etihad colours, the whole interior has been set-up for Etihad, etc. But just like you take a look at a shirt before you actually buy it, Etihad together with Airbus carried out a few last tests, to see if they really get the airplane they asked for and if it operates flawlessly. Like if you would take your car out for a short ride before taking delivery and signing all papers just to see if it really operates.
It was this testing phase when the accident happened.
So even though on paper it was still an Airbus owned aircraft and it was misinterpreted in the news as an Etihad crash, it is not the mistake and not the case of Airbus just choosing and “using a company name during its testing phase” as you put it.
I agree though that this was not really an Etihad crash and I would still love to fly with the flag carrier of the UAE one day!
balint01
It does not change anything from pasengers mind .When you buy a shirt most of time you buy it because it looks so but only few people stick to the manufacturer tag .In this case It would be professional if airbus stated in the situatuion and presented PUBLICALLY excuses to Ethihad and it spassengers .
I still believe that it s EY mangement that showed their non professionalism .
Again ,i need anyone to draw me the pictures if this happened to Lufthansa or british airways .
What IS true is the uniform airbus response when there is a problem with one of their aircraft:
Its not our fault.
Its someone else’s fault.
Its not our fault.
Remember the french concorde? It crashed because of FOD which fell off a preceding American plane.
Note to French: the preceding American flight landed safely with all passengers and were actually able to use the aircraft again….
My plane lost an engine cowl on landing once. We not only landed the plane safely and uneventfully but we didn’t even know it had happened until my F.O. Did the after landing walk-around. So what is your point?
Apparently, nobody was killed so this is a very expensive lesson financially only. I like the Airbus series but my favourite jet for travel is the Boeing 767. Given Airbus’ test crashes, I will wait before I get on the A380.
Airbus needs to stand up to the plate and accept any responsibility they are accountable for. It will come out one way or another.
To say the Etihad crew was on board without Airbus personnel does not make sense. It is a multi million Euro aircraft.
Err, what about simulators? Didn’t these people know anything about simulators which would reveal the purpose of the alarms? And, what about the manual? I know it is thick but did anyone read it? I do read my vehicle owners manual.
Thank you for allowing me the space to “speak”.
No news about this. it’s $1500 to fly from NY to Bahrain, which I thought to be relatively cheap. However, it appears that they do not allow Americans to fly first class as you can not schedule it! http://www.etihadairways.com/etihadairways/us/en/home and try it yourselves (that or they don’t have 1st class on their planes).
No Airbus pilots or instructors have responded here. If any are reading this, can they confirm that the Airbus computer releases the brakes when flight power is applied and the aircraft is in flight mode (flaps zero, etc)? You can’t get to full power without setting the plane into flight mode. Didn’t Canadian Airlines also lose an Airbus this way a few years ago? Other reports said that the crew on board were delivery contractors, which means the aircraft was in ETIHAD’s possession.
I don’t know how true this is, but I heard that the crew elected to pull a circuit braker to silence the “parking-brake” alarm and that released the brakes.
Well, so far more than 14 thousand people read this article, so I hope they will find it, too.
This is a complete repeat of when Canadian Airlines maintenance crushed a Canadian forces Airbus. Same deal, power run, tech pulled the same breaker, plane drove into hangar and hangar collapsed on the plane breaking its back….My question is ..do you punch out or just go home??
The arrogence of Airbus is that they didnt look at the system where one faulty breaker or broken wire could result in a full brake system failure..Stupid Canadians..Well it cant happen again….OOPS I will be damned.
The system designed to stop pilots from landing with brakes on..which never happens and if it ever does will simply blow tires.. Has resulted in the destruction of 2 airplanes, a hangar and not sure the death toll..But airbus is right as always
These are the same people who destroyed an Arien 5 over Guyana because they loaded the wrong software..and responded with “well at least the safetys worked” and tried to look like heros
http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/3207/85/
Suggest incompetence and lack of reading supplied documentation.
STOP!
Ashr..Mend suggests perhaps an interessant story BUT the TALE (TALE!) and link with TothepointN… A racist storyboard and racistes or deplaced injuries and comments of same level. Sh..t.
No place here in any case: please CENSORED May 28, 2008 at 6:02 am
Thanks and regards.
Until the French authorities release an official account of the incident, everyone here is speculating and in the airline industry that is inappropriate.
Thank you!
THE TALE OF THE ARAB FLIGHT CREW
Written by To The Point News
Friday, 16 May 2008
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 Arab 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 Arab 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. Coverage of the story was deemed insulting to Moslem Arabs. Finally, the photos are starting to leak out.
The ADAT crew taxied the A 340-600 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 A 340-600 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 take off 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 Arab crew was smart enough to throttle back
the engines from their max power setting, so the $200 million brand-new aircraft crashed into a blast barrier, totaling it.
Actually, the test went as planned.
This is a normal landing for Arab Muslim crews.
Their goal and moto are: “Any landing you can walk away from, is a coward’s landing.” Allah ahk bar!
The last thing the crew was heard to say as they boarded was, “We don’t want to learn anything to do with landings”!
What a sad sick bastard ‘Getta Clue’ is, why do you publish comments like this? It drags you down to his level, the gutter.
THE TALE OF THE ADAT FLIGHT CREW
Written by To The Point News
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)
to conduct pre-delivery tests on the ground, such as engine runups,
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 , ec.) 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 power setting, 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. Coverage
of the story was deemed insulting to Arabs. Finally, the photos are starting to leak out.
To made in USA… NONE Airbus aircraft was crashed with passengers on board, in the history of crashes. While the list of accidents for BOING is sooo lonnnng.
The history says so.
try reading this just another case of a human being in this case several stuck on stupid
http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/etihad.asp
obviously they forgot to engage the inshalla’s
Cain Crew’s claim that no Airbus aircraft have ever crashed with passengers aboard is clearly wrong.
American Airlines Flight 587 crashed on November 12, 2001 killing all 251 passengers and nine crew and five people on the ground.
The NTSB ruled the crash was a result of both pilot error and design flaws in the vertical stabilizer of the A300-600.
You could document all Boeing crashes. But who has the time? At least Airbus runs tests before delivery.
To American posters in this forum; please stop trying to explain the incident in terms of national characteristics. The rest of the world is not entirely stupid and evil.
ADAT crew error. Hushed up because of embarrassment to you know who. Probably learning to take off and not land.
I run a flight training program that sees a lot of Middle Eastern customers. Many are not stupid. Mostly arogant and insulted that Americans have to teach them something. It is a cultural thing and must be dealt with. On the other hand, many are just not cut out for flying but their pridefull nature prevents them from acknowledging it. By the way, what was the Airbus employee doing in the cockpit to prevent the alleged safety protocol bypass
what a stupid tech crew of Etihad airways not only the tech crew the cabin crew also stupid as i saw one incident happen onboard while im paxing from Abu Dhabi to KUL,they even know the safety procedures as me and my crew member from Malaysia Airlines have to perform CPR to the passenger who fainted because of chocking.see how stupid are they
All due respect to everyone involved in the above conversation, testing pilots are extremely qualified and has skill above normal levels, thus, do not rule out mechanical error, in which case Airbus and not Etihad should come forward and accept resposibility
i am so glad no-one was hurt, imagine the death toll. u know these planes are too big, how can this happen. i was reading this article in the newspaper today. i was shocked, i hope everyone is alright. u know, it happened in 2007, but where i am from we are behind the times. i am from lumbumbashi, u see. so i am sorry.
Reading all the comments from americans on this board brings to mind one word… “facepalm”
Subject: Wow- watch which airline you pick!!!
Here are the real reasons gentlemen!!!!!
_____
Directions? we don’t need no stinkin’ directions !
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 Arab flight crew of Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies
(ADAT) 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 take off but the aircraft 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 fooled the aircraft into thinking it was 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 Arab crew was bright enough to throttle back
the engines from their max power setting, 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. Coverage of the story
was deemed insulting to Muslim Arabs. Finally, the photos are starting to
leak out.
I run a flight training program that sees a lot of Middle Eastern customers. Many are not stupid. Mostly arogant and insulted that Americans have to teach them something. It is a cultural thing and must be dealt with. On the other hand, many are just not cut out for flying but their pridefull nature prevents them from acknowledging it. By the way, what was the Airbus employee doing in the cockpit to prevent the alleged safety protocol bypass (By Otto)
So what??? They are not ,,proud’, they are masking their stupidity. The entire crew was arab in that plane, and they rather kill people and passengers than staying away from those machines. These planes should be flown by normal pilots and never by ,,proud” scrooges playing with innocent lives. Cultural??? It`s barbarism!
Muslim pilot who prayed gets 10 years jail
By MR PAUL on Wed, 25/03/2009 – 12:59pm
Jailed for 10 years, the Muslim pilot who paused to pray before taking emergency action in plane crash that killed 16
By Mail Foreign Service.
A Muslim pilot and co-pilot who paused to pray before taking emergency measures as they ditched a passenger plane in the sea, killing 16 people, has been sentenced to 10 years in jail.
Pilot Chafik Gharby and co-pilot Ali Kebaier were convicted of taking inadequate emergency measures by an Italian court.
The 2005 crash at sea off Sicily left survivors swimming for their lives, some clinging to a piece of the fuselage that remained floating after the ATR turbo-prop aircraft splintered upon impact.
The fuselage and wings of the plane sink into the Mediterranean Sea off Palermo’s port on the Sicilian coast, southern Italy, after the crash on August 6, 2005
There were 34 holidaymakers and five crew on board the plane when it went down.
Rest of the comment removed.
Since literacy seems to be a major failure on the part of most posters on this site… Perhaps the test crew were the same? Can’t spell, don’t want to learn and ‘Ain’t gonna read that stoopid instruction book??’
Beachrider: by “posters” I hope you mean commenters and not us, who write the blog. We always try our best and I hope you like the posts themselves.
Hello!
Very Interesting post! Thank you for such interesting resource!
PS: Sorry for my bad english, I’v just started to learn this language
See you!
Your, Raiul Baztepo
Is anybody else suspiscious that the pics are NOT of an A340?? Doesn’t look anywhere big enough….my guess is 747…but more likely a Boeing 707….
Harry, I love your fabricated stories. What are your sources? Even the first sentence is incorrect “the largest passenger airplane ever
built” Nope, it’s not. It might almost be belivable if it wasn’t so full of hatefull messages toward French and Arabs.
I was told the ground proximity breaker. It was pulled because the horn was too loud. That would make the plane think it is trying to take off and release the brakes. I’d be it was operator error due to a lack of proper training.Maybe they should have an Airbus pilot do the testing.
What I would like to know is why [how many, 7?] people were on the plane, yet not one thought enough to either turn off the engines or take off. Hmmmmm. . .and are we sure these people were really pilots?
Unfortunately, it’s only a few Americans that ruin it for the rest of us. We aren’t all ignorant Muslim and French haters. As for the accident, it was just that… an accident.
It was not “just an accident”. The crew disengaged the system that was locking the brakes, this caused the accident. An accidental bump of the elbow would make it a bonafide accident.
Airbus planes no crash do they.
Preliminary
Preliminary
11/27/2008
Perpignan, France
AIRBUS A320
D-AXLA
Fatal(7)
NSCH Non-U.S., Non-Commercial
Factual
Factual
5/30/2008
Tegucgalpa, Honduras
Airbus Industrie A320-233
EI-TAF
Fatal(5)
SCHD Groupo Taca Airlines
Factual
Factual
7/17/2007
Sao Paulo, Brazil
Airbus Industrie A320-233
PR-MBK
Fatal(199)
SCHD TAM Linhas Aéreas
Preliminary
Preliminary
7/8/2006
Irkutsk, Russia
Airbus Industrie A310-300
F-OGYP
Fatal(124)
SCHD
Don’t any of you have a life? Read a book and maybe your brains won’t so numb.
My ISraeli brother laughed so hard about the crew crashing this plane. If it were mechanical failure, the FAA would report this immediately. It is EITHAD failure through and through. This is the same as the guy at the factory who tapes down machine safety buttons because they annoy him. He loses a finger/arm/or other penile extremity…and sues. Notice EITHAD isn’t suing? Because they have all our money from oil anyway. Airbus should simply cut them off from all jet liner supplies. never forget 9/11.
This strengthens the argument that Allah made camels for a reason.
The below is from another website.
The accident report, in French. Some translating for those who don’t read Francais below.
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2007/f-cj071115/pdf/f-cj071115.pdf
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.
Did no one read that “the 9 people onboard (including 7 Etihad employees” part… Etihad has what is called an acceptance crew like every other airline…
This is what happens when you give people who only stopped herding goats for a living 30 years ago the most sophisticated acft on the planet…
You throttle it up with out slats and flaps and the plane will warn you… You dont want to listen to the warning… so you trick the plane to thinking its in the air by pulling a few circuit breakers… Hmm to bad the smart plane knows it does not need breaks to be set in the air… And no one thought to pull the throttles back?
Stupid people…..
Truly amazing how the bullshit story about the evil, stupid arabs is in 10x more places on the web right now than the real story. Isn’t it so much easier and more fun to just hate and assume about an entire race of people than spend 5 minutes searching to find out what really happened? David’s post is correct, this crash was entirely the fault of a rather foolish mistake on the part of an Airbus technician; the one ADAT observer on board the plane was in no way at fault. But, of course, that story isn’t quite as much fun to spread, is it?
To all those idiots out there who immediately decided to blame the “arab” pilot.
Offical Respone:
Short answer: the test was done improperly, not in accordance with written procedures and standards. The fault of the Airbus technician. 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…
Bigotry is not an excuse for your stupidity. Go spew your hatred somewhere else.
It’s an accident. That’s it!!
It was hardly an accident… During the particular checks they were undertaking, a warning would have be sounding. The ONLY way to turn this off would have lead to the aircraft believing that it was up in the air, therefore releasing the breaks and taking off. With all four engines on high, this led to the head on crash into the wall.
Of course they did not follow procedure because if they did, this would not have happened. If they followed procedure, they would know NOT to flick the switch that disables the warning sound. It’s sounds a warning for a reason.
I agree with the last comment by stevejw. The problem with the test pilots is that they had not gone through pre-test procedures properly. However, this does raise a bigger issue with Airbus: it seems to me that pilots are too often in conflcit with the software on these planes.
At the smae time I find the comment about “Arabs” particularily pathetic and unnecessary, and further comments about “French” this and that bizarre. Is it really a cultural phemonenon that people from the USA need to always go down this boring predictable path? If so then we are never going to get to the bottom of any accident investigation, are we?
Thats why God gave the Arabs the camels…….
It is beyond me why some writers are choosing to use this post to negatively label others with stupidity and lack of intelligence, when in reality they are gasping for attention because no one is buying their superiority complex anymore. In Newark Airport, 2 American mechanics where taxing an MD-80 aircraft from the hanger to the gate and when they went to stop it they discovered that they have forgotten to fix the breaks, so the plane slammed into the terminal nearly missing the 2 mechanics who were pinned down in the cockpit.
Another one happened in a N.C. USA, EXpressJet hanger, where the mechanics were testing the engines and the RJ-145 took off and slammed into 2 other RJ-145s damaging all 3 planes.
I am sure there were other operators from other countries and faiths who had mishaps with air crafts before.
Stop the stereotyping and focus on the accident on hand, so we can learn from their mistakes. Copy??
Call Michael Jackson’s nose surgeon
How fast was this plane going “at full throttle” while on the ground? Does anyone know the answer?
Hi JCE,
the speed of the airplane was not disclosed. But you need to understand, that it had all breaks applied when they put full throttle on. So the plane was not moving at that point, as the breaks would be holding it. Then they turned off the warning which made the plane believe it is in the air, and it released the breaks automatically. This was the point, when the plane started to move – with full throttle on – and climbed up on the sound protecting wall. I believe the plane was not really going at high speeds, but had a full throttle of power trying to make it climb the wall – which resulted in the large damage.
The problem is, nobody turned off any warning or disable a circuit breaker, that’s all just lies. Read the official report. The problem was the wheels weren’t chocked, and the airbus employee tried to stop it using the brakes rather than decreasing the engines, two stupid mistakes which produced the crash.
Closeau,
Chocks would not be able to hold the plane in this case.
Generally, chocks can be used to hold a plane when it is parked with engines off, in case of loss of parking brake pressure. You know, parking places might not be perfectly level.
Use of chocks during engine ground test procedures are described in detail in Boeing fight manuals:
1. place the chock in front of the wheels, 6-10 inches apart from the wheel.
2. only one engine can be tested at full power. in order to protect landing gears from excessive torque, another engine (located symmetrically on the other wing) shall (or can) be run, but only for its nominal power.
3. ground personnel shall continuously monitor distance of wheels to chocks. Should any of the weels move the ground personnel shall immediately warn cockpit to stop engine test.
4. chocks must not be put directly in front of the wheels. when power is applied, the wheels are stretching forwards a bit. In case there is a chock in front of the wheel some of the weight of the plane would be relocated from the wheel to the chock. frictional force between the chock and the concrete is significantly lower than those between wheel and the concrete. therefore, the chock would certainly start slipping.
never put chock directly
I cannot understand why people whould laugh at this because it was a French airplane. When a Boeing, or an Antonov, or any kind of airplanes crashes, it’s a sad news for the whole industry.
Come on guys, we are living on the same planet. The first man to fly was a Frenchman, aboard a balloon, one of the first planes was also French, like the bicycle, like the Statue of Liberty, like Lafayette who helped free America. Did you know that French revolution happened because the king sent too much money to America to help fight the British ?
And in a way, Airbus is another revolution : as Boeing was falling asleep, happy with it’s own success, Europe opted for indenpendance and created a company, Airbus, that learned from Boeing and invented many interesting things. It’s a competition, this is why this industry is interesting. Would you watch the Olympics Games with only one competitor ? Boeing is building great airplanes, so does Airbus, and wait until you see the airplanes from China in the coming twenty years! Creativity is equally shared among humans, as is stupidity, as shown by this accident.
i was astonished to read the vast number of ignorant, xenophobic,groundless and gratuitously biased comments.
accidents do happen everywhere, that is why nations have enormous accident investigation bureaux, and so do manufacturers.
in this case, as is usually the case, there was NOT a single cause but rather an accumulation of factors:
- absence of chocks.
- four engines run at full power not just two.
- pilot in left hand seat (usual in command) failed to reach for the vevers and pull them back.
- pilot in right hande seat also failed to pull back levers.
- someone reached over both and pulled circuit breaker – really?
the above are probably written clearly in the procedures therefore not much can be done now other than to say FOLLOW PROCEDURES everytime 100%.
but wait for the formal report before making azinine noises.