Etihad A340-600 Accident Photos

Port side engines may be damaged, at least the nacelles look like they got scraped up pretty bad.

It looks like it hit hard enough to scrape the concrete with the port nacelles. that damage wasn't readily visible in the previous set of photos. I wonder how true the length of the fuselage is after a hit like that?

The damage was bad enough that Airbus has written off the entire aircraft. You know that will effect the bottom line! MERRY "NO BONUS" CHRISTMAS!

Hitting an engine like that does it no good whatsoever. I expect them to be seriously damaged if not scrap too.

Once again,

That airplane is scrap.

One word wow.

We hope that the injuries to workers were not extensive.

Gosh, this was in an established test process.

How many 'oops would Boeing have seen in an accelerated flight test program that would result from pushing both the system and the people too hard?

Fortunately, it is now a mute point (we hope).

Wow

I have never seen a plane that badly damaged without serious injury since the AF crash in Canada. Amazing no one was killed.

The fact that the front section is basically at a 90 degree angle with the rest of the plane is astonishing.

Looks like good case of technical incompetence.
Aircraft should have had tail towards blast wall.NO CHOCKS!!!WHY??There should have been a long clear area in front of aircraft, just in case something does go wrong?Why did it take so long to reduce the power?Were they asleep or using mobile phones at the time?Did the anti skid system sense that the aircraft was starting to move/slide and released the brakes?Looks like a big dent in Airbus profits.

i think
airbus can say
ground check is okey
can fly
remember donkey carry 40 kg.
if you put 70 kg.
it will wowww

i hope all engineer are in safe
i always afraid when i make high power test
with brake also chocks.
with only amm 12-00-00 information.
so i remember my grounfather word about donkey.
i think somethings are wrong between thrust and brake ratio or wind direction
in cockpit something made unprocedure or heavy work stress.
pressure make human fly.

it must be "high power test brake system" bcs. i cant strongly believe parking brake also at %80 n2. so for engineer or system .when at ground making take off parameter or engine check.the system must increase brake pressure for safe system.

at 110 n2 .aircraft shake like dancer .so how you can keep your foot at brake safely.if you put alternate system for only ground check for increase the system pressure max.

bcs this reason when i am making test engine always at f/o side the person only dutie is fully push brake same as me for safety. it is not write at AMM.

Where are these pictures from, they are protected by copyright of Airbus France SAS. I hope you have the permission to make them public, however you got them

http://www.honders.net/tmp/PICT0002.jpg

Images are also sourced at the site above.

wow. sounds the wall tears the fuselage in two pieces. the aircraft's fuselage should be scraped. hope the technical crew are safe.

Unfortunate example of the impact on lives and property when safety takes a back seat to project completion.

I only wish this accident was on video. It's a shame that such a beautiful aircraft is destroyed and sad that the fine engineers were injured in the accident, but video would've been super interesting!

Everytime I make a mistake, I'll be able to think - mmm... a least I didn't write off an A340-600.

It amazing that there were no fatalities - wow - amazing.

I think that Airbus should admit their mistake and test their airplane before they sell to Etihad. They should also pay compensation to the Gamco Engineer who was injured.

Vijay

God damn it. What a waste...

What a waste?Salvaging will be an expensive affair.The important thing is no one was killed.

What a waste?Salvaging will be an expensive affair.The important thing is no one was killed.

This was a "metal" fuselage and wing. How would the Boeing "plastic" 787 look after this impact. I wonder how the plastic wonder would survive a ramp accident with a catering truck?

All the hall marks of an accident waiting to happen and, even if the chocks were in place, it wouldn't have been the first case of chock-jumping.

Safety should come before everything, yes even the wishes of the Sales Director.

Walter wrote:
"This was a "metal" fuselage and wing. How would the Boeing "plastic" 787 look after this impact. I wonder how the plastic wonder would survive a ramp accident with a catering truck?"

Find a ramp incident with any 777 trailing edge and you'll see. The "Plastic" for the 787 is mostly carbon fiber composite, which was created in the aerospace world in the 1960s, migrated into racing cars and commercial airliners in the 1980s and works very, very well. 777 alerons and flaps are carbon fiber, and they even put internal structure in the big pieces so ramp damaged parts can be cut out and repaired in small-size autoclaves. Read Sabaugh's "21st Century Jet".

When Porsche wanted to take a carbon-fiber chassis to the Indianapolis 500, a generation ago, the Indy officials turned them down because they were afraid it would be too stiff, too strong, and not absorb any energy in a crash, the way aluminum and metal/honeycomb does. They were afraid the impact energy would simply be passed through the car to the driver, and kill them outright. McLaren made the first carbon-fiber chassis in Formula 1, and they put aluminum crush structures at the front and sides. Hercules was a sponsor and made the carbon fiber chassis, using technology they had from making rocket motor cases. This is all 25 years ago.

Unbelieveable, Heaven must have been full so God held all these special people in the palm of his hands.

I don't really understand why people keep calling the 787 a "plastic" airliner. That's like saying that an aluminum fuselage is "made from tinfoil". And besides, it's not as though Airbus hasn't been using composite structures for fifteen years now...

Incidentally, there is a world shortage of high-performance carbon composite fiber, due to Boeing buying it all for the Dreamliner...

Oooops!

Kolla alltid bromsarna först.

Under very similar circumstances an A310 jumped its shocks at the Canadian Airlines maintenance base in YVR in 1995 if I am not wrong, crossing the ramp and hitting an storage building.
That aircraft was an ex Ward Air one but at the time owned by Canadian Forces, this plane was undergoing maintenance at Canadian Airlines.
Damage was substantial but a temporary repair was done and flown to Airbus in Europe for final repair.
After this incident, especial chocks, much bigger, were especially made when performing engine run up on this type of aircraft.
To my understanding, there was an especial procedure to follow when performing engine run up, otherwise the brakes would be disabled.

Did Etihad order a new A340-600 as a replacement or was the order subsequently stricken?

This case confirms a Part 66 licence does not guarantee a better qualified Licenced Engineer-take note employers.

when did this happen? I have very recently flew back from Australia with Etihad on the A340!

One version of events is as follows:

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 Franceand elsewhere. Coverage of the story was deemed insulting to Muslim Arabs.

By SDFlight on November 21, 2007 8:54 PM

Where are these pictures from, they are protected by copyright of Airbus France SAS. I hope you have the permission to make them public, however you got them

I think it is amazing SDFlight seems more concerned his little hush up failed, wake up my dear its a digital age!

Maybe copyright infringement is Airbus's strategy to recoup some loses of the clients technical crew's incompetence!

At least they didn't fly it into a skyscraper...

Ask any pilot of Boeing aircraft who's transitioned to these Airbus aircrafts what they think of them they all have the same acronyms for these cockeyed systems....WTF?????

As we've stated before......"that's why God gave them camels!"

It seems from previous accounts that these people were to do an "acceptance check". It appears they were completley ignorant of the aircraft operating system, so what would the acceptance check consist of? Food for thought.

Joe

Everything looks dumber in hindsight.

To put this in perspective. The totally preventable financial crash, just in the US, is the equivalent of the loss of about 20-30 Airbus aircraft EVERY DAY of the year.