Busses and braking.

From a friend at Airbus.
It all sounds about right. Also, since it took them so long to close the
thrust levers, I'm guessing this was not a flight crew, but a
maintenance crew. The parking brake is either on or off on that
airplane.
The reference to EPR's of 1.25-ish would pe about 30% of max thrust,
maybe a tad more. Probably enough to get it going with the brakes set on
a wet slippery area.


Subject: FW: A340-600 - MSN 856 - INCIDENT IN PRODUCTION


________________________________

From: ]
Sent: Tue 20/11/2007 14:46
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: A340-600 - MSN 856 - INCIDENT IN PRODUCTION



SUBJECT: A340-600 - MSN 856 - ACCIDENT IN PRODUCTION OUR REF.: F-WWCJ
AIT 2
DATED 20th OF NOVEMBER 2007 PREVIOUS REF: F-WWCJ AIT 1 DATED 16th OF
NOVEMBER 2007

THIS AIT IS AN UPDATE OF PREVIOUS AIT N°1 CONCERNING THE A340-600
PRODUCTION
AIRCRAFT MSN 856 INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT IN AIRBUS PRODUCTION FACILITIES
IN
TOULOUSE ON THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2007 AT 17:00 LOCAL TIME.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS ACCORDING TO THE RECORDERS,
WHICH
HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY THE FRENCH INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES
(BEA).

FOR ABOUT 3 MINUTES BEFORE THE END OF THE EVENT, ALL FOUR ENGINES EPR
WAS
BETWEEN 1.24 AND 1.26 WITH PARKING BRAKE ON AND WITHOUT GROUND CHOCKS.
THE
ALTERNATE BRAKE PRESSURE WAS NORMAL. (WITH PARKING BRAKE ON, BRAKE
PRESSURE
IS SUPPLIED BY ALTERNATE).

13 SECONDS BEFORE THE IMPACT THE AIRCRAFT STARTED TO MOVE. WITHIN 1 OR 2
SECONDS THE CREW APPLIED BRAKE PEDAL INPUTS AND SELECTED PARKING BRAKE
OFF.
THESE ACTIONS LED THE NORMAL BRAKE PRESSURE TO INCREASE TO ITS NORMAL
VALUE.

2 SECONDS PRIOR BEFORE THE IMPACT, ALL 4 ENGINE THRUST LEVERS WERE
SELECTED
TO IDLE.

THE AIRCRAFT IMPACTED THE CONTAINMENT WALL AT A GROUND SPEED OF 30 KTS.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY AIRCRAFT SYSTEM OR ENGINE MALFUNCTION.

AIRBUS REMINDS ALL OPERATORS TO STRICTLY ADHERE TO AMM PROCEDURES WHEN
PERFORMING ENGINE GROUND RUNS

ENGINE GROUND RUNS AT HIGH POWER ARE NORMALLY CONDUCTED ON A SINGLE
ENGINE
WITH THE ENGINE IN THE SAME POSITION ON THE OPPOSITE WING OPERATED AT A
LIMITED THRUST SETTING TO AVOID DAMAGE TO THE AIFRAME

WHEEL CHOCKS ARE TO BE INSTALLED THROUGHOUT THE TEST.


Yannick MALINGE
Vice President Flight Safety
GSE
AIRBUS Central Entity

Phone : +33 (0)5 61 93 43 60
Fax : +33 (0)5 61 93 44 29




This e-mail is intended only for the above addressee. It may contain
privileged information.
If you are not the addressee you must not copy, distribute, disclose or
use
any of the information in it.
If you have received it in error please delete it and immediately notify
the
sender.
Security Notice: all e-mail, sent to or from this address, may be
accessed
by someone other than the recipient, for system management and security
reasons. This access is controlled under Regulation of security reasons.
This access is controlled under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
2000,
Lawful Business Practises.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
From a friend at Airbus.
It all sounds about right. Also, since it took them so long to close the
thrust levers, I'm guessing this was not a flight crew, but a
maintenance crew. The parking brake is either on or off on that
airplane.
The reference to EPR's of 1.25-ish would pe about 30% of max thrust,
maybe a tad more. Probably enough to get it going with the brakes set on
a wet slippery area.


Subject: FW: A340-600 - MSN 856 - INCIDENT IN PRODUCTION


snip


It is interesting that they recommend running the engine on the opposite
wing to avoid possibly damaging the airframe. Sounds like a rush job caused
this incident, no wheel chocks, running all engine at once. As my grandpa
told me a long time ago, "Haste makes waste."

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
From a friend at Airbus.
It all sounds about right. Also, since it took them so long to close the
thrust levers, I'm guessing this was not a flight crew, but a
maintenance crew. The parking brake is either on or off on that
airplane.

Before or after the crash?

The speculation over on pprune was that the
engine controls were sheared along with the
cockpit, leaving no way to shutdown the engines.
One of them ran for several hours before burning
off all the fuel.

It seems amazing that everything needed to
keep the engine running would still be intact
with the cockpit hanging by a few threads.

Wouldn't generators, fuel pumps and/or FADEC
shut the engine down with such a mess?

The reference to EPR's of 1.25-ish would pe about 30% of max thrust,
maybe a tad more. Probably enough to get it going with the brakes set on
a wet slippery area.


Subject: FW: A340-600 - MSN 856 - INCIDENT IN PRODUCTION


________________________________

From: ]
Sent: Tue 20/11/2007 14:46
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: A340-600 - MSN 856 - INCIDENT IN PRODUCTION



SUBJECT: A340-600 - MSN 856 - ACCIDENT IN PRODUCTION OUR REF.: F-WWCJ
AIT 2
DATED 20th OF NOVEMBER 2007 PREVIOUS REF: F-WWCJ AIT 1 DATED 16th OF
NOVEMBER 2007

THIS AIT IS AN UPDATE OF PREVIOUS AIT N°1 CONCERNING THE A340-600
PRODUCTION
AIRCRAFT MSN 856 INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT IN AIRBUS PRODUCTION FACILITIES
IN
TOULOUSE ON THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2007 AT 17:00 LOCAL TIME.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS ACCORDING TO THE RECORDERS,
WHICH
HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY THE FRENCH INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES
(BEA).

FOR ABOUT 3 MINUTES BEFORE THE END OF THE EVENT, ALL FOUR ENGINES EPR
WAS
BETWEEN 1.24 AND 1.26 WITH PARKING BRAKE ON AND WITHOUT GROUND CHOCKS.
THE
ALTERNATE BRAKE PRESSURE WAS NORMAL. (WITH PARKING BRAKE ON, BRAKE
PRESSURE
IS SUPPLIED BY ALTERNATE).

13 SECONDS BEFORE THE IMPACT THE AIRCRAFT STARTED TO MOVE. WITHIN 1 OR 2
SECONDS THE CREW APPLIED BRAKE PEDAL INPUTS AND SELECTED PARKING BRAKE
OFF.
THESE ACTIONS LED THE NORMAL BRAKE PRESSURE TO INCREASE TO ITS NORMAL
VALUE.

2 SECONDS PRIOR BEFORE THE IMPACT, ALL 4 ENGINE THRUST LEVERS WERE
SELECTED
TO IDLE.

THE AIRCRAFT IMPACTED THE CONTAINMENT WALL AT A GROUND SPEED OF 30 KTS.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY AIRCRAFT SYSTEM OR ENGINE MALFUNCTION.

AIRBUS REMINDS ALL OPERATORS TO STRICTLY ADHERE TO AMM PROCEDURES WHEN
PERFORMING ENGINE GROUND RUNS

ENGINE GROUND RUNS AT HIGH POWER ARE NORMALLY CONDUCTED ON A SINGLE
ENGINE
WITH THE ENGINE IN THE SAME POSITION ON THE OPPOSITE WING OPERATED AT A
LIMITED THRUST SETTING TO AVOID DAMAGE TO THE AIFRAME

WHEEL CHOCKS ARE TO BE INSTALLED THROUGHOUT THE TEST.


Yannick MALINGE
Vice President Flight Safety
GSE
AIRBUS Central Entity

Phone : +33 (0)5 61 93 43 60
Fax : +33 (0)5 61 93 44 29




This e-mail is intended only for the above addressee. It may contain
privileged information.
If you are not the addressee you must not copy, distribute, disclose or
use
any of the information in it.
If you have received it in error please delete it and immediately notify
the
sender.
Security Notice: all e-mail, sent to or from this address, may be
accessed
by someone other than the recipient, for system management and security
reasons. This access is controlled under Regulation of security reasons.
This access is controlled under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
2000,
Lawful Business Practises.

Jim Stewart wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
From a friend at Airbus.
It all sounds about right. Also, since it took them so long to close
the thrust levers, I'm guessing this was not a flight crew, but a
maintenance crew. The parking brake is either on or off on that
airplane.

Before or after the crash?


They disengaged it and used the toe brakes 11 seconds before impact.

The speculation over on pprune was that the
engine controls were sheared along with the
cockpit, leaving no way to shutdown the engines.
One of them ran for several hours before burning
off all the fuel.

Entirely possible.

It seems amazing that everything needed to
keep the engine running would still be intact
with the cockpit hanging by a few threads.


All the engine needs is fuel.

Wouldn't generators, fuel pumps and/or FADEC
shut the engine down with such a mess?


Nope. All you need is a running engine to keep an engine running.
I hadn't heard that the engine was still running, though.
Remember, anyone can post on PPrune, just like here.


Bertie

On Nov 21, 10:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jim Stewart wrote :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
From a friend at Airbus.
It all sounds about right. Also, since it took them so long to close
the thrust levers, I'm guessing this was not a flight crew, but a
maintenance crew. The parking brake is either on or off on that
airplane.

Before or after the crash?

They disengaged it and used the toe brakes 11 seconds before impact.

On the 737 pressing the toe brakes pops the parking brake off. Could
be the same on the Airbus.
-Robert

In article ,
"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:




It is interesting that they recommend running the engine on the opposite
wing to avoid possibly damaging the airframe. Sounds like a rush job caused
this incident, no wheel chocks, running all engine at once. As my grandpa
told me a long time ago, "Haste makes waste."

That's common on multi-engine aircraft. Side-loading the nosewheel is
one thing you want to avoid.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
From a friend at Airbus.

This e-mail is intended only for the above addressee. It may contain
privileged information.
If you are not the addressee you must not copy, distribute, disclose or
use any of the information in it.

Bunyip, you're a hoot.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Nov 21, 10:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jim Stewart wrote
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
From a friend at Airbus.
It all sounds about right. Also, since it took them so long to
close the thrust levers, I'm guessing this was not a flight crew,
but a maintenance crew. The parking brake is either on or off on
that airplane.

Before or after the crash?

They disengaged it and used the toe brakes 11 seconds before impact.

On the 737 pressing the toe brakes pops the parking brake off. Could
be the same on the Airbus.

No, it isn't. The brakes are a different system completely on the 'bus. The
737's (and in fact all Boeings) is very similar to the Cessna's system as
far as the pilot is concerned. The bus uses a different hyddraulic system
for th eparking brake and it's almost completely independent of the toe
brakes.
Besides, they weren't an issue in this accident.

Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip's more handsome brother via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe
wrote in news:7b917a5a932cd@uwe:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
From a friend at Airbus.

This e-mail is intended only for the above addressee. It may contain
privileged information.
If you are not the addressee you must not copy, distribute, disclose or
use any of the information in it.

Bunyip, you're a hoot.


I know..

Bertie