donnybalonny 46 Posted May 9, 2015 Report Share Posted May 9, 2015 An Airbus 400M in test flight has crashed today near Sevilla at 13.00 Spanish time. 4 killed and 2 seriously injured at the moment. The aircraft has exploted when hitting the ground. Its to early to say why. There was a big fire with a very black smoke afterwards There´s a short video here (after crash) where you can see that the AC has completely burned out: http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2015/05/09/actualidad/1431171240_636813.html Link to post Share on other sites
mutley 4,487 Posted May 9, 2015 Report Share Posted May 9, 2015 That is sad news Anders, especially for the families and it was the first flight as well Link to post Share on other sites
donnybalonny 46 Posted May 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2015 Its a very critical thing for the Spanish Airbus factory as well. It has been delayed many times because of tecnical problems. As you say, this was the aircrafts first flight and it reported to tower that it had problems right after takeoff. It hit a high tension electrical mast when it went down. At the moment there´s no more to say. The 6 persons on board were 2 pilots, a mechanic and 3 technics from the factory. Link to post Share on other sites
MyPC8MyBrain 273 Posted May 9, 2015 Report Share Posted May 9, 2015 terrible news Link to post Share on other sites
dodgy-alan 1,587 Posted May 9, 2015 Report Share Posted May 9, 2015 I heard about an aircrash in Seville earlier on today. Straight away I thought A400, Gutted to be proved right. Apparently the RAF have grounded theirs already pending inquiries. I just hope the problem was not something fleet wide. Deepest condolences to all the families and freinds. Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,284 Posted May 9, 2015 Report Share Posted May 9, 2015 Sad news for everyone involved. Link to post Share on other sites
dodgy-alan 1,587 Posted May 9, 2015 Report Share Posted May 9, 2015 Looking at new footage, it shows very little skidding and a small debris field, that seems to indicate very little forward motion and the fact that the hull has collapsed in on itself looks for all the world to be a stall accident. She virtually fell out of the sky! The aircraft was supposed to be the 3rd aircraft for the Turkish Air Force, those killed were all Airbus employees. The RAF has suspended all A400 operations pending the outcome of an inquest into the accident. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32673713 Link to post Share on other sites
donnybalonny 46 Posted May 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 They have suspended in Germany as well. And I expect others to follow. The project A400 has already had many problems and was way behind schedule.. They are claiming that pressure from Germany to finish Aircrafts has been part of the problems. Wheater this is a fact, excuse or speculation, I dont know. The 2 survivors, which are both very seriosly injured were saved by a local guy who ran to the wreck and took them out. Some heroe!! Besides that, basically nothing more than what I already wrote Link to post Share on other sites
dodgy-alan 1,587 Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 Lets just hope it was a one-off glich and not a design fault. I'm inclined to think that will be the case given the amount of developement testing these aircraft have had. Any major problems would surely have shown up before now. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted May 13, 2015 Report Share Posted May 13, 2015 There are some seemingly-credible reports coming out of multiple engine failures right after takeoff, including one mention of contaminated fuel, but don't know how much stock to put in that. Someone has "ruled out" the engines themselves being the source of the problem but not sure what the rationale for that is - I guess multiple failures suggests that it wasn't the engines themselves but rather one or more of the systems supporting them. It was an attempted forced landing but clipped a tower and power lines on the way in. The aircraft skidded to a stop intact, but burned to the point of a total structure collapse, including the fuselage, which I understand is mostly aluminum. It was to be a six hour flight so there was a lot of fuel aboard. They took off on Runway 09 and attempted to return to Runway 27 in a left turn but never made it all the way back around, landing before reaching the extended centerline. They crashed heading more or less south and would have had to make another right 90 to make the runway - there just wasn't enough energy to get that far back. I guess there were six aboard, two of whom are still alive but severely injured. All the crew were Spanish, civilian employees of Airbus. There were no customer (Turkey) personnel involved. John 2 Link to post Share on other sites
wain 879 Posted May 13, 2015 Report Share Posted May 13, 2015 wow, very bad and very sad news for all involved and their firends and families..... Wayne Link to post Share on other sites
donnybalonny 46 Posted May 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2015 I havent seen any new explanations in Spanish media for a couple of days. I just wonder, why do you fuel an aircraft for a 6 hours flight when it is the first flight? Isnt that a bit risky? Link to post Share on other sites
hurricanemk1c 195 Posted May 14, 2015 Report Share Posted May 14, 2015 At the same time Anders, if something goes wrong in the air (such as landing gear), you've got plenty of time to try and fix it. Most new 'first flights' are 4 hours E.g. - the 787 first flight was a shade over 3 hours, the A380 was 3 hours 54 minutes Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted May 14, 2015 Report Share Posted May 14, 2015 Quote I just wonder, why do you fuel an aircraft for a 6 hours flight when it is the first flight? Isnt that a bit risky? From a post on PPRUNE, by a member of their test team, responding to a question about why so many people (6) were aboard... Quote 5 crew would be the absolute minimum - a first-flight profile is typically ~5 hours, with hardly a minute wasted and a high tempo workload throughout the whole aircraft. Even a well coordinated crew would find it difficult to complete the full profile in less time. 6 onboard is not unheard of - acceptable for the extra person for training purposes, but in general, yes, the crew is kept to a minimum, for reasons that are, sadly, obvious. John Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted May 14, 2015 Report Share Posted May 14, 2015 Interestingly, Germany, the UK and Malaysia have all suspended further flights until the cause is determined. France, on the other hand, is continuing to fly theirs. I guess it's their way of supporting Mother Airbus. When airframes cost hundreds of millions of dollars/pounds/euros/bananas, it's prudent to ground the fleet when there's an unexplained problem that COULD be generic. Until that possibility is deemed to be an acceptably low probability, they're better sitting on the ramp. There are limits to how deep the taxpayer's pockets are. John Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted May 14, 2015 Report Share Posted May 14, 2015 The investigation is indeed ficused on the aircraft’s TP400 engines and associated fuel system. Link to post Share on other sites
donnybalonny 46 Posted May 15, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2015 Spain has grounded their AC as well. I understand that the length and people aboard procedures is standard and that they have a reason and that , but isnt it so that standard procedures can be and sometimes should be changed? Sometimes you learn something that makes you change your mind. If not, you are not very intelligent. So maybe a low fuel/ few people pre-first flight would be a good idea? If I had made my own AC, I wouldnt fill the tanks and take the kids with me on the first flight. Besides, this AC crashed very close to where a lot of people were working in a big industrial site. The pilot more or less took the AC down the only place he could without creating a major disaster. This could easily have ended a lot worse. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted May 15, 2015 Report Share Posted May 15, 2015 This is at least the 23rd A400M they've built and it's the first one it's happened to. Hindsight is 20/20 but I don't see much yet that makes me think they were being reckless or taking an extraordinary risk. Something went wrong. There's no such thing as perfect safety and those who seek it accomplish little. I'm not an Airbus fan and particularly not an A400M supporter (economics and schedule, not so much technical issues - the customers are getting taken to the cleaners). I am quick to criticize them when I think they screwed the pooch, but in this case I can't see anything yet to be critical of, including their test regimen, which appears to be professional and conservative and in line with the best practices of the rest of the industry as near as I can tell at this point. I guess the choice of a landing spot makes the pilots heroes, which is sometimes the case. I had not heard that part of it yet. Good for them. John Link to post Share on other sites
J G 927 Posted May 15, 2015 Report Share Posted May 15, 2015 The investigation is indeed ficused on the aircraft’s TP400 engines and associated fuel system. So it could have been contaminated fuel. Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,284 Posted May 15, 2015 Report Share Posted May 15, 2015 Could be an old part that stresses earlier than they once thought too. I am sure they are working furiously, can't be cheep to ground so many aircraft. Link to post Share on other sites
donnybalonny 46 Posted May 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Yesterday, Airbus told all their A400M clients that the electronic system that controls the engines ( ECU ) should be revised. They didn´t say anything about the Seville accident. A socalled anonymous expert, close to Airbus has said the the Seville crash most probably has to do with software install problems, and that 3 engines stopped shortly after start. It hasn´t been possible to analyse the black boxes yet so everything is still in the speculation phase, but it is, of course, worth noticing that Airbus has said that all ECU should be revised. Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 I suspect this is just coincidental to be honest Donny. I suspect that something as critical as shutting off engines would be outside the realms of a simple ECU software install error. Not that I'm an expert. If this is true it's a monumental cockup! Link to post Share on other sites
donnybalonny 46 Posted May 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 As usual in these accidents, untill they get to analyse the black boxes, there´ll be a ton of speculations, theories and anonimous specialists saying this and that. I just write what is being told in the Spanish news. Here, they are, of course, very worried. Its a big factory in zone with very high unemployment. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 It seems kind of a long time after the crash to not have the CVR and FDR data. It wasn't even a particularly violent crash. The fire may be a factor but those are supposed to be fire-proof. John Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 Seems it may indeed have been a software issue...Investigators have found evidence a military plane crash in Spain may have been caused by software problems.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32810273 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now