Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3140255/

Topic: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: AirWillie6475
Posted 2006-12-10 06:31:53 and read 15597 times.

All I can say is wow, firefighters not that well prepared. Skip the first 4 minutes then play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhMEN959voE

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: EK413
Posted 2006-12-10 08:26:56 and read 15480 times.

Lets hope we get better results with the A380 RTO!

EK413

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Kearney
Posted 2006-12-10 08:50:23 and read 15446 times.

Is it common for the tires to blow on the average RTO? Id expect the brakes to smoke from the heat but not go as far as to blow the tires. Note how the tires blow out the sides, good to know when you approach an aircraft with hot brakes!

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2006-12-10 09:15:20 and read 15408 times.

That's a repost, guys ... it came numerous times already. Last time just two weeks ago.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: L-188
Posted 2006-12-10 09:26:15 and read 15402 times.

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Thread starter):
firefighters not that well prepared.

Actually if this a certification test, they aren't allowed to intervene for 3 minutes.

Quoting Kearney (Reply 2):
Is it common for the tires to blow on the average RTO?

There is a great video of the 747 RTO test where they are exploding pieces of rim up over the top of the aircraft.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Silver1SWA
Posted 2006-12-10 12:24:25 and read 15122 times.

Quoting Kearney (Reply 2):
Note how the tires blow out the sides, good to know when you approach an aircraft with hot brakes!

That is why, in the case of a brake fire, we are trained never to approach from the sides. Always approach from the front or rear of the tires.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: LTU932
Posted 2006-12-10 18:03:35 and read 14745 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 4):
Actually if this a certification test, they aren't allowed to intervene for 3 minutes.

Wasn't it actually so that the aircraft, after the RTO, had to taxi under its own power for 5 minutes without anyone else intervening?

Anyway, those firefighters were indeed not properly prepared for this.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: DfwRevolution
Posted 2006-12-10 18:17:05 and read 14687 times.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 6):

Wasn't it actually so that the aircraft, after the RTO, had to taxi under its own power for 5 minutes without anyone else intervening?

The aircraft must demonstrate that it can roll under its own power and demonstrate that the aircraft will not catch fire for 5 minutes after the RTO. This is assumed to be the time it would take airport emergency services to reach the airplane and cool the landing gear.

Obviously, the A346 in question failed the latter.

BTW - this is a repost of a threat no more than a month ago.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Flyorski
Posted 2006-12-10 18:21:28 and read 14666 times.

Amazing that the Fire department seemed to have no idea that the brakes would explode. The guy runs up there, then turns around and runs back.

Scary

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: LTU932
Posted 2006-12-10 18:25:43 and read 14643 times.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
The aircraft must demonstrate that it can roll under its own power and demonstrate that the aircraft will not catch fire for 5 minutes after the RTO. This is assumed to be the time it would take airport emergency services to reach the airplane and cool the landing gear.

Thanks for the explanation.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Trekster
Posted 2006-12-10 18:32:30 and read 14609 times.

Cool shots


 Smile

Dan

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Chuchoteur
Posted 2006-12-10 22:05:04 and read 13664 times.

safety valves on the tyres are supposed to prevent most blowouts... they should normally just deflate.

I remember an RTO exercise where somebody applied the park brake on the red hot bogies, resulting in the brakes melting onto the discs (nice).
had to put the a/c on trollies 'n tow back to the hangar for the assembly change... fun

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: N243NW
Posted 2006-12-10 22:24:13 and read 13246 times.

In this case, are the fuse plugs not installed/deactivated in order to let the tires explode? I would imagine that the deflation with the plugs installed would be much less violent. Interesting video.
-N243NW biggrin 

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Gearup
Posted 2006-12-10 22:24:39 and read 13243 times.

Quoting Flyorski (Reply 8):
Amazing that the Fire department seemed to have no idea that the brakes would explode. The guy runs up there, then turns around and runs back.

Well it's not actually the brakes that were doing the exploding. As I understand it, the increased pressure within the tyre caused by the burning brakes made the wheel rims fail before the pressure fuse operated. This led to a redesign of the wheels. That firefighter was very lucky he was not hit by a piece of the wheel or a chunk of rubber. If the shrapnel can penetrate wings and engine cowlings, what would it do to a person. I believe the RTO test with the redesigned wheels was a success.

GU

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Keta
Posted 2006-12-10 22:54:17 and read 12670 times.

Awesome video. For me too, it gives me the impression that the firefighters were not very well prepared.

Does somebody know, what temperature do brakes reach?

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: OPNLguy
Posted 2006-12-10 22:57:49 and read 12629 times.

Quoting Keta (Reply 14):

Does somebody know, what temperature do brakes reach?

400F or more...

The brake energy on a RTO is measured in millions of foot-pounds....

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: AA777223
Posted 2006-12-10 23:04:05 and read 12475 times.

I was finding myself very frustrated that the one firefighter who went in hardly sprayed any foam on the bogie. He kept looking back, making hand gestures, etc but hardly sprayed any foam where it was needed most. The rest of the Firefighters seemed MIA.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: 777fan
Posted 2006-12-10 23:31:16 and read 11971 times.

It was funny (but alarming) to see the FFs roll out there with garden hoses. After the first explosion, the FF to the left seemed to be more concerned with the small piece of burning rubber at his feet as opposed to the inferno that was raging on the gear assemblies! Can't believe they didn't attack with foam from the get go.


777fan

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: LimaNiner
Posted 2006-12-10 23:39:37 and read 11823 times.

Was this plane actually delivered to a customer after Airbus finished their testing?!?

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: EBJ1248650
Posted 2006-12-10 23:43:05 and read 11751 times.

Quoting Kearney (Reply 2):
Is it common for the tires to blow on the average RTO? Id expect the brakes to smoke from the heat but not go as far as to blow the tires. Note how the tires blow out the sides, good to know when you approach an aircraft with hot brakes!

I know on some American designed airplanes, pressure seals blow when the heat gets too high and the tires deflate rather than exploding. This film caught me by surprise because I would have thought our European friends would design in a similar feature to prevent tire explosions.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: AsstChiefMark
Posted 2006-12-10 23:51:05 and read 11616 times.

I thought the universal airport fire department procedure states that when approaching an aircraft that is on fire or in which fire is imminent, you approach with pumps on and primed, boom extended, and all personnel in proper attire.



There's no way a couple of two-inch hand lines are going to handle burning metal wheels.

[Edited 2006-12-10 23:53:18]

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: SWAOPSusafATC
Posted 2006-12-11 00:04:56 and read 11398 times.

wow, rejected at 182KTS! Not suprised they blew eventually. That would be one heck of a high V1. What is the rule on min speed before reject for certification?

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: EMBQA
Posted 2006-12-11 00:24:21 and read 11084 times.

Quoting SWAOPSusafATC (Reply 21):
What is the rule on min speed before reject for certification?

It's done with Max Payload, Max speed... before Vr... and Max breaking...no TR's. The aircraft must come to a complete stop, start moving again under its own power, then wait for 3 minutes before the fire/rescue can approch. I was shocked the tires were not equiped with fuse plugs. I saw this same test on the B777 and the result was nothing like that. The fuse plus poped and the tires went flat with no explosion.

[Edited 2006-12-11 00:26:03]

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: DfwRevolution
Posted 2006-12-11 00:30:19 and read 10974 times.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 22):
I saw this same test on the B777 and the result was nothing like that. The fuse plus poped and the tires went flat with no explosion.

If you notice toward the end of the video, most of the tires are flat, but no explosions or fire occur:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5N2uBqJbVU&mode=related&search=

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: AirEMS
Posted 2006-12-11 00:40:04 and read 10815 times.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 16):
I was finding myself very frustrated that the one firefighter who went in hardly sprayed any foam on the bogie. He kept looking back, making hand gestures, etc but hardly sprayed any foam where it was needed most. The rest of the Firefighters seemed MIA.

From what I saw it looked like they were having a pressure problem and he was trying to get them to increase the pressure so that he could stay back and hit the fire..... I don't think that it was a lack of hose length but rather a defensive position in case of the tires blowing as occured... Imagine what would have happened if he had all the hose he wanted and got in even closer of the bogies... I forwarded this to a Friend who is a ARFF member for the Airforce to see what his thoughts are...

My one questions are there any noises that are made by the tires before they go to alert that they are about to blow? or is this a they just blow type of thing?

-Carl

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: 777fan
Posted 2006-12-11 00:49:06 and read 10696 times.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 20):
and all personnel in proper attire.

Ha, it the first guy to get in there appeared to be wearing a "Member's Only" jacket with reflective tape on it. What a joke.

777fan

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: OPNLguy
Posted 2006-12-11 00:53:15 and read 10961 times.

What I was wondering was why 4 fire trucks can be seen trailing the aircraft as it taxis in, yet we only see 1 fire fighter with 1 hose getting anywhere near close to the aircraft...

Maybe they came after 00:08:28 when the video ends...

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Dan2002
Posted 2006-12-11 01:08:56 and read 10720 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 4):
There is a great video of the 747 RTO test where they are exploding pieces of rim up over the top of the aircraft.

Link?

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Pygmalion
Posted 2006-12-11 01:11:18 and read 10703 times.

The brakes get to 3000F not 400F and are white hot. The fuses should let go and let the air out prior to wheel fracture. Thats why they are there. Sometimes the wheels will fracture from the heat and the weight of the aircraft even with no pressure in them. As you can see, exploding wheels is no fun.

It is 5 minutes from full stop with no fire. Aircraft must be able to roll under its own power. Time is to ensure plane can clear runway and then evacuate as needed, and have the FD show up prior to becoming a fireball with full tanks. (This is full max take off weight so tanks would be full.)

Fire boys are told NOT to spray full stream at superheated brakes and wheels. That would be a great way to cause explosions etc. Think about dropping a hot pyrex pan into a bucket of ice water... not a good idea. Small spray of water cools.. large hard stream causes nasty things to happen. Foam won't do sh-t. They have to cool not drown. You can't smother extinguish a magnesium wheel fire with water (it would burn underwater) but you can cool it down enough to get it below burn temp by cooling it with spray that takes up heat by turning to steam.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: LH526
Posted 2006-12-11 01:23:16 and read 10534 times.

Judging the amount of explosions, it's a A346/5 right? I'm amazed by the fact that the plane shoke quite heavy as the rather smaller tires burst in peaces.

Mario
LH526

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: LTU932
Posted 2006-12-11 01:26:00 and read 10501 times.

Quoting LH526 (Reply 29):
Judging the amount of explosions, it's a A346/5 right?

Yes, it's the A346 prototype which was doing this RTO test.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Pygmalion
Posted 2006-12-11 01:32:00 and read 10405 times.

Bursting a tire that is 200psi at normal temps and then heating it to near 1000 degrees and letting it burst.... not a gentle experience

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Ph-tvh
Posted 2006-12-11 02:13:03 and read 9860 times.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 22):
It's done with Max Payload, Max speed... before Vr... and Max breaking...no TR's. The aircraft must come to a complete stop, start moving again under its own power, then wait for 3 minutes before the fire/rescue can approch. I was shocked the tires were not equiped with fuse plugs. I saw this same test on the B777 and the result was nothing like that. The fuse plus poped and the tires went flat with no explosion.

And the brakes are not "fresh" either.
Been a while for me, but the brakes are worn down (simulated flight cycles) to their limits before put to the test.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Gearup
Posted 2006-12-11 03:52:31 and read 8702 times.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 19):
I know on some American designed airplanes, pressure seals blow when the heat gets too high and the tires deflate rather than exploding. This film caught me by surprise because I would have thought our European friends would design in a similar feature to prevent tire explosions.

They did, however the BFGoodrich wheel rims failed before the fuse plugs relieved the pressure in the tyres. They had to be redesigned to solve the issue. Airbus or the FD at the test airfield must have never heard of the concept of Health and safety to let a person approach the landing gear after such a brutal test.

GU

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: AA777223
Posted 2006-12-11 05:28:47 and read 7678 times.

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 28):
They have to cool not drown. You can't smother extinguish a magnesium wheel fire with water (it would burn underwater)

What? Are you sure? I have never heard of anything "Burning under water" I think thats impossible. The only oxygen present in water, is in the actual water molecule, and I don't think you are going to split a water molecule with a magnesium wheel fire. I may be way off, but that just sounds implausible to me.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Robsawatsky
Posted 2006-12-11 05:53:36 and read 7412 times.

From wikipedia.org:

"Magnesium metal and alloys are highly flammable in their pure form when molten, as a powder, or in ribbon form. Burning or molten magnesium metal reacts violently with water. Magnesium powder is an explosive hazard. One should wear safety glasses while working with magnesium. The bright white light (including ultraviolet) produced by burning magnesium can damage the eyes. Water should not be used to extinguish magnesium fires, because it can actually feed the fire, according to the reaction:[2]

Mg (s) + 2 H2O (g) → Mg(OH)2 (aq) + H2 (g)
or in words:
Magnesium (solid) + steam → Magnesium hydroxide (aqueous) + Hydrogen (gas)

Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers should not be used either, because magnesium can burn in carbon dioxide (forming magnesium oxide, MgO, and carbon).[3] A Class D dry chemical fire extinguisher should be used if available, or else the fire should be covered with sand or magnesium foundry flux. An easy way to put out small metal fires is to place a polyethene bag filled with dry sand on top of the fire. The heat of the fire will melt the bag and the sand will flow out onto the fire."

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: OPNLguy
Posted 2006-12-11 06:01:11 and read 7322 times.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 34):
What? Are you sure? I have never heard of anything "Burning under water" I think thats impossible.

Ever see an underwater flare used by scuba divers for illumination?

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: AA777223
Posted 2006-12-11 06:08:26 and read 7207 times.

Well, I stand corrected. I am not a chemist. Apologies for my ignorance.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: AndrewUber
Posted 2006-12-11 06:25:00 and read 7081 times.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 15):
400F or more...

Boeing's 777 RTO test sent the brake temps to over 4,000 Celcius (which is approximately 7,232 degrees F). Molten wheels and brakes are incredibly hot. 400F is barely enough to bake cookies!

Drew

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: L-188
Posted 2006-12-11 06:32:43 and read 6997 times.

Quoting Dan2002 (Reply 27):
Link?

Sorry, Bootleg VHS tape.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: OPNLguy
Posted 2006-12-11 06:40:24 and read 6901 times.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 15):
400F or more...



Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 38):
Boeing's 777 RTO test sent the brake temps to over 4,000 Celcius (which is approximately 7,232 degrees F). Molten wheels and brakes are incredibly hot. 400F is barely enough to bake cookies!

400F is more what you see (or measure) after a landing at a hot-and-high airport over the maximum quick turn weight, and the only value that I was personally aware of. That's certainly low when compared to the heat one would expect with a high-speed RTO at max gross, and the 400F figure was never intended as a maximum value, hence why I included the "or more" with it....  Smile

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: LTU932
Posted 2006-12-11 06:44:37 and read 6882 times.

After having watched the A346 RTO test and re-watching the 777 RTO test, I'd just like to have some confirmation on this: is the use of thrust reversers during a max energy RTO test forbidden?

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: OPNLguy
Posted 2006-12-11 07:13:38 and read 6726 times.

Back to the A340, here some shots of the aftermath...

http://www.aviationpics.de/test/a346/page_01.htm

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: LimaNiner
Posted 2006-12-11 07:33:20 and read 6666 times.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 30):
Yes, it's the A346 prototype which was doing this RTO test.

So to answer my earlier question, this is a true prototype that will never go into service with a customer, i.e., I might encounter it as a beer can if I'm lucky?

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 22):
It's done with Max Payload, Max speed... before Vr... and Max breaking...no TR's. The aircraft must come to a complete stop, start moving again under its own power, then wait for 3 minutes before the fire/rescue can approch.

Yikes -- there is a bad (sad) experience behind each of those requirements... Speaking as a pax today, I'm glad the requirements are so comprehensive and pessimistic.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Brendows
Posted 2006-12-11 07:47:23 and read 6651 times.

Quoting LimaNiner (Reply 43):
So to answer my earlier question, this is a true prototype that will never go into service with a customer, i.e., I might encounter it as a beer can if I'm lucky?

This prototype is still being used by Airbus, just as they are using one A320, one A343 and will continue to use one of the A380s as test aircraft.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 41):
After having watched the A346 RTO test and re-watching the 777 RTO test, I'd just like to have some confirmation on this: is the use of thrust reversers during a max energy RTO test forbidden?

Yes, I believe that's true, this is the test to test the brakes.
FAR Part 25 Sec. 25.109 (i) says the following:

Quote:
A flight test demonstration of the maximum brake kinetic energy accelerate-stop distance must be conducted with not more than 10 percent of the allowable brake wear range remaining on each of the airplane wheel brakes.

and as f-1 in the same sections says:

Quote:
(f) The effects of available reverse thrust--
(1) Shall not be included as an additional means of deceleration when determining the accelerate-stop distance on a dry runway

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: LTU932
Posted 2006-12-11 08:39:02 and read 6621 times.

Quoting LimaNiner (Reply 43):
So to answer my earlier question, this is a true prototype that will never go into service with a customer, i.e., I might encounter it as a beer can if I'm lucky?

Yes, it is. Airbus has kept the original prototype of the A346, which is F-WWCA (MSN 360).

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © French Frogs AirSlides
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jose Muñoz - Iberian Spotters

Airbus keeps some aircraft prototypes for test purposes. They have one A346, one A320, one A340 and the original A380 prototype, F-WWOW, will also stay at Airbus.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Kevi747
Posted 2006-12-11 10:43:26 and read 6432 times.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 16):
I was finding myself very frustrated that the one firefighter who went in hardly sprayed any foam on the bogie. He kept looking back, making hand gestures, etc but hardly sprayed any foam where it was needed most. The rest of the Firefighters seemed MIA.

That's what I'm saying. The fire kept growing and he kept spraying the pavement. I was like, what the hell are you doing? Spray the fire!

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Carpethead
Posted 2006-12-11 12:09:20 and read 6300 times.

The very 1st 777 flies for Cathay Pacific as B-HNL and now powered by RR engines.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: AA777223
Posted 2006-12-11 15:10:47 and read 6079 times.

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 47):
The very 1st 777 flies for Cathay Pacific as B-HNL and now powered by RR engines.

That's interesting. I was under the impression it was a major ordeal to to change engine types on an aircraft like the 777, especially on one of the oldest frames. I would have assumed, since Boeing doesn't make pure test a/c, and that first tester was PW powered, that it initially went to UA. Is that not correct? I thought all of United's former 777s went to AI and Varig. I remember watching that video of the 777 RTO test, and being very impressed, no spoilers, no reverse thrust, only breaks, from above true V1 speed. To be honest I don't think I would want one of Boeing's test a/c after they beat the thing to hell like that!

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: AirbusA346
Posted 2006-12-11 19:05:21 and read 5805 times.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 45):

It has stayed with Airbus because it is not a proper certified version due to the overwing door missing on F-WWCA, but is present on the others.

It might look like it is there on the recent photos of F-WWCA since it was painted in the new livery, but the door is in fact painted on so it looks like all A346's AFAIK.

Tom.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Brendows
Posted 2006-12-11 20:08:52 and read 5664 times.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 48):
That's interesting. I was under the impression it was a major ordeal to to change engine types on an aircraft like the 777, especially on one of the oldest frames. I would have assumed, since Boeing doesn't make pure test a/c, and that first tester was PW powered, that it initially went to UA. Is that not correct?

The first PW prototype ended up sitting at Everett for a couple of years, without engines, until CX agreed to take this aircraft, which had to be re-engined to RR engines. It was delivered in December 2000 with RR 884-engines.
But yes, it's a major deal to re-engine an aircraft, and it isn't cheep...

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: AA777223
Posted 2006-12-12 05:23:10 and read 5341 times.

Quoting Brendows (Reply 50):
The first PW prototype ended up sitting at Everett for a couple of years, without engines, until CX agreed to take this aircraft, which had to be re-engined to RR engines.

I don't blame them. I wouldn't want a P&W powered 777 either.  duck 

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: LTU932
Posted 2006-12-12 05:55:28 and read 5290 times.

Quoting AirbusA346 (Reply 49):
It has stayed with Airbus because it is not a proper certified version due to the overwing door missing on F-WWCA, but is present on the others.

I never knew this was a reason for Airbus to keep F-WWCA.

Quoting AirbusA346 (Reply 49):
It might look like it is there on the recent photos of F-WWCA since it was painted in the new livery, but the door is in fact painted on so it looks like all A346's AFAIK.

That I did know.

Quoting Brendows (Reply 50):
The first PW prototype ended up sitting at Everett for a couple of years, without engines, until CX agreed to take this aircraft, which had to be re-engined to RR engines.

I'm guessing for CX to agree to take the aircraft, Boeing must have made them a sweet deal on it, which could mean it was Boeing which picked up the tab on the aircraft re-engining, and not CX.

Quoting Brendows (Reply 50):
But yes, it's a major deal to re-engine an aircraft, and it isn't cheep...

 checkmark 

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Carpethead
Posted 2006-12-12 10:28:33 and read 5145 times.

Actually, Cathay has a recent history of taking up test aircraft.
1. First 773 was delivered to Cathay. Currently flying as B-HNE.

2. Cathay was the launch customer for the RR-version of the 744 (the third 744 produced after the PW & GE examples for NW & LH respectively). Now flying as B-HOO.

3. Cathay has the 1st and 2nd prototypes of the A333. Both fly as B-HLJ & B-HLK respectively. According to my notes the second prototype has been re-engined twice from the initial GE to PW and then RR. The first prototype being re-engined from GE to RR.

Topic: RE: A340 RTO Gone Wrong Video.
Username: Tiger119
Posted 2006-12-12 15:40:23 and read 4956 times.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 20):
I thought the universal airport fire department procedure states that when approaching an aircraft that is on fire or in which fire is imminent, you approach with pumps on and primed, boom extended, and all personnel in proper attire.

- Most ARFF crash trucks have pumps that can pump either water or foam while the truck is still in drive gear, which is not the case for most average fire fighting engines or pumpers.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 20):
There's no way a couple of two-inch hand lines are going to handle burning metal wheels.

- ARFF trucks do have hand lines, usually 2 1/2 inch lines, but fire fighters usually use the turrets on the front of their equipment.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 22):
I saw this same test on the B777 and the result was nothing like that. The fuse plus poped and the tires went flat with no explosion.

- I think I saw the same video, "The Making of the 777" on PBS. Interesting show.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 34):
Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 28):
They have to cool not drown. You can't smother extinguish a magnesium wheel fire with water (it would burn underwater)

What? Are you sure? I have never heard of anything "Burning under water" I think thats impossible. The only oxygen present in water, is in the actual water molecule, and I don't think you are going to split a water molecule with a magnesium wheel fire. I may be way off, but that just sounds implausible to me.

- If you want a nice, large fireworks show, spray water on buring magnesium. You will have a lot of nice sparks.

- I hate to second guess ARFF crews, but why stretch 2 1/2 lines to a burning landing gear fire when they can shoot foam and or water with a turret?  confused  Also, it appears that the initial fire fighter did not stretch enough hose to get a good fog stream going. Besides that, where was his back up? When I was a fire fighter, you always have a nozzle man and at least one back up man that is right behind the nozzle man, and I mean right behind, shorter than an arms length. Also, how far away are the fuselage fuel tanks from the main landing gear?

David


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/