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

Old news. Debate is on on whether the test went wrong or not.It was a maximum power brake test on an aircraft loaded to more than MTOW. As such the aircraft was stressed beyond its design limits, and given that the damage is minor.

I bet there was more than 1 Airbus engineer that popped some anti-acid stomach pills that day!!

I wouldn't call holes punched in composite minor, have you ever had to fix those !?

>I wouldn't call holes punched in composite minor, have you >ever had to fix those !? He meant that under the circumstances, it could have been much worse (gear collapse ?). As such, it is minor.__________________________________________________________EricUPDATED: List of all airlines, aircraft manufacturers and aircraft types recognised by ATC:http://www.geocities.com/eric_2203/orhttp://ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?D...atID=fs2002misc

I bet someone is doing a lot of explaining about how these pictures of a prototype test got on the internet. Also bet he is fired if he was an airbus/contractor employee. And he should be.Regards, Bob

Oh really ? Would you prefer nobody knew about a potential defect on an aircraft until an accident happened ? Not me... That an employee may have no right to publish pictures of his company's products is one thing, but I'll never agree that he should be fired in this instance...Aside from that, I believe the press was there (if I remember correctly), as well as spotters.__________________________________________________________EricUPDATED: List of all airlines, aircraft manufacturers and aircraft types recognised by ATC:http://www.geocities.com/eric_2203/orhttp://ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?D...atID=fs2002misc

And I will also bet that you have never worked for a large multi-national company and have never been informed or have any first hand knowledge of the finical risks of raw data getting outside of the enterprise. The test was an airbus test and no one else has any right to the raw data without a court order.Go talk to your lawyer if you think different.Best Regards,Bob

Re-read my post. I never said it's right for an employee to divulge information regarding his company. I said I'd still rather know about that than not, as a passenger, no matter the source of the information. If I were the head of the Airbus consortium I may think otherwise, but then I'd know about the incident, wouldn't I ?As to what I know or don't, you don't know me and have no clue what I do for a living, so don't judge me. Stick to the topic.__________________________________________________________EricUPDATED: List of all airlines, aircraft manufacturers and aircraft types recognised by ATC:http://www.geocities.com/eric_2203/orhttp://ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?D...atID=fs2002misc

Believe me my friend, no desire to know you.You all have a nice day, you hear.Bobmy last post in discussion ... have the last word if you must.;-)

Guys this is old news.EricB & SamBob FYI this is public information. If you read Aviation Week & Space Technology (or Aviationnow.com) they had several articles about this and it was no big deal. This is public info. Case closed.You can even see the video of this event. www.a340.net Download video here:http://www.bird.ch/nilsalegren/a340/Multim...r/a346octvn.zip You'll see this kind of stuff on aborted takeoffs or max brake landings - flat tires, exploding tires(heat), fires, etc.Just part of the trade,Eric ThorntonFly Cathay Pacifichttp://www.flycpva.org/images/banner4.jpgwww.flycpav.org

>Go talk to your lawyer if you think different. I am a lawyer, not only do I think, but know different - how come the least knowledgeable people always threaten each other using some assumed knowledge of the law or other? Cheers,Gosta.

You're making a lot of incorrect assumptions here. "Raw data"??? "Prototype test"??? I think not. This was an aircraft certification test and, therefore, Airbus, subcontractor, government, and possibly press will always be present. This was all discussed in Aviation Week over two months ago, and is not exactly a company secret as you seem to think.Oh, and by the way, the test was considered a success. A quote from the Aviation Week article:The FAA certification guidance in Advisory Circular 25-7A says that a satisfactory after-stop condition is "one in which fires are confined to tires, wheels and brakes, such that progressive engulfment of the rest of the airplane would not occur during the time of passenger and crew evacuation."

Guys, this topic is 4 days old. And I agree with you. I did not feel I knew enough about aircraft tests to claim it was not a disaster at all. But your posts confirm that. I thought this wasn't unusual, but I didn't know for sure.__________________________________________________________EricUPDATED: List of all airlines, aircraft manufacturers and aircraft types recognised by ATC:http://www.geocities.com/eric_2203/orhttp://ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?D...atID=fs2002misc