One down :-)

[Hot_Charlie]

That report reads more like Engine Runs n then the brakes let go.

Far more plausible!

[Garry Russell]

Indeed

[Chris Trott]

Just a scratch compared to the last time it happened to an Airbus -

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1928708/posts
http://airlineworld.wordpress.com/2007/ ... e-testing/

[DaveB]

Yes.. I read both those quite recently as it happens. Add a human element to anything and it can go wrong I like the comment made by 'Made in the USA' saying, why does this always happen to Airbus and not to Boeing?

ATB
DaveB

[Garry Russell]

That incident is usually wrongly reports as being run by Arabs and had never flown.

In fact it was in the hands of Airbus (as mentioned) and had flown just over 15 hours.

That first scratch is always irritating

[Chris Trott]

The problem with the Airbus accident is that they moved it into an enclosed engine test area with non-Airbus employees aboard and then failed to properly chock and restrain the aircraft as required by Airbus's own procedures. With the Delta aircraft, it was on an open taxiway (although there's question as to whether it was facing down the taxiway as it should have or was facing the end of the taxiway). The difference is that the idea of doing the engine run on the taxiway is that if the brakes fail or release unexpectedly there is time to react before anything bad happens. With the enclosed test stand, doing the test with restraints is essential because there's no time to react, as those onboard the A340-600 sadly found out. It's amazing none of them were killed.