High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a7854224-09e0-11e5-a6a8-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz3c1yMn7ej
Airbus confirms 3 of 4 engines failed in A400M crash in May
The simultaneous failure of three engines led to the crash of an Airbus A400M military transport aircraft in Spain last month, killing four people.
Airbus said on Wednesday that three of the four turboprop engines on its groundbreaking cargo carrier froze shortly after take-off, according to information recovered from the aircraft’s recording devices.
The crew first attempted to regain control of the engines by reducing the power but then were unable to restore it, leading to the crash on May 9 in a field to the north of Seville.
The aircraft maker said the information was consistent with issues picked up 10 days after the accident and addressed by safety checks which operators were asked to carry out on the engine control software.
The announcement, based on information recovered from the flight recorders, comes just days after a senior Airbus executive said that the crash may have been caused by weaknesses in the system for testing the aircraft.
Over the weekend, Fabrice Brégier, chief executive of Airbus commercial, said in an interview with France’s iTele channel that the accident may have been caused “either by a weakness in the test procedure of planes before they fly, or a problem that results from the implementation of these procedures”.
Airbus could face legal action if the fault is discovered to lie in any procedural weaknesses. Its defence arm said it was working with investigators and that it was too early to determine the causes of the crash.
“We are analysing all the elements that could have contributed to the accident, including the different processes around the assembly of the aircraft, the engines and the preparations for first flight,” the company said in a statement.
“The investigation may take some time to be completed and the corrective actions defined and implemented. Like all accidents, it will certainly be a combination of issues and not one single cause,” it added. Airbus said all required pre-flight tests had been carried out.
The weaknesses suggested by Mr Brégier could be attributed to the fact that certain processes were not deemed necessary for testing, according to one person with knowledge of the situation.
The crash of the aircraft — on its first test flight in the run-up to scheduled delivery to Turkey this month — is the first time Airbus has lost an A400M.
Airbus revenues
The A400M is one of the most complex transport aircraft to come into service, making the testing particularly challenging, according to Justin Bronk, a research analyst at the defence think-tank RUSI.
The aircraft attempts to combine the agility and flexibility of the ubiquitous C-130 Hercules medium-range tactical transport with the load capacity and range of much larger strategic transport aircraft such as the C-17 Globemaster. This made it “unlike anything in its class”, he said.
While it was unusual for three of four engines to fail, it was possible that the software system might under certain circumstances be providing control inputs to only certain engines, he said.
Nick Cunningham, aerospace analyst with Agency Partners, said that although the crash was a tragedy, it was not unusual for aircraft to be lost in new programmes. “As you introduce new technology you find out that things have gone wrong,” he said. “That is how safety progresses.”
Software could have been incorrectly installed, as has been suggested by Marwan Lahoud, head of strategy at Airbus in an interview with Germany’s Handelsblatt newspaper. But the evidence so far does not suggest there is a structural fault with the TP400-D6 engine, made by a consortium of European companies called Europrop International.
According to Airbus, the engines became stuck in a high power mode shortly after take-off. The crew tried to regain control by switching them back into a pre-take-off setting called “flight idle” mode. This would have reduced the power significantly but the pilots then tried to increase the power again without success. Two crew members survived.
The crash is not the first time Airbus has had issues with the Fadec propulsion system. Problems with the engine control software led to severe delays in 2009. It was just one of many problems to beset the €20bn A400M programme, Europe’s largest single defence contract, since its inception more than a decade ago. The aircraft is already almost four years behind schedule, and billions of euros over budget.
Spain, Britain, Germany, Turkey and Malaysia have all grounded their A400M aircraft pending the outcome of an investigation into the crash. France has said it will fly priority missions only.
The Spanish defence and transport ministries are leading the inquiry.