A380 Hits Airport Building During Test Fly

[Dave3]

CDNVIC: Sorry if my point about a380s becoming targets of choice was not clear to you. I was talking about the likely attitude of terrorists wanting to blow up an aircraft or capture hostages. In the case of "911", aircraft were certainly "involved", but primarily as weapons; the TARGETS were the huge WTC building complex, the Pentagon, and the White House. The most "lethal acts INVOLVING aircraft" have all been performed by military aircraft. Yes, "A380s are all new"... which means that it will be a decade or so before we will know if they can match the reliability and success of the 747s, or if they will go the way of the once "all new" Concordes and DC10s. And for that matter, a well-maintained 747 entering the THIRD decade of flight really worries me less than a flight on 3 year old metal flown by some THIRD-world "airlines"!

TBWG is quite right about many terrorists liking American targets; however, the aircraft of many other countries have been targets too, and no matter what country a terrorist hates, he wants the maximum effect from the biggest available targets of that country. If he hates Oz for example, then a Quantas a380 would be a juicier target than a Quantas 747 or a330 (disclaimer: I don't know what is in the Quantas fleet). As a general principle, this consideration would apply elsewhere too; personally, I would not care to have a flat in buildings like the Petronas Towers and its upcoming successors.

Re determining the guilty party or object: I am disappointed that no one has yet mentioned the oft-cited tendency of objects such as trees to "jump out in front of" automobiles.

[MrOzark]

I'm not sure I get the farangs/ATM reference and how it relates to

hitting a building with an airplane, but it's nice to see a subject

about which so many are willing to make comments. It's healthy

in a sick sort of way.

Here' my two cents:

Next time I smash into a stationary object in a vehicle I am operating,

I will choose the Thai method of taking full responsibility:

"The lines on the road were painted wrong." Not painted by a

person, but the tarmac itself was in error.

100% pure unadulterated LOS.

Make that next somtam a double.

Edited September 1, 2007 by MrOzark

[Alex8]

Hello Friends

Preamble:

Please be patient or disregard my posting. I'm still a Newbie.

Last night, I attended the TV bash at Martin's FC and enjoyed a 10 minute chat with 'Our George'. We discussed this thread and he asked me to post. I said I would but I must admit to some misgivings.

Let me quickly add that I have been a happy spectator of this site for over two years but seldom a poster. It is now time for me to become involved and add my two penn'orth.

I believe this site is intended for people of all flavours and provides the main ingredients, information and entertainment. There is room for joshing, irony, satire, straight comedy, even sarcasm and lofty altruism and moralising. (but no politics or religious content please). Tell me if I'm wrong.

The posted topic attracts my attention, as it does yours, because I have been in aviation most of my life. I feel I have a duty to respond to serve, not only the humourists but also my old profession.

I thank all contributors who have already posted. I have enjoyed nearly all of the content, taking it in my stride.

I hope that doesn't sound trite. Here then are some of my thoughts, from a pilot's point of view:-

Not enough is yet known about this incident. We weren't there and we didn't witness it. We are depending on second hand information. Much more will come out in the wash. We are permitted to have fun with what little we know.

It is early days to be judgemental. I believe predjudice means pre-judged.

Aviation is a vast subject and laymen ought to be fearful where they tread. This forum should not pretend to be an academy, so laymen and professors beware.

Some basic priciples and background, very abbreviated:-

A captain in command is always in the hot seat. He is ultimately responsible for the safe navigation of his craft, answerable, at law. The problem is "whose law?". He is also a member of a team, albeit the top member, in most situations. He is a manager and must listen to other team players, consider their input and must know how to delegate. Other team players are more numerous than most people imagine, not only engineers and marshallers.

They include the tug and coach drivers, the red caps (despatchers), loaders and load masters, cabin crew, ad infinitum......police/security, immigration, customs, fire staff, medical staff, catering staff, refuellers, honey wagon (Elsan) staff, not least, flight ops, air traffic control and the met service.

A pilot operates under a number of criteria, as you would expect. He is required to observe and seeks to satisfy the rules of -

His employer,

His union/association (they have their own constitution),

The airport authority upon whose territory his craft is situated.

The aviation law of the land which contains that airport.

International aviation law, once the aircraft doors are closed, the aircraft is free of chocks or released from its tug and first begins to move under its own power. International law transcends all other considerations.

The insurance policy covering his aircraft and all it contains.

I ought not need to remind you that the priorities are. 1. Saftey, comfort, punctuality and profit. These are hard masters to fully satisfy. Most good companies strive for 100% but never quite reach perfection. (Always choose a company with a good reputation. They protect it fiercely.)

Returning to OP theme, do we yet know if the aircraft was still attached to the tug or free to manoeuvre under its own navigation? If free of the tug, the painted centre line should have provided adequate clearance from all and any obstructions..... that's down to the airport authority and ICAO, the international aviation organisation. If that painted line failed to provide adequate clearance, the aircraft owner/operator's operations manual would not have permitted use of that airport for that particular type of aircraft. If the pilot failed to keep to painted centre-line, he would be completely culpable, could lose his licence and become unemployable. If not fully culpable, he could still be severely reprimanded and/or busted down to a lower rank.

I believe the pilot, in the said case, was not a Thai TG pilot but an Airbus (Toulouse) company pilot. There might well have been TG guest pilot(s) beaing no responsibility, on the flight deck.

Final word: This is not trivial nor 'a storm in a tea cup' . Within the industry, a taxi-ing accident is always unavoidable and is always down to human error. They should not happen. Blame is a matter for the inquiry team and the integrity of the authorities who make the final judgements.

None of us will ever get to see the full final reports, neither will the press. They will be kept within the avaiation industry under confidential cover...this and all other incidents/accidents too.

Sorry for all the jargon. Next time I post, I'll take the clown's point of view. I promise.

Alex8

[Alex8]

Sorry

In my previous post, 7 lines from the bottom.......amendment.....for 'unavoidable', strike out 'un' and read 'avoidable'. I expect a few brickbats for that mistake and any others I haven't spotted.

Thanks

Alex8

[jumnien]

Mistakes in posting are, in my experience, avoidable, I mean unavoidable. My Zenair has a total wingspan of 27 feet, much easier to manuever.

[Shrubbery]

Sorry

In my previous post, 7 lines from the bottom.......amendment.....for 'unavoidable', strike out 'un' and read 'avoidable'. I expect a few brickbats for that mistake and any others I haven't spotted.

Thanks

Alex8

Just shows that even "Drivers" make mistakes.

[Shrubbery]

Aircraft minus winglet.

[glaitong]

Boeing built a 747-300 High Density aircraft 555 Eco and 25 Biz Class configuration. That excludes the Crew seating. Isn't that big enough? The Japanese demanded a 747-400 which could carry more than 600 Pax. They just chnage the avionics and do a few upgrades, airframe work, better engines and the A380 would be history. Might already be.

By the way, Lockheed is one of the largest suppliers of equipment to Airbus for the A380 and A330 Tanker programs amoung others.

I love the 747s, 777s and A340s and A330-200. Both manufactures have great planes. Both have problems. I remember that a British Airways flight in Bangkok was the first incident ( not accident Narobi got that) for the newly launched 747-400. Guess Bangkok gives all the aircraft makers a challenge.

Bet the A380 Sn 02, Director Flight Ops and Capt are in a bit of trouble from the VP Operations. 1 hour repair, VIP flight, Asian Aerospace tomorrow. Will the plane even make it to Hong Kong?.

Happy flying! Watchout for airport buses and airport structures.

[Alex8]

Mistakes in posting are, in my experience, avoidable, I mean unavoidable. My Zenair has a total wingspan of 27 feet, much easier to manuever.

Sunrise.........well done. I don't have a bag of prizes for you and I'd love to tangle (tango) with your avatar but time forbids, unfortunately. Hope to meet you again later, on this or any other thread.

Have fun.

Alex8

PS. Oh, what is the NET wingspan of your Zenair, may I ask? Most of us need to use all the wingspan, not bits of it. Even deploying slats and flaps doesn't really alter the span all that much although dumping the wingtip fuel tanks might.

[onzestan]

You must mean "people are so stupid".

This airport was opened a year before it was ready and ten years after it was needed. It it struggling with enough problems without loading more on it for the sake of hubris. Safety has to remain the main objective in air transport at all times, the minute you lose sight of that you open the door to disaster.

Thai Air will probably not get any delivered before 2010 anyway. The very first A380s will not be in commercial service until the end of this year, no flights will probably land here until at least 2009. Again, what is that bloody beast of a plane doing at a new airport in the middle of SE asia? Its all a study in stupidity from front to back.

Maybe it was part of the sales deal between Thai Air and Airbus!

cheers

onzestan

[Shrubbery]

After all the hype about a minor "incident", did the aircraft do the Chiang Mai visit.

[Shrubbery]

Is there any chance of posting the hits to this particular forums sponsors since the original posting was moved from the "Suvarnabhumi Airport Forum".

[Tony Clifton]

Hello Friends

Preamble:

Please be patient or disregard my posting. I'm still a Newbie.

Last night, I attended the TV bash at Martin's FC and enjoyed a 10 minute chat with 'Our George'. We discussed this thread and he asked me to post. I said I would but I must admit to some misgivings.

Let me quickly add that I have been a happy spectator of this site for over two years but seldom a poster. It is now time for me to become involved and add my two penn'orth.

I believe this site is intended for people of all flavours and provides the main ingredients, information and entertainment. There is room for joshing, irony, satire, straight comedy, even sarcasm and lofty altruism and moralising. (but no politics or religious content please). Tell me if I'm wrong.

The posted topic attracts my attention, as it does yours, because I have been in aviation most of my life. I feel I have a duty to respond to serve, not only the humourists but also my old profession.

I thank all contributors who have already posted. I have enjoyed nearly all of the content, taking it in my stride.

I hope that doesn't sound trite. Here then are some of my thoughts, from a pilot's point of view:-

Not enough is yet known about this incident. We weren't there and we didn't witness it. We are depending on second hand information. Much more will come out in the wash. We are permitted to have fun with what little we know.

It is early days to be judgemental. I believe predjudice means pre-judged.

Aviation is a vast subject and laymen ought to be fearful where they tread. This forum should not pretend to be an academy, so laymen and professors beware.

Some basic priciples and background, very abbreviated:-

A captain in command is always in the hot seat. He is ultimately responsible for the safe navigation of his craft, answerable, at law. The problem is "whose law?". He is also a member of a team, albeit the top member, in most situations. He is a manager and must listen to other team players, consider their input and must know how to delegate. Other team players are more numerous than most people imagine, not only engineers and marshallers.

They include the tug and coach drivers, the red caps (despatchers), loaders and load masters, cabin crew, ad infinitum......police/security, immigration, customs, fire staff, medical staff, catering staff, refuellers, honey wagon (Elsan) staff, not least, flight ops, air traffic control and the met service.

A pilot operates under a number of criteria, as you would expect. He is required to observe and seeks to satisfy the rules of -

His employer,

His union/association (they have their own constitution),

The airport authority upon whose territory his craft is situated.

The aviation law of the land which contains that airport.

International aviation law, once the aircraft doors are closed, the aircraft is free of chocks or released from its tug and first begins to move under its own power. International law transcends all other considerations.

The insurance policy covering his aircraft and all it contains.

I ought not need to remind you that the priorities are. 1. Saftey, comfort, punctuality and profit. These are hard masters to fully satisfy. Most good companies strive for 100% but never quite reach perfection. (Always choose a company with a good reputation. They protect it fiercely.)

Returning to OP theme, do we yet know if the aircraft was still attached to the tug or free to manoeuvre under its own navigation? If free of the tug, the painted centre line should have provided adequate clearance from all and any obstructions..... that's down to the airport authority and ICAO, the international aviation organisation. If that painted line failed to provide adequate clearance, the aircraft owner/operator's operations manual would not have permitted use of that airport for that particular type of aircraft. If the pilot failed to keep to painted centre-line, he would be completely culpable, could lose his licence and become unemployable. If not fully culpable, he could still be severely reprimanded and/or busted down to a lower rank.

I believe the pilot, in the said case, was not a Thai TG pilot but an Airbus (Toulouse) company pilot. There might well have been TG guest pilot(s) beaing no responsibility, on the flight deck.

Final word: This is not trivial nor 'a storm in a tea cup' . Within the industry, a taxi-ing accident is always unavoidable and is always down to human error. They should not happen. Blame is a matter for the inquiry team and the integrity of the authorities who make the final judgements.

None of us will ever get to see the full final reports, neither will the press. They will be kept within the avaiation industry under confidential cover...this and all other incidents/accidents too.

Sorry for all the jargon. Next time I post, I'll take the clown's point of view. I promise.

Alex8

Welcome Alex.

A few questions,

Why?

It's our a s s e s in the seats.

Same a s s e s that keep these companies afloat.

Why isn't that final information about an incident available to the public who should have the right to know about internal policies and measures taken following any incident? Even though disciplinary measures are taken, why keep it a secret from the public?

An incident made the news not long ago that a pilot had partially landed off the runway, damaged lights, came to a stop and then forced the plane back onto the tarmac, maybe bending the plane in the process, repairs were needed, followed with a failure somewhere in reporting the incident. The top guy said it didn't happen since he did not see the report... Don't the passengers who lived the incident have a right to an official statement and documents or are they not part of the picture at all?

[Shrubbery]

Reports in to aviation incidents and accidents usually take a while to be investigated and published.

The findings and interim reports by the relevant authorities are usually available on the internet.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Bugger, there's a lot of people waiting in CM for it to show up.

It is on world TV LOL

[meemiathai]

Sorry

In my previous post, 7 lines from the bottom.......amendment.....for 'unavoidable', strike out 'un' and read 'avoidable'. I expect a few brickbats for that mistake and any others I haven't spotted.

Thanks

Alex8

Just shows that even "Drivers" make mistakes.

No, only thais do.

[macduff]

Has anybody got pictures of the damaged hanger?

[meemiathai]

Hello Friends

Preamble:

Please be patient or disregard my posting. I'm still a Newbie.

Last night, I attended the TV bash at Martin's FC and enjoyed a 10 minute chat with 'Our George'. We discussed this thread and he asked me to post. I said I would but I must admit to some misgivings.

Let me quickly add that I have been a happy spectator of this site for over two years but seldom a poster. It is now time for me to become involved and add my two penn'orth.

I believe this site is intended for people of all flavours and provides the main ingredients, information and entertainment. There is room for joshing, irony, satire, straight comedy, even sarcasm and lofty altruism and moralising. (but no politics or religious content please). Tell me if I'm wrong.

The posted topic attracts my attention, as it does yours, because I have been in aviation most of my life. I feel I have a duty to respond to serve, not only the humourists but also my old profession.

I thank all contributors who have already posted. I have enjoyed nearly all of the content, taking it in my stride.

I hope that doesn't sound trite. Here then are some of my thoughts, from a pilot's point of view:-

Not enough is yet known about this incident. We weren't there and we didn't witness it. We are depending on second hand information. Much more will come out in the wash. We are permitted to have fun with what little we know.

It is early days to be judgemental. I believe predjudice means pre-judged.

Aviation is a vast subject and laymen ought to be fearful where they tread. This forum should not pretend to be an academy, so laymen and professors beware.

Some basic priciples and background, very abbreviated:-

A captain in command is always in the hot seat. He is ultimately responsible for the safe navigation of his craft, answerable, at law. The problem is "whose law?". He is also a member of a team, albeit the top member, in most situations. He is a manager and must listen to other team players, consider their input and must know how to delegate. Other team players are more numerous than most people imagine, not only engineers and marshallers.

They include the tug and coach drivers, the red caps (despatchers), loaders and load masters, cabin crew, ad infinitum......police/security, immigration, customs, fire staff, medical staff, catering staff, refuellers, honey wagon (Elsan) staff, not least, flight ops, air traffic control and the met service.

A pilot operates under a number of criteria, as you would expect. He is required to observe and seeks to satisfy the rules of -

His employer,

His union/association (they have their own constitution),

The airport authority upon whose territory his craft is situated.

The aviation law of the land which contains that airport.

International aviation law, once the aircraft doors are closed, the aircraft is free of chocks or released from its tug and first begins to move under its own power. International law transcends all other considerations.

The insurance policy covering his aircraft and all it contains.

I ought not need to remind you that the priorities are. 1. Saftey, comfort, punctuality and profit. These are hard masters to fully satisfy. Most good companies strive for 100% but never quite reach perfection. (Always choose a company with a good reputation. They protect it fiercely.)

Returning to OP theme, do we yet know if the aircraft was still attached to the tug or free to manoeuvre under its own navigation? If free of the tug, the painted centre line should have provided adequate clearance from all and any obstructions..... that's down to the airport authority and ICAO, the international aviation organisation. If that painted line failed to provide adequate clearance, the aircraft owner/operator's operations manual would not have permitted use of that airport for that particular type of aircraft. If the pilot failed to keep to painted centre-line, he would be completely culpable, could lose his licence and become unemployable. If not fully culpable, he could still be severely reprimanded and/or busted down to a lower rank.

I believe the pilot, in the said case, was not a Thai TG pilot but an Airbus (Toulouse) company pilot. There might well have been TG guest pilot(s) beaing no responsibility, on the flight deck.

Final word: This is not trivial nor 'a storm in a tea cup' . Within the industry, a taxi-ing accident is always unavoidable and is always down to human error. They should not happen. Blame is a matter for the inquiry team and the integrity of the authorities who make the final judgements.

None of us will ever get to see the full final reports, neither will the press. They will be kept within the avaiation industry under confidential cover...this and all other incidents/accidents too.

Sorry for all the jargon. Next time I post, I'll take the clown's point of view. I promise.

Alex8

Welcome Alex.

A few questions,

Why?

It's our a s s e s in the seats.

Same a s s e s that keep these companies afloat.

Why isn't that final information about an incident available to the public who should have the right to know about internal policies and measures taken following any incident? Even though disciplinary measures are taken, why keep it a secret from the public?

An incident made the news not long ago that a pilot had partially landed off the runway, damaged lights, came to a stop and then forced the plane back onto the tarmac, maybe bending the plane in the process, repairs were needed, followed with a failure somewhere in reporting the incident. The top guy said it didn't happen since he did not see the report... Don't the passengers who lived the incident have a right to an official statement and documents or are they not part of the picture at all?

Because the average people are too stupid to understand that every human being makes mistakes and even doctors, pilots, scientists make mistakes. And it is only understood within the industry. If the public knows the truth there is going to be an uproar from people crying hang him hang him. Whilst the industry sees those mistakes as understandable.

It is the same why politcians have to lie to make people happy. You don't tell your 3 yr old kid exactly why papa is doing this doing that, do you? You just tell him some made up stories to please him so he would go back to his toys as soon as possible, right?

[Levent]

I would like to see the plane before I started slinging around accusations. My understanding is that the A380 is huge, much beyond most airports capability and way beyond any experience level.

BKK is a new airport, lots of bugs being worked out. Now they are running two airports, bet they are short staffed and unexperienced everywhere. This great rolling beast stops in and count on it, none of the facilities designed for the 380 are done yet. Dont forget, it weighs more than the grand palace, thats probably different push back equipment with more power then they have now.

So in the sweltering heat, you are trying to push the worlds largest passenger aircraft back in an area that is probably too small to maneuver in with equipment that is probably not right for the job.

I think the important thing is, why is that bloody behemoth here anyway? Exactly what do the French think they will accomplish flying the whale around Thailand? Not like Chang Mai is going to order a few for the high season. Its a study in hubris by all involved from AOT to Airbus.

Don't forget that the A380 has been in Bangkok before, it's the second visit. BKK is one of the airports that are equipped to handle the A380. if it weren't, it wouldn't be here in the first place. Airbus decided to fly the aircraft to Chiang Mai to show that it is capable of operating into and out of smaller airports which can also handle the 747.

The plane was obviously able to park after arrival without hitting something, so there is no reason it wouldn't be able to leave without hitting something either!

Maybe AOT should sue Airbus for making the aircraft too large... ;-)

[Cobalt60]

Oh dear, sometimes things come up that cry out for a bit of a mickey taking.

I spent years as an aircraft tech in the RAF, so I am sure some of it is still stored in my memory banks and I understand something about the goings on. The first thing learned was, always look for the humour in a dodgy situation

[kalaminsa]

You must mean "people are so stupid".

This airport was opened a year before it was ready and ten years after it was needed. It it struggling with enough problems without loading more on it for the sake of hubris. Safety has to remain the main objective in air transport at all times, the minute you lose sight of that you open the door to disaster.

Thai Air will probably not get any delivered before 2010 anyway. The very first A380s will not be in commercial service until the end of this year, no flights will probably land here until at least 2009. Again, what is that bloody beast of a plane doing at a new airport in the middle of SE asia? Its all a study in stupidity from front to back.

They were just backing up, not splitting atoms

The point is, that airplane did not belong in Thailand yet. Neither does a nuclear power plant. They are close to the same level when dealing with complex machinery and safety procedures.

It must be a lot easier to tow an aircraft than to operate a nuclear facility !

[macduff]

You must mean "people are so stupid".

This airport was opened a year before it was ready and ten years after it was needed. It it struggling with enough problems without loading more on it for the sake of hubris. Safety has to remain the main objective in air transport at all times, the minute you lose sight of that you open the door to disaster.

Thai Air will probably not get any delivered before 2010 anyway. The very first A380s will not be in commercial service until the end of this year, no flights will probably land here until at least 2009. Again, what is that bloody beast of a plane doing at a new airport in the middle of SE asia? Its all a study in stupidity from front to back.

They were just backing up, not splitting atoms

The point is, that airplane did not belong in Thailand yet. Neither does a nuclear power plant. They are close to the same level when dealing with complex machinery and safety procedures.

It must be a lot easier to tow an aircraft than to operate a nuclear facility !

apparently not

[Ricardo]

A few points :-

Does anyone know, was the A380 parked-at, and being reversed out of, one of the several gates at Swampyboom which are designed to handle the new plane, or had it been parked somewhere else, if so why ? Are these gates amongst those which are still out-of-order due to corruption & cr*p construction ?

Since Singapore Airlines will have A380s operational from the end of next month, and although it is planned to use them first on LHR-SIN-SYD, they do also fly up to BKK so it is therefore entirely possible that we shall see them up here well before 2009. It therefore makes a lot of sense to be doing trials at Bangkok, with this aircraft, to test the preparedness of the airport facilities.

Chiang Mai may never buy several A380s, but Thai Airways has them on-order, so they will probably visit CNX within the next five years. This visit was therefore entirely sensible & justified.

Boeing vs Airbus Bashing shows how parochial attitudes still remain, in this most-international of industries, shame on all who indulge in it. Crude commercialism & flag-waving masquerading as technical comment !

Friendly rivalry and competition benefit the travelling-public, forcing both companies to try harder to develop fuel-efficient aircraft, which match their different views of how the aviation business will grow in the future. It is particularly interesting when Boeing, having claimed for years that there was insufficient demand for these super-jumbo planes, now eat their words and admit that a demand exists, and then come up with a more-efficient shape of aircraft to fill that need. Progress indeed !

[tropiccapricorn]

One thing puzzles me. We live at a time of complete video-control.

And when I'm correctly informed, this A380 monster has a enormesly high rudder

somewhere back. Every passenger can now watch the landing-approach on a screen

but don't have the pilots an overall view of the aircraft from some point up there?

At least one of them.

[dezeure]

The bus driver fled the scene. When he was questioned about the incident later, he blamed the Farang pilot of the plane for hitting his bus.

I am definately using that excuse next time I crash my car into something. its not me, its the car that's too big (was...) and the road that is getting smaller and smaller...

the a380 does have side windows but I guess specially for the THAI pilots they will have to install wingtip cameras

[Rinrada]

Someone asked if it hit Chiang Mai....answer...No ......

but it did land their safely and without incident.....much better airport for this sort of thing...init....

all that Fresh air.......well build / layout ....nicer ..friendler people......and wot wiff our new Mayor....

Ken Livi ..no comparison..... sorry mate.....

[leight02]

"THAI president Apinan Sumanaserani said the accident did not result from pilot error, but that it may have occurred from the size of the aircraft which was larger than the safety line marked for aircraft making a U-turn."

Quote of the century!

[JetsetBkk]

Hello Friends

If that painted line failed to provide adequate clearance, the aircraft owner/operator's operations manual would not have permitted use of that airport for that particular type of aircraft. If the pilot failed to keep to painted centre-line, he would be completely culpable

Hi Alex8, nice post! My only comment: if that painted line was in the wrong position for the A380 how would the aircraft owner know? They would assume that the airport authority had painted the line in the right place, surely?

So the pilot may well have been on the line, but the wing tip hit the hanger because the line was too close to the hanger.

[MrOzark]

Delivery vans often have a proximity alarm.

I'm sure its difficult to see the wingtips and their actual

closeness to any objects even with a clear view from the pilot's seat.

I'm very surprised there isn't some kind of an alarm if the wing gets

too close to something. I'm not a pilot, though, so this may not make sense.

Do any of the pilots on this thread have an opinion?

Wouldn't it make sense to have a proximity warning?

Esp. for use while taxi-ing such a huge plane?

Edited September 2, 2007 by MrOzark

[cdnvic]

One thing puzzles me. We live at a time of complete video-control.

And when I'm correctly informed, this A380 monster has a enormesly high rudder

somewhere back. Every passenger can now watch the landing-approach on a screen

but don't have the pilots an overall view of the aircraft from some point up there?

At least one of them.

For the 12547489th time.... when it's being pushed back the ground crews are handling it, not the pilots.

Pushbacks at busy aerodromes are usually subject to controller clearance to facilitate ground movement on taxiways. Once clearance is obtained, the pilot will communicate with the pushback tractor driver (or a ground handler walking alongside the aircraft in some cases) to start the pushback. To communicate, a headset may be connected near the nose gear.

Since the pilots cannot see what is behind the aircraft, steering is done by the pushback truck driver and not by the pilots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pushback