A380 Hits Airport Building During Test Fly

[JetsetBkk]

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

But... but... you've got only 10,991 posts and they all couldn't have been about this topic surely?

[cdnvic]

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

But... but... you've got only 10,991 posts and they all couldn't have been about this topic surely?

I have assistants ---------> :D

[JetsetBkk]

Has anybody got pictures of the damaged hanger?

[sbk]

Airbus A380 superjumbo jet lands in Hong Kong

The Associated Press

Published: September 2, 2007

HONG KONG: A giant Airbus A380 touched down at Hong Kong International Airport without incident on Sunday, a day after it scraped its wing on an airport building in Bangkok.

It is the third time the superjumbo jet has landed in the territory. Its first flight here was in November to test the city's airport facilities while the second was in March as part of a promotional tour.

The world's largest passenger jet will fly over the city's famed Victoria Harbor Monday morning before going on display at the Asian Aerospace International Expo and Congress at Hong Kong's international airport.

To accommodate the wide-body, 555-seat aircraft, the airport has invested Hong Kong dollars 100 million (US$12.8 million; €9.4 million) to enhance the facility, including widening taxiways and upgrading parking stands, according to its Web site.

On Saturday, the Airbus A380 scraped a wing tip on a building at Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi Airport while it was taxiing in preparation for a demonstration flight.

Officials said the accident was related to the unusually long wingspan of the plane, for which the hanger whose door it hit had not been designed.

The jet also visited Hanoi, Vietnam Sunday morning before flying to Hong Kong.

The A380 had already visited more than 45 airports worldwide by late-August, and more than 70 airports will be ready for the plane by 2011, Airbus said in an earlier press release.

"Total orders and commitments for the A380 are 173 by 14 customers," it said, adding that delivery schedules for Singapore Airlines, Emirates Airlines and Qantas are on track.

Airbus is scheduled to deliver its first A380 to Singapore Airlines on Oct. 15, a delay of more than a year due to production problems.

The plane will fly to South Korea on Wednesday to complete its Asian tour before returning to Airbus headquarters in Toulouse, France.

Terms of Use

IHT

[TBWG]

Has anybody got pictures of the damaged hanger?

Your wish is my command

TBWG

[Rinrada]

If only the Paintbrush had been Bigger......

[BPayette]

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.

[Shrubbery]

The damaged winglet.

[toptuan]

The damaged winglet.

No wonder it was damaged, it's a kite!

[Scott]

Probably there were a few too many people "flying a kite" instead of watching where the aircraft was going!

Obviously the parking lot attendants will need to get louder whistles when backing that big baby into a parking space!

[JR Texas]

Probably there were a few too many people "flying a kite" instead of watching where the aircraft was going!

Obviously the parking lot attendants will need to get louder whistles when backing that big baby into a parking space!

Have not read all of the threads, but this is amazing to me. Don't they have people on the ground "walking the plane in?" When I was a young man I worked at an airport and worked for a company that does the food catering. My job was, in part, to make sure out truck did not hit the plane. I stood outside and gave simple hand signals to the driver........the most important one being crossed arms (STOP).

Yes, ultimately it is the pilot's fault. But the pilot should have competent people on the ground guiding his movements. Oh.....now I see the problem......it was revealed the second I used the word "competent." :D

[BPayette]

Here's a pic

As usual, one person working, and two+ watching.

Is that a can of spray paint in the hand of the guy w/the yellow jacket?

[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

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?

Tony,

Yours is an excellent question and deserves a direct answer which is both complete and accurate. I totally agree with your concerns. Unfortunately, I cannot deliver what you want but I'll give you the benefit of my own thinking.

I have been privvy to many complete accident and incident reports, while killing time sitting in crew rooms. I have never seen one, published in full, in any of the media. If one were to be published openly, it could so easily upset one or more of the vested interests and would, in any case, be almost incomprehensible to most members of the public. So, yes, full and truthful publication could raise a storm.

You could say, or suspect, that conspiracies exist but that would be extremely hard to prove. It is simply that the vested interests are 'thrifty' with the truth, to cover their asses and reduces potential losses. They never actually told lies during my personal experience / past history.

After an accident:-

The first actions are rescue, recovery and thorough investigation by 'The Competent Authority' 'The Competent Authority' will primarily be agents from the Aviation Ministry/Department of the country on whose turf the event took place. They will gather as much evidence as possible to establish cause, and if necessary, later lay blame.

If the event took place in any other than a leading industrialised first world country, assistance given by investigative experts will/might be invited from foreign experts, ie, the West.

The manufacturer of the craft will insist on having an expert present to assess all factors. He doesn't want a damaged image and suffer reduction/cancellation of orders.

The aircraft operator (airline) will insist on having an input/presence to avoid damage to his client base.He will wish to sell more tickets and avoid selling his fleet into bankruptcy.

The two (likely no more than two) goverments may seek to avoid 'an international or diplomatic incident.' National security issues may apear and one or more governments may wish to cover the sensitive findings behind measures to limit any possible damage.

Any citizen requiring to penetrate such activity would need to exercise his/her rights under a Freedom of Information Act (or other treaty) to expose the required information. In need hardly be mentioned that the exercise of such rights brings no guarantee of success.

The investigative team will attempt to assemble what remains of the wreckage, find and play any evidence from

surviving 'black boxes', run models and reconstructions on simulators and computers, Operational records and technical logs will be examined in great detail. They will attempt, with what they have to raise a list of possible causes, then finely hone the list to a few probable causes. Out of that short list, they will try to assess the true cause. In most serious events, it is seldom a single cause but a combination of causes.

This process is time consuming and the press will rapidly lose interest and go for later hotter news. The rights' of the victims to be kept fully informed may quickly be lost or ignored.

Any useful findings will be made available to all concerned so that rules and practices may be amended to avoid reccurence of the event. The press may or may not be offered an abbreviated account. It is up to them if they choose to publish what they are given. I guess they will if they find anything sufficiently inflammatory.

There will certainly be pathologists' / coronors' inquiries. Legal processes may follow in the criminal courts. Loss of licences and employment can also feature where negligence can be demonstrated. Court proceedings could reveal much to survivors and relatives of any injured or killed.

In a serious (loss of life) event, the pilot may be dead. If so, he cannot give evidence. It has been rumoured that widows have been bribed to remain silent and go off on an extended holiday, later to return for a top-up. I cannot sustain or refute such rumours. I imagine widows could be a serious thorn in the side of any agency.

Those who wish to claim that mention of rumours is spreading alarm and despondency and has no place in this 'exposure'. OK. Ignore it, get around it if you so wish.

The bottom line is: Manufacturers, airline operators, airport operators and their millions of employees all want to serve you and keep you coming back for more of the same. They know that failure to satisfy your rightful expectations is to damage their very own interests. Most of them are doing a very good job in the face of some very tough legislation and powerful market forces.

Enough, draw your own conclusions or look elsewhere for more information.

I make no apology for excluding public emotional issues. That's not my province.

Sincerely

alex8

[peter991]

New A380 delayed after hitting building

An Airbus A380 carrying 150 passengers was delayed for almost four hours after scraping the tip of its wing on a building at Suvarnabhumi Airport in Bangkok, as it was preparing to take off on a demonstration flight, according to aircraft officials.

The plane, taxiing at the time suffered minor damage, but was safe to take off on its scheduled flight to Chiang Mail after engineers removed two winglets attached to it. No injuries to the journalists and VIP guests on board were reported.

The world’s largest passenger jet arrived in Thailand last week as part of its eight-day tour of Asian nations.

“The aircraft can operate safely without the winglets,” designed to help save fuel for long hauls, Airbus spokesman Stefan Schaffrath said as reported in Bloomberg.

“The damage has been carefully assessed and we will continue with our Asian roadshow.”

Officials blamed the incident on the unusually long wingspan of the plane, for which the hanger whose door it hit at Suvarnabhumi Airport had not been designed. The winglet tips up from the wing and is expected to improve aerodynamic efficiency.

The Airbus A380, which has suffered long delays after production problems, is expected to deliver its first plane to Singapore Airlines next month.

"Operating under typical airline conditions, (the) aircraft will undergo airport compatibility checks, ground handling and maintenance procedures to confirm its readiness to enter service," Airbus said in a statement.

The A380 has visited more than 45 airports worldwide, and more than 70 airports will be compatible for the plane by 2011.

"Total orders and commitments for the A380 are 173 by 14 customers," Airbus said, adding that delivery schedules are on track for first customers, Singapore Airlines, Qantas and Emirates.

Peter

[Shrubbery]

Accident & Incident reports ARE available to the general public:

Air Accidents Investigation Branch which is part of the UK Ministry of Transport.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm

[mackayae]

Someone better tell Boeing. Their 797's wingspan will be 3 ft. more than the A380's.

[Shrubbery]

Accident & Incident reports ARE available to the general public:

Air Accidents Investigation Branch which is part of the UK Ministry of Transport.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm

Sorry, I should have said that the AAIB cover accidents/incidents in the UK.

The NTSB covers that place the other side of the pond.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/aviation.htm

[Virgil]

I've said it before ... Thais can't drive!!!

[Redhawk]

What a stupid headline! It makes it seem like an inflight disaster instead of the little taxying glitch that it was.

Even if the Bangkok Post put it that way, isn't there anybody at Thaivisa.com with enough sense to rephrase daft headlines? Or do you like to cause alarm?

Maybe something to do with getting hits on the site. 7600+ since it was first posted 8 hours ago.

I'm intrigued as to why the thread was moved from "Suvarnabhumi Airport Forum".

It always starts with a glitch, if pilots are not able to taxi on the ground how they are supposed to fly?

Especially in the aviation business it is necessary to follow the rules strictly and it is quite some messages worth if pilots are not able to taxi around and it would have been also the responsebility of the pilot in command to ask for help like wingmens etc if he feels uncomfortable.

Maybe it is not known widely but amongst pilots of Thailand is an arrogance spread to be godlike and failurefree.

[beechguy]

What a stupid headline! It makes it seem like an inflight disaster instead of the little taxying glitch that it was.

Even if the Bangkok Post put it that way, isn't there anybody at Thaivisa.com with enough sense to rephrase daft headlines? Or do you like to cause alarm?

Maybe something to do with getting hits on the site. 7600+ since it was first posted 8 hours ago.

I'm intrigued as to why the thread was moved from "Suvarnabhumi Airport Forum".

It always starts with a glitch, if pilots are not able to taxi on the ground how they are supposed to fly?

Especially in the aviation business it is necessary to follow the rules strictly and it is quite some messages worth if pilots are not able to taxi around and it would have been also the responsebility of the pilot in command to ask for help like wingmens etc if he feels uncomfortable.

Maybe it is not known widely but amongst pilots of Thailand is an arrogance spread to be godlike and failurefree.

I haven't seen it yet, but did they ever say where the pilot was from?

[meemiathai]

I saw it pass by my window this morning over Victoria Harbour. Wasn't very big! My palm could cover the whole thing up.

Edited September 3, 2007 by meemiathai

[Shrubbery]

I haven't seen it yet, but did they ever say where the pilot was from?

I believe he was one of the Airbus Test Pilots, who I understand is French.

[beechguy]

I haven't seen it yet, but did they ever say where the pilot was from?

I believe he was one of the Airbus Test Pilots, who I understand is French.

Thanks, I assumed that was the case, but from some of the other posts, it appears that some people thought it was a Thai pilot.

[TBWG]

I saw it pass by my window this morning over Victoria Harbour. Wasn't very big! My palm could cover the whole thing up.

Yup

Not very big at all, about the size of a hornet i'd say

TBWG

[Shrubbery]

I haven't seen it yet, but did they ever say where the pilot was from?

I believe he was one of the Airbus Test Pilots, who I understand is French.

Thanks, I assumed that was the case, but from some of the other posts, it appears that some people thought it was a Thai pilot.

There may well have been some Thai crew on the flight deck. My guess is that if there were, they would have just been observing.

Unfortunately, some people jump to their own conclusions and will seize any opportunity to ridicule Thais.

[Siripon]

I've said it before ... Thais can't drive!!!

Well you better stop saying it because the pilot was certainly not Thai.

And please desist with your over- zealous use of the exclamation mark, whether in your anti- junta comments or in more general areas as more exclamations mean less surprises.

Actually Thais drive very well, but they don't obey the official rules of the road, so anyone who's not used to the law of 'might is right' on the roads may suffer the consequences.

[cdnvic]

I haven't seen it yet, but did they ever say where the pilot was from?

I believe he was one of the Airbus Test Pilots, who I understand is French.

Thanks, I assumed that was the case, but from some of the other posts, it appears that some people thought it was a Thai pilot.

There may well have been some Thai crew on the flight deck. My guess is that if there were, they would have just been observing.

Unfortunately, some people jump to their own conclusions and will seize any opportunity to ridicule Thais.

Regardless of where the pilots were from, the ground crew who was handling the aircraft and responsible for the mishap, were from Thai Airways.

[MrOzark]

I understand what you mean about skill and might is right.

However, I also believe that driving skill has as some of its

largest components courtesy and safety.

Having said that, I haven't yet seen a Thai driver good at

parallel parking, although I'm sure they exist.

It makes sense that the pilot - who seems to be ultimately

responsible - was probably an Airbus employee and most likely French.

Regardless of who was driving or at fault, the fact that it was not

believed to be human error sounds like Thai culture to me.

No one is culpable - unless it will affect tourism - then "hang em high".

I've said it before ... Thais can't drive!!!

Well you better stop saying it because the pilot was certainly not Thai.

And please desist with your over- zealous use of the exclamation mark, whether in your anti- junta comments or in more general areas as more exclamations mean less surprises.

Actually Thais drive very well, but they don't obey the official rules of the road, so anyone who's not used to the law of 'might is right' on the roads may suffer the consequences.

[globe]

My god, what useless drivell. I can't believe it.

It was a push-back and the pilots had nothinbg to do with it.

Anyway, another article in the Post today about the noise, oh the horrible noise those airplanes are making. Ear plugs and pills are being distributed. Give me a break.

About the airport itself.

Lots of bitches from the surrounding residents about hearing problems, sleepless nights everything you can think of.

Correct me if I am wrong. It took them 40 years to build this airport in a swamp called Cobra or some snake pit.

Very reminiscent of the time in the 40's when the only airport serving New York City was La Guardia, because the residents complained about having larger and larger airplanes with more noise utilizing the airfield.

The powers to be at the time decided to built it as far away from NYC as possible, again in a swamp area known as Jamaica. Nothing there but a few seagulls.

The first commercial flights began on

July 1, 1948. The airport, originally dedicated as "New York International Airport" on July 31, 1948, was renamed Idlewild Airport in December, 1948 because of its link to the Idlewild Golf Course. The golf course acquired its name from an old Indian name for the area – "Idalwilde" – or peaceful and savage. Idlewild Airport was renamed in December, 1963 in memory of President John F. Kennedy. It was rededicated

on December 24, 1963, as

John F. Kennedy International Airport, following action of the Mayor

and Council of the City of New York and a resolution of the Commissioners of the Port Authority.

Soon people began to build houses all around the airport, until the "Jets" came.

Yes the first turbo jet engines of the B707, DC8 and other vintages were noisy, smoke belching monsters, but that was the technology of the day. The neighbors started to complain about the noise. Well, you knew you were buying a house near the airport, so shut up, was the answer from the authorities.

Then came the Fan-jets, the kind in use today, who are 10 times quieter than the old piston jobs, like DC 7 Bs and Lockheed constellations.

The Concorde began commercial service in the mid 1970's, flown by British Airways and Air France and was originally banned from using JFK. But under pressure the management consented to a test flight to JFK in order to evaluate the noise impact it would make. I was well advertised in the media.

Now here is where I come in. On the day in question, I don't remember the exact date, I happened to be at the airport at operations to await the arrival which was to be around 13:00 LT (I think) doesn't matter because when it came close to the ETA operations was informed that because of a fuel shortage the airplane was diverted to Boston, Massachusetts. Meanwhile JFK traffic arrived and departed as usual. At precisely 13:05 the phones kept ringing off the hook, complaining about the horrible noise the Concorde made. even though it never arrived here.

Same same, as the Thais say.

[geriatrickid]

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.

Thought this was worth a repost as it is logical. Appreciably this might upset some of those looking for conspiracy theories etc. Airports world over are not ready for this plane. There is going to be a rather lengthy learning curve for groundcrew. I anticipate the big event will occur during deicing at one of the congested US airports. Probably will be JFK or BOS.