A380 Hits Airport Building During Test Fly

[Alex8]

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.

Geriatrickid: You have hit one of many important nails squarely on the head. Let me offer a hypothetical scenario in support of your assertion.

Timeframe....soon.

Place............ Swampy Airport.

Description.....A380 inbound from any place. Commencing final approach, ATC advise duty runway suddenly closed

due either to unexpected out-of-limits crosswind, debris on runway left by previous mishandled arrival, thunderstorm/turbulence activity, violation of approach path by some unauthorised aircraft etc, : secondary runway closed for repair, (Don Muang unavailable for several reasons)...........need I go on.

Pilot in command of A380 commences go-around procedure and must decide how he will best employ remaining fuel. In all probability, he won't want to loiter in the vain hope that the dud runway will become available again. He and his crew wil be closely considering a diversion to a pre-planned alternate. He will, wisely, be carrying sufficient juice to reach one of several major asian airports. He may go for a distant alternate, basing his choice on several factors.

If CM can do the job, he might elect to go there. Maybe CM runway and taxi-ways and hard standings (apron) are up to the job. The captain will not take into account the readiness of other facilities such as terminal building efficiency, catering availability, hotel room vacancies, bus and taxi availability to offer possible onward surface transport for his delayed on-board pax. His immediate job is to get the brute safely and quickly onto the ground.

So, it is necessary for CM and other possible airports to gear up for the A380...a good reason, an operational reason for the afore mentioned visit.... a wake-up call, if you like. It's not much to do with the hype and sparkle of a few politicos extracting glory and a free lunch.

I won't bore or scare you with other scenarios such as the take-off consideration when, shortly after take-off, the monster springs a fuel leak or suffers a fire, either in an engine, in the cabin or in the freight hold. Use your own imagination to examine the options open to the crew who need to get her down on the ground, maybe overweight, with insufficient time to dump fuel. Just exactly where are they going to go if the runway behind them has suddenly become unavailable for whatever reason? Here, we are talking 'return alternates' and many laymen may think (wrongly) it has not been taken into account or it could never happen. Oh, yes, the urgency to land asap. Aviators know that, given good training and good equipment, they can accomplish (remedy) much whilst airborne. Ground crews (fire and rescue) can do a helluva lot more once the machine has landed ..successfully or not.

Time for me to shut up and get myself a cup of tea.

My thanks go out to all contributors both amateur and professional. I don't criticise those guys who post their best opinions but who have never been near the coal face.

alex8

[Alex8]

TV Members, Hello again

Addendum: That guy in the driving seat, taking the decision to fly to an alternate airport? He's not really a spotty faced kid just out of high school. If he gets it wrong, and a disaster ensues, will they be able to muster enough ambulences to get all the casualties to enough competent hospitals with enough vacant beds to accommodate the survivors. Let's not talk about the size of the mortuary, that's morbid.

If I may be permitted to return to a previous post by Shrubbery:

Yes, one can view much on the net from AAIB and NTSB but pause a bit, please. Do you really think you are getting full disclosure? I am glad public access is possible because I support the theme that the public has a right to know.

We have, after all, entered the years of 'enlightenment' when certain nations uphold freedom of information (to a degree).

Aviation is not the simplest of industries. It overlaps so many others and is bound by more regulations and treaties than we can discuss on this board.

You will readily concede that 'national interest' can override many considerations, hence D notices to silence the press, threats against whistle blowers, official secrets' acts and reports labelled 'Confidential' or 'Secret'. Why are these mechanisms still in place if we, the public, have full access?

Clearly, you were focussed solely on civilian aviation events. I may have been unwise to have encompasses military aspects in my previous postings. The sky is a shared domain where civil and military craft rub elbows. There have been conflicts, some of those conflicts have involved one, two, three or more national interests. Do you seriously think that there has been full and frank public disclosure? Then think again.

On the civilian front it is sometimes 'done and dusted', and can be wrapped up and the results published relatively quickly, sometimes, not so. In a civil v military event, stricter considerations come into play. If the event were totally in the military arena, very little would emerge into the media. I am not permited to go deeper than that because I remain constrained by the official secrets act of my home country. However, I was, on a few occasions, appointed to sit on boards of enquiry although I was never personally a subject of one.

If you are seriously interested in flight safety and the interface between the public at large and the aviation industry might I suggest that you use Google to trawl the results of the following incidents/accidents:-

The Mullheim/Basle accident, when a company (Airbus) A300, earliest version, crashed/stalled into a forest during an air show demo. It wasn't really an accident. It was a self inflicted wound/suicide (my take). The crew, although highly qualified were playing juvenile games with a very expensive piece of transport equipment and others' lives.

Only goes to show how some can let their conceipt overcome their duty. (Happened at Chernobil too)... little boys in big mens' pants.

Next, the then biggest ever disaster in European aviation history when two jumbos collided on the runway at Tenerife Airport (TFS I think, not TFN).....human error, not technical error. The KLM crew were in a hurry and both aircraft occupied the same runway (in fog) but not listening out on the same frequency.... procedural falure too.

Next, when, at the confluence of Germany, Austria and Switzerland, over Lake Constance (Bodensee), and near the town of Lindau northbound/homebound to Moscow, a Russian built, owned and operated charter flight carrying hundreds of returning holiday school children, was cleared onwards by Swiss Zurich ATC, havimg minutes earlier been released by Italian ATC. That aircraft was cleared by a very tired Swiss controller into the path of crossing traffic at the same flight level (height). A majority of the debris fell into the area encompassed between Lindau and Friedrichshaven, if memory serves me well, on the German banks of the lake. Agencies of three governments were involved with assistance/observers from the manufacturers of both aircraft. The Swiss, under pressure, later admitted that they knew their ATC was overworked and understaffed. I'm unsure if the Austrian government attached its reps because the northbound Russian craft had tracked over their territory, albeit under the control of Zurich. Need I add that the Swiss had hitherto been amongst the world's finest. They have since beefed up their teams to previous levels of efficiency.

No time for spell check. My ISP is crunshing my kit.

Goodbye and thaks again.

alex8

[Mid]

bullox ,

the airport WAS designed with the a380 in mind .............................

[Mid]

Today's Top Stories

Superjumbo welcome at Suvarnabhumi

New Agencies

Human error caused the Airbus 380 wing tip to scrape a hangar gate last Saturday, said the president of Thai Airways International. The facilities at Suvarnabhumi airport are totally suited for the superjumbo airliner.

snip

"The hangar was designed (specifically) for the A380," he said. "We do not need to adjust the accommodation but will have to train the staff be more cautious when handling the plane at the hangar."

snip

The Post Publishing Public Co

next ................

[soundman]

"The hangar was designed (specifically) for the A380," he said. "We do not need to adjust the accommodation but will have to train the staff be more cautious when handling the plane at the hangar."

snip

The Post Publishing Public Co

next ................

And these guys want to play with plutonium...

[Mid]

thems the ones ...................

[mcfester]

There is a big difference between being designed for a plane that size and being equipped and prepared for a plane that size.

However, to accommodate that plane, you are going to need a raft of new support equipment from equipment loaders to APUs. People need trained, new lines and safety zones set up, ATC has to be aware of separation issues, and on and on and on.

You can design on paper all you want, it might even be the right size, but integration is risky and complicated business and you better be ready for it. Even now, Singapore is finding all sorts of little things cropping up despite some of the best planning in the business and delivery scheduled for next month.

Again, that plane has no business in Thailand at this time. BKK has enough to worry about without adding unnecessary risk.

Maybe thats why the plane was here, training, checking safety etc. So what your saying is the Airbus should soley fly to Thailand when deemed necessary? Get real.

Some pics:

Airbus officials were sanguine.

"This sort of thing happens every day, in every airport around the world," said Edouard Ullmo, Airbus' executive vice president of sales for Asia Pacific.

Airbus decided to remove both winglets, designed to stabilise the aircraft in heavy turbulence, before resuming the flight to Chiang Mai Saturday afternoon.

"We can fly with one winglet or no winglets," said Ullmo. "This is standard procedure."

At Chaing Mai arriving without winglets, they kept it well clear from any hangers:

Edited September 4, 2007 by mcfester

[xbusman]

Pure hubris. Great way to get people killed. Lucky they just had a little dust up but they are grown ups and should have known better. In aviation, people love to point fingers very quickly, usually at a pilot, and usually incorrectly. Most accidents are products of environment pressures that come from many sources.

Its a amazing that BKK opened early and we have had no serious problems. To open an airport early that is already at 90% capacity was simply miraculous considering how few and minor the problems have been. They are pushing their luck adding unnecessary burdens and problems at this stage.

That is all.

[xbusman]

bullox ,

the airport WAS designed with the a380 in mind .............................

First some comments of mine in red from this article copied from here Angkor.com BKK info

Revival in the 1990s

It was not until the early 1990s when the Thai government decided to revive the project. The need for a new International Airport became a national agenda with the release of the government's 5 year plan by the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB). In April 1991, premier Anand Panyarachun approved the Second Bangkok International Airport (SBIA) and placed it under the control of the Airport Authority of Thailand (AAT) - the state run enterprise that operates Don Muang and other provincial airports in Thailand.

Already some 20 years behind schedule, the airport has proven to be a major organizational challenge for Thailand in the 1990s. The NESDB and AAT have however managed to push through with several consultancy contracts. The Netherlands Airport Consultants BV and Louis Berger (US) completed their master plan for SBIA in May 1993. Contracts have been subsequently awarded to designing systems to control floodwater and ground improvement (the Nong Ngu Hao site is notorious for its deep soft clay soil profile which need to be treated in order to cope with the demands of Boeing 747s). Work on the dike to prevent perennial flooding of the site was delayed to remove some 8,000 squatters.

Want to bet that the groundwork was not developed for the significant weight increase of the A380 back in the 90s?

Designing the terminal

In 1994, the government staged a major competition involving major international consultants for the design of the airport terminal - perhaps the most important contract for the airport project. The winning design was from the MJTA group of consultant, comprising Murphy Jahn Architecture and TAMS consultant (US) and ACT Engineering consultant (Thailand).

The A380 was only on paper at McDonald Douglas prior to 1993 and called the MD12 I believe. No one at MD ever thought the thing would fly. It wasnt until 1993 that Airbus formed the group and the plan. From the BBC timeline:

January 1993 - Rival Boeing reveals it has begun studies into "very large" commercial aircraft - with the four Airbus partners - Aerospatiale, Daimler-Benz Aerospace Airbus, Construcciones Aeronauticas and British Aerospace.

June 1993 - After Boeing opts instead for smaller "jumbos", Airbus partners set up A3XX team to focus on the "super-jumbo" project.

1996 - Airbus Large Aircraft Division formed, and project chiefs opt for specially designed engines rather than adapt existing types to cope with the size of the aircraft.

2000 - Commercial launch of the A3XX, later to become the A380

.

Can you tell me how BKK was designed for the A380 before the A380 was thought up? Before specs were released? Before Airbus knew what the plane would look like?

Somewhere between 2000 and 2005, the then current construction of BKK was modified to accommodate the A380. It was not "designed" for the A380. That, my friend, is a load of bullox.

[UnknownPoster]

Surely there is some video of the mishap.

When will it turn up on Youtube?

I'll bet it looked like a Chinese fire drill after they heard that crunch.

[Mid]

Somewhere between 2000 and 2005, the then current construction of BKK was modified to accommodate the A380. It was not "designed" for the A380. That, my friend, is a load of bullox.

touché

[cdnvic]

Pure hubris. Great way to get people killed.

It's called marketing, and you're really over-reacting to a minor scrape.

Want to bet that the groundwork was not developed for the significant weight increase of the A380 back in the 90s?

The A380 actually exerts less pressure per square inch on the runway than either the 777 or 747, so this is not an issue. Once again, please calm down.

Now that the hits have been had, can we please change the topic title to something accurate like "A380 scrapes winglet against hanger" as it didn't actually hit a building on a test flight did it?

Edited September 4, 2007 by cdnvic

[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.

Yup

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

TBWG

Nice photo.

It seems that the IFC isn't very big either.

[TBWG]

[quote

I'll bet it looked like a Chinese fire drill after they heard that crunch.

Like it! :D

TBWG

[TBWG]

TV Members, Hello again

Addendum: That guy in the driving seat, taking the decision to fly to an alternate airport? He's not really a spotty faced kid just out of high school. If he gets it wrong, and a disaster ensues, will they be able to muster enough ambulences to get all the casualties to enough competent hospitals with enough vacant beds to accommodate the survivors. Let's not talk about the size of the mortuary, that's morbid.

If I may be permitted to return to a previous post by Shrubbery:

Yes, one can view much on the net from AAIB and NTSB but pause a bit, please. Do you really think you are getting full disclosure? I am glad public access is possible because I support the theme that the public has a right to know.

We have, after all, entered the years of 'enlightenment' when certain nations uphold freedom of information (to a degree).

Aviation is not the simplest of industries. It overlaps so many others and is bound by more regulations and treaties than we can discuss on this board.

You will readily concede that 'national interest' can override many considerations, hence D notices to silence the press, threats against whistle blowers, official secrets' acts and reports labelled 'Confidential' or 'Secret'. Why are these mechanisms still in place if we, the public, have full access?

Clearly, you were focussed solely on civilian aviation events. I may have been unwise to have encompasses military aspects in my previous postings. The sky is a shared domain where civil and military craft rub elbows. There have been conflicts, some of those conflicts have involved one, two, three or more national interests. Do you seriously think that there has been full and frank public disclosure? Then think again.

On the civilian front it is sometimes 'done and dusted', and can be wrapped up and the results published relatively quickly, sometimes, not so. In a civil v military event, stricter considerations come into play. If the event were totally in the military arena, very little would emerge into the media. I am not permited to go deeper than that because I remain constrained by the official secrets act of my home country. However, I was, on a few occasions, appointed to sit on boards of enquiry although I was never personally a subject of one.

If you are seriously interested in flight safety and the interface between the public at large and the aviation industry might I suggest that you use Google to trawl the results of the following incidents/accidents:-

The Mullheim/Basle accident, when a company (Airbus) A300, earliest version, crashed/stalled into a forest during an air show demo. It wasn't really an accident. It was a self inflicted wound/suicide (my take). The crew, although highly qualified were playing juvenile games with a very expensive piece of transport equipment and others' lives.

Only goes to show how some can let their conceipt overcome their duty. (Happened at Chernobil too)... little boys in big mens' pants.

Next, the then biggest ever disaster in European aviation history when two jumbos collided on the runway at Tenerife Airport (TFS I think, not TFN).....human error, not technical error. The KLM crew were in a hurry and both aircraft occupied the same runway (in fog) but not listening out on the same frequency.... procedural falure too.

Next, when, at the confluence of Germany, Austria and Switzerland, over Lake Constance (Bodensee), and near the town of Lindau northbound/homebound to Moscow, a Russian built, owned and operated charter flight carrying hundreds of returning holiday school children, was cleared onwards by Swiss Zurich ATC, havimg minutes earlier been released by Italian ATC. That aircraft was cleared by a very tired Swiss controller into the path of crossing traffic at the same flight level (height). A majority of the debris fell into the area encompassed between Lindau and Friedrichshaven, if memory serves me well, on the German banks of the lake. Agencies of three governments were involved with assistance/observers from the manufacturers of both aircraft. The Swiss, under pressure, later admitted that they knew their ATC was overworked and understaffed. I'm unsure if the Austrian government attached its reps because the northbound Russian craft had tracked over their territory, albeit under the control of Zurich. Need I add that the Swiss had hitherto been amongst the world's finest. They have since beefed up their teams to previous levels of efficiency.

No time for spell check. My ISP is crunshing my kit.

Goodbye and thaks again.

alex8

Hi

Co-incidence but this has just been posted on the BBC world news site.............

Four guilty over Swiss air crash

The wreckages of a Russian plane in 2002

The Russian children on board were going on holiday to Spain

A Swiss court has found four employees of an air traffic control firm guilty of manslaughter over the deaths of 71 people in a mid-air collision in 2002.

Three of the four managers convicted were given suspended prison terms and the fourth was ordered to pay a fine.

Another four employees of the Skyguide firm were cleared of any wrongdoing.

Prosecutors had said a "culture of negligence" at the firm contributed to the mid-air collision, which killed mostly Russian children.

The charter aircraft carrying Russian children to a holiday in Spain collided with a cargo plane in Swiss airspace on 1 July 2002. The wreckage came down in Germany.

'Organisational deficiencies'

All eight men on trial had maintained their innocence. Seven had continued working for Skyguide until the time of the verdict.

The BBC's Imogen Foulkes, in Berne, says it is significant that the four Skyguide employees acquitted were all air traffic controllers - rather than managers.

She says this shows the judges backed the prosecution's view that the managers at Skyguide were responsible for introducing negligent, potentially dangerous working practices.

Two separate investigations have already found what were described as organisational deficiencies within Skyguide. These deficiencies were said to have contributed to the accident.

Controller stabbed

The trial revealed that minutes before the crash a single air traffic controller was in charge of 15 planes: He made 118 radio contacts with them, and he was guiding a plane into land.

Technical repairs were being carried out and some radar systems were not working.

The air traffic controller in question was later stabbed and killed by the father of two of the children who died.

At the time, Skyguide insisted that having just one air traffic controller on duty was normal - but it has since outlawed the practice, and provided financial compensation to some of the bereaved families.

H'mm dangerous stressful job ATC!

TBWG

[meemiathai]

Same like the medical service here in HK. Doctors being forced to work long hours with very heavy work load so that those at the higher end gets as much money as they can. Same bloody thing all over the world! The rich powerfuls exploiting the poor vulnerables.

[Alex8]

TV Members, Hello again

Addendum: That guy in the driving seat, taking the decision to fly to an alternate airport? He's not really a spotty faced kid just out of high school. If he gets it wrong, and a disaster ensues, will they be able to muster enough ambulences to get all the casualties to enough competent hospitals with enough vacant beds to accommodate the survivors. Let's not talk about the size of the mortuary, that's morbid.

If I may be permitted to return to a previous post by Shrubbery:

Yes, one can view much on the net from AAIB and NTSB but pause a bit, please. Do you really think you are getting full disclosure? I am glad public access is possible because I support the theme that the public has a right to know.

We have, after all, entered the years of 'enlightenment' when certain nations uphold freedom of information (to a degree).

Aviation is not the simplest of industries. It overlaps so many others and is bound by more regulations and treaties than we can discuss on this board.

You will readily concede that 'national interest' can override many considerations, hence D notices to silence the press, threats against whistle blowers, official secrets' acts and reports labelled 'Confidential' or 'Secret'. Why are these mechanisms still in place if we, the public, have full access?

Clearly, you were focussed solely on civilian aviation events. I may have been unwise to have encompasses military aspects in my previous postings. The sky is a shared domain where civil and military craft rub elbows. There have been conflicts, some of those conflicts have involved one, two, three or more national interests. Do you seriously think that there has been full and frank public disclosure? Then think again.

On the civilian front it is sometimes 'done and dusted', and can be wrapped up and the results published relatively quickly, sometimes, not so. In a civil v military event, stricter considerations come into play. If the event were totally in the military arena, very little would emerge into the media. I am not permited to go deeper than that because I remain constrained by the official secrets act of my home country. However, I was, on a few occasions, appointed to sit on boards of enquiry although I was never personally a subject of one.

If you are seriously interested in flight safety and the interface between the public at large and the aviation industry might I suggest that you use Google to trawl the results of the following incidents/accidents:-

The Mullheim/Basle accident, when a company (Airbus) A300, earliest version, crashed/stalled into a forest during an air show demo. It wasn't really an accident. It was a self inflicted wound/suicide (my take). The crew, although highly qualified were playing juvenile games with a very expensive piece of transport equipment and others' lives.

Only goes to show how some can let their conceipt overcome their duty. (Happened at Chernobil too)... little boys in big mens' pants.

Next, the then biggest ever disaster in European aviation history when two jumbos collided on the runway at Tenerife Airport (TFS I think, not TFN).....human error, not technical error. The KLM crew were in a hurry and both aircraft occupied the same runway (in fog) but not listening out on the same frequency.... procedural falure too.

Next, when, at the confluence of Germany, Austria and Switzerland, over Lake Constance (Bodensee), and near the town of Lindau northbound/homebound to Moscow, a Russian built, owned and operated charter flight carrying hundreds of returning holiday school children, was cleared onwards by Swiss Zurich ATC, havimg minutes earlier been released by Italian ATC. That aircraft was cleared by a very tired Swiss controller into the path of crossing traffic at the same flight level (height). A majority of the debris fell into the area encompassed between Lindau and Friedrichshaven, if memory serves me well, on the German banks of the lake. Agencies of three governments were involved with assistance/observers from the manufacturers of both aircraft. The Swiss, under pressure, later admitted that they knew their ATC was overworked and understaffed. I'm unsure if the Austrian government attached its reps because the northbound Russian craft had tracked over their territory, albeit under the control of Zurich. Need I add that the Swiss had hitherto been amongst the world's finest. They have since beefed up their teams to previous levels of efficiency.

No time for spell check. My ISP is crunshing my kit.

Goodbye and thaks again.

alex8

Hi

Co-incidence but this has just been posted on the BBC world news site.............

Four guilty over Swiss air crash

The wreckages of a Russian plane in 2002

The Russian children on board were going on holiday to Spain

A Swiss court has found four employees of an air traffic control firm guilty of manslaughter over the deaths of 71 people in a mid-air collision in 2002.

Three of the four managers convicted were given suspended prison terms and the fourth was ordered to pay a fine.

Another four employees of the Skyguide firm were cleared of any wrongdoing.

Prosecutors had said a "culture of negligence" at the firm contributed to the mid-air collision, which killed mostly Russian children.

The charter aircraft carrying Russian children to a holiday in Spain collided with a cargo plane in Swiss airspace on 1 July 2002. The wreckage came down in Germany.

'Organisational deficiencies'

All eight men on trial had maintained their innocence. Seven had continued working for Skyguide until the time of the verdict.

The BBC's Imogen Foulkes, in Berne, says it is significant that the four Skyguide employees acquitted were all air traffic controllers - rather than managers.

She says this shows the judges backed the prosecution's view that the managers at Skyguide were responsible for introducing negligent, potentially dangerous working practices.

Two separate investigations have already found what were described as organisational deficiencies within Skyguide. These deficiencies were said to have contributed to the accident.

Controller stabbed

The trial revealed that minutes before the crash a single air traffic controller was in charge of 15 planes: He made 118 radio contacts with them, and he was guiding a plane into land.

Technical repairs were being carried out and some radar systems were not working.

The air traffic controller in question was later stabbed and killed by the father of two of the children who died.

At the time, Skyguide insisted that having just one air traffic controller on duty was normal - but it has since outlawed the practice, and provided financial compensation to some of the bereaved families.

H'mm dangerous stressful job ATC!

TBWG

TBWG

Many thanks for your very rapid uptake and your dedication to flight safety, your appreciation that flight safety is the umbrella for all discussions connected to the OP. You have caught recent news that I had not yet seen, concerning the Bodensee event. You have saved several of us from having to do our own homework, me included.

You asked, was it mere co-incidence? Yes. I posted events from memory, from the top of my head to elicit comments concerning the practice of good airmanship. I did not and could not have anticipated the publication of the recent news that you have revealed. I have long awaited it but never expected it to be so comprehensive, nor did I expect such a vast content to be made public.

There are many other events that could be brought under the spotlight but this thread is not the proper place. I have said, in previous posts, that this forum is not and cannot be an academy. We must also not lose sight of the entertainment value of our forum. Comedy and flight safety are not good bedfellows.

In closing may I add, so that TV members can correctly assess my contributions, I'm a 74 year old sky jockey...a fossil. I have been retired from active (paid) flying duties since late 1989. I have not kept a close watch on technical advances during my twilight years. That said, although I lack cutting edge knowledge, the basic principles of flight do not change. They are not negotiable, no matter what equipment is under scrutiny, Concorde or Tiger Moth.

Others, on TV, are more recently or currently connected to flying and may have a more substantive input than me.

I invite continuing discussion until we exhaust this particular post.

Thanks again,

alex8

[Alex8]

Pure hubris. Great way to get people killed.

It's called marketing, and you're really over-reacting to a minor scrape.

Want to bet that the groundwork was not developed for the significant weight increase of the A380 back in the 90s?

The A380 actually exerts less pressure per square inch on the runway than either the 777 or 747, so this is not an issue. Once again, please calm down.

Now that the hits have been had, can we please change the topic title to something accurate like "A380 scrapes winglet against hanger" as it didn't actually hit a building on a test flight did it?

cdnvic:

Thanks, I couldn't agree with you more. Let's all lighten up and treat this event for the minimal issue it really is but for those that want to continue chomping on the bit, here's something more to occupy your minds:-

Yes, if you thrash an aircraft onto the ground, and sometimes you have to, it can impact with more than its static weight, ie more tha 1G, and the concrete has to take the strain or crack. However, if on a bright sunny morning, the pilot puts on his white silk gloves and feathers his machine onto the ground with a soft touch like a cat pis$ing on velvet, then, at the point of touchdown, the weight of the aircraft is fully supported by the wings. It's commonly called lift and there are numerous vector diagrams to prove it. As the aircraft rolls out along its landing run, the weight is gradually transferred from wings to concrete until, at a halt, the full 1G it accepted by the concrete. Hence, the landing area often suffers less stress than the turn off area.

Conversely, as an aircraft lines up and awaits ATC clearance to take off, the concrete resists the 1G of the machine. It's called, by physicists, 'reaction at the plane'. (no pun intended). As the crew wind up the throttles, (not forgetting to check the compass to ensure they have lined up on the right runway), release the brakes, a last glance at the wind sock, and the machine trundles forwards, faster and faster, the weight is progressively transferred from concrete to wings. (if it weren't, the beast would never become airborne) The concrete 'thinks' the machine is weighing less and less as is moves down the runway until, as it becomes airborne, the concrete is stunned and thinks, ' How does that behemoth weigh nothing, zilch, zero?'

Did I get that sequence the right way round?

All for fun,

alex8

[xbusman]

What the heck do you guys smoke before posting? What mysterious math are you using to make the A380 weigh less than a 747? That is just the most bizarre post I have ever come across. Yes, the A380 has a lot more rubber on the tarmac creating a PSI pretty similar to the 747 footprint but that is almost inconsequential to airport design. Its all about weight, transportation is weight and energy calculations.

Lets see if we can put it in terms you might understand.

If I build a road for 20,000 kilo trucks that have six wheels, the road can handle 20,000 kilos. If I put that on one wheel, I will see a rapid deterioration of the road surface but not the foundation. If I run truck that weigh 100,000 kilos over them, no matter how many wheels I have the road will get destroyed from foundations up.

This is the reason that runway surfaces are fine for the A380, the PSI load is not appreciably more than the 747. However, a massive undertaking was necessary to reinforce the substructure, particularly bridges, to handle the additional weight. Do you think our swamp was adequately compacted and supported for the additional weight of an A380 back in the early 90s?

Amazing what gets posted here.

[LindsayBKK]

It's Interesting that a plane has computers that tell them how high they are off the ground but nothing for wing clearance. Even cars have this technology now.

I will not be flying on an A380 for at least 2 years if at all. The plane is simply too big.

[cdnvic]

Do you think our swamp was adequately compacted and supported for the additional weight of an A380 back in the early 90s?

Amazing what gets posted here.

Yes, another hysterical post by someone imagining a disaster without really knowing the facts.

That former swamp (other airports such as Vancouver are built on similar substrate and are doing fine) is holding a terminal building that far outweighs all the A380s on order, and the runway itself weighs an astronomical amount more than the 380. The only issue left is can that runway handle the pressure exerted by an A380? Hopefully, because the Boeings exert more, and there's a lot of them. In any case, the weight of the aircraft are tiny in relation to everything else the substrate is holding.

Before going of on a hysterical rant please learn something about what you are screeching about.

It is amazing what gets posted here. At least that you were right about

[xbusman]

You dont get out much do you?

[cdnvic]

You dont get out much do you?

Spend your time reading and you'll have more intelligent responses to offer.

[xbusman]

I thought so. You should try books though.

[sibeymai]

Rumour has it that the whole incident was planned by TIA management....and an offer for a slightly used and damaged A380 was submitted to Airbus before the plane left Thailand.....TIA executives were heard asking "rot, tao rai ?"

Plan A was to to have the BIB impound the plane until a full investigation to identify a scapegoat could be completed.

TIA executives figured they could ask for a bigger discount after a few re-enactments at the scene.

However, the BIB couldn't do the re-enactments because the wing walkers had fled the scene.

Edited September 5, 2007 by sibeymai

[meemiathai]

What the heck do you guys smoke before posting? What mysterious math are you using to make the A380 weigh less than a 747? That is just the most bizarre post I have ever come across. Yes, the A380 has a lot more rubber on the tarmac creating a PSI pretty similar to the 747 footprint but that is almost inconsequential to airport design. Its all about weight, transportation is weight and energy calculations.

Lets see if we can put it in terms you might understand.

If I build a road for 20,000 kilo trucks that have six wheels, the road can handle 20,000 kilos. If I put that on one wheel, I will see a rapid deterioration of the road surface but not the foundation. If I run truck that weigh 100,000 kilos over them, no matter how many wheels I have the road will get destroyed from foundations up.

This is the reason that runway surfaces are fine for the A380, the PSI load is not appreciably more than the 747. However, a massive undertaking was necessary to reinforce the substructure, particularly bridges, to handle the additional weight. Do you think our swamp was adequately compacted and supported for the additional weight of an A380 back in the early 90s?

Amazing what gets posted here.

Do you know what the weight limit is for that airport which was built on the swamp? Do you have the numbers?

What is used underneath the runway? Anyone knows? Just curious.

[xbusman]

It must be a full moon.

First, lets bring this thread back from the level of an 11 year old. That I stooped to respond at all causes me chagrin. Accept my apology, I usually dont crawl into the gutter.

Now, lets try to talk like adults shall we?

Lets start with the root cause of these posting problems, I really enjoy when my comments are taken out of context, makes for such an interesting conversation. So for the benefit of those that cannot be bothered to read back through the thread lets clarify a few things.

I dont know where you get hysteria, where you imagine disasters, or what is in your mind. Please clarify that when you get a minute. The discussion was about "BKK being designed for the A380" as proposed by Mid. My contention is that the airport was designed and started years before the A380 was designed and specifications known. After a quick chat, Mid agreed.

We do know that it was not too late in the construction process and I am sure the design was adequately modified to accommodate the A380. At least, as sure as I can be in Thailand. I think the flights of the A380 will be very infrequent at best over the next decade or two so any issues they might have with the substrate are probably pretty irrelevant. Time will tell. I know they are already having problems of some sort, the cracks are the warning flags but the reasons are wildly divergent and range from strange to plausible. As with most problems, there are probably numerous factors behind the cracks but the first place to look is in the substrate and surface composition.

None of this is relevant to a scratched winglet.

I dont think the A380 will have any problems at BKK when the time comes. Never did, never stated such, never even crossed my mind. Any group that can run Don Mueng at 120 percent of capacity for almost a decade with almost no problems will not have a problem integrating a new plane. The problem arises when you try to integrate a new airport while managing an airport that running at full capacity and dealing with the massive corruption and operational problems found in any start up.

Where people want to go with this subject is to point fingers and apply blame. Here is my contention. That assigning responsibility is very difficult and political even for the highly trained professionals assigned to do so. Its pretty universal that they find a multitude of causal factors, seldom a single thing. Quite often is ultimately traced back to organizational failures, which makes sense to me.

In the case of the A380 in Thailand. I contend that it does not belong here for a year or so. To bring it now is an exercise in hubris (or marketing as CD likes to call it which is in this case the same thing). The intention of marketing is to create brand awareness, facilitate new sales. I am not sure what the focus of marketing this plane to customers who have already bought it achieves. I must be missing something. Perhaps I am wrong, maybe it was a great time to bring it, really give the cracks a good testing before the new airport gets really busy. If the only cost for this dog and pony show is one damaged winglet then I would guess they got off cheap.

Its a remarkable plane, a true technological achievement. I would have liked to have gone down and had a look but I am sure I will see more of them than I want to over the next decade or two.

I am interested in Ilyushins opinion, his experience in aviation is wide ranging and from the ground up extremely accurate.

[sibeymai]

It must be a full moon.

First, lets bring this thread back from the level of an 11 year old. That I stooped to respond at all causes me chagrin. Accept my apology, I usually dont crawl into the gutter.

Sorry you had to "crawl into the gutter" on this thread......and so early in the day being only 15:00. You must be real hardcore. Most of us don't end up in the gutter until well past midnight.

Edited September 5, 2007 by sibeymai

[meemiathai]

Anyone can answer my questions?

Edited September 5, 2007 by meemiathai

[sibeymai]

Anyone can answer my questions?

I'll bet AoT wants to know answers to the same questions.

All the design engineers aren't returning AoT's calls and the site supervisor's all swear they were upcountry on the day the work was done.