A380 Hits Airport Building During Test Fly

[meemiathai]

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.

It just seems to me that some posters here know the answers and that's why I asked.

[A_Traveller]

Areas of the airport were built using soil conditioning techniques, where, in broad terms, a cementing slurry is injected under pressure. The AoT would have had to submit the specification of the foundations, anticipated land movement and deflections to the certifying bodies. In principal this data should be accessible, but since the real aviation experts are still in HK, guess we'll need to await their input.

The whole cracks in the runway saga, though blighted by over zealous initial reporting {cracks at landing & take-off zones}, pointed to underlying concerns about the substrate.

Regards

[xbusman]

I think the weight ratings for the substrate would be pretty hard for laymen to find in public record anywhere. It would be in the mass of calculations developed for the design. It would also vary for different parts of the airport complex. The ground development plans might have it notated. There are some pretty knowledgeable posters here, at least they were here during the construction phase but they might have left already.

I think it would be safe to say meemaithai that the weight ratings are well within the safety parameters for everything thats in the air today.

Regarding the cracks, I remember something I read that seemed very plausible last year or so. The report said that the substrate drainage system was modified away from plan and there seemed to water problems under the runways. I would doubt its a weight issue.

[A_Traveller]

On the drainage issue referenced above,

Pumps can't handle workload at airport Overpriced at B1.5bn, not to specifications

Four water drainage pumps for Suvarnabhumi airport, bought for 1.5 billion baht, are overpriced and do not meet the contract specifications, deputy auditor-general Pisit Leelawachilopas said yesterday. [bangkok Post 23 July 2007]

The Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) on Friday advised the Irrigation Department to suspend and reconsider payment on contracts to provide and install the four computerised concrete volute pumps and support equipment.

Mr Pisit said the four pumps were found to be overvalued. The cost of the four large machines provided by the contractor should be less than one billion baht. The pumps were substandard and could malfunction and cause flooding at the airport and adjacent areas, which were on swampy ground. The irrigation project is designed to drain water from the area into the sea in Samut Prakan. ... Irrigation Department chief Samart Chokkanaphitak could not be reached for comment yesterday. But his deputy, Vira Vongsangnak, who last year signed a contract with SL Joint Venture - a consortium comprising Sino-Thai Engineering and Construction Co and LC Transport and Commerce Co - said he was not in charge of the arranged payment plan and was not informed of it.

Regards Edited September 5, 2007 by A_Traveller

[wpcoe]

Was the A380 inside a hangar and being pushed out of it? (Meaning the wing clipped the hangar while exiting from the interior of the hangar.) That's what some of the news reports sound like.

Other reports sound like the A380 was out in the open, pushing back from someplace and the wing clipped a hangar from the outside.

Which was it? (Or, was it some other scenario?)

[Alex8]

You dont get out much do you?

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

For Pete' sake...will you two cool it please. I reckon between the pair of you, you've got it right. You are both trying to same thing but are saying it differently, with cndric being probably the more accurate. It's all about spreading the load ie the footprint the rubber shares with the runway / taxiways.

I think xbusman's only error was to say that his 100000 kg trucks would destroy his road no matter how many wheels he fitted. If he fitted enough wheels he could produce a PSI the road would and could withstand. His assumption about placing the load on only one wheel would indeed result in damage to the road surface but the wheel would itself be destroyed before that curious truck could begin to move. I think cndric clarified the point quite well.

I don't know much about runway construction but I know that the aircraft that use them have the same problem of load spread. The freight holds of all aircraft have a maximum PSI that must never be exceeded. For heavy, high density loads that occupy a small surface area, spreader boards must be employed. Moreover, to back up this necessity, all loads are secured by straps, nets and floor locks to ensure two things, 1 That the load doesn't move to the detriment of the deck surface and 2. That the load cannot shift the pre-calculated C of G thus maintaining flight stability .

One final point that you may both have missed, not for lack of brains but because you would appear to be in such a tearing hurry. When an aircraft suffers a burst tyre, single or multiple, the remaining good tyres take up the load resulting in a higher PSI for each square inch of rubber. The aircraft operators, tyre manufacturrs and runway builders know about this. It is common practice for overloaded tyres to be scrapped along with the burst ones because of the 'invisible' damage....not all 16/24 or whatever....just the ones on the affected bogey.

Tolerances in aviation always provide more performance than can be expected to be deployed in practice. Equipment is rarely taken to its limit except in emergency. I think that goes for runways too.

Once again, thanks for your input, fellas. Please tone down the aggression.

Alex8

[tartempion]

Was the A380 inside a hangar and being pushed out of it? (Meaning the wing clipped the hangar while exiting from the interior of the hangar.) That's what some of the news reports sound like.

Other reports sound like the A380 was out in the open, pushing back from someplace and the wing clipped a hangar from the outside.

Which was it? (Or, was it some other scenario?)

A hangar at Savanboum big enough to accommodate a A380?

You must be joking....

[TBWG]

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.

H'mm Wonder how many people thought that back in the late 60's with the introduction of the B747?

Difference between B707/DC8 and B747 far greater than B747/A380

Can't stop progress.

TBWG

[cdnvic]

Another thing to keep in mind is that only the veteran elite pilots will be flying the 380. The smaller 737s and A320s often have newer pilots with far less experience.

[JetsetBkk]

A hangar at Savanboum big enough to accommodate a A380?

Perhaps they have other plans...

[wpcoe]

A hangar at Savanboum big enough to accommodate a A380?

Considering TG knew they had ordered the monsters before they constructed their maintenance hangars a the new airport, why not? It's not THAT much bigger than a 747-400: 15 meters wider and 5 meters higher would do it, no?

[seamus]

Airbus aircraft wingtip nips Suvarnabhumi maintenance centre

BANGKOK: -- A wingtip of a latest technology Airbus 380 aircraft currently being tested by Thai Airways International (THAI) Saturday morning hit a hangar entrance door at the Suvarnabhumi airport maintenance centre as the plane was about to take off for Chiang Mai, causing a delay.

No injuries were reported in the accident which took place at 9.45am local time (0245 GMT) when the wingtip of the A380 hit the door of the THAI maintenance hangar at the airport east of Bangkok in Samut Prakan.

Several prominent personalities were on the test flight. Among them were Royal Thai Air Force chief Air Chief Marshal Chalit Phukphasuk and a number of journalists. The ill-fated plane was due to fly to Chiang Mai and return to Suvarnabhumi airport later Saturday before proceeding to Toulouse, France.

The test flight was offered by Airbus Industrie as part of its marketing campaign for A380 for countries which have ordered for a purchase.

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.

Mr. Apinan said the plane could fly again after repairs which were expected to take about an hour.

--TNA 2007-09-01

A380 hits airport building during test flight

BANGKOK: -- A tip of an Airbus A380's wing scraped a repair building of the Suvarnabhumi Airport during its test fly on Saturday morning.

Airbus let Thai Airways International (THAI) uses the world's largest passenger plane in the trial flight from Bangkok to Chiang Mai.

The plane, which arrived in Thailand on Friday as part of an Asian tour to promote its sales, carried 150 VIP guests, businessmen and reporters on this special flight. It was scheduled to leave the airport at 9.45am.

Its tip hit the building when it was on taxiway, officials said.

There is no reports of injuries.

THAI president Apinan Sumanaseni said minor damage occurred at the jet's wing, and expected that it would take an hour to fix the damage. The flight would be resumed at 1pm.

The pilots was not blamed for the damage as Mr Apinan said the accident occurred because the jet is so large that it needs more space on the taxiway.

THAI ordered six A380 airbuses. They will be delivered in the next two years.

--Bangkok Post 2007-09-01

[Ricardo]

A hangar at Savanboum big enough to accommodate a A380?

You must be joking....

Given that Thai Airways has had some on-order for a few years, they would surely have made sure that their new maintenance-hangers were big enough, for their planned-fleet, not just the current wrecks ?