A380 Hits Airport Hangar In Bangkok

Blackbird1331 · Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:36 am

Things that go bump in the night. God, what an ugly baby this will be.

egnr · Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:43 am

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 19):
Mr Apinan said the accident occurred because the jet is so large that it needs more space on the taxiway

Maybe the accident occurred because they were trying to manouever the A380 around some of the potholes in the tarmac at Bangkok's new airport? stirthepot

baron95 · Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:50 am

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 19):
The pushback vehicle operator 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.

That is the issue right there. Airport compatibility. There is absolutely no question that planes with very long wingspans (e.g. A380) make it more difficult to manouver on the ramp, taxiways, etc. even for "compatible" airports, the clearances are that much tighter, room for error smaller, etc. If this happen in a leisure situation in front of the cameras with no schedule presure and everyone wanting to do their very best, immagine when we had a bunch of those being moved in fog/rain at LHR under presure to make a departure slot. It is no huge deal, but you can't dismiss it either.

Incidentely, to a lesser extent, there are also issues with very long planes (e.g. A346, 77W). But wingspan, gear track width and turning radius are what causes the most challenges.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 19):
"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.

No, it doesn't. No such thing happened at my airport yesterday, or the day before, or the day before that, etc... This is the perenial problem with Airbus. They are so defensive of their predicament with the A380 that they feel compeled to make these ridiculous and untrue statements. Why couldn't they just say "Yep, it was tight fit to get the plane out of the ramp, we had a little scratch. We will be working harder with operators to prevent that from happening in the future". Period. full stop. No need to say stupid things like "It happened to a 744 also last month at LHR or it happens every day in every airport". That is just silly. And small. and false. And unprofessional.

Fix the bird, take it as lessons learned and move on.

TKV · Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:57 am

This thread is getting really childish, not to use another word !!

On its face, this has a certain similarity as the Boeing bashing because of the difficulties allegedly caused by the B787's excessive outsourcing. Here, some would say that it is a consequence of the difficulties and complication for the personnel to operate such an aircraft as the A380 within a conventional airport.

Such arguments could be valid in both, one or none of above cases, but should be objectively analyzed and not lightly discarded.

TKV

sandrozrh · Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:09 am

Quoting NEMA (Reply 11):
Amazing how a simple topic can once again cause so much furor and cross arguments amongst and between a.net members, and as i post this its a reletavely new topic at that.

Just the usual sour suspects from overseas, nothing to waste our energy with Wink

scbriml · Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:09 am

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 52):
This is the perenial problem with Airbus. They are so defensive of their predicament with the A380 that they feel compeled to make these ridiculous and untrue statements.

It seems some people are compelled to make a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to Airbus. banghead

It is certainly not uncommon for planes to ding wingtips - including planes a lot smaller than an A380. Of course, a sensible person would have taken the statement in the context in which it was intended (i.e. figuratively, not literally).

moo · Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:37 am

The A380 has thousands of hours of flight time, and has visited dozens of airports in the two and a half years its been flying - I'm actually surprised this hasn't happened before now.

Gr8Circle · Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:44 am

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 5):
Also I wonder if this will have any influence on future BigBus sales.

I propose a medal of honor for this statement.... Big grin

zvezda · Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:53 am

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 5):
I wonder if this will have any influence on future BigBus sales.

There is virtually zero chance that this incident would be either a reason or an excuse for canceling a WhaleJet order.

Quoting Bangkok Post (Reply 19):
The pushback vehicle operator 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.

This is rubbish. Why was there not a wing-walker?

UK_Dispatcher · Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:56 am

Quoting Gr8Circle (Reply 57):
I propose a medal of honor for this statement....

I agree - it was quite possibly the stupidest question I have ever seen in these forums.

Maybe MadameConcorde works in the media...

[Edited 2007-09-01 18:59:24]

TKV · Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:56 am

Quoting Gr8Circle (Reply 57):
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 5):
Also I wonder if this will have any influence on future BigBus sales.

I propose a medal of honor for this statement....

MadameConcorde question is perfectly valid, independently of which the answer is, as it is asking within another thread if a few weeks delay of the first flight of the B787 will reduce its sales !!

TKV

breiz · Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:57 am

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 19):
A tip of an Airbus A380's wing scraped a repair building at the Suvarnabhumi airport while preparing for a test flight to Chiang Mai on Saturday morning.

Some posts refer to Bangkok or BKK. If we believe the above statement, the incident happened at Bangkok-Suvarnabhumi (NBK) and the A380 was supposed to fly to Chang Mai Int.(CNX).
I thought that only BKK was prepared for handling the A380. May this be an explanation for the incident?

UK_Dispatcher · Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:00 am

Quoting Breiz (Reply 61):
Some posts refer to Bangkok or BKK. If we believe the above statement, the incident happened at Bangkok-Suvarnabhumi (NBK) and the A380 was supposed to fly to Chang Mai Int.(CNX).
I thought that only BKK was prepared for handling the A380. May this be an explanation for the incident?

BKK is the code now used for Suvarnabhumi Airport. Don Muang Airport code was changed to DMK.

billreid · Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:07 am

Airbus says this sort of thing happens everyday all around the world.

A blatant lie from Airbus if the quote is true.
Yess all airlines drive their aircraft frequently into buildings.
And from altitude they throw pax out the door to save fuel.

I would truly prefer if Airbus people would take some PR training and not LIE to try to jusify a mistake. They are doing an excellent job killing company credability.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 19):
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.

mham001 · Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:13 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 43):
It's the hangar's fault - if it wasn't there, it wouldn't be hit. Wink

This is not really a surprising attitude coming from Thais. This is the society that automatically assigns fault in a car accident to the foreigner. If he wasn't there, it wouldn't have happened...

moo · Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:13 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 63):
Airbus says this sort of thing happens everyday all around the world.

A blatant lie from Airbus if the quote is true.
Yess all airlines drive their aircraft frequently into buildings.
And from altitude they throw pax out the door to save fuel.

I would truly prefer if Airbus people would take some PR training and not LIE to try to jusify a mistake. They are doing an excellent job killing company credability.

Oh come on, haven't you ever exaggerated, haven't you ever used the excuse 'but it happens all the time'? Kind of over reacting aren't you?

Its a saying, quite a normal one actually.

Scorpio · Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:19 am

Quoting TKV (Reply 60):
MadameConcorde question is perfectly valid,

LOL. Right

You know perfectly well that no-one will cancel an order because of this.

What I find incredible is how certain people are now using an 'incident' like THIS to start up the old 'bash Airbus' engine, up to and including damn accusations of outright scandalous lies and all. Grow up people, it scratched a wingtip!

[Edited 2007-09-01 19:22:33]

af773atmsp · Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:22 am

Didn't Airbus name this aircraft the A380 because the # 8 is good luck in Asia (I think I read something about this) instead of naming it the A360 or A370. If the number 8 is good luck, hopefully the A380 will finally get luck.

mham001 · Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:31 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 66):

What I find incredible is how certain people are now using an 'incident' like THIS to start up the old 'bash Airbus' engine, up to and including damn accusations of outright scandalous lies and all. Grow up people, it scratched a wingtip!

You are correct, it was only a little wingtip. The Thai response was amusing, if the area was too small for the plane, why was the plane allowed in the area?
I think its more amusing how defensive people under certain flags get about the aircraft. Interestingly, the only silly statement came from under a Euro flag.

[Edited 2007-09-01 19:33:17]

moo · Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:41 am

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 68):
I think its more amusing how defensive people under certain flags get about the aircraft. Interestingly, the only silly statement came from under a Euro flag.

Really, skipped over a lot of the replies in this thread then eh?

scbriml · Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:44 am

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 68):
Interestingly, the only silly statement came from under a Euro flag.

You think? How about these gems: Wow!

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 1):
Next time they should watch where they are going, and plan better to use taxiways that provide adequate clearance, or follow the centerline.

It was being pushed back.

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 6):
Having A380 compatible gates makes no difference if the plane can't easily get from the runway to the ramp!

It was being pushed back.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 32):
the picture looks worse than a bump it looks like the left wing winglet thing broke off

Read the thread - Airbus took the wing-fence off.

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 35):
Of course the worlds biggest plane will have the most trouble bumping into things at airports.

No more than many smaller planes in the World.

Quoting XJRamper (Reply 41):
However, this just makes a pickle side of the crap sandwich that has been the tour of the 380.

How, exactly, has this tour been a "crap sandwich"?

Quoting BillReid (Reply 63):
A blatant lie from Airbus

sandrozrh · Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:54 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 63):
A blatant lie from Airbus

Seriousely, some of you are getting so pathetic that this threads needs a lock.

mham001 · Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:57 am

None of those statements bash Airbus or the A380 with the exception of Bill Rieds and he makes a good point about a blatant exaggeration. jeeze, settle down.

AirNZ · Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:26 am

Quoting TKV (Reply 53):
On its face, this has a certain similarity as the Boeing bashing because of the difficulties allegedly caused by the B787's excessive outsourcing. Here, some would say that it is a consequence of the difficulties and complication for the personnel to operate such an aircraft as the A380 within a conventional airport.

What on earth are you actually talking about? Would this "some would say" nonsense actually be yourself?

Quoting TKV (Reply 53):
Such arguments could be valid in both, one or none of above cases, but should be objectively analyzed and not lightly discarded.

For goodness sake, it merely scratched a winglet.....what on earth is there to "objectively analyze"????

Quoting BillReid (Reply 63):
A blatant lie from Airbus if the quote is true.
Yess all airlines drive their aircraft frequently into buildings.
And from altitude they throw pax out the door to save fuel.

I would truly prefer if Airbus people would take some PR training and not LIE to try to jusify a mistake. They are doing an excellent job killing company credability.

Catch a grip!! Of course minor incidents happen frequently at airports all over the world. Sure, maybe not every single day, but is there an absolute necessity to take it so literally?

scbriml · Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:31 am

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 72):
None of those statements bash Airbus or the A380

I didn't say they did. Your criteria was "silly" statements. smile

AirTranTUS · Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:43 am

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 70):

It was being pushed back.

Then maybe the tug driver will be more careful next time.

billreid · Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:44 am

Quoting Moo (Reply 65):
Oh come on, haven't you ever exaggerated, haven't you ever used the excuse 'but it happens all the time'? Kind of over reacting aren't you?

Its a saying, quite a normal one actually.

Yes very normal.
All of us in the industry push airfcraft into buildings and walls.

Yes LYING to the press is quite normal.

Too bad I work in public relations and this type of response is carreer killing, What we say off the record is ok, but to the press is a total different story. Again, I work with the press and this is an absolute NO NO. He should lose his job. It is a credability killer from a airframe manuf. Kinda of indicates that airbus' analysis of any statistics has NIL credability. Afterall thousands of aircraft run into walls daily, like at EVERY US airport what, 700 aircraft damaged daily??

I see nil point in a BLATANT lie. What did he have to gain?????????????????????????

moo · Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:49 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 76):
Yes very normal.
All of us in the industry push airfcraft into buildings and walls.

Yes LYING to the press is quite normal.
...

I see nil point in a BLATANT lie.

Yup, obviously you don't understand the term 'exaggeration'.

Lie? Blatant lie? Grow up. Anyone with even a small iota of common sense sees absolutely nothing wrong with the phrase used, but hey, it allows you to carry on with some Airbus bashing so all is fair in love and war I guess.

ShannoninAMA · Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:52 am

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 74):
I didn't say they did. Your criteria was "silly" statements.

Well, its not like we cant go through this thread and find our own share of dumb European statements as well. How about we forget all of this and just let it rest at the following.

IT SCRATCHED A WINGLET. No conspiracies, no order cancellations, nothing. Leave it at that Smile

L-188 · Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:54 am

Quoting Jetfuel (Thread starter):
The bump caused slight damage to the left wing of the double-decker plane, an Airbus official said

Quoting ShannoninAMA (Reply 78):
IT SCRATCHED A WINGLET. No conspiracies, no order cancellations, nothing. Leave it at that

Is the hanger ok???

sandrozrh · Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:00 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 76):

STOP talking, You're making a complete fool out of yourself. Advise: Just sell your keyboard.

breiz · Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:02 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 63):
Airbus says this sort of thing happens everyday all around the world.

A blatant lie from Airbus if the quote is true.
Yess all airlines drive their aircraft frequently into buildings.

BillReid, if you do not believe Airbus, you should consider researching the subject and have a serious look at the incidents happening all year around at airports. And yes, ac do bump regularly on structures, gates, trucks,... or are bumped into.
If there is a specification for reporting such incidents, there are most probably happening:
http://www.airlines.org/products/pubs/product-detail.htm?Product=26

Quoting UK_Dispatcher (Reply 62):
BKK is the code now used for Suvarnabhumi Airport.

Thanks UK_Dispatcher, I missed that one. Still, is Chang Mai A380 compatible?

moo · Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:04 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 79):
Is the hanger ok???

I think it went home to recuperate after being patched up, but the Hanger Union is going to have something to say about health and safety at work.

Aither · Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:13 am

Actually there are ground handling incidents eveyday

Quoting BillReid (Reply 76):
Yes very normal.
All of us in the industry push airfcraft into buildings and walls.

Yes LYING to the press is quite normal.

Too bad I work in public relations and this type of response is carreer killing, What we say off the record is ok, but to the press is a total different story. Again, I work with the press and this is an absolute NO NO. He should lose his job. It is a credability killer from a airframe manuf. Kinda of indicates that airbus' analysis of any statistics has NIL credability. Afterall thousands of aircraft run into walls daily, like at EVERY US airport what, 700 aircraft damaged daily??

I see nil point in a BLATANT lie. What did he have to gain?????????????????????????

The only one losing credibility here is you !
For agust 2007 : http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/AccList.asp?month=8&year=2007

Scorpio · Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:14 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 76):

Oh ... My ... God.

Seriously.

SeaTac · Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:41 am

Here's some pics of an A380 "Without" winglets visiting Chiang Mai.

Credits to Moddang.

WingedMigrator · Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:02 am

Quoting SeaTac (Reply 85):
Here's some pics of an A380 "Without" winglets visiting Chiang Mai.

It's called dispatch reliability Big grin

ncelhr · Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:18 am

Quoting Aither (Reply 83):
The only one losing credibility here is you !
For agust 2007 : http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/AccList.asp...=2007

Thanks for these FACTS as opposed to a lot of others who just speculate.
I have another list (which I unfortunately cannot distribute because it's confidential) dealing specifically with structural repairs. It shows 2-3 temporary structural repairs having to be done per week.
Small structural repairs are the type you need when ground crew scratch the side of your aircraft - being too eager to get to your aircraft too quickly. Engine cowlings getting bumped, wing edges, bodywork hit by stairs etc. Most repairs can be undertaken in a handful of hours - sometimes by replacing the panel, sometimes by bolting another panel on top. Sometimes, it's a bit of duct tape that gets put in place, sometimes it's just pulling the bump out using a sucker. Damage is also sometimes sustained from hail.

And thanks to SeaTac for the pics. Very cool to see an A380 without the winglets.

corey07850 · Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:23 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 86):

It's called dispatch reliability Big grin

Also a good chance to collect some flight data on how the plane acts without the wingtip fences, as well as differences in fuel burn

baron95 · Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:26 am

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 55):
It seems some people are compelled to make a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to Airbus.

Who is making a mountain out of it? I said it is no big deal, but it can't be ignored either. Airbus opens the door when they try to acknowledge a simple mistake was made and instead starts spewing ridiculous statements.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 55):
It is certainly not uncommon for planes to ding wingtips - including planes a lot smaller than an A380.

1 - It does not hapen EVERY day at EVERY airport like airbus said.
2 - It is undeniable that airplanes with larger winspan are harder to manouver in the ramp areas, in/out of hangars, around other planes, etc. Acknowledge that and move on. Don't make a *HUGE* deal trying to deny it.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 63):
I would truly prefer if Airbus people would take some PR training and not LIE to try to jusify a mistake. They are doing an excellent job killing company credability.

Yep. My point indeed. Just saying "yep, it was a mistake" wins credibility, simpathy, good-will, etc.... why can't they get that? Do they have such an inferiority complex? They are the largest aircraft mannufacturer in the world for crying out loud.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 63):
Airbus says this sort of thing happens everyday all around the world.
...
I would truly prefer if Airbus people would take some PR training and not LIE to try to jusify a mistake. They are doing an excellent job killing company credability.

Worst than that. They said it hapens EVERY day at EVERY airport around the world. Given that there are 2000+ airports with airline service around the world, that would be a lot of airliners banging into buildings. Can you imagine?

pitops · Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:34 am

Quoting Jasonhawke (Reply 24):
Note how big is the winglet, amazing !!

That's what I was thinking!!!

zvezda · Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:49 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 76):
Yes LYING to the press is quite normal.

I don't think it was a deliberate lie. I think he was just careless with the truth.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 76):
Too bad I work in public relations and this type of response is carreer killing, What we say off the record is ok, but to the press is a total different story. Again, I work with the press and this is an absolute NO NO. He should lose his job.

Yes, that is one of the few jobs where such a misstatement is unforgivable.

Quoting Aither (Reply 83):
Actually there are ground handling incidents eveyday (sic)

Yes, at a handful of airports somewhere in the world every day, but not at every airport every day.

PanAm1971 · Sun Sep 02, 2007 6:25 am

You guys should congratulate yourselves. Never in the history of ANet has a thread become so overblown over a minor incident. The childishness displayed here is embarrassing. I thought this was a collection of aviation enthusiasts. Instead, we have a bunch of dismal doomsayers. I say this as a huge B fan. I have doubts about this program. However, if you don't want to fly her, then, in my opinion, you are not an avaiation enthusiast. Whatever one thinks of the controversy over this program, you should at least recognize a pretty cool aircraft! Yeah-it rates "cool". So, everyone, cool off... stop embarrassing yourselves. I have one question though; could stress fractures be a concern here? P-S, I like her better without the winglets anyway.

WingedMigrator · Sun Sep 02, 2007 6:36 am

Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 88):
Also a good chance to collect some flight data on how the plane acts without the wingtip fences, as well as differences in fuel burn

That was already done before. (sorry, no a.net photo available...)

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=664196

EI321 · Sun Sep 02, 2007 6:37 am

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 89):
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 55):
It is certainly not uncommon for planes to ding wingtips - including planes a lot smaller than an A380.

1 - It does not hapen EVERY day at EVERY airport like airbus said.

Did they say it happened every day, or every day at every airport?

Kuna · Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:05 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 79):
Is the hanger ok???

Glad to see I wasn't the only one thinking this...:D

Quoting SeaTac (Reply 85):

I sorta like the look of it better without the winglets. I know the fuel mileage is lost without them, but IMO it looks better without.

breiz · Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:13 am

Quoting SeaTac (Reply 85):
Here's some pics of an A380 "Without" winglets visiting Chiang Mai.

Thanks a lot SeaTac!

About the A380 flying w/o winglets, Airbus recently fly-tested both F-WWDD and F-WWEA w/o winglets.

gunsontheroof · Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:14 am

In other news, I'm getting really sick of that house livery. Good to see this was no big thing.

TKV · Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:41 am

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 89):
Quoting BillReid (Reply 63):
I would truly prefer if Airbus people would take some PR training and not LIE to try to jusify a mistake. They are doing an excellent job killing company credability.

Yep. My point indeed. Just saying "yep, it was a mistake" wins credibility, simpathy, good-will, etc.... why can't they get that? Do they have such an inferiority complex? They are the largest aircraft mannufacturer in the world for crying out loud.

This is exactly the issue. The incident is of secondary importance, at least if there are not more facts as
it seems, which do not means it must not be investigated.

But the PR of Airbus is as you say killing their credibility. By saying that this is a common occurence they
really speak against all statistic (the few A380 operations are less than a dot of the total) , and much less of aircraft on a Demo mission. under control of the most highly qualified pilots available.

And on the other side, the total lack of info regarding production problems, which have so much damaged Airbus in the last years, is another not understandable issue

TKV

Charles79 · Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:35 am

IMO, this was a very small incident that was bound to happen with a brand new airplane at some point. Didn't 2 737s get pushed into each other just this week? It won't affect the A380 program in my opinion.

Quoting DeC (Reply 100):
This thread needs to be locked down - imo. So many people need to get a life.

Couldn't agree more! I always wonder why so many people are so anti-Airbus/anti-Boeing (and pro-Airbus/pro-Boeing consequently). Do they own stock in either company, or are employed by them? Is it a matter of national pride, or where they promised a free ride if they defend A or B and attack the other? As a fan of BOTH, I always find it interesting the way some folks go to such a childish level to make themselves heard. They must get no respect in their daily lives I guess!

(Moderators, feel free to delete this post if you feel I went too far off topic).

Cheers!

Charles

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net