LH A380 damaged at Changi
 

Any details ?

A380 crashes into boarding bridge at Changi

is that the first LH A380 flight in SIN?
That has got to hurt

This A380 baby sounds really tricky in manoeuvering around airports...

Misleading title
 

Seems that the original post link is somewhat misleading.
The headline in the link states "damage to Lufthansa A380..."
Reading the article it becomes clear that it was the gate bridge that struck the aircraft not the aircraft that struck the bridge.

It may be that the 380 is hard to maneuver around in the airports, but this time it seems that it should be able to state non-guilty.

Nevertheless, of course a damage is a damage regardless of reason.

It can join the other A380 under repair at Changi.The Airbus AOG team can get right onto it :ok:

In this case, it sounds as though the airport failed to properly maneuver around the A380.

;) A bit late in hitting "Submit", I see.

Question in mind, I would expect it just as maneuverable as the 74xx. Those outer wing engines really help in tight turns. If the airport has built to accomidate, wingspan is the issue that should not be a factor.

does this classify as a ramp-rash incident?

The A380 annual conference:ouch:

It never stop to amaze me to see the increasing discrepancy between the latest most expensive technology oprating in third world environemnt with vairous airports services operators paid a few hundred dollars a month and hardly trained . In fact it is surprising that no more such incidents occur.

I agree Singapore is not thirld world but it would be interesting to know who trained the bridge operator, how long was the specific A380 training and what is salary is.

D-AIMG got hit when parked empty at the gate. Currently ferried back to EDDF without pax. Expected arrival this late afternoon.

Lufthansa Airbus A380 in Singapur beschädigt - FLUG REVUE

The bridge operator was likely from Johor Baru, just across the bridge into Malaysia. He probably drove his motorbike to Changi in the wee hours of the morning, ate some kaya toast and a kopi o in the staff canteen and was still thinking about his $10 an hour salary when he bumped the bus.

The Singaporean workforce, just a nation away.

If Singapore is anything like the UK...

It'll most likely be the dispatcher bridging the aircraft, who has received 2 or 3 days of training on airbridges (of which there's probably many types at the airport). They'll also be one of the least paid at the airport, around the £6.80 mark, for having the responsibility of bridging the aircraft, while trying to dispatch and load control the aircraft at the same time (I speak from experience :yuk:).

I haven't seen any details of the actual damage, but I suspect it's from the upper airbridge on the #2 engine or wing. You get extremely close to the engine/wing with the upper bridge and a foot or two the wrong way, you've made contact. Same goes for the 763 / A330 / 772 on the L2 door, and not to forget the 'classic' 737's with the pitot heads :*

From Less hair's Flurevu link:
meaning: "The crew that took over for the flight to Frankfurt discovered the damage"
I hope that's just a wrong interpretation (actually it was a quote from the LH spokesperson) and the damage was reported by the ground crew themselves and not the flight crew.

Can't help noticing the amount of incidents at Singapore.

It certainly doesn't like the A380, but looking back a year or so, it's kinda uncanny with regard to aircraft.

According to the Flug Revu article, the damage occurred late Saturday evening and was discovered by the LH crew that were to operate the aircraft on the return journey to FRA. The flight was cancelled and the pax were rebooked on other flights. After inspection of the damage, the aircraft was flown back empty on Monday.

Rockhound

No disrespect here and the usual disclaimer of me being Pax - they ferried it empty home to FRA - so, if it is considered airworthy why not loaded then? Or is there a rule or something that it might fly empty but brake apart with that kind of damage in flight if loaded (exaggerating here a bit)?

Perhaps the crew are dispensable
:rolleyes:

Any numbe of reasons it could be airworthy for a ferry flight but not
revenue, just a couple that come to mind:

A:the damage "could" cause a pressuration issue which would be a non-event with just a crew but not an ideal situation with a full load of payring customers.

B: The door was damaged and needed for emergency evacuation.

C: Engine not useable so ferry flight on 3 of 4.

There is a difference between "airworthy" and "flyable." An airworthy aircraft is one with no defects noted outside those allowed by the MEL/DDG/CDL manuals. Since I doubt Airbus included "damage to structure caused by jetbridge" to these manuals, the aircraft is not airworthy and not fit for commercial service. But that doesn't mean it won't fly. A "ferry permit" is an authorization to fly a non-airworthy aircraft, normally with some limitations. Almost always one limitation will be only required crew may be aboard. Doing two engine ferries on 727s, the departure runway had to be dry and it had to VFR at the departure and destination. Either the local CAA will issue the ferry permit or if the operator has a decent engineering staff they will authorize the operator to issue them inhouse. I always thought the mechanic that signed the log book, "I have inspected this aircraft and found it suitable for flight from ABC to XYZ" was really hanging everything out.

THanks for the response, now it makes sense to me.