SQ A380 off paved surface in Singapore

[vascani]

During push back the brakes failed (apparently) on the tug and unfortunately the right wing gear left the paved surface. Pax are off and it is currently being defuelled. Recovery in progress. It's a shame as T3 has only been open a couple of days.

[flybonanza]

At what airport did this happen?

[Carbon Bootprint]

At what airport did this happen?
Singapore Changi (SIN/WSSS). News article here (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/321865/1/.html)notes that 446 pax were aboard.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

Load of hogwash and rubbish.

The towbar broke, end of rumour.

No aircraft in mud, no remaking of Airplane.

Passengers redirected onto a 744 sub.

Aircraft, with its nature of being a bit new, being checked for damage as a precaution. No A380 scandal or disaster.

Delay attributed to tech ground equip.

End of story.

Stoney

[aviate1138]

Classic! The truth at last!:rolleyes:

[poorwanderingwun]

The towbar broke, end of rumour

Meanwhile back at Toulouse...

Sacre Bleau...Mort de la Vie.. Merde... nous oublier le towbar !

[M.Mouse]

Why is a broken tow bar the cause of passengers being moved to other aircraft?

[Cool banana]

Broken tow bar ? alone doesn’t ground a flight, but bogging a couple of wheels off the apron area onto the grass at T3 will.

[poorwanderingwun]

It's not rocket science... if the tow-bar breaks on push-back and there's some doubt about it contacting/damaging the nose gear they may want to carry out an inspection.

[Dream Land]

Question. Why, if it's true the tow bar broke, were they not able to apply brakes and stop? :confused:

[Loose rivets]

One does not apply breaks on an aircraft that is going backwards...well you could, but only after asking 300 passengers to run towards the pointy end.

[BYMONEK]

Well, having just returned from SIN, here are my observations.

Large double decker aircraft with its rear wheels off the taxiway and most definately 'stuck' in the mud. Taxiway by T3 closed hence required to taxi the long way round from the 'CHARLIE' stands to depart from RW02L. Lots of flashing orange lights and vehicles surrrounding A380 as we sped off down the runway.

Sorry stoneybridge, but a poor attempt at a cover up. :=

BYMONEK

[PA38-Pilot]

One does not apply breaks on an aircraft that is going backwards...well you could, but only after asking 300 passengers to run towards the pointy end.heh, guess a trip in the mud is a lot better than replacing the whole tail section:}

PS: Whoever read my comment about airbus before it was deleted, it was only meant as a joke (hence the smiley). Believe me, I have my reasons to be quite supportive to airbus.

[TopBunk]

RivetsOne does not apply breaks on an aircraft that is going backwards...well you could, but only after asking 300 passengers to run towards the pointy end.

OK, maybe a bit pedantic, but if that is the only way to stop the aircraft you certainly do CAREFULLY apply the brakes rather than run off the paved surface. I agree that the best way is by applying a small amount of power, but if the engines haven't been started, gentle braking is the only way.

[Daysleeper]

In rather depressing fashion the UK media now have a banner headline

"A380 comes off runway!"

Followed by ... while preparing for take off the A380 left the runway....
:hmm:

[Hunter58]

Sorry BYMONKEY

Very bad attempt to distort the truth. :=:=:=

Stoneybridge is correct expet that the particular pushback tractor is one of the towbarless type. Looks like it ran out of hydraulic liquid (failure of some kind) and hence the A380 rolled back into the mud/grass. For all the ones thinking that the crew should have applied brakes, I recommend a refresher course...

Still a non-event. It just made the headlines because of the property of the nose wheels the particular towbarless tractor was trying to manoever around.

[Palyvestre]

First picture of the incident

http://www.crash-aerien.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=29342#29342

:E

[Newforest]

:suspect::suspect::D:D:ok:

[Jetjock330]

This from the BBCNEWS.COM

A flight by an Airbus A380 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7182496.stm) had to be abandoned after the jet rolled off the runway in Singapore, forcing passengers to be moved onto another plane.
The A380 superjumbo was preparing to take off for Sydney when part of the jet ended up on a grass verge off the tarmac, Singapore Airlines said.

The accident at Changi airport left the plane with minor damage, possibly to the tyres, according to the airline.

The superjumbo's 446 passengers got off without any injuries being reported.

The accident occurred when the hydraulics failed on a truck towing the plane, which was not running on its own power at the time.

"The damage is very limited, it's superficial in the sense that there is possibly damage to tyres," airline spokesman Stephen Forshaw told AP news agency.

[Mungo Man]

after the jet rolled off the runway in Singapore

So it was being towed along the runway was it?! Do the media not realise the very significant between a runway and the rest of the paved areas?:ugh:

[oceancrosser]

So it was being towed along the runway was it?! Do the media not realise the very significant between a runway and the rest of the paved areas?

No they do not.
They never have.
I seriously doubt they ever will.
:}

[TopBunk]

Hunter

For all the ones thinking that the crew should have applied brakes, I recommend a refresher course...

I don't think we fundamentally disagree, but I repeat what I said earlier... the best way is by applying a small amount of power, but if the engines haven't been started, gentle braking is the only way. Maybe you suggest that it is better to roll down a steep slope and / or run into another aircraft as a way of stopping the aircraft?
In this case, with the added weight of the towbarless tractor attached, there may even have been less risk of standing it on its tail using light braking.

As always, the decision must rest with the Captain if braking is to be used, to say it should never be used is wrong, imho.

[GOAROUNDMAN]

According to SKY news the aircraft crashed into an orphanage and there was only one survivor, a young girl by the name of ma de ling who will go on to to be the youngest female president ever beating Arnold Schwarzenegger’s son Uzi Schwarzenegger by one vote!:eek:

[gone till november]

GOAROUNDMAN

According to SKY news the aircraft crashed into an orphanage and there was only one survivor, a young girl by the name of ma de ling who will go on to to be the youngest female president ever beating Arnold Schwarzenegger’s son Uzi Schwarzenegger by one vote!
Today 10:59


Class! Raised a wry smile:)

CNN reporting that the A380 "VEERED" off the runway.

Accurate & truthful press reporting to the fore :mad:. Its a nothing story

[angels]

Is this the time to note that SQ took delivery of their second A380 today?

[Sallyann1234]

Its interesting that the original news report quoted in #3 is not of the passengers-screaming-in-terror variety.
Why? Because the news media are controlled by the same government as the airline - bad press not permitted.

[slf1955]

The pics of the A380 from the link in post #17 showed skid marks from the tires. So the brakes were applied?

[skiesfull]

I have had two similar incidents. One on a heavy tri-jet while starting the first engine during pushback, with a ground engineer who spoke very poor English - it was the sight of the tug driving away that caused us concern, not the excited pleas from the ground, and the second in a B747-200 which suffered a tow-pin shear during pushback, again with the first engine winding up. In both cases gentle braking brought the aircraft to a stop without the nose-gear becoming airborne.
Some a/c use reverse thrust to power back - do the pilots use braking or forward thrust to come to a stop? The VC10 was able to power back, but banned because of the noise - ah the sound of 4 Conways!

[CargoMatatu]

Don't look like skid marks to me. Simply residue left by tyres of a HEAVY aircraft.:rolleyes:

[Dream Land]

For all the ones thinking that the crew should have applied brakes, I recommend a refresher course...by Hunter58 :yuk:
I don't think I need a refresher course, I'm not flying the A380, I had a tow bar break on the A320 and applying the brakes averted the aircraft from striking another aircraft, boy did I screw up. :ugh:

[BYMONEK]

Hunter58

How can I distort the truth when I saw it with my very own eyes? The aircraft had its rear wheels off the taxiway. I made no mention of how it got there so can't quite see where you're going with that response.

As for that last paragraph...........:confused:

[kontrolor]

http://avijacija.net/slike/a380/1.JPG

http://avijacija.net/slike/a380/2.JPG

http://avijacija.net/slike/a380/3.JPG

[Fliguy]

Sorry Hunter58, Stoney Bridge Radar said "no wheels in the mud" and BYMONEK did not comment about the events that got those wheels in the mud.

Do you read too fast or just project what you want to read?

:=:ugh:

[Anotherflapoperator]

The pics above were taken from the front of the wing looking towards the rear, as the wing gear is slightly ahead of the body ones.

I used to do power backs in ATPs and they most definitely used a touch of forward thrust to stop them. You made sure your feet were on the floor beofre starting too.

I do agree a light braking action is preferable to taking out another aircraft, even if you do sit yourself on your tail. The damage of one lower tail skin compared to a second hull and the possibilities of injury therein is far less appealing than the post event telling off....

[PositiveRate876]

It also depends if your aircraft is typically 'nose-heavy' or 'tail-heavy'.

A few years ago a belt that secures the nosewheel on a cradle-type tug broke during a pushback. I was flying CRJ's at the time and it sent the plane rolling backwards while the tug remained where it stopped. Since the plane's CG was always at the forward limit (so much so we often had to carry ballast), I applied brakes and we stopped before the grass.

I wouldn't try that on every aricraft though.

[Putt]

"Those who fail to read the newspaper are uninformed. Those who read the newspaper are misinformed" Mark Twain
Especially when it pertains to technical issues such as aircraft accidents and incidents. During the reporting of the Alaska Airlines flight 291 accident a few years back, the local media (print and electronic) made several futile attempts (over two days) to explain how the MD-80 horizontal trim system worked. John Nance finally set the record straight for them. :ugh:
Putt

[llondel]

What they need is Joe Patroni from the original Airport Movie. He'd get it out of the mud, no problem.

What is the recovery procedure for something that big? I'm guessing that dragging it out by the nosewheel isn't a good idea. Do they stuff an airbag under the wing and then put something solid under the wheels?

[StoneyBridge Radar]

Well, having just returned from SIN, here are my observations.

Large double decker aircraft with its rear wheels off the taxiway and most definately 'stuck' in the mud. Taxiway by T3 closed hence required to taxi the long way round from the 'CHARLIE' stands to depart from RW02L. Lots of flashing orange lights and vehicles surrrounding A380 as we sped off down the runway.

Sorry stoneybridge, but a poor attempt at a cover up.

No cover up whatsoever.

Aircraft most definitely was not stuck in mud.

Being the nature and newness of the beast, aircraft was left in situ for Airbus and SIA tecchies to go over before being towed back onto hard top and being signed off.

Aircraft operated today's SIA 221 as normal, on time, and no terrified passengers saying they would rather pull their teeth than fly on the death ship....but of course, there's no news in the real version of events.:rolleyes:

Sorry BYMONEK, but your rebuttal was hollow, and whilst your account may gain credence by the fact it was an eye witness report, sadly your assimilation and subjective view of what you saw fell short of actual reality. :=

Stoney

[The Bartender]

It may not be stuck in mud, but it sure has 8 wheels on the green, and some brown and green stuff reaching all the way up to the rims (and beyond) on some of them...:rolleyes:

[L337]

Aircraft most definitely was not stuck in mud.

Are you sure?

Sure looks like mud to me. Well grass then. Muddy grass maybe? Most certainly off the pavement.

On reflection, most definitely stuck in the mud.

[Clipped]

SBR - you've jumped to the defence of this incident with gusto. Are you an SIA stooge?

[Dream Land]

Clipped, let's not make it one of those threads, those "stooges" are some of the most professional pilot's in this part of the world. :ok:

[rmiller774]

What proof is there that the brakes weren't applied? Maybe just too late to stop on the hard surface. I would like to know what was said by the flight crew as this rolling backwards took place. Will that conversation be released?

[SpaceNeedle]

It amazes me how " professional pilots " rejoice at the misfortune of fellow aviators and airline professionals ( I respect tug drivers, artisans, mechanics and LAMEs as fellow aviation professionals ). No wonder pilots are sometimes so detested that everyone else with any chance will want to have a go at us. Tsk, tsk,tsk...sigh:ugh:

[Clipped]

That 'professionalism' attempted to shut down debate - on a rumour network. One has to ask - WHY?

[dkaarma]

Just curious...

Are SQ passengers paying a premium to be on the A380 service? Would they be compensated for being bumped on to a 747?

[HotDog]

Bartender, by all accounts only the right wing gear left the hard, so where do you get eight wheels in the grass from? Picture also shows the four wing gear wheels in the grass, although the two outboard front wheels of the right body gear seem to be on the edge of the tarmac. The A380 has 22 wheels, four on each wing gear, six on each body gear and two nose wheels.

[Sleeping Freight Dog]

Guys, this is SINGAPORE AIRLINES we are talking about.:ouch: No SQ aircraft
has EVER run off the runway. :rolleyes:The hard packed concrete was just
replaced by hard packed grass and or mud that just happened to
give way underneath the aircraft. God forbid SQ ever acknowledge
any wrongdoing;):ugh:

[King Pong]

StoneyBridge Radar wrote

Load of hogwash and rubbish.

No aircraft in mud,


No cover up whatsoever.

Aircraft most definitely was not stuck in mud.


The first post was misleading to put it mildly which I initially took on board as fact.


The second post should have been a groveling apology but the truth gets a further spin.:=:=

Admit it, you have been rumbled:}

[spannersatcx]

See here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=308150) for more pics. Looks like the tug has spilled lots of fluid on the apron and also looks like 8 or 9 wheels on the grass/mud (not that I really care or give a s*&^%)

[Mr A Tis]

Stoney silence from StoneyBridge

[Danny]

Give it a break. Some of you are pathetic. :rolleyes:

You are arguing about semantics. Get a life!

I am changing the title and closing this thread because it is just so sad to watch a bunch of anoraks arguing over how many wheels were off the paved surface and whether it was grass or mud. Next, we're going to get someone speculating about the vector logistics and detailed examination of gravitational and tidal effects of how this incident occured. :*

Pathetic! :ugh: