PDA

View Full Version : A388 peels open a B788 on the ground at Changi


Buzzing
30th Mar 2017, 03:08
These pics just received from a colleague ...

Apparently happened this morning ...

underfire
30th Mar 2017, 06:04
Singaporean budget carrier Scoot made contact with an Emirates aircraft during early hours Thursday at Changi Airport, Singapore.

Both Changi Airport and Scoot confirmed that an on-ground accident happened between Emirates EK405, which was bound for Dubai, and Scoot TZ188, which was departing for Tianjin.

The left wing of Scoot flight TZ188 "came into contact with an Emirates aircraft…while TZ188 was taxiing before take-off," a Scoot representative told CNBC.

A Changi Airport spokesperson told CNBC that there were no injuries and passengers aboard the Emirates plane were re-booked on other flights scheduled to depart later on Thursday.

The left wing of Scoot flight TZ188 "came into contact with an Emirates aircraft…while TZ188 was taxiing before take-off," a Scoot representative told CNBC.

http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2017/03/29/104373065-Emirates_aircraft_damage_2.530x298.jpeg?v=1490845756

http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2017/03/29/104373066-Emirates_aircraft_damage_1.530x298.jpeg?v=1490846247

EDIT: Looks like Scoot tried to drive under them.....pretty far off on a taxi....

bringin the battle to the ground! AB 1 B 0!

Dufo
30th Mar 2017, 06:18
That wingtip is one sturdy slicer!
I am wondering about where did that metal bouquet come from?

Old Fella
30th Mar 2017, 06:26
Dufo asks "where did that metal bouquet come from"?

It looks very much like the bottom of the "Sturdy Slicer" to me. i.e. the lower edge of the A380 wingtip.

dfstrottersfan
30th Mar 2017, 06:57
Is that Right Wing v Right wing? i.e. taxing in opposite directions?
Scoot guy says left wing on 787 but that looks right wing to me ?

DaveReidUK
30th Mar 2017, 07:12
It looks like it, but it isn't.

Right wing of the A380 and left wing of the 787 (which must have hit the A380 from behind).

Easier to see on this photo:

http://www.straitstimes.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_pictrure_780x520_/public/articles/2017/03/30/emirates.jpg?itok=bF0GLVZU

The damage to the 787 wing is a long way inboard, so the wings must have overlapped by a fair amount ...

dfstrottersfan
30th Mar 2017, 07:49
DaveReidUK Thanks - yes that is much clearer.

How easily repairable are composite wings , or is a new wing required ?

readywhenreaching
30th Mar 2017, 07:54
prob occured close to the NC3 - U1 junction

https://twitter.com/JacdecNew/ (https://twitter.com/JacdecNew/status/847348341742608384)

http://www.gerryairways.com/ (http://www.gerryairways.com/index.php/en/safety/ground-collision-between-scoot-787-and-emirates-a380-at-singapore-changi/)

eckhard
30th Mar 2017, 08:04
Ouch! Looks like the 788 wingtip is damaged as well?

McNugget
30th Mar 2017, 08:45
Blimey, that 380 must have looked HUGE to the Scoot crew, if the 787 sustained damage so far inboard.

Anyone know how the 'composite aspect' of this will play out? Complications etc...

Volume
30th Mar 2017, 10:01
Composite repair to wings is done for over 50 years now, wings completely broken off have been successfully repaired probably 100 times.
Of course this is a complicated job requiring skilled specialists. Starting with damage determination. What looks damaged from the outside might be totally destroyed on the inside, what looks fine on the outside might be damaged on the inside. This aircraft will not fly this month...

guided
30th Mar 2017, 11:40
From the first picture it looks like the 788 also lost a wingtip

Volume
30th Mar 2017, 11:57
It does not have one to start with ;)
But it looks like the wintip came in contact with something, probably a flap track fairing.

Seloco
30th Mar 2017, 12:10
Interesting! I'd always assumed that A380 winglets were composite, but it appears not.

JammedStab
30th Mar 2017, 18:19
A quick question about the composite wing of the 788 from someone with little knowledge about the subject. The picture posted by Dave Reid appears to show rivets on the curled up portion of the skin. I didn't expect to see that. Can someone explain further?

fenland787
30th Mar 2017, 18:41
There are quite a few removable panels on the underside, those could well be the captive part of the fasteners for those - they look like the things I recall seeing as I grovelled around the WIPS wiring in leading edge...in the dark...and cold...and Seattle rain.....

llagonne66
30th Mar 2017, 20:30
IMHO the curled metal part on top of the 787 wing belongs to the wingtip of the A380

P7xkk
31st Mar 2017, 06:18
Could be part of a leading edge falsework panel, as the fence is composite - I think ��
Certainly several components are being replaced before the a/c flies again.

sleeve of wizard
31st Mar 2017, 07:00
No apportioning of blame.

The Old Swedish
31st Mar 2017, 07:17
Today we got clearance from SIN GND to push from C25 facing north to release abeam C23. The ground crew tells me: "The standard procedure here is to push abeam C22."

I answered that this instruction is from ATC and I want him to push abeam C23.

The guy ignored me and pushed abeam C22...

Now because the ground crews are scared of a similar incident, another one is due to happen because they do their standard stuff even when being advised to do it in a different way...

squawkident.
31st Mar 2017, 09:00
"no apportioning of blame"
Wait and see exactly what happens to the crew.

portmanteau
31st Mar 2017, 09:57
DR UK. surely its a case of the 380 hitting the 787 and not the other way round? It appears the 787 was taxiing along minding its own business when a 380 reverses into him.

NSEU
1st Apr 2017, 00:39
It appears the 787 was taxiing along minding its own business when a 380 reverses into him.

Or the ground crew pushed the A380 back, stopped for a few minutes and the other aircraft taxied into it.

I think the jury is still out on this one.

It could have been ATC's fault for giving clearance to push. If that diagram is to scale, it seems you can't push an aircraft from this gate without hanging an A380 wing over the taxiway. I don't see how you could push the aircraft in an arc to the centerline without reaching the next gate (C23).

http://www.fly-tea.com/cms/lib/skins/tea%20skin/images/airport/WSSS.jpg

DaveReidUK
1st Apr 2017, 06:37
Or the ground crew pushed the A380 back, stopped for a few minutes and the other aircraft taxied into it.

I think the jury is still out on this one.

I don't think there's going to be much scope for debate about who was stationary and who was moving.

Saab to deploy Surface Movement Radars at Singapore Changi Airport (http://saab.com/region/singapore/about-saab/news-and-press-releases/news/Saab-to-deploy-Surface-Movement-Radars-at-Singapore-Changi-Airport/)

portmanteau
1st Apr 2017, 09:59
Unlikely you would think, that an aircraft would taxi into another one...
From WSSS airport charts:" Aircraft on TWY WA are not clear of aircraft pushback from aircraft stands C24 C25 and C26 until at end of pushback." The 380 came out of C23 but still infringed taxiway WA. Ground Control could well have rightly assumed that no conflict was going to arise because C23 was not included in the warning.

maggot
1st Apr 2017, 10:14
Just follow the magenta - oops - green lights....

RAT 5
1st Apr 2017, 10:33
Today we got clearance from SIN GND to push from C25 facing north to release abeam C23. The ground crew tells me: "The standard procedure here is to push abeam C22."

I answered that this instruction is from ATC and I want him to push abeam C23.

The guy ignored me and pushed abeam C22...

Now because the ground crews are scared of a similar incident, another one is due to happen because they do their standard stuff even when being advised to do it in a different way...

It has been a debate amongst crews on many occasions. I'm not sure why, because it's not our area of responsibility; but...there are some airports where the SOP is, pilots ask for push back clearance. It is granted. The pilots tell the push back crew they are cleared. The push back crew then receive the push back instruction direct from ATC. No confusion or possible blame laid on the pilots. We all know that to give an instruction to one person, not in the language of either party, ask them to pass it on to another party whose language is also different is a classic start of a Swiss cheese. The process creates the holes. Why not reduce them. TEM starts on the ground. I wonder if all that holy grail stuff we are force fed, e.g. CRM, checklists, TEM etc. is also in the SOP's of others in the never lengthening chain necessary to get an a/c airborne safely and return to terra firma in similar condition. The links are numerous from rostering, baggage handlers, dispatchers, ATC, engineers, ramp handlers. The possibility of someone opening up the first slice of leaky cheese is huge.
Are only flight crew the primary target of this philosophy? Is it because the majority of accidents are logged as pilot error? What about the more numerous incidents? Are the also pilot error or an error from another link in the chain. It would not surprise me to find out many other links could do with a stout dose of TEM & CRM.

Seloco
1st Apr 2017, 11:22
Interesting that Changi seem to think that a 787 has four engines; or was their diagram meant to be, well, diagrammatic?!

mrdeux
2nd Apr 2017, 07:29
Nothing would surprise me given the way some people taxi aircraft.

In Singapore one night, I was starting up, with my nose gear on the lead in line to the bay on my right. Asiana wanted to go there, so instead of waiting, they taxied between us and the aircraft parked on the next bay. I'd never before seen a 767 wingtip up so close.

How he missed us, the aircraft on the next bay, the aerobridges, and all the other stuff around the bay, I'll never know. He ended up with his cockpit at about the right stop position, but the aircraft about 30 off the guidance line. Some words were said on Singapore ground that probably hadn't been heard there before.

unobtanium
2nd Apr 2017, 07:33
Some words were said on Singapore ground that probably hadn't been heard there before.

Not ok lah?