BA A380 Taxis into Jet Bridge
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
But that could be the camera perspective... outboard engines on the 380 are a fair bit higher up than the inboards due to the wing, camera being at ground level could be level below the outboard engine whilst level with the inboard
Also, in case you haven't noticed it - wings and wing-mounted engines/pylons have a certain amount of "flex" designed in.
Keeps them from snapping off with a little (or a lot of) turbulence.
A slow "gate-approach" speed could push the engine back a foot or so and twist the wing slightly without permanently deforming/damaging anything...
BUT - this could indeed be worse than that. Can't tell from the picture.
EDIT - another BUT: the A380 wing-rib attachment-feet cracking problem may mean this aircraft deserves "special attention" to check for internal damage.
Keeps them from snapping off with a little (or a lot of) turbulence.
A slow "gate-approach" speed could push the engine back a foot or so and twist the wing slightly without permanently deforming/damaging anything...
BUT - this could indeed be worse than that. Can't tell from the picture.
EDIT - another BUT: the A380 wing-rib attachment-feet cracking problem may mean this aircraft deserves "special attention" to check for internal damage.
Last edited by pattern_is_full; 20th Jan 2016 at 23:13.
Looks like bridge belongs to adjacent gate. The bridge the A380 was docking to blocks the cockpit view of the adjacent bridge. Would the marshaller have been able to observe the adjacent bridge?
Mmm - dunno. Accidents 1950-2015 - 59 at/near MIA, 58 at/near JFK. Not really out of line.
per: Aviation Safety Network >
Travel + Leisure magazine (if you care for their opinion) ranks MIA as 6th most "dangerous" in the US based on incidents, after (1-5) O'Hare, Cleveland, LAX, SFO, and Honolulu.
MIA doesn't make Forbe's worst 10 for ground events (fatal TO/LDG accidents, incursions, etc.) While North Las Vegas does.
But who knows if those were corrected for traffic volume.
per: Aviation Safety Network >
Travel + Leisure magazine (if you care for their opinion) ranks MIA as 6th most "dangerous" in the US based on incidents, after (1-5) O'Hare, Cleveland, LAX, SFO, and Honolulu.
MIA doesn't make Forbe's worst 10 for ground events (fatal TO/LDG accidents, incursions, etc.) While North Las Vegas does.
But who knows if those were corrected for traffic volume.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Above the Transition Level
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No way that second bridge should be positioned left and back not extended and straight.
The yellow rectangle box in front of the 2 men walking towards the camera would be a reasonable place for the wheels for the second bridge.
The yellow rectangle box in front of the 2 men walking towards the camera would be a reasonable place for the wheels for the second bridge.
"Looks like minor damage, more pictures here:"
Airbubba,
It's parked on the ramp just west of E concourse. It was illuminated with lights and associated ground activity. Even though we were a few hundred yards away, the crumpled leading edge of the cowl was plainly visible at the impact point.
My first impression was, "That's more than a 'ding', and it isn't going to buff out".
Scratching my head at what happened. I also wonder what the SOP is for the A380. Lufthansa and AF have been operating them in MIA for awhile. I don't know about inbound, but LH has a follow me vehicle escorting it out to Runway 09. I've also never seen LH or AF land on anything other than RW 09.
Both times I have seen BA landing recently at night in MIA, they've landed on RW 08R, which is also a longer taxi to their gates. On Monday night the BA arrival was waiting on Y taxiway short of P for it's "Follow Me" escort. A somewhat humorous yet pathetic exchange occurred on due to the "Follow Me" truck being lost. I don't know when the escort responsibility ends.
Airbubba,
It's parked on the ramp just west of E concourse. It was illuminated with lights and associated ground activity. Even though we were a few hundred yards away, the crumpled leading edge of the cowl was plainly visible at the impact point.
My first impression was, "That's more than a 'ding', and it isn't going to buff out".
Scratching my head at what happened. I also wonder what the SOP is for the A380. Lufthansa and AF have been operating them in MIA for awhile. I don't know about inbound, but LH has a follow me vehicle escorting it out to Runway 09. I've also never seen LH or AF land on anything other than RW 09.
Both times I have seen BA landing recently at night in MIA, they've landed on RW 08R, which is also a longer taxi to their gates. On Monday night the BA arrival was waiting on Y taxiway short of P for it's "Follow Me" escort. A somewhat humorous yet pathetic exchange occurred on due to the "Follow Me" truck being lost. I don't know when the escort responsibility ends.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may have been on the Captain's side newt, but I can assure you that the wingtip cannot be seen for clearance out of the window... Nor does the tail camera show us all of the outboard wing!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: somewhere between Miami and Havana
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Mr.Lizard
09/27 is the preferred runway for 380 ops at MIA. Why BA aircraft were landing on 08R is confusing to me as well, since the option for 09 is always given, if available. There is the possibility that the ILS 08R was preferred by the operating crew instead of the RNAV 09.
MIA requires the follow me for all 380's. If you operate out of MIA daily, it's probably no big deal to you, but to infrequent visitors the airfield is just a sea of green and blue lights at night. I'm not sure what pathetic exchange you heard, but I'd be much happier being called pathetic than trying to explain why I'd let the big, ugly bastard sink into the concrete on an unapproved taxiway; the paperwork tends to eat into valuable drinking time.
This is all irrelevant, of course, because the incident happened when the airplane was (I hope) lined up on the lead in line and following the stand guidance. I don't wish to defend or blame since both the airport staff and the pilots involved are friends and Colleagues, but this looks like the upper deck jetty was left in the wrong place.
I'm sure it won't be too long before someone with actual facts chimes in.
Cheers
Buter
09/27 is the preferred runway for 380 ops at MIA. Why BA aircraft were landing on 08R is confusing to me as well, since the option for 09 is always given, if available. There is the possibility that the ILS 08R was preferred by the operating crew instead of the RNAV 09.
MIA requires the follow me for all 380's. If you operate out of MIA daily, it's probably no big deal to you, but to infrequent visitors the airfield is just a sea of green and blue lights at night. I'm not sure what pathetic exchange you heard, but I'd be much happier being called pathetic than trying to explain why I'd let the big, ugly bastard sink into the concrete on an unapproved taxiway; the paperwork tends to eat into valuable drinking time.
This is all irrelevant, of course, because the incident happened when the airplane was (I hope) lined up on the lead in line and following the stand guidance. I don't wish to defend or blame since both the airport staff and the pilots involved are friends and Colleagues, but this looks like the upper deck jetty was left in the wrong place.
I'm sure it won't be too long before someone with actual facts chimes in.
Cheers
Buter