Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Watertanker hits A380 at Zurich

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Watertanker hits A380 at Zurich

Old 16th Oct 2016, 15:23
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 77
Posts: 1,458
Watertanker hits A380 at Zurich



An emerging story just hitting the rags.
A380 muss am Boden bleiben: Crash mit Wasserlaster sorgt für Chaos am Flughafen Kloten - Blick

Last edited by Machinbird; 16th Oct 2016 at 21:50. Reason: Add Picture
Machinbird is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2016, 03:53
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 167
Actually it does not look like the tanker hit the aircraft at all (no scratches or scrape marks on the airframe). I'm guessing it was under the aircraft during refuelling/cargo loading and the aircraft settled onto the tanker.
Bleve is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2016, 09:22
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 63
Posts: 0
Let the tyres down, drive it off, do the paperwork.
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2016, 14:13
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 582
Looks a lot like like tail tipping to me, although that's more a freighter/combi thing..
A380 prone to tailtipping?

Only thing is that that center hatch (why 3 hatches BTW?) is bent backwards quite a bit and also has its rod broken off.
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2016, 15:37
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 491
Aircraft departed for SIN - presumably ferry for repair as sister ship departed four hours ago to operate the schedule?
Torquelink is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2016, 02:48
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,300
Looks a lot like like tail tipping to me, although that's more a freighter/combi thing..
A380 prone to tailtipping?
It's probably just the compression of the gear with fuel, cargo and pax going on. The A380 isn't that high off the ground to start with. It looks like the truck is too far forward.

There are about five panels in that area. Some are potable water, fuelling control and vacuum toilet panels. I don't know what the two large ones are for.
NSEU is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2016, 04:39
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Heaven on Earth
Posts: 6
Fact : The aircraft was hit by the water servicing truck. Now you only need to figure out why and how the truck driver did it .

Last edited by millionaire; 18th Oct 2016 at 04:53. Reason: For clarity
millionaire is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2016, 10:30
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: wales
Posts: 446
overshot ! the bent back panel is the water service panel !
bvcu is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2016, 13:10
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Milton Keynes-on-sea
Posts: 127
The water service point is 'normally' 2.52m above the ground, which is well higher than the top of the WSU's tank. No need to back the truck under the aircraft so, as has been asked before, how did it get there?
falcon12 is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2016, 14:50
  #10 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Originally Posted by millionaire View Post
Fact : The aircraft was hit by the water servicing truck. Now you only need to figure out why and how the truck driver did it .
The truck reversed under the static aircraft.

(I deduced that when I first saw the photograph.)

I confess that my primary occupation involved investigating 'incidents' with (prototype) commercial vehicles (trucks).
As they were 'prototypes' there was no historical evidence, therefore I had to accumulate as much information as possible.
Not all incidents were collisions (in fact very few were) but it was important to register whatever surrounding circumstances might have influenced the incident.
In this case I deduced that the truck had struck the access panel protuberance from the front of the aircraft rather than a simple vertical crush.
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2016, 15:59
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 222
Because at first they could not find the ladder?
pax2908 is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2016, 23:30
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 77
Posts: 1,458
Originally Posted by Bleve
Actually it does not look like the tanker hit the aircraft at all (no scratches or scrape marks on the airframe). I'm guessing it was under the aircraft during refuelling/cargo loading and the aircraft settled onto the tanker.
Those of you who think the vehicle rammed underneath the aircraft to create this damage are probably wrong. Bleve's version has my vote.

Look at the suspension on the water tanker. The vehicle is strongly down by the nose which is not surprising considering the cab is trying to hold up an elephant. If the vehicle had driven under a static aircraft and wedged itself in that position, you would be seeing significant scars along the belly of the aircraft. I don't see any, do you? The hatch with the broken restraining rod merely hit the body of the truck and was deflected further open as the aircraft settled. Note: I briefly found a picture of the aircraft damage area taken after the truck was removed. The honeycomb penetration was localized. Unfortunately, I don't have that link now.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2016, 23:59
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,300
If the vehicle had driven under a static aircraft and wedged itself in that position, you would be seeing significant scars along the belly of the aircraft.
Is there no step between the fuselage and the bulbous wing to body fairings (on the centreline)?

When Millionaire said "Fact", I assumed he had read the official report or was at the aircraft at the time of the incident.
NSEU is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2016, 00:03
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: wales
Posts: 446
Truck has overshot service point . Normal access for water is from side so this can't happen.Toilet truck drives into that area but nearer the tail so no clearance problems. Don't see much more than a few inches movement on this a/c during turnrounds in terms of settling.
bvcu is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2016, 00:26
  #15 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Originally Posted by bvcu View Post
Don't see much more than a few inches movement on this a/c during turnrounds in terms of settling.
If you consider the unladen weight and the payload, there wouldn't be much settlement.
OTOH, it wouldn't take much to reduce 'zero' clearance to contact.
G-CPTN is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.