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

Hunter

I don't think we fundamentally disagree, but I repeat what I said earlier 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.

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:

GOAROUNDMAN

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

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

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.

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

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!

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

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:

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:

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

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

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

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:

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....

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.

"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

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?

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

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:

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.