The Engine doesn't look bent to me, remember that the inboard and outboard engines are not parallel to each other in the first place. Take a look at photos of the A380 and the outboards appear to be angled up a bit anyway?

I hardly think an Engine mount designed to handle the thrust and weight of that Engine would be bent. The cowling would crush first anyway, slowing the impact and the Aircraft would have stopped quickly.

Engine change is all would be my bet.

Agreed, seen that sort of foul up, and got away with it, just.

Years back, in North America, on gate where the aircraft type was not displayed on the stand guidance for all to see "we" nearly clunked a 744 parking on a gate that was seemingly clear of all obstacles. What we didn't know was the jetty configured for a DC-10.

Fortunately the station manager standing on the tarmac spotted the jetty and our no. 2 engine were about to become coincident just in time halt proceedings.

I learnt about jettys from that...............

that'll be expensive just with loss of revenue.

If the airplane is under marshaller's instruction then the captain is not really responsible is he?

Same would apply for the VDGS lights?

Anil

I understand it was under tow when it hit the jetty?

That’s what I’ve heard, although it is an unconfirmed rumour. It’s quite possible as I’ve needed to be towed in at MIA in a 777 on occasion, depending on stand allocation.

Is the Antonov 124 due at Heathrow got something to do with this incident? I did hear it was for an A380 engine but you know what rumours are like!!

Recollect not being happy with wingtip clearance when taxying in at Baku.
ATC started shouting to move, follow me was driving in circles to show the stupid pilot how to do it and our own station manager, whom I'd made the mistake of permitting to sit in the flight deck, was loudly telling us that it was OK to proceed.
So, in the face of all this what did we do? NOTHING - until the FO and I were sure in OUR minds that it was safe to go.

See post #6 from 2 days ago. Due this evening.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9243875

The OP shaped this thread by using the word 'taxies'. A photo shows the engine touching a jetty. How it got there is not yet in the public domain, but there is more than one way an aircraft can be moved around an airport! :rolleyes:

Indeed, and some don't even require human intervention:

http://media2.abc15.com/photo/2015/0....0_900_675.jpg

:rolleyes:

PDR

Seenitall


You wrote "While the airbridge may have been in the wrong place, it was not just slightly infringing on the space through which the plane needed to pass -- it was likely at least 30 feet closer to the plane than it should have been. After all, it didn't hit the wingtip, it hit the outboard engine. Further, it would have been passing right by the Captain's LHS window before the collision occurred.

Wouldn't one expect the Captain to have noticed that this obstruction was way closer to the airplane than it should have been? There are many times that I have been on a plane that stopped short of the gate because the Captain reported that something was blocking the clearway. It seems to me that this ding only required two holes in the swiss cheese -- and unfortunately in addition to the marshallers, the Captain may have been one of them. But until we read the official report, nothing is certain. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are wrong in expecting the area in front of a 260 foot wingspan airliner to have no items in front of it. For instance the pier that comes to the front left door on arrival is normally well within the wingspan. So often too is the pier that comes to the 2nd door. The thing is the aircraft normally stops before the wing comes into contact with any of the many items in front of it, such as steps, ground vehicles, baggage vehicles. The pier that this aircraft hit may well have been the normal lateral distance from the flight deck. The problem is that the pier was extended and was thus further back than it should have been. The times when you have been on a plane which has stopped before parking it is likely there were ground markings painted for that type of aircraft and there were items infringing it. This is quite common. Rather than thinking the Captain is the weak link the factors are more likely to be the jetty being left out of position, wing man not giving signals, possibly the aircraft being towed, ground markings not visible or not appropriate for A380.

I would expect the insurance company to sort out just who was to carry the can and pay out. It will be substantial. I doubt this will be a 'knock for knock' settlement.
Thankfully BA pilots have union behind them and they are not dubiously self-employed.

Cheers Dave, that'll teach me and here I was thinking I'd read the whole thread.

Hat, coat and OFF! :ugh:

Every airport should have a SOP to ensure that a stand is clear of equipment (including safe parking of airbridges) and clear of FOD prior to an aircraft arriving as part of their Safety Management System (SMS). This procedure should be laid down in the Aerodrome Manual with the people responsible outlined and be subject to regular audit both by the airport company and the regulator including records of training and competency checks. The procedures should outline what happens if the stand is not safe.

Dependent upon who does what at any airport, the person responsible for checking that the stand is safe could be the marshaller, follow me driver, supervisor of the loading team etc etc. Not sure what the set up is at MIA

Insurance companies are very interested in whether an airport has an effective SMS - if they have, premiums are liable to be reduced. I'm sure that the insurance company(s) involved in this will be looking into the Airport SMS as part of this incident....

PS AN-124 departed LHR for MIA (VDA 1902/RA82044) at 2254z 22/01/16

I'm surprised that the guidance lights will even switch on with the bridges out of place. The ones at my local airport won't (basically idiot proof).

imho, I don't see how the pilot can be expected to be looking at the wings in the final stages of docking. However, he/she probably should be looking for 3 green lights for this aircraft type (one on each aerobridge) prior to getting too close.

Some of the guidance systems don't have the best design. Whilst all gates at my local airport all have emergency stop buttons, not all the gates have stop buttons located where you can see all parts of the aircraft.

Unlike Australia NSEU very few places have the red/green light system on the jetbridges! In fact, I can't think of anywhere else... And I fly the 380 pretty much around the world!

And interestingly on my last flight into BNE the lights were green on 75 but there was a highlift inside the clear zone!!!! So that doesn't always work as planned either...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ble-3TeCQAAp4vC.jpg:large

Similar incident claimed to be during 2014 in Sydney, with plane out of service for 48 hours. Picture from Twitter.

I believe the lights only tell you the airbridges are in the right place- they don't tell you what else might be in the way.

They are a good system but are far from worldwide. Apart from Australia I think Heathrow has them but I can't think of anywhere else. No dobut they will now be installed in many more places. Better late than never.

At Brussels Zaventem there is a GREEN light illuminated ON THE AIRBRIDGE when it is fully (and correctly) retracted in standby position....
Additionaly the aircraft DOCKING system will NOT illuminate and guide the aircraft if the airbridge is (even slightly) out of standby position...
Retracting the airbridge has an 'automatic' function (simple pushbutton) which will take it to a preset/safe retraction position (lateral and height position) - not using this function will result in a 'non-illumination' of the docking system on the next arrival....
just my 2cts....

It seems most (all?) of the posts on this topic revolve around an aircraft contacting the airbridge which was in the wrong place during the final few yards of the taxi.
How about considering that perhaps everything was in order, airbridges clear etc and then an over-enthusiastic airbridge driver began moving the airbridge into position prematurely, ie before the aircraft had come to its final position?

@KelvinD

Might be something to consider, yes....

however, speaking again for Brussels only, the airbridges can NOT be moved (power removed from bogeys by proxi-switch) until the aircraft has reached it's pre-positioned parking position and thus the aircraft guidance system has switched OFF....

But again, do not know how other airports work....

Well I have been parking airliners from the left seat for 20 years and if my aircraft hit a stationary object I would most certainly consider it to be my fault as I am quite sure the unfortunate skipper of this 380 does, he has my total sympathy and I hope its not me next time.

I guess those interlocks with the airbridge raise the possibility that staff will start relying them and then a microswitch will fail . . . Presumably that's thought of and provided for, but it still seems like a possible failure mode.

I have a poor man's AGNIS for parking my car in the garage. I stop when the dangling ping pong ball touches the screen. Unfortunately my wife had got a tool out of my toolbox and left the toolbox jutting out slightly from a side shelf and it scraped the car when I drove it in at night. You can imagine the discussion on whose fault it was....:)

I guess those interlocks with the airbridge raise the possibility that staff will start relying them and then a microswitch will fail . . . Presumably that's thought of and provided for, but it still seems like a possible failure mode.

OMG. The debate of too much automation dependancy over manual skills has now come down to earth and transferred to ground staff.

You can imagine the discussion on whose fault it was....

It might have gone along the lines of "it was yours." "no it wasn't." "yes it was." "no it wasn't." etc. etc. etc. Bit of a ping pong conversation really. I'll leave you to decide who served first.

The thought below is generic and not one dedicated to this incident.

How about this - ALL airbridges could be modified to have a 'parking sensor' fitted to them - When activated it changes AGNIS to STOP, but if AGNIS isn't fitted, just gets a STOP sign flashing along with some sort of siren (when marshaller used...Siren to alert the marshaller).

Just a thought anyhow!

Jet V Jetty
 

BMI had a slightly similar incident at Heathrow about twelve years ago when a 737 500 parked on a spot not yet modified for that variant. The engine "rested" on a walkway barrier requiring a temporary fix and then cowling replacement at the next hangar visit.
This case was of course simpler in that the 737 500 engine is under your armpit and distance is easily judged but of course when parking you are looking at the stand guidance system not the obstructions which you "know" are clear.
Parking at night there would be a lot of glare from vehicles and stand lights coupled with a difficult judgement call as the wingtip is so hard to see
The BMI captain was awarded time with a training captain to check his parking technique

He's not flying A380s with BA now is he?

I'll get my hat and coat.

There's any number of possible scenarios. There was the classic where a certain Middle Eastern airline was taxiing to the stand equipped with (I think) AGNIS/PAPA and the PF looked away / was distracted when the moving indicator on the PAPA was approaching the stop point but was slowing to a stop. While he was otherwise engaged the aircraft actually did stop, but past the stop point. He looked back up, and noticing the gap between the marker for the aircraft (memory fails me - I think it was a 777) gave it some welly to line it up, assuming he hadn't gone far enough whereas in reality he had gone through the stop point. Did quite a bit of damage as I recall.

Sorry to put a pin in the balloon, but it appears the aircraft was under tow.........

the said a/c looking rather sad parked on a remote stand at MIA as we taxied in today....

"I would expect the insurance company to sort out just who was to carry the can and pay out. It will be substantial. I doubt this will be a 'knock for knock' settlement."


The insurers of both BA and Miami airport, (and the ground handling team on the tug!) will be taking a keen interest in this incident but each will have to bear a substantial 'excess' or 'deductible' on their respective policies as standard practice and it is quite possible the cost of this incident will fall within the deductible, it will come down to whose fault it was and that is when the lawyers take over!


I always found the old parking system at the international terminal in Sydney was difficult, as one had to look both forwards and sideways, fortunately it was changed.

Couple of things here.
1. If the aircraft was being towed it is the tug crew's responsibility when parking on stand.

2. If the aircraft was live and being taxied by the crew they would rely on the VDGS to safely park and just by the VDGS being on and giving the cforrect parking details indicates to the crew that the stand is clear of any obstructions and a FOD check has been done.

3. At airports where some stands are used in different configurations. It is normally the responsibility of the dispatcher to get there early enough to re position the airbridge for the aircraft type arriving on stand and of course do a FOD check.

4. Airbridge maintenance requires to be carried out and usually the airbridge has to be extended to complete this. At busy airports you cannot close the stand for days on end becuae of the impact to the operationso the stand is restricted. For example an A380 stand could still be used for B777 etc which can safely park either with a marshaller or VDGS.

In view of the above I reckon the dispatcher has not arrived to reposition the airbridge ready for the towed A380 and then the tug crew have not kept an eye on the wing tips when parking ( standard practice and should not assume anything). Basically a catalog of errors.

Since insurance has been mentioned in posts above, I am wondering what the impact on BA's premium would be after the ground incidents in Johannesburg, Las Vegas and now Miami. I am not dispute their safety culture and I would fly them without a second's hesitation (OK I have a star alliance card so it gets on the way of choosing a carrier) but it is worth having a short discussion.

It wasn't under tow. Not sure where that came from.

Glad we've got that cleared up, then. :O

The towing scenario does seems a tad unlikely, given that the BA209/208 scheduled turnround at MIA is only 2:15.

Having said that, I don't recallseeing a single tweet or Facebook post from any of the passengers who were on board, assuming it hit the airbridge as it taxied onto the stand.

They all fell over while looking in the overhead before the park brake was set. Now in hospital consulting the legal mob for trauma/distress etc:)

Could've been a park and tow, like they do at other US airports. Never been to MIA.

Pilots stop short of the stand by a few feet, and then are towed to the final position as some parking stands have a very tight fit.

There is one on the BA Exec section of flyertalk by 'MichelleUK1' at 12.18pm on Jan 20 (post number 30).

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...dge-mia-2.html