NZFF

One would have thought that such minor but important details would have been checked beforehand. Not just a simple matter of changing the winglet.

Hmm seems they do a fair bit off that , putting wings into places not spose to be

That's one way to scare off the opposition.

Oh dear.. there's a tug-driver who's about to lose his job I guess
Musta been someone else on the GND tho surely

cowpatz wrote:

QUOTE (cowpatz @ Jun 28 2011,12:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One would have thought that such minor but important details would have been checked beforehand. Not just a simple matter of changing the winglet.

VH-OQA has been sitting in Singapore for about 8 months now and the most common muttering around the forums seems to be that planning for the repair is well underway. The most common WAG for how long it would take was 7 months which has been and gone, next most common WAG is at least a year.

deeknow wrote:

QUOTE (deeknow @ Jun 28 2011,12:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh dear.. there's a tug-driver who's about to lose his job I guess
Musta been someone else on the GND tho surely

I shouldn't think there'd be anyone watching all the time (what is there to hit on a mid-field taxiway ?) but when a significantly large aircraft is being towed near structures in places where significantly large aircraft don't normally venture you'd expect some sort of a lookout. You'd also expect a bunch of people to come out of the woodwork to watch it go past, wonder if there's footage on youtube ?

These big buggers (A-380's) seem to be having more accidents on the ground than in the air....thank god. In my humble opinion, they aren't natural....they look awful, and i really think they are a disaster waiting to happen.....to big to fast.....my opinion......the old aviation adage "if it looks right it will fly right" cannot be applied to this beast......i think it will join the brabazon, and the spruce goose.......as i said , just my uninformed opinion....sue me if you wish

Shhiiiii !

Check out th 3rd pic bottom left...he's the one that did it!

NZ255 wrote:

QUOTE (NZ255 @ Jun 28 2011,11:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shhiiiii !

Check out th 3rd pic bottom left...he's the one that did it!

Yep....and he's being told just that

Splitpin wrote:

QUOTE (Splitpin @ Jun 29 2011,12:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

disaster waiting to happen......the old aviation adage "if it looks right it will fly right" cannot be applied to this beast......i think it will join the brabazon, and the spruce goose.......as i said , just my uninformed opinion....sue me if you wish

ARBUST again .. as CP said , you would have thought that was checked out first .. other classic was a few months back clipping a regional on the tarmac .. come on .. both aircrew and ground crew are responsible ..... ARBUST again

Like the rest of the comments here, I can't believe this wasn't thought of before they tried taking the aircraft past this building. They know how wide the aircraft is, and should have a decent margin for error outside of that. This is the result of neither. They aren't going to sell many if they show how difficult the aircraft is to manage on the ground.

I believe that one of the original design ideas was folding wing tips ..... i bet they wish they had them now.
The A380 is really too big for most airport infrastructures. The taxi ways have been widened and strengthened where necessary but not realigned. This severely limits taxi operations at someplaces. From my experiences at LAX when Skippy's A380 departs on 24L they push the aircraft out on to taxiway D to start which closes both D and E to other traffic and then when it taxis they have a follow me vehicle in front as well. This shuts down the whole North side complex to departures and some arrivals.....and that is just for one aircraft.
Still their day will come. With the predicted growth in aviation travel and increasing pressures on airports (slot times etc) the bigger aircraft will be needed. To give perspective a slot at London Heathrow costs around NZ$20 million (and that was a while ago...in fact Virgin Atlantic is almost worth more in slots times than aircraft capital). So for those costs an operator really wants to be operating their biggest piece of tin in and out.

deeknow wrote:

QUOTE (deeknow @ Jun 28 2011,12:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh dear.. there's a tug-driver who's about to lose his job I guess
Musta been someone else on the GND tho surely

I'd beg to differ. I don't know if the shots are in chronological order, but in the first shot, there is no tug. In the third shot the tug is present, so I'd say the tug has been called to unblock the taxi-way.


Just a thought? These shots are good for a giggle though....

cowpatz wrote:

QUOTE (cowpatz @ Jun 29 2011,8:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe that one of the original design ideas was folding wing tips ...

...so too the B777.
Did anyone order folding tips I wonder?

The B747-8 is now the longest airliner... there'll be some issues too I imagine.

Charl wrote:

QUOTE (Charl @ Jun 29 2011,8:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...so too the B777.
Did anyone order folding tips I wonder?

The B747-8 is now the longest airliner... there'll be some issues too I imagine.

No-one ordered the 777 with folding wing-tips and the option was dropped...too much weight and complexity I believe.

747-8 can't be much longer than a 777-300 or A340-600? Might have to look this one up.

connor wrote:

QUOTE (connor @ Jun 29 2011,8:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd beg to differ. I don't know if the shots are in chronological order, but in the first shot, there is no tug. In the third shot the tug is present, so I'd say the tug has been called to unblock the taxi-way.

Yeah, look where the wing is in regards to the building in the first shot...the tug has then pushed the plane back to start the clean up.

The flaps are in the up position. I would imagine it was taxiing back to the ramp after a flight..