Diese Website verwendet Cookies. Mit der Weiternutzung der Website drücken Sie Ihr Einverständnis mit dem Einsatz von Cookies aus.
Schließen
Wussten Sie schon, dass die Flugverfolgung auf FlightAware durch Werbung finanziert wird?
Sie können uns dabei helfen, FlightAware weiterhin kostenlos anzubieten, indem Sie Werbung auf FlightAware.com zulassen. Wir engagieren uns dafür, dass unsere Werbung auch in Zukunft zweckmäßig und unaufdringlich ist und Sie beim Surfen nicht stört. Das Erstellen einer Positivliste für Anzeigen auf FlightAware geht schnell und unkompliziert. Alternativ können Sie sich auch für eines unserer Premium-Benutzerkonten entscheiden..
Schließen
Back to Squawk list
  • 22

Maintenance Mishap Damages Emirates A380

Übermittelt
 
A maintenance mishap has left an Emirates Airbus A380-800 with serious damage to its nose and surrounding structure. The aircraft, registered A6-EOP, was undergoing a routine maintenance check when the aircraft collapsed onto its nose. Occurring at an Emirates maintenance hangar at Dubai International Airport, the accident has left the aircraft with a torn/crumpled fuselage and structural damage. (samchui.com) Mehr...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


DGR54Rathborne
DGR Rathborne 4
OMG .......Heads will roll !!!
SmittySmithsonite
I feel bad for those guys.

I had my share of screwups in the trucking industry years ago ... but none of that was never broadcast on the WWW for all the world to see!!
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
HTH do you "retract nose gear" when you are not moving? Someone decide to bypass the "loaded weight stationary sensors" ???
williambaker08
william baker 3
Just pull the nose pin and then push the gear up leaver up. Its actually easier then you think. Just remember to brace for impact lol.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 4
Except 380's are suppose to have a redundancy system that won't allow this type of mishap.
I have a feeling it was on jacks, they "bypassed" the failsafe, pulled the pin, started to retract the gear and jackstands failed..like you said, brace for impact...a huge impact.
williambaker08
william baker 4
Everything fails. I went to look at the photos again and it looks like L1 door is missing.. Also from what i can see the radar is broken and in the bottom of the nose cone. And it was on a Jack from what i heard. It slipped and i have a feeling the nose gear was retracted at the time because i heard that it was jammed the gear assembly upwards. Sounds to me like they were trying to replace the nose gear for some reason or they were trying to get a weight on the aircraft and it fell.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
That's what made me think they were in retract mode. I see all sorts of damage, missing door, but no stands. Not even the legs showing where gear should have been. It's on stands, gear is going to retract, stands kick off sideways and the whole nose section crashes down, jamming the gear upward, busting all it could while falling.
williambaker08
william baker 1
No the nose gear was retracted. If you look at the maintence catwalk you can see the nose pushed into it and had the nose gear been down the plane should have rolled back some. Thats of course is my opinion. You can see something under it like the foot of the stand if you look between the static port and pitot tubes look down.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
Yes I saw the catwalk shot.if they were in retracting mode (weight no longer on gear and gear coming into aircraft, the stands (not locked in properly) would kick out feet first towards the side careening the aircraft on a forward trajectory smashing into the catwalk.(also indicating they forgot wheel chocks or not enough chocks). If it just dropped off the stands/jack, yes they would jam up in the nose gear, but the radar dome should be cleaned off almost completely as it would drop straight down, not on a forward trajectory.
Or it could be as you stated and when it came down, it pushed the catwalk backwards some. Time and investigation will tell.
Viperguy46
Jesse Carroll 1
Thought this only happened in Portagal!

Hope it will fit in the Antovo
mimana
mimana 1
Terrible mishap
VernonStAmour
Vernon St. Amour 1
At least it happened in the maintenance shop.
williambaker08
william baker 1
Opps. Will this be the first writeoff. Unlikely but hard to really tell how much damage from the photo.
siriusloon
siriusloon 0
It does look like an expensive repair, but that's only one part of the equation. We'll be hearing the phrase "economical repair" a lot with this story. It's not if it can be fixed or what a repair would cost that will matter. The decision will be based on whether the cost of the repair and the revenue the repaired aircraft could generate is worth it compared with cost and return of parting it out and scrapping it.

Two of the test aircraft are in museums, so technically they were written off in the accountant's use of the term, but they weren't destroyed or seriously damaged, which is the way many aviation enthusiasts use the term "written off".

Singapore Airlines was talking about parting out and scrapping its earliest aircraft but I don't know if they actually did that (or still plan to) or if that announcement was a bargaining tactic in negotiations with Airbus and/or the lessor.

The Qantas and Air France aircraft that had the engine problems were both repaired and returned to service.
williambaker08
william baker 3
Two of the Earliest Singapore A380s went to HiFly and the other two were scrapped. That was of course after the leasing company didnt find anyone who wanted them.
DGR54Rathborne
DGR Rathborne 1
Hi Brad . I was going to shot back , something along the lines of " the Titanic " . It is an engineering marvel . But i feel it is an example of just going too far . I watch the TV show , called " May Day " . It had an episode that dealt with a Quantis Fight that had the # 2 engine blew apart . It took the Flight Deck crew close to 10 minutes to figure out what was causing all the cascading failures . !0 minutes is a long time in aviation . My impression was that the flight deck was more in line to the Space Shuttle than an Aircraft . So in my humble opinion , we can build it ....But should we ? . I'd be interested in your reply ........DGR
Spoid112
Brad Adams 0
Hi DGR Rathborne, You do make a good point. Automation seems to be more and more common these days, especially on Airbus aircraft. 10 minutes is certainly a long time in aviation Although it can't have taken them long to work out that they aren't going to drop out of the sky. I guess with the complexity of aircraft these days, they have no option but to automate many systems. I suppose both the a350 and b787 are flying computers with wings :)
djjamar
Jamar Jackson 1
One human can destroy a half a billion dollar jet not counting all the lost profit from scheduled flights
paulgilpin1953
paul gilpin 0
it's all good.
maintenance crews now have a designated crew member standing by to say "whoopsie".
all good.
Neatair
Edw Sanderson 2
Growup, or get off.
sgbelverta
sharon bias 0
That's one way to weed the 380's out of your fleet. Emirates really needs to find out what human goofed this up before it happens to a plane they want to keep.
Spoid112
Brad Adams 0
I get sick and tired of the negativity towards the A380. It may have been a commercial failure but there is no denying that it's a technical triumph and very popular with the flying public.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
I think a lot of the negativity exists because it is a commercial failure. However I would not say it is a technical triumph. Visions of, and mock-ups, of double decked airliners have been around for years, and based on actual flying aircraft. A double decked AN-124 capable of carrying almost 800 pax, a double decked AN-225 carrying over 1500pax, heck even talk long ago of a civilian C-5 version carrying almost 800 pax.
Yes, it's unique. But at the same time, it's a financially dismal failure. They have to fly completely full to make any sort of profit & look at how much was pumped into airport infrastructure, alone, just to accept them at a gate. Their popularity with public has waned over time.
DGR54Rathborne
DGR Rathborne 0
to Rapidwolve . I'm an avid aircraft / airline person . I watch a lot of video that are aircraft related . The only way any operator can verify that the landing gears and doors are functioning smoothly is to lower and retract them in a maintenance hanger . So the entire aircraft goes up on jacks . I'm not saying that it is done every check . But the more involved checks require this test . They do it with the C5 Galaxy . Antinov -124 the A380 and everything in between .
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
Glad to hear you are an avid aircraft person. These are known as A through D Checks, A being a minor "change the oil and filters, check tires, visual inspection of whole outside of aircraft etc, to a D-Check which is an almost complete dis-assembly of an aircraft to check all over This 1 could last up to 12 weeks+ on an A380 so it is no longer done on these. Instead modified C-Checks are done through a cycle. An entire A380 will not go up on jackstands all at once. It is done in stages on these beasts.
From what I have heard, this was in for a modified C-Check as it has Engine Alliance GP7000 engines on it. There is a directive out for complete engine check, due to the anomalies found on the GP engine of AF66. They were doing a nose gear test when it happened. Now a very very expensive nose gear test.

Anmelden

Haben Sie kein Konto? Jetzt (kostenlos) registrieren für kundenspezifische Funktionen, Flugbenachrichtigungen und vieles mehr!