Heathrow Ground Collision Virgin Atlantic / British Airways
 

Someone's no claims just taken a hit!"An inquiry has been launched following a collision between two passenger planes at Heathrow Airport, which happened as one aircraft was being towed.

Video shared on social media showed a Virgin Atlantic plane's wing making contact with a British Airways aircraft, with emergency services present at the scene."

Planes collide on 'runway' at Heathrow.
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68749072

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1980796973.jpg
Doesn't look like the runway to me!

"...on the runway" is the mini-headline on the BBC website main page, Do they really not know the difference between a runway and any other part of an aerodrome? How accurate is any other of their reporting?

2 s

And now changed!

Actually that is a good point, anybody seeing that headline might be forgiven for thinking "Not another Tenerife!". Just as well there is a photo!

Although "planes (sic) collide..." rather gives the impression of two moving aircraft!

"... causing damage to their wings".

Fortunately for the BA aircraft it's just the little spare wing at the back.

Quite close to the old 05L runway.

What really worries me about this kind of reporting is not this incident itself, but the fact that some serious historians quote newspapers back in the 20th and 19th centuries and seem to think that these are reliable primary sources! If those newspapers were as unreliable as the current mainstream media what do you think we should believe?

How do they get away with this...?

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....00b98bf17c.png

Was the moving aircraft's main wheels. straddling the taxi way centre line?
if so, then that aircraft cannot be at fault, if under it's own power.

Alex Whittles, a 47-year-old private pilot who witnessed the crash, told The Telegraph: “There was an empty Virgin 787 being pushed back by a tug, but the tug seemed to get the angle completely wrong and it was obvious they were about to clip the British Airways plane."

Two passenger jets collide on the ground at Heathrow Airport

The aircraft, at the point the picture was taken, is nowhere near any centre line. However, when being towed, the tug attaches to the nose-wheel - and does all the steering. Cockpit has no control. So the "plane" cannot be at fault in any case.

All:

Now that we've had our chance to criticize the media and other irrelevancies, maybe we could talk about the ---ing accident itself?

Looks like the tug simply tried to turn into out of the parking spot (foreground - with centre line) too early, and impinged on the BA parking spot (and eventually the BA aircraft).

And to the original post: unless VA owns and operates their own tugs, this probably is an insurance problem for the airport authority.

After a brief look at the picture, I think we can safely answer that question!

Day, good vis and the A350 parked where it should have been. I doubt the driver meant to do this so my first thoughts would be towards some sort of mechanical/electrical failure in the tug and/or mishandling of the controls: left/right, stop/go confusion and the like. My second thoughts would be if this is not the case, they had left their specs at home as that is so far off a normal pushback trajectory it would have looked all sorts of wrong even if you had only witnessed one or two done correctly previously.

Hangar rash is really annoying because it’s so preventable. We accept the risks of the odd ding when we go flying, as we’re actually achieving something but to take two aircraft out at the same like this is a bit sad. lucky it’ll buff out in no time...

Ahh - empty Virgin 787. That answers a question that arose in my mind. The 787 is pointed the wrong way for an aircraft being pushed back to actually depart with pax - it is nose-first into the ramp cul-de-sac and would be trapped. But if the goal was simply (for a given value of "simply") to push the 787 to some other location on the tarmac, all is clear.

From the ////// markings and Tower in the background, it appears to me this involves gates/spots 323 (VA) and 325 (BA).

https://www.google.com/maps/search/h...!1e3?entry=ttu

Pushbacks from stand 323 at LHR are one of the most difficult. The stand is the last at the end of the cul-de-sac, so a straight push followed by a 90deg left turn is not possible. Push backs incorporate a dog leg, where the aircraft is pushed with the tail towards the cul-de-sac entrance and then rotated through 180deg, to end up with the main wheels astride the taxiway centreline. The wingtip on the outside of the turning arc is invariably hidden from the view of the tug driver, so it requires a wingman to closely monitor the wingtip and stay within the tug drivers field of vision at the same time. On a large aircraft that is not easy, as the wingtip can be moving faster than you can walk, during a turn. I can’t tell from the picture if the tug has a driving position at each end. If it’s a single ended tug, then there’s an added challenge in that the driver would be reversing the tug during the pushback, so they will be ready to tow once the push is completed.

In my 50 years as a LAE at Heathrow I have completed many pushbacks from this stand. It takes a great deal of care and practice to get this one right.

Should there have been a 'wing walker' on the port side?

To many questions for those investigating this incident to consider.

Yes, but as I explained in my previous post, it’s very difficult to keep up with a sweeping wingtip and remain in the tug drivers field of vision, in order to signal. Often the wingmen will be the least experienced member of the push crew and simply follow the wingtip without staying in visual contact with the driver or the guy on the headset.

Tug driver quoted as saying, 'It's a bad dream.'