Skip, I heard somewhere that one of the vehicles was a HAL yellow (peril) vehicle which can move around at great speed. If this is the case it may have been a high speed crash. Perhaps somebody can confirm this. I have been unfortunate enough to have seen several nasty airside incidents. So sorry for all involved, including the emergency services.

This is indeed true. The free roam yellow HAL vehicle had terrible damage to the front end.

I agree with RANGER 1. I have nearly 26 years at Heathrow and 18 years on Pprune and very rarely post any more. I feel sick with what has happened today and send my respect and best wishes to both families at this difficult time, and also to all in airside operations and to all tug drivers.

Yasin, I know you'll be very upset by today's events and raw emotions will run high,but your comments in hindsight may be something you'll regret.

Whoever was involved in another vehicle will be affected for the rest of their life.

Until the Coroner has held an Inquest, or adjourned pending legal proceedings, no one can judge peoples' actions.

I was OPS3 at Manchester Airport and attended many accidents and incidents over the years and some turned out to have factors that didn't come out for quite a while.

Having a general pop at what I presume are Heathrow Ops does nothing to help at what will also be an equally difficult time.

Yasin has a point though. I appreciate Ops vehicles have to get somewhere urgently to remove a barrier, marshal an aircraft, pick up FOD etc etc but LHR is not the only airport where Ops vehicles take it to the extreme and beyond speed wise....just saying.

Years back 05 ish, we all got nasties from company warning us of a 5k fine for not wearing our hi vis vests. Very next day that this came out our crew van that was white with hi vis yellow/orange/reflex grey painted all around it was hit by a tug, buddy was off for 3 months "thankfully all soft tissue injuries". The problem as I see it is a lack of situational awareness, act like everybody is trying to kill you and keep your head on a swivel...... also works on public roads. It may not prevent every accident, but it certainly won't hurt

I still think Ops vehicles should stick to the speed limits as everyone else.

The problem with High vis and High vis vehicles is when they become the norm they are no longer high vis to the naked eye, you get so use to them, the eye and brain switches off to seeing them, if that makes sense, indeed you probably would notice the person not wearing one as he would stand out..

Launch drone, fly a couple of orbits around the scene and overhead, sweep up and continue operations. That will give enough information to completely contruct the scene in a computer and give much, much more investigation information that previously possible. Information in a format that can be shared with the defence under disclosure without prejudice.
BBC reporting that the unfortunate engineer had a heart attack, and the other driver a broken shoulder. No word if the attack was before or after the accident, but certainly reason to pause before condemning a possibly innocent driver.
Man dies in Heathrow Airport vehicle crash - BBC News

I am sorry for your loss, however and honestly point no fingers. Quite a few friends of mine have passed before their time, sometimes their "fault", sometimes not - but it is always painful.

Just seen some photos on sky news website. HAL pick up has heavy front end damage, seems to have t-boned BA Engineering Renault Kangoo on passenger side.

I’ve worked at LHR since 1970. So I’ve seen a lot of incidents over the years. I don’t Know the facts in this case, so I shall reserve judgment. I do question the speeds that some of the ops vehicles travel at. Obviously out on the airfield and in response to an emergency then speed is essential. Speed should be reduced within the area of the parking stands and crossing points. Responding to a marshalling request, probably doesn’t require a high speed response. Police rapid response vehicle drivers are trained to a very high standard of defensive driving. Are airfield ops drivers trained to the same standard?

Agreed on the comments about the speed of airfield ops vehicles. They're all too keen on persecuting some catering truck driver for a minor breach of the rules, but the vehicles which concern me more than any others, are airfield ops. They should stick to the same limit as other vehicles on the ramp, unless they have an exemption from the laws of physics.

Just seen the pictures.. This did happen in a ramp area? The BA vehicle if like my own at my place of work would have no general access to any taxiway, bar designated crossing routes? The damage says a lot, and if in the ramp area, it is not hard to work out whom has totally screwed up. Yes, I have seen the airfield seat belt police abuse the rules in my place more than once.

Isn’t there an official speed limit on the manoeuvring area (taxiways) around 40mph?

How this is policed or if it applies to all of it may even be advisory I do not know... but I would have thought or hoped there is some kind of limit.

Looks like airfield ops vehicle was vacating the taxiway at high speed and as it did so somehow didn’t see the BA vehicle on the ramp/stand and the incident occurred

I'm sorry to say that, as usual, too many are jumping to unfounded conclusions. As already mentioned, the unfortunate person died of a heart attack. He may well have suffered that heart infarct whilst driving and this may have been the primary cause of the accident. At this point we just don't know.

China Southern have filed an application to start WUHAN to LHR effective from 30 May 2018 three weekly with A333-200.

CZ673 WUH 14.25 LHR 18.45 332 1 3 5
CZ674 LHR 22.10 WUH 15.35+1 332 1 3 5

From 40 years of experience in and around these areas many of the HAL Ops staff drive at excessive speeds far faster than is necessary. In some cases should they be involved in marshalling an a/c on occasions they arrive on stand late almost making a handbrake stop.

They do act as a law unto themselves, mind saying that I believe there is over 6000 vehicles airside, many areas are cramped and congested, roadway speeds are 20mph and a/c stand speeds are 5mph. I am sure all of us that drive regularly will know how easy it is to exceed speed limits, I guess this is also more the case at quieter times with less vehicles about and this would have certainly applied to T5 at this time of the morning.

Whatever the outcome it is very sad for all those involved and doubtless will lead to another raft of Airside Regulations! Overall vehicle accidents have decreased dramatically over the last 10 years much of that down to regulations and continuity training / safety days etc. However HAL, Met Police and Heathrow Airport Users group try to police the system there will still be errors.

I have been working in BA in Heathrow airport for 5 years now, and as previously said, I am surprised this hasn´t happened before given the speed those Heathrow Ops drive at.

The rest of us, gets done for speeding if you are over 20mph, from 1st of march, 100 quid if your tabard is not fully buttoned up (yes, really) or leaving the keys inside a van.

All these things doesn´t seem to apply to Heathrow ops guys. That´s why I hope he gets done for it and it changes something. Because we all feel in the shift that our friend and colleague has been killed. Not just an accident. Our managers told us that the first insight is that he was driving at nearly 50 mph. A speed I can believe he was driving at as I have seen them going that fast a few times.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/...lity=100&w=960

Judging from the photo, the accident happened on one of the 55x stands on the western face of T5C.

The -300ER had arrived a couple of hours earlier from SIN and was on 555:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/...trip=all&w=720

Never seen a vehicle move sideways into a pickup......

It doesn't need to move sideways, if the BA vehicle is moving uncontrolled (with the driver incapacitated), then it could conceivably have strayed into the path of the Ops vehicle in an unpredictable manner. Or it might not have. But you don't know, and you're jumping to a conclusion; A picture of the scene following an accident rarely paints a clear picture of the events leading up to it... Let the police do their job and investigate.

Laarbruch72

Which is precisely why there is a very low speed limit on the maneuvering areas - so that if something (a vehicle or an aircraft ) suddenly cuts across you you can stop in time.

Jetgirl So you base your findings on a post crash photograph which effectively tells you absolutely nothing! I guess you don't know the first thing about accident investigation. And anyway, I am not saying that it isn't the case, I am simply stating that we do not at present have all of the the facts at hand. Therefore, conclusions/allegations such as yours are, I repeat, presently totally unfounded!

Seems LHR-CAN drops from 10 weekly to daily to compensate.

As mentioned above when there is a fatal accident there has to be a coroners inquest for which a mountain of evidence has to be collected at the scene and this takes time.


If an Ops vehicle has a genuine need to exceed the airport speed limit it might help if, instead of flashing yellow lights, (normal ops), it selected a red/blue combination that tells everyone it is speeding for a genuine purpose.

LlamaFarmer

Good point about differential lighting but would this not require driver training to the requisite standard ie to the same level as the other emergency drivers?

Doctors on an emergency call use green lights. They have no training and the green lights offer no privileges to disregard road traffic laws, but are an indication to other road users of the urgency, and for other drivers to give way where possible. (They still have to stick to speed limit and obey all road signs and traffic lights.)

Something similar like that perhaps?
It doesn't necessarily need to be the same level of high speed blue light driving, although yes additional training would never be a bad thing.
It is fine taxiing a plane at 30kts down the taxiway, so if the taxiway is clear it is surely safe for a car to be going down at 50mph, I'd hardly say that would require particularly advanced training.

It's if they'd start doing unexpected things, such as not giving way at the junctions, not sticking to marked roads etc.


Every airside driver knows you give way to moving aircraft, but maybe there needs to be other levels of priority for other vehicles, without making it too complicated.

Where possible and safe we'll always give way (in our aircraft) to emergency vehicles needing to cross the taxiway/apron etc, such as an ambulance going to an aircraft, or police going to somewhere in a hurry. Although ATC Ground controller is usually way ahead of the game there anyway.

But as far as cars/vans/etc go, an emergency (risk to life or of injury) response clearly needs the highest priority. Then urgent airfield ops (such as an urgent runway inspection or FOD clearing) is very time critical and can't take 15 minutes to get to where they need to be waiting for crossings etc (although it's not urgently life-or-death, and if it HAS to be done then they can assure safety by closing the runway and stopping approaches, however this is clearly not ideal, especially at an airport like Heathrow or Gatwick... a few minutes of runway closure can cause backlogs that take the rest of the day to clear and have knock-on effects all around Europe, especially in summer!)

How does that mitigate the speed with which the ops truck t-boned the BA van?. Even if the BA guy suffered the heart attack pre-accident that wouldn't have any affect on the speed of the Ops vehicle. Maneuvering areas are limited to 5 mph for a reason.

It doesn't.

BUT, do you know what the Ops vehicle was doing and what it was responding to?
Do you know that it didn't have right of way, and reasonably expect the BA van to stop?
Do you know that the BA van even came from a reasonable direction or at a reasonable speed?


That doesn't imply blame on anyones part, but to say it is the Ops vehicles fault purely because if they had been going slower it wouldn't have happened is not the point.

The new Government infastructure guru has today demanded "we get on and build the crumbling UK infastructure". Includes Rw3.

I quite agree but let's nail down all the costs and ramifications given government intervention usually means a doubling of the bill.

Others spokespeople including "experts with actual expertise" are more sanguine!

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/bus...59.article?v=1

Well from the pictures the BA van was travelling along the rear of he maneuvering area and the ops truck was heading for the taxiway in that circumstance the BA van had right of way because the ops truck is supposed to stop and check before entering the taxiway anyway (I know they dont always bother). To anyone who has worked airside at LHR (and any BAA airport) this incident isnt that surprising.

Emergency vehicles, Police, Fire and ambulance, with blue flashing lights, on possible life saving response. Obviously need to exceed speed limits, these drivers are trained to a very high standard.

In my opinion Ops vehicles do not fit in this category.

Out on the airfield/runways away from the parking stands, it may be convenient to drive at speed to aid with the operation. However, once they approach congested parking areas, they should abide by all speed limits. Many times I have witnessed Ops vehicles driving recklessly entering parking stands at high speed. They’ve got away with this for years, probably because they’re the ones enforcing driving standards on the ramp.

Exactly.

I have witnessed 3 serious incidents "air side" in 3 different countries.
Each one was a result of rushing where there was no real need and 2 out of 3 resulted in fatalities.

I agree with most of your points. For me the big question is. Which seat was the poor guy occupying? If he was in the pax seat (that seemed to take the brunt) then surely his cardiac condition was irrelevant!

Thank you Epsomdog.

That question had also occurred to me upon seeing the pictures. however, the following would seem to point to one person per vehicle.

And that is what made me then wonder if the cardiac condition may have existed pre crash.

And that is the issue - I have never seen a single Ops vehicle in 4 decades in this industry ever be stopped for speeding.

In 35 years at Gatwick( now retired) with Bcal then working in Handling Agents ops control centers, Airfield Ops went from pleasant helpful to just avoid contact if possible.Noticeable when ownership moved from BAA to whatever it's called now.

A couple of years ago a BAA yellow opspatrol (similar model to this accident) vehicle rolled over onto its Heathrow’s ‘F’ ‘B’ ‘R’ taxiway area, no other vehicles involved. Apparently the BAA’s response was “there was a bee in the vehicle causing the driver to loose control”.... the speed it would take to roll a vehicle on a wide taxiway is significant. You only had to sit and watch out the window how fast these BAA vehicles go, airfield ops is not an emergency needing to drive that fast, they’d need to invest in more resources if they’re thinly spread.....On a personal note I got “caught” speeding at LGW airside, 30mph (20mph limit the whole of LGW main roads) on a clear sunny day driving behind empty remote stands with not another vehicle in sight. The yellow peril was probably travelling IRO 70mph with black smoke pouring out across the taxiway to issue my bollocking on the grounds of health and safety..... this sort of incident at LHR could have been predicted by many a LHR airside worker. RIP John Coles.

Flight operations videos
 

Heathrow has published a set of videos on YouTube describing aspects of its operations (also being shown at the current expansion roadshows):

Heathrow runway
 

Have been involved in discussions over the building of another runway at Heathrow. I would be interested on the views of ppruners on this very difficult decision.