View Full Version : BMIBaby Damaged CWL 22 July 04

23rd Jul 2004, 06:13
Bmibaby had a very unlucky day yesterday at Cardiff Airport, when just before its outbound flight was due to depart an apron vehicle struck the right hand side of the Aicraft just below the Pitot Tubes!

The aircraft is question was G-OJTW 737-300, it was struck with such velocity that it striped paint and shattered the aircraft exterior, Needless to say that the flight was cancelled and a replacment aircraft was sent down.

This aircraft was moved over to just outside the BAMC Hanger and was still there this morning (23 July 04) it is apparently being positioned to East Mids today to undergo some exstensive maintenance!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

23rd Jul 2004, 10:26
It will surely not fly back to EMA considering the extensive damage as described???

23rd Jul 2004, 11:31
oooh, i'll have a look at it today when I go to work! :}
hope it aint in the way of G-BYGC cos thats going back to London today an it needs a lot of room, mind you, those little 737's don't take up much space do they? :E

23rd Jul 2004, 11:37
I imagine it will fly back to EMA unpressurised after a licensed engineer has given the say so and appropriate high speed tape applied where necessary.

I recall sitting on a TEA 737-200 at BHX circa 13 years ago when we received a broadside from a loading trolley/truck which did similar damage. We then flew it to an engineering base unpressurised.

The sad thing is that as I understand it the airlines cannot sue the ground handling agencies that cause this damage due to "indemnities" and (apparently) there has never been a test case on this issue, unless others know otherwise.

From my experience it is sometimes the case that drivers of vehicles on the ramp have had pretty minimal training for the task!

23rd Jul 2004, 11:49
Its now back at EMA sat in the bmi Hangar.

surely not
23rd Jul 2004, 18:31
Not strictly so Fireflybob.

Article 8 of the AHM 810 is the 'Hold Harmless' clause you refer to. This absolves the handling agent from costs re genuine accidents. However if the accident is done with 'intent to cause damage, death, delay, injury or loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that damage, death, delay, injury or loss would probably result' the handling agent will be laible.

I know of several instances when the Handling company has paid up for actual, and liquidated damages, as a result of the actions of their employees.

It rarely goes to court as the Handling Agents would rather preserve their money and not pay for Barristers and their like :D

All airlines are responsible for auditing their Handling Agents, and that includes auditing the initial and refresher training programmes for ramp staff. If they do not like what they see then they can insist on changes or use another company that does meet their requirements.

There is also the possibility for airlines to have Article 8 excluded from the Handling agreement. The effect of this is that the Handling Agents Insurance company hikes the premiums up and the handling charge reflects this increase. The difference is generally felt to be prohibitive, and the airlines accept Article 8.

b mi baby
23rd Jul 2004, 19:23
That's nothing compared to the bmi A330 that is stuck in Goose Bay at the moment! Look out for the report on that one!

Mr @ Spotty M
23rd Jul 2004, 20:55
bmi baby.
Do you mean the one that came back yesterday and has done a round trip already.

Pole Hill Billy
25th Jul 2004, 21:38
It will surely not fly back to EMA considering the extensive damage as described???

He we go again, This company has cut more corners than a wembley groundsman. Call me negative, Call me a party pooper and correct me again if I am wrong. Do I have grudge? do I have an agenda? Am I mental ? Every other airline has the same problems!

Agree with one of the above or think carefully!

The Pole

26th Jul 2004, 04:05
B MI Baby

So what did happen to the BMI A330 that was stuck in Goose?

Just another Ramp Rash?

26th Jul 2004, 04:13
Speaking of aircraft stuck in Canada, did you hear about the Virgin A340-600 that was ferried to Montreal for repairs after a nasty tail-strike somewhere in the USA? Apparently, Air Canada will be carrying out repairs...

26th Jul 2004, 13:12
The sad thing is that as I understand it the airlines cannot sue the ground handling agencies that cause this damage due to "indemnities"
Just to ask as a bit of an outsider on this point, I do work with construction contractors who get engaged on airport projects, and whenever working on the live side of an airfield (civil or military) it is always necessary to obtain additional "airside insurance" as the costs of damaging an aircraft are beyond the normal risks for contractors' insurances. This insurance has to cover any cause, "genuine" accidents and not. There is a story of a runaway dumper from which the driver fell and was injured, the dumper continuing driverless until it struck an RAF Tornado ! Airside would have paid up for that one.

Are handling agents somehow outside this ? Or are they regarded as "agents", to some degree under the control of their airline users, and thus the airline needs to manage their own insurance of anythng such an agent might do ?

Handling agents must still need separate insurance if they strike an aircraft on an adjacent stand from an airline who they are not agents for.

26th Jul 2004, 14:16
Just to clarify the matter of liability, from the 1998 version of the IATA Standard Ground Handling Agreement (SGHA) article 8.5 was included which, to precis, states that the handling agent will indemnify the airline against damage for the hull deductable amount, minimum US$3.000, maximum US$1.5M.

The original SGHA did hold the handling company harmless as, in the days it was first negotiated, most handlers were airlines and the idea was 'knock for knock', ie. we know we've damaged your aircraft but also know that, sooner or later you'll damage ours!

With the emergence, and upsurge, of the 'independent' handler, the 'knock for knock' was no longer applicable. Re-negotiation was protracted as the handlers loved that bit (what a surprise!) but was finally resolved resulting in higher handling costs as the agents had to recover the cost of additional insurance. What it has done is make the handlers far more aware of their responsibilities and given a higher focus to safety.

And yes, oh ye of little faith, if the contract is up to date, the airline can claim - I know! In this case, I'm sure bmi baby have a post 1998 contract with the CWL handler and will reclaim at least part of the costs.


26th Jul 2004, 15:22
In all probability, the handling company's insurance will cover repair costs but this does not include loss of revenue whilst the aircraft is being fixed. Any necessary leases to cover the temporary loss of hull are not included - BMI would have to sue for that.

surely not
26th Jul 2004, 22:57
Wiiloman, may I refer you to my post where I state that I know of instances where handling agents have paid both actual and liquidated damages. Liquidated damages are the add on costs such as Hotac for pax, Sub - charter costs, positioning costs, leasing costs etc. I doubt that the handling agent wishes to upset a major customer and potentially lose the entire contract.

Ramp tramp has also made the point that Handling Agents do pay up when the fault is down to their own negligence, and that the hold harmless clause can be removed if the airline wishes, but it will pay more for the Handling as the handling agents insurance costs will also rise.

I doubt that BMI will have to go anywhere near a court to get satisfaction.

27th Jul 2004, 11:45
Just for info - I understand that the handling agent (per se) is squeaky on this.... apparently, it was the AmbiLift wat done it, M'Lud, and I think that is nothing to do with Aviance....


Dave Gittins
27th Jul 2004, 12:07
When we were rebuilding Luton we had to carry £45 M in airside cover against the possibility of damaging an aeroplane. We also covered all our subs on our policy as they wouldn't have had a prayer of getting that level of cover. Post 9/11 it got vastly more expensive and it may even be that a)the airport operators want more & b) the insurers will not give that much cover anyway.

27th Jul 2004, 12:09
NOT the ambulift definitely.
There are thousands of pics of a small baggage tug embedded!!!
I saw them with my naked eye.


27th Jul 2004, 12:19
I am happy to be corrected, SkyClamp - I was obviously misinformed.

Poor ole Aviance then.


surely not
27th Jul 2004, 17:52
I hate to be a pedant but I must correct you once more TwinAisle but it is aviance with a small 'a'. No doubt a PR company got hundreds of thousands of pounds for that gem of originality but there you go, small 'a' it is.

Pilot Pete
27th Jul 2004, 19:40
Me too surely not, but it appears to only be a small 'a' when used as a trade mark; ie as written in the company logo. Their website uses a large 'A' when writing the name in normal type fonts....see here (http://www.aviance.com/EN/CONCEPT/default.asp)


surely not
27th Jul 2004, 20:26
I should be surprised............. but I'm not :{

28th Jul 2004, 06:28
photo I saw is of a Servisair tug placing rear left steps to the aircraft!

Plot thickens:confused:

Biggles Flies Undone
28th Jul 2004, 11:04
Just to clarify, two separate types of insurance have been mentioned – ramp handlers and airside contractors.

The main exposure for ramp handlers is the physical risk of damaging aircraft with vehicles, airbridge etc. Airside contractors pose a much broader spectrum of risk - including potholes, uncovered drains, static and mobile plant. Then there is the worry of debris – a few years back there was a big claim resulting from a rake left laying in the grass beside a re-opened taxiway. Aircraft wheels run along the taxiway but the wings overhang the grass – and a rake makes a horrible noise when it’s ingested by an RB 211.....

mr Q
28th Jul 2004, 11:56
wrenchbender, came back to HK on VS 200 on 26th July. Captain commented that we were flying A340-300 'cos assigned A340-600 was "out of service".........possibly that was the tailstrike aircraft.Where can I get more details of that incident ?

Hand Shandy
28th Jul 2004, 22:26
it was indeed a servisair tug that had left its disintergrated brakes all over the stand relying on the 73 as a chock . nice bit of damage at least a stringer and a few bent frames not to mention the hole in the skin . handbrakes , tugs and aircraft mmmmm danger danger !!!!!!

29th Jul 2004, 03:36
mr Q, the story was related by a colleague of mine that the Virgin -600 was ferried unpressurized from the States to YUL for repairs at Air Canada facilities. Don't know the details of the tail-strike, but I would be interested in learning them too. Haven't seen anything on the NTSB site. Keep your ears open.

29th Jul 2004, 08:58
A Servisair tug?

Aviance do the babyminding at CWL, and I am sure they have their own tugs.... does this add a nasty twist in terms of liability to the whole deal?


30th Jul 2004, 08:50
Just to clarify,
Airways Handling have exclusive contract on baggage at CWL so they would have been loading the baggage, Aviance do the rest. I belive it was one of the Airways vehicles (they are still in the old servisair markings) although both companies vehicles would have been around the aircraft.