BA incident @ Heathrow

The A321 involved was due to be ferried to Glasgow for repairs tonight , the extent of the damage is not known yet but BA has been granted permision to Fly it to Glasgow

I believe Pax were … told to land themselves

Do the pilots not do that for BA anymore? 😮 :p

I believe Pax were taken off the aircraft, told to land themselves and rebook at ticket desk. Some not being able to get a flight for 3 days. Good old BA:cool:

Not correct, the flight left on a replacement aircraft a few hours later.

1L.

I believe Pax were taken off the aircraft, told to land themselves and rebook at ticket desk. Some not being able to get a flight for 3 days. Good old BA:cool:

Hardly “perfectly normal and acceptable practice”

Exactly, therefore it is not a “ridiculous non event”. Furthermore, I’m sure that all parties directly involved with this incident would agree with me.

Procedures are in place to ensure that this kind of incident does not occur. However, something in this instance failed to prevent these two a/c coming together. Your use of the term ‘non event’ (PPRuNeism!) implies that ho hum, these things happen. Let’s forget all about it and pretend it never happened. Nothing could be further from the truth. They were lucky this time in that it appears to be a damage only scenario and the final outcome was not as severe as it could have been. I can assure you that the fallout from this will result in a full enquiry involving several professional bodies, all trying to determine what procedure failed and why in an effort to ensure that the chances of a repetition are not repeated.. Hardly the actions following a “ridiculous non event”.

.
My first post was a bit sharp to Newcastle and I certainly don’t blame him for posting something which is obviously relevant to this forum.

No worries mate.

James

I think you would be surprised, and indeed this was my main point.

I’m certainly more than willing to be corrected if minor incidents happen more than I’m aware of, but I still don’t subscribe to the way of thinking that incidents like the one in question can be taken lightly and are total non-events. As previously stated, the day those responsible do take that attitude will be the day I decide never to fly again.

Paul

Aircraft colliding on the ground at major international airports is not a simple everyday thing as you imply and does require a degree of investigation to try avoid such incidents in the future.

I think you would be surprised, and indeed this was my main point. A low speed impact of the wings of two (or more) aircraft happens all the time, not to mention the thousands of incidents of near misses and collisions between aircraft and other vehicles. Take a look through the AAIB bulletins over the years, and they are littered with small 2 paragraph reports of similar incidents.

Bearing in mind that is just within this country, then you get the idea of the proliferation of such incidents around the world.

An excellent example of another form of incident in a similar vein is that of runway overruns. Again these happen ridiculously frequently around the world (significantly more frequently in the Winter) and can easily be classifed as significant an incident as two wing tips clipping, if not more so. Yet once again, the vast majority of these go unreported in the mainstream media because they are largely un-newsworthy.

My first post was a bit sharp to Newcastle and I certainly don’t blame him for posting something which is obviously relevant to this forum. My rant was squarely aimed at the irrelevance of the article, and the fact that many people get worked up by these incidents when they do hit the press, despite the fact that the vast majority pass without comment.

It was wingtip and tail that came together, no fuselage damage.

Hmm. Thanks Oneleft.

Maybe it was light that cought me out or something. It Certainly looked like an a/c was dented

And there was a BA aircraft in there. And it had a rather large dent in its fuselarge.

It was wingtip and tail that came together, no fuselage damage.

Whilst I wouldn’t agree that a meeting of two aircraft isn’t particularily normal, I do think this incident is being rather sensationalised by our beloved media. The expression used by the airbus captain when requesting emergency services (as is normal procedure) was that another aircraft had ‘contacted’ his. Not quite the same as a collision surely.

1L.

Well i was at LHR on saturday and went past one of the hangers. The old concord one i think:confused: And there was a BA aircraft in there. And it had a rather large dent in its fuselarge.

So how some off you can dismiss this as minor completely by-passes me. This a/c could quite possibly be out of service for at least a month:eek:

Josh:dev2:

So, what happened to the pax on the outbound service to Washington DC, were they taken off the a/c and put on another one? In that link, BA said that both a/c would not be allowed to fly until an investigation was completed.

Are both a/c still grounded?

Im with you Mark (In a sense) working at an airport Ive seen many near misses, collisions bumps and scrapes, collapsing gears and its never reported in the news!

Mark,

You are totally flawed in your opinions above, in my opinion.

Normally on this forum people do post about things like aircraft colliding on the ground. Mytravel and Bmibaby at Manchester anyone?

I think you are trying to make a point about it being the silly season in the press but, for example, if an aircraft goes around for a safety reason such as perhaps a unauthorised vechile or item on the runway this would be out of the ordinary and the press will pick up on it.

Ok if it went around for more “normal” reasons like it wasnt configured for landing or the previous aircraft had been a bit slow, I agree it shouldn’t be reported to the wider public but surely it should be on an aviation forum where some people will take interest?

I think you think we should only discuss big stories? Feel free not to involve yourself in smaller news topics if you wish – don’t try to avoid them being posted.

I hate to disagree, Mark, but…

What’s uneventful about 400 passengers in a gigantic Jumbo Jet being hurled back up into the air, burning tonnes and tonnes of fuel and pumping extra carbon into the atmosphere killing the planet, because of a near death experience involving another 400 passengers in a gigantic Jumbo Jet that came within inches of disaster after failing to leave the runway in time?

I’m trying my very best to make logical sense of this statement and the way it’s expressed, but so far I’m failing!

This particular story was one of the most read on the BBC News website, yet it was probably one of the more irrelevant and uneventful stories of that day.

And yet it did nothing but report the event in a clear, concise and factual way. The only problem I see with that report is the somewhat overly dramatic, single use of the word ‘crash’. Other than that, it is simply reporting what happened and to me makes no attempt in the slightlest to ‘make a big thing of it’. Aircraft colliding on the ground at major international airports is not a simple everyday thing as you imply and does require a degree of investigation to try avoid such incidents in the future.

If those who operate and control airports did begin to look at incidents like this as ‘minor and everyday’ ocurrences and never gave them more than a passing thought, I’d probably never step onto an aircraft again.

Paul

What’s uneventful about two fully laden passenger jets worth millions of dollars colliding on the ground??

What’s uneventful about 400 passengers in a gigantic Jumbo Jet being hurled back up into the air, burning tonnes and tonnes of fuel and pumping extra carbon into the atmosphere killing the planet, because of a near death experience involving another 400 passengers in a gigantic Jumbo Jet that came within inches of disaster after failing to leave the runway in time?

Both are unusual, both happen reasonably frequently (granted, my example a bit more frequently than this incident), both only make the news if there is nothing else worth reporting or an over zealous reporter gets excited about a story they think they can pump up to get good ratings.

This particular story was one of the most read on the BBC News website, yet it was probably one of the more irrelevant and uneventful stories of that day.

Well just another “Minor” inncident at Heathrow. Read about in the Newspaper in the Smallest Coloum you will ever find.

Hasn’t been mentioned before because it is yet another ridiculous non event that the press has picked up on for want of something better to write about.

What’s uneventful about two fully laden passenger jets worth millions of dollars colliding on the ground??

So, let me get this right. Two fully laden a/c coming into contact with each other on the ground is a perfectly normal and acceptable practice, and one which should be dismissed by all and sundry as a “ridiculous non event”

Hardly “perfectly normal and acceptable practice” but still a routine incident that happens all the time.

What next? News reports whenever a go-around occurs, or an aircraft diverts?

Oh, wait a second…:rolleyes:

yet another ridiculous non event that the press has picked up on for want of something better to write about.

So, let me get this right. Two fully laden a/c coming into contact with each other on the ground is a perfectly normal and acceptable practice, and one which should be dismissed by all and sundry as a “ridiculous non event”

The only thing ridiculous about this incident is the above quoted statement.