BA plane clips building in Johannesburg

arbour

Just seen this on twitter. A person tweeted photo from the plane... Actually looks like more than a clip.



http://t.co/djTNGHLODL

donvito99

Isn't there another video of an a/c in SA clipping a set of ramp stairs?

sparrowcar

That's much more than a clip. Looks like it sliced through the building. Pushed back into the wrong taxiway line maybe? I see an air-bridge in the background on the right.

Suasdaguna1

Some talking on pprune as a possible write off such is the damage and the age of the aircraft. This is a very serious incident with fuel laden wings. No tea and biscuits will be offered when the crew meets their bosses.

eatmyshorts

If you look on Google maps, you can see where it happened.
To me it looks like they were taxying south on the outer taxiway heading for 03L. Instead of making the 45 degree turn to the left, they have continued straight on towards the small GA Apron. That taxiway is too small and narrow for a Code E aircraft.
Having operated into JNB, I can say that the taxilane markings, especially at night in the wet, are very hard to make out in places.

keith16

Another pic

LXFlyer

eatmyshorts wrote: »

If you look on Google maps, you can see where it happened.
To me it looks like they were taxying south on the outer taxiway heading for 03L. Instead of making the 45 degree turn to the left, they have continued straight on towards the small GA Apron. That taxiway is too small and narrow for a Code E aircraft.
Having operated into JNB, I can say that the taxilane markings, especially at night in the wet, are very hard to make out in places.

According to the latest BBC News online report, that's exactly what appears to have happened.

homerjay2005

i assume its a 747 ya?

very big incident, though i assume they were not travelling at much speed and that is how/why there was no explosion though of course assuming it was after landing, not a huge amount of fuel in it either.

LXFlyer

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i assume its a 747 ya?

very big incident, though i assume they were not travelling at much speed and that is how/why there was no explosion though of course assuming it was after landing, not a huge amount of fuel in it either.

The aircraft was about to take off for London - it hadn't just landed.

Hence the wings would have been full of fuel - damn lucky it did not become any more serious.

As one of the other posters said above - the debriefing will not be a friendly chat.

Foggy43

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i assume its a 747 ya?.

Yes! It was G-BNLL. BA may not be too concerned as I think this aircraft maybe on the 'to be scrapped' list. G-BNLM already gone. More concern for the injuries to the airport staff in that building and the same not happening to one of their 'new toys' that starts on the JNB service in the new year.

ProfessorPlum

Foggy43 wrote: »

Yes! It was G-BNLL. BA may not be too concerned as I think this aircraft maybe on the 'to be scrapped' list. G-BNLM already gone. More concern for the injuries to the airport staff in that building and the same not happening to one of their 'new toys' that starts on the JNB service in the new year.

I think BA may, in fact, be more than a little concerned! It's a major incident, and as other posters have said, could have been much much worse if a wing tank had ruptured. Certainly some 'not so happy christmases' at BA this week!

stopthepanic

lxflyer wrote: »

According to the latest BBC News online report, that's exactly what appears to have happened.

https://www.google.ie/maps/preview#!q=Johannesburg+Airport%2C+Kempton+Park%2C+South+Africa&data=!1m4!1m3!1d1489!2d28.2314039!3d-26.1443701!2m1!1e3!4m15!2m14!1m13!1s0x1e95143805a229c3%3A0xb3bf1c40792821d6!3m8!1m3!1d1095!2d27.9293264!3d-25.9362048!3m2!1i1366!2i642!4f35!4m2!3d-26.135174!4d28.229112&fid=7

joegriffinjnr

DublinKev

stopthepanic wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/maps/preview#!q=Johannesburg+Airport%2C+Kempton+Park%2C+South+Africa&data=!1m4!1m3!1d1489!2d28.2314039!3d-26.1443701!2m1!1e3!4m15!2m14!1m13!1s0x1e95143805a229c3%3A0xb3bf1c40792821d6!3m8!1m3!1d1095!2d27.9293264!3d-25.9362048!3m2!1i1366!2i642!4f35!4m2!3d-26.135174!4d28.229112&fid=7

There's a great capture of a wide body just taken off in that Google maps shot. On Runway 03L. See the shadow below on the ground. Brilliant.

LeftBase

My immediate reaction to the picture...(seeing as nobody was seriously hurt)

Davidth88

Reminds me of the a380 incident at the Paris airshow. Nasty. Glad noone was badly hurt

Marcusm

Foggy43 wrote: »

Yes! It was G-BNLL. BA may not be too concerned as I think this aircraft maybe on the 'to be scrapped' list. G-BNLM already gone. More concern for the injuries to the airport staff in that building and the same not happening to one of their 'new toys' that starts on the JNB service in the new year.

Don't think it was, there were suggestions that it was about to be fitted with new First (possibly removed from another 744 being scrapped). They're not being scrapped in delivery order but rather condition and hours.

Razor44

thankfully everyone was okay, but "Clipped" is an understatement !

billy few mates

murphaph

In a strange way reassuring to see how much more damage was done to the building by the wing than the other way around.

Patrickheg

Good analysis here including maps of then runway

www.pprune.org/rumours-news/530468-british-airways-incident-johannesburg.html

Stovepipe

Time to get the Tank Tigers from Boeing out...new slats, new wingtip, skin repairs..she'll be back in service in a month...

Patrickheg

Stovepipe wrote: »

Time to get the Tank Tigers from Boeing out...new slats, new wingtip, skin repairs..she'll be back in service in a month...

Unlikely she was due for retirement shortly. Huge hours on it.

murphaph

Even if it's due for retirement it'll have to be flown to the scrapyard unless they cut it up in Johannesburg airport. I presume they look at such things on a case by case basis before making a decision on what to do.

Tenger

murphaph wrote: »

Even if it's due for retirement it'll have to be flown to the scrapyard unless they cut it up in Johannesburg airport. I presume they look at such things on a case by case basis before making a decision on what to do.

Indeed they do. This aircraft may ahve enough hours lef tto fly for 12-18 months after reapir. This could justify the expense of repair. However if she was due to retire in 6-12 months it may not be worth repairing.

However in that case BA may not get full price as it will still be stuck in Jo'burg. Not to worry, some accountant in Waterside is busy working away with his abacus (Santa pressie perhaps?)

Patrickheg

Sad to read the old girl was wrote off in the end, too many hours and too much work needed which was the general thoughts at the time. Going to be stripped down at Johannesburg apparently

http://www.thebasource.com/british-airways-b747-400-g-bnll-officially-withdrawn/

Crumbs868

Spotted this link on Twitter feed. Few pics of the continual hacking for parts.

http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=151676

smurfjed

The report is out.....

http://www.caa.co.za/Accidents%20and%20Incidents%20Reports/9257.pdf

The taxiway green centreline lights issue did not just stop there. More anomalies
with the lighting and signage on Bravo were identified in the investigation.
 The investigation determined that a total of 7 (distance ± 235 metres) of
green centreline lights were not illuminating. From the apron after the curve
leading to taxiway Bravo, 5 lights (distance ±180 metres) were not
illuminating.
 On the curve leading to the Cat 2 holding point, two more lights were out
(distance ±45 metres).
CA 12-12a 11 JULY 2013 Page 92 of 130
 Over a distance of ±300 metres to the holding point, no lights were installed.
 The total distance not illuminated was ±535 metres.
 The total length of Bravo is ±1425 metres, of which ±535 metres was not
illuminated – approximately 36.84%.
 The investigation determined that the direction information sign on the left
side of Bravo (±60 metres from the intersection of taxiway Bravo and taxilane
Mike) was not illuminated. This sign consists of a black inscription on a
yellow background which is supposed to glowing brightly in the direction of
approach to the intersection. It is possible that because it was not illuminated
and visible to the crew, they may have not seen it, which means that the sign
did not serve its design purpose.

3.2 Probable Cause
3.2.1 The loss of situational awareness caused the crew to taxi straight ahead on the
wrong path, crossing the intersection/junction of Bravo and Mike instead of following
Bravo where it turns off to the right and leads to the Category 2 holding point.
Following aircraft stand taxilane Mike; they collided with a building on the right-hand
side of Mike.

I didnt know that the Captain was Irish. Its sad that they apportioned the blame to the crew and not the airport lighting systems.

Mebuntu

3.2.1 The loss of situational awareness caused the crew to taxi straight ahead on the wrong path, crossing the intersection/junction of Bravo and Mike instead of following Bravo where it turns off to the right and leads to the Category 2 holding point.

Surely the chart indicates that the Bravo turns off to the left.

Its sad that they apportioned the blame to the crew and not the airport lighting systems.

That’s probably one of the most detailed reports I’ve ever read. My take on it is that the principal cause of the accident is clearly the fact that, prior to taxi, the crew did not have a clear picture in their heads of the correct way to the runway and were also not paying proper attention. They clearly didn’t look properly at the chart either.

They were expecting to get a particular pushback/taxi clearance and the CVR reveals:

At one point, the Captain appears not to have been too sure about taxiways Alfa and Bravo. The doubt concerned the location where Alfa and Bravo come together before entering Runway 03L. The Co-pilot offered the clarification that “taxiway Bravo was full length” and “ Alfa morphs into Bravo".

If they had paid more attention to the chart they would have seen that Alfa doesn’t “morph” into Bravo but intersects with it and that taxiway Bravo was not quite full length in the true sense (unlike the Bravos at, say DUB 10). If the Captain was not “too sure” why did he not look again at the chart to check for himself if what the co-pilot said was true. If he had looked again at the chart he would have seen that the co-pilot was wrong on both counts and he (co-pilot) was going to be the PF.

They didn’t get the clearance they expected but the Co-pilot (who was the PF) would have still had it in his head that “Alfa morphs into Bravo and Bravo is full length” even though they weren't actually going onto Alfa.

Later the report says:

Communication between Captain (P2) and Co-pilot (P1) stating:” Straight down all the way isn’t it? It is, yeah, makes it nice and easy doesn’t it? And Bravo will take us all the way to the threshold (agrees). I’m following this line jinking slightly to the right and then straight ahead. Perfect.

Further proof that they obviously hadn’t looked properly at the chart and noted that there was a swing left on Bravo. They had all the wrong info in their heads before they even commenced taxi.

As they approached the point where they should have followed the Bravo taxiway as it swung left the small taxiway width ahead (on Mike) didn’t seem to be a cause for worry because they still believed it was "straight down all the way" - until it was too late. The exact same thing had occurred years earlier with another BA 747. On that occasion the crew was alert to something not being correct and stopped in time. This time they don’t appear to have been.

N64

Out of curiosity what will / has happened to the crew for this situation? Fired?

smurfjed

Out of curiosity what will / has happened to the crew for this situation? Fired?

I understand that they were released back to flying status months ago.