What happened
On 19 June 1999, an Airbus A3 to registered as 5B-DBC was preparing for a public transport flight from Stand 12 at London Gatwick Airport. During the pushback process, the aircraft was instructed to be moved back to the location of the blast fence. As the maneuver progressed, the flight crew experienced a physical jolt, though the headset man initially dismissed the sensation to the pilots.
After the tug was disconnected, it was revealed that the tail of the aircraft had struck the angled end of the blast fence. The impact caused substantial damage to the right elevator and stabilizer. The aircraft eventually came to a stop 5.5 meters north of the taxiway centerline. While the incident caused no injuries to the 174 passengers or 7 crew members, emergency services were called to the scene to inspect for fire risks.
The investigation
Investigators examined the configuration of Stand 12 and the recent changes to the airport's infrastructure. A relocation of the blast fence at the end of 1998 had reduced the available pushback area, making strict adherence to the taxiway centerline critical. However, no new ground markings had been established to indicate a safe stopping point for the nosewheel.
The investigation also looked into the performance of the ground crew. The tug driver was relatively new to the role, having only recently completed training and been released for unsupervised operation. Furthermore, the headset man's position at the front of the aircraft prevented him from monitoring the entire area behind the aircraft, as his attention was partially diverted by another aircraft positioning itself at the same stand.
Findings
- The primary cause of the collision was the failure to maintain the taxiway centerline during the pushback.
- The tug driver's limited experience and the pressure to avoid delays to following aircraft contributed to the deviation.
- The headset man failed to physically verify that the aircraft was clear of obstacles following the reported jolt.
- The relocation of the blast fence had not been accompanied by updated ground markings or revised company procedures to account for the restricted space.