What happened
On 23 February 2006, a Bombardier DHC-8-402 Dash 8, registration G-JEDO, was undergoing de-icing procedures at Southampton International Airport. The aircraft was operating a passenger flight with 59 passengers and 4 crew members on board. During the process, a de-icing vehicle positioned behind the right wing struck the side of the aircraft fuselage.
Passengers inside the cabin reported hearing a loud bang followed by the aircraft jolting from side to side, accompanied by a second bang. The commander immediately instructed the passengers to remain seated until they were cleared to disembark. While the impact caused visible damage to the fuselage, there were no injuries to the passengers or crew, and no subsequent fire or hydraulic leaks were detected.
The investigation
Investigators examined the movements of the de-icing vehicle and the actions of its operator. It was determined that the vehicle was being driven between the right wing and the right horizontal stabiliser. As the driver attempted to apply the parking brake following an instruction from the spray equipment operator, the driver accidentally depressed the accelerator. This caused the vehicle to surge forward. In a state of panic, the driver pressed the accelerator a second time instead of the footbrake, leading to the collision.
The investigation also looked into the driving route taken. While the standard procedure for the ground services company is to move around the aircraft in an anti-clockwise direction, on this occasion, the vehicle followed a clockwise path. Additionally, the driver was a recently trained operator. Although company policy requires experienced staff to accompany newly qualified drivers, the driver was accompanied by a colleague of similar experience level who was preoccupied with paperwork and did not witness the impact.
Findings
- The collision was caused by the driver inadvertently depressing the accelerator instead of the brake and subsequently reacting with further acceleration due to panic.
- The de-icing vehicle was operating on a non-standard clockwise route rather than the prescribed anti-clockwise direction.
- The accompanying staff member failed to observe the incident because they were focused on administrative tasks.
- The driver had recently finished training on the specific vehicle type.