What happened
On December 19, 2025, at approximately 15:30, an Airbus A3/20 operated by SAS, registration EI-SIL, was preparing for a flight from Helsinki to Copenhagen. During the pushback process, a tractor operated by Airpro was moving the aircraft from its stand onto the taxiway.
After disconnecting the tractor from the aircraft's nose gear, the driver reversed a few meters and walked under the aircraft's fuselage to reconnect headset communications with the flight crew. Upon returning to the tractor, the driver was unable to move the vehicle forward. As the driver returned to the nose gear area to re-establish communication, the aircraft began to move. The driver attempted to run to the front of the aircraft to signal the crew to stop, but the nose gear wheel struck the tractor before the aircraft could come to a halt. The flight was subsequently canceled, and passengers were transferred to a bus to return to the terminal.
The investigation
The investigation examined flight data recorders, airport CCTV footage, and interviews with the personnel involved. The investigation focused on the standard procedures for disconnecting a pushback tractor, which require verbal communication with the cockpit regarding parking brakes, bypass pin removal, and the formal conclusion of headset communication.
Investigators also examined the technical condition of the tractor and the experience levels of the crew. No technical defects were found in the tractor. While the driver was highly experienced, they had rarely operated this specific model, as it was the only one of its type at Helsinki-Vantaa operated by Airpro.
Findings
- The flight crew was focused on completing post-engine start checklists in the cockpit.
- Because the tractor remained positioned under the aircraft's nose, it was obscured from the pilots' view.
- The crew assumed the tractor had already cleared the area because the nose wheel steering bypass warning was no longer visible on the cockpit displays, and they had experience at other airports where tractors would depart without providing a final visual signal.
- The failure to follow standard communication and signaling procedures contributed to the incident, as the crew proceeded with movement under the assumption that the area was clear.