Overview
On 27 November 2021 at 18:13 local time, a ground collision occurred between two Vietjet Air Airbus A321-211 aircraft at Noi Bai International Airport (Hanoi). Flight VJ404, operated by aircraft registration VN-A544, had just landed from Lien Khuong Airport (Da Lat) and was taxiing to parking position 52C. During the maneuver, the right wingtip (sharklet) of VN-A544 struck the left wingtip of VN-A636, which was parked at adjacent position 52D. The collision resulted in damage to both wingtips.
Aircraft and Crew
The two aircraft involved were both Airbus A321-211s: VN-A544 (manufacturer serial number 07055) and VN-A636 (serial number 07933). Both were operated by Vietjet Air. VN-A544 was on a scheduled passenger flight (VJ404) from Da Lat, while VN-A636 was parked and not in service.
The flight crew of VJ404 consisted of a captain (born 1965, total flight hours 17,425, with 8,125 hours on A320/1) and a first officer (born 1988, total flight hours 6,827, with 2,850 hours on A320/1). Both held valid licenses, medical certificates, and had completed recent proficiency checks. Their duty and rest times complied with regulations. The marshaller assigned to guide the aircraft into the parking position held a valid license and had adequate rest.
Sequence of Events
Flight VJ404 departed Da Lat at 16:36 and landed safely on runway 11R at Noi Bai at 18:09. After landing, the first officer transferred control to the captain as per standard procedures. At 18:09:55, the crew contacted ground control and reported they were on taxiway S4. Control instructed them to continue on S4, turn right onto taxiway EW, and proceed to parking position 52C. The crew acknowledged.
At 18:13:36, after receiving a signal from the marshaller, the captain began a left turn of the nose wheel, increasing the steering angle to over 45 degrees within five seconds, following the solid yellow centerline. However, the intended path to position 52C was marked by a dashed line. The captain later stated he was trying to locate the intersection of the solid line with the dashed line, but he overshot the crossing point and lost the guidance line.
At 18:13:50, the first officer called out “wrong, wrong, wrong” on the cockpit voice recorder. The captain then turned the nose wheel to a maximum of 75 degrees in an attempt to steer the aircraft into position. At 18:13:57, an abnormal sound consistent with a wingtip collision was recorded. The aircraft came to a stop at 18:14:06 with the nose wheel on the stop line of gate 52C, but the fuselage was offset to the right: the outer edge of the right main gear was 9.3 meters from the centerline, and the left main gear was 1.8 meters to the right of the centerline. At 18:14:44, the first officer opened the side window and observed that the aircraft had struck the wingtip of the parked aircraft.
Damage
Aircraft VN-A544 sustained a cracked, scratched, and dented right wingtip with a missing portion, measuring approximately 250 mm by 150 mm. Aircraft VN-A636 sustained a broken left wingtip that fell to the ground, measuring approximately 1300 mm by 650 mm.
Investigation Findings
The investigation by the Civil Aviation Authority of Vietnam (CAAV) determined that the crew did not conduct a briefing on the taxi procedure to gate 52C as required by the operations manual. The captain taxied using the solid centerline (which leads to gate 52) instead of the correct dashed line for gate 52C, and when he lost sight of the markings, he continued taxiing instead of stopping to verify the path. The marshaller gave three emergency stop signals, but the crew misinterpreted them as a signal to continue turning left. The crew also failed to use the taxi light in the dusk conditions and exhibited poor crew resource management (CRM), loss of situational awareness, and inappropriate decision-making.
Weather at the time was good with no rain, but it was dusk. The taxiway and gate area were illuminated. The actual painted markings on the ground matched the approved operational procedure, but the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) diagrams showed a different layout (dashed line starting from the EW taxiway and not crossing the solid line). This discrepancy was noted but was not considered a direct cause.
Probable Cause
The direct causes included: the flight crew did not brief the taxi procedure to gate 52C; the captain taxied incorrectly by following the solid line instead of the dashed line; the crew did not stop when they lost the guidance markings; they misinterpreted the marshaller’s emergency stop signals; and they demonstrated poor CRM, loss of situational awareness, and inappropriate decision-making. Indirect causes were: the crew did not use the taxi light in dusk conditions, and they were not focused during taxi.