BA co-pilot who clipped OR Tambo building ‘headed the wrong way’
THE CO-PILOT of the British Airways plane that ripped a section of a building at OR Tambo International Airport two years ago, injuring four people, said he wished he had stopped the plane.
The 51-year-old co-pilot reportedly said: “I saw it. It just didn’t look right. I wish I’d stopped. It just didn’t look right. It looked too close. I didn’t pick up the fact… I was looking for it to go straight. I didn’t see any turn off toward the end.”
His comments are contained in a detailed accident report released yesterday by the SA Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA).
In the report, the body said it had found factors contributing to the December 22, 2013 incident included the failure of other crew to respond adequately when the co-pilot commented on the narrowness and proximity of the building.
It also said the loss of awareness inside the cockpit caused the crew not to detect critical cues of events as they gradually unfolded before them.
It is thought on the day of the crash the Boeing 747-400, with 202 people aboard, collided with the BidAir Services building at the airport. Four officials working inside the BidAir building sustained injuries.
The flight was scheduled to depart from OR at 8.45pm en route to Heathrow International Airport in London.
The report said the aircraft headed the wrong way and went straight across the intersection of taxiway Bravo… in the direction of the “aircraft-stand taxilane Mike”.
Results of an investigation show the aircraft-stand taxilane Mike was not designed to accommodate a Boeing 747-400.
The report said the aircraft and the building were severely damaged in the collision.
Other damage included a large fuel spillage from the right wing of the aircraft which resulted in a soil remediation process.
This was not the first incident of its kind. In April 2005, an aircraft took the same wrong path but stopped short of colliding with the building.
While evidence showed the pilot in the accident and his crew had previously operated to and from the airport and were found to be proficient, they had not complied with aviation rules concerning the runway.
“It is recommended the SACAA should consult with the Air Accidents Investigation branch about the BA flight crew’s non-compliance with the clear and unambiguous taxi instructions, which were to push back facing south using Bravo to Category 2 holding point for take-off from Runway 03L and not what they actually did, which was to taxi full length to (the) end of the taxiway.”
It also recommended that the Airports Company SA should consider the complete removal of the building as it would continue to pose a safety risk to crews taxiing on Bravo en route to the Category 2 holding point.