Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

Incident at JNB [BA 744 G-BNLL collides with building]

Incident at JNB [BA 744 G-BNLL collides with building]

Old Dec 22, 13, 5:48 pm
  #31  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: LAX
Programs: Thai Gold, UA, AA, SWA
Posts: 362
The pilot just wanted one for the road. Too bad the bar was closed.
duniawala is offline  
Old Dec 22, 13, 6:02 pm
  #32  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 174
I was on this flight and sat by a window seat on the wing (don't want to reveal my seat number yet because BA has some explaining to do) but cabin crew were very professional and did their best to keep all aboard calm.

They kept us on board for over an hour after the collision and the message we were getting most was to turn our electronics off. This is because the captain and crew knew everyone was taking photos and posting to social media from their seats.

I will say we were travelling quite fast when we collided with the building. In my opinion not the standard taxi speed. We hit the brakes hard, glad I was wearing my seat belt! The first thing we hit was a lamppost and at that point I thought I was dreaming! I know the reports say no fatalities in the building but several people said the lights were on and people were in the building when the plane's wing struck the building.

The question all passengers are asking was it pilots fault or air traffic controllers fault or a mixture of both? The damage is extensive.

We were very worried about the fuel leaking from the wing but the captain told us it was under control with emergency services on the scene at once.

Chaos after we got off the plane and no one from BA there to help. This was very poor! It took me and many others three hours to be given a hotel room (Southern Sun airport hotel).

Very tired but I hope I get back to my family for Christmas. We'll find out in the morning what BA can do by putting us on others flights.
Sign47 is offline  
Old Dec 22, 13, 6:07 pm
  #33  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Swindon UK
Programs: BAEC, FB, QANTAS, IHG, Hilton, Marriott, AVIS Preferred, MRAeS
Posts: 813
Originally Posted by Sign47 View Post
I was on this flight and sat by a window seat on the wing (don't want to reveal my seat number yet because BA has some explaining to do) but cabin crew were very professional and did their best to keep all aboard calm.

They kept us on board for over an hour after the collision and the message we were getting most was to turn our electronics off. This is because the captain and crew knew everyone was taking photos and posting to social media from their seats.

I will say we were travelling quite fast when we collided with the building. In my opinion not the standard taxi speed. We hit the brakes hard, glad I was wearing my seat belt! The first thing we hit was a lamppost and at that point I thought I was dreaming! I know the reports say no fatalities in the building but several people said the lights were on and people were in the building when the plane's wing struck the building.

The question all passengers are asking was it pilots fault or air traffic controllers fault or a mixture of both? The damage is extensive.

We were very worried about the fuel leaking from the wing but the captain told us it was under control with emergency services on the scene at once.

Chaos after we got off the plane and no one from BA there to help. This was very poor! It took me and many others three hours to be given a hotel room (Southern Sun airport hotel).

Very tired but I hope I get back to my family for Christmas. We'll find out in the morning what BA can do by putting us on others flights.
Thanks for your input - very informative. ^

Hope you get sorted with hotels and are able to fly tomorrow.
vibrex is offline  
Old Dec 22, 13, 6:09 pm
  #34  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL (98% to Lifetime Gold), SPG convert from IHG (and Marriott fan now!)
Posts: 4,923
Originally Posted by vibrex View Post
Thanks for your input - very informative. ^

Hope you get sorted with hotels and are able to fly tomorrow.
+1, best of luck Sign47
lorcancoyle is online now  
Old Dec 22, 13, 6:26 pm
  #35  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,256
Originally Posted by Sign47 View Post
I was on this flight and sat by a window seat on the wing (don't want to reveal my seat number yet because BA has some explaining to do) but cabin crew were very professional and did their best to keep all aboard calm.

They kept us on board for over an hour after the collision and the message we were getting most was to turn our electronics off. This is because the captain and crew knew everyone was taking photos and posting to social media from their seats.

I will say we were travelling quite fast when we collided with the building. In my opinion not the standard taxi speed. We hit the brakes hard, glad I was wearing my seat belt! The first thing we hit was a lamppost and at that point I thought I was dreaming! I know the reports say no fatalities in the building but several people said the lights were on and people were in the building when the plane's wing struck the building.

The question all passengers are asking was it pilots fault or air traffic controllers fault or a mixture of both? The damage is extensive.

We were very worried about the fuel leaking from the wing but the captain told us it was under control with emergency services on the scene at once.

Chaos after we got off the plane and no one from BA there to help. This was very poor! It took me and many others three hours to be given a hotel room (Southern Sun airport hotel).

Very tired but I hope I get back to my family for Christmas. We'll find out in the morning what BA can do by putting us on others flights.
You say that with quite some certainty. You don't think it was maybe to do with the fuel leak from the damaged wing? I'm glad that no-one appears to be injured. Hope it stays that way.
Skimo is offline  
Old Dec 22, 13, 6:27 pm
  #36  
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Programs: BA Gold, Mucci
Posts: 8,877
Another thanks for posting Sign47

Hope it all works out and yes an excellent example of why it is important to wear your seatbelt!
PETER01 is offline  
Old Dec 22, 13, 6:32 pm
  #37  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Midwest
Programs: BA BLUE, HH, AC/UA
Posts: 775
Originally Posted by Skimo View Post
You say that with quite some certainty. You don't think it was maybe to do with the fuel leak from the damaged wing? I'm glad that no-one appears to be injured. Hope it stays that way.
I would assume (hope?) that if the crew were truly concerned about personal electronics causing a fire then they'd've done an emergency evacuation vs. trusting that all the passengers had turned off their electronics. Also, I'd think that, if there were that fear it would come more from the aircraft's electronics and not personal electronics.

'though I don't know why they asked for the electronics to be switched off, I don't think it was due to a fear of combustion.
NonSmokingWindow is offline  
Old Dec 22, 13, 7:10 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: LON, RUH and DXB
Programs: BA Bronze, GF, EK, WY
Posts: 2,607
BA have just tweeted about this.

Originally Posted by BA
British Airways ‏@British_Airways 25m

One of our aircraft was damaged whilst taxiing at JNB airport. All 182 passengers disembarked safely with no reported injuries onboard
dunk is offline  
Old Dec 22, 13, 7:27 pm
  #39  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 39,160
Glad to hear no-one on the ground was injured...which is the main thing.

The questions as to how it happened or who was to blame can come later.
HIDDY is offline  
Old Dec 22, 13, 7:28 pm
  #40  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,141
Originally Posted by KARFA View Post
Had another look at the wing fuel tanks on a 747 and they are shown here



Each wing has two main and one reserve tank. I think it is the reserve tank which starts above engine 4 and extends outwards on the starboard wing. No idea whether there would actually be any fuel in there anyway so there may have been no danger of a fuel leak and fire. Bear in mind that the JNB-LHR distance is around 5600 miles, and that a 747-400 at max take-off weight can do 8350 miles, so this plane would not have had all tanks full of fuel.
The 10 tonnes in the stabilizer tank would be the last fuel to be loaded,so the wings may indeed have been full.The fuel is Jet A1 which is not very volatile in ordinary life,but burns well in the specially designed combustor cans.There was no big heat source here to set the fuel off,so no risk of fire,hence the Captain kept everybody on board for an hour.

Sending passengers down the slides would be far more risky than waiting for steps and buses to be brought to remove the passengers.

This all means that somebody is in for an interview with no tea and biscuits.The ultimate responsibility lies with the Captain.
rapidex is offline  
Old Dec 22, 13, 8:38 pm
  #41  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: BOS, SLC, LAX
Programs: AA EXP MM, UA Plat, DL Silver, SPG Titanium
Posts: 3,920
Originally Posted by dunk View Post
BA have just tweeted about this.
Only 182 pax on a lowJ 747...quite a light load!

Glad everyone is safe.
DWFI is offline  
Old Dec 22, 13, 9:33 pm
  #42  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Programs: DL SkyClub Lifer
Posts: 9,994
Originally Posted by KARFA View Post
Could it be this building I marked?

Google maps

Seems the most likely candidate after looking around the taxiways. Looking at the charts it seems to have been taxiing down Bravo towards 03L but didn't follow Bravo towards Juliet, and instead carried straight on to something which is not a taxiway - hence why there is a building close by.

Glad not more serious.
That something most certainly is a taxiway - for things the size of a CRJ or smaller. There's one clearly visible in the parking area at the south end of it. Not so much a taxiway for a 747, though.
DanTravels is offline  
Old Dec 22, 13, 10:03 pm
  #43  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,097
Originally Posted by Skimo View Post
You say that with quite some certainty. You don't think it was maybe to do with the fuel leak from the damaged wing? I'm glad that no-one appears to be injured. Hope it stays that way.
BA can't have it both ways. If there was a leak, and they were not evacuating the passengers, it was criminal. And BTW PEDs inside don't ignite fuel outside!
Originally Posted by Sign47 View Post
I was on this flight [...] and the message we were getting most was to turn our electronics off. This is because the captain and crew knew everyone was taking photos and posting to social media from their seats.
He/she was there.

Good luck with BA reaccomodating you to your destination ASAP!
hillrider is offline  
Old Dec 22, 13, 10:07 pm
  #44  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,097
Airport Surface Moving Map Displays

Has BA invested in Airport Surface Moving Map Displays for its fleet?
hillrider is offline  
Old Dec 22, 13, 10:10 pm
  #45  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,097
Originally Posted by DanTravels View Post
That something most certainly is a taxiway - for things the size of a CRJ or smaller. There's one clearly visible in the parking area at the south end of it. Not so much a taxiway for a 747, though.
Indeed, it's taxiway Mike according to the charts.

This is pretty unbelievable. It will be interesting to read the transcript of the CVR but BA will have to share the blame if it didn't install an Airport Surface Moving Map Display (or allow its pilots to use Google Maps on their smartphone when taxiing [just a joke, but that's what such a system does])
hillrider is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread