Heathrow Collision (ground)

Story here.

FM

[preiffer]

Two planes "clipped" each other, followed by "no damage"...?


HMMM.... Would YOU have wanted to be onboard either plane when they announced "we're going ahead"? [:?]

More evidence of the cowboy antics of BAA.... Cowboys and then some

Let's wait and see what our friend from ATC has to say on the matter.

[Darren Wheeler]

Well I hope they stopped and exchanged insurance details. Little bit of polish and it will buff out.

I wonder if it occurred at that the final area of taxiing, before turning on to the runway, where there are often two lines of planes adjacent to each other?..

I seem to remember Mike-smashing telling me collisions had occurred there previously..

[Bazz]

No Damage!? The winglet on the port wing on the BA aircraft was partly severed, hardly "no damage".

[preiffer]

Interesting version control, BBC... [n]

Last night, it claimed "no damage", this morning, the SAME page now reads entirely differently. BAD bad bad... (Should show "updates" as well as what they claimed in the first place.)

[fozzyo]

Ht BBC often have a break story page with a given URL, then expand the story on that page when they have more details. Access to previous versions of the page could be useful.

The local news just announced that there was a previous accident at Heathrow in July when 2 BA planes collided with each other on the runway !

Don't remember that, but I was away for a large part of July.

Originally posted by GrinningJackanapes
Yes, I am all for developing news, but the bloody item should be marked UPDATED with the flavour of the updates ("Story updated to reflect new damage assessment" for example). Fecking MSM...

GJ

The stories in newspapers frequently change overnight when news breaks and you end up with 2 or more editions on the same day with a slight variation of the story, but ive never seen them make reference to the previous one..... just a thought

Mark