EasyJet decline compensation claim due to airport collision

Beaniepop

Hi @Grumpy_chap

Logically I would say other passengers would be entitled to the compensation, however I am already aware of a few cases where other claims for the same incident were dismissed.

Below is part of the judgement issued by aviation ADR, which outlines the reasoning of their decision.

KEY FINDINGS

Having considered all aspects of the claim and defence, we determine that the claim be upheld

in the Passenger‘s favour, which we consider to be fair and reasonable based on the

following:

Delay

The evidence shows that flight EZY2117 was scheduled to be operated by aircraft G-UZWH.

During taxiing at a speed of approximately 7–10 knots, G-UZWH made contact with the wingtip

of aircraft G-EZUN, which was stationary at the holding point.

The Airline has provided Air Safety Reports for both aircraft. These confirm that G-EZUN was

stationary in accordance with ATC instructions and that the flight deck crew of G-UZWH were

aware of the position of the stationary aircraft while taxiing under ATC direction.

While aircraft ground movements are conducted in accordance with ATC instructions,

compliance with such instructions does not remove the responsibility on flight deck crew to

maintain situational awareness and ensure safe clearance from visible obstacles. On the

evidence before me, the collision occurred as a result of an incorrect assessment of wingtip

clearance by the crew of the moving aircraft, rather than an unavoidable external factor.

It is acknowledged that this incident is subject to investigation by the Air Accident Investigation

Branch (“AAIB”) and that definitive findings as to causation or fault will not be established until

that investigation is concluded. The AAIB may ultimately determine that the captain was

blameless; however, the AAIB will have access to a wider body of technical and operational

evidence than is available within these proceedings.

AviationADR is required to determine the complaint on the basis of the evidence currently

before it and on the balance of probabilities.

In Siewert v Condor Flugdienst GmbH (C-394/14), the Court confirmed that events arising

from the normal operation of an aircraft on the ground, including incidents involving ground

equipment or manoeuvring, do not constitute extraordinary circumstances where they are

inherent in the normal activity of the air carrier. I am satisfied that the safe taxiing and

manoeuvring of an aircraft forms part of those inherent operational activities.

While aircraft ground movements are conducted in accordance with Air Traffic Control

instructions, the safe operation of an aircraft on the ground remains, to a significant extent, the

responsibility of the flight deck crew. This includes maintaining situational awareness and

ensuring adequate clearance from clearly visible obstacles while manoeuvring.The manoeuvring of aircraft on the ground forms part of the inherent and routine activities of an

air carrier. As established in Siewert, incidents arising from such operational activities,

including errors of judgment during ground movement, do not generally constitute extraordinary

circumstances.

Although it is not the role of AviationADR to second-guess discretionary safety decisions taken

by a captain, such as a decision to divert, this incident is distinguishable. In this case, the

collision occurred despite the crew being visually aware of the stationary aircraft and

proceeding based on an incorrect assessment of clearance, rather than as a result of an

unavoidable external factor.

As both aircraft involved were operated by the same airline, this incident cannot be

characterised as arising from the actions of a third party. On the evidence available, the Airline

has not demonstrated that the disruption resulted from extraordinary circumstances within the

meaning of UK261.

Accordingly, I determine that the Airline is not relieved of its obligation to pay compensation

under the Regulation.

Grumpy_chap

Many thanks @Beaniepop

In short, ADR has said Easyjet were responsible for the taxiing and manoeuvring of the aircraft and any instructions / guidance given by ATC or ground services is lesser priority than the direct control of the aircrew.  ADR even provided a case-law reference to support that determination.

This is really great that you have updated the thread with the information as it means the hive-mind of the forum grows the collective knowledge and can use the information you have kindly shared to comment should other similar cases arise in the future. 

BikingBud

Excellent outcome.

I've patted myself on the back