Heathrow Airport Limited

Private and voluntary organisations · Airport operator

Pin Request correction

First report 24 Jul 2023•Latest report 24 Jul 2023

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
2

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
9

Described in responses

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Heathrow Airport Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. West London

    AI-generated summary

    John David Coles · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    John David Coles died after a Heathrow Airport Ltd HiLux vehicle struck the British Airways Renault Kangoo he was driving while crossing an uncontrolled taxiway crossing at Heathrow Terminal 5. The concerns included background visual interference affecting the HiLux driver's ability to see the Kangoo and the difficulty of seeing white-coloured vans, including possible consideration of side profile lights for vehicles crossing uncontrolled crossings.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Heathrow Airport Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Difficulty seeing white-coloured vans at uncontrolled crossings

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) It is also the case that white-coloured vans driven by British Airways employees may be difficult to see. ████████ opinion was that there may be merit in using side profile lights on vehicles which may need to cross uncontrolled crossings. While this may primarily be a matter for British Airways (and other organisations), HAL has ultimate oversight and has the power at least to recommend consideration of side profile lights. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Heathrow Airport Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of specific consideration of background visual interference

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) This fatal accident occurred well over 5 years ago. The expert report of ████████, ████████ which raised the issue of background visual interference as a possible causative factor, was produced well over 4 years ago. Nonetheless, prior to the inquest, no specific consideration appears to have been given to this phenomenon by HAL (or by the HSE or in the Jacobs report which HAL commissioned). (2) Indeed, in evidence, you seemed reluctant to accept that this might have been a factor (and may therefore be a factor in a future accident). Despite your Counsel’s submissions, therefore, I believe it is necessary to highlight this hazard by way of this report and to obtain your (HAL’s) response. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Amend the Operational Safety Instruction on temporary vehicle permits to address vehicles lacking sufficient markings.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Amend the existing Operational Safety Instruction relating to temporary vehicle permits to reflect the TRL’s recommendation on vehicles without sufficient marking.”

    Source location

    Response from Heathrow
    Page 4 · response
    Published 4 August 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Commission and complete an expert assessment of airside visual interference and vehicle-identification mitigations.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “For that reason, the first action taken was to commission recognised experts to consider the above matters of concern and to make recommendations. HAL commissioned Transport Research Laboratory ("TRL") to carry out an assessment of the airside environment.”

    Source location

    Response from Heathrow
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 August 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Develop and introduce mandatory end-to-end retro-reflective vehicle markings, including vertical peripheral markings, across airside vehicles and equipment.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• HAL should use its powers to mandate a more robust use of airside ground vehicle safety markings;”

    Source location

    Response from Heathrow
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 August 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    No realistic or practicable intervention can influence background visual interference because little or no change can be made to the visual environment.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “TRL concluded that there is not a realistic or practicable intervention that could be introduced to influence the background visual interference. This conclusion was reached as, in practical terms, little or no change can be made to the visual vista.”

    Source location

    Response from Heathrow
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 August 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Background visual interference at Heathrow does not create greater distraction for airside drivers than comparable normal street scenes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “TRL's research concluded that there is background visual interference when driving airside at Heathrow, making particular note of the lighting in and around the terminals. However, TRL concluded that the lighting in and around the terminals did not create a greater visual distraction than normal street lighting would do for persons driving outside the airport environment.”

    Source location

    Response from Heathrow
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 August 2023

    Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026