Recipient

Heathrow Airport Limited

First report 24 Jul 2023•Latest report 24 Jul 2023

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Airport operator. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 2
Stated actions: 9

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found

9stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

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.

24 Jul2023
West London
Concerns raised2
1. Difficulty seeing white-coloured vans at uncontrolled crossings
2. Lack of specific consideration of background visual interference
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 3
1. Action
  Amend the Operational Safety Instruction on temporary vehicle permits to address vehicles lacking sufficient markings.
  Stated planned
2. Action
  Commission and complete an expert assessment of airside visual interference and vehicle-identification mitigations.
  Stated completed
3. Action
  Develop and introduce mandatory end-to-end retro-reflective vehicle markings, including vertical peripheral markings, across airside vehicles and equipment.
  Stated in progress
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  No realistic or practicable intervention can influence background visual interference because little or no change can be made to the visual environment.
  Unable to act
1. Position
  Background visual interference at Heathrow does not create greater distraction for airside drivers than comparable normal street scenes.
  Disputes the concern
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

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

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised2

Difficulty seeing white-coloured vans at uncontrolled crossings

Lack of specific consideration of background visual interference

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

Actions described in response 3

Respondent positions 2