UAE carriers have experienced two separate ground-vehicle collisions within a span of just a few days, reviving concerns about airside safety and the oversight of third-party ground-handling operations at international airports.
On 28 November 2025, an Emirates Airbus A380-842 was struck by a fuel truck at Manchester Airport, damaging the engine intake lip and forcing the cancellation of EK18 to Dubai. Just days later, on 4 December 2025, a flydubai Boeing 737 MAX 8 was damaged at Velana International Airport in the Maldives when another fuel truck hit the aircraft shortly after arrival.
While both incidents resulted in no injuries, they highlight how routine apron activities can turn into high-risk situations and underline the need for stronger compliance with international ground-safety standards.
Emirates A380 Fuel Truck Collision in Manchester
Images via @aviationbrk on X (formerly Twitter)
An Emirates Airbus A380 (registration A6-EVP) was grounded at Manchester Airport on November 30th after a fuel truck struck the aircraft while it was parked at the gate, tearing into the engine intake lip.
Images shared on social media show a large section of the engine nacelle visibly dented and torn.
Flight EK18 was cancelled, and the aircraft was temporarily removed from service pending inspection. The aircraft returned to service two days later.
flydubai 737 MAX Fuel Bowser Collision in Maldives
Image: Screenshot from video posted by @MVCrisis on Facebook
A flydubai 737 MAX 8 (A6-FMM) was struck by a fuel bowser at Velana International Airport, damaging the winglet and leading to cancellation of the onward flight.
The aircraft was temporarily grounded for technical assessment and returned to service the next day.
The Hidden Risk of Apron Operations
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) provides recommended practices for ground-handling through Annex 14 (Aerodromes) and Doc 9137 (Airport Services Manual). Together, these documents set out expectations for vehicle movement control, apron markings, communication protocols, and operator training. Despite these detailed frameworks, ground-handling incidents remain one of aviation’s most persistent and under-reported risks. IATA estimates that around 27,000 ground-damage events occur globally each year, many of them preventable.
Wide-body aircraft such as the A380 are particularly susceptible to harm. Their large wingspans, low-slung engine nacelles, and multiple service-vehicle touchpoints make them inherently more exposed on a crowded apron. During a standard turnaround, a single aircraft may be encircled by fuel tankers, tugs, belt loaders, catering trucks, and maintenance vans — all operating in close proximity, often under time pressure and in weather conditions that reduce visibility. Even with established markings and designated safety zones, misjudged distances or rushed manoeuvres can lead to collisions.
The Human Error Factor in Apron Incidents
Human error remains one of the leading contributors to ramp accidents worldwide. The risk is heightened by the fact that most major airports depend heavily on outsourced or semi-outsourced ground-handling providers, from fuelling operators and catering crews to baggage handlers and maintenance staff. Unlike airlines, which maintain tightly enforced internal safety cultures, third-party ramp operators vary widely in their training standards, operational oversight, and adherence to safety procedures. This inconsistency creates a fragmented safety environment on the very surface where aircraft are most physically vulnerable.
Industry analysts have long noted that the combination of multiple contractors, differing national certification requirements, and uneven local regulatory oversight makes apron operations one of the most complex phases of commercial aviation. The result is that an Emirates A380 or a flydubai 737 may encounter completely different safety cultures at each airport, even when the airline itself upholds strong internal standards. In practice, even the best-run carriers cannot fully insulate themselves from third-party risks embedded in global ground-handling operations.
The consequences of these incidents are not always dramatic but can be costly. Even a minor collision can trigger structural inspections, aircraft downtime, flight cancellations, engineering interventions, and network disruption. On an apron where dozens of vehicles move around a single airframe, the margin for error is narrow and the stakes disproportionately high.
Cover Image via Pexels / Mr Ozturk
💬 Join the conversation: We’d love to hear your take on X (Twitter) or LinkedIn.
