BA jet withdrawn after apparent double tail strike at Heathrow

The aircraft, registered G-TNEB, was arriving from Amsterdam Schiphol on Thursday, November 12, 2026. Published descriptions of footage captured by Big Jet TV say it appeared to show two contacts between the rear of the aircraft and the runway during the attempted landing. That is an account of what the footage appears to show, not an established finding by accident investigators.⁠1

Passengers disembarked normally after the successful second approach, according to reporting by Paddle Your Own Kanoo reproduced in an Express article carried by AOL. British Airways said the aircraft landed safely and that it was assisting the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, Britain’s aircraft accident investigators. The extent of any damage remains unknown.⁠1

The airline’s statement confirms its account of cooperation with the AAIB. It does not explain the cause, establish the severity of the apparent contacts or supply the agency’s own description of the examination’s formal status and scope. No direct AAIB announcement or inspection report is available in the evidence supporting this account.

G-TNEB had flown from Heathrow to Amsterdam earlier that day and was returning to London as BA431. The AOL article describes the arriving flight as lasting about one hour and 35 minutes and places the incident at around 11 a.m. That clock time is approximate, with no time zone explicitly stated in the report.⁠1

The same article, attributing its description to The Sun, says the aircraft touched down on its left-side tyres before its tail struck the runway and the pilots abandoned the landing. The Aviation Herald’s November 12 incident report, by contrast, describes a tail strike “on go around.” Those descriptions do not settle exactly when the apparent contacts occurred relative to the start of the manoeuvre.⁠1⁠19

A go-around means discontinuing an approach or landing attempt and climbing away. It need not happen before the wheels reach the ground: Airbus defines a rejected landing as a go-around initiated after the main landing gear has touched down or after a bounce. The manufacturer also publishes guidance specifically addressing go-arounds near the ground. The fact that BA431 became airborne again therefore does not, by itself, explain the sequence or establish why the tail appeared to make contact.⁠4⁠3

The number of contacts also needs care. The Telegraph’s November 13 headline says the aircraft’s tail “scrapes” the runway, while The Aviation Herald uses the singular expression “tail strike.” Neither wording establishes that there was exactly one contact or disproves the apparent two-contact account. The available specialist excerpts do not independently verify a precise count.⁠2⁠19

There is no supported finding here assigning responsibility to the pilots, weather, aircraft equipment or any other particular factor. Nor do the available manufacturer excerpts provide enough procedural detail to assess the crew’s compliance with Airbus instructions after suspected contact. Explaining what a rejected landing is is not the same as judging how this one was conducted.

A tail strike is contact between an aircraft’s tail and the runway. Airbus warns that such contact can cause significant structural damage. That general risk explains why the inspection matters; it is not proof that G-TNEB sustained significant damage, or that substantial repairs will be needed.⁠5

The distinction is important because the successful second landing answers only one part of the story. The aircraft returned to the ground safely. Whether the earlier contact damaged its structure is a separate question, requiring examination rather than an inference from how the flight ended.

For passengers, the first attempt was reportedly frightening. The AOL article relays The Sun’s account of screams and people lurching forward in their seats, but those descriptions have not been independently corroborated. The number of people aboard has not been established. Normal disembarkation after the second landing should not be expanded into an independently verified finding that nobody was injured.⁠1

The operational consequences extend beyond BA431. G-TNEB had several more flights planned that day, and withdrawing it for maintenance inspections disrupted those plans. The available reporting does not establish how many services were affected, whether they were cancelled or covered by other aircraft, or how many additional travellers experienced disruption.⁠1

November 14 was given as a provisional return-to-service date, expressly dependent on the extent of any damage. It is a conditional schedule, not evidence that inspections have finished, repairs have been completed or the aircraft has been cleared to fly. The next meaningful development is the inspection outcome—and whether that provisional date holds. Until then, the safe landing is established; the aircraft’s condition and the explanation for the apparent contacts are not.⁠1