Narrative:

We were commencing pushback. The #2 engine was spinning. The tug initially pulled the aircraft forward. He then pushed back about the same distance (approximately 5-10 ft). After that he began to pull forward again. The captain and I saw our aircraft approaching the terminal at an angle, therefore the left wingtip area was coming dangerously close to the building. We tried to give appropriate hand signals to stop, use of hydraulic pump to create noise, and taxi and landing lights, none of which were successful in preventing the collision. The left wingtip struck the building causing significant damage to both wing and building. Once we realized the aircraft had been pulled forward beyond the SAAB340 parking stop marking, we tried giving all of the above signals to prevent the aircraft from being moved any further. Because the aircraft was moving forward, emergency braking was not applied due to nose gear structural consideration. Had the nose gear structural limitations been exceeded the nose gear could have collapsed causing significantly more damage.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SF34 UNDER TOW FROM GATE AT IAD STRIKES TERMINAL WITH L WINGTIP. ABSENCE OF VOICE COMS WITH GND PERSONNEL RESULTED IN FLT CREW INABILITY TO WARN THEM.

Narrative: WE WERE COMMENCING PUSHBACK. THE #2 ENG WAS SPINNING. THE TUG INITIALLY PULLED THE ACFT FORWARD. HE THEN PUSHED BACK ABOUT THE SAME DISTANCE (APPROX 5-10 FT). AFTER THAT HE BEGAN TO PULL FORWARD AGAIN. THE CAPT AND I SAW OUR ACFT APCHING THE TERMINAL AT AN ANGLE, THEREFORE THE L WINGTIP AREA WAS COMING DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO THE BUILDING. WE TRIED TO GIVE APPROPRIATE HAND SIGNALS TO STOP, USE OF HYD PUMP TO CREATE NOISE, AND TAXI AND LNDG LIGHTS, NONE OF WHICH WERE SUCCESSFUL IN PREVENTING THE COLLISION. THE L WINGTIP STRUCK THE BUILDING CAUSING SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO BOTH WING AND BUILDING. ONCE WE REALIZED THE ACFT HAD BEEN PULLED FORWARD BEYOND THE SAAB340 PARKING STOP MARKING, WE TRIED GIVING ALL OF THE ABOVE SIGNALS TO PREVENT THE ACFT FROM BEING MOVED ANY FURTHER. BECAUSE THE ACFT WAS MOVING FORWARD, EMER BRAKING WAS NOT APPLIED DUE TO NOSE GEAR STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATION. HAD THE NOSE GEAR STRUCTURAL LIMITATIONS BEEN EXCEEDED THE NOSE GEAR COULD HAVE COLLAPSED CAUSING SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DAMAGE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.