The report won't seek to apportion blame. Only the causal factor and contributory factors.
For interest, an unclassified image of the location can be found here:
https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-82 ... ap=imageryThe causal factor is (IMHO) quite clear and very boring: The incident was caused when the Egyptair aircraft taxied forward into the stationary VS aircraft (Remember it's not about blame, it's about what happened to cause the incident)
The contributory factors will be far more interesting:
The layout of the run-up pad has a dotted line parallel to and approx 170ft away from the taxiway centreline. The a330 has a 200 ft wingspan and b777 has a 212 ft wingspan. If both aircraft had their nose wheels on the relevant lines then the a330's wingtip would be 100ft towards the taxiway, similarly the b777's wingtip would be 106ft towards the run-up pad. That's a combined total of 206ft of wing to fit in 170ft of space - it's not going to work.
The ground controller issued the instruction, "Move to the right, all the way to the right as far as you can on the run-up pad" from this I conclude that the ground controller was aware of the potential for a problem and wanted the VS as far away from the taxiway as possible.
If a line had been painted 40 ft from the far edge of the kilo-pad it would be around 250 ft from the kilo centreline so a330 with 200 ft wingspan and b777 with 212 ft wingspan should have been able to pass each other with 40 ft to spare if positioned optimally.
I therefore believe that:
1. The markings on the run-up pad at kilo were a contributory factor in the incident.
2. VS's positioning on the kilo pad was a contributory factor (it was a few feet away from the painted line and nowhere near "as far as you can" to the right)
3. The lack of direct visual contact or CCTV to show the relative aircraft positions meant there was no positive confirmation of clearance before the controller issued taxi clearance to Egyptair was a contributory factor.
I also think that the controller's proposed solution was suboptimal.
The VS aircraft could have been instructed to taxi forward and hold at K1 (the hold nearest the end of the runway) allowing the Egyptair to enter the runway at K2 and avoiding the need to overtake the VS aircraft on the taxiway at all. (see linked sat image above)
4. The proposed taxi plan was therefore a contributory factor.
*The above is clearly my opinion based on information in the public domain and not intended to pre-empt any investigation.