If you wish to contribute or participate in the discussions about articles you are invited to join SKYbrary as a registered user

 Actions

Accident and Serious Incident Reports: RE

From SKYbrary Wiki

Article Information
Category: Runway Excursion Runway Excursion
Content source: SKYbrary About SKYbrary
Content control: EUROCONTROL EUROCONTROL

Definition

Reports relating to accidents which include Runway Excursion as an outcome.

The reports are organised in two sections. In the first section, reports are organised according to the sub-categories Overrun on Take Off, Overrun on Landing, and Veer Off. In the second section, events are organised according to the tagging system currently employed on Runway Excursion events in our database.

Events by Sub-Category

Overrun on Take Off

Overrun on Take Off.jpg

  • B773, Auckland Airport New Zealand, 2007 (On 22 March 2007, an Emirates Boeing 777-300ER, started its take-off on runway 05 Right at Auckland International Airport bound for Sydney. The pilots misunderstood that the runway length had been reduced during a period of runway works and started their take-off with less engine thrust and flap than were required. During the take-off they saw work vehicles in the distance on the runway and, realising something was amiss, immediately applied full engine thrust and got airborne within the available runway length and cleared the work vehicles by about 28 metres.)
  • MD88, Groningen Netherlands, 2003 (On 17 June 2003, a crew of a Boeing MD-88, belonging to Onur Air, executed a high speed rejected take-off at a late stage which resulted in overrun of the runway and serious damage to the aircraft.)
  • B738, Paris CDG France, 2008 (On 16 August 2008, an AMC Airlines’ Boeing 737-800 inadvertently began a night take off from an intersection on runway 27L at Paris CDG which left insufficient take off distance available before the end of the temporarily restricted runway length. It collided with and damaged obstructions related to construction works in progress on the closed section of the runway but sustained only minor damage and completed the intended flight to Luxor. The context for the flight crew error was identified as inadequate support from the Operator and inadequate airport risk assessment for operations with a reduced runway length.)
  • GLF4, Bedford MA USA, 2014 (On 31 May 2014, a Gulfstream IV attempted to take off with the flight control gust locks engaged and, when unable to rotate, delayed initiating the inevitable rejected take off to a point where an overrun at high speed was inevitable. The aircraft was destroyed by a combination of impact forces and fire and all seven occupants died. The Investigation attributed the accident to the way the crew were found to have habitually operated but noted that type certification had been granted despite the aircraft not having met requirements which would have generated an earlier gust lock status warning.)
  • LJ60, Columbia SC USA, 2008 (On September 19 2008, a Learjet 60 departing Columbia SC USA on a non scheduled passenger overran after attempting a rejected take off from above V1 and then hit obstructions which led to its destruction by fire and the death or serious injury of all six occupants. The subsequent investigation found that the tyre failure which led to the rejected take off decision had been due to under inflation and had damaged a sensor which caused the thrust reversers to return to their stowed position after deployment with the unintended forward thrust contributing to the severity of the overrun.)

Overrun on Landing

Overrun on Landing.jpg

  • B742, Montreal Canada, 2000 (On 23 July 2000, a Boeing 747-200 being operated by Royal Air Maroc on a scheduled passenger flight from New York to Montreal overran the temporarily restricted available landing runway length after the aircraft failed to decelerate sufficiently during a daylight landing with normal on-ground visibility. It struck barriers at the displaced runway end before stopping 215 metres further on. Shortly before it stopped, ATC observed flames coming out of the No. 2 engine and advised the flight crew and alerted the RFFS. However, no sustained fire developed and the aircraft was undamaged except for internal damage to the No 2 engine. No emergency evacuation was deemed necessary by the aircraft commander and there were no occupant or other injuries)
  • E55P, Blackbushe UK, 2015 (On 31 July 2015 a Saudi-operated Embraer Phenom on a private flight continued an unstabilised day visual approach to Blackbushe in benign weather conditions. The aircraft touched down with excess speed with almost 70% of the available landing distance behind the aircraft. It overran and was destroyed by impact damage and fire and all occupants died. The Investigation concluded that the combination of factors which created a very high workload for the pilot "may have saturated his mental capacity, impeding his ability to handle new information and adapt his mental model" leading to his continuation of a highly unstable approach.)
  • B734, Yogyakarta Indonesia, 2007 (On 7 March 2007, a Boeing 737-400 being operated by Garuda landed on a scheduled passenger flight from Jakarta to Yogyakarta overran the end of the destination runway at speed in normal daylight visibility after a late and high speed landing attempt ending up 252 metres beyond the end of the runway surface in a rice paddy field. There was a severe and prolonged fire which destroyed the aircraft (see the illustration below taken from the Investigation Report) and 21 of the 140 occupants were killed, 12 seriously injured, 100 suffered minor injuries and 7 were uninjured.)
  • D328, Mannheim Germany, 2008 (On 19 March 2008, a Cirrus AL Dornier 328 overran runway 27 at Mannheim after a late touchdown, change of controlling pilot in the flare and continued failure to control the aircraft so as to safely complete a landing. The Investigation attributed the late touchdown and subsequent overrun to an initial failure to reject the landing when the TDZ was overflown and the subsequent failure to control the engines properly. The extent of damage to the aircraft was attributed to the inadequate RESA and extensive contextual safety deficiencies were identified in respect of both the aircraft and airport operators.)
  • B738, Mangalore India, 2010 (On 22 May 2010, an Air India Express Boeing 737-800 overran the landing runway at Mangalore when attempting a go around after thrust reverser deployment following a fast and late touchdown off an unstable approach. Almost all of the 166 occupants were killed when control was lost and the aircraft crashed into a ravine off the end of the runway. It was noted a relevant factor in respect of the approach, landing and failed go around attempt was probably the effect of ‘sleep inertia’ on the Captain’s performance and judgement after a prolonged sleep en-route)

Veer Off

Directional Control.jpg On landing...

  • MD81, Kiruna Sweden, 1997 (A scheduled passenger flight from Stockholm Arlanda to Kiruna left the runway during the night landing at destination performed in a strong crosswind with normal visibility.)
  • GL5T, Fox Harbour NS Canada, 2007 (On 11 November 2007, a Bombardier BD-700 (Global 5000) operated by Canadian charter company Jetport touched down short of the runway at destination Fox Harbour in normal daylight visibility and then directional control was lost and the aircraft exited the side of the runway ending up having rotated 120° clockwise about its fore-aft axis and came to rest approximately 300metres from the threshold and approximately 50 meters from the runway edge. As a result, the co pilot and one of the passengers suffered serious injuries and the other eight occupants suffered minor injuries. The aircraft sustained major structural damage.)
  • AT72, Zurich Switzerland, 2014 (On 4 December 2014, directional control of an ATR 72-200 was compromised shortly after touchdown at Zurich after slightly misaligned nose wheels caused both tyres to be forced off their wheels leaving the wheel rims in direct contact with the runway surface. The Investigation found that the cause of the misalignment was the incorrect installation of a component several months earlier and the subsequent failure to identify the error. Previous examples of the same error were found and a Safety Recommendation was made that action to make the component involved less vulnerable to incorrect installation should be taken.)
  • AT45, Sienajoki Finland, 2006 (On 11 December 2006, a Finnish Commuter Airlines ATR 42-500 veered off the runway on landing at Seinäjoki, Finland.)
  • B744, Montreal Canada, 2008 (During the landing roll in normal the aircraft veered to the right and stopped with the nose landing gear off the side of the runway.)

Directional Control.jpg On take off..

  • JS31, Kärdla Estonia, 2013 (On 28 October 2013 a BAe Jetstream 31 crew failed to release one of the propellers from its starting latch prior to setting take off power and the aircraft immediately veered sharply off the side of the runway without directional control until the power levers were returned to idle. The aircraft was then steered on the grass towards the nearby apron and stopped. The Investigation found that the pilots had habitually used "multiple unofficial procedures" to determine propeller status prior to take off and also noted that no attempt had been made to stop the aircraft using the brakes.)
  • B752, Mumbai India, 2010 (On 9 June 2010, a Boeing B757-200 being operated by Chennai-based Blue Dart Aviation on a scheduled cargo flight from Mumbai to Bangalore lined up and commenced a night take off in normal ground visibility aligned with the right hand runway edge lights of 45 metre wide runway 27. ATC were not advised of the error and corrective action and once airborne, the aircraft completed the intended flight without further event. A ground engineer at Bangalore then discovered damage to the right hand landing gear assembly including one of the brake units. After being alerted, the Mumbai Airport Authorities discovered a number of broken runway edge lights.)
  • SF34, Stornoway UK, 2015 (On 2 January 2015, the commander of a Saab 340 suddenly lost directional control during a within-limits crosswind take off and the aircraft left the runway onto grass at approximately 80 knots. No call to reject the take off was made and no action was taken to shut down the engines until the aircraft had come to a stop in the soft ground with a collapsed nose gear and substantial damage to the propellers and lower forward fuselage. The Investigation concluded that the most likely explanation for the excursion was the absence of any rudder input as the aircraft accelerated.)
  • DH8D, Edmonton AB Canada, 2014 (On 6 November 2014 a DHC8-400 sustained a burst right main gear tyre during take-off, probably after running over a hard object at high speed and diverted to Edmonton. Shortly after touching down at Edmonton with 'three greens' indicated, the right main gear leg collapsed causing wing and propeller damage and minor injuries to three occupants due to the later. The Investigation concluded that after a high rotational imbalance had been created by the tyre failure, gear collapse on touchdown had been initiated by a rotational speed of the failed tyre/wheel which was similar to one of the natural frequencies of the assembly.)
  • B735, Denver USA, 2008 (Runway Side Excursion During Attempted Take-off in Strong and Gusty Crosswind Conditions.)

Events by A&I Tag

Excessive Airspeed

  • F28, Gällivare Sweden, 2016 (On 6 April 2016, a Romanian-operated Fokker F28 overran the runway at Gällivare after a bounced night landing. There were no occupant injuries and only slight aircraft damage. The Investigation concluded that after a stabilised approach, the handling of the aircraft just prior and after touchdown, which included late and inappropriate deployment of the thrust reversers, was not compatible with a safe landing in the prevailing conditions, that the crew briefing for the landing had been inadequate and that the reported runway friction coefficients were "probably unreliable". Safety Recommendations were made for a generic 'Safe Landing' concept to be developed.)
  • B737, Fort Nelson BC Canada, 2012 (On 9 January 2012, an Enerjet Boeing 737-700 overran the landing runway 03 at Fort Nelson by approximately 70 metres after the newly promoted Captain continued an unstabilised approach to a mis-managed late-touchdown landing. The subsequent Investigation attributed the accident to poor crew performance in the presence of a fatigued aircraft commander.)
  • B736, Montréal QC Canada, 2015 (On 5 June 2015, a Boeing 737-600 landed long on a wet runway at Montréal and the crew then misjudged their intentionally-delayed deceleration because of an instruction to clear the relatively long runway at its far end and were then unable to avoid an overrun. The Investigation concluded that use of available deceleration devices had been inappropriate and that deceleration as quickly as possible to normal taxi speed before maintaining this to the intended runway exit was a universally preferable strategy. It was concluded that viscous hydroplaning had probably reduced the effectiveness of maximum braking as the runway end approached.)
  • DH8A, Nuuk Greenland, 2011 (On 4 March 2011, an aircraft left the runway during a mishandled landing at Nuuk, Greenland which resulted in the collapse of the right main landing gear due to excessive 'g' loading. The landing followed an unstabilised VMC approach in challenging weather conditions. The Investigation concluded that the crew had become focussed solely on landing and that task saturation had mentally blocked any decision to go around. The aircraft commander had less than 50 hours experience on the aircraft type and had only been released from supervised line training 6 days earlier.)
  • C550, Southampton UK, 1993 (On 26 May 1993, a Cessna Citation II being operated by a UK Air Taxi Company on a positioning flight from Oxford to Southampton to collect passengers with just the flight crew on board overran the ‘very wet’ landing runway at the destination in normal daylight visibility and ended up on an adjacent motorway where it collided with traffic, caught fire and was destroyed. The aircraft occupants and three people in cars received minor injuries.)

RTO decision after V1

  • AT43, Madang Papua New Guinea, 2013 (On 19 October 2013, an ATR42 freighter departing Madang had to reject its takeoff when it was impossible to rotate and it ended up semi-submerged in a shallow creek beyond the airfield perimeter. The Investigation found that loading had been contrary to instructions and the aircraft had a centre of gravity outside the permitted range and was overweight. This was attributed to the aircraft operator’s lack of adequate procedures for acceptance and loading of cargo. A lack of appreciation by all parties of the need to effectively mitigate runway overrun risk in the absence of a RESA was also highlighted.)
  • B738, Eindhoven Netherlands, 2010 (On 4 June 2010, a Boeing 737-800 rejected take off from above V1 at Eindhoven when the First Officer, who was PF “had the feeling that the aircraft was unsafe to fly” after which the Captain selected the thrust reversers and the aircraft stopped 500m before the end of the 3000m runway. The Investigation found no evidence of an airworthiness fault or any relevant external atmospheric effects which would support the reported “feeling”. It was also noted that no prior call had preceded the reject and that any reject decision above 80 KIAS should be made by the aircraft commander.)
  • LJ60, Columbia SC USA, 2008 (On September 19 2008, a Learjet 60 departing Columbia SC USA on a non scheduled passenger overran after attempting a rejected take off from above V1 and then hit obstructions which led to its destruction by fire and the death or serious injury of all six occupants. The subsequent investigation found that the tyre failure which led to the rejected take off decision had been due to under inflation and had damaged a sensor which caused the thrust reversers to return to their stowed position after deployment with the unintended forward thrust contributing to the severity of the overrun.)
  • ATP, Helsinki Finland, 2010 (On 11 January 2010, a British Aerospace ATP crew attempting to take off from Helsinki after a two-step airframe de/anti icing treatment (Type 2 and Type 4 fluids) were unable to rotate and the take off was successfully rejected from above V1. The Investigation found that thickened de/anti ice fluid residues had frozen in the gap between the leading edge of the elevator and the horizontal stabiliser and that there had been many other similarly-caused occurrences to aircraft without powered flying controls. There was concern that use of such thickened de/anti ice fluids was not directly covered by safety regulation.)
  • FA20, Durham Tees Valley UK, 2012 (On 9 August 2012, a serviceable Cobham Leasing Fan Jet Falcon overran the 2291 metre long runway at Durham Tees Valley after beginning rejecting take off from above V1 because of a suspected bird strike. The crew believed there was a possibility of airframe damage from a single medium sized bird sighted ahead which might have been hit by the main landing gear. It was found that the overrun distance had been increased by low friction on the stopway and noted that the regulatory exemption issued for operation without FDR and CVR was no longer appropriate.)

High Speed RTO (V above 80 but no above V1)

Unable to rotate at VR

  • A345, Melbourne Australia, 2009 (On 20 March 2009 an Airbus A340-500, operated by Emirates, commenced a take-off roll for a normal reduced-thrust take-off on runway 16 at Melbourne Airport. The attempt to get the aircraft airborne resulted in a tail strike and an overrun because insufficient thrust had been set based upon an incorrect flight crew data entry.)
  • MD88, Groningen Netherlands, 2003 (On 17 June 2003, a crew of a Boeing MD-88, belonging to Onur Air, executed a high speed rejected take-off at a late stage which resulted in overrun of the runway and serious damage to the aircraft.)
  • B763, Copenhagen Denmark, 1999 (On 24 August 1999, a Boeing 767-300 being operated by SAS on a scheduled passenger flight from Copenhagen to Tokyo was unable to get airborne from the take off roll on Runway 22R in normal daylight visibility and made a rejected take off from high speed. The aircraft was taxied clear of the runway and after a precautionary attendance of the RFFS because of overheated brakes, the passengers were disembarked and transported to the terminal. There was minor damage to the aircraft landing gear and rear fuselage.)
  • GLF4, Bedford MA USA, 2014 (On 31 May 2014, a Gulfstream IV attempted to take off with the flight control gust locks engaged and, when unable to rotate, delayed initiating the inevitable rejected take off to a point where an overrun at high speed was inevitable. The aircraft was destroyed by a combination of impact forces and fire and all seven occupants died. The Investigation attributed the accident to the way the crew were found to have habitually operated but noted that type certification had been granted despite the aircraft not having met requirements which would have generated an earlier gust lock status warning.)
  • AT43, Madang Papua New Guinea, 2013 (On 19 October 2013, an ATR42 freighter departing Madang had to reject its takeoff when it was impossible to rotate and it ended up semi-submerged in a shallow creek beyond the airfield perimeter. The Investigation found that loading had been contrary to instructions and the aircraft had a centre of gravity outside the permitted range and was overweight. This was attributed to the aircraft operator’s lack of adequate procedures for acceptance and loading of cargo. A lack of appreciation by all parties of the need to effectively mitigate runway overrun risk in the absence of a RESA was also highlighted.)

Collision Avoidance Action

  • B733, Aqaba Jordan, 2017 (On 17 September 2017, a Boeing 737-300 requested and was approved for a visual approach to Aqaba which involved a significant tailwind component and, after approaching at excessive speed, it touched down late and overran the 3000 metre runway onto sandy ground. The Investigation found that despite EGPWS Alerts relating to both the high rate of descent and late configuration, the Captain had instructed the First Officer to continue what was clearly an unstabilised approach and when touchdown had still not occurred with around 1000 metres of runway left, the Captain took over but was unable to prevent an overrun.)
  • E135, George South Africa, 2009 (On 7 December 2009, an South African Airlink Embraer 135 overran the recently refurbished wet landing runway at George after braking was ineffective and exited the aerodrome perimeter to end up on a public road. There was no fire and all occupants were able to evacuate the aircraft. The subsequent investigation attributed the overrun principally to inadequate wet runway friction following the surface maintenance activities and noted various significant non-compliances with ICAO Annex 14.)
  • B733 / DH8D, Fort McMurray Canada, 2014 (On 4 August 2014, a Boeing 737-300 making a day visual approach at Fort McMurray after receiving an ILS/DME clearance lined up on a recently-constructed parallel taxiway and its crew were only alerted to their error shortly before touchdown by the crew of a DHC8-400 which was taxiing along the same taxiway in the opposite direction. This resulted in a go around being commenced from 46 feet agl. The Investigation noted that both pilots had been looking out during the final stages of the approach and had ignored important SOPs including that for a mandatory go around from an unstable approach.)

Parallel Approach Operations

Late Touchdown

  • B733, Aqaba Jordan, 2017 (On 17 September 2017, a Boeing 737-300 requested and was approved for a visual approach to Aqaba which involved a significant tailwind component and, after approaching at excessive speed, it touched down late and overran the 3000 metre runway onto sandy ground. The Investigation found that despite EGPWS Alerts relating to both the high rate of descent and late configuration, the Captain had instructed the First Officer to continue what was clearly an unstabilised approach and when touchdown had still not occurred with around 1000 metres of runway left, the Captain took over but was unable to prevent an overrun.)
  • A30B, Bratislava Slovakia, 2012 (On 16 November 2012, an Air Contractors Airbus A300 departed the left the side of the landing runway at Bratislava after an abnormal response to directional control inputs. Investigation found that incorrect and undetected re-assembly of the nose gear torque links had led to the excursion and that absence of clear instructions in maintenance manuals, since rectified, had facilitated this. It was also considered that the absence of any regulation requiring equipment in the vicinity of the runway to be designed to minimise potential damage to aircraft departing the paved surface had contributed to the damage caused by the accident.)
  • MD83, Barcelona Spain, 2006 (On 9 January 2006, a Mc Donnell Douglas MD83 being operated by Spanair on a scheduled passenger flight from Bilbao to Barcelona made an unstablised day VMC approach to a dry runway 07R at destination and landed long with apparently locked brakes before coming to a stop 140 metres from the end of the 2660 metre long runway. Following ATC reports of a fire in the area of the left main landing gear, an evacuation was ordered using the right side doors during which five of the 96 occupants received minor injuries. The RFFS arrived at the scene during the evacuation and extinguished the fire. Significant damage occurred to both main landing gear assembles and to both wings and the tail assembly but there was no damage to the primary structure.)
  • E55P, St Gallen-Altenrhein Switzerland, 2012 (On 6 August 2012 an Embraer Phenom 300 initiated a late go-around from an unstabilised ILS/DME approach at St. Gallen-Altenrhein. A second approach was immediately flown with a flap fault which had occurred during the first one and was also unstabilised with touchdown on a wet runway occurring at excessive speed. The aircraft could not be stopped before an overrun occurred during which a collision with a bus on the public road beyond the aerodrome perimeter was narrowly avoided. The aircraft was badly damaged but the occupants were uninjured. The outcome was attributed to the actions and inactions of the crew.)
  • B190, Blue River BC Canada, 2012 (On 17 March 2012, the Captain of a Beech 1900C operating a revenue passenger flight lost control of the aircraft during landing on the 18metre wide runway at destination after an unstabilised day visual approach and the aircraft veered off it into deep snow. The Investigation found that the Operator had not specified any stable approach criteria and was not required to do so. It was also noted that VFR minima had been violated and, noting a fatal accident at the same aerodrome five months previously, concluded that the Operators risk assessment and risk management processes were systemically deficient.)

Significant Tailwind Component

  • B734, Timbuktu Mali, 2017 (On 5 May 2017, a Boeing 737-400 made a visual approach to Timbuktu and slightly overran the end of the 2,170 metre-long runway into soft ground causing one of the engines to ingest significant quantities of damaging debris. The Investigation found that the landing had been made with a significantly greater than permitted tailwind component but that nevertheless had the maximum braking briefed been used, the unfactored landing distance required would have been well within that available. The preceding approach was found to have been comprehensively unstable throughout with no call for or intent to make a go around.)
  • B738, Mumbai India, 2018 (On 10 July 2018, a Boeing 737-800 marginally overran the wet landing runway at Mumbai after the no 1 engine thrust reverser failed to deploy when full reverse was selected after a late touchdown following a stabilised ILS approach. The Investigation found that the overrun was the result of touchdown with almost 40% of the runway behind the aircraft followed by the failure of normal thrust reverser deployment when attempted due to a failed actuator in one of the reversers. The prevailing moderate rain and the likelihood that dynamic aquaplaning had occurred were identified as contributory.)
  • B738, Sochi Russia, 2018 (On 1 September 2018, a Boeing 737-800, making its second night approach to Sochi beneath a large convective storm with low level windshear reported, floated almost halfway along the wet runway before overrunning it by approximately 400 metres and breaching the perimeter fence before stopping. A small fire did not prevent all occupants from safely evacuating. The Investigation attributed the accident to crew disregard of a number of windshear warnings and a subsequent encounter with horizontal windshear resulting in a late touchdown and noted that the first approach had meant that the crew had been poorly prepared for the second.)
  • B738, Limoges France, 2008 (On 21 March 2008, a Boeing 737-800 being operated by Ryanair on a scheduled passenger flight from Charleroi, Belgium to Limoges carried out a daylight approach at destination followed by a landing in normal ground visibility but during heavy rain and with a strong crosswind which ended with a 50 metre overrun into mud. None of the 181 occupants were injured but both engines were damaged by ingestion of debris.)
  • A343, Toronto Canada, 2005 (On 2 August 2005, an Air France Airbus A340 attempted a daylight landing at destination on a rain-soaked runway during an active thunderstorm and overran for 300 metres ending up in a ravine from where, despite its destruction by fire, all occupants escaped. The Investigation recommendations focussed mainly on crew decision making in adverse weather conditions and issues related to the consequences of such an overrun on survivability.)

Significant Crosswind Component

  • B738, Limoges France, 2008 (On 21 March 2008, a Boeing 737-800 being operated by Ryanair on a scheduled passenger flight from Charleroi, Belgium to Limoges carried out a daylight approach at destination followed by a landing in normal ground visibility but during heavy rain and with a strong crosswind which ended with a 50 metre overrun into mud. None of the 181 occupants were injured but both engines were damaged by ingestion of debris.)
  • MD81, Kiruna Sweden, 1997 (A scheduled passenger flight from Stockholm Arlanda to Kiruna left the runway during the night landing at destination performed in a strong crosswind with normal visibility.)
  • GLF4, Teterboro NJ USA, 2010 (On 1 October 2010, a Gulfstream G-IV being operated by General Aviation Flying Service as ‘Meridian Air Charter’ on a corporate flight from Toronto International to Teterboro made a deep landing on 1833m-long runway 06 at destination in normal day visibility and overran the end of the runway at a speed of 40 to 50 knots before coming to a stop 30m into a 122m long EMAS installation.)
  • L410, Isle of Man, 2017 (On 23 February 2017, a Czech-operated Let-410 departed from Isle of Man into deteriorating weather conditions and when unable to land at its destination returned and landed with a crosswind component approximately twice the certified limit. The local Regulatory Agency instructed ATC to order the aircraft to immediately stop rather than attempt to taxi and the carrier’s permit to operate between the Isle of Man and the UK was subsequently withdrawn. The Investigation concluded that the context for the event was a long history of inadequate operational safety standards associated with its remote provision of flights for a Ticket Seller.)
  • DHC6, Tiree UK, 2017 (On 7 March 2017, a DHC-6-300 left the side of the runway after touchdown in what the crew believed was a crosswind component within the Operator's crosswind limit. The Investigation concluded that the temporary loss of control of the aircraft was consistent with the occurrence with a sudden gust of wind above the applicable crosswind limits and noted the reliance of the crew on 'spot' winds provided by TWR during the final stages of the approach.)

Thrust Reversers not fitted

  • E145, Hannover Germany, 2005 (On 14 August 2005, a British Airways Regional Embraer 145 overran Runway 27L at Hannover by 160 metes after flying a stable approach in daylight but then making a soft and late touchdown on a water covered runway. Dynamic aquaplaning began and this was followed by reverted rubber aquaplaning towards the end of the paved surface when the emergency brake was applied. The aircraft suffered only minor damage and only one of the 49 occupants was slightly injured.)
  • B462, Stord Norway, 2006 (On 10 October 2006, a BAE Systems 146-200 being operated by Danish airline Atlantic Airways on a passenger flight from Sola to Stord overran the end of runway 33 at destination at a slow speed in normal visibility at dawn (but just prior to the accepted definition of daylight) before plunging down a steep slope sustaining severe damage and catching fire immediately it had come to rest. The rapid spread of the fire and difficulties in evacuation resulted in the death of four of the 16 occupants and serious injury to six others. The aircraft was completely destroyed.)
  • E135, George South Africa, 2009 (On 7 December 2009, an South African Airlink Embraer 135 overran the recently refurbished wet landing runway at George after braking was ineffective and exited the aerodrome perimeter to end up on a public road. There was no fire and all occupants were able to evacuate the aircraft. The subsequent investigation attributed the overrun principally to inadequate wet runway friction following the surface maintenance activities and noted various significant non-compliances with ICAO Annex 14.)

Landing Performance Assessment

  • JS31, Fort St. John BC Canada, 2007 (On 9 January 2007, a Peace Air British Aerospace Jetstream 31 on a scheduled service flight from Grand Prairie, Alberta made an instrument approach to Runway 29 at Fort St. John, British Columbia and touched down 320 feet short of the runway striking approach and runway threshold lights.)
  • B738, Christchurch New Zealand, 2015 (On 11 May 2015, a Boeing 737-800 crew making a night landing at Christchurch had to react quickly when braking action deteriorated and only just succeeded in preventing an overrun. The Investigation found that a damp rather than wet runway had been assumed despite recent rain and that the aircraft operator had recently changed their procedures so that a damp runway should be considered as dry rather than wet for runway performance purposes. The questionable determination of the crew that the runway was likely to be damp, not wet, was attributed to a relatively high workload prior to final approach.)
  • E135, Norwich UK, 2003 (On 30 January 2003, an Embraer 135 being operated by Swedish company City Airline on a scheduled night passenger flight from Aberdeen to Norwich overran the slush-covered landing runway following a late touchdown in normal visibility. There were no injuries to any of the 25 occupants and with no signs of fire, the passengers subsequently disembarked via the aircraft integral airstairs. There was only minor damage to the aircraft landing gear which required wheel replacement.)
  • MD83, Port Harcourt Nigeria, 2018 (On 20 February 2018, a Boeing MD-83 attempting a night landing at Port Harcourt during a thunderstorm and heavy rain touched down well beyond the touchdown zone and departed the side of the runway near its end before continuing 300 metres beyond it. The Investigation found that a soft touchdown had occurred with 80% of the runway behind the aircraft and a communications failure on short final meant a wind velocity change just before landing leading to a tailwind component of almost 20 knots was unknown to the crew who had not recognised the need for a go around.)
  • B739, Yogyakarta Indonesia, 2015 (On 6 November 2015, a Boeing 737-900 overran the 2,200 metre-long landing runway at Yogyakarta after a tailwind approach with airspeed significantly above the applicable Vref followed by a long landing on a wet runway without optimum use of deceleration devices. The flight crew management of the situation once the aircraft had come to a stop was contrary to procedures in a number of important respects. The aircraft operator took extensive action to improve crew performance following the event. The Investigation found significant fault with the airport operator's awareness of runway surface condition and an absence of related significant risk management.)

Off side of Runway

  • DH8D, Hubli India, 2015 (On 8 March 2015, directional control of a Bombardier DHC 8-400 which had just completed a normal approach and landing was lost and the aircraft departed the side of the runway following the collapse of both the left main and nose landing gear assemblies. The Investigation found that after being allowed to drift to the side of the runway without corrective action, the previously airworthy aircraft had hit a non-frangible edge light and the left main gear and then the nose landing gear had collapsed with a complete loss of directional control. The aircraft had then exited the side of the runway sustaining further damage.)
  • A333, Montréal QC Canada, 2014 (On 7 October 2014, an Airbus A330-300 failed to maintain the runway centreline as it touched down at Montréal in suddenly reduced forward visibility and part of the left main gear departed the runway edge, paralleling it briefly before returning to it and regaining the centreline as the landing roll was completed. The Investigation attributed the excursion to a delay in corrective action when a sudden change in wind velocity occurred at the same time as degraded visual reference. It was found that the runway should not have been in use in such poor visibility without serviceable lighting.)
  • B744, Maastricht-Aachen Netherlands, 2017 (On 11 November 2017, a type-experienced Boeing 747-400ERF crew making a night rolling takeoff at Maastricht-Aachen lost aircraft directional control after an outer engine suddenly failed at low speed and a veer-off onto soft ground adjacent to the runway followed. The Investigation found that rather than immediately reject the takeoff when the engine failed, the crew had attempted to maintain directional control without thrust reduction to the point where an excursion became unavoidable. The effect of ‘startle’, the Captain’s use of a noise cancelling headset and poor alerting to the engine failure by the First Officer were considered contributory.)
  • B737, Chicago Midway IL, USA 2011 (On 26 April 2011 a Southwest Boeing 737-700 was assessed as likely not to stop before the end of landing runway 13C at alternate Chicago Midway in daylight and was intentionally steered to the grass to the left of the runway near the end, despite the presence of a EMAS. The subsequent investigation determined that the poor deceleration was a direct consequence of a delay in the deployment of both speed brakes and thrust reverser. It was noted that the crew had failed to execute the ‘Before Landing’ Checklist which includes verification of speed brake arming.)
  • DHC6, Jomson Nepal, 2013 (On 16 May 2013, a DHC6-300 on a domestic passenger flight made a tailwind touchdown at excessive speed in the opposite direction of the of 740 metre-long runway to the notified direction in use and, after departing the runway to one side during deceleration, re-entered the runway and attempted to take off. This failed and the aircraft breached the perimeter fence and fell into a river. The Investigation identified inappropriate actions of the aircraft commander in respect of both the initial landing and his response to the subsequent runway excursion and also cited the absence of effective CRM.)

Taxiway Take Off/Landing

  • B734, Sharjah UAE, 2015 (On 24 September 2015, a Boeing 737-400 cleared for a night take-off from Sharjah took off from the parallel taxiway. The controller decided that since the taxiway was sterile and the aircraft speed was unknown, the safest option was to allow the take-off to continue. The Investigation noted that the taxiway used had until a year previously been the runway, becoming a parallel taxiway only when a new runway had been opened alongside it. It was noted that the controller had "lost visual watch" on the aircraft and regained it only once the aircraft was already at speed.)
  • B738, Oslo Gardermoen Norway, 2005 (On a 23 October, 2005 a Boeing 737-800 operated by Pegasus Airlines, during night time, commenced a take-off roll on a parallel taxiway at Oslo Airport Gardermoen. The aircraft was observed by ATC and stop instruction was issued resulting in moderate speed rejected take-off (RTO).)
  • A343, Hong Kong China, 2010 (On 27 November 2010, a Finnair Airbus A340-300 unintentionally attempted a night take off from Hong Kong in good visibility from the taxiway parallel to the runway for which take off clearance had been given. ATC observed the error and instructed the crew to abandon the take off, which they then did. The Investigation attributed the crew error partly to distraction. It was considered that the crew had become distracted and that supporting procedures and process at the Operator were inadequate.)
  • B763, Singapore, 2015 (On 12 July 2015, a Japanese-operated Boeing 767-300 deviated from its acknowledged clearance and lit-centreline taxi routing and began take-off from a parallel taxiway in good night visibility, crossing a lit red stop bar in the process. When ATC observed this, the aircraft was instructed to stop which was achieved without further event. A subsequent take-off was uneventful. The crew did not report the event to their airline or their State authorities because the Captain "determined that this case did not need to be reported" and these organisations only became aware when subsequently contacted by the Investigating Agency.)
  • B733 / DH8D, Fort McMurray Canada, 2014 (On 4 August 2014, a Boeing 737-300 making a day visual approach at Fort McMurray after receiving an ILS/DME clearance lined up on a recently-constructed parallel taxiway and its crew were only alerted to their error shortly before touchdown by the crew of a DHC8-400 which was taxiing along the same taxiway in the opposite direction. This resulted in a go around being commenced from 46 feet agl. The Investigation noted that both pilots had been looking out during the final stages of the approach and had ignored important SOPs including that for a mandatory go around from an unstable approach.)

Runway Length Temporarily Reduced

  • B738, Djalaluddin Indonesia, 2013 (On 6 August 2013, a Boeing 737-800 encountered cows ahead on the runway after landing normally in daylight following an uneventful approach and was unable to avoid colliding with them at high speed and as a result departed the runway to the left. Parts of the airport perimeter fencing were found to have been either missing or inadequately maintained for a significant period prior to the accident despite the existence of an airport bird and animal hazard management plan. Corrective action was taken following the accident.)
  • B738, Perth Australia, 2008 (On 9 May 2008, a Boeing 737-800 made a low go around at Perth in good daylight visibility after not approaching with regard to the temporarily displaced runway threshold. A second approach was similarly flown and, having observed a likely landing on the closed runway section, ATC instructed a go around. However, instead, the aircraft flew level at a low height over the closed runway section before eventually touching down just beyond the displaced threshold. The Investigation found that runway closure markings required in Australia were contrary to ICAO Recommendations and not conducive to easy recognition when on final approach.)
  • GLEX, Montréal St Hubert Canada, 2017 (On 15 May 2017, a Bombardier Global Express crew failed to land on the restricted runway width available at Montréal St Hubert where there was a long-term construction project which had required reductions in both width and length of the main runway. The Investigation found that relevant NOTAM information including a requirement to pre-notify intended arrival had been ignored and that during arrival the crew had failed to respond to a range of cues that their landing would not be on the normally-available runway. Deficiencies in the arrangements made for continued use of part of the runway were also identified.)
  • B738, Manchester UK, 2003 (On 16 July 2003, a Boeing 737-800, being operated by Excel Airlines on a passenger flight from Manchester to Kos began take off on Runway 06L without the flight crew being aware of work in progress at far end of the runway. The take off calculations, based on the full runway length resulted in the aircraft passing within 56 ft of a 14 ft high vehicle just after take off.)
  • IL76, Yerevan Armenia, 2019 (On 16 May 2019, an Ilyushin Il-76 overran the end of the landing runway at Yerevan after completing an ILS approach because the crew hadn’t realised until it was too late to stop that the available landing distance was reduced at the far end of the runway. The Investigation noted that it would have been possible to stop the aircraft in the distance available and attributed the lack of flight crew awareness to a combination of their own lack of professionalism and that exhibited by the Dispatcher and to the inadequacy and lack of clarity in the NOTAM communications advising the change.)

Intentional Premature Rotation

  • B763, Manchester UK, 2008 (On 13 December 2008, a Thomsonfly Boeing 767-300 departing from Manchester for Montego Bay Jamaica was considered to be accelerating at an abnormally slow rate during the take off roll on Runway 23L. The aircraft commander, who was the pilot not flying, consequently delayed the V1 call by about 10 - 15 because he thought the aircraft might be heavier than had been calculated. During the rotation the TAILSKID message illuminated momentarily, indicating that the aircraft had suffered a tail strike during the takeoff. The commander applied full power and shortly afterwards the stick shaker activated briefly. The aircraft continued to climb away and accelerate before the flaps were retracted and the after-takeoff check list completed. The appropriate drills in the Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) were subsequently actioned, fuel was dumped and the aircraft returned to Manchester for an overweight landing without further incident.)
  • MD88, Groningen Netherlands, 2003 (On 17 June 2003, a crew of a Boeing MD-88, belonging to Onur Air, executed a high speed rejected take-off at a late stage which resulted in overrun of the runway and serious damage to the aircraft.)
  • B773, London Heathrow UK, 2016 (On 30 August 2016, a Boeing 777-300 crew began takeoff from London Heathrow at an intersection one third of the way along the runway using the reduced thrust calculated for a full-length take off instead of the rated thrust calculated for the intersection takeoff. As a result, the aircraft was only just airborne as it crossed the airport boundary and an adjacent public road. The Investigation attributed the data input error to crew failure to respond appropriately on finding that they had provisionally computed performance data based on different assumptions and concluded that the relevant Operator procedures were insufficiently robust.)

Incorrect Aircraft Configuration

  • A320, Basel-Mulhouse-Freiburg France, 2014 (On 6 October 2014, an A320 crew requested, accepted and commenced an intersection takeoff at Basel using reduced thrust performance data based on the originally anticipated full length takeoff which would have given 65% more TODA. Recognition of the error and application of TOGA allowed the aircraft to get airborne just before the runway end but the Investigation found that a rejected take off from high speed would have resulted in an overrun and noted that despite changes to crew procedures after a similar event involving the same operator a year earlier, the relevant procedures were still conducive to error.)
  • B733, Aqaba Jordan, 2017 (On 17 September 2017, a Boeing 737-300 requested and was approved for a visual approach to Aqaba which involved a significant tailwind component and, after approaching at excessive speed, it touched down late and overran the 3000 metre runway onto sandy ground. The Investigation found that despite EGPWS Alerts relating to both the high rate of descent and late configuration, the Captain had instructed the First Officer to continue what was clearly an unstabilised approach and when touchdown had still not occurred with around 1000 metres of runway left, the Captain took over but was unable to prevent an overrun.)
  • A319, Nice France, 2019 (On 29 August 2019, an Airbus A319 crew used more runway than expected during a reduced thrust takeoff from Nice, although not enough to justify increasing thrust. It was subsequently found that an identical error made by both pilots when independently calculating takeoff performance data for the most limiting runway intersection had resulted in use of data for a less limiting intersection than the one eventually used. The Investigation concluded that the only guaranteed way to avoid such an error would be an automatic cross check, a system upgrade which was not possible on the particular aircraft involved.)
  • JS41, Rhodes Greece, 2015 (On 2 February 2015, a Jetstream 41 made a hard and extremely fast touchdown at Rhodes and the left main gear leg collapsed almost immediately. The crew were able to prevent the consequent veer left from leading to a lateral runway excursion. The Investigation found that the approach had been significantly unstable throughout with touchdown at around 50 knots above what it should have been and that a whole range of relevant procedures had been violated by the management pilot who had flown the approach in wind shear conditions in which approaches to Rhodes were explicitly not recommended.)
  • E145, Bristol UK, 2017 (On 22 December 2017, an Embraer 145 departed the side of the runway shortly after touching down at Bristol and finally stopped 120 metres from the runway edge. The Investigation found that the aircraft had landed after the emergency/parking brake had been inadvertently selected on during the approach when the intention had been to deploy the speed brakes. It was noted that the Captain designated as Pilot Flying had been new to both the aircraft type and the Operator and had been flying under supervision as part of the associated type conversion requirement for line training.)

Reduced Thrust Take Off

  • A332, Montego Bay Jamaica, 2008 (On 28 October 2008, an Airbus A330-200 could not be rotated for liftoff whist making a night takeoff from Montego Bay until the Captain had increased the reduced thrust set to TOGA, after which the aircraft became airborne prior to the end of the runway and climbed away normally. The Investigation found that the takeoff performance data used had been calculated for the flight by Company Despatch and the fact that it had been based on a takeoff weight which was 90 tonnes below the actual take off weight had not been noticed by any of the flight crew.)
  • A345, Melbourne Australia, 2009 (On 20 March 2009 an Airbus A340-500, operated by Emirates, commenced a take-off roll for a normal reduced-thrust take-off on runway 16 at Melbourne Airport. The attempt to get the aircraft airborne resulted in a tail strike and an overrun because insufficient thrust had been set based upon an incorrect flight crew data entry.)
  • B737, Southend UK, 2010 (On 21 Nov 2010, a Boeing 737-700 being operated by Arik Air on a non revenue positioning flight from Southend to Lagos with only the two pilots on board carried out a successful take off in daylight and normal ground visibility from runway 06 but became airborne only just before the end of the runway.)
  • A319, Nice France, 2019 (On 29 August 2019, an Airbus A319 crew used more runway than expected during a reduced thrust takeoff from Nice, although not enough to justify increasing thrust. It was subsequently found that an identical error made by both pilots when independently calculating takeoff performance data for the most limiting runway intersection had resulted in use of data for a less limiting intersection than the one eventually used. The Investigation concluded that the only guaranteed way to avoid such an error would be an automatic cross check, a system upgrade which was not possible on the particular aircraft involved.)
  • A321, Glasgow UK, 2019 (On 24 November 2019, as an Airbus A321 taking off from the 2665 metre-long runway 05 at Glasgow approached the calculated V1 with the flex thrust they had set, the aircraft was not accelerating as expected and they applied TOGA thrust. This resulted in the aircraft becoming airborne with less than 400 metres of runway remaining. The Investigation confirmed what the crew had subsequently discovered for themselves - that they had both made an identical error in their independent EFB performance calculations which the subsequent standard procedures and checks had not detected. The operator is reviewing its related checking procedures.)

Fixed Obstructions in Runway Strip

  • DH8D, Hubli India, 2015 (On 8 March 2015, directional control of a Bombardier DHC 8-400 which had just completed a normal approach and landing was lost and the aircraft departed the side of the runway following the collapse of both the left main and nose landing gear assemblies. The Investigation found that after being allowed to drift to the side of the runway without corrective action, the previously airworthy aircraft had hit a non-frangible edge light and the left main gear and then the nose landing gear had collapsed with a complete loss of directional control. The aircraft had then exited the side of the runway sustaining further damage.)
  • E55P, Blackbushe UK, 2015 (On 31 July 2015 a Saudi-operated Embraer Phenom on a private flight continued an unstabilised day visual approach to Blackbushe in benign weather conditions. The aircraft touched down with excess speed with almost 70% of the available landing distance behind the aircraft. It overran and was destroyed by impact damage and fire and all occupants died. The Investigation concluded that the combination of factors which created a very high workload for the pilot "may have saturated his mental capacity, impeding his ability to handle new information and adapt his mental model" leading to his continuation of a highly unstable approach.)
  • A30B, Bratislava Slovakia, 2012 (On 16 November 2012, an Air Contractors Airbus A300 departed the left the side of the landing runway at Bratislava after an abnormal response to directional control inputs. Investigation found that incorrect and undetected re-assembly of the nose gear torque links had led to the excursion and that absence of clear instructions in maintenance manuals, since rectified, had facilitated this. It was also considered that the absence of any regulation requiring equipment in the vicinity of the runway to be designed to minimise potential damage to aircraft departing the paved surface had contributed to the damage caused by the accident.)
  • B738, Manila Philippines, 2018 (On 16 August 2018, a Boeing 737-800 made a stabilised approach to Manila during a thunderstorm with intermittent heavy rain but the crew lost adequate visual reference as they arrived over the runway. After a drift sideways across the 60 metre-wide landing runway, a veer off occurred and was immediately followed by a damaging collision with obstructions not compliant with prevailing airport safety standards. The Investigation found that the Captain had ignored go around calls from the First Officer and determined that the corresponding aircraft operator procedures were inadequate as well as faulting significant omissions in the Captain’s approach brief.)

Ineffective Use of Retardation Methods

  • B744, Maastricht-Aachen Netherlands, 2017 (On 11 November 2017, a type-experienced Boeing 747-400ERF crew making a night rolling takeoff at Maastricht-Aachen lost aircraft directional control after an outer engine suddenly failed at low speed and a veer-off onto soft ground adjacent to the runway followed. The Investigation found that rather than immediately reject the takeoff when the engine failed, the crew had attempted to maintain directional control without thrust reduction to the point where an excursion became unavoidable. The effect of ‘startle’, the Captain’s use of a noise cancelling headset and poor alerting to the engine failure by the First Officer were considered contributory.)
  • E190, Kupang Indonesia, 2015 (On 21 December 2015, an Embraer 195 crew continued a significantly unstable approach which included prolonged repetition of 'High Speed' and a series of EGPWS Alerts which were both ignored and which culminated in a high speed late touchdown which ended in a 200 metre overrun. The Investigation attributed the event to poor flight management and noted the systemic lack of any effective oversight of pilot operating standards compounded in the investigated event by the effects of a steep flight deck authority gradient and the failure to detect anomalies in the normal operating behaviour of both the pilots involved.)
  • B738, Manila Philippines, 2018 (On 16 August 2018, a Boeing 737-800 made a stabilised approach to Manila during a thunderstorm with intermittent heavy rain but the crew lost adequate visual reference as they arrived over the runway. After a drift sideways across the 60 metre-wide landing runway, a veer off occurred and was immediately followed by a damaging collision with obstructions not compliant with prevailing airport safety standards. The Investigation found that the Captain had ignored go around calls from the First Officer and determined that the corresponding aircraft operator procedures were inadequate as well as faulting significant omissions in the Captain’s approach brief.)
  • IL76, Yerevan Armenia, 2019 (On 16 May 2019, an Ilyushin Il-76 overran the end of the landing runway at Yerevan after completing an ILS approach because the crew hadn’t realised until it was too late to stop that the available landing distance was reduced at the far end of the runway. The Investigation noted that it would have been possible to stop the aircraft in the distance available and attributed the lack of flight crew awareness to a combination of their own lack of professionalism and that exhibited by the Dispatcher and to the inadequacy and lack of clarity in the NOTAM communications advising the change.)
  • DH8A, Rouyn-Noranda QC Canada, 2019 (On 23 January 2019, a Bombardier DHC8-100 failed to complete its intended night takeoff from Rouyn-Noranda after it had not been commenced on or correctly aligned parallel to the (obscured) centreline and the steadily increasing deviation had not been recognised until a runway excursion was imminent. The Investigation attributed this to the failure of the crew to pay sufficient attention to the external perspective provided by the clearly-visible runway edge lighting whilst also noting the Captain’s likely underestimation of the consequences of a significant flight deck authority gradient and a failure to fully follow relevant applicable operating procedures.)

Continued Take Off

  • B738, Belfast International UK, 2017 (On 21 July 2017, a Boeing 737-800 taking off from Belfast was only airborne near the runway end of the runway and then only climbed at a very shallow angle until additional thrust was eventually added. The Investigation found that the thrust set had been based on an incorrectly input surface temperature of -52°C, the expected top of climb temperature, instead of the actual surface temperature. Although inadequate acceleration had been detected before V1, the crew did not intervene. It was noted that neither the installed FMC software nor the EFBs in use were conducive to detection of the data input error.)
  • B734, Sharjah UAE, 2015 (On 24 September 2015, a Boeing 737-400 cleared for a night take-off from Sharjah took off from the parallel taxiway. The controller decided that since the taxiway was sterile and the aircraft speed was unknown, the safest option was to allow the take-off to continue. The Investigation noted that the taxiway used had until a year previously been the runway, becoming a parallel taxiway only when a new runway had been opened alongside it. It was noted that the controller had "lost visual watch" on the aircraft and regained it only once the aircraft was already at speed.)
  • B738, Lyon France, 2009 (On 29 August 2009, an Air Algérie Boeing B737-800 departed the side of the runway during take off but then regained the paved surface after sustaining damage from obstructions, completed the take off without further event and continued to destination. Damage to one of the engines, to tyres and to two lights was discovered at the destination. ATC remained unaware of the excursion until the Operator asked its representative at Lyon to ask the airport to carry out a runway inspection.)
  • B737, Southend UK, 2010 (On 21 Nov 2010, a Boeing 737-700 being operated by Arik Air on a non revenue positioning flight from Southend to Lagos with only the two pilots on board carried out a successful take off in daylight and normal ground visibility from runway 06 but became airborne only just before the end of the runway.)
  • FA50 / Vehicle, Moscow Vnukovo Russia, 2014 (On 20 October 2014 a Dassault Falcon 50 taking off at night from Moscow Vnukovo collided with a snow plough which had entered the same runway without clearance shortly after rotation. Control was lost and all occupants died when it was destroyed by impact forces and post crash fire. The uninjured snow plough driver was subsequently discovered to be under the influence of alcohol. The Investigation found that the A-SMGCS effective for over a year prior to the collision had not been properly configured nor had controllers been adequately trained on its use, especially its conflict alerting functions.)

Continued Landing Roll

  • A318/B738, Nantes France, 2010 (On 25 May 2010 an Air France Airbus A318 making an automatic landing off an ILS Cat 2 approach at Nantes experienced interference with the ILS LOC signal caused by a Boeing 737-800 which was departing from the same runway but early disconnection of the AP removed any risk of un-correctable directional control problems during the landing roll. Both aircraft were operating in accordance with their ATC clearances. Investigation attributed the conflict to the decision of TWR not to instruct the A318 to go around and because of diminished situational awareness.)
  • E55P, Blackbushe UK, 2015 (On 31 July 2015 a Saudi-operated Embraer Phenom on a private flight continued an unstabilised day visual approach to Blackbushe in benign weather conditions. The aircraft touched down with excess speed with almost 70% of the available landing distance behind the aircraft. It overran and was destroyed by impact damage and fire and all occupants died. The Investigation concluded that the combination of factors which created a very high workload for the pilot "may have saturated his mental capacity, impeding his ability to handle new information and adapt his mental model" leading to his continuation of a highly unstable approach.)
  • F28, Gällivare Sweden, 2016 (On 6 April 2016, a Romanian-operated Fokker F28 overran the runway at Gällivare after a bounced night landing. There were no occupant injuries and only slight aircraft damage. The Investigation concluded that after a stabilised approach, the handling of the aircraft just prior and after touchdown, which included late and inappropriate deployment of the thrust reversers, was not compatible with a safe landing in the prevailing conditions, that the crew briefing for the landing had been inadequate and that the reported runway friction coefficients were "probably unreliable". Safety Recommendations were made for a generic 'Safe Landing' concept to be developed.)
  • A333, Kathmandu Nepal, 2015 (On 4 March 2015, the crew of a Turkish Airlines A333 continued an automatic non precision RNAV approach below the prescribed minimum descent altitude without having obtained any element of visual reference and when this was acquired a few seconds before the attempted landing, the aircraft was not aligned with the runway centreline and during a 2.7g low-pitch landing, the left main gear touched down on the grass. The aircraft then left the runway completely before stopping with a collapsed nose gear and sufficient damage to be assessed a hull loss. None of 235 occupants sustained serious injury.)
  • B737, Chicago Midway USA, 2005 (On 8 December 2005, a delay in deploying the thrust reversers after a Boeing 737-700 touchdown at night on the slippery surface of the 1176 metre-long runway at Chicago Midway with a significant tailwind component led to it running off the end, subsequently departing the airport perimeter and hitting a car before coming to a stop. The Investigation concluded that pilots’ lack of familiarity with the autobrake system on the new 737 variant had distracted them from promptly deploying the reversers and that inadequate pilot training provision and the ATC failure to provide adequate braking action information had contributed.)

Excessive Exit to Taxiway Speed

  • JS32, Torsby Sweden, 2014 (On 31 January 2014, an Estonian-operated BAE Jetstream 32 being used under wet lease to fulfil a government-funded Swedish domestic air service requirement landed long at night and overran the end of the runway. The Investigation concluded that an unstabilised approach had been followed by a late touchdown at excessive speed and that the systemic context for the occurrence had been a complete failure of the aircraft operator to address operational safety at anything like the level appropriate to a commercial operation. Failure of the responsible State Safety Regulator to detect and act on this situation was also noted.)

Frozen Deposits on Runway

  • CRJX, Madrid Spain, 2015 (On 1 February 2015, a Bombardier CRJ 1000 departed from Pamplona with slush likely to have been in excess of the regulatory maximum depth on the runway. On landing at Madrid, the normal operation of the brake units was compromised by ice and one tyre burst damaging surrounding components and leaving debris on the runway, and the other tyre was slow to spin up and sustained a serious flat spot. The Investigation concluded that the Pamplona apron, taxiway and runway had not been properly cleared of frozen deposits and that the flight crew had not followed procedures appropriate for the prevailing conditions.)
  • B763, Halifax NS Canada, 2019 (On 4 March 2019, a Boeing 767-300 crew lost directional control of their aircraft as speed reduced following their touchdown at Halifax and were unable to prevent it being rotated 180° on the icy surface before coming to a stop facing the runway landing threshold. The Investigation found that the management of the runway safety risk by the airport authority had been systemically inadequate and that the communication of what was known by ATC about the runway surface condition had been incomplete. A number of subsequent corrective actions taken by the airport authority were noted.)

Excessive Water Depth

  • B738, Mumbai India, 2018 (On 10 July 2018, a Boeing 737-800 marginally overran the wet landing runway at Mumbai after the no 1 engine thrust reverser failed to deploy when full reverse was selected after a late touchdown following a stabilised ILS approach. The Investigation found that the overrun was the result of touchdown with almost 40% of the runway behind the aircraft followed by the failure of normal thrust reverser deployment when attempted due to a failed actuator in one of the reversers. The prevailing moderate rain and the likelihood that dynamic aquaplaning had occurred were identified as contributory.)

Intentional Veer Off Runway

  • AN72, Sao Tome, Sao Tome & Principe, 2017 (On 29 July 2017, an Antonov AN-74 crew sighted several previously unseen large “eagles” rising from the long grass next to the runway as they accelerated for takeoff at Sao Tome and, concerned about the risk of ingestion, made a high speed rejected takeoff but were unable to stop on the runway and entered a deep ravine just beyond it which destroyed the aircraft. The Investigation found that the reject had been unnecessarily delayed until above V1, that the crew forgot to deploy the spoilers which would have significantly increased the stopping distance and that relevant crew training was inadequate.)
  • C402, Virgin Gorda British Virgin Islands, 2017 (On 11 February 2017, a Cessna 402 failed to stop on the runway when landing at Virgin Gorda and was extensively damaged. The Investigation noted that the landing distance required was very close to that available with no safety margin so that although touchdown was normal, when the brakes failed to function properly, there was no possibility of safely rejecting the landing or stopping normally on the runway. Debris in the brake fluid was identified as causing brake system failure. The context was considered as the Operator’s inadequate maintenance practices and a likely similar deficiency in operational procedures and processes.)

Misaligned take off

  • AT72, Karup Denmark, 2016 (On 25 January 2016, an ATR 72-200 crew departing from and very familiar with Karup aligned their aircraft with the runway edge lights instead of the lit runway centreline and began take-off, only realising their error when they collided with part of the arrester wire installation at the side of the runway after which the take-off was rejected. The Investigation attributed the error primarily to the failure of the pilots to give sufficient priority to ensuring adequate positional awareness and given the familiarity of both pilots with the aerodrome noted that complacency had probably been a contributor factor.)
  • E120, Amsterdam Netherlands, 2016 (On 18 January 2016, an Embraer 120 crew made a night takeoff from Amsterdam Runway 24 unaware that the aircraft was aligned with the right side runway edge lights. After completion of an uneventful flight, holes in the right side fuselage and damage to the right side propeller blades, the latter including wire embedded in a blade leading edge, were found. The Investigation concluded that poor visual cues guiding aircraft onto the runway at the intersection concerned were conducive to pilot error and noted that despite ATS awareness of intersection takeoff risks, no corresponding risk mitigation had been undertaken.)
  • DH8A, Rouyn-Noranda QC Canada, 2019 (On 23 January 2019, a Bombardier DHC8-100 failed to complete its intended night takeoff from Rouyn-Noranda after it had not been commenced on or correctly aligned parallel to the (obscured) centreline and the steadily increasing deviation had not been recognised until a runway excursion was imminent. The Investigation attributed this to the failure of the crew to pay sufficient attention to the external perspective provided by the clearly-visible runway edge lighting whilst also noting the Captain’s likely underestimation of the consequences of a significant flight deck authority gradient and a failure to fully follow relevant applicable operating procedures.)

Runway Condition not as reported

  • CRJ9, Turku Finland, 2017 (On 25 October 2017, a Bombardier CRJ-900 crew lost directional control after touchdown at Turku in the presence of a tailwind component on a contaminated runway at night whilst heavy snow was falling. After entering a skid the aircraft completed a 180° turn before finally stopping 160 metres from the end of the 2500 metre-long runway. The Investigation found that skidding began immediately after touchdown with the aircraft significantly above the aquaplaning threshold and that the crew did not follow the thrust reverser reset procedure after premature deployment or use brake applications and aileron inputs appropriate to the challenging conditions.)
  • B763, Halifax NS Canada, 2019 (On 4 March 2019, a Boeing 767-300 crew lost directional control of their aircraft as speed reduced following their touchdown at Halifax and were unable to prevent it being rotated 180° on the icy surface before coming to a stop facing the runway landing threshold. The Investigation found that the management of the runway safety risk by the airport authority had been systemically inadequate and that the communication of what was known by ATC about the runway surface condition had been incomplete. A number of subsequent corrective actions taken by the airport authority were noted.)
  • B738, Sochi Russia, 2018 (On 1 September 2018, a Boeing 737-800, making its second night approach to Sochi beneath a large convective storm with low level windshear reported, floated almost halfway along the wet runway before overrunning it by approximately 400 metres and breaching the perimeter fence before stopping. A small fire did not prevent all occupants from safely evacuating. The Investigation attributed the accident to crew disregard of a number of windshear warnings and a subsequent encounter with horizontal windshear resulting in a late touchdown and noted that the first approach had meant that the crew had been poorly prepared for the second.)

Related Articles

For all accident reports held on SKYbrary, see the main section on Accident Reports.