Atlas B742 at Dusseldorf on Jan 24th 2005, overran runway on landing
Last Update: December 20, 2013 / 18:33:29 GMT/Zulu time
Germany's Bundesstelle fuer Flugunfalluntersuchungen (BFU) released their final report more than 8 years later concluding:
The air accident is due to the fact that the braking action values reported to the crew did not correspond with the runway conditions which had changed because of the heavy snowfall since the last measurement.
The following factors contributed to the air accident:
- The high dynamics of the weather changes
- The lack of a measurement method providing reliable braking coefficient values under all weather conditions.
The BFU reported that the localizer antenna was destroyed at a width of about 30 meters, the approach lights runway 05R were destroyed. Parts of the localizer antenna were found in the engines, the fuselage and wings also showed damage consistent with impacting the localizer antenna. The entire engine #2 intake up to the fan had separated, fire had destroyed the left engine fairing in the area of the fan and the low pressure compressor. Fan blades of engines #2, #3 and #4 were damaged.
The BFU reported that computation of the various variables recorded by the flight data recorder showed, that the braking action available at Dusseldorf was poor or worse at the time of landing in Dusseldorf.
The BFU analyzed that the driver of the measurement vehicle had reported the values correctly and conservatively. The measurement 45 minutes prior to the arrival found friction values of 68, 59 and 52, which was correctly identified as good braking action. The BFU stated: "the driver indicated the non-critical condition of the runways. However, he also advised of the possible worsening of the condition and emphasised his willingness to undertake another friction survey and monitor the runway condition."
About 10 minutes prior to arrival another measurement was requested, the driver commenced the measurement and report 4 minutes prior to landing values of 47, 32 and 29 (mean braking action 0.36 medium to good), however due to difficulties with the printer he reported to ground a medium braking action. The BFU stated: "This shows that the driver had attentively and correctly observed the friction survey. His estimation medium was more conservative than the actual mean measurement result."
The ground controller receiving the values however was not clear with the driver report and queried, the driver clarified that he had mainly observed values in the 30ies and occasional 25s. The BFU stated: "This confirmed a braking action of medium or medium to poor with partially even
This worsened braking action report was relayed to the crew by tower about 30 seconds prior to touch down when tower stated: "the braking action was measured to be medium in all parts".
The BFU summarized: "The accident shows that the airport personnel made an effort to achieve a proper runway condition. In addition to the precautionary de-icing of the runway, friction surveys were conducted to determine the braking coefficient. The last friction surveys were conducted immediately prior to the landing of the airplane.
The BFU is of the opinion that this accident emphasises that under the prevailing weather conditions and the existing friction coefficients the used friction tester is appropriate for the planning of winter services but does is not reliably usable for flight operations. This confirms the findings which the Norwegian accident investigation authority and the ICAO Friction Task Force determined in the meantime."
The BFU analyzed: "The five minutes between the fire brigade being alerted by the tower and the first fire trucks arriving at the accident site were significantly more than what ICAO requires. However, the ICAO requirements are valid for optimal conditions. The poor visibility and the snow-covered operating areas slowed down the fire brigade."
This article is published under license from Avherald.com. © of text by Avherald.com.
Read unlimited articles and receive our daily update briefing. Gain better insights into what is happening in commercial aviation safety.
Support AeroInside by sending a small tip amount.
An Atlas Air Boeing 747-8 Freighter, registration N859GT performing flight 5Y-95 from Miami,FL (USA) to San Juan (Puerto Rico) with 5 crew on board,…
An Atlas Air Boeing 747-800 freighter, registration N860GT performing flight 5Y-8938 from Seoul (South Korea) to Anchorage,AK (USA) with 5 crew, was…
An Atlas Air Boeing 747-400 on behalf of Polar Air Cargo, registration N445MC performing flight PO-956 from Leipzig (Germany) to Tokyo Narita…
An Atlas Air Boeing 747-400 freighter on behalf of Fedex Federal Express, registration N477MC performing flight FX-251 from Memphis,TN (USA) to San…
An Atlas Air Boeing 747-400 on behalf of US Transportation Command, registration N480MC performing flight CMB-517 from Topeka,KS (USA) to Poznan…
February 2024 was a busy month in aviation safety. Please find our summary below.All in all, 81 new articles have been published during last month. 7…
An American Airlines Boeing 777-200, registration N790AN performing flight AA-94 from New York JFK,NY (USA) to Madrid,SP (Spain), was enroute at…
Are you researching aviation incidents? Get access to AeroInside Insights, unlimited read access and receive the daily newsletter.Pick your plan and subscribe
A new way to document and demonstrate airworthiness compliance and aircraft value. Find out more.
ELITE Simulation Solutions is a leading global provider of Flight Simulation Training Devices, IFR training software as well as flight controls and related services. Find out more.
Your regulation partner, specialists in aviation safety and compliance; providing training, auditing, and consultancy services. Find out more.
Popular aircraftAirbus A320
Boeing 737-800 MAX
Popular airlinesAmerican Airlines