What happened
The aircraft was dispatched to a restricted airport featuring a 3,900-foot runway. Prior to departure, a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) indicated three feet of standing water on the north end of the runway. Additionally, a Significant Meteorological Information (SIGMET) was in effect for moderate to severe turbulence below 10,000 feet due to strong low-level winds and associated wind shear.
The captain initiated a shallow overwater approach to Runway 12. This runway is bordered on its left edge by a vertical bluff approximately 70 feet high, located roughly 106 feet from the centerline. During the final approach, the captain observed variable wind conditions and a sudden 15-knot increase in indicated airspeed caused by wind shear. Despite these indications, he continued the approach.
The aircraft settled and touched down 72 feet short of the runway threshold. The left main landing gear struck a log that had washed onto the shore, as well as a large rock. The gear collapsed after the aircraft bounced and subsequently landed on the runway surface. Unpredictable winds and downdrafts were reportedly prevalent at this airport. While the official wind at 1349 ADT was from 160 degrees at 8 knots, winds at the approach end of the runway were reported as gusty and coming over the bluff.
The captain had previously landed at Unalaska nine times. He was not wearing sunglasses and was blinded by sun glare reflecting off the water. The required dry landing field length had been computed to be 3,700 feet. The Federal Aviation Administration had granted Markair an exemption to operate at Unalaska without overrun or safety areas. No Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) was present at the approach end of Runway 12. The owner, the State of Alaska, had delayed necessary improvements due to funding problems.
The investigation
The investigation examined the operational constraints and environmental factors present during the incident. Key findings included the lack of standard safety infrastructure at the destination airport. Specifically, there were no overrun or safety areas permitted by the FAA exemption granted to the operator. The absence of a VASI removed a critical visual aid for approach slope guidance.
Findings
Contributing factors identified in the report include the complex wind environment and physical limitations of the airfield. The airport was subject to unpredictable winds and downdrafts, with gusty conditions reported at the runway threshold despite lighter official readings. The presence of standing water and debris, such as logs and rocks, further compromised the landing surface.
Operational challenges were exacerbated by the lack of visual approach aids and safety margins. The operator was allowed to fly into the airport without standard overrun areas due to an FAA exemption. Infrastructure improvements had been postponed by the state owner due to budgetary constraints. The captain's visibility was impaired by sun glare, and he proceeded with the approach despite noting significant wind shear indicators.