What happened
On July 1, 2019, a Boeing 737-80/0 aircraft, operating a flight from Jaipur to Mumbai, overran the runway at Mumbai airport during landing in heavy rain. The flight, carrying 160 passengers and 7 crew members, was performing an ILS approach to Runway 27. During the final stages of the approach, the pilot disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle at approximately 100 feet.
As the aircraft transitioned to manual flight, the crew performed an extended flare maneuver. This, combined with tailwind conditions and reduced visibility, caused the aircraft to float significantly down the runway. The aircraft eventually touched down with only 3,881 feet of runway remaining, which was insufficient to stop the plane. The aircraft exited the paved surface at 65 knots and came to rest 615 feet beyond the runway end. While the aircraft sustained substantial damage—including a collapsed nose landing gear and engine damage—there were no injuries to the passengers or crew.
The investigation
AAIB India investigators examined the flight data recorder, cockpit voice recorder, and meteorological reports. The inquiry focused on the flight crew's decision-making during deteriorating weather and the technical aspects of the landing. The investigation looked into the aircraft's configuration, noting that the aircraft was using flaps 30 rather than the recommended flaps 40.
Investigators also reviewed the organizational safety culture, noting a lack of active flight monitoring and a failure to implement previous safety recommendations. The investigation also addressed the post-accident response, specifically the coordination between rescue services and cabin crew during the evacuation via fire ladders.
Findings
- The primary cause of the excursion was a late touchdown resulting from an unintended and unrecognized long flare.
- Reduced visual cues caused by heavy rain significantly impaired the pilot's depth perception and ability to determine the actual touchdown position.
- The presence of tailwind conditions contributed to the increased distance covered during the flare.
- The approach was conducted using a lower flap setting (flaps 30) than the recommended configuration (flaps 40).
- There was a lack of real-time weather updates provided to the crew regarding the deteriorating conditions at the destination.