What happened
On a scheduled flight from Windsor to Cancun, Mexico, an Airbus A320-212, registration C-GJUP, experienced a runway excursion while back-taxiing on Runway 25. The incident occurred late at night when the airport's control tower was closed, and the airfield was operating under the radio control of aerodrome lighting (ARCAL) system.
While the aircraft was taxiing, the airfield lighting extinguished. The flight crew continued the back-taxi without immediately reactivating the lights. As the aircraft approached the end of the runway, the first officer activated the ARCAL system, which illuminated the runway edge and threshold lights. Upon seeing the runway end lights, the captain applied heavy braking; however, due to the aircraft's speed and proximity to the edge, it left the runway, struck a lighting bar, and came to a stop in a drainage ditch. There were no injuries to the passengers or crew.
The investigation
The investigation examined the flight crew's procedures, the aircraft's performance, and the environmental conditions. Data from the flight data recorder showed the aircraft's ground speed had increased to approximately 35 knots during the back-taxi, exceeding the company's maximum taxi speed of 30 knots.
Investigators also reviewed the crew's communication. The crew failed to monitor the aerodrome traffic frequency (ATF), meaning they did not hear warnings from airport ground vehicles. Furthermore, the investigation looked into the crew's familiarity with uncontrolled aerodrome operations and the impact of the weather, which included blowing snow and strong tailwinds.
Findings
Several factors contributed to the excursion:
- The flight crew continued taxiing in low visibility after the airfield lights went out, losing vital visual cues.
- The crew did not monitor the aircraft's ground speed, allowing it to exceed the 30-knot limit.
- The crew did not account for the illusion of relative movement caused by blowing snow and tailwinds, which made the aircraft appear to be moving slower than it actually was.
- The first officer was unfamiliar with ARCAL and uncontrolled aerodrome procedures, which led the captain to perform both pilot flying and pilot not flying duties, increasing his workload.
- The crew failed to use the correct radio frequency (ATF) for traffic advisories, resulting in a lack of awareness regarding ground vehicle movements.