What happened
On 16 July 2015, an Airbus A320-214, registration G-EZUH, was prepared for a scheduled passenger flight from London Luton Airport to Montpellier, France. During the pre-departure phase, the crew initially calculated takeoff performance based on using the full length of Runway 08, utilizing a flap 1 configuration.
While at the holding point, the crew observed an aircraft obstructing the runway threshold. Following consultation with Air Traffic Control, the commander determined that an intersection departure from Bravo One was appropriate. Consequently, the crew recalculated the takeoff performance, this time using a flap 2 configuration. However, while the flap setting and associated speeds were updated in the Flight Management Guidance Computer (FMGC), the runway length parameter was not correctly adjusted to reflect the shorter distance available from the intersection.
During the takeoff roll, the commander realized as the aircraft approached V1 speed that the remaining runway was shorter than anticipated. To avoid an aborted takeoff, the commander elected to continue the roll without adjusting engine thrust. The aircraft became airborne with only about 180 metres of runway remaining, passing over the runway end at a height of 117 feet. There were no injuries and no damage to the aircraft.
The investigation
The AAIB examined the flight data and the crew's performance calculations. The investigation established that while the crew had updated the engine thrust and takeoff speeds for the new flap setting, the takeoff distance available (TODA) remained set for the full length of Runway 08 rather than the reduced distance from Intersection Bravo.
The commander noted that an attempt was made to change the runway selection on the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB). However, he suggested that the touchscreen calibration and his finger size may have prevented the change from registering. Additionally, the crew's attention was divided by the need to confirm the new flap configuration.
Findings
- The takeoff performance was calculated using the full runway length instead of the reduced distance available from Intersection Bravo.
- The failure to update the runway length in the EFB was the primary factor in the discrepancy.
- The crew was distracted by the necessity of verifying the change in flap configuration.
- Technical difficulties with the EFB touchscreen interface may have prevented the correct runway selection from being recorded.