What happened
On 3 February 2018, an Airbus A320, registration EI-CVB, landed on Runway 26L at Gatwick Airport during a period of light rain. As the aircraft was decelerating on the runway at approximately 60 kt, an airport operations vehicle, identified as Leader 6, was cleared by Air Traffic Control (ATC) to enter the runway to conduct a scheduled inspection. The vehicle entered the runway at Hold G1 and traveled east, directly toward the approaching aircraft. The pilot of the Airbus A3 and20 reported being surprised by the vehicle's presence, as the crew believed the vehicle's clearance was conditional upon the aircraft vacating the runway first. The aircraft eventually vacated the runway via the Foxtrot Romeo taxiway, and the vehicle subsequently exited via the same route.
The investigation
The AAIB investigation examined the communications between ATC and the aircraft, as well as the internal review processes at Gatwick Airport. The investigation found that the ATC clearance provided to the operations vehicle was not conditional on the aircraft vacating the runway. Furthermore, the investigation looked into the management of the post-incident review, noting that the process was led by a duty manager with limited formal investigation training. The inquiry also reviewed the high-intensity operational environment at Gatwick, where the pressure to maintain declared runway capacity often requires fitting inspections into narrow gaps between movements.
Findings
- The ATC clearance to the operations vehicle did not require the aircraft to vacate the runway before entry.
- The aircraft crew was not familiar with the specific runway exit procedures at the airport, which suggested a lack of awareness regarding standard local inspection procedures.
- The clearance provided to the vehicle was not conditional on the aircraft vaculating the runway, creating a risk of runway incursion.
- There was a lack of coordination between airport operations and ATC, with both parties feeling pressure to complete inspections within existing traffic gaps.
- The airport's internal investigation into the incident lacked a clearly defined scope and did not include input from airline operators.