Casualties unknown

2022-01-31: Bombardier CL-600-2B16 Challenger 604 (N999PX) — London Stansted Airport, GB

London Stansted Airport, GB

On January 31, 2022, a Bombardier CL-600-2B16 Challenger 604 (registration N999PX) was involved in an aviation accident near London Stansted Airport, GB. Investigators recorded the probable cause as: The approach was flown at an airspeed slower than appropriate for the conditions, and the aircraft floated during the landing, leading to an excessive angle of attack prior to the excursion. This summary draws on records from the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB).

Sourcesthe UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB)Primary reportUpdated 1785658417Data APIEditorial standards

A Bombardier CL-600-2B16 Challenger 604, N999PX, experienced a loss of control during a crosswind landing at London Stansted Airport, resulting in damage beyond economical repair.

History of the Flight

The flight originated in El Gouna Airport, Egypt, with a stop in Cairo, and was destined for London Stansted Airport. The crew, consisting of a commander and a co-pilot, had two passengers on board. The departure from Cairo was delayed until 1853 UTC, with an estimated arrival time of 0008 UTC on 31 January 2022. The cruise was uneventful.

Approach and Landing

Before the approach, the crew received the Stansted ATIS indicating wind from 290° at 13 kt. They calculated VREF as 119 kt and VREF+X as 125 kt. The aircraft was vectored for an ILS approach to Runway 22. During the approach, the commander noted on the integrated electronic flight instrument system that wind at 1,500 ft was 54 kt, primarily a crosswind. Stansted Tower reported surface wind from 300° at 13 kt gusting 25 kt. The co-pilot asked the commander if he was comfortable with the wind, to which the commander replied he was. The co-pilot stated that if the commander was uncomfortable, they would perform a go-around.

After disconnecting the autopilot at about 150 ft, the co-pilot made several calls of "excessive bank." The aircraft had no autothrottle. The commander closed the thrust levers at about 50 ft and made a small nose-up input. The aircraft began to float about 10 ft above the runway. The commander recalled windshear causing a sudden IAS reduction, and the left wing "snap rolled/dropped," followed by a loss of directional control. The aircraft landed on its nosewheel, then left and right landing gear, before departing the paved surface onto the grass. The commander believed the stick pusher activated. The aircraft was damaged beyond economical repair.

Go-Around and Diversion

The commander initiated a go-around. The co-pilot called "go around" several times. During the go-around, a nose door open warning and a weight-on-wheel input caution illuminated. The aircraft climbed and levelled at 4,000 ft. ATC asked if the crew was OK, and the co-pilot responded affirmatively, requesting vectors for another approach. The crew discussed possible damage and decided to lower the landing gear, which indicated down and locked; the nose door warning then extinguished.

The co-pilot asked ATC for an airport with normal wind conditions, stating their crosswind limit was 15 kt. ATC suggested London Gatwick with wind from 280° at 14 kt gusting 18 kt. The crew diverted to Gatwick for an ILS approach to Runway 26. The landing was uneventful, but a grinding noise from the nosewheel was heard. After stopping on a rapid exit taxiway, inspection revealed damage to the nosewheel and left wingtip. The aircraft was shut down.

Pilot Comments

The commander stated he had a personal crosswind limit of 20 kt and had told the co-pilot during the approach brief. He noted high workload and did not recall the monitoring calls. He considered fatigue not a cause but that plan continuation bias might have played a role. He reflected that he should have initiated a go-around when the aircraft floated.

The co-pilot was not aware of the commander's personal crosswind limit and believed aircraft limits should be observed. He noted that after the go-around, both pilots were shaken, and he recommended diverting to an airport with a smaller crosswind.

Investigation Findings

The investigation determined that the approach was flown at an airspeed slower than appropriate for the conditions, and the aircraft floated during the landing, leading to an excessive angle of attack prior to the excursion.

Probable cause

The approach was flown at an airspeed slower than appropriate for the conditions, and the aircraft floated during the landing, leading to an excessive angle of attack prior to the excursion.