History of the Flight
On 16 July 2003, a Boeing 737-86N aircraft, registration G-XLAG, operated by Excel Airways Limited, was preparing for a flight from Manchester Airport to Kos, Greece. The aircraft carried seven crew and 190 passengers. Runway 06 Left (06L) was in use, but the flight crew were unaware that the runway was being operated at a reduced length due to work-in-progress to remove rubber deposits at the far end. The runway is built over a slight rise, making the far end invisible from the threshold.
Sequence of Events
Due to a difference in interpretation of information passed between Air Traffic Control (ATC) and the flight crew, the aircraft entered the runway from holding point AG rather than the expected holding point A. The takeoff was conducted using a reduced thrust setting calculated for the assumed normal runway length. As the aircraft passed the crest of the runway, the flight crew became aware of vehicles at its far end. However, being close to rotation speed, they continued the takeoff. The aircraft passed within 56 ft of a 14 ft high vehicle.
Notification and Subsequent Incidents
The serious incident was notified to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) at 1724 hrs on 23 July 2003, seven days after it had occurred. The investigation revealed further incidents during the course of the rubber removal work. Most notably, on the night of 15 July 2003, ATC instructed three commercial passenger aircraft to go-around after positioning them to land on the reduced-length runway.
Causal Factors
The investigation identified several causal factors: 1) The flight crew were not provided with information that the runway was reduced in length. 2) The flight crew misinterpreted the ATC instruction to enter the runway from holding point AG. 3) The ATC controller did not ensure the flight crew understood the instruction and did not monitor the aircraft's position on the runway. 4) The airport operator's planning and dissemination of NOTAMs were inadequate. 5) ATC procedures for reduced runway operations were not robust. 6) The airline's operational planning did not account for the temporary reduction in runway length.
Damage and Injuries
The aircraft sustained no damage, and there were no injuries to persons.
