What happened
On 28 February 2009, a Boeing 777-200, registration 9V-SRN, was completing a scheduled passenger flight to Singapore Changi Airport. During the landing phase on Runway 02L, the aircraft experienced a significant drift to the right of the runway centerline. As the aircraft descended through the final stages of the flare, a sudden increase in the crosswind component caused the plane to deviate.
Shortly after touchdown, the right main landing gear exited the paved runway surface and traveled onto the adjacent grass area for approximately 92 meters. During this excursion, the aircraft struck and damaged two runway edge lights. The Pilot-in-Command intervened to steer the aircraft back toward the center of the runway. While there were no injuries to the 289 passengers or crew, the aircraft sustained deep cuts to two tires and minor damage to the landing gear's electrical harness.
The investigation
The investigation examined the meteorological conditions, the flight crew's decision-making, and the physical inputs applied to the aircraft controls. Investigators found that the aircraft was operating in heavy rain with a wet runway surface. While the crew had noted a previous report of a 15-knot tailwind, the Pilot-in-Command (PIC) proceeded with the approach because the most recent update indicated a reduced wind speed, which he interpreted as improving conditions.
Analysis of the flight data recorder revealed that both the Pilot-in-Command and the Second Officer (the pilot flying) were applying simultaneous inputs to the controls. The investigation also noted a discrepancy in how the crew practiced "guarding the controls," with the PIC applying physical pressure to the control wheel to assist the trainee, a practice that differed from the operator's specific training expectations.
Findings
- The primary cause of the excursion was the increasing crosswind component that caused the aircraft to drift off the centerline during the landing flare.
- The flight crew failed to initiate a go-around despite the developing unstable situation and the onset of the drift at 40 feet.
- The Pilot-in-Command did not explicitly verbalize taking control of the aircraft, leading to conflicting control inputs between the two pilots.
- The operator lacked published weather limits specifically for Second Officers acting as the pilot flying.
- The crew's decision to continue the approach was based on an interpretation that the wind conditions were subsiding.
Safety action
Following the incident, the operator implemented several safety measures, including:
- Establishing specific weather limits for Second Officers during takeoff, approach, and landing.
- Issuing a technical circular to reinforce the necessity of following Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) regarding the handover of controls and the importance of the go-around policy.
- Integrating this incident into the airline's Crew Resource Management (CRM) training as a case study for managing unstabilized approaches.