What happened
On 4 July 2012, an Airbus A319-111, registration G-EZDN, was performing a commercial passenger flight at Prague Airport. The flight crew was completing the final sector of a four-leg duty originating from Stansted. During the takeoff roll on Runway 24, the pilots observed that the aircraft was approaching runway construction works much faster than anticipated. Although the aircraft rotated and became airborne at the expected speeds, the takeoff run was significantly longer than the crew had calculated.
While the aircraft successfully transitioned to flight, the incident caused a major distraction. This distraction, coupled with a radio frequency change immediately following takeoff, resulted in the crew failing to retract the landing gear before reaching the landing gear limit speed. The aircraft continued to its destination without further incident or damage.
The investigation
Investigators examined the crew's pre-flight preparations and the information available at the time. It was established that a NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) had been issued for Prague Airport, stating that the available length of Runway 24 had been temporarily reduced from 3,715 m to 2,500 m due to ongoing works.
While the crew had listened to the ATIS broadcast, the information was delivered in heavily accented English, and the pilots did not register the change in runway length. Furthermore, the co-pilot had transcribed airport details into the flight plan, but this documentation omitted the reduced length. The investigation also looked into the crew's route manuals, which contained charts for both the standard and the temporary runway configurations, and noted that a visit to the flight deck by an acquaintance during pre-flight duties had interrupted the crew's activities.
Findings
- The takeoff performance calculations were based on the full runway length, failing to account for the reduced available distance caused by construction.
- The crew's awareness was diminished due to being at the end of a lengthy duty period.
- The presence of both standard and temporary runway charts in the route manual contributed to the oversight.
- Pre-flight preparations were interrupted by a non-operational visit to the flight deck.
- The construction works at the departure end of the runway were not visible to the crew during the initial stages of the takeoff roll.