What happened
On 22 July 1998, a BAe 146-200, registration G-JEAW, was operating a scheduled passenger flight from London Gatwick to Belfast City Airport. During the approach to Runway 22, the air traffic controller informed the crew that the runway surface was "wet with water patches." Despite the First Officer expressing concerns regarding the combination of the runway state and an increasing tailwind, the commander elected to proceed with the landing.
As the aircraft approached the threshold, the wind component reached approximately 10 knots. During the flare, the aircraft failed to make immediate contact with the runway, instead floating for a period before the commander intervened to ensure touchdown. Once on the ground, the crew applied maximum braking pressure. However, the aircraft could not be stopped within the remaining runway length. In an attempt to vacate the runway via a taxiway, the commander used the nosewheel steering to turn left, causing the aircraft to exit the paved surface and come to rest in the mud approximately 7 metres beyond the runway edge. There were no injuries to the 5 crew members or 97 passengers, and no damage was sustained by the aircraft.
The investigation
The AAIB investigation examined flight data from the Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder, as well as a technical examination of the aircraft and runway surface. Investigators found that the aircraft's touchdown speed was 111 KIAS, and the total ground roll to a stop was 975 metres. While the commander believed aquaplaning had occurred, physical examination of the tyre marks showed no evidence of the scald marks or rubber reversion typically associated with such an event.
Technical checks of the braking systems, anti-skid functionality, and hydraulic pressures all returned satisfactory results. The investigation also reviewed the runway's physical characteristics, noting that the unusually wide concrete surface might have provided misleading visual cues during the flare. Furthermore, the investigation compared the airline's operational manuals with standard air traffic services definitions regarding runway contamination.
Findings
- The crew accepted the landing on Runway 22 despite a reported tailwind that exceeded the 5-knot limit specified in the company manual for contaminated runways.
- A discrepancy existed between the air traffic controller's reporting of "water patches" and the airline's internal definition of a contaminated runway, meaning the crew did not implement "short field" landing techniques.
- The handling pilot's flare was misjudged, leading to the aircraft floating and increasing the required landing distance.
- The aircraft's landing performance was impacted by the combination of a 10-knot tailwind and a wet runway surface.