What happened
On 28 May 2003, a Cess0560 Citation, registration D-CAUW, was performing a charter flight from Hannover, Germany, to Leeds Bradford Airport. The aircraft, carrying two crew members and eight passengers, was on a visual approach to Runway 14. During the descent, the aircraft maintained a high airspeed, exceeding the limits for various flap settings. The crew received several terrain alerts from the Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) and was prompted by Air Traffic Control to extend the landing gear.
The aircraft touched down at a speed of approximately 121 kt, well above the target speed, after a significant float period. Although the commander applied full reverse thrust immediately, the application of wheel brakes was delayed. Consequently, the aircraft overran the paved surface of the runway by approximately 525 feet, ending up on the grass. The impact caused the nosewheel to detach from the aircraft and resulted in damage to the radome and the right wing.
The investigation
The AAIB investigation examined the flight data recorder (FDR) and cockpit voice recorder (CVR) to reconstruct the approach. The data revealed that the aircraft was flying a 3.5º glidepath but was not in a stabilized configuration; the airspeed remained high, and the landing gear and flaps were deployed late in the approach. The investigation also reviewed the operational procedures of the company and the experience levels of the crew. It was noted that the commander had significant experience on the type, while the first officer was relatively new to the aircraft. The investigation also looked into the runway markings and the available landing distance at Leeds Bradford.
Findings
- The approach was not stabilized, characterized by excessive airspeed and late configuration changes.
- The commander's decision to delay wheel braking to reduce brake wear contributed to the overrun.
- The commander overestimated the remaining runway length, partly due to the lack of visibility of the runway end until the aircraft had already passed the midpoint.
- The flight planning information used by the crew cited a longer runway length than the actual landing distance available (LDA) for Runway 14.
- There was a significant experience gradient between the commander and the first officer, and a lack of effective verbal monitoring during the unstable approach.
- The aircraft's landing gear and flaps were not configured according to standard procedures in a timely manner.