What happened
On February 17, 2007, a Boeing 737-400, registration EI-CZG, was operating flight AP 5500 from Rome Fiumicino to Alghero Fertilia. While the weather conditions were favorable with visibility exceeding 10 km, the pilot in command elected to perform a visual approach to runway 02.
During the final approach, the aircraft's flight path was significantly angled relative to the runway centerline. To correct this trajectory, the pilot executed an aggressive turn at an extremely low altitude of approximately 32 feet. This maneuver required a bank angle of about 30 degrees, causing the right wingtip to scrape the runway surface. The contact resulted in a dented wingtip, a broken logo light cover, and a slight abrasion to the right slat.
The aircraft landed without further incident and taxied to the parking area. While the crew did not immediately report the contact, passengers noted the difficult maneuver, and ground personnel later discovered the damage during a post-flight inspection. A piece of the broken logo light was later recovered from the runway strip.
The investigation
The ANSV investigation examined the flight path, crew performance, and adherence to operational procedures. The inquiry focused on why the pilot chose a visual approach that led to an unstabilized configuration and why the crew failed to execute a go-around. Investigators also reviewed the cockpit dynamics, specifically looking at the interaction between the pilot in command and the co-pilot during the critical phase of flight.
Findings
- The primary cause of the event was the steep turn executed by the pilot at a very low altitude.
- The aircraft was positioned at an excessive angle relative to the runway axis.
- The crew failed to follow company procedures regarding stabilized approaches and the execution of a missed approach (go-around).
- There was a significant lack of crew integration; the co-pilot failed to provide appropriate call-outs or exercise emergency authority to correct the situation.
- The pilot in command's decision to attempt a manual visual approach was driven by personal preference rather than operational necessity.