What happened
On February 25, 2010, an Air Nostrum Bombardier CL-600-2B19 (EC-HPR) was performing a scheduled domestic passenger flight from Bilbao to Vigo. As the aircraft approached runway 20 at Vigo Airport, the crew encountered moderate turbulence and fluctuating wind speeds. While the approach was initially established on the ILS, the aircraft began to deviate from the glideslope and localizer.
During the final stages of the landing, the aircraft was approximately 2 feet above the ground when a gust of wind hit the plane from the right, inducing a sharp roll to the left. In an attempt to counteract this motion, both the pilot flying and the captain applied simultaneous, forceful control inputs to the right. This brusque corrective action caused the aircraft to roll sharply to the right, resulting in the right wingtip striking the runway surface. The aircraft touched down with the right wheel first and continued its landing roll, exiting the runway via a taxiway. The crew was initially unaware that the wingtip had made contact with the ground, discovering the minor damage only during a post-flight inspection.
The investigation
The CIAIAC examined flight data recorder (FDR) parameters, meteorological reports, and crew statements. The investigation focused on the stability of the approach and the mechanics of the control inputs. Investigators analyzed the descent rate, airspeed, and flight path deviations. The investigation also reviewed the aircraft's maintenance history and the meteorological conditions at Vigo Airport, which included significant wind gusts and a high crosswind component.
Findings
- The approach was non-stabilized, as the descent rate exceeded established margins and the aircraft deviated from the ILS localizer and glideslope.
- The aircraft was subject to significant wind conditions, with winds from 240° at 22 knots, gusting up to 33 knots.
- The primary cause of the wingtip strike was the sudden and heavy-handed control inputs applied by both crew members to correct the wind-induced roll.
- A contributing factor was the crew's decision to continue the landing despite the approach being outside of the stabilized parameters, rather than executing a go-around as required by the operator's manual.
- No mechanical failures or maintenance deficiencies were identified in the aircraft.