What happened
On 20 October 2022, an Embraer 145LR, registration F-HYOG, was performing a commercial passenger flight from Rodez–Marcillac to Paris-Orly. During the approach to runway 25, the crew encountered heavy storm activity, including cumulonimbus clouds and intense precipitation.
As the aircraft descended, the crew struggled to agree on a strategy to avoid storm cells, leading to a fragmented approach. The aircraft intercepted the glideslope from above at a high speed, which prevented the timely extension of flaps. While the crew eventually configured the aircraft, the approach failed to meet several stabilization criteria at 1,000 ft AAL, including excessive airspeed, improper configuration, and uncompleted checklists.
During the final stages of the approach, the aircraft encountered a significant tailwind component that reached approximately 23 kt at touchdown. The aircraft landed approximately 1,150 m from the threshold, well beyond the touchdown zone. Due to heavy rain, the runway surface had become contaminated with stagnant water, leading to hydroplaning. The aircraft could not be stopped by the braking system and skidded off the end of the runway, coming to a stop 4/50 m past the runway exit.
The investigation
The BEA examined flight data from the FDR and CVR, radar reflectivity charts, and meteorological records from Météo-France. The investigation focused on the breakdown of multi-crew cooperation (MCC) and the management of the aircraft's energy and path. Investigators also analyzed the runway condition reports provided by the airport operator and the impact of the storm on wind and surface conditions. The investigation specifically looked into why the crew did not initiate a go-around despite the presence of a "TOO LOW TERRAIN" TAWS alert and the failure to meet stabilization requirements.
Findings
- The primary cause of the overrun was the long landing resulting from high approach speed, an unpredicted tailwind, and runway hydroplaning.
- A significant breakdown in multi-crew cooperation occurred, as the captain's management style became autocratic, encroaching on the co-pilot's duties and reducing shared situational awareness.
- The crew failed to properly implement Threat and Error Management (TEM), specifically failing to account for the risks of changing wind directions and runway contamination during storm activity.
- The approach was unstable, with the aircraft exceeding VAPP by 45 kt and failing to meet several stabilization criteria at the 1,000 ft threshold.
- The crew did not initiate a go-around despite a TAWS alert and the realization that the landing was long.