What happened
On 11 December 2004, a Cessna 210, registration HB-CXF, arrived at Ängelholm Helsingborg airport in Sweden following a five-hour flight from Italy. The weather conditions at the time of arrival were characterized by mist and a low cloudbase of 500 feet.
After successfully landing on runway 14, the pilot was instructed by air traffic control to taxi toward the terminal area via taxiway F. As the aircraft approached the end of the runway, the pilot observed a sign for taxiway F with a 4-degree left-hand arrow. Approximately 100 meters past this sign, the pilot identified what appeared to be a high-speed turn-off and a visible centerline.
Upon turning onto this surface, the aircraft left the paved runway and the wheels sank into soft earth. The impact caused the nosewheel to break, bringing the aircraft to an abrupt halt. While the aircraft sustained substantial damage, including damage to the nose, propeller, and landing gear, the pilot and passenger were unhurt and able to exit the aircraft without assistance.
The investigation
The investigation established that the airport was in the midst of a reconstruction project. The layout of taxiway F had been shifted approximately 60 meters closer to the runway threshold. While the old asphalt had been removed and replaced with earth, the old centerline had merely been overpainted with gray paint, making it still visible to pilots.
Furthermore, the investigation found that the updated taxiway configuration was not reflected in the current airport documentation. Although a NOTAM had been issued for the construction period, the revised aeronautical information was not published until months after the accident. The investigation also noted that the signage for the new taxiway configuration had been delayed, leaving the old, incorrect sign in place.
Findings
- The aircraft's documentation and the airport's published aeronautical information did not accurately reflect the new taxiway layout.
- The signage and markings for the taxiway system were not compliant with applicable regulations and failed to provide correct guidance.
- The deficiencies in airport safety management led to an incomplete reconstruction process where unserviceable areas lacked proper visual warnings or edge markings.
- The airport's initial reporting of the event was criticized for implying pilot error rather than addressing the underlying infrastructure failures.