Virgin Australia crew failed to check Christchurch weather ahead of runway skid

A Virgin flight captain and first officer prepared for a dry landing at Christchurch airport. But conditions were wet.

A Virgin Boeing 737 came with 5 metres of Christchurch airport’s runway, an ATSB report has found.

A three-year investigation into a Virgin Australia flight that almost skidded off the runway in Christchurch has found the crew failed to cross-check weather conditions that would have most likely prompted a diversion.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has today delivered its final report on the incident on May 11, 2015, following a flight from Sydney.

According to the report, the Boeing 737 came within 5 metres of the end of the runway in Christchurch after the captain and first officer prepared for a “dry” landing instead of wet.

As the aircraft touched down, the first officer reported he did not get the expected sensation of being restrained against the seat belt and the jet did not decelerate as expected.

“The first officer also indicated that it felt like the aircraft was sliding,” the report said.

“In response the first officer made a call to the effect of ‘aquaplaning’ or ‘skidding’ and applied constant ‘hard’ but not full manual braking overriding the autobrake system.”

The captain assisted the first officer with manual braking and both reported they could feel the rudder/brake pedals “pulsing” which indicated the anti-skid system was operating.

“The first officer reported that he was focused on the red runway end lights,” the report said.

“The captain reported that when reverse thrust was stowed near the runway end, there was enough surface water on the runway to create a wall of spray.”

A cabin crew member interviewed by the ATSB said she heard the brakes ‘squealing’ but the aircraft did not slow down.

“She could also smell burning rubber and was unable to see outside as there was a large amount of water spray,” the report noted.

The ATSB investigation found a number of factors contributed to the near runway excursion, including an increased workload for the pilots before landing due to a change of runway at Christchurch and the developing weather.

“The crew’s high workload coincided with the time when critical information was conveyed by air traffic control (ATC) regarding the changing reported runway surface conditions at Christchurch from dry to wet,” said the report.

“The crew inadvertently missed this information and based on a pilot broadcast of the perceived runway conditions, they believed the conditions were reported as damp.”

In addition, the crew did not get the opportunity to listen to automatic terminal information reports indicating it was raining at the airport and the runway was wet.

The report found that if that information had been cross-checked, the crew would have established they could not safely land on that runway at the time.

“This would have likely resulted in the crew seeking an alternative landing solution such as changing runways (if available), holding to burn off fuel or diverting to another airport,” the report said.

One of the issues identified by the investigation, was the change in “damp runway definition” by Virgin Australia from being considered wet, to being treated as dry.

The report also highlighted the importance of cross-checking information including inflight environmental information.

It said at the time of the incident Virgin Australia did not have a requirement to cross-check inflight environmental information and landing performance calculations.

“An informal review of other Australian operators found that one or both of these were to be cross-checked,” the report said.

The ATSB did find that the actions of the crew ultimately prevented a runway excursion.