Incident: Air Berlin B738 at Dortmund on Jan 3rd 2010, rejected takeoff results in runway overrun

The Aviation Herald		Last Update: Wednesday, Feb 10th 2021 21:42Z 26403 Articles available Events from Jun 19th 1999 to Feb 10th 2021
www.avherald.com	Incidents and News in Aviation

List by:

Filter:

Incident: Air Berlin B738 at Dortmund on Jan 3rd 2010, rejected takeoff results in runway overrun

By Simon Hradecky, created Sunday, Jan 3rd 2010 09:24Z, last updated Friday, Jan 8th 2010 11:43Z

An Air Berlin Boeing 737-800, registration D-ABKF performing flight AB-2450 from Dortmund (Germany) to Las Palmas,CI (Spain) with 165 passengers and 6 crew, rejected takeoff at high speed below V1 from Dortmund's runway 06 (length 2000 meters/6600 feet) in snowfall and came to a stop on soft ground at 07:05L (06:05Z). No injuries occured, the passengers disembarked via stairs. The airplane sustained no damages.

Air Berlin said, that the airplane came to a stop on a downslope making it appear like a collapsed nose gear, the airplane however did not receive any substantial damage and is expected to be back in service during the day after being removed from the soft ground. The takeoff was rejected at high speed because of disagreeing airspeeds between captain and copilot.

The airport was closed for nearly 14 hours and reopened at 20:45L (19:45Z).

The airport reported, that a crash alert had been raised initially, the resulting massive deployment of forces could be reduced quickly. Stairs were brought to the aircraft, the passengers disembarked normally and were bussed to the terminal. The airplane sunk into the soft ground with its gear and is currently stuck.

A passenger video shows severe snowfall, which keeps substantial amounts of snow attached to the passenger windows throughout acceleration and slowdown while the left hand engine initially covered with a layer of a few centimeters of snow is blown clear during initial acceleration. The airplane accelerated for 28 seconds from engines spooling up to engines spooling down and brakes being applied. Reverse thrust is applied about 5 seconds later lasting for 27 seconds and the airplane comes to a stop past the runway end 32 seconds after rejecting the takeoff. The captain immediately after stand still calls "Attention, crew on station! Attention, crew on station!", then the video ends.

Air Berlin reported on Thursday (Jan 7th), that the examination of the airplane following the incident has been completed, no damages were found. The airplane is going to resume service on Jan 8th.

Germany's Bureau for air accident investigation BFU reported on Jan 7th, that the takeoff was rejected at 120 knots ground speed due to disagreeing airspeeds.

Metars:
EDLW 030920Z 36006KT 3500 R06/1400N BR OVC006 M05/M05 Q1019 RMK ATIS L
EDLW 030850Z 01007KT 3500 BR OVC006 M05/M05 Q1018 RMK ATIS K
EDLW 030820Z 01008KT 3500 BR OVC006 M05/M05 Q1018 RMK ATIS J
EDLW 030750Z 02010KT 2000 -SN OVC005 M05/M05 Q1018 RMK ATIS I
EDLW 030720Z 01011KT 2000 -SN OVC005 M05/M05 Q1017 RMK ATIS H
EDLW 030650Z 01010KT 2000 -SN OVC006 M04/M05 Q1016 RMK ATIS G
EDLW 030550Z 02008KT 1000 R06/1800D SN OVC003 M04/M04 Q1016 06SNOCLO RMK ATIS E
EDLW 030520Z 03008KT 1000 R06/1900N SN OVC003 M03/M03 Q1016 06SNOCLO RMK ATIS D
EDLW 030450Z VRB02KT 1000 R24/P2000D SN SCT001 OVC002 M01/M01 Q1016 24SNOCLO RMK ATIS B
EDLW 030420Z VRB01KT 1200 R24/P2000N -SN BR BKN002 BKN007 M01/M01 Q1015 RMK ATIS A

Relevant NOTAM:
C0011/10 - AIRPORT AVBL FOR HELICOPTERS ONLY.
RWY06/24 CLOSED, DUE TO DISABLED ACFT. 03 JAN 06:20 2010 UNTIL 03 JAN 15:00
2010 ESTIMATED. CREATED: 03 JAN 06:21 2010

The passenger video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX79AIKs9xY

D-ABKF several hours after the overrun (Photo: Wiebold TV):

D-ABKF shortly after the overrun:

D-ABKF shortly after the overrun (Photo: Wiebold TV):

Detail map (Courtesy Google Earth):

Map (Courtesy Google Earth):

By Simon Hradecky, created Thursday, Apr 8th 2010 14:37Z, last updated Thursday, Apr 8th 2010 14:37Z

Aerial Shot (Photo: Police/BFU)

The German Bureau for Air Accident Investigation (BFU) reported on Apr 8th 2010, that following de-icing - during which the crew noticed de-icing fluid running down their side windows although de-icing personnel said they did not apply de-icing fluid forward of the entrance doors - the airplane taxied to runway 06. The crew had computed their V1 at 127 KIAS.

There had been significant snow fall, the runway was closed and cleared multiple times in the morning. Following a friction measurement the runway was opened shortly before departure of AB-2450.

Following a normal engine acceleration to 97% N1 the crew released the brakes at about 40% N1, the engines reached full power at a ground speed of 20 knots. At 80 KIAS the crew performed the normal cross check of airspeeds with both air speed indicators showing 80 knots (in agreement). When the first officer called V1 when his ASI showed 127 KIAS, the captain checked his ASI and read a speed below 120 KIAS and found the IAS disgree warning illuminated. He therefore decided to reject the takeoff, reduced thrust to idle, spoilers deployed, thrust reversers were deployed and full reverse thrust applied. The crew selected the flaps to 30 degrees. At the time, when the thrust levers were pulled back to idle, the airplane had reached a ground speed of 125 knots and had travelled 950 meters down the runway. During engine deceleration the aircraft accelerated up to 130 knots ground speed before the airplane began to slow down reaching 45 knots 19 seconds later. The airspeed reduced from 45 to 0 knots during the following 13 seconds. During the slow down a deceleration of 0.31G were measured down to 60 KIAS, subsequently the deceleration reduced to 0.11G. The airplane overran the end of the runway with a ground speed of 22 knots and came to a stop 83 meters past the runway end and 23 meters past the end of the paved surface and about 10 meters to the right of the approach lighting runway 24 on a snow covered grassy downslope. All wheels sunk into soft ground, however no other part of the aircraft touched the ground.

10 minutes prior to the takeoff roll the runway friction coefficients had been measured resulting in values 62, 71 and 70 (total 68).

Following the overrun the airport was closed for 13:45 hours.

The BFU conducted several tests including the static pitot system, that showed no malfunction of the airplane systems. The BFU noticed a disagreeing position of the Angle of Attack Sensors by about 4 degrees on the ground, the subsequent test however confirmed no anomaly or malfunction existed.

Reader Comments: (the comments posted below do not reflect the view of The Aviation Herald but represent the view of the various posters)

@Paulo
By WorldWideWelshman on Wednesday, Apr 14th 2010 21:20Z

I think you're being hard on this AB crew. There are several cases of post takeoff "fatals" due to pitot malfunctions, and this crew got a disagree warning, and confirmed the presence of the disagree. They then pulled off a tricky high speed RTO and airplane+revenue all lived to tell the tale.

The thing is, we'd all be quick to damn them had they continued and then had a serious post take off upset.

It's easy to be critical from a distance, and whilst your reasoning is clear enough, it's hard not to sympathise with the tough call the Captain had to make.

Passenger electronics
By Cluster on Thursday, Apr 8th 2010 16:45Z

Do airlines give passengers permission to use electronic devices in Germany during take off? In Australia it's forbidden, although if a passenger sneaks their video camera from a bag and starts recording the take off no one is going to notice.

High Speed RTO
By Paulo on Saturday, Jan 23rd 2010 20:15Z

A high speed RTO on a contaminated runway is a very tricky maneuver . However , if ALL the parameters were correctly input ( speed calculations via EFB or tables ) ; strict adherence to SOP rules and recommendations are applied ; the correct RTO Technique is utilized , it is a doable maneuver. The terrible thing however remains on the 1 second's time decision . Do I STOP or do I GO ? Statistics have well shown that in the absolute majority of incidents caused by overruns followed by high speed RTOs , the best course of action would have been to continue the takeoff roll . Finalizing , after a very shallow evaluation since the data here exposed is minimal for anyone to be conclusive , I am inclined to believe that my fellow airmen from Air Berlin have disregard or forgotten one or more important airmanship rules .

WorldWideWelshman
By Dakota on Wednesday, Jan 13th 2010 16:27Z

... luckily I have a choice from where I fly.

Reply to Post
By Patrick on Friday, Jan 8th 2010 18:13Z

Quoting '@ Daniel G.

it is "Attention crew an station, attention crew on station". This is the normal AB-first-attention-call for the CCM in such cases.'

When there is a situation, the Pilot in Command will make the PA 'Attention Cabin Crew on Station'

This informs the Cabin Crew that;

a) There is a problem
b) An Evacuation could be likeley

This allows the cabin crew to start mentally preparing for an evacuation.

I have had it before after an Aborted take off. The next announcement is either going to be

ATTENTION CABIN CREW ON STATION NORMAL OPERATIONS or EVACUATE

@Steffen
By Apax on Friday, Jan 8th 2010 14:32Z

I do thank you.

Good explanation for pax like me. And btw it exposes a lot of wannabe - "pilots" around here. Good job.

By gram on Wednesday, Jan 6th 2010 18:26Z

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RTO Video
By Steffen_and_I_do_fly on Wednesday, Jan 6th 2010 15:37Z

As a pilot (12000h+) who looks out of this window I�m asking myself:
Well, if there is still snow on the engine, could it be that there is also snow on the other parts of the aircraft?

The "slush" passing by the pax window could indeed be anti-icing fluid. Probably type 2 which is very sticky and is getting more liquid a higher speed. But it looks it had a very snow-slush-type texture. This is pure speculation, but together with the snow on the Engine you could get the impression that the anti-icing fluid is coming close to the end its holdover time.

But an even actual exceeding of the holdover time has nothing do to with different speed indications and/or the decision of the pilot to abort the T/O.

The Met-Report during the time of the T/O is calling for moderate snow. This could change the braking friction coefficient of the runway significantly and unknowingly to the pilot. This change might be only short time until the with de-icing fluid treated runway has melted the fresh falling snow.

No links
By chris on Wednesday, Jan 6th 2010 12:04Z

Ok. I learned: No Links.

So Check the web and look for the news "RTL Aktuell" dated 03 Jan 2010 (18:45) on the german page RTL-now. There you find the interview with the passenger.

Chris

Nose off the ground?
By chris on Wednesday, Jan 6th 2010 11:59Z

Hi,

here is a comment that was made by a passenger of the flight on German Television RTL:

Check his words at position 1:15 min of the video.

In English: "It had only the nose off the ground...."

If this is true, it was too late to reject.

chris

@ Janis
By Gaby Sommer on Wednesday, Jan 6th 2010 04:25Z

why a ? in your comment Janis?
maybe a FO from Air Berlin - called Janis and still flying on the 737 - can tell us the true story.
I really would like to hear it. ;-)

Training standards
By Carsten on Tuesday, Jan 5th 2010 23:18Z

@leon and NPO

At the moment all about this incident is pure speculation because we DO NOT know what really happened even though AB-pilots are generally well known in the aviation world as hot rocks. Nevertheless the training standards of Lufthansa pilots are very high if not the highest in Germany and I can't (and don't want) believe that standards of AB should be still higher.

Slush
By Goose on Tuesday, Jan 5th 2010 16:16Z

@ Janis: I think that slush on the window is the de-icing fluid. That nasty stuff is very viscous and slowly flows over the skin of the fuselage during the acceleration phase.

Slush
By Janis on Tuesday, Jan 5th 2010 16:08Z

Could all that latter slash in video be brought upon window by the reverser?

By PapaMike on Tuesday, Jan 5th 2010 14:20Z

First, I guess it is not allowed to take a video during Take-off, because all electric devices must be off.But anyway...
Was the plane completely deiced?
Can�t it be possible, that the crew just forgott to deice the plane? I mean it was early, very early...

By (anonymous) on Tuesday, Jan 5th 2010 12:23Z

yes, of course AB requires the 80kts call! as far as i know, boeing requires every airline to do so!

suggestion to Simon
By Peter 1 on Tuesday, Jan 5th 2010 11:39Z

Dear Simon,
I suggest that you block comments made by "anonymous". Nobody is forced to enter his true name, but if he (or she) would enter anything like XXX or YYY instead, it would make it much easier to refer to such entries than to numerous "anonymous" ones.

Greetings
Peter 1

Air Berlin RTO in Dortmund
By Wolfgang Weinert on Tuesday, Jan 5th 2010 11:37Z

If all that stuff sliding down the window is indeed a mixture of slush and snow then the actual TOW was probably significantly higher than what went into the take-off calculation. Also, it would be of interest to know whether Air Berlin T/O procedures require a "80 knots"-callout, and if so, whether the discrepancy in the ASI-readings was not yet apparent at that time.

Re: foreposter
By Simon on Tuesday, Jan 5th 2010 08:18Z

@ Daniel G

Actually the pilot didn't miss 'crew' in his announcement. You can just barely hear it because he's saying it really fast and with a somewhat German intonation. ;)

The announcement is absolutely correct. However, the question why there's such an amount of snow still left on the plane is what really needs to be answered. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear that that's also the cause of a faulty air speed reading.

@my foreposter:
By Daniel G. on Monday, Jan 4th 2010 21:44Z

I know, its not only a standard callout at AB. But the pilot just missed the "crew" in "attention crew on station" in the heat of the moment. I just wanted to put the quote right.

Announcement
By (anonymous) on Monday, Jan 4th 2010 21:16Z

@ Daniel G.

it is "Attention crew an station, attention crew on station". This is the normal AB-first-attention-call for the CCM in such cases.

Video...
By Daniel G. on Monday, Jan 4th 2010 19:11Z

The video is to be found at german tv station "RTL".

You can find a link to the video through

Search for "AIR BERLIN emergency crash inside cabin". In the info section for the video, you will find the link to the original video at .

correction
By (anonymous) on Monday, Jan 4th 2010 18:49Z

Nouvelair A321 was 250kg below max desingn MLW (MLM)

Nouvelair overshoot
By (anonymous) on Monday, Jan 4th 2010 18:48Z

For information:
The Nouvelair A321 overrun in Spetember 2008 after landing was a human error par excellence and had nothing to do with the AB 738 incident.

the facts:
- aircraft very heavy (about 10t of fuel) 250kg below MTOM
- approach far too high with touchdown around the middle of the RWY
- braking action of the aircraft less than expected (not sure if it was a technical reason or wrong autobrake-setting) and full manual braking in the lest 300 meters of the runway.
Sorry, but this incident was completely avoidable, a go-around would have been the only correct procedure imo.

Video
By Toni on Monday, Jan 4th 2010 18:47Z

Where can I find this pax-video, pls?

Don't want to be too picky, but...
By Daniel G. on Monday, Jan 4th 2010 18:34Z

the captain announces "attention on station, attention on station" to the CC via the PA. Not "Crew on station".

;)

Not the first RWY overrun...
By Thomas on Monday, Jan 4th 2010 18:26Z

...in August 2008, a Nouvelair A321 overshot the runway whilst landing. For Simon: this is the link:

By Tovkal on Monday, Jan 4th 2010 17:31Z

Passenger View Video:

great
By leon on Monday, Jan 4th 2010 16:14Z

wonderful ;)

if you guys all know it best, why even bother ?

i fly , dont care if you belive it or not. i have never and will never fly with that amount of snow on any part of the aircraft. period.

@anonymous
By Apax on Monday, Jan 4th 2010 16:00Z

Of course bleed air is /off.

But no single reason to "deice" this singular amount of fresh snow.

BTW.

I am NOT suggesting to pe "apilot" but "apax" ;-)

Nontheless I can totally agree that others who pretend to be are serioulsy not.

Only the most recent 30 comments are shown to reduce server load. Click here to show the remaining comments

Add your comment: (max 1024 characters)
Your IP address 203.57.82.69 is being tracked. We reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Profanities, personal attacks (against any physical or legal person), discussions about site policies, false statements or similiar as well as copyrighted materials from third parties will not be tolerated, those messages will summarily be deleted. Links and mail addresses are not permitted and will not appear in the display, posts trying to circumvent the restriction of links/mail addresses will be removed. We ask for your valid e-mail address in the email field. This address is only used by us to establish contact with you in case of further questions, it will not be displayed anywhere or be used otherwise.
Your Name:
Your Email:
Subject:
Your comment:

The Aviation Herald Apps
Android and iOS

Support The Aviation Herald

one time

Monthly support

1 €/month

Interview:

The human factor named "Simon Hradecky" and the team of man and machine

Get the news right onto your desktop when they happen