Air Serbia E195 runs into runway lights at Belgrade
 

Air Serbia E195 runs into runway lights at Belgrade, suffers serious damage
https://tangosix.rs/2024/18/02/embraer-195-maraton-erlajnza-bezbedno-sleteo-nakon-vanrednog-dogadjaja-po-poletanju-sa-aerodroma-nikola-tesla/

A video of the damage has been posted on Facebook showing that the left side of the plane was gashed from the cockpit to the leading edge of the wing, and foamed by the fire department.

they got incredibly lucky

it's crazy how both pilot&ATC made such a huge mistake

Wow....that is nasty...how they did that!!???

Twitter @ Pedjijatar/status/1759334893836702105

It seems they entered the runway from the wrong intersection and started take off roll with insufficient runway length hitting a pole as it rotated.

Operated by greek Marathon Airlines but maintaining ex Danish registration from DAT.

https://avherald.com/h?article=5151ede4

The captain entered the wrong intersection and the ATC let him take off with 1300m of runway left. It's a wonder they took off at all with the airliner full of PAX.

Entering the RWY at D5 instead of D6 for a dep on rwy 30 its less that half of it...Jesus, pax should buy the Euromillions this week...:uhoh:

On a note aside,,,Someone at EMBRAER must be very proud, having in mind the rough scars on the airframe and flying well till landing again...such a flying armoured Tank indeed!

Some similarities here perhaps »»»
https://avherald.com/h?article=4bded52d&opt=0
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ac432dd36.jpeg

I’m no engineer but I suspect that won’t buff out.

AirSerbia Incident on Take Off
 

https://www.airportia.com/news/marat...ay-on-takeoff/


https://x.com/AmmarMesic/status/1759...794309471?s=20

@ Areout : and
tCan you explain which " huge mistake" ATC made ?
And where did you get this info about " wrong intersection " ?

That much is clear from the ADS-B track.

see the picture above

First I was wondering why they were burning fuel, I'd imagine even if they were tankering in BEG and carrying more fuel than necessary for the flight to DUS the E195 would be able to reland immediatelyß But they might have been worried about the state of the landing gear and not be aware of the substantial damage the aircraft suffered? Don't wan to armchair pilot that (in particular as I am not a pilot).

But as per video (and an article in the usually quite well informed ex-yu-aviation) they taxied (or towed the plane) to a etbridge and was foamed there? I've never seen this before and would have expected the aircraft to be evacuated on the runway or at least taxied to the nearest remote stand instead of parking it right in front of the terminal and connecting a jet bridge?

...and again on the horizontal stabiliser. Did the landing light remain standing or did it do the damage as it fell?

The E195 appears to have been back on the departure gate within a few minutes of landing, so it looks unlikely that it was towed on.

Incidentally, the aircraft performed a GA/flyby before landing, at around 400-500 ft AAL.

It was in the air for a full hour as they had to determine visually that the gear was down & undamaged. Crew suspected damage to landing gear. Also they wanted to burn off excess fuel as they had indication of a fuel leak so probably wanted to minimise risk of fire.

Except that then they taxied all the way to pax terminal, with an obvious massive leak.

Two different controllers asked if they were sure they could take off from D5, one even quoting them TORA from that point to whic crew confidently confirmed they were happy to take from D5. D6 that they were assigned by ATC would have given them an additional 1000 m of TORA.

As they reportedly took off (or, rather, separated from ground obstacles) some 800 m after rwy threshhold - it appears quite clear what happened.

Some questions will be asked.

Unconfirmed reports floating around online, saying "Air traffic control noticed in time that the plane was at D5, asked the crew if they were sure they could take off from that position, to which the crew replied in the affirmative." If true (big if), then this would make it rather difficult to blame ATC for this incident.

Curious if someone remembered to pull the breaker on the cockpit voice recorder...

the problem is they asked him at all, there is nothing to ask at that point, no airliner ever took off from that position on BEG, not even an empty ATR

ATC twice asked them to confirm that they wanted to depart from D5 and even gave them distance available. ATC cannot do more than that. They are not flying the aircraft. That's the captain's responsibility. He has the numbers not ATC.

ah, so they can get permission from ATC to take off even if there is a 100m of runway left? Interesting.

Completely ridiculous statement! It certainly wasn't 100m was it. As I said, the pilots have the numbers not ATC. ATC have no idea of the aircraft's load or total weight. They can only ask if it is the pilot's intention to depart from D5, giving him the available distance left. That should be more than sufficient. It is NOT ATC's responsibility to fly the aeroplane.

Not only are ATC blameless, they get a "good show" for asking the captain. His decision.

You obviously have an agenda. You also clearly indicate that you have absolutely no understanding of what you are talking about.

I don't have any agenda. I think pilots are absolutely and ultimately responsible (it seems FO was the PIC) and they should have also landed immediately without burning fuel (pure luck the wings/hydraulics were still operational after almost one hour airborne after hitting ground stuff) but the ATC should have reacted differently and send them back to where they originally were nstructed to be.

Can you not read? Ultimately it is NOT ATC's responsibility. Confirmed above by Herod who we regulars on here know is a retired commercial pilot. The crew should be aware of where they are. They were given more than adequate warning. End of.

OK we are waiting ATC's here to say if they would or would not deny the takeoff if the pilot wants to perform it from the half of standard take off length.

No it is not. Stop digging a bigger hole you are already in . You obviously do not know what you are talking about., and if you don't, then ask questions ,we'll be happy to answer you.

@DaveReidUK
FR24 shows a take off from D5 not what was requested by the Crew.. I was told they are the ones that requested D5,. and the TWR Controller asked them to confirm and gave them the TORA. But I have not heard the R/T recording yet.

It's obvious by this statement you're not a pilot. ATC are not responsible for checking an aircraft's take off performance calculations. ATC wouldn't even have the data to be able to do it.

ATC is responsible to see that something is way off, maybe the plane is hijacked, maybe the pilot is drugged or what not.

Did the crew specifically request D5 or did they make the wrong turn into D5?

Plowing the fields?
 

I would like to see pictures of the track of the aircraft on the ground. They finally had a positive rate of climb when they crossed the Autobahn at 50', and that is ~1500m past the end of the threshold. Very lucky to have got airborne :uhoh:​​​​​​
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....64e1500c70.jpg

The E195 can operate from 4000 feet if lightly loaded. It’s advertised takeoff requirement is 4700 with a full load of passengers and a 1+15 flight time. This one was somewhat heavy but ATC has no way of knowing an aircraft’s weight. The FO is never the PIC, not sure where you got that from.
As far as earlier comments about the aircraft built like a tank the runway lights are designed to be frangible to minimize damage if hit.

Sorry, but that "50 feet" figure is not borne out by the data.

I understood it to be Air Traffic Control not Air Traffic Conditional? ATC are within their rights to tell pilots to go around if they have the equipment to alert them. And to stop take-offs if the situation so requires. So why pick and choose when you can and cannot intervene?

Ultimately pilots pay the price with their lives and ATC with their paperwork. This boils down to a pretty basic pilot error that could have been prevented by A) better pilots B) more assertive ATC.

So are you suggesting that ATC be made aware of the weight of each aircraft and run performance data to approve and tell the pilots how much runway they need?

Gee, are you really a Boeing ATPL as your pseudo suggests ? We controllers do not " pick and choose" when to intervene, we follow the procedures we are trained on , just like you. Refusing or Canceling a take off clearance when a vehicle enters the runway is part of the procedures, but definitively not questioning the PIC TOW and TORA calculations. If the Embraer had been empty and carrying minimum fuel it would have made it ,, and controllers have no way or knowing these factors and make the calculations , this is the PIC area. , It is not about being "more assertive" it is about following established safety procedures. The PIC was, ( as I heard) asked by the controller to confirm his decision to use D5 and was given the TORA left in case he miscalculated. Apparently again , he confirmed.. His decision period. .( again waiting to hear the R/T to make sure what I was told is 100% correct)

If they did request D5... woukd be interested to know what heading they had dialed... which runway they were expecting... any chance they've accidently prepared for the reciprocal and this is a gross error?

A 12R takeoff from D5 would give a 2266m TORA/TODA/ASDA, in fact not much different from a 30L takeoff from D6 (2349m)

So this might not be a bad rabbit hole to go down.