Incident Overview

Date: Friday 15 September 1995
Aircraft Type: Fokker 50
Owner/operator: Malaysia Airlines
Registration Number: 9M-MGH
Location: Tawau Airport (TWU) – ÿ Malaysia
Phase of Flight: Landing
Status: Destroyed, written off
Casualties: Fatalities: 34 / Occupants: 53
Component Affected: Aircraft Control System (GPWS, Flight Control, Landing Gear)Aircraft Control System (GPWS, Flight Control, Landing Gear)
Category: Accident
A Fokker 50 aircraft, en route from Kota Kinabalu to Tawau, Malaysia, crashed during an attempted go-around at Tawau Airport. The flight experienced a delayed departure due to an aircraft arrival delay, and initiated a visual approach to runway 17. The crew, under pressure to maintain schedules, continued the approach despite a runway condition that was insufficient for a safe stop. The aircraft’s descent rate was excessive, leading to a series of critical maneuvers resulting in a significant impact on the runway. The commander?s insistence on continuing the approach ultimately led to the crash.A Fokker 50 aircraft, en route from Kota Kinabalu to Tawau, Malaysia, crashed during an attempted go-around at Tawau Airport. The flight experienced a delayed departure due to an aircraft arrival delay, and initiated a visual approach to runway 17. The crew, under pressure to maintain schedules, continued the approach despite a runway condition that was insufficient for a safe stop. The aircraft’s descent rate was excessive, leading to a series of critical maneuvers resulting in a significant impact on the runway. The commander?s insistence on continuing the approach ultimately led to the crash.

Description

Malaysia Airlines flight MH2133, a Fokker 50, crashed during an attempted go-around at Tawau Airport (TWU). The departure from Kota Kinabalu was delayed by approximately 30 minutes due to late arrival of the aircraft. The flight took off from Kota Kinabalu at 04:19 UTC. The descent into Tawau from the cruising altitude of 10500 feet was initiated at about 21 DME. At 05:01 UTC as the flight reported leaving 9000 feet and passing 16 DME, the flight crew advised the controller that they had the airfield visual. MH2133 was then cleared for visual approach runway 17. At 05:02:48, MH2133 reported passing 3500 feet. The aircraft was then configured for landing where landing gears were selected down and flaps set at 25 degrees. The aircraft speed was still fast and since it was also high on the approach, the commander assured the co-pilot ?Runway is long so no problem Eh?. On passing 2000 feet and on short final, the co-pilot reminded the commander ?speed, speed check, speed check Ah?. The rate of descent was in excess of 3000 feet per minute and its pitch angle was around minus 13 degrees. The excessive rate of descent triggered the aircraft Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) sink rate and pull up warnings. The commander ignored these warnings and insisted that he should continue with approach for a landing. The aircraft first touched down on the runway at 05:05 hrs. Its first tyre marks (nose wheel) on the runway was at approximately 3400 ft from the threshold. It then bounced and at 4500 ft point, its left main wheel made a light contact with the runway surface. It subsequently bounced up again and its main wheels made a firm contact at 4800 ft point, thus leaving only 800 ft of runway remaining. The aircraft continued onto the grass verge, momentarily left the ground and hopped over the runway perimeter fence. It subsequently crashed at 571 feet from the end of the runway at almost right angle to the runway. There were a number of explosions followed by a fire. The aircraft was totally destroyed. Cause The most probable cause of the accident was due to the commander?s insistence to continue with an approach despite the fact that the runway available after touchdown was not sufficient enough for the aircraft to stop. The perception regarding economic consideration which put pressure on him to save fuel and adhere to schedules was a contributing factor.

Primary Cause

Commander’s insistence on continuing the approach despite insufficient runway conditions, driven by economic considerations and pressure to adhere to schedules.Commander’s insistence on continuing the approach despite insufficient runway conditions, driven by economic considerations and pressure to adhere to schedules.

Share on:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *