Air Serbia flight JU324, an Embraer ERJ-195LR, sustained substantial damage when it suffered a runway overrun during takeoff from runway 30L at Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport (BEG), Serbia. There were no injuries. During the flight preparation, the crew planned to take off from runway 30L, intersection D6. The Take-Off Run Available (TORA) distance at D6 is 2349 meters. The flight parameter calculations for this intersection were double-checked by the crew. The crew then received instructions from ATC to taxi to position D6 for runway 30L via taxiways F, G, and A, which the crew correctly read back. At 16:35 UTC, the crew informed the ATC unit that they were approaching intersection D6: “Air Serbia 86C, approaching D6, ready.” The controller responded by instructing the flight to hold short, followed by a clearance to line up and wait via D6. At 16:36 UTC, ATC urgently contacted the crew, inquiring if they were aware they were at intersection D5 instead of D6. The crew quickly responded, thanking for the information. ATC immediately contacted the crew again, informing them that the available takeoff length from the given intersection was 1,273 meters, suggesting it was insufficient for a safe takeoff. The crew requested a minute to perform checks. According to the crew’s statement, they then performed flight parameter calculations using the copilot’s tablet. During this time, ATC instructed the crew to perform necessary calculations and to contact them, with the option to backtrack to D6 if needed. Thirty seconds later, the crew contacted the ATC, confirming they were ready for takeoff. ATC acknowledged, asking if they could take off from position/intersection D5, which the crew immediately confirmed. ATC then cleared the flight to take off from runway 30L from position D5, informing them of no wind. At 16:38 UTC, the aircraft began its takeoff roll. During the takeoff roll the flight crew made engine thrust changes to achieve a higher speed. At 80 knots, the crew stated everything was normal, but at 100 knots, they noticed insufficient runway length. Considering the available runway length and the aircraft’s speed, the crew decided it was safer to continue the takeoff, estimating the aircraft would soon become airborne. They set the engine thrust to maximum and decided to delay rotating the nose of the aircraft to utilize the maximum available runway length and asphalt area beyond the runway. Shortly after leaving the runway and asphalt area, according to the flight crew’s statement, the aircraft began to shake, followed by a sound of impact against an object. The plane quickly became airborne, during which the crew continuously heard an unfamiliar noise from the aircraft’s body, with interruptions in the operation of the left wing lights. Upon receiving information about issues with several systems, including flaps and engine bleed air, the crew followed the indicated checklist procedures for troubleshooting. Shortly after takeoff, ATC contacted the crew, inquiring about the deviation from the approved flight vector during takeoff. The crew replied that they were unsure but would likely need to return to the airport. Soon after, the crew informed ATC that they needed to return because they had hit something on the ground during takeoff. A little later, they declared a mayday. ATC suggested the crew check the landing gear, with the possibility of a low pass by the control tower. The crew requested time for additional checks, performing two circuits southeast of the airport. According to the crew’s statements, they checked the aircraft using checklists to locate the problem. Meanwhile, ATC prepared for the emergency landing. The aircraft then performed a low pass over the runway heading 300 with the landing gear extended, with no issues identified by ATC regarding the landing gear. During descent and flight, the crew reported problems with the flaps and increased aircraft vibrations. After the flyby, the crew decided to land, proceeding with a left turn into the airport circuit, followed by landing on the left runway, runway 30L, at 17:36 UTC. According to the crew’s statement, they opted for a slightly higher landing speed due to problems with the flaps, but within prescribed limits, experiencing only vibrations as an issue. After landing, the crew had no further problems with the aircraft and, following communication with ATC, agreed to park at parking position C2. Upon stopping, the crew received information from ground personnel that fuel was leaking from the left wing, quickly shutting down the engines and other systems. During the inspection, significant damage to the aircraft’s fuselage was discovered, including multiple punctures on the left side, damage to the root of the left wing with aerodynamic fairing damage at the fuselage-wing junction, punctures in the aircraft’s fairing, and damage to the aircraft systems below the fairing, damage to the leading edge of the wing adjacent to the fuselage. During the inspection of airport surfaces in the direction of the aircraft’s takeoff from RWY30L, damage to the approach lights for RWY12R was found – the extreme right lights in all three rows (or extreme left in the direction of the aircraft’s takeoff) with damage to the control boxes located in the middle of the lights. During rotation, the left wing root hit the support for the Instrument Landing System (ILS) monitor antenna. The antenna broke off, the larger part of which remained embedded in the aircraft. PROBABLE CAUSE (preliminary, the investigation is ongoing): One of the likely causes of this accident is the inadequate assessment of parameters for takeoff during pre-flight preparation by the flight crew of the aircraft, following the decision to take off from a shorter length of the runway in relation to the initially planned one.