FLIGHT FINDINGSAVIATION OCCURRENCE MAP
Back to map

ERA13IA294 · IAI GULFSTREAM200

20 Jun 2013 · Jamestown, NY, United States

Taughannock Aviation IAI GULFSTREAM200 · Incident: runway excursion during landing

From Frederick Douglass Greater Rochester International Airport (ROC) to Chautauqua County-Jamestown Airport (JHW)

Report a problem

Event

NTSB case
ERA13IA294
Event typeAccident: someone killed or seriously injured, or the aircraft substantially damaged (NTSB definition). Incident: an occurrence that affected or could have affected safety, short of that. Glossary
Incident
InvestigationHow far the investigation had got when the record was published: preliminary, ongoing, final or completed. Unknown where the source does not say. Glossary
Completed
API-reported fatalities
0 · all aircraft and ground
Ground fatalities
Unknown
OperationWhat kind of flying it was, grouped by the rules it flew under: airline (US Part 121), air taxi and commuter (Part 135), general aviation (Part 91 and similar), military or government. Glossary
General aviation
WeatherVisual meteorological conditions (VMC): good enough to fly by looking outside. Instrument conditions (IMC): cloud or low visibility, flying by instruments. Glossary
Visual Meteorological Cond

IAI GULFSTREAM200

Aircraft type
Iai GULFSTREAM200
Category
Airplane
RegistrationThe aircraft's tail number, such as N12345 or G-ABCD. Registrations are reissued, so the same one years apart can be a different aircraft. Glossary
N500AG
Onboard fatalities
Unknown
Route
From Frederick Douglass Greater Rochester International Airport (ROC), Rochester, NYTo Chautauqua County-Jamestown Airport (JHW), Jamestown, NY
Aircraft age
Not recorded
Flight rulesThe regulations the flight operated under: in the US, Part 91 (general aviation), Part 121 (airlines), Part 135 (air taxi and commuter) and others; for flights abroad, the NTSB's coarser commercial or non-commercial code. Glossary
Part 91: General Aviation
Phase of flightThe stage of the flight when things started to go wrong: standing, taxi, takeoff, initial climb, en route, maneuvering, approach or landing. Glossary
Landing · landing roll
Defining eventThe single coded event the NTSB judges best describes what happened (records from 2008 on). Older records name the first occurrence in the sequence instead. Glossary
Runway excursion
DamageDestroyed: beyond practical repair. Substantial: damage that affects the structure, performance or handling and normally needs major repair. Minor: less than that. Glossary
Minor

Cause areas

  • Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability
  • Aircraft › Aircraft systems
  • Personnel issues › Task performance

Approximate · Coordinates as recorded by the NTSB; no uncertainty radius is established.

NTSB narrative

The pilot flying (PF) and the pilot monitoring (PM) were completing an airman competency check under the observation of a Federal Aviation Administration inspector. Following an uneventful flight, the pilots configured the turbofan-powered, transport-category airplane for landing on the 5,299-ft-long, dry runway. A review of the cockpit recorder (CVR) transcript revealed that, during the practice instrument landing system approach, the PM warned the PF that the airplane was approaching the runway at an airspeed 15 knots higher than its specified approach speed (Vref) as it descended to within 100 ft of the ground. The PM also warned the PF not to allow the airplane's airspeed to increase because the runway was "short." The airplane subsequently touched down within the airplane's touchdown zone about 1,000 ft beyond the runway threshold. The PM reported that he attempted to slow the airplane by applying the brakes and deploying the thrust reversers, but the airplane continued off the departure end of the runway and came to rest about 40 ft beyond its pavement.

The runway distance required for the landing was calculated using the airplane manufacturer's Airplane Flight Manual. It was determined that, given the airplane's loading and configuration and the weather and runway conditions, sufficient runway was available for the landing. The landing distance calculations were predicated on the airplane crossing the runway threshold at Vref and did not account for the use of reverse thrust during the landing roll. Postincident examination of the airplane's braking and thrust reverser systems revealed no evidence of any mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.

Although the PF reported in postincident statements that the braking action during the landing was "nil," a review of the CVR transcript showed that neither of the pilots mentioned poor braking performance during the landing roll nor did they attempt to activate the emergency braking system. Additionally, the operator's chief pilot, who had been seated in the cabin during the flight, reported that the braking system cycled several times during the landing roll and that, although the reverse thrust system appeared to activate, he did not "feel or hear" a pronounced application of reverse thrust. Although the electronic engine control system recorded a limited set of parametric data during the landing, airspeed was not a recorded parameter. Analysis of the recorded data revealed that, about 3 seconds after touchdown, the throttle lever angles (TLA) were positioned for deployment of the thrust reversers and that the thrust reversers subsequently deployed; however, the TLAs remained at an idle-thrust position. The TLAs did not increase to the maximum reverse thrust position until about 17 seconds later, at which time, both engines increased power for about 8 seconds.

Although the use of reverse thrust was not required for the landing, nor was the airplane's computed landing distance reflective of the use of reverse thrust, the PF's apparent delayed application of reverse thrust suggested that he may not have used maximum effort in his attempts to decelerate the airplane during the landing roll even after the outcome was in doubt. Additionally, although an exact account of the airplane's airspeed was not available for postincident analysis, the PM's airspeed callouts suggested that the airplane's airspeed while on final approach to the runway, and potentially throughout the touchdown, increased the total required landing distance. If the pilots had recognized this earlier in the approach, they could have conducted a go-around and avoided the possibility of a runway overrun. Alternatively, upon realizing that the airplane was not decelerating as desired, the pilots could have used all available means to slow the airplane during the landing roll, including the timely and complete activation of the airplane's thrust reversers, and if necessary, activation of the emergency braking system.

Probable cause

The pilots’ failure to effectively use the airplane's primary (brakes), secondary (thrust reversers), and emergency braking systems to decelerate the airplane, which resulted in a runway excursion. Contributing to the accident was the pilots’ failure to conduct a go-around maneuver upon recognizing that the airplane had excessive airspeed while on final approach to the runway.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset

Sources

NTSB record ERA13IA294
Event ID
20130620X71043
Case number
ERA13IA294
Dataset
full-current
Source SHA-256
5cf380f0061817c0331a6b2d8cc7e0ee3a79bea469a1001dc5c10e56f35f5ab3
Source notes (4)
  • Unreviewed is an editorial label, not an investigation status. API-sourced is not report-checked or human-reviewed. Explicit event totals are used without summing aircraft injury tables; onboard allocation is withheld. Unknown values remain unknown. The operation category is mapped from the NTSB-reported FAR part and has not been reviewed.
  • Filled from the NTSB case API where the bulk record had no value: investigation status. Values present in the bulk record are kept.
  • The date is the local date, which is the same as the UTC date the NTSB stores.
  • API snapshot SHA-256: 7df466d31cb511c0dd43dc59018fe376092d22d3ea210502405a39ac94754e6c; retrieved 2026-09-15T21:58:04.160Z.