Veer off
Veer off
Decription
A veer-off is a type of runway excursion where the aircraft departs the side of the runway on takeoff or landing. This can be either unintentional (due to loss of control) or intentional (as an attempt to avoid an obstacle on the runway such as an aircraft or a vehicle).
Similarly to an overrun, a veer-off can happen on take-off as well as on landing, the difference being that in overruns the aircraft departs the runway surface at end rather than on the side.
Effects
The outcome of a veer off on landing depends mostly on the speed at the time the aircraft departs the runway surface. Depending on the circumstances, the event can result in:
- Casualties or injuries. These are more likely in the extreme scenarios (e.g. collision with a structure, another aircraft or a vehicle).
- Aircraft damage. This can range from none or minor (e.g. deflated tyre) to a hull loss.
- Aerodrome damage. This includes damage to elements of the lighting system, antennas (e.g. ILS localizer), perimeter fence, buildings, etc.
- Impact on aerodrome operations. Depending on the damage to the aircraft and the aerodrome it is possible that a runway (or another part of the aerodrome such as a taxiway or part of the apron) is rendered out of service for a prolonged period of time.
Causal Factors
The following is a (non-exclusive) list of causal factors for veer-off events:
- Unstabilised approach.
- Asymmetric braking.
- Aircraft system malfunction, e.g. hydraulic system, brakes, flight control surfaces (flaps, slats, spoilers, etc.) often results in control difficulties.
- Rejected take-off.
- Runway incursion by another aircraft or a vehicle.
Contributory Factors
- Crosswind is arguably the number one contributor to unintentional veer-offs.
- Unstable approach
- Improper pilot technique after touchdown
- Braking action. Maintaining directional control is harder on a slippery runway.
- Increased pilot workload. Landing is one of the busiest phases for the flight crew. Any (unexpected) increase of the workload could distract them and contribute to a veer-off.
- Wind shear, e.g. a sudden change in wind direction shortly before of after touchdown.
- Runway misalignment. When the aircraft is close to one end of the runway, a minor deviation can cause it to depart the runway to the side.
- Reduced situational awareness. Examples of this include:
- Incomplete traffic picture, e.g. due to the use of local language or the use of a separate frequency for some of the traffic (e.g. separate ATS units like Ground and Tower or separate frequency used for vehicles on the manoeuvring area).
- Inaccurate information about the runway surface conditions (e.g. braking action, contaminents, etc.)
- Low visibility. In case of a runway incursion, this would prevent the crew from seeing the conflicting aircraft/vehicle early enough and mitigate the situation by e.g. rejecting the take-off or going around.
- Aquaplaning may cause loss of directional control and aircraft drifting.
Defences
The following measures could either reduce the risk or mitigate the consequences of a veer-off:
- Flying a stabilised approach and executing a go-around in case of unstable approach.
- Measures aimed at increasing the crews' situational awareness, such as:
- Using the English language for all communication, including vehicles.
- Using the same frequency for all runway-related movements, including vehicles.
- Appropriate procedures for runway inspection and information dissemination.
- Making the aerodrome lights frangible is a standard defined in ICAO Annex 14 and reduces the damage to aircraft.
Accidents and Incidents
Unintentional veer offs
On 23 April 2019, the captain of an Embraer E170 which had just begun its standing takeoff at Yamagata, Japan, was unable to correct a deviation from the centreline and initiated a rejected takeoff at around 50 knots. This action was not immediately followed by maximum braking as required by company procedure for a rejected takeoff. The aircraft departed the side of the runway and continued on grass for almost 400 metres before stopping. The nose wheel steering system was found to be defective.
On 17 February 2025 a Mitsubishi (formerly Bombardier) CRJ-900LR was on final approach to Toronto International and touched down at a high rate of descent on the right main landing gear, which collapsed inwards. This caused the right wing to break from the fuselage, which then rolled inverted, detaching the tailplane. The fuselage slid for some distance before stopping, complicating the evacuation. A fuel-fed fire immediately ignited around the right wing/fuselage attachment point but all 80 occupants escaped, almost all using just two exits. There were only two serious injuries and 19 minor injuries.
On 2 January 2024, an Airbus A350-900 collided with a Bombardier DHC8-300 almost immediately after the A350 made a night touchdown in good visibility at Tokyo Haneda. The DHC8 had entered the runway for departure without clearance. Both aircraft caught fire. The DHC8 was destroyed and five of the six occupants died. The A350 then veered off the runway and stopped. All 379 occupants evacuated the A350 prior to its complete destruction by fire. A tower visual-only runway incursion warning was unnoticed for over a minute, and stop bar lighting was out of service for upgrading.
On 20 October 2023, a Boeing 737-800 made a normal touchdown at Leeds Bradford in strong crosswind conditions, but deceleration and an on-centreline trajectory was not maintained. It then veered off the left side of the wet runway at around 55 knots before quickly stopping in muddy ground six seconds later. The excursion was attributed to inappropriate management of both braking and directional control during the landing roll. To some extent, this may have been influenced by the sudden onset of nosewheel juddering due to wheel bearing failure, although this would have had no consequence for available directional control techniques.
On 12 May 2022, an Airbus A319 about to become airborne at Chongqing veered off the side of the runway at high speed following an inadvertent and unintended rudder input by the non-flying pilot when distracted by unexpected movement of a loose object. Continuation over rough ground across an open ditch resulted in detachment of both engines and both main landing gear assemblies and a resulting fire, which impeded the emergency evacuation. The severe fire and impact damage to the aircraft rendered it a hull loss but the evacuation was completed with only a few minor injuries.
Intentional veer offs
On 2 May 2016, a Boeing 737-800 veered off the 2,500 metre-long landing runway near its end at speed following a night non-precision approach flown by the Captain. It then stopped on grass having sustained damage to both the left engine and landing gear. The Investigation noted that a significant but allowable tailwind component had been present at touchdown and found that the approach had been unstable, the approach and touchdown speeds excessive and that touchdown had occurred beyond the touchdown zone after applicable operating procedures had been comprehensively ignored in the presence of a steep authority and experience gradient.
On 29 July 2017, an Antonov AN-74 crew sighted several previously unseen large eagles rising from the long grass next to the runway as they accelerated for takeoff at Sao Tome and, concerned about the risk of ingestion, made a high speed rejected takeoff but were unable to stop on the runway and entered a deep ravine just beyond it which destroyed the aircraft. The Investigation found that the reject had been unnecessarily delayed until above V1, that the crew forgot to deploy the spoilers which would have significantly increased the stopping distance and that relevant crew training was inadequate.
On 11 February 2017, a Cessna 402 failed to stop on the runway when landing at Virgin Gorda and was extensively damaged. The Investigation noted that the landing distance required was very close to that available with no safety margin so that although touchdown was normal, when the brakes failed to function properly, there was no possibility of safely rejecting the landing or stopping normally on the runway. Debris in the brake fluid was identified as causing brake system failure. The context was considered as the Operator s inadequate maintenance practices and a likely similar deficiency in operational procedures and processes.
Categories
