Gulfstream American G-1159A N111FA

Summary

On 6 January 2005 at about 17:33 local time, a Gulfstream American G-1159A registered N111FA was involved in an incident near Englewood, Colorado, United States. 5 people were on board and nobody was injured. The NTSB has published a probable cause for this accident; it is quoted in full below.

Date

6 January 2005 at 17:33

Classification

Incident

Location

Englewood, Colorado, United States

Nearest airport

Centennial Airport (APA)

Coordinates

39.5803, -104.8602

Aircraft

Gulfstream American G-1159A

Registration

N111FA

Category

Airplane

Engines

2

Operator

Not recorded

Operating rule

Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter

Phase of flight

Not recorded

Route

Fort Lauderdale → Englewood

Aircraft damage

Not recorded

Weather

VMC

Light

Day

NTSB number

DEN05IA049

Nobody was injured.

the flight crew's misidentification of the parallel taxiway as an active runway, resulting in the flight crew executing a landing on the taxiway. Contributing factors include the airport's inadequate snow removal, the snow-covered runway, the visual illusions created by the airport surface environment, and the flight crew's airport familiarization.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record. This site does not paraphrase or interpret it.

Read the full NTSB narrative

According to the captain, he was cleared for a visual approach to runway 17L, which was confirmed and acknowledged. Approximately 30 seconds prior to landing, he was advised to "go around or sidestep" to runway 17R. He accepted the "sidestep" and was cleared to land runway 17R. The captain continued the approach, sidestepped to runway 17R and landed. After landing, the tower advised the captain that he had landed on taxiway Bravo. According to a witness who had completed several approaches after the Gulfstream, runway 17L and taxiway Bravo, were both "clean and clear," and runway 17R was snow covered. Taxiway Bravo is positioned between runway 17L and runway 17R. The "black" surface of runway 17L and taxiway Bravo created a "strong" contrast with the surrounding snow covered ground. Runway 17R had much less of a contrast due to the snow that remained on it. The airport's notices to airman (NOTAM) did not identify that runway 17R was snow covered.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record.