Air India Express Flight 1344

On August 7, 2020, Air India Express Flight 1344, a Boeing 737-800, overran the runway at Kozhikode International Airport in India. The crash claimed the lives of 21 people, including both pilots, and injured many others. Poor weather conditions, combined with communication and decision-making challenges, were key factors in the accident.

The flight was repatriating Indian citizens stranded abroad during the COVID-19 pandemic and faced heavy rain upon arrival. The airport’s tabletop runway—situated on a plateau with steep drops on either side—posed additional challenges, especially in wet conditions.

During the approach, the pilots conducted two go-arounds after encountering unstable descent profiles. On the third attempt, the captain decided to land despite warnings about tailwind conditions exceeding safe limits. The aircraft touched down far beyond the normal touchdown zone, leaving insufficient runway length to stop.

The investigation revealed several communication issues. The crew did not fully discuss the risks of landing in tailwind conditions, and their coordination during the critical moments of the approach was lacking. Additionally, ATC did not provide timely updates on changing weather conditions, which could have influenced the decision to divert to another airport.

The crash highlighted the importance of adhering to standard operating procedures (SOPs), particularly in adverse weather conditions. It also underscored the need for clear and assertive communication within the cockpit.

Air India Express Flight 1344 (August 7, 2020)

Air India Express Flight 1344 overshot the runway while landing at Kozhikode International Airport in heavy rain. The accident killed 21 people, including both pilots, and highlighted multiple communication issues.

Language-Related Issues

1. Misinterpretation of Weather Reports:
   ATC provided weather updates in English, but the information was not fully discussed or analyzed by the cockpit crew. For example:

   • ATC: “Tailwind 15 knots, runway wet.”
   • Captain: “We can manage.”

   The captain’s response showed overconfidence, but the first officer did not strongly object or suggest a go-around, even though landing in such conditions exceeded safety thresholds.

2. Failure to Communicate Risks:
   The captain’s decision to proceed with the landing was not adequately questioned by the first officer. CRM training emphasizes assertiveness in questioning decisions, yet:

   • First Officer: “Should we go around, Captain?”
   • Captain: “It’s under control.”

   The vague language and lack of further discussion about the risk of tailwind conditions contributed to the accident.

3. Inconsistent Phraseology During Descent:
   The crew did not use standard callouts for altitude and speed checks, which could have helped identify the unstable approach. For example, instead of saying, “Stabilized, gear down,” the captain casually remarked, “We’re good to land.”