S7 A320 Landed On Closed Runway At Makhachkala

Russian regulators are restricting visual approaches at airports where a runway under construction could be mistaken for the one in use, after an S7 Airlines Airbus A320 landed on a closed parallel strip at Makhachkala.

The serious incident involved A320 registration RA-73401 and occurred on 5 July. According to a notification from the federal regulator Rosaviatsia, the runway the crew touched down on was under construction and lay parallel to operational runway 32.

An ILS approach that became a visual one

Rosaviatsia states that the crew’s initial intention had been to fly an ILS approach to the opposite-direction runway 14. The aircraft ultimately landed on the inactive parallel surface instead.

The regulator’s account identifies several gaps that lined up. “At the time of the incident, the published aeronautical information for Makhachkala airport did not contain information about the runway under construction,” Rosaviatsia says. “Nor had this information been communicated to operators via NOTAM.”

In other words, the crew had no documented reason to expect a second, closed runway surface at the field. Rosaviatsia adds that prohibitory signs – the markings that would normally identify a runway as unusable from the air – were “missing” from the inactive runway. There was also no construction equipment sitting on it at the time, which would otherwise have been an obvious visual cue that the surface was out of service.

The result was a strip that looked, from the approach, very much like a runway.

The regulator’s response

Rather than treating the event as an isolated crew error, Rosaviatsia has moved to change how visual approaches are flown across the country.

The regulator says it is recommending amendments to airline flight operations manuals that will prohibit or restrict visual approaches to airports where runways are being constructed or repaired. Those restrictions are to remain in effect for the validity periods of the NOTAMs covering such work.

Importantly, the scope is not limited to the runway itself. The measure also covers immediately adjacent airport elements that Rosaviatsia says “could complicate” a pilot’s visual orientation and increase the risk of referencing what the regulator calls “false landmarks”. Under those conditions, priority is to be given to instrument procedures.

Why wrong-surface landings keep happening

Landing on the wrong runway, or on a taxiway mistaken for a runway, is one of the more persistent categories in modern safety data, and it rarely comes down to a single mistake. It usually requires a visual environment that offers a plausible but incorrect target, combined with a transition from instrument to visual flying at low altitude.

A newly resurfaced or partially built parallel runway is close to a worst case for that combination. It is the right shape, in the right place, at the right orientation. Without published information, a NOTAM, closure markings or equipment on the surface, the differences that would normally resolve the ambiguity simply were not there.

That is the logic behind Rosaviatsia’s approach. Rather than relying on crews to spot a subtle difference under time pressure, the regulator is removing the visual approach as an option while the ambiguity exists.

The aircraft

The Airbus A320 is the mainstay of S7 Airlines’ short-haul fleet and the most common narrowbody type across the Russian domestic network. Makhachkala, on the Caspian coast, is served primarily by domestic narrowbody traffic.

No injuries were reported. The value of the event lies in the regulatory change it produced, which now applies well beyond the single airport where it happened.

Sources: FlightGlobal, Rosaviatsia. Featured image: AI-generated by AviationShop. By Marco Bianchi.