An Air New Zealand Dash 8-300, registration ZK-NEF performing flight NZ-8190 from Timaru to Wellington (New Zealand), was accelerating for takeoff from Timaru's runway 02 when the crew rejected takeoff at high speed (above 100 knots over ground). The aircraft slowed and came to a stop at the end of the runway with the nose gear off the paved surface of the runway.
The airline reported the crew rejected takeoff over concerns due to bird activity around the aerodrome. The aircraft stopped on the runway and will remain there until procedures are being completed.
New Zealand's CAA reported they have been notified about the occurrence and have in turn notified New Zealand's TAIC (Transport Accident Investigation Commission).
New Zealand's TAIC stated they have opened an inquiry into the occurrence stating that the aircraft aborted an attempted takeoff at speed and stopped at the end of the runway.
ADS-B data suggest that the aircraft's nose gear may have gone past the runway end onto soft ground.
Timaru unattended aerodrome features a runway 02/20 with an ASDA of 1280 meters/4200 feet. The aerodrome chart contains a note: "CAUTION: Bird hazard. Birds seasonally on aerodrome and larger number present on the outlying fields when irrigation or cultivation taking place."
On May 13th 2026 New Zealand's TAIC released their final report concluding the probable causes of the incident were:
- After passing the maximum take-off rejection speed and about to become airborne, the FO had become increasingly concerned about a flock of birds approaching the intended take-off path.
- The FO was concerned about the consequences of a bird strike, so reduced the rate of rotation of the aeroplane to try to avoid the birds, still intending to continue with the take-off.
- The captain, on observing the change of rate of rotation thought the FO was rejecting the take-off, so immediately reduced power and started hard braking.
- There was a breakdown in communication between the captain and the first officer, resulting in the first officer not communicating their intended non-standard action of reducing the rate of rotation of the aeroplane.
- Crew resource management was not effective in preventing and correcting a breakdown in communication at a critical phase of the flight.
- Had a bird strike occurred, it was very unlikely that it would have penetrated the flightdeck or been ingested into an engine.
The TAIC summarized the sequence of events:
At 0649:17, as the airspeed indicator reached 97 knots (kt) (180 kilometres per hour (km/h)) the captain called V1, rotate. At this time the FO started pulling back on the control column with both hands8 to initiate the rotation towards the target takeoff attitude of 9° nose up. At 0649:20, the FO observed a flock of birds to the right flying towards the take-off path and called Oh no over the intercom. The captain replied, Keep going.
The FO, believing the birds might strike the aeroplane, reduced the rate of rotation resulting in a lower pitch attitude to stay below the path of the birds, but still planned to continue with the take-off. The FO did not communicate this action or their intended plan to the captain. At interview, the captain stated that they observed the reduction in the rate of rotation, perceived as the aeroplane nose lowering, and thought the FO was rejecting the take-off.
- At 0649:24, the captain retarded the power levers and started braking action. At the same time, the FO was recorded saying Oh no no, and the captain uttering an expletive. The aeroplane had accelerated to 114 kt (211 km/h), 17 kt above V1, before it started to decelerate under braking. The aeroplane was brought to a halt at 0649:34 with the nosewheel 4.7 metres (m) beyond the end of the runway but still on the bitumen.
The FO advised air traffic services that the runway was blocked. The crew then shut down the engines and isolated the flight data and cockpit voice recorders in accordance with the operators procedures. The passengers and crew were returned to the terminal by vehicles and the aeroplane secured to await the arrival of technical and investigative personnel.
There was no injury or damage, but the main landing gear wheels and brakes were replaced as a precaution. The aeroplane was returned to service two days later.
The aircraft after coming to a stop:
The aircraft after coming to a stop (Photo: Hayden Brown):
The airline reported the crew rejected takeoff over concerns due to bird activity around the aerodrome. The aircraft stopped on the runway and will remain there until procedures are being completed.
New Zealand's CAA reported they have been notified about the occurrence and have in turn notified New Zealand's TAIC (Transport Accident Investigation Commission).
New Zealand's TAIC stated they have opened an inquiry into the occurrence stating that the aircraft aborted an attempted takeoff at speed and stopped at the end of the runway.
ADS-B data suggest that the aircraft's nose gear may have gone past the runway end onto soft ground.
Timaru unattended aerodrome features a runway 02/20 with an ASDA of 1280 meters/4200 feet. The aerodrome chart contains a note: "CAUTION: Bird hazard. Birds seasonally on aerodrome and larger number present on the outlying fields when irrigation or cultivation taking place."
On May 13th 2026 New Zealand's TAIC released their final report concluding the probable causes of the incident were:
- After passing the maximum take-off rejection speed and about to become airborne, the FO had become increasingly concerned about a flock of birds approaching the intended take-off path.
- The FO was concerned about the consequences of a bird strike, so reduced the rate of rotation of the aeroplane to try to avoid the birds, still intending to continue with the take-off.
- The captain, on observing the change of rate of rotation thought the FO was rejecting the take-off, so immediately reduced power and started hard braking.
- There was a breakdown in communication between the captain and the first officer, resulting in the first officer not communicating their intended non-standard action of reducing the rate of rotation of the aeroplane.
- Crew resource management was not effective in preventing and correcting a breakdown in communication at a critical phase of the flight.
- Had a bird strike occurred, it was very unlikely that it would have penetrated the flightdeck or been ingested into an engine.
The TAIC summarized the sequence of events:
At 0649:17, as the airspeed indicator reached 97 knots (kt) (180 kilometres per hour (km/h)) the captain called V1, rotate. At this time the FO started pulling back on the control column with both hands8 to initiate the rotation towards the target takeoff attitude of 9° nose up. At 0649:20, the FO observed a flock of birds to the right flying towards the take-off path and called Oh no over the intercom. The captain replied, Keep going.
The FO, believing the birds might strike the aeroplane, reduced the rate of rotation resulting in a lower pitch attitude to stay below the path of the birds, but still planned to continue with the take-off. The FO did not communicate this action or their intended plan to the captain. At interview, the captain stated that they observed the reduction in the rate of rotation, perceived as the aeroplane nose lowering, and thought the FO was rejecting the take-off.
- At 0649:24, the captain retarded the power levers and started braking action. At the same time, the FO was recorded saying Oh no no, and the captain uttering an expletive. The aeroplane had accelerated to 114 kt (211 km/h), 17 kt above V1, before it started to decelerate under braking. The aeroplane was brought to a halt at 0649:34 with the nosewheel 4.7 metres (m) beyond the end of the runway but still on the bitumen.
The FO advised air traffic services that the runway was blocked. The crew then shut down the engines and isolated the flight data and cockpit voice recorders in accordance with the operators procedures. The passengers and crew were returned to the terminal by vehicles and the aeroplane secured to await the arrival of technical and investigative personnel.
There was no injury or damage, but the main landing gear wheels and brakes were replaced as a precaution. The aeroplane was returned to service two days later.
The aircraft after coming to a stop:
The aircraft after coming to a stop (Photo: Hayden Brown):
This article is published under license. Article Source
Published Date
