Regulations & Safety
CommuteAir Flight 4339 Runway Excursion and NTSB Preliminary Findings
NTSB preliminary report on CommuteAir Flight 4339 runway overrun at Roanoke highlights crew decisions and EMAS safety role.
CommuteAir Flight 4339 Runway Excursion: A Breakdown of the NTSB Preliminary Report
On the night of September 24, 2025, CommuteAir flight 4339, operating as a United Express service, ended its journey from Washington Dulles not at the terminal, but in an engineered materials arresting system (EMAS) at Roanoke-Blacksburg Regional Airport (ROA). The Embraer EMB-145XR, carrying 50 passengers and 3 crew members, overran runway 34 during a rainy landing. Fortunately, the incident resulted in no injuries and only minor damage to the aircraft, a testament to the effectiveness of modern runway safety technology. However, the events leading up to this runway excursion, as detailed in the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) preliminary report, raise important questions about crew coordination, decision-making under pressure, and adapting to rapidly changing weather.
The flight was already under a degree of stress before it even left the ground. It was the second leg of the fourth day of a long rotation for the crew. Passengers had been deplaned twice due to maintenance issues, leading to a departure approximately two and a half hours behind schedule. While pre-flight delays are not uncommon, they can contribute to a cascading series of events. This incident serves as a critical case study for the aviation industry, highlighting the razor-thin margins that separate a routine landing from a serious incident and the layers of safety that are in place to mitigate the consequences when things go wrong.
The NTSB’s investigation is ongoing, and this initial report provides a factual, unvarnished look at the sequence of events. It lays the groundwork for a deeper analysis of operational factors, human performance, and air traffic control communications. As we dissect the available information, we get a clearer picture of the dynamic challenges the flight crew faced and the critical decisions made in the final moments of the flight. The data from the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder will be crucial in piecing together the complete narrative.
From Clear Skies to a Rainy Approach
The flight’s journey from Washington to Roanoke began with a weather forecast that suggested a routine arrival. The initial Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) report for ROA indicated calm winds, no rain, and runway 6 in use. Based on this, the captain, who was the pilot flying, briefed for a localizer approach to that runway. The first officer, acting as pilot monitoring, proactively suggested reviewing landing performance for a wet runway, but the captain declined, citing the clear conditions reported by ATIS. This initial interaction sets the stage for a developing situation where crew communication and differing perspectives on risk would become a central theme.
As the aircraft began its descent, the weather picture changed dramatically. Approach control alerted the crew to precipitation near the airport and advised that other aircraft were now using runway 34 for landing. This prompted a change in plan. The captain requested the first officer set up and brief the ILS (Instrument Landing System) approach for runway 34, a more precise approach suitable for deteriorating weather. The crew was now actively adapting to a new set of circumstances, a standard procedure in the dynamic environment of aviation.
The situation continued to evolve rapidly on the final approach. The crew overheard a report from a preceding aircraft that mentioned marginal visibility and bumpy conditions. The rain intensified, leading the first officer to perform a landing calculation for a wet runway. The calculation showed a safety margin of about 200 feet more than required, even without the use of thrust reversers. This data point suggested the landing was feasible, but the conditions were far from the calm, dry scenario anticipated at the start of the flight.
The Final Moments: Go-Around Calls and a Captain’s Decision
The intensity of the rain increased to “heavy” on the short final, prompting the captain to request the windshield wipers be set to high speed. As the aircraft descended below 500 feet, a critical phase of flight, the first officer noted they were high on the precision approach path indicator (PAPI), a visual aid that helps pilots maintain the correct glidepath. A high indication means the aircraft is above the ideal descent profile, which can lead to touching down too far down the runway and not having enough distance to stop.
Recognizing the unstable nature of the approach, the first officer made a critical callout: “go-around.” This is a standard call for discontinuing a landing approach that is not proceeding as planned. The call was made as the aircraft crossed the runway threshold, but the captain continued with the landing. The first officer repeated the “go-around” call about halfway down the runway, but again, the captain continued the landing attempt. This divergence in crew action is a significant point of interest for the NTSB’s human factors investigation.
The NTSB report states, “After crossing the runway markings, the FO called for a go-around, but the captain continued. About halfway down the runway, the FO called for a go-around a second time, but the captain continued.”
After touchdown, the crew applied maximum braking and deployed the engine thrust reversers. Despite these actions, the aircraft could not be stopped on the remaining runway. It overran the pavement and came to a safe stop in the EMAS. The successful deployment and function of the EMAS bed prevented a potentially far more serious outcome, containing the aircraft and protecting everyone on board. Following the event, airport rescue and firefighting personnel boarded the aircraft and assisted passengers in evacuating via a ladder.
The Investigation and the Role of Safety Systems
The NTSB is leading a comprehensive investigation into the incident, with participation from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), CommuteAir, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), and Brazilian authorities, as the aircraft was manufactured by Embraer. Specialists in various fields, including flight recorders, meteorology, air traffic control, and human factors, have been assigned to the case. The cockpit voice and flight data recorders were recovered and sent to the NTSB’s lab in Washington, D.C., for detailed analysis. The data from these recorders will provide investigators with precise details about the aircraft’s parameters, crew conversations, and actions throughout the flight.
A key takeaway from this incident is the undeniable success of the Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS). This technology, installed at the end of runways where safety areas are limited, is designed to crush under the weight of an aircraft, decelerating it safely. The images from the report show the aircraft’s main landing gear embedded in the EMAS, illustrating exactly how the system is designed to work. This event serves as a powerful, real-world example of how investment in runway safety infrastructure pays dividends by preventing injuries and major aircraft damage.
The investigation will undoubtedly focus heavily on Crew Resource Management (CRM). CRM is the practice of using all available resources, both human and technological, to ensure safe and efficient flight operations. The differing actions of the captain and first officer in the final moments of the landing will be scrutinized. Investigators will seek to understand the decision-making process, communication dynamics, and any potential factors that may have influenced the captain’s choice to continue the landing despite the first officer’s calls to go around. The findings will likely contribute to ongoing training and procedural refinements across the airline industry.
Concluding Thoughts
The runway excursion of CommuteAir flight 4339 is a stark reminder of the complexities of commercial aviation. It underscores how quickly a routine flight can encounter unforeseen challenges, demanding rapid and accurate decision-making from the flight crew. The preliminary NTSB report provides a factual, dispassionate account of the events, laying the groundwork for a thorough investigation that will ultimately aim to enhance aviation safety for everyone.
While the absence of injuries is a relief, the incident highlights critical areas for review, particularly concerning crew coordination in unstabilized approaches and the persistent challenge of landing in rapidly deteriorating weather. The successful outcome, in terms of passenger and crew safety, can be directly attributed to the effectiveness of the EMAS, reinforcing the importance of such safety systems. The final NTSB report will provide the industry with valuable lessons to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
FAQ
Question: What is a runway excursion?
Answer: A runway excursion is an incident where an aircraft veers off or overruns the runway surface. This can occur during takeoff or landing and can be caused by various factors, including unstable approaches, contaminated runways (with water, ice, or snow), mechanical issues, or pilot error.
Question: What is an EMAS?
Answer: EMAS stands for Engineered Materials Arresting System. It is a bed of crushable, energy-absorbing material placed at the end of a runway. When an aircraft overruns the runway, the EMAS collapses under the weight of the aircraft’s tires, safely decelerating it and preventing it from causing more significant damage or injuries.
Question: Why did the first officer call for a “go-around”?
Answer: A “go-around” is a standard procedure where a landing is aborted. Pilots are trained to initiate a go-around if the approach is not “stabilized”, meaning the aircraft is not at the correct speed, descent rate, or on the correct flight path. In this case, the first officer observed the aircraft was too high on the approach path and called for a go-around to discontinue the unstable landing attempt.
Sources
Photo Credit: X
Regulations & Safety
Cessna 172S Crashes in Pacoima Near Whiteman Airport
A Cessna 172S crashed upside-down in Pacoima, CA, causing power outages and evacuations. Pilot hospitalized; FAA and NTSB investigating.
This article summarizes reporting by NBC Los Angeles and Jonathan Lloyd, supplemented by comprehensive incident research data.
A small single-engine airplane crashed upside-down into a commercial auto parts store parking lot in Pacoima, California, on Monday morning. The incident downed high-voltage power lines and prompted immediate emergency responses, though it miraculously spared bystanders and parked vehicles.
The crash occurred just blocks from Whiteman Airport, a general aviation facility that has been the subject of intense community scrutiny following a series of aviation accidents in recent years. The sole occupant of the aircraft, a 70-year-old male pilot, survived the impact and was hospitalized.
According to initial reporting by NBC Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) responded to the downed plane near the intersection of Ralston Avenue and Van Nuys Boulevard, where they encountered significant electrical hazards caused by the damaged infrastructure.
Details of the Pacoima Crash and Emergency Response
The Aircraft and the Pilot
Incident research reports identify the aircraft as a 2007 Cessna 172S Skyhawk, which is reportedly registered to a local flight school. The crash was reported to authorities at approximately 11:08 a.m. local time on Monday, April 20, 2026. The plane came to rest inverted in the parking lot of an O’Reilly Auto Parts store located on the 10800 block of N. San Fernando Road, sustaining heavy damage to its nose.
First responders from the LAFD and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) arrived swiftly to find the 70-year-old pilot trapped inside the wreckage. Crews successfully extricated the man, who was able to speak with responders at the scene. He was transported to a local hospital and is reported to be in critical but stable condition.
Public Safety Measures
NBC Los Angeles reported that high-voltage power lines were damaged during the incident. Research data confirms that the aircraft snapped a power pole upon descent. Due to the severe electrical hazard, police and fire crews shut down Van Nuys Boulevard from Ralston Avenue to San Fernando Road.
Authorities also initiated temporary evacuations of nearby businesses and residences as a safety precaution while utility crews worked to neutralize the downed lines. Fortunately, the aircraft did not strike any bystanders or parked cars during its descent.
The Shadow of Whiteman Airport
A History of Aviation Incidents
This latest crash contextualizes ongoing safety concerns regarding Whiteman Airport (WHP), located just a short distance from the crash site. The airport caters to general aviation, hobbyists, and flight schools, but its placement within a densely populated San Fernando Valley neighborhood has made it a flashpoint for controversy.
Over the past decade, the area has seen over a dozen crashes associated with the airport. Historical incident data highlights several severe accidents, including a fatal November 2020 crash of a Cessna 182 into a residential street, a dramatic January 2022 incident where a Cessna 172 lost power and was struck by a Metrolink train, and a fatal April 2022 crash of a Cessna Skymaster near the 210 Freeway.
Political and Community Pushback
Following previous crashes, local residents and community advocacy groups, such as Pacoima Beautiful, have mounted heavy pressure to close the 1940s-era airport. Elected officials, including U.S. Representative Tony Cárdenas and L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, have been vocal critics of the facility’s safety record.
“The surrounding community is literally afraid for their lives. There are way too many crashes coming in and out of Whiteman Airport.”
, U.S. Representative Tony Cárdenas, in previous public statements regarding the airport.
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors previously approved a $1.9 million study to explore alternative land uses for the 184-acre airport property. However, aviation advocates maintain that the airport provides local jobs, serves as a crucial emergency hub, and is protected by federal grant obligations.
Looking Ahead: Investigations and Airport Future
AirPro News analysis
We anticipate that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will lead the official investigation into Monday’s crash to determine the exact cause. Given that the Cessna is reportedly registered to a local flight school, investigators will likely scrutinize the school’s maintenance protocols, aircraft logs, and the pilot’s training records.
Furthermore, this highly visible incident, where an airplane fell into a commercial parking lot on a Monday morning, will almost certainly accelerate political momentum against Whiteman Airport. Because the crash resulted in downed high-voltage lines and evacuations, it serves as a stark reminder of the inherent risks of operating a general aviation hub in a densely populated urban zone. We expect renewed legislative efforts and heightened community mobilization regarding the future of the 184-acre site in the coming weeks.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- Were there any casualties on the ground? No. Miraculously, no bystanders were injured, and no vehicles were struck when the plane crashed into the parking lot.
- What is the condition of the pilot? The sole occupant, a 70-year-old man, was extricated by first responders and is currently in critical but stable condition.
- What caused the plane to crash? The official cause of the crash is currently unknown. The FAA and NTSB typically lead investigations into such aviation incidents.
- Did the crash cause power outages? The aircraft snapped a power pole and downed high-voltage power lines, prompting street closures and temporary evacuations while utility crews neutralized the hazard.
Sources: NBC Los Angeles
Photo Credit: KTLA
Regulations & Safety
Southwest Airlines Jets Near-Miss at Nashville Airport on April 18
Two Southwest Airlines jets narrowly avoided a midair collision near Nashville Airport, prompting evasive action and an FAA investigation.
This article summarizes reporting by NewsChannel 5 and Phil Williams.
Two Southwest Airlines jets narrowly avoided a midair collision near Nashville International Airport on Saturday afternoon, prompting immediate evasive maneuvers. According to reporting by NewsChannel 5, the aircraft were forced to take sudden action just north of the airport to prevent a disaster.
The incident, which occurred late Saturday, highlights ongoing concerns regarding air traffic control and runway safety. We are closely monitoring the developments as federal aviation authorities and the airline review the flight data.
Details of the Nashville Close Call
According to flight tracking data cited by aviation outlet Paddle Your Own Kanoo, the near-miss happened around 5:45 p.m. on April 18. Southwest Airlines Flight 507, arriving from Myrtle Beach, was attempting to land in gusty conditions. The pilots initiated a precautionary go-around, climbing to an altitude of 2,000 feet.
During this maneuver, air traffic controllers reportedly instructed Flight 507 to turn right. This vector placed the Boeing 737 MAX 8 directly into the departure path of Southwest Airlines Flight 1152, which was taking off for Knoxville from an adjacent runway.
Evasive Action and Safety Systems
To avoid a catastrophic impact, the crews had to react swiftly. NewsChannel 5 Investigates discovered that the two jets were forced into evasive action just north of the airfield.
“Two Southwest Airlines jets were forced to take evasive action late Saturday afternoon… to avoid a potential midair collision,” NewsChannel 5 reported.
Flight tracking data analyzed by Flightradar24 and reported by Paddle Your Own Kanoo suggests the two aircraft came within 500 feet of each other vertically. Aviation safety experts note that such incidents often trigger the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), a critical cockpit alarm that provides pilots with last-resort instructions to climb or descend when aircraft paths converge.
AirPro News analysis
We note that this incident adds to a growing list of runway incursions and near-misses at major U.S. airports over the past two years. While the aviation system remains statistically highly safe, the frequency of these close calls has placed increased scrutiny on air traffic control staffing and pilot adherence to vector instructions. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will likely launch a formal investigation to determine whether controller error or weather-related miscommunication was the primary factor in Saturday’s event.
Frequently Asked Questions
When did the Southwest Airlines near-miss occur?
The incident took place late Saturday afternoon, April 18, 2026, at approximately 5:45 p.m., according to industry reports.
Which flights were involved?
The close call involved Southwest Airlines Flight 507, arriving from Myrtle Beach, and Flight 1152, departing for Knoxville.
How close did the planes get?
Flight tracking data indicates the two jets passed within 500 feet of each other vertically before safely diverging.
Sources
Photo Credit: flightradar24
Regulations & Safety
Airborne Aviation Helicopter Crash Off Kauai Hawaii Investigated
NTSB reports a Hughes 369D helicopter crash off Kauai, Hawaii, with 3 fatalities and mechanical failure suspected in a sightseeing flight.
This article is based on an official preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), supplemented by AirPro News research.
On March 26, 2026, a Hughes 369D sightseeing Helicopters operated by Airborne Aviation crashed into the ocean off the Na Pali Coast of Kauai, Hawaii. The accident, which occurred at approximately 3:39 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (HST), resulted in three passenger fatalities and serious injuries to the pilot and one surviving passenger. The aircraft was conducting a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 revenue sightseeing flight.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has released its preliminary report detailing the sequence of events. The findings point to a sudden in-flight emergency characterized by severe vibrations and a loss of directional control, prompting an emergency autorotation into the water.
As federal investigators continue to examine the recovered wreckage, the crash brings renewed attention to the Safety of air tour operations in Hawaii. The incident raises specific questions concerning “doors-off” flight profiles, over-water equipment regulations, and the mechanical reliability of aging sightseeing fleets.
Sequence of the Fatal Flight
Departure and In-Flight Emergency
According to the NTSB preliminary report, the helicopter, bearing tail number N715KV, departed Lihue Airport (LIH) at approximately 3:12 p.m. HST. It was scheduled for a local sightseeing tour, marking its sixth and final flight of the day. The flight proceeded uneventfully until it reached the northern shore of the island near Haena, roughly 20 miles northeast of the airport.
The pilot told investigators that upon reaching Kalalau Beach, he initiated a standard left turn away from the shoreline. It was during this maneuver that the aircraft experienced a severe mechanical anomaly.
“Upon entering the turn, the pilot experienced a high frequency vibration throughout the helicopter that came in waves and became stronger each time.”
Loss of Control and Water Impact
Following the onset of the vibrations, the helicopter began an un-commanded right yaw. The NTSB notes that the pilot attempted to correct the spin using the left anti-torque pedal, but the input was ineffective. The aircraft quickly rotated clockwise, completing approximately two full rotations.
In response, the pilot entered an autorotation, rolling the throttle to idle to stop the spinning and attempting to increase airspeed for better directional control. He subsequently broadcasted a Mayday radio call. Unable to glide to the beach, the helicopter nosedived and impacted the water roughly 75 to 100 yards from the shoreline. The aircraft rolled onto its right side and became partially submerged.
Witness accounts detailed in the NTSB report corroborate the sequence. One witness flying nearby observed the helicopter impact the water and come to rest upright, tilted slightly to the right. The surviving passenger reported hearing a distinct change in the aircraft’s sound before it slowed down, rotated, and nosedived into the ocean.
Aircraft, Operator, and Rescue Efforts
Airborne Aviation and the Hughes 369D
The aircraft involved was a 1979 Hughes 369D, commonly referred to as an MD 500D, equipped with a Rolls-Royce M250 series engine. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) records indicate the helicopter was registered to AA Leasing LP in Kilauea, Kauai. AirPro News research confirms the aircraft previously operated in Canada, where it was equipped with flotation tanks for water landings. However, it was operating its Hawaii tours without this over-water setup.
The operator, Airborne Aviation, is a Lihue-based company known for offering “doors-off” adventure tours. Following the accident, the company suspended all tour operations. Local authorities identified the three deceased passengers as Margaret Rimmler, 65; Patrick Haskell, 59; and Oksana Pihol, 40.
Emergency Response
The remote location of Kalalau Beach necessitated a rapid and complex rescue operation. According to local emergency response data, campers and Good Samaritans on the beach immediately swam out to the sinking wreckage to pull the five occupants from the water and administer aid.
A large-scale official response followed, involving the Hanalei Fire Station, the Kauai Fire Department, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). The two survivors were medically evacuated to Wilcox Medical Center in Lihue for treatment of serious injuries.
Investigation and Broader Context
Flight Data and Weather Conditions
The NTSB has recovered the helicopter’s fuselage and main rotor blades, which sustained substantial damage, to a secure facility for further examination. Alongside the physical wreckage, investigators will likely scrutinize flight tracking data.
Public ADS-B flight data analyzed in AirPro News research revealed unusual speed fluctuations during the fatal flight. At 3:30 p.m., the helicopter’s speed abruptly dropped from 110 knots to 30 knots at an altitude of 3,500 feet before recovering. Similar sharp slowdowns were recorded on the helicopter’s previous flights that day. Additionally, an AIRMET Tango advisory for aviation turbulence was active across the Hawaiian islands at the time of the crash.
AirPro News analysis
While weather has historically played a significant role in Hawaiian air tour accidents—such as the December 2019 Safari Helicopters crash that killed seven people in low-visibility conditions—the circumstances of the Airborne Aviation crash point strongly toward a catastrophic mechanical failure. The pilot’s description of wave-like, high-frequency vibrations and a total loss of anti-torque control is highly indicative of a failure within the tail rotor drive system.
Furthermore, this incident highlights ongoing regulatory tensions regarding over-water helicopter operations. The fact that this single-engine aircraft was conducting “doors-off” flights over the ocean without emergency pop-out floats exposes a persistent loophole in safety mandates. Despite the FAA implementing a new authorization process in 2023 for Hawaii air tour operators, the industry continues to balance the economic demands of tourism against the inherent risks of low-altitude flying over rugged, maritime terrain.
Frequently Asked Questions
What caused the Airborne Aviation helicopter crash?
The exact cause is currently under Investigation by the NTSB. However, preliminary reports indicate the pilot experienced severe vibrations and a loss of tail rotor effectiveness, suggesting a mechanical failure rather than a weather-related event.
What type of helicopter was involved?
The aircraft was a Hughes 369D, often referred to as an MD 500D, manufactured in 1979. It was operating a “doors-off” sightseeing tour at the time of the Accident.
Were there any survivors?
Yes. The pilot and one female passenger survived the crash with serious injuries and were medically evacuated to a local hospital. Three other passengers were fatally injured.
Sources
Sources: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), AirPro News Internal Research Report.
Photo Credit: US Coast Guard
-
Airlines Strategy2 days agoJetBlue Secures $500M Aircraft-Backed Financing to Support Turnaround
-
Technology & Innovation3 days agoDubai Completes World’s First Commercial Vertiport at DXB Airport
-
Route Development6 days agoAustin Launches $1.18B Bond Sale for Airport Expansion
-
Commercial Aviation6 days ago11th Circuit Rules Spirit Airlines Must Pay Withheld TSA Security Fees
-
Airlines Strategy5 days agoLufthansa CityLine Shutdown and Fleet Cuts Amid Fuel and Labor Crisis