The Federal Government may demolish an uncompleted building obstructing the control tower’s line of sight at the Benin Airport following a runway overrun involving an Enugu Air aircraft in July.
The development is contained in the latest preliminary report of the Nigeria Safety Investigation Bureau analysed on Sunday, which identified the obstruction as one of the safety concerns requiring urgent attention.
The structure reportedly blocks the controller’s view towards the end of Runway 05, particularly the Runway 23 threshold end.
The NSIB in its report said, “An uncompleted building structure is obstructing the controller’s line of sight towards the end of Runway 05 (Runway 23 threshold end).”
Recall that the July incident involving Enugu Air, which was founded in 2025 and obtained its Air Operator Certificate on March 10, 2026, experienced a very serious incident months after it was approved fit to fly commercial flights.
The NSIB also found that the Embraer ERJ 170-100LR aircraft, with registration 5N-ENR, had an inoperative autobrake system and landed on a wet runway amid deteriorating weather before overrunning the runway.
The aircraft, operating Enugu Air flight ENU4264 from Murtala Muhammed International Airport, Lagos, to Oba Akenzua II Airport, Benin, overran Runway 05 shortly after touchdown.
All 68 people on board, including five crew members, escaped through the emergency slides without injury.
According to the preliminary findings released on Friday, the aircraft’s take-off, climb, cruise and descent were normal. The crew members were properly licensed and qualified, while the aircraft had a valid Certificate of Airworthiness.
The First Officer, who was the Pilot Flying, and the Captain, the Pilot Monitoring, had noted during their approach briefing that the aircraft’s autobrake was unavailable. “Manual braking would be used for landing,” the report stated.
According to the report, weather conditions also worsened as the aircraft approached Benin. The NSIB said moderate rain and reduced visibility were reported before landing, while flight recorder data indicated a tailwind during the final approach and landing.
The air traffic controller had also warned the crew that the approach to Runway 23 appeared better than that to Runway 05. The crew acknowledged the information but continued the RNAV approach to Runway 05.
When clearing the aircraft to land, the NSIB said the controller informed the crew that the runway was wet. However, the NSIB noted that the communication did not include a Runway Condition Report or Runway Condition Code.
The report stated: “ATC advised the crew that the approach path to Runway 23 appeared better than the approach path to Runway 05; the crew acknowledged and continued the RNAV approach to Runway 05. ATC, while issuing the landing clearance, also advised the crew that the runway surface was wet.”
In the report, the flight recorder data showed that the aircraft crossed the Runway 05 threshold at a radio altitude of about 93.5 feet before touching down approximately 1,641.5 metres from the threshold.
It could not stop within the remaining runway distance and eventually ran beyond the runway into an unpaved area, where it struck “approach-lighting installations and two fixed concrete structures associated with a decommissioned localizer installation.”
The accident investigators said the findings had prompted “four immediate safety recommendations, numbered A-2026-039 to A-2026-042, directed at the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority, Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria and Nigerian Meteorological Agency.”
The recommendations cover the runway-end environment, the control tower’s line of sight and the availability of meteorological information.
The NSIB also released a preliminary recreation of the aircraft’s flight path based on the data available so far. The bureau cautioned against treating the findings as a final attribution of responsibility.
The NSIB stressed that, “In accordance with Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the sole objective of the investigation is the prevention of accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of the investigation to apportion blame or liability.”
Credit: Source link