Clearance CLR-1635 · SAF742
SAFLUF
Safety & OperationsClearance sheet
Lufthansa Munich rough landing cited as a serious incident
BFU called the August 17 Lufthansa arrival a “serious incident” after the Airbus touched down 18.8 metres short of Munich runway 26L, damaging seven tyres and three lamps.
Read-back
- On August 17, a Lufthansa Airbus with 352 passengers and 24 crew touched down 18.8 metres short of Munich runway 26L.
- The landing ran over three lamps and damaged seven main-gear tyres; nobody was injured.
- German Weather Service data showed 800 metres of visibility; the crew estimated no more than 500 metres.
- BFU’s Friday interim report cited a “serious incident” but no concrete cause; the final report is expected next year.
- Two days earlier, a Vietnam Airlines aircraft returned to Munich and landed with burst tyres; about 270 passengers and crew escaped unharmed.

By Grace Kim
A Lufthansa Airbus carrying 352 passengers and 24 crew touched down 18.8 metres before the threshold of Munich runway 26L on August 17, Germany’s Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation (BFU) said. It ran over three lamps and damaged seven tyres on the main landing gear; nobody was injured.
BFU’s Friday interim report classified the event as a “serious incident.” Under German aviation regulations, that designation means an accident was narrowly avoided. The bureau identified no concrete cause and expects its final report next year.
What happened on final approach?
The aircraft was arriving from San Francisco in intensifying rain and storm conditions. Citing the crew, BFU said the approach and runway lighting was only partially recognizable. Data from the German Weather Service put visibility at 800 metres; the crew estimated no more than 500 metres.
The conventional instrument landing system, which uses ground-generated guidance, was unavailable. The crew therefore selected a required navigation performance approach, using GPS satellite signals and onboard computation to assist the pilots and calculate the aircraft’s position.
Flight-data-recorder readings showed the aircraft increasingly deviating downward from its flight path during final approach. At about nine metres above ground, the captain noticed that the aircraft was too low. Two seconds later, it touched down before the threshold.
The crew learned only after landing that the threshold lights had been damaged. At the parking position, one pilot found the damaged main-gear tyres and reported them. The sequence presents two separate matters for investigators: what the crew could perceive, and what the aircraft did.
What does the serious-incident finding change?
The classification establishes regulatory severity without assigning blame or identifying a failed system. It therefore says more about the closeness of the outcome than the mechanism that produced it. The report supplies no repair costs, cancellation figures, delay totals or aircraft-availability data, leaving the wider financial and capacity effects unquantified.
For Munich operations, the concern is concrete but still narrow. The same runway was involved in another near-catastrophic sequence two days earlier, when a Vietnam Airlines aircraft barely managed to lift off before returning to Munich and landing about two hours later. Smoke was visible from the landing gear during the landing, and the tyres burst.
No one was harmed in that incident either. Unnamed experts believed that roughly 270 passengers and crew narrowly escaped catastrophe, and BFU remains investigating the event. The interim report does not establish a link between the two episodes or a common cause.
For carriers, the concrete consequence is operating time, not a fleet-wide safety verdict. The Lufthansa aircraft reached a parking position; the Vietnam Airlines aircraft spent about two hours returning and landing again. Neither case provides a scheduled-time, passenger-delay or cost figure, so the network effect cannot be calculated from the report.
Where does the inquiry go next?
The final report will have to address whether the selected GPS-assisted approach, the crew’s visibility assessment and the partly recognizable runway environment contributed to the downward deviation. It must reconcile the flight-data-recorder evidence with the crew account and lighting conditions before assigning cause.
Until then, the report establishes a short landing, a serious regulatory classification and damage, but no injuries and no definitive explanation. Any claim that Munich’s approach system, Lufthansa’s procedures or the aircraft were at fault remains unsupported. The evidence establishes proximity to an accident, not its cause.
The next-year report will carry the burden of a cause, not merely the label. For the airline and airport, that matters because dispatch reliability in low visibility depends on knowing which part of the system, if any, failed.
via tribunecontentagency.com (Original)
More from Grace Kim
Show full bio
News editor covering companies, deals and strategy in Commercial aviation industry coverage at Flightdeck Report.
555 articles
Same bay
- FDR890TAIC finds systemic failures behind Air NZ Q300 low-altitude incident · September 30, 2026
- FDR531IndiGo A321neo Tail Strike at Bengaluru Grounds Aircraft, Prompts DGCA Investigation · September 28, 2026
- FDR921BFU: Vietnam Airlines 787-9 Braked Twice During Munich Takeoff Overrun · September 29, 2026
- FDR653BFU: 27% main-gear braking recorded during Vietnam 787-9 Munich overrun · October 10, 2026
- FDR666NTSB: Amazon Air Jet Flew Past Nearly Half of Miami Runway Before Fatal Landing · October 2, 2026