What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
(.4) The RVR went below minimums, and the flightcrew was issued holding instructions. While flying toward the holding fix, the RVR increased. The ATC specialist offered the flightcrew the ILS approach, but advised that they might be too high. The captain accepted the approach clearance, and the ATC specialist asked if the flightcrew would be able to make the approach from their position. The captain gave an affirmative reply. He continued the entire approach with excessive altitude, airspeed, and rate of descent; while remaining above the glide slope. This was contrary to the company procedures, the instrument approach procedure, federal aviation regulations 91.175, and four audible warnings from the airplane GPWS. During the approach, the first officer failed to make the required callouts, including a missed approach callout. The airplane landed approximately 7,000 feet beyond the approach end of the runway, at 157 knots; and subsequently overran the runway. During interviews, both pilots stated that they were fatigued. The flightcrew was working a continuous duty overnight schedule. The previous day, they both awoke during the morning hours, did not sleep during the da y, and reported for duty about 2200 for a flight scheduled at 2246. The flight was delayed, and arrived at bwi about 0100. They were asleep about 0130, and awoke about 0445 for the accident flight, which was scheduled to depart at 0610.
As the FAA filed it
(.4) THE RVR WENT BELOW MINIMUMS, AND THE FLIGHTCREW WAS ISSUED HOLDING INSTRUCTIONS. WHILE FLYING TOWARD THE HOLDING FIX, THE RVR INCREASED. THE ATC SPECIALIST OFFERED THE FLIGHTCREW THE ILS APPROACH, BUT ADVISED THAT THEY MIGHT BE TOO HIGH. THE CAPTAIN ACCEPTED THE APPROACH CLEARANCE, AND THE ATC SPECIALIST ASKED IF THE FLIGHTCREW WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE APPROACH FROM THEIR POSITION. THE CAPTAIN GAVE AN AFFIRMATIVE REPLY. HE CONTINUED THE ENTIRE APPROACH WITH EXCESSIVE ALTITUDE, AIRSPEED, AND RATE OF DESCENT; WHILE REMAINING ABOVE THE GLIDE SLOPE. THIS WAS CONTRARY TO THE COMPANY PROCEDURES, THE INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE, FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS 91.175, AND FOUR AUDIBLE WARNINGS FROM THE AIRPLANE GPWS. DURING THE APPROACH, THE FIRST OFFICER FAILED TO MAKE THE REQUIRED CALLOUTS, INCLUDING A MISSED APPROACH CALLOUT. THE AIRPLANE LANDED APPROXIMATELY 7,000 FEET BEYOND THE APPROACH END OF THE RUNWAY, AT 157 KNOTS; AND SUBSEQUENTLY OVERRAN THE RUNWAY. DURING INTERVIEWS, BOTH PILOTS STATED THAT THEY WERE FATIGUED. THE FLIGHTCREW WAS WORKING A CONTINUOUS DUTY OVERNIGHT SCHEDULE. THE PREVIOUS DAY, THEY BOTH AWOKE DURING THE MORNING HOURS, DID NOT SLEEP DURING THE DA Y, AND REPORTED FOR DUTY ABOUT 2200 FOR A FLIGHT SCHEDULED AT 2246. THE FLIGHT WAS DELAYED, AND ARRIVED AT BWI ABOUT 0100. THEY WERE ASLEEP ABOUT 0130, AND AWOKE ABOUT 0445 FOR THE ACCIDENT FLIGHT, WHICH WAS SCHEDULED TO DEPART AT 0610.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.