Investigation Summary
The accident occurred during a 'Response Time Exercise' designed to test the capabilities of the new fire station and its access to the runway system. The exercise was coordinated between Lima Airport Partners (LAP) and the Peruvian Airports and Commercial Aviation Corporation (Corpac). However, a critical breakdown in communication occurred regarding the specific route and the requirement for runway entry. The firefighters believed they had authorization to enter the runway as part of the drill, while the air traffic controllers were under the impression the vehicles would stop short of the runway or use a different path. As the fire engines accelerated toward the runway, Flight 2213 was cleared for takeoff and was accelerating through 127 knots when the lead fire truck, Rescue 6, crossed the runway threshold directly into the aircraft's path.
Final Conclusions
The investigation by the Commission for the Investigation of Aviation Accidents (CIAA) concluded that the primary cause was the unauthorized entry of fire rescue vehicles onto an active runway during a planned exercise. Contributing factors included poor coordination between the airport operator (LAP) and air traffic control (Corpac), a lack of clear terminology during the planning meetings, and the failure of controllers to notice the vehicles' trajectory in time to cancel the takeoff clearance. The firefighters were operating under the mistaken belief that the drill's approval included runway access.
Photographic Evidence (1)
Video Analysis
No video analysis linked for this case file yet.
Systems & Failure Modes
ARFF (Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting)
The airport's emergency response unit whose vehicles were involved in the runway incursion.
Ground Radar / ASDE-X
Systems used by controllers to monitor vehicle and aircraft movements on the airport surface.
Communication Infrastructure
The new fire station (Station 2) lacked a dedicated 'hotline' or discrete radio frequency for the exercise, forcing reliance on standard frequencies which contributed to coordination failures.
Interesting Facts
- 01The aircraft was the first Airbus A320neo to be written off as a hull loss.
- 02Two firefighters died at the scene, and a third died seven months later from his injuries.
- 03The aircraft reached a maximum speed of 131 knots before the pilots initiated a rejected takeoff; the collision occurred before the aircraft reached its calculated V1 (decision speed) of 142 knots.
- 04All 108 passengers and crew survived the collision and subsequent fire.
- 05The exercise was intended to test the response time to a new runway that was not yet operational.
Safety Actions & Advisories
Standardization of Drill Communications
Corpac and LAP were directed to implement stricter protocols for emergency drills, requiring explicit 'cleared to enter runway' phrasing even during exercises.
Enhanced Controller Training
Air traffic controllers received additional training on monitoring ground vehicle movements during simultaneous runway operations.
Known Controversies & Unanswered Questions
Responsibility Dispute between LAP and Corpac
Reference ↗Following the accident, a public dispute arose between the airport operator (LAP) and the ATC provider (Corpac) regarding whether the drill's authorization implicitly included runway entry and who was responsible for the lack of communication.