Embraer EMB-145LR and Airbus A330 accident near Newark, New Jersey, May 1, 2013
On May 1, 2013 at about 11:24 pm local time, 2 aircraft, Embraer EMB-145LR (N17560) and Airbus A330 (LNRKO), were involved in the same accident near Newark, New Jersey (Newark Liberty International airport). No one was hurt; 290 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
Preview. This page is not yet listed for search engines.
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
the failure of flight 908's captain to ensure adequate clearance between the wingtip of his airplane and flight 4226's empennage when he attempted to pass behind the other airplane.
the failure of flight 908's captain to ensure adequate clearance between the wingtip of his airplane and flight 4226's empennage when he attempted to pass behind the other airplane.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 4, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- May 1, 2013 · about 11:24 pm local time
- Place
- Newark, New Jersey · Newark Liberty International · map
- Type
- Accident · collision on the ground
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 290 people were on board or involved.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft 1
- Embraer EMB-145LR · all EMB-145LRs on the register
- Registration
- N17560 · no longer on the register · serial 145605
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Flight · scheduled airline rules (Part 121)
- Aircraft 2
- Airbus A330 343X · all A330s on the register
- Registration
- LNRKO · no longer on the register · serial 515
- Damage
- Minor damage
- Flight
- Flight · foreign airline rules (Part 129)
The NTSB's narrative for the Embraer EMB-145LR final · quoted from the NTSB record
Flight 4226 was stationary on the taxiway with the parking brake set and was facing away from flight 908 at the time of the collision. Flight 4226 flight crew parked on taxiway R between taxiway M and taxiway Y. They were told to hold short of taxiway Y to give way to a B737 that would be passing on taxiway Y. It could not be determined where on taxiway R the airplane was parked, but to conflict with flight 908's wingtip, the airplane would have to be closer to taxiway M rather than closer to taxiway Y. Since taxiway M would have been behind flight 4226's airplane, the crew most likely was not completely aware of how far ahead of taxiway M or how much clearance they were leaving behind them when they parked. If the airplane was parked with the airplane's longitudinal axis on or parallel to the centerline of taxiway R, the crew would not have been able to see flight 908's left wingtip or judge its proximity to their airplane before the collision. If the crew of flight 908 had requested flight 4226's crew to taxi forward to provide adequate clearance, there would have been sufficient space on taxiway R for flight 4226 to move forward in order to ensure clearance between both flight 908 and the approaching B737. However, the crew of flight 908 did not make any communications request for flight 4226 to move their airplane forward on taxiway R. As a result, flight 908 sustained minor damage to its left winglet and flight 4226 sustained substantial damage to their empennage due to the captain misjudging the clearance distance. The crew of flight 908 could see flight 4226's airplane parked ahead of them on taxiway M, and their statements indicated that in the turn they were concerned about whether they had sufficient clearance to taxi past the aircraft. The captain stated that he was focused on clearing the wing of the ExpressJet and neglected to focus on clearing the tail of the parked aircraft. If an anti-collision aid had been installed on flight 908's airplane, it may have prevented the accident.
The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.
The NTSB's narrative for the Airbus A330 final · quoted from the NTSB record
Flight 4226 was stationary on the taxiway with the parking brake set and was facing away from flight 908 at the time of the collision. Flight 4226 flight crew parked on taxiway R between taxiway M and taxiway Y. They were told to hold short of taxiway Y to give way to a B737 that would be passing on taxiway Y. It could not be determined where on taxiway R the airplane was parked, but to conflict with flight 908's wingtip, the airplane would have to be closer to taxiway M rather than closer to taxiway Y. Since taxiway M would have been behind flight 4226's airplane, the crew most likely was not completely aware of how far ahead of taxiway M or how much clearance they were leaving behind them when they parked. If the airplane was parked with the airplane's longitudinal axis on or parallel to the centerline of taxiway R, the crew would not have been able to see flight 908's left wingtip or judge its proximity to their airplane before the collision. If the crew of flight 908 had requested flight 4226's crew to taxi forward to provide adequate clearance, there would have been sufficient space on taxiway R for flight 4226 to move forward in order to ensure clearance between both flight 908 and the approaching B737. However, the crew of flight 908 did not make any communications request for flight 4226 to move their airplane forward on taxiway R. As a result, flight 908 sustained minor damage to its left winglet and flight 4226 sustained substantial damage to their empennage due to the captain misjudging the clearance distance. The crew of flight 908 could see flight 4226's airplane parked ahead of them on taxiway M, and their statements indicated that in the turn they were concerned about whether they had sufficient clearance to taxi past the aircraft. The captain stated that he was focused on clearing the wing of the ExpressJet and neglected to focus on clearing the tail of the parked aircraft. If an anti-collision aid had been installed on flight 908's airplane, it may have prevented the accident.
The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.
The factual record for the Embraer EMB-145LR from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
What happened, in order
- Ground collision during taxi (to runway) defining event
The NTSB's findings
- Aircraft › Aircraft handling/service › Towing and taxiing › Taxiing › Related operating info
The aircraft
- Seats: 55
- Landing gear: retractable
- Engine 1: Rolls-Royc AE 3007A1P (turbofan); 0 hours total
- Engine 2: Rolls-Royc AE 3007A1P (turbofan); 0 hours total
- Operator: Expressjet Airlines INC
The flight
- Departed from: EWR Newark NJ
- Destination: BNA Nashville TN
- Flight plan: IFR
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Light: dusk
- Wind: from 180° at 7 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: a few clouds at 25,000 ft
- Temperature: 57°F (14°C), dew point 45°F (7°C)
- Altimeter: 30.45 inHg
- Observation at 11:20 pm
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cabi | 1 | |||
| Flig | 2 | |||
| Passengers | 31 |
The factual record for the Airbus A330 from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
What happened, in order
- Ground collision during taxi (to runway) defining event
The NTSB's findings
- Aircraft › Aircraft handling/service › Towing and taxiing › Taxiing › Related operating info
- factor Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Lack of action › Pilot
The aircraft
- Landing gear: retractable
- Engine 1: Rolls Royce Trent 772B-60 (turbofan); 0 hours total
- Engine 2: Rolls Royce Trent 772B-60 (turbofan); 0 hours total
- Operator: Scandinavian Airlines System
The flight
- Departed from: EWR Newark NJ
- Destination: ENGM Oslo
- Flight plan: IFR
- A second pilot was aboard
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cabi | 8 | |||
| Flig | 3 | |||
| Passengers | 245 |
About this page
Everything above comes from the NTSB's public accident database: the narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words, and the coded tables behind its report (pilot, aircraft, flight, weather, injuries, sequence of events) are written out in plain English. Pilots' ages, home towns and medical details are left out on purpose. The docket at the NTSB holds the report as a PDF and the investigation's photographs and documents. This site never names pilots, passengers or anyone else involved. A preliminary report describes what is known soon after the event and can change; the final report, with the probable cause, usually follows one to two years later and this page is refreshed when it does. Case number DCA13FA082.