Goodness gracious, two Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) pilots are going to have some explaining to do (thanks to Hans for flagging this). While I first covered this incident a little over a day ago, I’d like to provide an update, as there’s now an excellent video recreating the plane’s movements, which gives some more context into just how wild of a mistake this was.
In this post:
SAS pilots accelerate to 107 knots on Brussels taxiway
This incident happened on Thursday, February 5, 2026, and involves SAS flight SK2590, scheduled to operate from Brussels (BRU) to Copenhagen (CPH). The 470-mile flight was supposed to be operated by an Airbus A320neo with the registration code SE-ROM, and there were 135 people onboard.
The plane was running behind schedule — while it was supposed to depart at 8:30PM, it ended up only departing around 10PM. However, it never actually got off the ground.
The pilots were supposed to taxi out to runway 7R, and were planning on doing a midfield takeoff from the intersection at taxiway C6. Instead, they turned too early, and ended up starting their takeoff roll on three sets of taxiways — E1, F2, and V1, which are parallel to the runway. The pilots accelerated on the taxiway, to the point that the plane reached 107 knots (123 miles per hour), which is approaching the plane’s typical takeoff speed (130+ knots).
The thing is, the taxiway is way shorter than the runway, so they were quickly running out of space for their takeoff roll. Not only that, but the taxiway isn’t even straight, and even gets narrower.
So roughly 300 meters from the end of the taxiway, they started decelerating. The plane ended up at the very end of the taxiway, made a sharp right turn onto another taxiway, and even eventually ended up slightly off the taxiway, with overheated brakes. Passengers and crew had to get off the plane via stairs, and take buses to the terminal.
Those onboard describe this as a terrifying incident, with the plane coming to a very abrupt stop. The area where the plane came to a stop was very close to the airport’s fuel tanks, so thank goodness it didn’t get any closer to those, as that could’ve had an even worse ending.
Weather conditions at the time of the incident were fine, so that doesn’t appear to be a factor here. In a statement, the airline shared that “safety is our absolute priority,” and “we are currently conducting a thorough internal investigation alongside local authorities to understand the sequence of events.”
While there’s no ATC audio available from the incident, below is an excellent video that VASAviation put together about what happened.
This is really bad, and this was a very close call
This isn’t the first time that pilots have tried to take off on a taxiway, and it also certainly won’t be the last. It’s by no means common, but it does happen.
That being said, this is one of the worst versions of this that I’ve ever seen. That’s because this was an incredibly close call. A vast majority of the time when this happens, the pilots quickly realize what’s going on, and come to a stop with room to spare.
In this case, the plane got to such a high speed that it was only able to come to a stop at the very end of the taxiway, even needing to make a turn to avoid a full overrun.
This is a real head-scratcher. With the number of flights that operate every day, some incidents are bound to happen. Still, runways and taxiways look completely different in terms of their lighting, so it’s amazing that neither of the two pilots realized something was wrong when they started their takeoff roll. That says nothing of the fact that the taxiway they were on didn’t even have a straight centerline.
It’s bad enough for this to happen in the first place, and for pilots to quickly realize the mistake. But to accelerate for that long, only to then run out of taxiway, is really puzzling.
Bottom line
An SAS Airbus A320neo tried to take off from a taxiway at Brussels Airport. The pilots lined the plane up with a taxiway parallel to the runway, accelerated the aircraft, and it reached 107 knots, before they aborted the takeoff.
The issue is, the taxiway was much shorter than the runway, so the pilots found themselves with an unenviable choice, where they neither had sufficient distance to stop with a safety margin, nor did they have enough distance to take off. Fortunately the plane managed to safely come to a stop, with no passengers being injured. It’ll be fascinating to see what an investigation into this incident reveals.
What do you make of this SAS A320neo takeoff mess?
Reports claim they were DEI hired females, hence why we do not have any ATC of the incident...
Good thing nobody had been instructed to use that taxiway... wow.
Also curious why they aborted so close to takeoff speed. Maybe safer at that point (since they had clearance in that direction anyway) to actually take off rather than emergency brake?
The V1 (takeoff decision) speed for an Airbus A320neo typically ranges between 120 and 145 knots (depends on weight) According to the book on a proper length runway they had room to stop.
Glad they had enough room on the taxiway to stop too.
Given the mistakes already made, I can't imagine a lot of thought went into it and was a split second decision- below V1, abort. There's no way with their lack of situational awareness they could judge the tarmac distance available and just got lucky.
But given they did manage to brake in time, they probably still had enough space to achieve adequate take-off speed too.
In hindsight, continuing take-off successfully would have been less disruptive,...
Given the mistakes already made, I can't imagine a lot of thought went into it and was a split second decision- below V1, abort. There's no way with their lack of situational awareness they could judge the tarmac distance available and just got lucky.
But given they did manage to brake in time, they probably still had enough space to achieve adequate take-off speed too.
In hindsight, continuing take-off successfully would have been less disruptive, with same disciplinary effects.
Good article, Ben. Excellent topic and you’d think not click-baity. Plenty of insightful, responsible comments, by both those with professional knowledge as well as those with genuine curiosity. I broke my own rule and read every comment. What a miserable subset of humanity; you have approximately four commenters who are beyond insufferable. Except for this article, I have long since weened myself off of their drivel. (One of the worst is MIA tonight.)
Rushing to overcome a delay, echoes of Tenerife
oh my god
while reading this report i am getting shock
Has anyone considered some Burma shave style signs along the edge of the taxiway?
SAS hiring women pilots these days? Lol
What's the point of this misogynistic comment @Dave Stafford?
Sorry Jallan, you're right, my comment was a little uncalled for. Unfortunately my ex-wife hurt me badly during the divorce and I am very sensitive.
Now we know why your ex-wife left you.
MY WIFE (SHARON) DIDNT LEAVE ME!!!!
SAS has a long history of having women pilots — going back at least as far back as when Nixon was President.
If it’s like with cars, then note that men are far more likely to engage in excessively riskier vehicular movements and to be distracted by electronics during vehicle operation than women.
Was this a result in part because of pilots being too tired and thus not paying the needed attention not to avoid this situation in the first place?
BRU-CPH is one of my more frequent SAS short-haul routes — that too often at the tail end of the week — so this feels sort of “close to home” for me.
it may be due to crew duty time limitations (CDTL) regulations
they were not given sufficient rest period as per reuglators rule
i will ask indian director general of civil aviation federal regulator
in india who will give his decision about this incident
it may be due to airline management s fault by not giving sufficient
rest break they were tired
I always think these situations very strange. Runways particularly at night are lit up like a Christmas tree. Runways have lighted entrance ways that are very noticeable. I just can't figure out how pilots could mistake a taxiway for a runway.
What’s the equivalent of a backseat driver for aircraft? Jumpseat pilot?
I guess you're always too busy reading the latest hack from Bernie Sanders to look out the window and realize just how lit up a runway is at night versus a taxiway.
I always thought the computer calls out something like “On runway 0-7 Right” when lining up on the runway - so, how could they have missed that?
They'll claim "fatigue".
Union will save their jobs.
Do you blame unions when you stub your toe?
You don’t need Fox “News” on full-volume 24/7. Anti-worker, anti-consumer corporate propaganda isn’t reality, or helpful.
You can't allow two people working in concert to screw up this badly and STILL be in charge of the safety of hundreds of people.
CHRIS, these pilots absolutely will pay a price for their mistake; these incidents are nearly always investigated thoroughly. Rest assured, they’re likely out of a cockpit for a while, for better and worse. Let’s be grateful they avoided a catastrophe, and ideally everyone learns from this so it never happens again.
And who say they will? You concluded yourself. Judge and executioner at the same time. I know it is a trend these days in some countries - but still not best pravtice
Wanna know what's funnier? I work with a bunch of union dudes and they all worship everything Republican while acting like they're smarter than all the chumps who went to college...without realizing that if Republicans had it their way they wouldn't be able to afford any of the things that give their lifestyle when not doing back breaking work any quality
Speedbird, less funny, more sad. It really is the 1% against the rest of us; and, lately, it seems those oligarchs think they can get away with absolutely anything... We need to do better than this. I hope for real accountability and a new progressive era to follow after what feels like this second Gilded Age we’re living through.
Ironic. You cannot put brains in a monument, though. Some lukewarm IQ morons will dig their own graves without ever realising it.
Your observation reminds me of the time when Robin Williams met a very working class fan who raved about George W. Bush. Thinking that he may have therefore actually been loaded, he asked him, “You must be very wealthy, yeah?”, to which the fan replied that he was pretty much poor. Robin replied, “Then Bush fuckin’ HATES you”.
Chris, please be aware that you are probably having an online conversation with a Chinese Bot, don’t you know!
Aero, we thought you were pretending to be British. Pick a lane!
Piss off, AeroBitch.
Zero percent chance 1990 is a bot. He's clearly on the autism spectrum. I'm confident Europeans, while cognizant he doesn't have the politics of a MAGA, still find him incredibly annoying.
Settle down, Dirty Dave and YOU will apologize to real 1990 NOW!
- Fake 1990
I have often wondered how pilots are able to tell where to go. The markings and directions often seen confusing to me.
Is there a tarmac, runway Waze, I wonder...
Hello Justin, you need to address that sort of question to the Chinese Bots. You know the ones: 1990, Eskimo, Julia, Plain Jane and the likes. They think that they are worldly-wise don’t you know …. :-)
“Guest” Aero… giving yourself away, huh?
Thank goodness Taiwan is still a free, independent country. Phew!
Runways and taxiways have different colored lights and markings.
For clarification Justin, runway lights are white, taxiway lights are blue.
Totally false, Aero. M You have it reversed.
…. and there is a typical post from a Chinese Bot spewing out false information. Thank you EskimoBot for exposing your ignorance once again, yes?
I remember being on an Aeroflot flight and surprised that a young kid knew so much about plane movements at the airport and what the lights and other markings meant. Then I found out that it was because the airline had one of the best guides for young kids to learn about how taxiways, runways and such are marked.
GUWonder, KLM, specifically, also has great programs for kids.
It is good to see that Ben, is benefiting from the usual crop of Chinese Bot-baiters, on this comments page.
*British
What are the names of the pilot and co-pilot, please?
How does it matter if the pilots names are Johan(na) Nicholson, Ilan(a) Mehmet or whatever? Do you plan to make a disruptive scene after you board a flight and find a pilot has a name or whatever you don’t like?
Typical Skyteam incompetence
Naw, it was totally residual Star Alliance incompetence… the ‘transition’ was just recently, September 2024.
Unusual both pilots became disoriented. I imagine the investigation will rule out alcohol or drugs, but as the flight was already late could it have been exhaustion?
get-home-itis
I’ve seen more mistakes leaving airports on Thursday and Friday evenings for short-haul flights to CPH than I want to count, and those tend to be in the evening. But for my own flights, those have been on non-SAS flights.
While this wasn't a good (or very safe) take-off attempt as there could have been multiple things going wrong, I feel the danger of the fuel tanks is over stated in the article. In the sattlelite image (in the article) you can clearly see that after the taxiway is a very small grass thing (presumably the front gear was touching this?), then the area before some hangar and afterwards an endless field. As long as...
While this wasn't a good (or very safe) take-off attempt as there could have been multiple things going wrong, I feel the danger of the fuel tanks is over stated in the article. In the sattlelite image (in the article) you can clearly see that after the taxiway is a very small grass thing (presumably the front gear was touching this?), then the area before some hangar and afterwards an endless field. As long as the pilot doesn't actively steer into the tanks he would never has rammed them.
This is unfortunately the (I believe only?) Starlink equipped SAS aircraft, so hope it won’t be out of service for long!
Seriously? That's your take-away from this story?
Assuming you're not being facetious, you're a very sick, demented and self-centered person. Seek help.
By the way, AvHerald which is generally very reliable disputes the narrative about the flight being evacuated (which frankly didn't make much sense to me in the first place). Passengers disembarked normally.
What's also interesting is that the plane supposedly stopped short of fuel tanks, which is probably the most frightening aspect of this incident.
Looking at the satellite image, the fuel tanks are off to the left side of the direction of travel, so it's highly unlikely that they would hit them.
If they almost reached the take off speed, and still managed to stop at the end of taxiway, I assume in the hindsight the safer option would just be to continue and takeoff, right? Obviously that's not something pilots could've known at the time, I'm just asking out of curiosity.
Hindsight is of course always 20/20. They would have made a split second decision, basic training is to abort abort abort if you are below V1. Don't know whether they had reached V1 yet, but it would usually be a bit above 107 knots.
But isn't V1 calculated based on runway length as that determines at which point is it safe to stop? So it wouldn't really have practical effect here. (Again, not blaming pilots for aborting, just curious about what was the less risky course of action with that hindsight we have now.)
I am no expert, but I believe the typical V1 speed for an A320 is 120-140 knots, and V2 is 140-150 knots. Even assuming low fuel weight due to the short flight (under 500 miles), they were still at least 15-20 knots below the “Do Not Abort Takeoff” speed and 30+ knots below safe takeoff speed.
For a midweight A320, they need about 6-8,000ft of runway for takeoff (the runway they were supposed to...
I am no expert, but I believe the typical V1 speed for an A320 is 120-140 knots, and V2 is 140-150 knots. Even assuming low fuel weight due to the short flight (under 500 miles), they were still at least 15-20 knots below the “Do Not Abort Takeoff” speed and 30+ knots below safe takeoff speed.
For a midweight A320, they need about 6-8,000ft of runway for takeoff (the runway they were supposed to be on is over 11k ft). The taxiway they were on is only 4,100ft (from the point at which they turned onto it till the end), and it appears they started braking at around 2,000ft. So they were nowhere near their needed takeoff speed and saw they had less than half (at best) their needed runway distance left. Trying to takeoff would rarely be the right move in situations like this, as they would have just run off the runway at high speed, likely killing everyone.
Maverick would have succeeded …. it said so in the script! …. :-)
Trying to smash up their plane like SAS did in Linate Airport / Milan?
What a low life and disrespectfull comment. Poor little you. 118 people lost their lives in the Linate disaster - in part due to poor Air Traffic Controlling and in part due to the Cesna pilots not following directions.
Oh, they're in deep poo - and rightly so.
Very odd at this point. There are automated systems to warn/confirm that you're on runway xyz that should be audible. Maybe they didn't have this and were totally not paying attention. Probably going to be suspended/fired.
The ADBS tracking from ADBS exchange shows they slowed down before they reached the C1 intersection. So, the getting on to grass might be hyperbole.
It would be interesting to know if they were cleared for 25L or 07R or even 01. And if the realization came from ATC or by themselves. Can't find the ATC recording for this.
If 25L then they might have legitimately turned left into C7 to then go on to...
The ADBS tracking from ADBS exchange shows they slowed down before they reached the C1 intersection. So, the getting on to grass might be hyperbole.
It would be interesting to know if they were cleared for 25L or 07R or even 01. And if the realization came from ATC or by themselves. Can't find the ATC recording for this.
If 25L then they might have legitimately turned left into C7 to then go on to C1 for either an offset take off on 25L or a back-taxi on 25L. That would indicate they lost it somewhere down C7.
If 07R, then it would indicate a wrong turn left. But directionally aligned with 07R.
The usual clearance is "via C6, line up and wait rwy 07R"
This incident is a terrifying case study in Expectation Bias overriding sensory input. The "Swiss Cheese" model didn't just align holes here; the pilots punched through them.
Forget the 107 knots for a second. The fundamental failure happened at 0 knots.
Taxiways have Green centerline lights and Blue edge lights.
Runways have White centerline lights and White edge lights.
The visual picture is radically different. For two qualified pilots to line...
This incident is a terrifying case study in Expectation Bias overriding sensory input. The "Swiss Cheese" model didn't just align holes here; the pilots punched through them.
Forget the 107 knots for a second. The fundamental failure happened at 0 knots.
Taxiways have Green centerline lights and Blue edge lights.
Runways have White centerline lights and White edge lights.
The visual picture is radically different. For two qualified pilots to line up, look at a sea of green and blue lights, and still push the thrust levers to TOGA means their brains were effectively "hallucinating" the runway they expected to see because they were rushing to recover a delayed schedule.
Technically, this raises massive questions about the RAAS (Runway Awareness and Advisory System). The A320neo avionics suite should have audibly annunciated "ON TAXIWAY" or "AIRPORT MAP MISMATCH" the moment they aligned. Even if the active alert failed, the absence of the standard "ON RUNWAY 07R" callout should have been a hard stop.
This wasn't just a navigational error; it was a total breakdown of the verify-confirm loop. We rely on automation to catch human errors, but if the crew is mentally tunneled, they will ignore the warnings designed to save them.
Awesome AI.
As far as I know, the Honeywell RAAS is not necessarily standard on all A320neo aircraft.
At least from my previous experience, I even know of airlines where among the same subtypes, some aircraft had the system installed while others didn't, which can lead to additional challenges with expectation bias. This specifically is often seen with fleet mergers or acquisitions from other airlines. Agree with all other points though in principle.
My expertise is in financial systems.
Even there, I always make removing inconsistent warnings a pretty high priority - as you say the most common situation is in mergers.
For businesses where multiple users sit in the same seats and safety is a high priority, I am stunned at what you say.