As of February 2, 2024 there are no verified public reports about an Air Serbia Embraer E195 sustaining a hole after striking approach lights during takeoff. Given the scenario described I will lay out, from a cockpit and operational perspective, how an aircraft can end up striking lighting or ILS infrastructure on departure, how that impact can produce a fuselage breach, what the usual human and system factors are, and practical mitigations pilots and operators can apply.

Why a lighting strike on departure is not just a maintenance problem

Approach lighting systems and ILS antenna arrays are typically located beyond the runway end and are designed to be frangible or to fail safely. Nevertheless, collisions do happen and the damage profile depends on aircraft geometry, impact speed, and the nature of the struck structure. When an aircraft overruns the end of the runway at high speed the main gear or lower fuselage can interact with concrete foundations, antenna masts, or lamp housings. That interaction can slice or open a hole in the fuselage lower or side skin near the wing root or wing box area where structures and fuel tanks are dense. Studies and guidance on approach lighting hazards document incidents where hard-mounted supports and exposed foundations have caused severe airframe damage when struck.

Typical chain that leads to a takeoff strike

From an operational standpoint the most common sequence starts with a reduced available takeoff run. This can be deliberate when crews accept an intersection departure or inadvertent when a crew lines up at the wrong intersection. If takeoff performance numbers were calculated for a longer TORA and not updated for the shorter intersection distance, the thrust setting, assumed acceleration and V1/Vr rotation point will be wrong. That raises the probability the airplane will either fail to become airborne prior to the runway end or will only become airborne after passing it. Controllers and pilots share responsibility to ensure the crew knows the takeoff run available. Regulatory and guidance materials repeatedly warn that intersection takeoffs reduce the margin for error and increase the chance of colliding with close-in obstacles.

How a breach can form on impact

Think about kinetic energy and local stiffness. When the landing gear and lower fuselage hit a relatively rigid object such as an antenna base or a lamp pedestal, load paths through the skin concentrate at a small area and the skin can tear or puncture. If the struck object has angular or hooked components that can embed in composite or aluminum structure, the result can be a ragged hole. Fuel lines, tank structure, or control runs are often located in that general wing root area. A breach there can produce fuel leaks and vapour, which complicate the return and evacuation. The severity is not only a function of object mass but also of how firmly the object is anchored and whether frangible design principles were applied during installation. Guidance and research note that while frangible supports reduce aircraft damage, debris and buried foundations still pose hazards.

Human factors and procedural contributors

From my experience, common contributors are time pressure during taxi, unclear or nonstandard ATC phraseology about intersection departure points, and confirmation bias in the cockpit. Crews sometimes accept intersection clearances to save time and then fail to re-run performance calculations or to verify that reduced-thrust assumptions remain valid. Distractions during taxi and nonstandard map labeling increase the chance a crew will line up at the wrong intersection or fail to notice that takeoff distance was reduced enough to change the decision to accept the intersection departure. The professional advice from safety authorities is consistent. Pilots must verify takeoff distances and refuse intersection departures that leave margins insufficient for a safe rejected takeoff or engine-out scenario.

Operational mitigations for flight crews

  • Treat any intersection departure as an exception not the default. If you have doubt about required runway length for the calculated configuration, backtrack and use the full runway.
  • Always crosscheck the intersection TORA/TODA/ASDA against the performance calculation inputs and the FMS data. If the operator’s dispatch or QRH procedure is not explicit about intersection departures, raise it with dispatch before taxi.
  • If you accept an intersection takeoff, brief the scenario: have clear abort criteria, identify a rotation point that accounts for the reduced run, and decide whether to use full rated thrust rather than a reduced-thrust setting.
  • Keep sterile cockpit discipline during taxi in complex airports. Confirm the intersection designator out loud and read back any ATC information on takeoff intersection or available runway length. The FAA and other authorities expect crews to ask for the intersection-to-end distance if it is not provided.

Operator and airport level fixes

  • Operators should build mandatory checks into dispatch and electronic flight bag performance pages that force an explicit acknowledgement when performance has been calculated for an intersection. That reduces the chance of a stale calculation being used.
  • Airports and regulators must verify that approach lighting supports, antenna foundations, and ancillary structures are frangibly mounted and positioned to minimize hazard within the declared runway safety area. Where heavy concrete foundations exist close to the runway end they present a disproportionate risk. The ACRP literature highlights that even with frangible design, remaining foundations and debris can still produce punctures or entanglement.
  • Controllers should adopt standard phraseology that includes intersection identifiers and, when requested, be prepared to provide the runway distance available from that intersection. Monitoring of lineups and deviations must be part of tower procedure to catch mislineups early.

If a crew finds themselves airborne past the runway end after striking lights

The immediate priorities are fly the aircraft, check for fuel leaks, and assess controllability. A pilot would normally climb to safe altitude consistent with obstacle clearance and declare an emergency. If there is evidence of fuel leakage or structural compromise the sensible choice is to burn or jettison fuel if the aircraft allows it, configure for an overweight landing per the QRH, and plan a straight-in approach to the runway best suited for a stabilized approach and rapid evacuation if required. Coordinate with dispatch for maintenance and with airport rescue and firefighting teams before the landing. These are standard damage-control and emergency-return patterns that crews train for and regulators expect.

Bottom line

A hole in the fuselage caused by runway-end lighting or ILS structures is not a mystery once you look at runway geometry, intersection takeoff practice, and anchoring of ground equipment. The risk is entirely addressable through conservative decision making in the cockpit, robust operator procedures, consistent ATC phraseology, and thoughtful airport engineering that minimizes hard targets near runway safety areas. If you are a flight crew facing a shorter than planned takeoff run, your safest actions are straightforward. Use full runway if available. Recompute performance and thrust settings for the actual TORA. Brief the reject point. And never let time pressure or habit replace a clear safety margin.

If you want, I can follow up with a checklist-style operational brief you can print for crews, or a short memo operators can use to tighten intersection departure procedures.