Prague Flights: Near-CFIT Alarm on TAP TP1240 Exposes Key Safety Unknowns

Why this matters now: The near-miss on a TAP A320neo during an ILS approach into Prague has amplified uncertainty around procedural safeguards for low-visibility approaches. The episode, involving a descent to roughly 1, 000 feet above ground and a rapid recovery, is already the subject of a formal probe — and it reframes how prague flights are being examined for risk when weather and automation interact.

Prague Flights risk profile: unanswered technical and procedural questions

Czech authorities classified the January 17 event as a serious incident and opened a formal investigation on February 12. What remains unclear is why the aircraft descended so far below published minima for the approach and how quickly the crew initiated the recovery. The available technical traces show a steep, high-speed descent followed by an immediate, aggressive climb; investigators will need to reconcile flight-deck actions, automation mode settings, and air traffic vectors against the environmental picture that night.

What’s easy to miss is the METAR for the time of the event: general visibility around 2, 500 metres with mist, patches of fog and scattered clouds as low as 300 feet. Those conditions help explain why the margin for error was thin during the ILS approach and why any deviation from procedure led to immediate risk.

Event details and verifiable flight data

The flight was operating an ILS approach to Runway 06 at Václav Havel Airport. Key, verifiable data points from the flight trace and ground information include:

• The aircraft, an Airbus A320neo on flight TP1240, descended to about 1, 000 feet above ground during the approach on January 17.
• At 10: 15: 25 UTC the aircraft was turning inbound near the published Initial Approach Fix at an altitude of about 4, 770 feet MSL.
• A steep descent followed, with vertical rate in excess of 3, 000 feet per minute and a peak ground speed recorded at 311 knots.
• The lowest recorded ADS-B altitude at 10: 16: 17 UTC was 2, 645 feet MSL; terrain data places ground elevation near that position at roughly 1, 700 feet, yielding about 945 feet above ground level.
• One second later a climb was initiated; the climb was immediate and steep, and the crew subsequently recovered and landed safely on Runway 06. All passengers and crew were uninjured.

Flight-deck pressure altimeter use was consistent with the METAR: the crew used 1023 hPa when transitioning from flight level to altitude. Published approach procedures call for maintaining higher minima — for example, a required 4, 000 feet until the Final Approach Fix — and the Minimum Safe Altitude in the sector is 3, 600 feet. The descent below those published values is central to the ongoing inquiry.

The real question now is what the formal investigation will reveal about the interplay of automation, crew inputs and air traffic control vectors during the descent. There are multiple lines of technical evidence on the record that investigators can cross-check: ADS-B altitudes and rates, recorded ground speeds, the METAR, and the clearance/procedure requirements for the approach.

A short micro-timeline embeds available, verifiable moments from the event:

• 10: 15: 25 UTC — Inbound turn near the Initial Approach Fix at ~4, 770 ft MSL.
• 10: 16: 17 UTC — Lowest ADS-B altitude recorded at 2, 645 ft MSL (about 945 ft AGL at that position).
• 10: 16: 18 UTC onward — Immediate, steep climb initiated; aircraft stabilised and landed safely later.

Investigation status: the national authority has classified the occurrence as a serious incident and opened a formal investigation on February 12. Recent updates indicate that the probe will examine flight-data traces, cockpit procedures and environmental factors; details may evolve as findings are released.

It’s easy to overlook, but the combination of a steep descent rate, elevated ground speed, and low cloud/fog layers created a narrow safety margin that left little room for error. The formal inquiry will be the avenue for connecting those technical data points to crew actions and procedures.

If you’re wondering why this keeps coming up for prague flights, the answer is procedural: when published minima are breached near low-visibility conditions, the incident shifts from a technical anomaly to an operational safety concern with broader implications for approach management and oversight.

For now, investigators hold the factual record: measurable altitudes, timing of descent and climb, weather observations, and a declared serious-incident investigation. Further findings will determine whether this episode reveals procedural lapses, automation interaction issues, or other causal factors.