| Date: | Monday 23 January 2023 |
| Time: | 16:10 |
| Type: | Boeing 777-222 |
| Owner/operator: | United Airlines |
| Registration: | N774UA |
| MSN: | 26936/2 |
| Year of manufacture: | 1994 |
| Fatalities: | Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 301 |
| Other fatalities: | 0 |
| Aircraft damage: | None |
| Category: | Incident |
| Location: | Daniel K. Inouye International Airport (HNL/PHNL), Honolulu, HI -
United States of America
|
| Phase: | Taxi |
| Nature: | Passenger - Scheduled |
| Departure airport: | Denver International Airport, CO (DEN/KDEN) |
| Destination airport: | Honolulu-Daniel K. Inouye International Airport, HI (HNL/PHNL) |
| Investigating agency: | NTSB |
| Confidence Rating: | Accident investigation report completed and information captured |
Narrative:On January 23, 2023, about 1610 Hawaii standard time (HST), United Airlines flight 384 (UAL384), a Boeing 777-200, and Kamaka Air flight 145 (KMK145), a Cessna 208B, were involved in a runway incursion at Daniel K. Inouye International Airport (HNL), Honolulu, Hawaii. After landing on runway 4R, UAL384 crossed runway 4L as KMK145 was landing on the same runway; the closest distance between the two airplanes was 1,173 ft. None of the airplane occupants (10 crewmembers and 291 passengers aboard UAL384 and 2 flight crewmembers aboard KMK145) were injured, and neither airplane was damaged. UAL384 was a regularly scheduled domestic passenger flight operating under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121 from Denver International Airport (DEN), Denver, Colorado, to HNL. KMK145 was a domestic cargo flight operating under the provisions of Title 14 CFR Part 135 from Lihue Airport (LIH), Lihue, Hawaii, to HNL. Daytime visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the incident.
This incident occurred when United Airlines (UAL) flight 384, a Boeing 777, landed on runway 4R at Daniel K. Inouye International Airport (HNL), Honolulu, Hawaii, and subsequently crossed runway 4L as a Kamaka Air (KMK145) Cessna 208B was landing on runway 4L, resulting in a runway incursion. KMK145 turned left onto taxiway E, which was before taxiway K and the closest distance between the two airplanes was 1,173 ft.
According to postincident flight crewmember statements, the UAL first officer was the pilot flying and landed the airplane on runway 4R. Subsequently, there was a transfer of aircraft control to the captain, as they had briefed during the approach. In his statement, the captain indicated that after taking control of the airplane, he asked the first officer to notify the tower that they were turning onto “K”. However, before the first officer could notify the tower of their exit plan, the controller contacted UAL and asked the flight crew, “have you got [taxiway] Kilo?”.
The first officer responded, “turn left on Kilo.” The controller then instructed the UAL flight crew to hold-short of runway 4L (which was parallel to runway 4R) on taxiway K, and the first officer acknowledged the hold-short instruction. However, by the time the captain realized the airplane had passed the hold-short line, they were already crossing runway 8L, which intersected runways 4R and 4L, see figure 1.
According to the captain’s postincident statement, he was “startled by how quickly” the airplane reached runways 4L and 8L after exiting runway 4R. The captain also thought there would not be “enough room” for the airplane to “be fully clear of” runway 4R and “still hold-short of” runway 4L. Similar to the captain, the first officer “found it confusing that there was no way to be clear of 4R without being on 8L/4L.”
The hold-short line for runway 4L was located less than 200 ft from the edge of runway 4R at the widest point (the west side of the hold-short line to the runway 4R centerline), which would not have accommodated a Boeing 777 airplane clearing the active landing runway. According to the post incident interview with the local controller, controllers were aware that airplanes may still be on runway 4R when they must hold short of runways 4L and 8L on taxiway K and to account for this the controllers increase the spacing between approaching aircraft for runway 4R.
The area in which runways 4L, 4R, and 8L and taxiway K converge was designated as a runway incursion hot spot because aircraft landing on runway 4R and exiting left onto taxiway K “sometimes fail to hold short” of runways 4L and 8L. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the hot spot area, which was considered to be a “legacy complex airfield layout,” did not conform with current airport design standards. The FAA stated that it intended to “continue to work with airport operators to bring non-standard geometry into compliance with future airport development opportunities, wherever possible.” Even though the captain stated he lost situational awareness after the airplane entered taxiway K, the nonconformance of the area in which runways 4L, 4R, and 8L and taxiway K converge contributed to his misjudgment of the distance to the hold-short line and his failure to stop the airplane.
The captain also stated they were busy setting up for the new approach and he failed to open the hot spot (HS2) note and read that “aircraft landing on runway 4R and exiting left onto taxiway K sometimes fail to hold short of runway 4L/22R and runway 8L/26R”. He also indicated that the first officer mentioned this HS2 note during the approach briefing but it didn’t register with him. He stated that his expectation bias was that they would probably be too fast to exit at taxiway K and that they would most likely roll to the end and exit at taxiway C.
Additionally, both flight crewmembers stated that, unlike the Jeppesen 10-9 chart, there was not a ball note in the airport moving map (AMM) stating, ”Wide body and four engine turbojets landing runway 4R roll to end of runway, no left turn at taxiway K without tower approval” located on the AMM version of the airport diagram and that the AMM was used for the briefing and flying/taxiing of the airplane. If the ball note had been in the AMM, it likely would have raised the crew’s awareness of their susceptibility to the risk and likely affected their decision to use taxiway “K”.
The local controller had cleared KMK145 to land on runway 4L and therefore was aware he was required to hold UAL384 short of runway 4L on taxiway K. This inadvertently set the stage for the runway incursion. Had the local controller instead cleared UAL384 to continue their landing rollout to the end of runway 4R, the incursion likely would have been prevented.
The investigation of this incident found that the local controller provided an incorrect instruction to the KMK pilot by stating that the airplane should turn “right” at taxiway E and cross “runway 4R.” The controller most likely made that transmission about the same time that he recognized that the UAL airplane had not stopped at the hold-short line, as instructed. The controller realized his mistake and immediately provided the correct instruction to the KMK pilot, which was to turn left on taxiway E and hold short of runway 8L, and the pilot acknowledged those instructions. The controller’s incorrect transmission was not a factor in this incident because the KMK and UAL airplanes were no longer in danger of a collision at that point.
Probable Cause: The airport’s continued use of taxiway Kilo, despite an identified risk of pilots repeatedly failing to stop at a hold short line prior to two intersecting runways. Contributing were 1) the operator’s moving map display, which omitted a published restriction on the use of taxiway Kilo for widebody airplanes, 2) the Captain’s resulting inadvertent continuance through the hold-short line, and 3) the FAA’s delayed action to remediate the airport’s legacy design, which did not conform with current airport design standards.
Accident investigation:
|
|
| | |
| Investigating agency: | NTSB |
| Report number: | DCA23LA133 |
| Status: | Investigation completed |
| Duration: | 2 years 1 month |
| Download report: | Final report
|
|
Sources:
NTSB
https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=106632 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n774ua#2ef2a71e Location
Images:

Figure: Overhead view showing HNL airport. The blue line shows UAL384’s ground track and the orange line shows KMK145’s ground track.
Revision history:
| Date/time | Contributor | Updates |
| 15-Jun-2023 21:09 |
Ron Averes |
Updated |
| 28-Jun-2023 19:40 |
Bandit |
Updated |
| 28-Feb-2025 11:49 |
Captain Adam |
Updated [Time, Location, Source, Narrative, Accident report, Photo, ] |
The Aviation Safety Network is an exclusive service provided by:

CONNECT WITH US:
©2025 Flight Safety Foundation