Hawker 800XP

The airplane departed Abuja-Nnamdi Azikiwe Airport at 1941LT on a charter flight (IB500) to Ibadan, carrying seven passengers and three crew members. At 2013LT, the crew was cleared to land on runway 22 and continued the approach. On short final, the airplane impacted the first row of approach lights on the approach path, then touched down first with the right main landing gear, about 220 metres short of the threshold of the runway, and in the grass verge, followed shortly by the left main and nose landing gears respectively. The aircraft continued towards the paved area of the runway, impacting several other rows of approach lights along its path. A total of six impact points were observed. Subsequently, the aircraft entered the paved area and veered right of the centerline, runway 22. At about 156 metres from the threshold, the aircraft crossed the right runway shoulder and continued into the grass verge for a distance of about 184 metres before coming to a stop, partially impeded by vegetation. Number one tyre was found deflated and the nose landing gear collapsed. All 10 occupants disembarked safely.
The below preliminary report was quickly published by NSIB.

The flight crew were conducting an instrument landing system (ILS) approach in night instrument meteorological conditions when they were advised by the tower controller that the weather had deteriorated below minimums. The captain was the pilot monitoring, and the first officer was the pilot flying during the approach. Since the airplane was inside the final approach fix and stabilized, both pilots agreed to continue with the approach. Both pilots stated that they had visual contact with the runway approach lighting system at the 200 ft above ground level (agl) decision altitude, and they decided to continue the approach. The first officer said he then returned to flying the airplane via instruments. As the first officer continued the approach, the captain told him the airplane was drifting right of the runway centerline. The first officer said that he looked outside, saw that the weather had deteriorated, and was no longer comfortable with the approach. The first officer said he pressed the takeoff and go-around switch, while at the same time, the captain called for a go-around. The captain said that he called for the go-around because the airplane was not aligned with the runway. Although both pilots stated that the go-around was initiated when the airplane was about 50 to 100 ft agl, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recording revealed that the first officer flew an autopilot-coupled approach to 50 ft agl (per the approach procedure, a coupled approach was not authorized below 240 ft agl). As the airplane descended from 30 to 20 ft agl, the captain told the first officer three times to “flare” then informed him that the airplane was drifting to right and he needed to make a left correction to get realigned with the runway centerline. Three seconds passed before the first officer reacted by trying to initiate transfer control of the airplane to the captain. The captain did not take control of the airplane and called for a go-around. The first officer then added full power and called for the flaps to be retracted to 15º; however, the airplane impacted the ground about 5 seconds later, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage. Data downloaded from both engines’ digital electronic engine control units revealed no anomalies. No mechanical issues with the airplane or engines were reported by either crew member or the operator. The sequence of events identified in the CVR recording revealed that the approach most likely became unstabilized after the autopilot was disconnected and when the first officer lost visual contact with the runway environment. The captain, who had the runway in sight, delayed calling for a go-around after the approach became unstabilized, and the airplane was too low to recover.