FAA Investigates After Phenom 300 Hits Alligator and Diverts for Inspection

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating after an Embraer Phenom 300 struck an alligator during takeoff from Charleston Executive Airport on Nov. 6, prompting its crew to divert over concern about possible landing-gear damage. The business jet landed safely at Charleston International Airport, with no reported injuries or visible aircraft damage.

The collision occurred at about 8:50 p.m. as the aircraft departed Johns Island for Teterboro, New Jersey. An incident report filed with the Charleston Airport Police Department said no passengers or crew members were injured. The alligator died in the collision and was removed from the runway.

The aircraft, identified as N665UP and registered to Wheels Up, taxied to Atlantic Aviation for inspection after landing. It was cleared to depart the following day. The available information does not identify damage found during that inspection; the confirmed operational concern was the possibility that the landing gear had been affected.

Why an apparently intact jet still required inspection

No visible damage is reassuring, but it does not eliminate the need for a closer assessment after contact with a large animal during the takeoff roll. The landing gear is carrying the aircraft’s weight and transmitting runway loads while the jet accelerates. A wildlife collision in that phase can therefore justify checking the affected area before the aircraft returns to service, even when the crew retains control and the exterior appears intact.

The diversion also gave the crew a controlled way to resolve uncertainty. Continuing to the planned destination would have extended the flight with the condition of the landing gear still in question. Landing at Charleston International allowed the aircraft to be inspected locally after a safe arrival. The subsequent clearance to leave indicates that the inspection process was completed, but it should not be interpreted as a finding about exactly where or how the animal entered the runway environment.

The FAA investigation can separate several issues that are easy to conflate after a wildlife strike: what the aircraft encountered, which components were exposed, what operational effect the collision had, and whether the airport’s existing wildlife controls warrant attention. No airport failure or negligence has been identified.

Wildlife management depends on location-specific risk

Charleston Executive Airport is owned by the Charleston Regional Aviation Authority and operated by Atlantic Aviation. Retention ponds, the Stono River, swamps and marshland are located near the airport property, placing aviation operations close to habitat associated with alligators. Proximity alone does not establish how this animal reached the runway or whether a particular control failed.

Airport wildlife programs are generally built around local hazards rather than a single universal barrier or procedure. Airport Cooperative Research Program guidance describes wildlife hazard assessments and management plans as tools for identifying attractants, evaluating risk and selecting appropriate controls. That systems approach may include habitat management, monitoring, reporting and operational responses when wildlife is detected.

For investigators, the relevant questions may include the time and location of the strike, the aircraft’s phase of operation, the animal species, the components contacted and any effect on the flight. Those details help determine whether the event was an isolated encounter or provides information that should influence future wildlife-risk management. The confirmed investigation has not yet produced findings on cause or required changes.

Strike reports support more than an incident count

The FAA maintains a national database of voluntarily reported aircraft-wildlife collisions. Airports, aviation organizations and personnel submit information that can be used to examine wildlife movement, seasonal patterns, aircraft effects and the performance of wildlife-management plans.

The database is especially useful because most reported strikes do not result in injury or aircraft damage. A safe outcome can still contribute operational data: the type of wildlife involved, the point in the flight when contact occurred, the aircraft area affected and whether the crew diverted or experienced a delay. Over time, those fields allow airports and regulators to distinguish recurring hazards from unusual events and assess risk using more than anecdote.

In Charleston, the Phenom 300’s safe landing and next-day departure closed the immediate aircraft-safety concern. The FAA investigation now has a narrower but important task: establish the circumstances of the runway encounter and determine whether the event calls for any change in how wildlife risk is assessed or managed at the airport.

By Thomas Caldwell — AMI’s senior editor for mechanical and mobility engineering, covering vehicle electronics, systems integration, electrification, chassis systems, propulsion, and safety policy.