On 15 September 1995, the Fokker 50 carrying 53 people flew into a shanty town after the pilots failed to stop the aircraft while landing in Tawau, killing 32 of the 49 passengers and 2 of the 4 crew on board.

[1] The final report of the investigation, which was published in 1998, concluded that the crash was caused by the pilot's decision to land in Tawau, which was influenced by the airlines' strict policy of fuel-saving and punctuality, despite the fact that available runway after touchdown was not sufficient for the aircraft to stop.

The aircraft was equipped with two Pratt & Whitney Canada engines and had accumulated a total of 17,483 flight cycles.

[4] Flight 2133 had been delayed for 30 minutes from its scheduled take-off time due to the aircraft's late arrival in Kota Kinabalu.

The aircraft finally took off from Kota Kinabalu International Airport at 12:19 local time with instrument flight rules.

[6][4] The aircraft broke into two parts and the wings had snapped due to the impact, causing fuel to leak.

A total of 34 dead bodies were found and 17 passengers, 2 crew members and 10 residents had to be treated for wounds.

The flight recorders were processed at the United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) facility in Farnborough.

[2] Due to the high descent rate and a nose down attitude with a pitch angle of -3 degree, the GPWS warning then sounded.

Despite this, the captain made the decision to land, and Flight 2133 touched down at three quarters of the runway's total length.

The flight crew's attempts to slow down were rendered impossible due to the high speed of the aircraft and the insufficient remaining runway length.

[2] The captain's insistence to land in Tawau despite the speed and altitude of the aircraft could be explained by his prior stressful encounters with his managers and workers in Malaysia Airlines.

Prior to the accident flight, the captain had been counseled by the fleet manager on company policy regarding cost cutting.

A visual approach to Tawau could result in an illusion that would cause the flight crew to feel that they were lower than the actual glideslope angle.

Malaysian authorities cited the following: The most probable cause of the accident was due to the commander's insistence to continue with an approach despite the fact that the runway available after touchdown was insufficient for the aircraft to stop.

The perception regarding economic consideration which put pressure on him to save fuel and adhere to schedules was a contributing factor.

[2]In response to the negative image that Malaysia Airlines had received in light of the investigation, the company tried to "clarify issues and narrow the gap between the management and the flight crew".

[citation needed] Investigators issued a recommendation to Malaysia Airlines "to overcome flight crew hesitancy or resistance to change" when instilling flying discipline in order to meet corporate and business goals.

[2] Even though the report blamed the captain's action as the cause of the crash, it also highlighted the first officer's lack of initiative to correct the situation.