Crash of a Beechcraft King Air 90 in Lohegaon

Date & Time: Sep 7, 2012 at 2000 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
VT-KPC
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Lohegaon-Lohegaon
MSN:
LJ-1696
YOM:
2005
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
3
Crew fatalities:
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
Crew was performing a circular training flight in the vicinity of Lohegaon Airport. On final approach to runway 28, twin engine aircraft hit the ground, teared off several runway lights and came to rest. All three occupants were uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

Crash of a Pilatus PC-12/45 in New Delhi: 10 killed

Date & Time: May 25, 2011 at 2250 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
VT-ACF
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Site:
Schedule:
Patna - New Delhi
MSN:
0632
YOM:
2005
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
5
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
10
Circumstances:
Aircraft was performing an ambulance flight from Patna to New Delhi with two pilots on board, two doctors, two attendants and one patient. While approaching New Delhi-Indira Gandhi Airport at night, single engine aircraft lost height and crashed in a house in the suburb of Faridabad, New Delhi. All seven occupants and three people on the ground were killed.
Final Report:

Crash of a Cessna 208B Grand Caravan in Lengpui

Date & Time: May 4, 2011 at 1045 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
VT-NES
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Imphal - Lengpui
MSN:
208-2025
YOM:
2008
Location:
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
1
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
9
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
1983
Captain / Total hours on type:
316.00
Aircraft flight hours:
1079
Aircraft flight cycles:
1823
Circumstances:
Aircraft was operating a non scheduled flight Imphal–Lengpui with ten persons on board including one crew member. The aircraft took off normally from Imphal at 1000 hrs and subsequently came in contact with ATC Lengpui at 1023hrs. ATC Lengpui conveyed the latest available weather with visibility as 4500m. The pilot requested special VFR and the same was approved by tower controller. Visibility further dropped to 2000m and the pilot preferred holding, in coordination with ATC at 10 miles maintaining visual separation with terrain at an altitude of 6500 feet. The Pilot thereafter without any communication with ATC reported downwind for RWY 17 and subsequently reported for final. When the aircraft reported final, the controller after sighting the aircraft gave the landing clearance with wind as calm and RWY surface wet. The aircraft touched down well ahead of the landing threshold at a high speed with a remaining distance in which it was impossible to stop the aircraft. The aircraft could not stop within available length of runway and it climbed a 10 feet high platform constructed to install the Localizer antenna at the end of RWY 17. As the speed of the aircraft was high, it continued past the localizer platform and fell in a ravine approximately 60 feet deep. The accident occurred during day time. The occurrence was classified as an accident. The aircraft suffered substantial damage. However, all the 9 passengers and the pilot on board the aircraft escaped unhurt. There was no sign of pre/post impact fire.
Probable cause:
Findings:
- The pilot of VT-NES was unable to position correctly for a stabilized approach. As a consequence landed well ahead of the threshold with higher speed and overshot the runway length and fell into a ravine approximately 60 feet in depth. This happened due to poor skill level of the pilot.
- The weather conditions were marginal but within permitted minima. However the pilot’s inadequate experience on type and inadequate training affected his judgment and decision making ability. He chose to continue with the approach, which was grossly overshooting, rather than going around and following a missed approach procedure to divert or make another approach.
Pilot displayed poor airmanship. There was only one CB cell reported within aerodrome vicinity. He was however unable to negotiate the same and entered a dangerous weather phenomenon.
- The aircraft had fully serviceable weather radar on board however the pilot did not utilize the same. He did not switch it on due to perhaps ignorance or incompetency to use the same.
- The pilot was informed regularly about the weather at destination before and during the flight. He did not effectively utilize the weather information to plan the flight.
- The Operator North East Shuttles displayed organizational deficiencies, in that;
a) The operator did not ensure that the applicant met the minimum regulatory requirements of having undergone ten take offs and landings after PIC endorsement in the last six months at the
time of submitting application for issue of FATA. DGCA also failed to detect the flaws in the application form submitted by the operator in respect of involved pilot for the purpose of issue
of FATA
b) After issuance of the FATA by DGCA the operator was required to subject the pilot through an assessment check of two hours and send a report to DGCA. The operator failed to meet
this requirement and did not send any such report to DGCA.
c) The pilot was not meeting the regulatory requirement of having flying experience of 100 hours before undertaking single pilot operation. The operator failed to ensure compliance to this requirement.
d) The Pilot was not cleared as per DGCA regulation to operate in airports situated in hilly terrain. M/S NES did not ensure adherence to DGCA requirement before releasing pilots to operate commercial flights.
e) The pilot had not undergone Indian Class I medical as required by DGCA.
f) The operator does not have emergency landing fields declared and the crew is not made aware of the same before undertaking the flight as required by DGCA.
- The availability of RESA would increase the safety margin in case of runway overrun. Runway 17 end was not visible from the tower. Visibility of full length of runway from ATC tower would increase the level of safety standard for immediate action in case of emergency. Equipment for Instrument Landing System has been installed but not made operational for the last few years. Availability of ILS would increase the level of safety standard.
Cause of the Accident:
The cause of the accident was inadequate skill level of the pilot to execute a safe landing during marginal weather condition.
Final Report:

Crash of a Boeing 737-800 in Mangalore: 158 killed

Date & Time: May 22, 2010 at 0605 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
VT-AXV
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Dubai - Mangalore
MSN:
36333/2481
YOM:
2007
Flight number:
IX812
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
6
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
160
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
158
Captain / Total flying hours:
10215
Captain / Total hours on type:
2844.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
3620
Copilot / Total hours on type:
3319
Aircraft flight hours:
7199
Aircraft flight cycles:
2833
Circumstances:
On final approach, aircraft was too high on the loc and on runway 24 threshold, its altitude was 200 feet instead of 50 with an approach speed of 160 knots instead of 144. Aircraft landed 5,200 feet past the runway threshold. Captain activated both thrust reverser but immediately after cancelled this action and engaged the aircraft in a take off configuration. Aircraft overrun runway, the right wing collided with the localizer antenna and crashed in flames in a wooded area located 500 meters further. 152 pax and all six crew were killed. Aircraft was completely destroyed.
Probable cause:
The Court of Inquiry determines that the cause of this accident was Captain's failure to discontinue the unstabilized approach and his persistence in continuing with the landing, despite three calls from the First Officer to go around and a number of warnings from the EGPWS.
Contributing Factors were:
1. In spite of availability of adequate rest period prior to the flight, the Captain was in prolonged sleep during flight, which could have led to sleep inertia. As a result of relatively short period of time between his awakening and the approach, it possibly led to impaired judgment. This aspect might have got accentuated while flying in the Window of Circadian Low (WOCL).
2. In the absence of Mangalore Area Control Radar (MSSR), due to unserviceability, the aircraft was given descent at a shorter distance on DME as compared to the normal. However, the flight crew did not plan the descent profile properly, resulting in remaining high on approach.
3. Probably in view of ambiguity in various instructions empowering the 'copilot' to initiate a 'go around ', the First Officer gave repeated calls to this effect, but did not take over the controls to actually discontinue the ill-fated approach.
Final Report:

Crash of an ATR72-212 in Mumbai

Date & Time: Nov 10, 2009 at 1640 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
VT-KAC
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Bhavnagar - Mumbai
MSN:
729
YOM:
2006
Flight number:
IT4124
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
4
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
38
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
7160
Captain / Total hours on type:
2241.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
973
Copilot / Total hours on type:
613
Aircraft flight hours:
9318
Circumstances:
As per the NOTAM, Runway 14/32 was under permanent maintenance on every Tuesdays since 10/11/2009 runway 27 was available only after runway intersection as runway 27A. To carry out operations on this reduced runway 27 a NOTAM ‘G’ No. G 0128/08 was issued by AAI on the same day of accident i.e. 10-11-2009 and designated as runway 27A for visual approach only. As per the NOTAM Landing Distance Available (LDA)/take off Distance available (TODA) was 1703 m. The weather conditions prevailing at the time of accident was winds 070/07 knots visibility 2800 m with feeble rain. Prior to Kingfisher aircraft, Air India aircraft IC-164, Airbus 319 had landed and reported to ATC that it had aquaplaned and broken two runway edge lights. The ATC acknowledged it and sent runway inspection vehicle to inspect the runway. The ATC person was not familiar with the terminology of ‘aquaplaning’ and not realizing the seriousness of it, cleared kingfisher aircraft for landing. At the time of accident there were water patches on the runway. ATC also did not transmit to the Kingfisher aircraft the information regarding aquaplaning reported by the previous aircraft. The DFDR readout revealed that kingfisher aircraft was not on profile as per localizer procedure laid down in NOTAM ‘G’ and was high and fast. The aircraft landed late on the runway and the runway length available was around 1000 m from the touchdown point. In the prevailing weather conditions this runway length was just sufficient to stop the aircraft on the runway. During landing the kingfisher aircraft aquaplaned and did not decelerate even though reversers and full manual braking was applied by both the cockpit crew. The aircraft started skidding toward the left of center line. On nearing the runway end, the pilot initiated a 45 ° right turn, after crossing ‘N 10’ Taxi track, the aircraft rolled into unpaved wet area. Aircraft rolled over drainage pipes & finally came to a stop near open drain. There was no fire. All the passenger safely deplaned after the accident.
Probable cause:
The accident occurred due to an unstabilized approach and decision of crew not to carry out a ‘Go-around’.
Contributory Factors:
i) Water patches on the runway 27
ii) Inability of the ATCO to communicate the aircraft about aquaplaning of the previous aircraft
iii) Lack of input from the copilot.
Final Report:

Crash of a NAL Saras in Bangalore: 3 killed

Date & Time: Mar 6, 2009 at 1534 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
VT-XRM
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Bangalore - Bangalore
MSN:
SP002
YOM:
2006
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
3
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
3
Aircraft flight hours:
50
Aircraft flight cycles:
49
Circumstances:
Crew was performing a test flight on this second prototype and left Bangalore-Hindustan airport at 1455LT. In flight, the aircraft crashed 31 km WSW from airport. All three occupants were killed.

Crash of a Beechcraft King Air 90 in Chandigarh: 2 killed

Date & Time: Oct 29, 2008 at 1055 LT
Type of aircraft:
Registration:
VT-EHY
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Chandigarh - Ludhiana
MSN:
LJ-1008
YOM:
1981
Location:
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
2
Circumstances:
King Air aircraft owned and operated by the Government of Punjab was operating a positioning flight from Chandigarh to Ludhiana with two crew on board. The flight en-route up to overhead Ludhiana was uneventful. Crew located the runway late due prevailing low visibility. They were not comfortable with the approach and made a go around; a non-standard go-around due to low visibility. In the anxiety to not to loose the sight of the field they descended in three orbits in the vicinity of the airfield on the west side of runway 12, perhaps to land after making the short circuit from the right. However they lost the control and impacted with the ground in the steep left bank. Aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and post impact fire. Both occupants died due to fire and collapsing aircraft structure.
Probable cause:
Accident occurred due to loss of control while in base leg for landing at R/W 12 after executing go around on runway 12.
Contributory factors:
-low visibility reduced the margin of safety, may have caused severe disorientation, influenced their decision and played on crew for use of non standard procedures.
-both crew lacked qualification/experience and familiarity with the type of aircraft and terrain.
-smoke in the cockpit further reduced the margin of safety and distracted the attention of the crew.
-obstruction in the flight path made the crew to take severe action and led to loss of control.
-lack of operational control and supervision by the organization.
-pilot lacked in training and experience.

Crash of a Raytheon Premier in Udaipur

Date & Time: Mar 19, 2008 at 1507 LT
Type of aircraft:
Registration:
VT-RAL
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Jodhpur - Udaipur
MSN:
RB-23
YOM:
2001
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
5
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
2900
Captain / Total hours on type:
40.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
896
Copilot / Total hours on type:
58
Aircraft flight hours:
989
Aircraft flight cycles:
812
Circumstances:
The aircraft, after necessary met and ATC briefing took off at 0940 UTC from Jodhpur on direct route W58 at cruise FL 100 and sector EET 20 minutes as per Flight Plan. No abnormality was reported / recorded by the pilot during take off from Jodhpur. The crewmember of the aircraft while operating Jodhpur–Udaipur were the same who operated flight DelhiJodhpur on 18.3.2008. There were five passengers also on board the aircraft. The aircraft climbed to the assigned level where the pilot was experiencing continuous turbulence at FL100. The pilot communicated the same to the ATC Jodhpur and requested for higher level which was not granted and advised to continue at same level and contact ATC Udaipur for level change. It came in contact with Udaipur at 0944 UTC, approx 50 NM from Udaipur. At 0948 the weather passed by ATC was winds 180/07 kts. Vis 6 km. Temp 34, QNH 1006 Hpa and advised for ILS approach on Rwy 26. Consequently the pilot requested to make right base Rwy 26 visual approach, which was approved by the ATC. Aircraft did not report any defect/snag. Pilot further stated that during approach to land at Udaipur when flap 10 degree was selected, the flap didn’t respond and ‘Flaps-Fail’ message flashed. Thereafter he carried out the check list for flap-less landing. At 1004 UTC when the aircraft reported on final the ATC cleared the aircraft to land on RWY 26 with prevailing wind 230/10 Kts. The same was acknowledged by the crew and initiated landing. At about 20 to 30 feet above ground the pilot stated to have experienced sudden down-draft thereby the aircraft touched down heavily on the runway. The touch-down was on the centerline, at just before the Touch down Zone (TDZ), on the paved runway, after the threshold point. Consequent to the heavy impact both the main wheel tyre got burst; first to burst was right tyre. The aircraft rolled on the runway center line for a length of about 1000 feet in the same condition. Thereafter it gradually veered to the right of the RWY26 at distance of approx 2200 feet runway length from the thresh-hold of the runway. The aircraft left the
runway shoulder and after rolling almost straight for another 90 ft it stopped after impact with the airport boundary wall.
Probable cause:
The approach speed for Flap-Less Landing was about 149 knots against the calculated speed 130-135 knots approx. Incident occurred as the aircraft impacted runway with higher speed while carrying out flapless approach and landing.
Final Report:

Crash of a Partenavia P.68 in Bangalore: 4 killed

Date & Time: Sep 8, 2007 at 1540 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
VT-JOY
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Bangalore-Cochin
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
1
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
3
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
4
Circumstances:
The twin engine aircraft crashed and burst into flames six minutes after its takeoff from Bangalore airport, outbound for Kochi. All 4 occupants were killed.