Crash of a Beechcraft 350i Super King Air in Islamabad: 19 killed

Date & Time: Jul 30, 2019 at 1400 LT
Operator:
Registration:
766
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Site:
Schedule:
Chaklala - Chaklala
MSN:
FL-766
YOM:
2011
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
5
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
19
Circumstances:
The twin engine airplane departed Chaklala-Nur Khan AFB with five crew members on board for a local training flight. In flight, it went out of control and crashed onto several houses located in the suburb of Mora Kalu, about 10 km south of Chaklala-Nur Khan AFB, Islamabad, bursting into flames. The aircraft and several houses were destroyed. All five crew members as well as 14 people on the ground were killed.

Crash of a Cessna 551 Citation II/SP in Siegerland

Date & Time: Apr 24, 2019 at 1442 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
D-IADV
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Siegerland - Siegerland
MSN:
551-0552
YOM:
1987
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
6800
Captain / Total hours on type:
170.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
1300
Copilot / Total hours on type:
0
Aircraft flight hours:
8479
Aircraft flight cycles:
7661
Circumstances:
The Cessna 551 Citation II/SP corporate jet took off at 13:30 local time from Reichelsheim Airfield, Germany, for a training flight at Siegerland Airport. It was a training flight to acquire the type rating for the aircraft. The right pilot's seat was occupied by the pilot in command, who was deployed on this flight as a flight instructor. The student pilot, as co-pilot, sat on the left pilot seat and was the pilot flying. For the co-pilot it was the second flight day of his practical training program on the Cessna 551 Citation II/SP. The day before, he had already completed about three flying hours on the plane. At Siegerland Airport, three precision approaches to runway 31 were carried out with the help of the Instrument Landing System (ILS). After the third landing, the tower, due to the changed wind, turned the landing direction to runway 13. The cockpit crew therefore rolled the aircraft to the end of the runway, turned and took off at 14:34 from runway 13. This was followed by a left-hand circuit at an altitude of 3,500 ft AMSL. The approach to runway 13 took place under visual flight conditions. According to both pilots, the checklists were processed during the circuit and the aircraft was prepared for landing on runway 13. In the final approach, the landing configuration was then established and the landing checklist performed. The copilot reported that shortly before the landing the speed decreased, the aircraft flew too low and the approach angle had to be corrected. He pushed the engine thrust levers forward to the stop. The pilot in command supported this action by also pushing the engine thrust levers forward with his hand. However, according to the pilot in command, the remaining time to touch down on the runway was no longer sufficient for the engines to accelerate to maximum speed in order to deliver the corresponding thrust. He also described that the aircraft had been in the stall area at that time. However, he had not noticed a stall warning. At 14:42, with the landing gear extended, the aircraft touched down in the grass in front of the asphalt area of runway 13. The left main landing gear buckled and damaged the tank of the left wing. The right main landing gear also buckled, the tank on the right side remained undamaged. The kerosene escaping from the left wing ignited and a fire broke out. The aircraft burned and slipped along runway 13 on the folded landing gear, the underside of the airframe and the extended landing flaps until it came to a standstill after a distance of approx. 730 m from runway threshold 13. After the plane had come to a standstill on the runway, the copilot noticed flames on the left side of the plane. The pilot switched off both engines. Then both pilots left the plane via the emergency exit door on the right side. The pilots were not injured.
Probable cause:
The accident, during which the airplane touched down ahead of the runway, was caused by an unstabilized approach and the non-initiation of a go-around procedure.
The following factors contributed to the accident:
- The organisation of the traffic pattern was performed too close to the airport.
- The final approach was flown too short and conducted in a way that it resulted in an unstabilized approach.
- During the final approach the approach angle was not correctly maintained until the runway threshold.
- During the final approach speed was too low.
- Both pilots did not recognize the decrease in speed early enough and had not increased engine performance in time.
- The flight instructor intervened too late and thus control of the flight attitude of the aircraft was not regained soon enough.
- The ascending terrain ahead of the runway threshold was also a contributory factor. It is highly likely that the student pilot had the impression of being too high and deliberately maintained a shallow approach angle.
Final Report:

Crash of a Piper PA-46-350P Malibu Mirage in Aurora

Date & Time: Feb 6, 2019 at 1530 LT
Operator:
Registration:
N997MA
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Aurora - Aurora
MSN:
46-36126
YOM:
1997
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
970
Captain / Total hours on type:
23.00
Aircraft flight hours:
2670
Circumstances:
On February 6, 2019, about 1530 Pacific standard time, a Piper PA 46-350P, N997MA, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Aurora, Oregon. The private pilot and flight instructor were seriously injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 instructional flight. The pilot reported that the purpose of the flight was to practice commercial pilot maneuvers. After practicing slow flight, chandelles, lazy eights, and eights on pylons, they returned to the airport and discussed how to conduct a practice a power-off 180° landing as they entered the traffic pattern. When the airplane was abeam the 1,000-foot runway markings, the pilot reduced the power to idle and started a left turn toward the runway. He stated that he realized that the airplane was “probably not going to make the runway” and that the airplane was “not on final course.” He recalled the airplane turning sharply to the left as he was pulled up on the control yoke and added right rudder. He could not recall whether he applied power. The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane. A video of the event showed the airplane in a left turn as it descended toward the runway. The airplane’s left bank decreased to a wings-level attitude before the airplane entered a steeper left bank, followed immediately by a right bank as the airplane descended into the ground short of the runway. The airplane’s right wing and fuselage sustained substantial damage.

Crash of a Partenavia P.68B Victor near Strausberg: 2 killed

Date & Time: Jan 12, 2019 at 1155 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
D-GINA
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Strausberg - Strausberg
MSN:
59
YOM:
1975
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
2
Captain / Total flying hours:
2923
Copilot / Total flying hours:
632
Aircraft flight hours:
5750
Circumstances:
The twin engine airplane departed Strausberg Airport at 1100LT on a local training flight, carrying one instructor and one pilot under supervision. About 50 minutes later, while cruising in clouds at an altitude of 1,300 feet, the airplane entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed in a field located 7,5 km northwest of the airport. The airplane disintegrated on impact and both occupants were killed.

Crash of a Lockheed C-130E Hercules at Chaklala-Nur Khan AFB

Date & Time: Nov 9, 2018 at 1438 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
4180
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Chaklala - Chaklala
MSN:
4180
YOM:
1966
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
9
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
The crew was completing a training mission at Chaklala-Nur Khan AFB in Islamabad. Upon touchdown, a tyre burst. Control was lost and the airplane veered off runway to the right and collided with a concrete wall before coming to rest, burstin into flames. All nine occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was destroyed by a post crash fire. It is believed that the landing was hard.

Crash of a Piper PA-31-310 Navajo B in Ampangabe: 5 killed

Date & Time: Jun 18, 2018 at 0912 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
5R-MKF
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Antananarivo - Antananarivo
MSN:
31-756
YOM:
1971
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
1
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
4
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
5
Circumstances:
About five minutes after takeoff from Antananarivo-Ivato Airport, the twin engine aircraft went out of control and crashed in an open field located in Ampangabe, some 10 km southwest of the airfield. The aircraft was totally destroyed upon impact and all five occupants were killed. They were engaged in a training flight with one instructor and two pilots under instruction on board.
Crew:
Claude Albert Ranaivoarison, pilot.
Passengers:
Eddie Charles Razafindrakoto, General of the Madagascar Air Force,
Andy Razafindrakoto, son of the General,
Kevin Razafimanantsoa, pilot trainee,
Mamy Tahiana Andrianarijaona, pilot trainee.

Crash of a Swearingen SA227AC Metro III in Saltillo

Date & Time: May 24, 2018
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
XA-UPP
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Saltillo - Saltillo
MSN:
AC-736
YOM:
1989
Country:
Crew on board:
3
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
The crew was completing a training flight at Saltillo-Plan de Guadalupe Airport. After touchdown on runway 17, the airplane veered off runway to the left, lost its right main gear and came to rest about 600 metres from the runway threshold. All three crew members evacuated safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

Crash of a Gulfstream G200 in Yangzhou

Date & Time: May 20, 2018 at 1507 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
B-8129
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Yangzhou - Yangzhou
MSN:
134
YOM:
2006
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
3
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
16075
Captain / Total hours on type:
1181.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
538
Copilot / Total hours on type:
246
Aircraft flight hours:
2235
Aircraft flight cycles:
1114
Circumstances:
The aircraft departed Yanzhou-Taizhou Airport runway 35 at 1359LT on a local training flight, carrying two pilots under supervision and one instructor. The crew completed six landings without any incidents. and then changed seats, the instructor seating in the left front seat and the pilot under training in the right front seat. On final approach to runway 35, at a height of about 50 feet, the aircraft followed a steep descent and landed 500 metres past the runway threshold to the right of the runway centerline with a 4,5° deviation to the right. The copilot elected to correct this when the aircraft veered to the left, exited the runway then deviated to the right and came back on the runway. Then it veered off runway to the right, lost its both main gears and came to rest in a grassy area. All thre crew members evacuated safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.
Probable cause:
The accident was the consequence of a series of errors on part of the crew. The following findings were identified:
- The rate of descent on short final was escessive (sink rate),
- The aircraft landed to the right of the runway centerline with a 4,5° deviation to the right,
- The copilot actions were excessives and the aircraft veered to the left,
- The instructor did not intervene in due time to expect recovery.
Final Report:

Crash of a Beechcraft C99 Airliner in Ibagué: 4 killed

Date & Time: May 2, 2018 at 1830 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
PNC-0203
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Bogotá – Ibagué – Mariquita
MSN:
U-199
YOM:
1983
Location:
Country:
Crew on board:
4
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
4
Circumstances:
The crew departed Bogotá on a training flight to Mariquita with an intermediate stop at Ibagué-Perales Airport. While on approach by night, the twin engine aircraft went out of control and crashed in a field located few km from the airport, bursting into flames. The aircraft was totally destroyed by a post crash fire and all four crew members were killed.
Crew:
Maj Andrés Valbuena Cadena,
Lt Carlos Andrés León Caicedo,
Lt Juan Alcides Sosa Triana,
Sub John Wílfer Parra Solano.

Crash of an Airbus A320-214 in Tallinn

Date & Time: Feb 28, 2018 at 1711 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
ES-SAN
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Tallinn - Tallinn
MSN:
1213
YOM:
2000
Flight number:
MYX9001
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
7
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
228
Captain / Total hours on type:
0.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
24046
Copilot / Total hours on type:
40
Aircraft flight hours:
44997
Aircraft flight cycles:
21839
Circumstances:
On 28th February 2018 at 10:021, the Smartlynx Airlines Estonia Airbus A320-214 registered ES-SAN took off from Tallinn airport Estonia to perform training flights with 2 crew members (captain and safety pilot), 4 students and 1 ECAA inspector on board. Following several successful ILS approaches and touch-and-go cycles, at 15:04, after a successful touch down with the runway, the aircraft did not respond as expected to sidestick inputs when reaching rotation speed. After a brief lift-off, the aircraft lost altitude and hit the ground close to the end of the runway. In the impact, the aircraft engines impacted the runway and the landing gear doors were damaged. After the initial impact, the aircraft climbed to 1590 ft from ground level and pitched down again. The pilots were able to stabilize the flight path by using manual pitch trim and engine thrust and make a U-turn back towards the runway. The crew declared an emergency and the aircraft was cleared for an emergency landing. During the approach, the aircraft lost power in both engines. The aircraft landed 150 m before the threshold of runway at 15:11. On landing, aircraft tires burst, and the aircraft veered off the runway and finally came to a stop 15 m left to the runway. The safety pilot and one of the students suffered minor impact trauma in this accident. The aircraft landing gear doors, landing gears, both engine nacelles, engines and aircraft fuselage suffered severe damage in this accident resulting in aircraft hull loss.
Probable cause:
Causal factors:
This accident results from the combination of the following factors:
• The intermittent THSA override mechanism malfunction allowing to cause the loss of pitch control by both ELACs. The repetitive triggering of the ELAC PITCH faults was caused by the non or late activations of the PTA micro-switches, which were due to the OVM piston insufficient stroke. The insufficient OVM stroke was caused by the THSA OVM clutch unit non-standard friction. The oil in the THSA OVM casing appeared to be with a higher viscosity than defined in the CMM. The higher viscosity might have reduced the friction of the OVM clutch unit, causing the THSA OVM nonstandard friction.
• SEC design flaw allowing for a single event, the left landing gear temporary dedecompression, to cause the loss of pitch control by both SECs. The absence of ground spoilers arming for landing in the context of touch and go's training may have contributed to the temporary decompression of the left main landing gear.
• The training instructor`s decision for continuation of the flight despite repetitive ELAC PITCH FAULT ECAM caution messages. The lack of clear framework of operational rules for training flights, especially concerning the application of the MEL, and the specific nature of operations that caused pressure to complete the training program may have impacted the crew decision-making process.

Contributory factors
• Smartlynx Estonia ATO TM does not clearly define the need for arming spoilers when performing touch-and-go training (ATO procedures not in accordance with Airbus SOP). The fact that there is no clear reference in the Smartlynx Estonia ATO TM Touch-And-Go air exercise section to additional procedures that should be used, in combination with lack of understanding of the importance for arming the spoilers during this type of flights contributed to TRI making a decision to disarm the spoilers during touch and go training enabling landing gear bounce on touch down.
• At the time of the event Airbus QRH did not define the maximum allowed number of resets for the flight control computers.
• At the time of the event Airbus FCTM did not require to consider MEL on touch-and-go and stop-and-go training.
• The oil in the THS OVM casing was with higher viscosity than defined in the CMM. The higher viscosity might have reduced the friction of the OVM clutch unit.
• The aircraft maintenance documentation does not require any test of the OVM during aircraft regular maintenance checks.
• Smartlynx Estonia ATO OM does not clearly specify the role in the cockpit for the Safety Pilot. The lack of task sharing during the event caused the ECAM warnings to be left unnoticed and unannounced for a long period.
• The crew not resetting the ELAC 1. The fact that ELAC 1 PITCH FAULT was left unreset lead to the degradation of the redundancy of the system. Considering the remoteness of the loss control of both elevators, there is no specific crew training for MECHANICAL BACKUP in pitch during approach, landing and take-off. This condition of the aircraft occurred for the crew in a sudden manner on rotation and during training flight, where the experienced TRI is not in PF role and cannot get immediate feedback of the aircraft behaviour and condition. Despite these difficult conditions the crew managed to stabilize and land the aircraft with no major damage to the persons on board. The crew performance factors that contributed to the safe landing of the aircraft are the following:
• The TRI followed the golden rule of airmanship (fly, navigate, communicate), by stabilizing the aircraft pitch by using the trim wheel and by keeping the aircraft engine power as long as possible;
• The Safety Pilot started to play a role in the cockpit by assisting the TRI and student by informing them about the status of the aircraft and later on taking the role of the PM.
Final Report: