Conakry | Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives

The four engine airplane departed Pyongyang Airport on a regular schedule service to Conakry, carrying 17 passengers and a crew of six. After two intermediate stops in Kabul and Cairo, the crew continued to Conakry without any incident. While descending to the Conakry-Gbessia Airport, the crew encountered poor weather conditions and failed to realize his altitude was insufficient when the airplane struck a mountain located in the Fouta-Djalon Mountain Range, about 30 km from the airport. The aircraft disintegrated on impact and all 23 occupants were killed.

Probable cause:

It is believed that the accident was the consequence of a controlled flight into terrain.

Crash of an Ilyushin II-18V in Casablanca

Date & Time: Jul 9, 1967

Type of aircraft:

Ilyushin II-18

Operator:

Registration:

3X-GAB

Flight Phase:

Landing (descent or approach)

Flight Type:

Scheduled Revenue Flight

Survivors:

Yes

Site:

Airport (less than 10 km from airport)

Schedule:

Conakry – Rabat – Prague – Moscow

MSN:

181 0037 03

YOM:

1961

Location:

Casablanca-Anfa (Cazes)

Grand Casablanca

Country:

Morocco

Region:

Africa

Crew on board:

Crew fatalities:

Pax on board:

Pax fatalities:

Other fatalities:

Total fatalities:

Circumstances:

The four engine aircraft departed Conakry Airport on an international scheduled flight to Moscow with intermediate stops at Rabat and Prague. While descending to Rabat, the pilot was informed by ATC that it was not possible to land in Rabat due to poor weather conditions and was vectored and rerouted to Casablanca-Anfa Airport. Unfamiliarized with this airport, the pilot-in-command started the approach to runway 21 at an insufficient altitude when he spotted a building in the approach path. He increased power and gain altitude, causing the aircraft to pass over the glide but continued the approach, causing the airplane to land too far down the runway. After touchdown, the airplane was unable to stop within the remaining distance, overran, lost its undercarriage and came to rest 300 meters further. All 102 occupants were evacuated, among them 10 were injured. The aircraft was destroyed and its wreckage caused the airport to be closed to all traffic for three days.

Probable cause:

Wrong approach configuration on part of the crew. As the landing procedure seems to be non compliant, the crew should attempt an go-around manoeuvre.

Crash of a Tupolev TU-114D in Moscow: 21 killed

Date & Time: Feb 16, 1966 at 0138 LT

Type of aircraft:

Tupolev TU-114

Operator:

Registration:

CCCP-76491

Flight Phase:

Takeoff (climb)

Flight Type:

Scheduled Revenue Flight

Survivors:

Yes

Site:

Airport (less than 10 km from airport)

Schedule:

Moscow – Conakry – Brazzaville

MSN:

64 M 4 7 2

YOM:

1964

Flight number:

SU065

Location:

Country:

Region:

Crew on board:

Crew fatalities:

Pax on board:

Pax fatalities:

Other fatalities:

Total fatalities:

Aircraft flight hours:

Aircraft flight cycles:

Circumstances:

The departure from Moscow-Sheremetyevo Airport to Conakry and Brazzaville was attempted by night and poor weather conditions. After a course of 1,400 meters, at a speed of 260 km/h, the captain pull up the control column and started the rotation, causing the nose gear to leave the ground. Few seconds later, after a course of 1,850 meters, in a limited visibility, while at a speed of 275 km/h, the left main gear struck a snow wall 60 cm high. Rather than interrupt the takeoff, the captain continued when control was lost. The airplane veered off runway to the right and crashed in flames. Thirteen crew members and eight passengers were killed while 45 other occupants were injured. The aircraft was destroyed.

Probable cause:

It was determined that the crew decided to attempt to takeoff with a visibility limited to 1,000 meters due to fog and snow, which was well below the minima. In such conditions, the aircraft was not properly aligned on the runway centerline, causing the left main gear to struck a snow wall. Investigators believe that Sheremetyevo Airport officials also bear some responsibilities for the accident because they failed to take the appropriate actions to ensure that the runway was properly cleared of snow. At the time of the accident, most elements of the lighting system fitted to both sides of the runway were covered with snow and therefore did not constitute pilot assistance.