Houston-William P. Hobby

Following an uneventful flight from Miami-Executive (Kendall-Tamiami) Airport, the pilot started the approach to Houston-William P. Hobby Airport Runway 04 at 1058LT. Four minutes later, he initiated a go around procedure and a circuit before starting a second approach to land. After touchdown, the airplane deviated to the left and veered off runway in a grassy area. In soft ground, the airplane lost its nose gear then slid for few dozen metres before coming to rest with its right wing severely damaged. All six occupants escaped uninjured.

The pilot reported that, before the flight, the airplane was fueled with 140 gallons of Jet A fuel. Shortly after takeoff, both engines lost total power. Because the airplane had insufficient altitude to return to the airport, the pilot executed a forced landing to a field and the left wing sustained substantial damage. A postcrash fire ensued. The investigation determined that the airplane was inadvertently fueled with Jet A fuel rather than AVGAS, which was required for the airplane’s reciprocating engines. The line service worker who fueled the airplane reported that there were no decals at the airplane fuel ports; however, postaccident examination of the airplane found that a decal specifying AVGAS was present at the right-wing fuel port. The investigation could not determine whether the same or a similar decal was present at the left-wing fuel port because the left wing was partially consumed during the postimpact fire.

On December 15, 2015, at 5:23pm central standard time (CST), Southwest Airlines flight 31, a Boeing 737-300, N649SW, exited the taxiway while taxing to the gate and came to rest in a ditch at the Nashville International Airport (BNA), Nashville, Tennessee. Nine of the 138 passengers and crew onboard received minor injuries during the evacuation and the airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 as a regularly scheduled passenger flight from William P. Hobby Airport (HOU), Houston, Texas. Weather was not a factor, light conditions were dark just after sunset. The airplane landed normally on runway 20R and exited at taxiway B2. The flight crew received and understood the taxi instructions to their assigned gate. As the crew proceeded along taxiway T3, the flight crew had difficulty locating taxiway T4 as the area was dark, and there was glare from the terminal lights ahead. The crew maneuvered the airplane along T3 and onto T4, and then turned back to the right on a general heading consistent with heading across the ramp toward the assigned gate. The flight crew could not see T4 or the grassy area because the taxiway lights were off and the glare from the terminal lights. As a result, the airplane left the pavement and came to rest in a drainage ditch resulting in substantial damage to airplane. The cabin crew initially attempted to keep the passengers seated, but after being unable to contact the flight crew due to the loud alarm on the flight deck, the cabin crew properly initiated and conducted an evacuation. As a result of past complaints regarding the brightness of the green taxiway centerline lights on taxiways H, J, L and T-6, BNA tower controllers routinely turned off the taxiway centerline lighting. Although the facility had not received any requests on the day of the accident, about 30 minutes prior to the event the tower controller in charge (CIC) turned off the centerline lights as a matter of routine. In doing so, the CIC inadvertently turned off the "TWY J & Apron 2" selector, which included the taxiway lights in the vicinity of the excursion. The airfield lighting panel screensaver feature prevented the tower controllers from having an immediate visual reference to the status of the airfield lighting.

The pilots of the very light jet were conducting a positioning flight in instrument meteorological conditions. The flight was cleared by air traffic control for the instrument landing system (ILS) approach; upon being cleared for landing, the tower controller reported to the crew that there was no standing water on the runway. Review of the airplane's flight data recorder (FDR) data revealed that the airplane reached 50 ft above touchdown zone elevation (TDZE) at an indicated airspeed of 118 knots (KIAS). The airplane crossed the runway displaced threshold about 112 KIAS, and it touched down on the runway at 104 KIAS with about a 7-knot tailwind. FDR data revealed that, about 1.6 seconds after touchdown of the main landing gear, the nose landing gear touched down and the pilot's brake pedal input increased, with intermediate oscillations, over a period of 7.5 seconds before reaching full pedal deflection. During this time, the airplane achieved its maximum wheel braking friction coefficient and deceleration. The cockpit voice recorder recorded both pilots express concern the that the airplane was not slowing. About 4 seconds after the airplane reached maximum deceleration, the pilot applied the emergency parking brake (EPB). Upon application of the EPB, the wheel speed dropped to zero and the airplane began to skid, which resulted in reverted-rubber hydroplaning, further decreasing the airplane's stopping performance. The airplane continued past the end of the runway, crossed a service road, and came to rest in a drainage ditch. Postaccident examination of the brake system and data downloaded from the brake control unit indicated that it functioned as commanded during the landing. The airplane was not equipped with thrust reversers or spoilers to aid in deceleration. The operator's standard operating procedures required pilots to conduct a go-around if the airspeed at 50 ft above TDZE exceeded 111 kts. Further, the landing distances published in the airplane flight manual (AFM) are based on the airplane slowing to its reference speed (Vref) of 101 KIAS at 50 ft over the runway threshold. The airplane's speed at that time exceeded Vref, which resulted in an increased runway distance required to stop; however, landing distance calculations performed in accordance with the AFM showed that the airplane should still have been able to stop on the available runway. An airplane performance study also showed that the airplane had adequate distance available on which to stop had the pilot continued to apply maximum braking rather than engage the EPB. The application of the EPB resulted in skidding, which increased the stopping distance. Although the runway was not contaminated with standing water at the time of the accident, the performance study revealed that the maximum wheel braking friction coefficient was significantly less than the values derived from the unfactored wet runway landing distances published in the AFM, and was more consistent with the AFM-provided landing distances for runways contaminated with standing water. Federal Aviation Administration Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) 15009 warns operators that, "the advisory data for wet runway landings may not provide a safe stopping margin under all conditions" and advised them to assume "a braking action of medium or fair when computing time-of-arrival landing performance or [increase] the factor applied to the wet runway time-of-arrival landing performance data." It is likely that, based on the landing data in the AFM, the crew expected a faster rate of deceleration upon application of maximum braking; when that rate of deceleration was not achieved, the pilot chose to engage the EPB, which only further degraded the airplane's braking performance.

During the takeoff roll from runway 27 at Brooksville-Hernando County Airport, control was lost. The aircraft veered off runway and came to rest. All three crew members escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

After landing on runway 13R, directional control was lost and the aircraft veered off runway to the right. While contacting soft ground, the nose gear collapsed and the aircraft came to rest. All three occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The 4,100-hour commercial pilot lost directional control of the single-pilot twin-engine turbojet while taking off from runway 22 (7,602-feet long by 150-feet wide), and impacted the ground about 3,750 feet from the point of departure. Several witnesses reported that the airplane climbed to approximately 150 feet, rolled to the right, descended, and then struck the ground inverted. The weather was day VFR and the wind was reported from 170 degrees at 10 knots. Examination of the wreckage revealed that none of the main-entry door latching pins were in their fully locked position. The airplane's flight controls and engines did not disclose any mechanical discrepancies. The flaps were in the takeoff position and the control lock was unlocked. The pilot had not flown the airplane for over nine months because of extensive maintenance; the accident occurred on its first test flight out of maintenance. Since the pilots flight records were not found, it is unknown how much flight time the pilot had flown in the last nine months. The other airplane that the pilot owned was a Cessna 650, but witnesses stated that the pilot was only qualified as a co-pilot. Most of the maintenance records that were located were not completed; an approval for return-to-service was not found. Another airplane that had declared an emergency was on a 10-mile final when the tower cleared the accident airplane for takeoff, with no delay on the takeoff roll. No additional communication or distress calls were reported from the accident airplane. The airplane was not equipped with either a flight data recorder or a cockpit voice recorder. No anomalies were found on either engine that could have prevented normal engine operation.

The 1,608-hour commercial pilot departed on a scheduled cargo flight. Prior to departure, he performed a preflight inspection and visually verified all five fuel tanks were full. The flight took approximately 1 hour for the 162 nautical mile cross-country flight. Prior to his return flight, he again checked the fuel and oil. He noted that, he had 3 hours of fuel on board. About 15 minutes after departure, the pilot switched to the auxiliary tanks. The pilot stated, "after 10-15 minutes on taking fuel from the auxiliary tanks, I switched to the right locker tank." Shortly thereafter, air traffic control instructed him to start a descent, and he selected the main fuel tanks. During the approach, the right engine began to "sputter". As the pilot was going through the engine failure checklist, the left engine "started sputtering." The pilot switched the auxiliary fuel pumps to high; then changed from the main tanks to the auxiliary fuel tanks. The airplane landed short of runway 12R. Inspection of the aircraft revealed, both auxiliary fuel tanks were "dry", the right main fuel tank contained approximately 3-inches of fuel, and the left main tank was "dry", but had been breached during the landing. The right wing locker fuel tank was full of fuel, and the transfer switch was in the off position. The left fuel selector was found in the left auxiliary position and the right fuel selector was found in the right auxiliary position. The main fuel line on the right engine had no fuel in it, and the line to the fuel manifold valve was empty as well. The left main fuel line had a "couple teaspoons" of fuel in it, and the fuel line to the left fuel manifold valve was absent of fuel.

On November 22, 2004, about 0615 central standard time, a Gulfstream G-1159A, N85VT, operated by Business Jet Services Ltd., struck a light pole and crashed about 3 miles southwest of William P. Hobby Airport, Houston, Texas, while on an instrument landing system approach to runway 4. The two pilots and the flight attendant were killed, an individual in a vehicle near the airport received minor injuries, and the airplane was destroyed by impact forces. The airplane was being operated under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 on an instrument flight rules flight plan. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident.

The purpose of the flight was for the instructor-pilot to prepare the first and second pilots for their FAA Part 135 competency and proficiency checks scheduled to be conducted in the accident airplane the following week, with operator proving tests to follow shortly thereafter. The first pilot obtained a computer science corporation (CSC) direct user access terminal service (DUATS) weather briefing and filed an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan. The instructor-pilot was listed as the pilot-in-command. The airplane took off and proceeded to its designated practice area. According to the cockpit voice recorder (CVR), the pilots practiced various maneuvers under the direction of the instructor-pilot, including steep turns and approaches to stalls. Then the first pilot was asked the to demonstrate an approach-to-landing stall. The first pilot asked the instructor-pilot if he had "ever done stalls in the airplane?" The instructor-pilot replied, "It's been awhile." The first pilot remarked, "This is the first time I've probably done stalls in a jet. Nah, I take that back, I've done them in a (Lear)." The instructor pilot said he had stalled "the JetStar on a [FAR] one thirty five ride." Flaps were extended and the landing gear was lowered. Digital electronic engine control (DEEC) recorded a power reduction that remained at idle. According to national track analysis program (NTAP) data, the stall was initiated from an altitude of 5,000 feet. The stick shaker sounded and shortly thereafter, the recording ended. The consensus of 25 witness' observations was that the airplane was flying at low altitude and doing "erratic maneuvers." One witness said it "seemed to stop in midair," then pitched nose down. Some witnesses said that the airplane was spinning. Other witnesses said it was in a flat spin. Still another witness said the airplane fell "like a falling leaf." The airplane impacted marshy terrain in a nose-down, wings-level attitude. Wreckage examination revealed the landing gear was down and the flaps were set to 25 degrees. Both engines' compressor/turbine section blades were gouged and bent in the opposite direction of rotation, and there were rotational scoring marks on both cases. No discrepancies were noted.