Crash of an IAI 1124A Westwind II in Manila: 8 killed

Date & Time: Mar 29, 2020 at 2000 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
RP-C5880
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Manila - Tokyo
MSN:
353
YOM:
1981
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
6
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
8
Circumstances:
The twin engine aircraft was engaged in an ambulance flight carrying one Canadian patient with Covid-19 and medical staff to Tokyo-Haneda Airport. While taking off from runway 06 at Manila-Ninoy Aquino Airport, the aircraft went out of control and crashed near the runway end, by the West Service Road, bursting into flames. The aircraft was destroyed and all eight occupants were killed.

Crash of a Beechcraft 350 Super King Air in Pansol: 9 killed

Date & Time: Sep 1, 2019 at 1510 LT
Operator:
Registration:
RP-C2296
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Site:
Schedule:
Dipolog - Manila
MSN:
FL-196
YOM:
1998
Location:
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
7
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
9
Circumstances:
The twin engine airplane was completing an ambulance flight from Dipolog and Manila, carrying seven passengers and a crew of two. While cruising in marginal weather conditions, the airplane went out of control and crashed into several houses located in the city of Pansol, about 40 km southeast of Manila-Ninoy Aquino Airport. The aircraft was destroyed and all nine people on board were killed. There were apparently no injuries on the ground.

Crash of a Boeing 737-85C in Manila

Date & Time: Aug 16, 2018 at 2355 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
B-5498
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Xiamen – Manila
MSN:
37574/3160
YOM:
2010
Flight number:
MF8667
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
8
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
157
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
On August 16, 2018, about 1555UTC/2355H local time, a Boeing 737-800 type of aircraft with Registry No. B-5498 operating as flight CXA 8667 sustained substantial damage following a runway excursion after second approach while landing on Runway 24 of Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), Manila, Philippines. The flight was a scheduled commercial passenger from Xiamen, China and operated by Xiamen Airlines. The one hundred fifty-seven (157) passengers and two (2) pilots together with the five (5) cabin crew and one air security officer did not sustain any injuries while the aircraft was substantially damaged. An instrument flight rules flight plan was filed. Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) prevailed at the time of the accident. During the first approach, the Captain who was the pilot flying aborted the landing at 30 feet Radio Altitude (RA) due to insufficient visual reference. A second approach was considered and carried out after briefing the First Officer (FO) of the possibility of another aborted landing should the flight encounter similar conditions. The briefing included a diversion to their planned alternate airfield. The flight was “stabilized” on the second approach with flaps set at 30 degrees landing position, all landing gears extended and speed brake lever appropriately set in the ARM position. On passing 1,002 feet Radio Altitude (RA), the autopilot was disengaged; followed by the disengagement of the auto-throttle, three (3) seconds later. The ILS localizer lateral path and Glide slope vertical path were accurately tracked and no deviations were recorded. The “reference” landing speed for flaps 30 for the expected aircraft gross weight at the time of landing was 145 knots and a target speed of 150 knots was set on the Mode Control Panel (MCP). The vertical descent rate recorded during the approach was commensurate with the recommended descent rate for the profile angle and ground speed; and was maintained throughout the approach passing through the Decision Altitude (DA) of 375 feet down to 50 feet radio altitude (RA). As the aircraft passed over the threshold, the localizer deviation was established around zero dot but indicated the airplane began to drift to the left of the centerline followed by the First Officer (FO) making a call out of “Go-Around” but was answered by the Captain “No”. The throttle levers for both engines were started to be reduced to idle position at 30 feet RA and became fully idle while passing five (5) feet RA. At this point, the aircraft was in de-crab position prior to flare. At 13 feet RA, the aircraft was rolling left and continuously drifting left of the runway center line. At 10 feet RA another call for go-around was made by the FO but was again answered by the Captain with “No” and “It’s Okay”. At this point, computed airspeed was approximately 6 knots above MCP selected speed and RA was approaching zero feet. Just prior to touchdown, computed airspeed decreased by 4 knots and the airplane touched down at 151 knots (VREF+6). The wind was recorded at 274.7 degrees at 8.5 knots. Data from the aircraft’s flight data recorder showed that the aircraft touched down almost on both main gears, to the left of the runway centerline, about 741 meters from the threshold of runway 24. Deployment of the speed brakes was recorded and auto brakes engagement was also recorded. The auto brakes subsequently disengaged but the cause was undetermined. Upon touchdown, the aircraft continued on its left-wards trajectory while the aircraft heading was held almost constant at 241 degrees. After the aircraft departed the left edge of the runway, all landing gears collided with several concrete electric junction boxes that were erected parallel outside the confines of the runway pavement. The aircraft was travelling at about 147 knots as it exited the paved surface of the runway and came to rest at approximately 1,500 meters from the threshold of Runway 24, with a geographical position of 14°30’23.7” N; 121°0’59.1” E and a heading of 120 degrees. Throughout the above sequence of events from touchdown until the aircraft came to a full stop, the CVR recorded 2 more calls of “GO-AROUND” made by the FO. Throughout the landing sequence, the thrust reversers for both engines were not deployed. Throttle Lever Position (TLP) were recorded and there was no evidence of reverse thrust being selected or deployment of reversers. After the aircraft came to a complete stop, the pilots carried out all memory items and the refence items in the evacuation non-normal checklist, which includes extending the flaps to a 40 degrees position. The aircraft suffered total loss of communication and a failure in passenger address system possibly due to the damage caused by the nose gear collapsing rearwards and damaging the equipment in the E/E compartment or the E-buss wires connecting the Very High Frequency (VHF) 1 radio directly to the battery was broken. The Captain then directed the FO to go out of the cockpit to announce the emergency evacuation. The cabin crew started the evacuation of the passengers utilizing the emergency slides of the left and right forward doors. There were no reported injuries sustained by the passengers, cabin crew, flight crew or the security officer.
Probable cause:
Primary causal factors:
a. The decision of the Captain to continue the landing on un-stabilized approach and insufficient visual reference.
- The Captain failed to maintain a stabilized landing approach moments before touchdown, the aircraft was rolling left and continuously drifting left of the runway centerline.
- The Captain failed to identify correctly the aircraft position and status due to insufficient visual reference caused by precipitation.
b. The Captain failed to apply sound CRM practices.
- The Captain did not heed to the First Officer call for a Go-Around.
Contributory factors:
a. Failure to apply appropriate TEM strategies. Failure of the Flight Crew to discuss and apply appropriate Threat and Error Management (TEM) strategies for the following:
- Inclement weather.
- Cross wind conditions during approach to land.
- Possibility of low-level wind shear.
- NOTAM information on unserviceable runway lights.
b. Inadequate Company Policy on Go-Around:
- Company’s Standard Operation Procedures were less than adequate in terms of providing guidance to the flight crew for call out of "Go-Around" during landing phase of the flight.
c. Runway strip inconsistent with CAAP MOS for Aerodrome and ICAO Annex 14:
- The uneven surface and concrete obstacles contributed to the damage sustained by the aircraft.
Final Report:

Crash of a Canadair BD-700-1A11 Global 5000 in Tacloban

Date & Time: Jan 17, 2015 at 1345 LT
Type of aircraft:
Registration:
RP-C9363
Flight Phase:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Tacloban - Manila
MSN:
9363
YOM:
2009
Location:
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
14
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
On or about 1000H January 17, 2015, the Holy Father “Pope Francis” visited the typhoon-devastated province of Leyte and utilized an Airbus 320 aircraft for Tacloban airport, and Bombardier Global 5000 RP-C9363 aircraft was part of the Papal entourage with passengers on board. The weather condition was worsening and the visit of the Pope had to cut short due to approaching tropical storm code named “AMANG”, with strong winds of up to 130km/h(80mph) according to PAGASA and moderate rain as signal n°2 was already forecasted at the province of Leyte. At 1304H, the Global 5000 RP-C9363 was given start up clearance by tower controller and subsequently a taxi clearance at 1308H to exit via south taxiway next to the departing Airbus320 PAL8010. At 1306H, the First Airbus 320 PAL8010 aircraft carrying the Papal entourage took-off utilizing RWY 36 with prevailing wind condition of 290̊/18 knots crosswind and temperature of 24°. At 1311H, RP-C 9363 was not allowed to move from present position to proceed to the active runway via south taxiway by the military ground marshaller. At 1322H, the 2nd Airbus 320 PAL8191 took-off with prevailing wind conditions of 290°/23 kts crosswind. The separation time between the Global 5000 to the first and second aircraft were 29 minutes and 13 minutes respectively. At 1335H, finally RP-C9363 Global 5000 was cleared for take-off at runway 36 bound for Ninoy Aquino International Airport (RPLL) with two (2) pilots and 14 passengers on board. The wind condition at that time was 300°/18 kts with gustiness and temperature of 24°. The aircrew performed rolling take-off and the acceleration was normal, the pilot nonflying (NPF) called for air speed alive, 80 knots, V1 and Rotate. Before approaching south taxiway abeam the terminal building, the aircraft started to veer to the left side of the runway centerline. The aircraft continued to roll veering to the left side of the runway and the left hand main landing gear was already out of the runway after the north taxiway. The aircraft underwent runway excursion and sustained substantial damage after simultaneous collision with the concrete bases of runway edge lights and to the concrete culvert before it came to a complete stop at approximately 1500 meters from the take-off point. Immediate evacuation was performed to all passengers. The crash and fire rescue personnel arrived at the area and assisted the passengers and aircrew.
Probable cause:
The Aircraft Accident Investigation and Inquiry Board determined that the probable cause of this accident was:
- Lack of recurrent training of the flight crew:
Routine flights do not prepare a pilot for unusual situations, whether they are unexpected crosswinds or systems/engine anomalies. Pilots should receive regular recurrent training to include abnormal and emergency procedures.
- The existing runway edge light design:
The PIC tried to recover the aircraft back to the runway but apparently the aircraft left main landing gears already hit or bumped the concrete base of runway edge lights. The design of runway strips or shoulder must be free from fixed objects other than frangible visual aids provided for the guidance of aircraft and must not be constructed
with sharp edges; and where the lights will not normally come into contact with aircraft wheels, such as threshold lights, runway end lights and runway edge lights;
- Human Factors:
Due to deteriorating adverse weather conditions and due to the delay of their initial request for take-off clearance plus the sudden change of flight plan affected the Captain’s ability to perform a take-off procedure as recommended in the aircraft flight manual and instead delegated flight control duties to the F/O resulting in the loss of coordination between the light crew.
Final Report:

Crash of a BAe 146-200 in Balesin

Date & Time: Oct 19, 2013 at 1149 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
RP-C5525
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Manila - Balesin
MSN:
E2031
YOM:
1985
Location:
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
7
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
68
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
The aircraft was performing a charter flight from Manila to Balesin, carrying tourists en route to the Balesin Island Club. The approach and landing were completed in poor weather conditions with heavy rain falls. After landing, the four engine aircraft was unable to stop within the remaining distance. It overran, lost its nose gear and came to rest in the Lamon Bay, few dozen metres offshore. All 75 occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

Crash of a Beechcraft 65-80 Queen Air in Manila: 13 killed

Date & Time: Dec 10, 2011 at 1415 LT
Type of aircraft:
Registration:
RP-C824
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Site:
Schedule:
Manila - San Jose
MSN:
LD-21
YOM:
1962
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
1
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
2
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
13
Circumstances:
On December 10, 2011, BE-65-80QA (Queen Air) with Registry RP-C824 took off from RWY 13, Manila Domestic Airport on/or about 0610 UTC (1410H) southbound for San Jose, Mindoro. There were three (3) persons on board, the PIC and two (2) other persons; one was seated at the right-hand cockpit seat and the other one at the passenger seat. After airborne, the ATC gave instructions to the pilot o turn right and report five (5) miles out. After performing the right turn, the pilot requested for a reland which was duly acknowledged but the ATC with instructions to cross behind traffic on short final Rwy 06 (a perpendicular international runway) and to confirm if experiencing difficulty. However, there was no more response from the pilot. From a level flight southward at about 200 feet AGL, three (3) loud sputtering/burst sounds coming from the aircraft were heard (by people on the ground) then the aircraft was observed making a left turn that progressed into a steep bank and roll-over on a dive. After about one complete roll on a dive the aircraft hit ground at point of impact (Coordinates 14.48848 N 121.025811 E), a confined area beside a creek surrounded by shaties where several people were in a huddle. Upon impact, the aircraft exploded and fire immediately spread to surrounding shanties and a nearby elementary school building. The aircraft was almost burned into ashes and several shanties were severely burned by post-crash fire. A total of thirteen (13) persons were fatality injured composed of: the 3 aircraft occupants who died due to non survivable impact and charred by post-crash fire, and ten (10) other persons on the ground, all residents at vicinity of impact point, incurred non-fatal injuries and were rushed to a nearby hospital for medical treatment. About 20 houses near the impact point were completely burnt and the adjacent Elementary School building was severely affected by fire.
Probable cause:
The Aircraft Accident Investigation and Inquiry Board determined that the probable cause of this accident was:
- Immediate Cause:
(1) Pilot’s Lack of event proficiency in emergency procedures for one (1) engine in-operative condition after-off. Pilot Error (Human Factor)
While a one engine in-operative condition during take-off after V1 is a survivable emergency event during training, the pilot failed to effectively maintain aircraft control the aircraft due to inadequate event proficiency.
- Contributing Cause:
(1) Left engine failure during take-off after V1. (Material Factor)
The left engine failed due to oil starvation as indicated by the severely burnt item 7 crankshaft assembly and frozen connecting rods 5 & 6. This triggered the series of events that led to the failure of the pilot to manage a supposedly survivable emergency event.
- Underlying Causes:
(1) Inadequate Pilot Training for Emergency Procedure. Human Factor
Emergency event such as this (one engine inoperative event – twin engine aircraft) was not actually or properly performed (discussed only) in actual training flights/check-ride and neither provided with corresponding psycho-motor training on a simulator. Hence, pilot’s motor skill/judgment recall was not effective (not free-flowing) during actual emergency event.
(2) Inadequate engine overhaul capability of AMO. Human Factor
There was no document to prove that engine parts scheduled to be overhauled aboard were complied with or included in the overhaul activity. The presence unauthorized welding spot in the left-hand engine per teardown inspection report manifested substandard overhaul activity.
(3) Inadequate regulatory oversight (airworthiness inspection) on the overhaul activity of the AMO (on engine overhaul). Human Factor
The airworthiness inspection on this major maintenance activity (engine overhaul) failed to ensure integrity and quality of replacement parts and work done (presence of welding spots).
(4) Unnecessary Deviation by ATC from the AIP provision on Runway 13 Standard VFR Departure Southbound.
The initiative of the AY+TC for an early right turn southbound after airborne was not in accord with the standard departure in the AIP which provides the safest corridor for takeoff and the ample time to stabilize aircraft parameters in case of a one engine inoperative emergency event for a successful re-land or controlled emergency landing.
Final Report:

Crash of an ATR72-212A in Manila

Date & Time: Jul 28, 2010 at 1515 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
RP-C7254
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Tuguegarao – Manila
MSN:
828
YOM:
2008
Flight number:
5J509
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
0
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
Cebu Pacific Air flight 5J509, an ATR 72-500, took off from Tuguegarao Airport, Philippines, bound for Manila-Ninoy Aquino International Airport. The first officer was the Pilot Flying (PF) while the captain was the Pilot Not Flying (PNF). Approaching Manila, the flight was under radar vector for a VOR/DME approach to runway 24. At 7 miles on finals the approach was stabilized. A sudden tailwind was experienced by the crew at 500 feet radio altitude (RA) which resulted in an increase in airspeed and vertical speed. The captain took over the controls and continued the approach. Suddenly, the visibility went to zero and consequently the aircraft experienced a bounced landing three times, before a go-around was initiated. During climb out the crew noticed cockpit instruments were affected including both transponders and landing gears. They requested for a priority landing and were vectored and cleared to land on runway 13. After landing the aircraft was taxied to F4 where normal deplaning was carried out. No injuries were reported on the crew and passengers.
Probable cause:
Primary Cause Factor:
- Failure of the flight crew to discontinue the approach when deteriorating weather and their associated hazards to flight operations had moved into the airport (Human Factor)
Contributory Factor:
- The adverse weather condition affected the judgment and decision-making of the PIC even prior to the approach to land. With poor weather conditions being encountered, the PIC still continued the approach and landing. (Environmental Factor)
Underlying Factor:
- As a result of the bounced landing, several cockpit instruments were affected including both transponders on board. One of the nosewheels was detached and all the landing gears could not be retracted. Further, the integrity of the structure may have been affected and chance airframe failure was imminent. With all of these conditions, the Captain still opted to request for a priority landing when emergency landing was needed.

Crash of a Douglas DC-3C in Manila: 4 killed

Date & Time: Oct 17, 2009 at 1214 LT
Type of aircraft:
Registration:
RP-C550
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Site:
Schedule:
Manila - Puerto Princesa
MSN:
14292/25737
YOM:
1944
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
3
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
1
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
4
Circumstances:
On October 17, 2009at about 12:04 pm, RP-C550 a DC-3type of aircraft took off from Manila Domestic airport bound for Puerto Princesa, Palawan. Approximately 5 mins after airborne, the Pilot-in-Command (PIC) informed Manila Tower that they were turning back due to technical problem. The PIC was asked by the air controller whether he was declaring an “emergency” and the response was negative. The PIC was directed to proceed South Mall and wait for further instruction (a standard procedures for VFR arrivals for runway 13). At South Mall, RP-C550 was cleared to cross the end of runway 06, still without declaring an emergency. The tower controller sensed that something was wrong with the aircraft due to its very low altitude, immediately granted clearance to land runway 06. However, the aircraft was not able to make it to runway 06. At about 12:14, RP-C550 crashed at an abandoned warehouse in Villa Fidela Subd., Brgy. Elias Aldana Las Piñas City about 4 kms. from the threshold of runway 06. As a result, the aircraft was totally destroyed and all aboard suffered fatal injuries due to impact and post crash fire.
Probable cause:
The Aircraft Accident Investigation and Inquiry Board determine that the probable causes of this accident were the following:
- Non-procedural application of power during take-off and initial climb that led to left engine malfunction.
- The questionable qualifications of the flight crew.
- Low level of competence of the pilots.
- Not feathering the left engine.
- Turning towards the bad engine.
- Not declaring an emergency.
Final Report:

Crash of a Xian MA60 in Caticlan

Date & Time: Jun 25, 2009 at 0755 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
RP-C8892
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Manila - Caticlan
MSN:
07 03
YOM:
2008
Flight number:
EZD863
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
4
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
55
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
Following an uneventful flight from Manila, the crew started the descent to Caticlan Airport and was informed that runway 06 was in use due to the wind component. For unknown reasons, the captain decided to land on runway 24. The approach was too long and the aircraft landed too far down the runway, about 950 metres past the runway threshold. Unable to stop within the remaining distance, it overran and came to rest in a grassy area against the perimeter fence. All 59 occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

Crash of a Xian MA60 in Caticlan

Date & Time: Jan 11, 2009 at 0658 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
RP-C8893
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Manila - Caticlan
MSN:
07 04
YOM:
2008
Flight number:
EZD865
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
5
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
22
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
2675
Captain / Total hours on type:
500.00
Circumstances:
On or about 0613LT 11 January 2009, flight 6K865 RP-C8893 departed NAIA (RPLL) for Caticlan Airport (RPVE) with 22 passengers and 5 crew members on board. The flight was uneventful until a go-around was initiated during the first approach, A second attempt to land was made which ended with the aircraft undershooting the runway. After the first touchdown the aircraft bounce and landed on the runway and veered to the left side of the runway due to the left landing gear failure upon the contact with the embankment before the road at the end of the runway. The aircraft settled down at the concrete wall of the ramp facing the passenger lounge of the Zest Air. Three (3) passengers suffered serious injuries, and 19 passengers with minor one, the crew member escape injuries except the Captain suffering slight injury. The aircraft was damaged beyond economical repair.
Probable cause:
- The captain’s low level of experience (2,675 hours) and less than 500 hours PIC.
- The critical runway conditions (950 M and gusty wind conditions No PAPI).
- The absence of crew coordination (monitoring and CRM).
Final Report: