Ambulance

Following an uneventful flight, the crew configured the aircraft for landing when he realized that the right main landing gear was stuck in its wheel well. The crew continued the approach and landed on runway 15. The airplane fell on its belly, causing the right wing to struck the ground. The airplane slid for few hundred metres then veered off runway to the left and came to rest in a grassy area. All nine occupants were rescued and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The pilot of the medical transport flight had been cleared by the air traffic controller for the instrument approach and told by ATC to change to the advisory frequency, which the pilot acknowledged. After crossing the initial approach fix on the RNAV approach, the airplane began a gradual descent and continued northeast towards the intermediate fix. Before reaching the intermediate fix, the airplane entered a right turn and began a rapid descent, losing about 2,575 ft of altitude in 14 seconds; radar returns were then lost. A witness at the destination airport, who was scheduled to meet the accident airplane, observed the pilot-controlled runway lights illuminate. When the airplane failed to arrive, she contacted the company to inquire about the overdue airplane. The following day, debris was found floating on the surface of the ocean. About 48 days later, after an extensive underwater search, the heavily fragmented wreckage was located on the ocean floor at a depth of about 500 ft. A postaccident examination of the engines revealed contact signatures consistent with the engines developing power at the time of impact and no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. A postaccident examination of the airframe revealed about a 10° asymmetric flap condition; however, significant impact damage was present to the flap actuator flex drive cables and flap actuators, indicating the flap actuator measurements were likely not a reliable source of preimpact flap settings. In addition, it is unlikely that a 10° asymmetric flap condition would result in a loss of control. The airplane was equipped with a total of 5 seats and 5 restraints. Of the three restraints recovered, none were buckled. The unbuckled restraints could suggest an emergency that required crewmembers to be up and moving about the cabin; however, the reason for the unbuckled restraints could not be confirmed. While the known circumstances of the accident are consistent with a loss of control event, the factual information available was limited because the wreckage in its entirety was not recovered, the CVR recording did not contain the accident flight, no non-volatile memory was recovered from the accident airplane, and no autopsy or toxicology of the pilot could be performed; therefore, the reason for the loss of control could not be determined. Due to the limited factual information that was available, without a working CVR there is little we know about this accident.

The pilot and two medical crewmembers were repositioning the airplane to pick up a patient for aeromedical transport. Dark night instrument meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight. Radar data showed the airplane climb to 14,000 ft mean sea level after departure and proceed direct toward the destination airport before beginning a right descending turn. The airplane subsequently broke up inflight and impacted terrain. No distress calls were received from the pilot before the accident. Although weather conditions were conducive for inflight icing, no evidence of structural icing was identified at the scene. The debris field was 2,500 ft long and the disbursement of the wreckage confirmed that both wings, the horizontal stabilizer, both elevators, and both engines separated from the airplane before impacting the ground. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the initiating failure was the failure of the wing where it passed through the center of the airplane. The three wing spars exhibited S-bending deformation, indicative of positive overload producing compressive buckling and fracture. Further, impact signatures as black paint transfers and gouged aluminum, were consistent with the left outboard wing separating when it was struck by the right engine after the wing spars failed. There was no evidence of any pre-exiting conditions that would have degraded the strength of the airplane structure at the fracture locations. Flight control continuity was confirmed. An examination of the engines, propellers, and available systems showed no mechanical malfunctions or failure that could have contributed to the accident. The descending right turn was inconsistent with the intended flight track and ATC-provided clearance. However, there was insufficient information to determine how it was initiated and when the pilot became aware of the airplane's state in the dark night IMC conditions. Yet, the
absence of a distress call or communication with ATC about the airplane's deviation suggests that the pilot was not initially aware of the change in state. The structural failure signatures on the airplane were indicative of the wings failing in positive overload, which was consistent with the pilot initiating a pullup maneuver that exceeded the airplane spars' structural integrity during an attempted recovery from the spiral dive.

After takeoff, the commercial pilot saw flames coming from the left engine nacelle area. He retarded the throttle and turned off the fuel boost pump; however, the fire continued. He then feathered the propeller, shut down the engine, and maneuvered the airplane below the clouds to remain in the local traffic pattern. He attempted to keep the runway environment in sight while drifting in and out of clouds. He was unable to align the airplane for landing on the departure runway, so he attempted to land on another runway. When he realized that the airspeed was decreasing and that the airplane would not reach the runway, he landed it on an adjacent grass field. After touchdown, the landing gear separated, and the airplane came to a stop. The airframe sustained substantial damage to the wings and lower fuselage. Examination of the left engine revealed evidence of a fuel leak where the fuel mixture control shaft inserted into the fuel injector body, which likely resulted in fuel leaking onto the hot turbocharger in flight and the in-flight fire. A review of recent maintenance records did not reveal any entries regarding maintenance or repair of the fuel injection system. The pilot reported clouds as low as 500 ft with rain, snow, and reduced visibility at the time of the accident, which likely reduced his ability to see the runway and maneuver the airplane to land on it.

The twin engine aircraft departed Dundo Airport at 1658LT on an ambulance flight to Luanda, carrying three doctors, one patient from South Africa and three crew members. About 15 minutes into the flight, the crew reported engine problems when one of them caught fire shortly later. The airplane went out of control and crashed in an open field located near Cuilo, about 170 km southwest of Dundo. All seven occupants were killed.

The twine engine airplane departed Almaty Airport at 1835LT on an ambulance flight to Shymkent, carrying two doctors, two pilots and one flight mechanic. About 22 minutes into the flight, while cruising by night and poor weather conditions, the crew encountered an unexpected situation and was forced to shut down the right engine. Shortly later, the aircraft crashed near the village of Mezhdurechenskoye, some 28 km northwest of Almaty Airport, bursting into flames. The aircraft was totally destroyed by impact forces and a post crash fire and all five occupants were killed.

The twin engine airplane departed North Bay on an ambulance flight to Arnprior, carrying two pilots and a doctor. Following an uneventful flight, the crew was cleared for a VOR/DME approach to runway 28 under VFR conditions. On short final, the aircraft descended too low and impacted ground 50 metres short of runway. Upon impact, the nose gear collapsed and the airplane slid for about 600 metres before coming to rest. All three occupants evacuated safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The Beechcraft LR-2 Hayabusa (a version of the Beechcraft 350 Super King Air) departed Sapporo-Okadama Airport at 1123LT on a flight to Hakodate to evacuate a patient. On board were two doctors and two pilots. While descending to Hakodate at an altitude of 3,000 feet, the crew encountered poor weather conditions with low clouds and rain showers when the airplane registered 23057 (JG-3057) impacted the slope of a mountain located near Assabu, about 40 km northwest of Hakodate Airport. The aircraft disintegrated on impact and all four occupants were killed.

The pilot and two medical crew members departed on an air ambulance flight in night instrument meteorological conditions to pick up a patient. After departure, the local air traffic controller observed the airplane's primary radar target with an incorrect transponder code in a right turn and climbing through 4,400 ft mean sea level (msl), which was 800 ft above ground level (agl). The controller instructed the pilot to reset the transponder to the correct code, and the airplane leveled off between 4,400 ft and 4,600 ft msl for about 30 seconds. The controller then confirmed that the airplane was being tracked on radar with the correct transponder code; the airplane resumed its climb at a rate of about 6,000 ft per minute (fpm) to 6,000 ft msl. The pilot changed frequencies as instructed, then contacted departure control and reported "with you at 6,000 [ft msl]" and the departure controller radar-identified the airplane. About 1 minute later, the departure controller advised the pilot that he was no longer receiving the airplane's transponder; the pilot did not respond, and there were no further recorded transmissions from the pilot. Radar data showed the airplane descending rapidly at a rate that reached 17,000 fpm. Surveillance video from a nearby truck stop recorded lights from the airplane descending at an angle of about 45° followed by an explosion. The airplane impacted a pasture about 1.5 nautical miles south of the airport, and a post impact fire ensued. All major components of the airplane were located within the debris field. Ground scars at the accident site and damage to the airplane indicated that the airplane was in a steep, nose-low and wings-level attitude at the time of impact. The airplane's steep descent and its impact attitude are consistent with a loss of control. An airplane performance study based on radar data and simulations determined that, during the climb to 6,000 ft and about 37 seconds before impact, the airplane achieved a peak pitch angle of about 23°, after which the pitch angle decreased steadily to an estimated -42° at impact. As the pitch angle decreased, the roll angle increased steadily to the left, reaching an estimated -76° at impact. The performance study revealed that the airplane could fly the accident flight trajectory without experiencing an aerodynamic stall. The apparent pitch and roll angles, which represent the attitude a pilot would "feel" the airplane to be in based on his vestibular and kinesthetic perception of the components of the load factor vector in his own body coordinate system, were calculated. The apparent pitch angle ranged from 0° to 15° as the real pitch angle steadily decreased to -42°, and the apparent roll angle ranged from 0° to -4° as the real roll angle increased to -78°. This suggests that even when the airplane was in a steeply banked descent, conditions were present that could have produced a somatogravic illusion of level flight and resulted in spatial disorientation of the pilot. Analysis of the performance study and the airplane's flight track revealed that the pilot executed several non-standard actions during the departure to include: excessive pitch and roll angles, rapid climb, unexpected level-offs, and non-standard ATC communications. In addition to the non-standard actions, the pilot's limited recent flight experience in night IFR conditions, and moderate turbulence would have been conducive to the onset of spatial disorientation. The pilot's failure to set the correct transponder code before departure, his non-standard departure maneuvering, and his apparent confusion regarding his altitude indicate a mental state not at peak acuity, further increasing the chances of spatial disorientation. A post accident examination of the flight control system did not reveal evidence of any preimpact anomalies that would have prevented normal operation. The engine exhibited rotational signatures indicative of engine operation during impact, and an examination did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal engine operation. The damage to the propeller hub and blades indicated that the propeller was operating under high power in the normal range of operation at time of impact. Review of recorded data recovered from airplane's attitude and heading reference unit did not reveal any faults with the airplane's attitude and heading reference system (AHRS) during the accident flight, and there were no maintenance logbook entries indicating any previous electronic attitude director indicator (EADI) or AHRS malfunctions. Therefore, it is unlikely that erroneous attitude information was displayed on the EADI that could have misled the pilot concerning the actual attitude of the airplane. A light bulb filament analysis of the airplane's central advisory display unit (CADU) revealed that the "autopilot disengage" caution indicator was likely illuminated at impact, and the "autopilot trim" warning indicator was likely not illuminated. A filament analysis of the autopilot mode controller revealed that the "autopilot," "yaw damper," and "altitude hold" indicators were likely not illuminated at impact. The status of the "trim" warning indicator on the autopilot mode controller could not be determined because the filaments of the indicator's bulbs were missing. However, since the CADU's "autopilot trim" warning indicator was likely not illuminated, the mode controller's "trim" warning indicator was also likely not illuminated at impact. Exemplar airplane testing revealed that the "autopilot disengage" caution indicator would only illuminate if the autopilot had been engaged and then disconnected. It would not illuminate if the autopilot was off without being previously engaged nor would it illuminate if the pilot attempted and failed to engage the autopilot by pressing the "autopilot" push button on the mode controller. Since the "autopilot disengage" caution indicator would remain illuminated for 30 seconds after the autopilot was disengaged and was likely illuminated at impact, it is likely that the autopilot had been engaged at some point during the flight and disengaged within 30 seconds of the impact; the pilot was reporting to ATC at 6,000 ft about 30 seconds before impact and then the rapid descent began. The airplane was not equipped with a recording device that would have recorded the operational status of the autopilot, and the investigation could not determine the precise times at which autopilot engagement and disengagement occurred. However, these times can be estimated as follows:
- The pilot likely engaged the autopilot after the airplane climbed through 1,000 ft agl about 46 seconds after takeoff, because this was the recommended minimum autopilot engagement altitude that he was taught.
- According to the airplane performance study, the airplane's acceleration exceeded the autopilot's limit load factor of +1.6 g about 9 seconds before impact. If it was engaged at this time, the autopilot would have automatically disengaged.
- The roll angle data from the performance study were consistent with engagement of the autopilot between two points:
1) about 31 seconds before impact, during climb, when the bank angle, which had stabilized for a few seconds, started to increase again and
2) about 9 seconds before impact, during descent, at which time the autopilot would have automatically disengaged. Since the autopilot would have reduced the bank angle as soon as it was engaged and there is no evidence of the bank angle reducing significantly between these two points, it is likely that the autopilot was engaged closer to the latter point than the former. Engagement of the autopilot shortly before the latter point would have left little time for the autopilot to reduce the bank angle before it would have disengaged automatically due to exceedance of the normal load factor limit. Therefore, it is likely that the pilot engaged the autopilot a few seconds before it automatically disconnected about 9 seconds before impact. The operator reported that the airplane had experienced repeated, unexpected, in-flight autopilot disconnects, and, two days before the accident, the chief pilot recorded a video of the autopilot disconnecting during a flight. Exemplar airplane testing and maintenance information revealed that, during the flight in which the video was recorded, the autopilot's pitch trim adapter likely experienced a momentary loss of power for undetermined reasons, which resulted in the sequence of events observed in the video. It is possible that the autopilot disconnected during the accident flight due to the pitch trim adapter experiencing a loss of power, which would have to have occurred between 30 and 9 seconds before impact. A post accident weather analysis revealed that the airplane was operating in an environment requiring instruments to navigate, but it could not be determined if the airplane was in cloud when the loss of control occurred. The sustained surface wind was from the north at 21 knots with gusts up to 28 knots, and moderate turbulence existed. The presence of the moderate turbulence could have contributed to the controllability of the airplane and the pilot's inability to recognize the airplane's attitude and the autopilot's operational status.

The single engine aircraft departed New Delhi at 0842LT on an ambulance flight to Bangkok with two pilots and three doctors on board. A refueling stop was completed at Calcutta Airport. At 1903LT, en route to Bangkok-Don Mueang Airport, the crew contacted ATC and requested permission to divert to Kamphaeng Saen Airport due to an emergency. The permission was granted and the crew initiated the descent when the aircraft disappeared from radar screens at 1916LT. The burned wreckage was found an hour and 30 minutes later, at 2048LT, in a wooded area located few km from runway 22L threshold. All five occupants were injured while the aircraft was destroyed. Few hours later, the copilot died from his injuries.