Crash of a Cessna 650 Citation VII in Istanbul

Date & Time: Sep 21, 2017 at 2116 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
TC-KON
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Istanbul - Ercan
MSN:
650-7084
YOM:
1998
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
3
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
1
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
The aircraft departed Atatürk Airport in Istanbul at 2105LT bound for Ercan with a crew of three and one passenger on board. Shortly after takeoff, an unexpected situation forced the crew to return for an emergency landing. After touchdown on runway 35L, the twin engine aircraft went out of control, veered off runway, struck a concrete ditch and came to rest in flames. All four occupants were evacuated safely while the aircraft was destroyed by a post crash fire.

Crash of a Beechcraft C90GT King Air off Paraty: 5 killed

Date & Time: Jan 19, 2017 at 1330 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
PR-SOM
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Campo de Marte - Paraty
MSN:
LJ-1809
YOM:
2008
Country:
Crew on board:
1
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
4
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
5
Circumstances:
The twin engine aircraft left Campo de Marte Airbase at 1301LT bound for Paraty. With a distance of about 200 km, the flight should take half an hour. The approach to Paraty Airport was completed in poor weather conditions with rain falls when the airplane went out of control and crashed into the sea near Ilha Rasa (Island of Rasa), about 4 km short of runway 28. Quickly on site, rescuers found a passenger alive but it was impossible to evacuate the people from the cabin that was submerged. Eventually, it was confirmed that all five occupants were killed in the accident, among them Carlos Alberto, founder of Hotel Emiliano in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo and the Supreme Court Justice Teori Zavascki who had a central role overseeing a massive corruption investigation about the Brazilian oil Group Petrobras.

Crash of an Embraer EMB-505 Phenom 300 in Houston

Date & Time: Jul 26, 2016 at 1509 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
N362FX
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Scottsdale - Houston
MSN:
500-00239
YOM:
2014
Flight number:
LXJ362
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
1
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
The aircraft was substantially damaged during a runway excursion on landing at the Sugar Land Regional Airport (SGR), Sugar Land, Texas. The two pilots sustained minor injuries; the sole passenger was not injured. The airplane was registered to FlexJet LLC and operated by Flight Options LLC under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 as a corporate/executive flight. Visual meteorological conditions were reported at the airport; however, instrument meteorological conditions prevailed in the local area. The flight was operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan. The flight originated from the Scottsdale Airport (SDL), Scottsdale, Arizona, at 1029 mountain standard time. The pilot-in-command reported that he flew an instrument landing system (ILS) approach to runway 35 (8,000 feet by 100 feet, concrete) and then transitioned to a visual approach. The approach and landing were normal; however, after touchdown the brakes seemed ineffective. He subsequently activated the emergency brake at which time the airplane started to slide. The airplane ultimately departed the end of the runway and encountered a small creek before coming to rest.

Crash of a Mitsubishi MU-2B-60 Marquise in Le Havre-aux-Maisons: 7 killed

Date & Time: Mar 29, 2016 at 1230 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
N246W
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Montreal - Le Havre-aux-Maisons
MSN:
1552
YOM:
1982
Country:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
5
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
7
Captain / Total flying hours:
2500
Captain / Total hours on type:
125.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
834
Aircraft flight hours:
11758
Circumstances:
The twin engine aircraft left Montreal-Saint-Hubert Airport at 0930LT for a two hours flight to Le Havre-aux-Maisons, on Magdalen Islands. Upon arrival, weather conditions were marginal with low ceiling, visibility up to two miles, rain and wind gusting to 30 knots. During the final approach to Runway 07, when the aircraft was 1.4 nautical miles west-southwest of the airport, it deviated south of the approach path. At approximately 1230 Atlantic Daylight Time, aircraft control was lost,resulting in the aircraft striking the ground in a near-level attitude. The aircraft was destroyed and all seven occupants were killed, among them Jean Lapierre, political commentator and former Liberal federal cabinet minister of Transport. All passengers were flying to Magdalen Islands to the funeral of Lapierre's father, who died last Friday. The captain, Pascal Gosselin, was the founder and owner of Aérotechnik.
Crew:
Pascal Gosselin, pilot,
Fabrice Labourel, copilot.
Passengers:
Jean Lapierre,
Nicole Beaulieu, Jean Lapierre's wife,
Martine Lapierre, Jean Lapierre's sister,
Marc Lapierre, Jean Lapierre's brother,
Louis Lapierre, Jean Lapierre's brother.
Probable cause:
- The pilot’s inability to effectively manage the aircraft’s energy condition led to an unstable approach.
- The pilot “got behind” the aircraft by allowing events to control his actions, and cognitive biases led him to continue the unstable approach.
- A loss of control occurred when the pilot rapidly added full power at low airspeed while at low altitude, which caused a power-induced upset and resulted in the aircraft rolling sharply to the right and descending rapidly.
- It is likely that the pilot was not prepared for the resulting power-induced upset and, although he managed to level the wings, the aircraft was too low to recover before striking the ground.
- The pilot’s high workload and reduced time available resulted in a task-saturated condition, which decreased his situational awareness and impaired his decision making.
- It is unlikely that the pilot’s flight skills and procedures were sufficiently practised to ensure his proficiency as the pilot-in-command for single-pilot operation on the MU2B for the conditions experienced during the occurrence flight.
Final Report:

Crash of a Beechcraft King Air C90GTi in Paraty: 2 killed

Date & Time: Jan 3, 2016 at 1430 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
PP-LMM
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Site:
Schedule:
Campo de Marte - Paraty
MSN:
LJ-1866
YOM:
2008
Country:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
2
Circumstances:
The twin engine aircraft left Campo de Marte AFB, in Sao Paulo, at 1334LT bound for Paraty Airfield, with an ETA at 1415LT. On approach, the aircraft hit tree tops and crashed in a dense wooded area located in a hilly terrain few km from the airfield. The aircraft was destroyed and both occupants were killed.

Crash of a Hawker 400A in Telluride

Date & Time: Dec 23, 2015 at 1400 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
XA-MEX
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
El Paso - Telluride
MSN:
RK-396
YOM:
2004
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
5
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
The crew landed at Telluride without any prior radio contact with the ground. At that time, the airport was closed to traffic because the runway was snow covered. After touchdown, while rolling at a speed of about 100 mph, the aircraft hit a snowplow. The right wing was sheared off, the aircraft continued for several yards, overran the runway end and came to rest in a snow covered field. All seven occupants, among five tourists enroute for skiing, were unhurt. The aircraft was written off. It is understood that the snowplow's driver was unhurt as well and did not see the aircraft landing.

Crash of a BAe 125-700A in Akron: 9 killed

Date & Time: Nov 10, 2015 at 1453 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
N237WR
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Site:
Schedule:
Dayton – Akron
MSN:
257072
YOM:
1979
Flight number:
EFT1526
Location:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
7
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
9
Captain / Total flying hours:
6170
Captain / Total hours on type:
1020.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
4382
Copilot / Total hours on type:
482
Aircraft flight hours:
14948
Aircraft flight cycles:
11075
Circumstances:
The aircraft departed controlled flight while on a non precision localizer approach to runway 25 at Akron Fulton International Airport (AKR) and impacted a four-unit apartment building in Akron, Ohio. The captain, first officer, and seven passengers died; no one on the ground was injured. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and post crash fire. The airplane was registered to Rais Group International NC LLC and operated by Execuflight under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 as an on-demand charter flight. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed. The flight departed from Dayton-Wright Brothers Airport, Dayton, Ohio, about 1413 and was destined for AKR. Contrary to Execuflight’s informal practice of the captain acting as pilot flying on flights carrying revenue passengers, the first officer was the pilot flying, and the captain was the pilot monitoring. While en route, the flight crew began preparing for the approach into AKR. Although company standard operating procedures (SOPs) specified that the pilot flying was to brief the approach, the captain agreed to the first officer’s request that the captain brief the approach. The ensuing approach briefing was unstructured, inconsistent, and incomplete, and the approach checklist was not completed. As a result, the captain and first officer did not have a shared understanding of how the approach was to be conducted. As the airplane neared AKR, the approach controller instructed the flight to reduce speed because it was following a slower airplane on the approach. To reduce speed, the first officer began configuring the airplane for landing, lowering the landing gear and likely extending the flaps to 25° (the airplane was not equipped with a flight data recorder, nor was it required to be). When the flight was about 4 nautical miles from the final approach fix (FAF), the approach controller cleared the flight for the localizer 25 approach and instructed the flight to maintain 3,000 ft mean sea level (msl) until established on the localizer. The airplane was already established on the localizer when the approach clearance was issued and could have descended to the FAF minimum crossing altitude of 2,300 ft msl. However, the first officer did not initiate a descent, the captain failed to notice, and the airplane remained level at 3,000 ft msl. As the first officer continued to slow the airplane from about 150 to 125 knots, the captain made several comments about the decaying speed, which was well below the proper approach speed with 25° flaps of 144 knots. The first officer’s speed reduction placed the airplane in danger of an aerodynamic stall if the speed continued to decay, but the first officer apparently did not realize it. The first officer’s lack of awareness and his difficulty flying the airplane to standards should have prompted the captain to take control of the airplane or call for a missed approach, but he did not do so. Before the airplane reached the FAF, the first officer requested 45° flaps and reduced power, and the airplane began to descend. The first officer’s use of flaps 45° was contrary to Execuflight’s Hawker 700A non precision approach profile, which required the airplane to be flown at flaps 25° until after descending to the minimum descent altitude (MDA) and landing was assured; however, the captain did not question the first officer’s decision to conduct the approach with flaps 45°. The airplane crossed the FAF at an altitude of about 2,700 ft msl, which was 400 ft higher than the published minimum crossing altitude of 2,300 ft msl. Because the airplane was high on the approach, it was out of position to use a normal descent rate of 1,000 feet per minute (fpm) to the MDA. The airplane’s rate of descent quickly increased to 2,000 fpm, likely due to the first officer attempting to salvage the approach by increasing the rate of descent, exacerbated by the increased drag resulting from the improper flaps 45° configuration. The captain instructed the first officer not to descend so rapidly but did not attempt to take control of the airplane even though he was responsible for safety of the flight. As the airplane continued to descend on the approach, the captain did not make the required callouts regarding approaching and reaching the MDA, and the first officer did not arrest the descent at the MDA. When the airplane reached the MDA, which was about 500 ft above the touchdown zone elevation, the point at which Execuflight’s procedures dictated that the approach must be stabilized, the airspeed was 11 knots below the minimum required airspeed of 124 knots, and the airplane was improperly configured with 45° flaps. The captain should have determined that the approach was unstabilized and initiated a missed approach, but he did not do so. About 14 seconds after the airplane descended below the MDA, the captain instructed the first officer to level off. As a result of the increased drag due to the improper flaps 45° configuration and the low airspeed, the airplane entered a stalled condition when the first officer attempted to arrest the descent. About 7 seconds after the captain’s instruction to level off, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recorded the first sounds of impact.
Probable cause:
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the flight crew’s mismanagement of the approach and multiple deviations from company standard operating procedures, which placed the airplane in an unsafe situation and led to an unstabilized approach, a descent below minimum descent altitude without visual contact with the runway environment, and an aerodynamic stall. Contributing to the accident were Execuflight’s casual attitude toward compliance with standards; its inadequate hiring, training, and operational oversight of the flight crew; the company’s lack of a formal safety program; and the Federal Aviation Administration’s insufficient oversight of the company’s training program and flight operations.
Final Report:

Crash of a Canadair CL-601-3A Challenger in Marco Island

Date & Time: Mar 1, 2015 at 1615 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
N600NP
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Marathon – Marco Island
MSN:
3002
YOM:
1983
Crew on board:
3
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
6
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
8988
Captain / Total hours on type:
844.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
18500
Copilot / Total hours on type:
1500
Aircraft flight hours:
15771
Circumstances:
Earlier on the day of the accident, the pilot-in-command (PIC) and second-in-command (SIC) had landed the airplane on a 5,008-ft-long, asphalt-grooved runway. After touchdown with the flaps fully extended, the ground spoilers and thrust reversers were deployed, and normal braking occurred. The PIC, who was the flying pilot, and the SIC subsequently departed on an executive/corporate flight with a flight attendant, the airplane owner, and five passengers onboard. The PIC reported that he flew a visual approach to the dry, 5,000-ft-long runway while maintaining a normal glidepath at Vref plus 4 or 5 knots at the runway threshold with the flaps fully extended. He added that the touchdown was "firm" and between about 300 to 500 ft beyond the aiming point marking. After touchdown, the PIC tried unsuccessfully to deploy the ground spoilers. He applied "moderate" brake pressure when the nose landing gear (NLG) contacted the runway, but felt no deceleration. He also attempted to deploy the thrust reversers without success. The PIC then informed the SIC that there was no braking energy, released the brakes, and turned off the antiskid system. He then reapplied heavy braking but did not feel any deceleration, and he again tried to deploy the thrust reversers without success. He maintained directional control using the nosewheel steering and manually modulated the brakes. However, the airplane did not slow as expected. While approaching the runway end and realizing that he was not going to be able to stop the airplane on the runway, the PIC intentionally veered the airplane right to avoid water ahead. However, the airplane exited the runway end into sand, and the NLG collapsed. The airplane then came to rest about 250 ft past the departure end of the runway. The passengers exited the airplane, and shortly after, airport personnel arrived and rendered assistance. The airplane owner, who was a passenger in the cabin, stated that he left his seat and moved toward the cabin door when he realized that the airplane would not stop on the runway, and he sustained serious injuries. Examination of the airplane revealed that there was minimal pressure at the No. 2 (left inboard) brake due to failure of a spring in the upper brake control valve (BCV), and the coupling subassembly of the No. 1 wheel speed sensor (WSS) was fractured. A representative from the airplane manufacturer reported that, during certification of the brake system, the failure of the BCV spring was considered acceptably low and would be evident to flight crewmembers within five landings of the failure. Because the airplane did not pull while braking during the previous landing earlier that day to a similar length runway, the spring likely failed during the accident landing. Although the PIC was unable to manually deploy the ground spoilers and thrust reversers during the landing roll, they functioned normally during the landing earlier that day and during postaccident operational testing and examination, with no systems failures or malfunctions noted. Additionally, there were no malfunctions or failures with the weight-onwheels system found during postaccident examinations that would have precluded normal operation. Therefore, the PIC's unsuccessful attempts to deploy the ground spoilers and thrust reversers were likely due to errors made while multitasking when presented with an unexpected situation (inadequate deceleration) with little runway remaining. Airplane stopping distance calculations based on the airplane's reported weight, weather conditions, calculated and PIC-reported Vref speed, flap extension, and estimated touchdown point (300 to 500 ft beyond the aiming point marking as reported by the PIC and SIC and corroborated by security camera footage) and assuming the nonuse of the ground spoilers and thrust reversers, operational antiskid and steering systems, and the loss of one brake per side (symmetric half braking) showed that the airplane would have required 690 ft of additional runway; under the same conditions but with thrust reversers used, the airplane still would have required 27 ft of additional runway. Even though there were no antiskid failure annunciations, the PIC switched off the antiskid system, which led to the rupture of the Nos. 1, 3, and 4 tires and likely fractured the No. 1 WSS's coupling subassembly, both of which would have further contributed to the loss of braking action. Therefore, the combination of the failure of a spring in the No. 2 brake's upper BCV and the fracture of the coupling subassembly of the No. 1 WSS, the pilot's failure to attain the proper touchdown point, the slightly excess speed, and the subsequent failure of three of the tires resulted in there being insufficient runway remaining to avoid a runway overrun. Although the BCV manufacturer reported that there was 1 previous case involving a failed BCV spring and 43 instances of units with relaxed springs within the BCVs, none of these failed or relaxed springs would have been detected by maintenance personnel because a focused inspection of the BCV was not required.
Probable cause:
The failure of a spring inside the No. 2 brake's upper brake control valve and the fracture of the coupling subassembly of the No. 1 wheel speed sensor during landing, which resulted in the loss of braking action, and the pilot-in-command's (PIC) deactivation of the antiskid system even though there were no antiskid failure annunciations, which resulted in the rupture of the Nos. 1, 3, and 4 tires, further loss of braking action, and subsequent landing overrun. Contributing to accident were the PIC's improper landing flare, which resulted in landing several hundred feet beyond the aiming point marking, and his unsuccessful attempts to deploy the thrust reversers for reasons that could not be determined because postaccident operational testing did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Contributing to the passenger's injury was his leaving his seat intentionally while the airplane was in motion.
Final Report:

Crash of a Dassault Falcon 50EX in Moscow-Vnukovo: 4 killed

Date & Time: Oct 20, 2014 at 2357 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
F-GLSA
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Moscow - Paris
MSN:
348
YOM:
2006
Flight number:
LEA074P
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
3
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
1
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
4
Captain / Total flying hours:
6624
Captain / Total hours on type:
1266.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
1478
Copilot / Total hours on type:
246
Aircraft flight hours:
2197
Aircraft flight cycles:
1186
Circumstances:
During the takeoff run on runway 06 at Moscow-Vnukovo Airport, the three engine aircraft hit a snowplow with its left wing. The aircraft went out of control, rolled over and came to rest upside down in flames. All four occupants were killed, three crew members and Mr. Christophe de Margerie, CEO of the French Oil Group Total, who was returning to France following a meeting with the Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. At the time of the accident, the RVR on runway 06 was estimated at 350 meters due to foggy conditions. The pilot of the snow-clearing vehicle was slightly injured.
Probable cause:
The accident occurred at nighttime under foggy conditions while it was taking off after cleared by the controller due to collision with the snowplow that executed runway incursion and stopped on the runway. Most probably, the accident was caused by the combination of the following contributing factors:
- lack of guidance on loss of control over an airdrome vehicle and/or situational awareness on the airfield in pertinent documents defining the duties of airdrome service personnel (airdrome shift supervisor and vehicle drivers);
- insufficient efficiency of risk mitigation measures to prevent runway incursions in terms of airdrome peculiarilies that is two intersecling runways;
- lack of proper supervision from the airdrome service shift supervisor, alcohol detected in his organism, over the airfield operations: no report to the ATM or request to the snowplow driver as he lost visual contact with the snowplow;
- violation by the airdrome service shift supervisor of the procedure for airdrome vehicles operations, their entering the runway (RWY 2) out of operation (closed for takeoff and landing operations) without requesting and receiving clearance from the ground controller;
- violations by the medical personnel of Vnukovo AP of vehicle driver medical check requirements by performing formally (only exterior assessment) the mandatory medical check of drivers after the duty, which significantly increased the risk of drivers consuning alcohol during the duty. The measures and controls applied at Vnukovo Airport to mitigate the risk of airdrome drivers doing their duties under the influence of alcohol were not effective enough;
- no possibility for the snowplow drivers engaged in airfield operations (due to lack of pertinent equipment on the airdrome vehicles) to continuously listen to the radio exchange at the Departure Control frequency, which does not comply with the Interaction Procedure of the Airdrome Service with Vnukovo ATC Center.
- loss of situational awareness by the snowplow driver, alcohol detected in his organism, while perfonning airfield operations that led to runway incursion and stop on the runway in use.
His failure to contact the airdrome service shift supervisor or ATC controllers after situational awareness was lost;
- ineffective procedures that resulted in insufficiently trained personnel using the airfield surveillance and control subsystem A3000 of A-SMGCS at the Vnukovo ATC Center, for air traffic management;
- no recommendation in the SOP of ATM personnel of Vnukovo ATC Center on how to set up the airfield surveillance and control subsystem A3000, including activation and deactivation of the Reserved Lines and alerts (as a result, all alerts were de-activated at the departure controller and ground controller's working positions) as well as how to operate the system including attention allocation techniques during aircraft takeoff and actions to deal with the subsystem messages and alerts;
- the porting of the screen second input of the A3000 A-SMGCS at the ATC shift supervisor WP for the display of the weather information that is not envisaged by the operational manual of the airfield surveillance and control subsystem. When weather information is selected to be displayed the radar data and the light alerts (which were present during the accident takeoff) become un available for the specialist that occupies the ATC shift supervisor's working position;
- the ATC shift supervisor's decision to join the sectors at working positions of Ground and Departure Control without considering the actual level of personnel training and possibilities for them to use the information of the airfield surveillance and control system (the criteria for joining of sectors are not defined in the Job Description of ATC shift supervisor, in particular it does not take into account the technical impossibility to change settings of the airfield surveillance and control system);
- failure by the ground controller to comply with the SOPs, by not taking actions to prevent the incursion of RWY 2 that was closed for takeoff and landing operations by the vehicles though having radar information and alert on the screen of the airfield surveillance and control system;
- failure by the out of staff instructor controller and trainee controller (providing ATM under the supervision of the instructor controller) to detect two runway incursions by the snowplow on the runway in use, including after the aircrew had been cleared to take off (as the clearance was given, the runway was clear), provided there was pertinent radar information on the screen of the airfield surveillance and control subsystem and as a result failure to inform the crew about the obstacle on the runway;
- lack of recommendations at the time of the accident in the Operator's (Unijet) FOM for flight crews on actions when external threats appear (e.g. foreign objects on the runway) during the takeoff;
- the crew failing to take measures to reject takeoff as soon as the Captain mentioned «the car crossing the road». No decision to abort takeoff might have been caused by probable nonoptimal psycho-emotional status of the crew (the long wait for the departure at an unfamiliar airport and their desire to fly home as soon as possible), which might have made it difficult for them to assess the actual threat level as they noticed the snowplow after they had started the takeoff run;
- the design peculiarity of the Falcon 50EX aircraft (the nose wheel steering can only be controlled from the LH seat) resulting in necessity to transfer aircraft control at a high workload phase of the takeoff roll when the FO (seated right) performs the takeoff.
Final Report:

Crash of a Beechcraft C90A King Air in Houston

Date & Time: Jun 25, 2014 at 0750 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
N800MK
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Memphis - Houston
MSN:
LJ-1460
YOM:
1996
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
3
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
2105
Captain / Total hours on type:
223.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
12000
Copilot / Total hours on type:
700
Aircraft flight hours:
2708
Circumstances:
On June 25, 2014, about 0750 central daylight time, a Raytheon Aircraft Company C90A, N800MK, was substantially damaged following a runway excursion during an attempted go-around at Houston, Mississippi (M44). The commercial-rated pilot, co-pilot, and two passengers were not injured, while one passenger received minor injuries. The airplane was
operated by BECS, LLC under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91, and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed. Day, visual meteorological conditions prevailed for corporate flight that originated at Memphis, Tennessee (MEM). According to the pilot, who was seated in the left, cockpit seat, he was at the controls and was performing a visual approach to runway 21. Just prior to touchdown, while at 90 knots and with approach flaps extended, the right wing "rose severely and tried to put the airplane into a severe left bank." He recalled that the co-pilot called "wind shear" and "go around." As he applied power, the airplane rolled left again, so he retarded the throttles and allowed the airplane to settle into the grass on the left side of runway 21. The airplane struck a ditch, spun around, and came to rest in the grass, upright. A post-crash fire ensued in the left engine area. The pilot and passengers exited the airplane using the main entry door. The pilot reported no mechanical anomalies with the airplane prior to the accident. The co-pilot reported the following. As they turned onto final, he noticed that the wind "picked up" a little by the wind sock. The final approach was stable, and as the pilot began to flare, he noticed the vertical speed indicator "pegged out." The airplane encountered an unexpected wind shear just above the runway. He called out for a go around. The pilot was doing everything he could to maintain control of the airplane. It was a "jarring" effect when they hit the shear. It felt like the wind was trying to lift the tail and cartwheel them over. He felt that the pilot did a good job of keeping the airplane from flipping over. In his 30,000-plus hours flying airplanes, he has never experienced anything quite like what they experienced with this shear. He has instructed on the King Air and does not feel that the pilot could have done anything different to avoid the accident.
Probable cause:
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be: The pilot’s failure to maintain a stabilized approach and his subsequent failure to maintain airplane control during the landing flare, which resulted in touchdown off the side of the runway and collision with a ditch.
Final Report: