Positioning

During takeoff to the east over the ocean, after the twin-engine jet climbed straight ahead to about 2,200 ft and 200 knots groundspeed, the copilot requested radar vectors back to the departure airport due to an "engine failure." The controller assigned an altitude and heading, and the copilot replied, "not possible," and requested a 180-degree turn back to the airport, which the controller acknowledged and approved. However, the airplane continued a gradual left turn to the north as it slowed and descended. The copilot subsequently declared a "mayday" and again requested vectors back to the departure airport. During the next 3 minutes, the copilot requested, received, and acknowledged multiple instructions from the controller to turn left to the southwest to return to the airport. However, the airplane continued its slow left turn and descent to the north. The airplane slowed to 140 knots and descended to 900 ft as it flew northbound, parallel to the shoreline, and away from the airport. Eventually, the airplane tracked in the direction of the airport, but it continued to descend and impacted the ocean about 1 mile offshore. According to conversations recorded on the airplane's cockpit voice recorder (CVR), no checklists were called for, offered, or used by either flight crewmember during normal operations (before or during engine start, taxi, and takeoff) or following the announced in-flight emergency. After the "engine failure" was declared to the air traffic controller, the pilot asked the copilot for unspecified "help" because he did not "know what's going on," and he could not identify the emergency or direct the copilot in any way with regard to managing or responding to the emergency. At no time did the copilot identify or verify a specific emergency or malfunction, and he did not provide any guidance or assistance to the pilot. Examination of the recovered wreckage revealed damage to the left engine's thrust reverser components, including separation of the lower blocker door, and the stretched filament of the left engine's thrust reverser "UNLOCK" status light, which indicated that the light bulb was illuminated at the time of the airplane's impact. Such evidence demonstrated that the left engine's thrust reverser became unlocked and deployed (at least partially and possibly fully) in flight. Impact damage precluded testing for electrical, pneumatic, and mechanical continuity of the thrust reverser system, and the reason the left thrust reverser deployed in flight could not be determined. No previous instances of the inflight deployment of a thrust reverser on this make and model airplane have been documented. The airplane's flight manual supplement for the thrust reverser system contained emergency procedures for responding to the inadvertent deployment of a thrust reverser during takeoff. For a deployment occurring above V1 (takeoff safety speed), the procedure included maintaining control of the airplane, placing the thrust reverser rocker switch in the "EMER STOW" position, performing an engine shutdown, and then performing a single-engine landing. Based on the wreckage evidence and data recovered from the left engine's digital electronic engine control (DEEC), the thrust reverser rocker switch was not placed in the "EMER STOW" position, and the left engine was not shut down. The DEEC data showed a reduction in N1 about 100 seconds after takeoff followed by a rise in N1 about 35 seconds later. The data were consistent with the thrust reverser deploying in flight (resulting in the reduction in N1) followed by the inflight separation of the lower blocker door (resulting in the rise in N1 as some direct exhaust flow was restored). Further, the DEEC data revealed full engine power application throughout the flight. Although neither flight crewmember recognized that the problem was an inflight deployment of the left thrust reverser, certification flight test data indicated that the airplane would have been controllable as it was configured on the accident flight. If the crew had applied the "engine failure" emergency procedure (the perceived problem that the copilot reported to the air traffic controller), the airplane would have been more easily controlled and could have been successfully landed. The airplane required two fully-qualified flight crewmembers; however, the copilot was not qualified to act as second-in-command on the airplane, and he provided no meaningful assistance to the pilot in handling the emergency. Further, although the pilot's records indicated considerable experience in similar model airplanes, the pilot's performance during the flight was highly deficient. Based on the CVR transcript, the pilot did not adhere to industry best practices involving the execution of checklists during normal operations, was unprepared to identify and handle the emergency, did not refer to the appropriate procedures checklists to properly configure and control the airplane once a problem was detected, and did not direct the copilot to the appropriate checklists.

The crew departed Coquimbo on a positioning flight to Viña del Mar to pick up passengers who need to fly to a mining area located in Los Perlambres. As the ILS system was inoperative, the crew was forced to complete a non-precision approach to runway 05. The visibility was poor due to foggy conditions. On final approach, while the aircraft was unstable, the crew descended below the MDA until the aircraft collided with power cables and crashed in an open field located about 1,8 km short of runway. The aircraft was destroyed upon impact and both pilots were killed.

The float-equipped Transwest Air Limited Partnership DHC-3 turbine Otter (registration C-FSGD, serial number 316) departed Scott Lake, Northwest Territories, at approximately 1850 Central Standard Time on a 33-nautical mile, day, visual flight rules flight to Ivanhoe Lake, Northwest Territories. The aircraft did not arrive at its destination, and was reported overdue at approximately 2100. The Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Trenton was notified by the company. There was no emergency locator transmitter signal. A search and rescue C-130 Hercules aircraft was dispatched; the aircraft wreckage was located on 23 August 2013, in an unnamed lake, 10 nautical miles north of the last reported position. The pilot, who was the sole occupant of the aircraft, sustained fatal injuries.

Before departure, the pilot performed fuel calculations and determined that he had enough fuel to fly to the intended destination. While enroute the pilot flew around thunderstorms. On arrival at his destination, the pilot executed the instrument landing system approach for runway 16. While on short final the right engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot switched the fuel flow from the right tank to the left tank. The left engine then experienced a total loss of power and the pilot made an emergency landing on a road. The airplane received substantial damage to the wings and fuselage when it struck a tree. A postaccident examination revealed only a few gallons of unusable fuel in the left fuel tank. The right fuel tank was breached during the accident sequence but no fuel smell was noticed. The pilot performed another fuel calculation after the accident and determined that there were actually 170 gallons of fuel onboard, not 230 gallons like he originally figured. He reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation and determined that he exhausted his entire fuel supply.

The crew of the twinjet reported that the positioning flight after maintenance was uneventful. However, during the landing roll at their home base, the thrust reversers, steering, and braking systems did not respond. As the airplane approached the end of the runway, the pilot activated the emergency braking system; however, the airplane overran the end of the runway, coming to rest in a ditch. None of the three occupants were injured, but the airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage. Two squat switches provided redundancy within the airplane’s electrical system and were configured to prevent inadvertent activation of the thrust reversers and nosewheel steering during flight and to prevent the airplane from landing with the brakes already applied. Because postaccident examination revealed that the squat switch assemblies on the left and right landing gear struts were partially detached from their mounting pads such that both switches were deactivated, all of these systems were inoperative as the airplane landed. The switch assemblies were undamaged, and did not show evidence of being detached for a long period of time. The brakes and steering were working during taxi before departure, but this was most likely because either one or both of the switches were making partial contact at that time. Therefore, it was most likely that the squat switch assemblies were manipulated on purpose during maintenance in an effort to set the airplane’s systems to “air mode.” Examination of the maintenance records did not reveal any recent procedures that required setting the airplane to air mode, and all mechanics involved in the maintenance denied disabling the switches. Mechanics did, however, miss two opportunities to identify the anomaly, both during the return-to-service check and the predelivery aircraft and equipment status check. The anomaly was also missed by the airplane operator’s mechanic and flight crew who performed the preflight inspection. The airplane’s emergency braking system was independent of the squat switches and appeared to operate normally during a postaccident test. Prior to testing, it was noted that the emergency brake gauge indicated a full charge; therefore, although evidence suggests that the emergency brake handle was used, it was not activated with enough force by the pilot. The pilot later conceded this fact and further stated that he should have used the emergency braking system earlier during the landing roll. The airplane was equipped with a cockpit voice recorder (CVR), which captured the entire accident sequence. Analysis revealed that the airplane took just over 60 seconds to reach the runway end following touchdown, and, during that time, two attempts were made by the pilot to activate the thrust reversers. The pilot stated that as the airplane approached the runway end, the copilot made a third attempt to activate the thrust reversers, which increased the engine thrust, and thereby caused the airplane to accelerate. Audio captured on the CVR corroborated this statement.

On Monday 4 March 2013, the pilot and two passengers arrived at Annemasse aerodrome (France) at about 7 h 00. They planned to make a private flight of about five minutes to Geneva airport on board the Beechcraft Premier 1A, registered VP-CAZ. The temperature was -2°C and the humidity was 98% with low clouds. The aeroplane had been parked on the parking area of the aerodrome since the previous evening. At 7 h 28, the Geneva ATC service gave the departure clearance for an initial climb towards 6,000 ft with QNH 1018 hPa towards the Chambéry VOR (CBY). At about 7 h 30, when the CVR recording of the accident flight started, the engines had already been started up. At about 7 h 34, the pilot called out the following speeds that would be used during the takeoff roll:
- V1 : 101 kt
- VR : 107 kt
- V2 : 120 kt.
At about 7 h 35, the pilot performed the pre-taxiing check-list. During these checks, he called out “anti-ice ON”, correct operation of the flight controls, and the position of the flaps on 10°.
Taxiing towards runway 12 began at 7 h 36. At 7 h 37 min 43, the pilot called out the end of the takeoff briefing, then activation of the engine anti-icing system. At 7 h 38 min 03, the pilot called out the start of the takeoff roll. Fifteen seconds later, the engines reached takeoff thrust. The aeroplane lifted off at 7 h 38 min 37. Several witnesses stated that it adopted a high pitch-up attitude, with a low rate of climb. At 7 h 38 min 40, the first GPWS “Bank angle - Bank angle” warning was recorded on the CVR. It indicated excessive bank. A second and a half later, the pilot showed his surprise by an interjection. It was followed by the aural stall warning that lasted more than a second and a further GPWS “Bank angle - Bank angle” warning. At about 7 h 38 min 44, the aeroplane was detected by the Dole and Geneva radars at a height of about 80 ft above the ground. Other “Bank Angle” warnings and stall warnings were recorded on the CVR on several occasions. Several witnesses saw the aeroplane bank sharply to the right, then to the left. At 7 h 38 min 49 the aeroplane was detected by the radars at a height of about 150 ft above the ground. At 07 h 38 min 52, the main landing gear struck the roof of a first house. The aeroplane then collided with the ground. During the impact sequence, the three landing gears and the left wing separated from the rest of the aeroplane. The aeroplane slid along the ground for a distance of about 100 m before colliding with a garden shed, a wall and some trees in the garden of a second house. The aeroplane caught fire and came to a stop. The pilot and the passenger seated to his right were killed. The female passenger seated at the rear was seriously injured. According to the NTSB and BEA, the airplane was owned by Chakibel Associates Limited n Tortola and operated by Global Jet Luxembourg.

The aircraft departed South Pole Station, Antarctica, at 0523 Coordinated Universal Time on 23 January 2013 for a visual flight rules repositioning flight to Terra Nova Bay, Antarctica, with a crew of 3 on board. The aircraft failed to make its last radio check-in scheduled at 0827, and the flight was considered overdue. An emergency locator transmitter signal was detected in the vicinity of Mount Elizabeth, Antarctica, and a search and rescue effort was initiated. Extreme weather conditions hampered the search and rescue operation, preventing the search and rescue team from accessing the site for 2 days. Once on site, it was determined that the aircraft had impacted terrain and crew members of C-GKBC had not survived. Adverse weather, high altitude and the condition of the aircraft prevented the recovery of the crew and comprehensive examination of the aircraft. There were no indications of fire on the limited portions of the aircraft that were visible. The accident occurred during daylight hours.

On the morning of 25 November 2012 at 0902Z the pilot, sole occupant on board the aircraft, took off from FAGC to FATZ. He filed an IFR flight plan to cruise at F110 in controlled airspace. The take-off roll and initial climb from RWY 17 was uneventful and passing FL075 FAGC Tower Controller transferred the aircraft to Johannesburg Approach Control (Approach) on 124.5 MHz. On contact with Approach the pilot was cleared to climb to FL110. On the climb approaching FL090 the aircraft lost power on the left engine, oil pressure dropped and the cylinder head temperature increased. He then advised Approach of the problem and requested to level out at FL090 to attempt to identify the problem. He requested radar vectors from Approach to route direct to FAGC and proceeded to shut down the left engine. The pilot continued routing FAGC using the right engine but was unable to maintain height. He noticed the oil pressure and manifold pressure on the right engine dropping. The pilot also reported seeing fire through the cooling vents of the right engine cowling. The pilot requested distance to FAGC from Approach and was told it is 2.5nm (nautical miles) and the aircraft continued loosing height. An update from Approach seconds later indicated that the aircraft was 1nm from FAGC. The pilot decided to do a wheels up forced landing on an open field when he realized that the aircraft was too low. He landed wheels up in a wings level attitude. The aircraft impacted and skidded across an uneven field and came to a stop 5m from Donovan Street. The pilot disembarked the aircraft and attempted to put out the fire which had started inflight on the right engine but without success. Eventually the right wing and the fuselage were engulfed by fire. Minutes later the FAGC fire department using two vehicles extinguished the fire. The pilot escaped with no injuries and the aircraft was destroyed by the ensuing fire.

The aircraft departed Edmonton-City Centre Airport in the early morning on a positioning flight to Edmonton-Intl, carrying two pilots. En route, the crew encountered IMC conditions with moderate icing and the deicing systems were activated. For unknown reasons, the aircraft landed hard on runway 02, causing the right main gear to collapse. The aircraft veered off runway to the right and came to rest in a grassy area. Both pilots escaped with minor injuries and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The crew, consisting of a Captain and a co-pilot, took off at around 6 h 00 for a flight between Athens and Istanbul Sabiha Gokcen (Turkey). A cabin aid was also on board the aeroplane. The crew then made the journey between Istanbul and Nice (06) with three passengers. After dropping them off in Nice, the aeroplane took off at 12 h 56 for a flight to Le Castellet aerodrome in order to park the airplane for several days, the parking area at Nice being full. The Captain, in the left seat, was Pilot Monitoring (PM). The copilot, in the right seat, was Pilot Flying (PF). Flights were operated according to US regulation 14 CFR Part 135 (special rules applicable for the operation of flights on demand). The flight leg was short and the cruise, carried out at FL160, lasted about 5 minutes. At the destination, the crew was cleared to perform a visual approach to runway 13. The autopilot and the auto-throttle were disengaged, the gear was down and the flaps in the landing position. The GND SPOILER UNARM message, indicating nonarming of the ground spoilers, was displayed on the EICAS and the associated single chime aural warning was triggered. This message remained displayed on the EICAS until the end of the flight since the crew forgot to arm the ground spoilers during the approach. At a height of 25 ft, while the aircraft was flying over the runway threshold slightly below the theoretical descent path, a SINK RATE warning was triggered. The PF corrected the flight path and the touchdown of the main landing gear took place 15 metres after the touchdown zone - that’s to say 365 metres from the threshold - and slightly left of the centre line of runway 13(3). The ground spoilers, not armed, did not automatically deploy. The crew braked and actuated the deployment of the thrust reversers, which did not deploy completely(4). The hydraulic pressure available at brake level slightly increased. The deceleration of the aeroplane was slow. Four seconds after touchdown, a MASTER WARNING was triggered. A second MASTER WARNING(5) was generated five seconds later. The nose landing gear touched down for the first time 785 metres beyond the threshold before the aeroplane’s pitch attitude increased again, causing a loss of contact of the nose gear with the ground. The aircraft crossed the runway centre line to the right, the crew correcting this by a slight input on the rudder pedals to the left. They applied a strong nose-down input and the nose gear touched down on the runway a second time, 1,050 metres beyond the threshold. The speed brakes were then manually actuated by the crew with an input on the speed brake control, which then deployed the panels. Maximum thrust from the thrust reversers was reached one second later(6). The aircraft at this time was 655 metres from the runway end and its path began to curve to the left. In response to this deviation, the crew made a sharp input on the right rudder pedal, to the stop, and an input on the right brake, but failed to correct the trajectory. The aeroplane, skidding to the right(7), ran off the runway to the left 385 metres from the runway end at a ground speed of approximately 95 knots. It struck a runway edge light, the PAPI of runway 31, a metal fence then trees and caught fire instantly. An aerodrome firefighter responded quickly onsite but did not succeed in bringing the fire under control. The occupants were unable to evacuate the aircraft.