New York

The airplane departed Dunkirk-Chautauqua County Airport, State of New York, on a ferry flight to Fort-Lauderdale-Executive Airport, carrying a crew of two. After he reached the altitude of 10,000 feet, the crew reported technical problems with the onboard electric system and elected to divert to Jamestown-Chautauqua County Airport. On final approach to runway 25, at an airspeed of 157 knots and with a rate of descent of 1,000 feet per minute, the airplane impacted the ground at runway threshold and went out of control. It caught fire, veered off runway to the left and came to rest in a grassy area, bursting into flames. Both crew members were rescued with various injuries. The airplane was totally destroyed by fire.

The single engine airplane was returning to its base at Youngstown-Windsor Airfield following a local skydiving mission. On approach to the grassy runway, the airplane went out of control, impacted a road and crashed below in a pasture. The airplane was totally destroyed and the pilot, sole on board, was killed.

At 1344LT, the single engine airplane departed Oneonta-Albert S. Nader Airport runway 06/24 on a private flight to Charleston-Yaeger Airport, West Virginie. About 12 minutes after takeoff, while climbing to FL090, the airplane entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed in the area of Masonville, about 40 km southwest of Oneonta Airport. The airplane was destroyed and all five occupants were killed.

The pilot departed runway 19 at Albany International Airport on a ferry flight to Montreal. After takeoff, while climbing, the pilot informed ATC about engine trouble and was able to climb to an altitude of about 800 feet when the airplane entered a left descending turn. It later gained a little altitude then entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed in a residential area, bursting into flames. The airplane was destroyed and the pilot, sole on board, was killed. The airplane was en route to Montreal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport.

The pilot reported that he was under the impression that his airplane’s inboard fuel tanks had been topped and he had 202 gallons on board prior to departure. He had a “standing order” with the airport’s fixed base operator to top the tanks; however, the fueling was not accomplished and he did not visually check the fuel level prior to departure. He entered 202 gallons in cockpit fuel computer and unknowingly commenced the flight with 61 gallons on board. Prior to reaching his destination, his fuel supply was exhausted, both engines lost all power, and he performed a forced landing in a cemetery about one mile from the airport. The pilot and his passenger had minor injuries. Inspectors with the Federal Aviation Administration examined the wreckage and determined that damage to the wings and fuselage was substantial. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.

The pilot reported that, during the initial climbout, about 1,000 ft above ground level, one of the engines stopped producing power. He confirmed that all engine controls were full forward and the main fuel tanks were selected. Immediately thereafter, the remaining engine began to surge, then stopped producing power. He established best glide speed and looked for an area to perform a forced landing. The airplane crashed into a solid waste disposal facility, about 2.3 nautical miles northwest of the departure airport. First responders arrived immediately after the accident and found only a trace amount of fuel within the confines of the accident site or in the fuel tanks. The only postaccident fire was centered on a small, localized area near the right engine turbocharger. Both main fuel tanks were empty, and the auxiliary bladder tanks were ruptured by impact forces. Examination of both engines revealed no evidence of a pre accident malfunction or anomaly. A surveillance video showed no evidence of smoke or mist training the airplane seconds prior to impact. The pilot reported that he departed the airport with 112 gallons of fuel on board. The pilot did not provide evidence of the latest refueling when requested by investigators. The available evidence is consistent with a total loss of engine power to both engines due to fuel exhaustion.

The flight crew were conducting an instrument landing system (ILS) approach in night instrument meteorological conditions when they were advised by the tower controller that the weather had deteriorated below minimums. The captain was the pilot monitoring, and the first officer was the pilot flying during the approach. Since the airplane was inside the final approach fix and stabilized, both pilots agreed to continue with the approach. Both pilots stated that they had visual contact with the runway approach lighting system at the 200 ft above ground level (agl) decision altitude, and they decided to continue the approach. The first officer said he then returned to flying the airplane via instruments. As the first officer continued the approach, the captain told him the airplane was drifting right of the runway centerline. The first officer said that he looked outside, saw that the weather had deteriorated, and was no longer comfortable with the approach. The first officer said he pressed the takeoff and go-around switch, while at the same time, the captain called for a go-around. The captain said that he called for the go-around because the airplane was not aligned with the runway. Although both pilots stated that the go-around was initiated when the airplane was about 50 to 100 ft agl, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recording revealed that the first officer flew an autopilot-coupled approach to 50 ft agl (per the approach procedure, a coupled approach was not authorized below 240 ft agl). As the airplane descended from 30 to 20 ft agl, the captain told the first officer three times to “flare” then informed him that the airplane was drifting to right and he needed to make a left correction to get realigned with the runway centerline. Three seconds passed before the first officer reacted by trying to initiate transfer control of the airplane to the captain. The captain did not take control of the airplane and called for a go-around. The first officer then added full power and called for the flaps to be retracted to 15º; however, the airplane impacted the ground about 5 seconds later, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage. Data downloaded from both engines’ digital electronic engine control units revealed no anomalies. No mechanical issues with the airplane or engines were reported by either crew member or the operator. The sequence of events identified in the CVR recording revealed that the approach most likely became unstabilized after the autopilot was disconnected and when the first officer lost visual contact with the runway environment. The captain, who had the runway in sight, delayed calling for a go-around after the approach became unstabilized, and the airplane was too low to recover.

The airplane was in cruise flight at FL280 when the instrument-rated pilot failed to contact air traffic control (ATC) following a frequency change assignment. After about 25 minutes, and when 30 miles east of the destination airport, the pilot contacted ATC on a frequency other than the one that was assigned. He requested the instrument landing system (ILS) approach at his intended destination, and the controller instructed the pilot to descend to 8,000 ft and to expect vectors for the ILS approach at the destination airport. The controller asked the pilot if everything was “okay,” to which the pilot replied, “yes sir, everything is fine.” The controller then observed the airplane initiate a descent. About 2 minutes later, the controller asked the pilot where he was headed, and the pilot provided a garbled response. The controller instructed the pilot to stop his descent at 10,000 ft, followed by an instruction to stop the descent at any altitude. The pilot did not respond, and additional attempts to contact the pilot were unsuccessful. The airplane impacted terrain in a heavily wooded area 17 miles from the destination airport. Rhe aircraft disintegrated on impact and both occupants were fatally injured.

After flying one flight leg earlier in the day, the pilot flew to an intermediate stop on the way to his home base to purchase fuel. A surveillance video recording from the fueling airport showed the airplane land and taxi to the self-serve fuel pump where the engines were shut down for about 10 minutes while the airplane was fueled. The pilot then had difficulty starting both engines over several minutes. After the engines were running, the airplane taxied to the runway and did not appear to stop for an engine run-up. The pilot performed a rolling takeoff, and the airplane lifted off after a roll of about 2,100 ft, slightly more than half the available runway length. A passenger reported that after liftoff, at an altitude of about 50 to 100 ft above ground level (agl), both engines lost partial power and began “stuttering,” which continued for the remainder of the flight. He further reported that the engines did not stop, but they were “not producing full RPM.” The airplane drifted left of centerline, which a witness described as a left yawing motion. The pilot corrected the drift and flew the runway heading over the grass on the left side of the runway; however, the airplane would not climb. After crossing the end of the runway, the pilot pitched the airplane up to avoid obstacles. Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast data indicated that the airplane climbed from about 20 to 120 ft agl in a gradual left turn. During this time the groundspeed decreased from about 80 knots to about 69 knots. The altitude then decreased to about 50 ft agl, the groundspeed decreased to about 66 knots, and the left turn decreased in radius until the recorded data ended about 100 ft west of the accident site. The airplane descended and
impacted a house. Witness descriptions of the airplane yawing to the left while over the runway and again during its final left turn suggest that the loss of engine power may not have been symmetric (that is, one engine may have suffered more of a loss than the other).

The pilot was in cruise flight at an altitude of 19,000 feet mean sea level (msl) for about 1 hour and 10 minutes on an easterly heading when he requested a diversion from his filed destination to an airport along his route of flight to utilize a restroom. Two miles west of his amended destination at 12,000 ft msl, the pilot advised the controller that he had a “fuel emergency light" and wanted to expedite the approach. The controller acknowledged the low fuel warning and cleared the airplane to descend from its assigned altitude. Instead of conducting the descent over the airport, the airplane continued its easterly heading past the airport for nearly 8 miles before reversing course. After reversing course, instead of assuming a direct heading back to the airport, the pilot assumed a parallel reciprocal track and didn’t turn for the airport until the airplane intercepted the extended centerline of the landing runway. The pilot informed the controller that he was unable to make it to the airport and performed a forced landing less than 1 mile from the landing runway. Both fuel tanks were breached during the accident sequence, and detailed postaccident inspections of the airplane’s fuel system revealed no leaks in either the supply or return sides of the system. A computer tomography scan and flow-testing of the engine-driven fuel pump revealed no leaks or evidence of fuel leakage. The engine ran successfully in a test cell. Data recovered from an engine and fuel monitoring system revealed that, during the two flights before the accident flight, the reduction in fuel quantity was consistent with the fuel consumption rates depicted at the respective power settings (climb, cruise, etc). During the accident flight, the reduction in fuel quantity was consistent with the indicated fuel flow throughout the climb; however, the fuel quantity continued to reduce at a rate consistent with a climb power setting even after engine power was reduced, and the fuel flow indicated a rate consistent with a cruise engine power setting. The data also showed that the indicated fuel quantity in the left and right tanks reached 0 gallons within about 10 minutes of each other, and shortly before the accident. Given this information, it is likely that the engine lost power due to an exhaustion of the available fuel supply; however, based on available data and findings of the fuel system and component examinations, the disparate rates of indicated fuel flow and fuel quantity reduction could not be explained.