Dassault Falcon 10

The pilot reported getting an unsafe indication on the right main landing gear when the landing gear was lowered. The crew recycled the landing gear and got the same unsafe indication. The crew retracted the gear and diverted to Detroit. On arrival, the crew performed the 'landing gear abnormal extension checklist,' but the unsafe indication remained. The air traffic control tower reported that the gear appeared normal. During the landing, the right main landing gear retracted. The airplane slid sideways, striking a runway marker as it departed the runway, and came to rest in a field. Examination revealed that the right landing gear downlock mechanism could be overcome with physical force. Examination of the right landing gear actuator revealed that one of the six shims which separate the spacers and help guide the safety lock switch was out of position and lying on top of the lock assembly.

While on approach to Paris-Le Bourget Airport in poor weather conditions, the crew realized he was not properly aligned and decided to initiate a go-around procedure. Few minutes later, a second attempt to land was also abandoned as the crew was unable to establish a visual contact with the runway. During the third attempt to land, the aircraft landed hard, bounced and landed a second time few dozen metres further. The crew taxied to the ramp and to his assigned parking place. Analysis of the aircraft revealed serious structural damages and the aircraft was later considered as damaged beyond repair.

During the takeoff roll from Besançon-La Vèze Airport runway 24, the captain realized that the aircraft was not accelerating properly and decided to abort. The crew initiated an emergency braking procedure but the aircraft was unable to stop within the remaining distance. It overran, stuck a 2,4 metres high embankment located 30 metres past the runway end and came to rest, bursting into flames. The passenger was seriously injured and both pilots were killed.

Because of the failure of the thrust reverser relay circuit board, the thrust reversers failed to deploy when selected by the pilot. Because the reversers failed to deploy, the 'reversers in transition' lights, and the 'reversers deployed' lights did not illuminate. Even though the aircraft flight manual warns against moving the reverser throttle levers into the power range without the illumination of these lights, the pilot did so anyway. The pilot continued to select reverse power even after the activation of the throttle mismatch warning horn, resulting in an increase in forward thrust while attempting to stop. During this sequence of events the second-in-command moved the parking brake lever to full override, locking the main wheel brakes and overriding the antiskid system.

Upon landing at Aurillac Airport, the twin engine aircraft went out of control, veered off runway and came to rest. All nine occupants escaped uninjured and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

During the takeoff roll on a contaminated runway, the copilot noted a lack of acceleration. Just beyond midfield, the copilot called for an abort, however, the pilot elected to continue. The airplane did not reach Vr and the pilot attempted to rotate the airplane at the end of the runway. The airplane collided with and travelled through a five foot high snowbank and came to rest in a field approximately 500 feet from the end of the runway. During the post crash investigation, evidence indicated that the parking brake had been in the intermediate position or 23% of maximum braking. The parking brake warning light was found to operate correctly if the panel lights were set in the bright light position. In the dim position, the warning light was inoperative. During the on site investigation, the panel lights were found in the dim position. Both passengers were slightly injured while both pilots were seriously injured.

Suffered a landing accident at Brest-Guipavas Airport. There were no casualties.

After landing at Rio de Janeiro-Santos Dumont Airport, the aircraft encountered difficulties to stop within the remaining distance. It overran and came to rest in the Guanabara Bay. Both pilots were seriously injured and the aircraft was destroyed.

The aircraft flew to the airport for a sales demonstration flight. The crew boarded the aircraft and taxied out for departure. Witnesses, including two pilots with aerobatic experience, watched the aircraft departure, make a left traffic pattern and do a low fly-by down the runway. At the departure end of the runway, the aircraft pitched up into a steep climb. At 600 feet agl, the aircraft entered a left aileron roll, which the witnesses said was 'smooth, coordinated and with the nose on the point.' At the inverted point of the roll, the roll changed from an aileron to a barrel roll. One pilot witness said that it appeared the 'crew lost it at the top' and that the crew 'held the back pressure too long at the top.' At the 270° point of the roll, the aircraft was seen to 'fall out' or 'dish out' of the roll; it recovered to wings level flight at about 100 feet agl in a very nose high attitude settling into the ground with a high vertical descent rate. No preimpact eng or control system malfunctions were found. All three occupants were killed.

Following an uneventful flight, the crew started the approach to Pietersburg-Gateway Airport. On descent, the crew encountered poor weather conditions and the visibility was limited. Due to excessive workload in the cockpit, the crew failed to realize his altitude was insufficient when, at an altitude of 5,200 feet, the aircraft struck the slope of a mountain located near Haenertsburg, about 55 km east of Pietersburg Airport. The aircraft was destroyed upon impact and all four occupants were killed.