Positioning

The commercial pilot, who was the pilot flying (PF), and the airplane transport pilot, who was the pilot not flying (PNF), were conducting an aeromedical positioning flight. The pilots reported that, during a night approach, they visually identified the airport, activated the runway lighting system, and then canceled the instrument flight plan for a visual approach. The PNF reported that, after turning onto the final approach, the flaps were fully lowered and that the airplane was in a “wings level, stabilized approach.” The PF reported that he was initially using the vertical approach slope indicator (VASI) for guidance but that the airplane drifted below the glidepath during the approach, and he did not correct back to the glidepath. On short final, the pilots verified that the landing gear were in the down-and-locked position by noting the illumination of the three green landing gear indicator lights, and the airspeed indicator indicated 110 knots. Both pilots reported that the landing was “firm” and that it was followed by a loud bang and the subsequent failure of all three landing gear. The airplane slid on its belly for about 825 ft down the runway before coming to rest. Both pilots evacuated the airplane, which was subsequently consumed by a postaccident fire. Both pilots reported that the airplane was operating normally with no discrepancies noted. Postaccident examination of the wreckage at the accident site revealed that the airplane impacted the runway about 100 ft short of its displaced threshold. Broken components of the landing gear were located along the debris field, which extended about 565 ft beyond the initial impact point. It is likely that the PF's failure to correct and maintain the VASI glidepath after allowing the airplane to descend below the glidepath and the touchdown at a high descent rate resulted in a hard landing and the subsequent failure of all three landing gear.

The airplane, with two flight crewmembers and a pilot-rated passenger on board, was on a cross-country flight. The departure and en route portions of the flight were uneventful. As the flight neared its destination, a high-altitude, terrain-limited airport, air traffic control (ATC) provided vectors to the localizer/distance measuring equipment (LOC/DME)-E approach to runway 15. About 1210, the local controller informed the flight crew that the wind was from 290º at 19 knots (kts) with gusts to 25 kts. About 1211, the flight crew reported that they were executing a missed approach and then requested vectors for a second approach. ATC vectored the airplane for a second LOC/DME-E approach to runway 15. About 1221, the local controller informed the flight crew that the wind was from 330° at 16 kts and the 1-minute average wind was from 320° at 14 kts gusting to 25 kts. The initial part of the airplane's second approach was as-expected for descent angle, flap setting, and spoilers. During the final minute of flight, the engines were advanced and retarded five times, and the airplane's airspeed varied between 135 kts and 150 kts. The final portion of the approach to the runway was not consistent with a stabilized approach. The airplane stayed nose down during its final descent and initial contact with the runway. The vertical acceleration and pitch parameters were consistent with the airplane pitch oscillating above the runway for a number of seconds before a hard runway contact, a gain in altitude, and a final impact into the runway at about 6 g. The weather at the time of the accident was near or in exceedance of the airplane's maximum tailwind and crosswind components for landing, as published in the airplane flight manual. Given the location of the airplane over the runway when the approach became unstabilized and terrain limitations of ASE, performance calculations were completed to determine if the airplane could successfully perform a go-around. Assuming the crew had control of the airplane, and that the engines were advanced to the appropriate climb setting, anti-ice was off, and tailwinds were less than a sustained 25 kts, the airplane had the capability to complete a go-around, clearing the local obstacles along that path.Both flight crewmembers had recently completed simulator training for a type rating in the CL600 airplane. The captain reported that he had a total of 12 to 14 hours of total flight time in the airplane type, including the time he trained in the simulator. The copilot would have had close to the same hours as the captain given that they attended flight training together. Neither flight crew member would have met the minimum flight time requirement of 25 hours to act as pilot-in-command under Part 135. The accident flight was conducted under Part 91, and therefore, the 25 hours requirement did not apply to this portion of their trip. Nevertheless, the additional flight time would have increased the crew's familiarity with the airplane and its limitation and likely improved their decision-making during the unstabilized approach. Further, the captain stated that he asked the passenger, an experienced CL-600-rated pilot. to accompany them on the trip to provide guidance during the approach to the destination airport. However, because the CL-600-rated pilot was in the jumpseat position and unable to reach the aircraft controls, he was unable to act as a qualified pilot-in-command.

The pilot departed Puerto Montt at 0900LT on a positioning flight to Port Raúl Marín Balmaceda to pick up five passengers. On approach, the pilot decided to complete a loss pass to evaluate the landing conditions and the wind component. Shortly later, the aircraft landed on its belly and slid for few dozen metres before coming to rest in a grassy area. The pilot was uninjured and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The crew departed Viña del Mar-Torquemada Airport on a positioning flight to Santiago de Chile. Shortly after takeoff, the crew encountered technical problems and elected to return. On approach, both engines failed and on short final by night, the aircraft stalled and crashed 450 metres short of runway 05. Both pilots escaped uninjured and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

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.