Private

Crashed in unknown circumstances in Maji Moto, Rift Valley. All three occupants escaped with various injuries and the aircraft was destroyed.

At 1541 hrs, the airplane took off from Marl-Lohmühle Airfield with the pilot and 2 passengers on board to a VFR flight to Arnsberg-Menden Airfield which is located approximately 30 NM to the south-east. One of the passengers was seated in the right-hand seat next to the pilot and the other in the passenger seat behind the pilot. The radar recording of the air navigation service provider showed that the airplane climbed up to 2,200 ft AMSL. Ten minutes after take-off, the pilot established radio contact with Dortmund Tower with the request to cross Dortmund Airport control zone via the reporting point WHISKEY towards reporting point ECHO on his way to Arnsberg. At 1552:14 hrs, the tower controller answered: “[…] melden Sie WHISKEY und dann erwarten Sie Durchflug nach Arnsberg oder ECHO, wie Sie möchten, QNH eins null null eins (report WHISKEY and then expect cross flight to Arnsberg or ECHO, as you like, QNH one zero zero one)“. The pilot confirmed QNH and approach point. At 1555:22 hrs, the pilot reported having reached reporting point WHISKEY at 2,200 ft AMSL. The controller approved the flight through the control zone towards the south. The GPS and radar data showed that at 1556 hrs, the airplane turned tight towards 120° to a direct heading to Arnsberg. At 1559 hrs, as the airplane had left the control zone the controller issued the clearance to leave Tower frequency. At 1600 hrs, about 2.5 NM west of the destination aerodrome, the airplane turned left towards the east. About one minute later the airplane intersected the extended runway centre line of runway 23 at a distance of 0.7 NM from the threshold with an eastern heading. At the time, ground speed was approximately 150 kt. At 1601:39 hrs, the airplane turned left towards the final approach of runway 23. At 1602 hrs, about 1 NM from the threshold of runway 23 at about 1,500 ft AMSL, the airplane reached the extended runway centre line. The Flugleiter (A person required by German regulation at uncontrolled aerodromes to provide aerodrome information service to pilots.) stated that during final approach flaps and landing gear of the airplane had been extended. The approach looked normal. For a short time he had no longer observed the airplane because he had made some entries in the computer. His colleague had then addressed him and drew his attention to the speed of the airplane. The Flugleiter saw that the airplane had an upward large pitch angle, then plunged and disappeared from his sight. The airplane impacted the ground and the 3 occupants suffered severe injuries. The Flugleiter stated he had tried in vain to contact the pilot twice and then raised the alarm. His colleague and other first aiders had driven to the accident site immediately.

Then twin engine airplane departed Perpignan-La Llabanère Airport on a private flight to Orléans, carrying one passenger and one pilot. On final approach to Orléans-Loiret Airport (ex Saint-Denis-de-l’Hôtel), the pilot encountered a loss of power on the left engine. He attempted an emergency landing when the airplane impacted trees and crash landed in a wooded area located about 3 km short of runway 23, bursting into flames. Both occupants escaped uninjured while the airplane was totally destroyed by a post crash fire.

Four minutes after takeoff from Tengará da Serra Airport Runway 20, while climbing, the twin engine airplane entered an uncontrolled descent. One minute later, it crashed with a high angle of attack in a cornfield, bursting into flames. The airplane disintegrated on impact and both occupants were killed.

The pilot, sole on board, departed Příbram Airport in the early afternoon on a private flight to Moravská Třebová. About 15 minutes into the flight, while cruising in good weather conditions, he encountered engine problems and elected to divert to Benešov Airfield. Shortly later, some cooling liquid leaked from the engine into the cabin and on the windshield, reducing the pilot's vision. He elected to make an emergency landing in a cornfield when, upon touchdown, the aircraft crashed and came to rest upside down with its right wing torn off. There was no fire. The pilot was injured and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

Before the personal instrument flight rules flight began, the pilot obtained a preflight weather briefing that indicated that instrument meteorological conditions, convective activity, and moderate-to-severe icing conditions would be occurring along the route of flight. According to track data, while the pilot was navigating to avoid weather, the pilot was using the autopilot for maneuvering. After the pilot reported to air traffic control that the airplane would be turning direct to its destination, the performance analysis of track data showed that the airplane began a slight left turn with a bank angle of about 10°, which was consistent with the intended route of flight. However, the turn then reversed, and the airplane began banking to the right, reaching about 120° right wing down during the next 70 seconds and showing a slow oscillation in pitch attitude. Satellite imagery showed that the airplane was likely in instrument meteorological conditions when it began a rapid descent, and the airplane’s descent rate was about 7,000 feet per minute. Postaccident examination of the airplane and right engine (the left engine was not recovered) revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The dynamics of the airplane’s movements after the right turn began indicated that the airplane likely was not being actively controlled when it diverted from the intended flightpath. The circumstances of this accident were thus consistent with the pilot’s lack of timely recognition that the autopilot was disengaged. The available evidence for this accident precluded a determination of where the pilot’s attention was directed while navigating direct to the destination. However, the turbulence would have increased the pilot’s workload, and the restricted visibility conditions would have prevented the pilot’s use of outside cues to detect deviations in the airplane’s attitude. Also, the initial roll rates might not have been sufficient to provide reliable cues to the pilot of the developing bank, and the convective conditions would likely have made it difficult for the pilot to detect and recover from the fully developed unusual attitude.

The student pilot, who was not qualified to operate the airplane, reportedly flew from California to Pennsylvania on a commercial flight the morning of the accident to pick up and fly the accident airplane, which he purchased, to California. The student pilot departed Pennsylvania at 0719 and made several en route stops before arriving at the departure airport at 1949. A witness stated that the airplane’s right engine quit during taxi at the last en route stop and the pilot said he "cut it a little close on fuel." Another witness said that the pilot was “really tired” and planned to fly over the mountains for his return flight. The student pilot was not in communications with air traffic control while en route from the departure airport and did not receive an instrument flight rules clearance to operate the flight in class A airspace as required by Federal Aviation Regulations. The airplane was not equipped with automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast as required for flight in class A airspace. Radar track data indicate the airplane last departed from Fort Collins, Colorado, and maneuvered while climbing to 16,000 ft. The airplane proceeded west/southwest for a little over 40 miles before climbing to about 22,000 ft. The airplane then made several large heading changes and altitude changes between 20,000 ft and 23,000 ft before entering a tight looping turn to the left and losing altitude rapidly before track data was lost. All components of the airplane were distributed along the wreckage path in a manner consistent with a low-angle, high-speed impact with terrain. The airplane was destroyed. A green cylindrical tank consistent in color with an oxygen tank was separated from the airframe and was found along the wreckage path. Portions of pneumatic lines were attached to the tank and exhibited impact damage and separations from impact. Due to accident-related damage, the amount of the tank’s contents prior to the accident are unknown, and the functionality, if any, of the oxygen system is unknown. The reason for the airplane’s impact with terrain could not be determined based on available evidence.

Air traffic control communications revealed that the pilot requested to take off from the departure runway so that he could perform traffic pattern work and return for a landing on the left adjacent runway. Shortly after takeoff and while departing to the west, the pilot was instructed twice to enter the left traffic pattern, with no response. Radar data showed the airplane departing the runway and remaining on runway centerline heading for the length of the flight. The airplane climbed to about 100 ft above ground level and the airplane’s groundspeed increased to 81 knots soon after departure then decreased to 70 knots before dropping off radar. Witnesses reported seeing the airplane depart the airport at a low climb rate and slow airspeed. Shortly after, the airplane flew out of view and a column of smoke was seen on the horizon. Accident site documentation identified symmetrical propeller strikes on the ground consistent with the airplane impacting the ground in a shallow, nose-up, wings level attitude. Examination of the airframe and both engines did not reveal any evidence of a preaccident mechanical failure or malfunction that would have precluded normal performance to allow for sufficient airspeed and climb rate after takeoff. Both the engines exhibited damage signatures consistent with the engines producing symmetrical power at impact. The pilot’s most recent flight in the accident airplane was 2 months before the accident. The pilot was reported to have problems with understanding the accident airplane’s avionics system; however, it is unknown if he was having these problems during the accident flight. Review of the pilot’s medical history revealed no significant medical concerns or conditions that could pose a hazard to flight.

After takeoff from Campo Verde-Luiz Eduardo Magalhães Airport, while climbing, the airplane entered a high pitch angle. The pilot initiated a sharp turn to the left when control was lost. The airplane dove into the ground and crashed in an open field, some 900 metres from the takeoff point, bursting into flames. The pilot, sole on board, was killed.

The pilot stated that, upon landing, the airplane touched down on the runway centerline with light and variable wind conditions. The pilot recalled that the touchdown felt normal but that, during the landing roll, the airplane began to veer to the right. The pilot added full left rudder, but the airplane continued to veer off the runway surface and encountered large rocks located between the runway and taxiway. A postaccident operational check of the nosewheel steering system revealed no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The left nosewheel tire was not adequately inflated and was worn to the point at which the cord was exposed; the right nosewheel tire was within tolerances. Also, one-third of the rim was absent on the left nosewheel tire outer wheel half. The available evidence precluded a determination of whether the imbalance between the nosewheel tires contributed to the control problem on the runway. It could also not be determined if the left nosewheel tire damage occurred before the touchdown or as a result of the accident sequence.