Beechcraft 200 Super King Air

Following an uneventful flight from Brasília, the pilot started the descent to Goiânia-Santa Genoveva Airport in poor weather visibility with heavy rain falls and turbulences. On final approach, the twin engine aircraft descended below the glide until it impact the slope of Mt Santo Antônio located 10,7 km short of runway 32. The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and a post crash fire and all six occupants were killed.

The crew was performing a charter flight from Pointe Noire to Luanda with one passenger on board, the Mauritanian businessman Rashid Mustapha who was candidate to the Presidential elections in Mauritania in 2007. The pax called his bodyguard just before takeoff, asking them to be ready upon arrival at Luanda-4 de Fevereiro Airport. The twin engine aircraft departed Pointe Noire Airport at 2321LT for a 75-90 minutes flight to Luanda. Just before it started the descent, while cruising over the area of Caxito, some 50 km northeast of Luanda, the aircraft disappeared from radar screens at 0020LT. SAR operations were abandoned after few days as no trace of the aircraft nor the three occupants was found. It is possible that the aircraft crashed by night in the ocean off the Angolan coast but this was not confirmed as the wreckage was never found. Three years later, in March 2013, unconfirmed reports and rumors in Africa said that the aircraft never crashed anywhere and that Rashid Mustapha was in fact hostage by a terrorist group somewhere in Africa, but this was not confirmed by Officials in Mauritania or Angola. Without any trace of the aircraft, all hypothesis remains open.

On final approach to Arlit Airport, the crew lost visual contact with the runway due to a sand storm. The aircraft was too low and hit the ground short of runway. Upon impact, the undercarriage were torn off and the aircraft slid over few dozen metres before coming to rest. All 10 occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The pilot of the Part 91 business flight filed an instrument-flight-rules (IFR) flight plan with the destination and alternate airports, both of which were below weather minimums. The pilot and
copilot departed from the departure airport in weather minimums that were below the approach minimums for the departure airport. While en route, the destination airport's automated observing system continued to report weather below approach minimums, but the flight crew continued the flight. The flight crew then requested and were cleared for the instrument landing system (ILS) 31 approach and while on that approach were issued visibilities of 1,800 feet runway visual range after changing to tower frequency. During landing, the copilot told the pilot that he was not lined up with the runway. The pilot reportedly said, "those are edge lights," and then realized that he was not properly lined up with the runway. The airplane then touched down beyond a normal touchdown point, about 2,800 feet down the runway, and off the left side of the runway surface. The airplane veered to the left, collapsing the nose landing gear. Both flight crewmembers had previous experience in Part 135 operations, which have more stringent weather requirements than operations conducted under Part 91. Under Part 135, IFR flights to an airport cannot be conducted and an approach cannot begin unless weather minimums are above approach minimums. The accident flight's departure in weather below approach minimums would have precluded a return to the airport had an emergency been encountered by the flight crew, leaving few options and little time to reach a takeoff alternate airport. The company's flight procedures allow for a takeoff to be performed as long as there is a takeoff alternate airport within one hour at normal cruise speed and a minimum takeoff visibility that was based upon the pilot being able to maintain runway alignment during takeoff. The company's procedures did not allow flight crew to depart to an airport that was below minimums but did allow for the flight crew, at their discretion, to
perform a "look-see" approach to approach minimums if the weather was below minimums. The allowance of a "look see" approach essentially negates the procedural risk mitigation afforded by requiring approaches to be conducted only when weather was above approach minimums.

The pilot flew the airplane to a maintenance facility and turned it in for a phase inspection. The next morning, he arrived at the airport and planned a local flight to evaluate some avionics issues. He performed a preflight inspection and then went inside the maintenance facility to wait for two avionic technicians to arrive. In the meantime, two employees of the maintenance facility test ran the engines on the accident airplane for about 30 to 35 minutes in preparation for the phase inspection. The pilot reported that he was unaware that the engine run had been performed when he returned to the airplane for the local flight. He referred to the flight management system (FMS) fuel totalizer, and not the aircraft fuel gauges, when he returned to the airplane for the flight. He believed that the mechanics who ran the engines did not power up the FMS, which would have activated the fuel totalizer, thus creating a discrepancy between the totalizer and the airplane fuel gauges. The mechanics who performed the engine run reported that each tank contained 200 pounds of fuel at the conclusion of the engine run. The B200 Pilot’s Operating Handbook directed pilots not take off if the fuel quantity gauges indicate in the yellow arc or indicate less than 265 pounds of fuel in each main tank system. While on final approach, about 23 minutes into the flight, the right engine lost power, followed by the left. The pilot attempted to glide to the runway with the landing gear and flaps retracted, however the airplane crashed short of the runway. Only residual fuel was found in the main and auxiliary fuel tanks during the inspection of the wreckage. The tanks were not breached and there was no evidence of fuel leakage at the accident site.