Region
Crash of a Fokker 100 in Pau: 1 killed
Date & Time:
Jan 25, 2007 at 1124 LT
Operator:
Registration:
F-GMPG
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Pau - Paris
MSN:
11362
YOM:
1991
Flight number:
AF7775
Crew on board:
4
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
50
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
1
Captain / Total hours on type:
2948.00
Copilot / Total hours on type:
287
Aircraft flight hours:
28586
Aircraft flight cycles:
34886
Circumstances:
Following a normal takeoff acceleration on runway 13 at Pau-Pyrénées Airport, the pilot-in-command started the rotation when the aircraft immediately rolled to the left. Then it rolled to the right and to the left again, lost height, struck the ground and bounced. At a speed of about 160 knots, the crew reduced the engine power when the aircraft rolled to the right of the runway, struck the perimeter fence then collided with a truck driving along a road. Upon touchdown, both main landing gears were torn off and the aircraft slid on its belly before coming to rest in an open field located 535 metres past the runway end. All 54 occupants evacuated safely while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. The truck's driver was killed while his colleague was seriously injured.
Probable cause:
The accident resulted from a loss of control caused by the presence of ice contamination on the surface of the wings associated with insufficient consideration of the weather during the stopover, and by the rapid rotation pitch, a reflex reaction to a flight of birds.
Contributing factors:
- Limited awareness within the aviation community regarding the risks associated with the icing on the ground and changes in the performance of the aircraft involved in this phenomenon;
- The sensitivity of small aircraft not equipped with burners to the effects of ice on the ground;
- Insufficient awareness of the crew of procedures for the tactile verification of the condition of the surfaces in icing conditions and the lack of implementation by the operator of an adapted organization;
- The ordinary aspect of the flight including the weather encountered, which was not likely to incite the crew to particular vigilance.
Contributing factors:
- Limited awareness within the aviation community regarding the risks associated with the icing on the ground and changes in the performance of the aircraft involved in this phenomenon;
- The sensitivity of small aircraft not equipped with burners to the effects of ice on the ground;
- Insufficient awareness of the crew of procedures for the tactile verification of the condition of the surfaces in icing conditions and the lack of implementation by the operator of an adapted organization;
- The ordinary aspect of the flight including the weather encountered, which was not likely to incite the crew to particular vigilance.
Final Report:
Crash of a Beechcraft C90B King Air in Besançon: 4 killed
Date & Time:
Oct 19, 2006 at 0042 LT
Operator:
Registration:
F-GVPD
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Besançon – Amiens
MSN:
LJ-1321
YOM:
1992
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
2
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
4
Captain / Total hours on type:
450.00
Aircraft flight hours:
3501
Circumstances:
The twin engine aircraft was engaged in an ambulance flight from Besançon to Amiens with 2 surgeons, one pilot and one operator agent. Following a course of 950 metres on runway 23 at Besançon-La Vèze Airport by night, the aircraft lifted off. With a low climb gradient, the aircraft collided with trees and crashed in a wooded area located 250 metres past the runway end, bursting into flames. The aircraft was totally destroyed and all four occupants were killed. Both surgeons were en route to Amiens in order to a lever harvesting.
Probable cause:
The lack of flight recorders made it impossible to trace the chain of events on board the aircraft. As a result, the causes of the accident could not be determined with precision. However, at least two scenarios could simultaneously explain the length of the takeoff roll and the low height after rotation: a lack of control of the airplane by the pilot, either by poor adjustment of the elevator trim or because his attention would have been focused inside the cockpit by any event, without reaction from the pilot passenger seated on the right. This scenario is consistent with his relative inexperience with the type of aircraft. The second scenario could be based on an inappropriate decision to seek significant speed after take-off or improvised instruction, neither pilot being aware of the obstacle constraints of the airfield. The significant obscurity, the operating specificities in medical transport and the presence of a second pilot with a status and role not provided for in the operations manual, without there being therefore any crew or distribution of tasks within the company's crew, are likely contributing factors. The 48-year-old pilot had a total of 3,500 flight hours, including 450 on type. The company agent who was seating on the right was a professional pilot who did not have a license on this type of aircraft and took advantage of the flight, in agreement with the corporate management, to acquire experience in a view to his future qualification on this type of airplane. He had a total of more than 4,000 flight hours.
Final Report:
