Crash of a Swearingen SA226AT Merlin IVA in Girona

Date & Time: Apr 24, 2016 at 1520 LT
Operator:
Registration:
EC-GFK
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Girona - Girona
MSN:
AT-062
YOM:
1977
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
2402
Captain / Total hours on type:
27.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
7992
Copilot / Total hours on type:
6868
Aircraft flight hours:
16128
Circumstances:
The crew (one pilot under supervision and one instructor) departed Girona-Costa Brava on a local training flight. Following two successful landings and touch-and-go manoeuvres, the crew initiated a new approach to complete a full stop landing. The aircraft belly landed and slid for few dozen metres before coming to rest on the runway. Both pilots evacuated safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.
Probable cause:
The cause of the accident was that the crew failed to actuate the lever used to deploy the landing gear. Inadequate presentation, in the operator's operating manuals, of the flight tasks to be performed by each crew member and the timing of these tasks is identified as a contributing factor.
Final Report:

Crash of an Airbus A400M in Seville: 4 killed

Date & Time: May 9, 2015 at 1257 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
EC-403
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Seville - Seville
MSN:
023
YOM:
2015
Flight number:
Casa423
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
6
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
4
Aircraft flight hours:
0
Aircraft flight cycles:
0
Circumstances:
Brand new, the aircraft just came out from the manufacturer in Seville and was engaged in its first post assembly test flight. After take off from Seville-San Pablo Airport Runway 09 at 1254LT, the crew completed a 90° turn to the left bound to the north. Shortly later, three of the four engines (engines n°1, 2 and 3) got stuck at high power. The crew attempted to control the power setting to the normal mode but those three engines failed to respond. The crew reduced the engine power after selecting the thrust levers to idle. The regime of those three engines remained blocked in idle so the crew decided to return to the airport for an emergency landing. On approach, the aircraft collided with power lines, stalled and crashed in an open field located 1,6 km north of the airport, bursting into flames. Two crew members were rescued while four others were killed. The aircraft was totally destroyed by a post crash fire. The aircraft was following a test program prior to its delivery to the Turkish Air Force (Türk Hava Kuvvetleri).
Probable cause:
An Airbus official after the accident stated that engine control software was incorrectly installed during final assembly of the aircraft. This led to engine failure and the resulting crash.

Crash of a Cessna 500 Citation I in Santiago de Compostela: 2 killed

Date & Time: Aug 2, 2012 at 0618 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
EC-IBA
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Oviedo - Santiago de Compostella
MSN:
500-0178
YOM:
1974
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
2
Captain / Total flying hours:
3600
Captain / Total hours on type:
500.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
678
Copilot / Total hours on type:
412
Aircraft flight hours:
9460
Circumstances:
Based on the information available, at 20:40 the ONT (National Transplant Organization) informed the Santiago Airport (LEST) that they were going to make a “hospital flight”. The aircraft was refueled at the Santiago Airport with 1062 liters of fuel. According to communications, the crew of aircraft EC-IBA contacted the Santiago tower at 21:46 to request permission to start up and information on the weather and the runway in use at Asturias. At 21:54 they were cleared to take off. According to the airport operations office, the aircraft landed in Asturias (LEAS) at 22:27. The hospital flight service commenced at 22:15. The RFFS accompanied the ambulance to the aircraft at 22:30 and at 22:44 the aircraft took off en route to Porto. The aircraft was transferred from Madrid control to Santiago approach at 22:52 at flight level 200 and cleared straight to Porto (LPPR). Based on the information provided by Porto Airport, the aircraft landed at 23:40. While waiting for the medical team to return, the crew remained in the airport’s facilities. According to some of the personnel there, the crew made some comments regarding the bad weather. There was fog, especially on the arrival route. At 01:34 and again at 02:01 the crew was supplied with the flight plan information, information from the ARO-LPPR office and updated weather data. The aircraft was refueled at the Porto Airport with 1,000 l of fuel and took off at 02:34. At 02:44 the aircraft contacted approach control at Santiago to report its position. Four minutes later the crew contacted the Santiago tower directly to ask about the weather conditions at the field (see Appendix C). The aircraft landed once more in Asturias at 03:28. At 03:26 the RFFS was again activated to escort the ambulance to the aircraft. The service was deactivated at 04:00. The crew requested updated weather information from the tower, which provided the information from the 03:00 METAR. According to the flight plan filed, the estimated off-block time (EOBT) for departing from the Asturias Airport was 03:45, with an estimated flight time to Santiago of 40 minutes. The alternate destination airport was Vitoria (LEVT). The aircraft took off from Asturias at 03:38. At 03:56 the crew established contact with Santiago approach control, which provided the crew with the latest METAR from 03:30, which informed that the runway in use was 17, winds were calm, visibility was 4,000 m with mist, few clouds at 600 ft, temperature and dew point of 13° and QNH of 1,019. The aircraft was then cleared to conduct an ILS approach to runway 17 at the Santiago Airport. At 04:15 the crew contacted the tower controller, who reported calm winds and cleared them to land on runway 17. At 04:18 the COSPAS-SARSAT system detected the activation of an ELT. The system estimated the position for the beacon as being in the vicinity of the LEST airport. At 04:38 the tower controller informed airport operations of a call he had received from SAR that a beacon was active in the vicinity of the airport, and requested that a marshaller go to the airport where the airplane normally parked to see if it was there. At 04:44 the marshaller confirmed that the aircraft was not in its hangar and the emergency procedure was activated, with the various parties involved in the search for the airplane being notified. At 05:10 the control tower called the airport to initiate the preliminary phase (Phase I) before activating the LVP. At 05:15 the RFFS reported that the aircraft had been found in the vicinity of the VOR. At 05:30 the LVP was initiated (Phase II). At 07:51 the LVP was terminated. The last flight to arrive at the Santiago Airport before the accident had landed at 23:33, and the next flight to arrive following the accident landed at 05:25.
Probable cause:
The ultimate cause of the accident could not be determined. In light of the hypothesis considered in the analysis, the most likely scenario is that the crew made a non-standard precision approach in manual based primarily on distances. The ILS frequency set incorrectly in the first officer’s equipment and the faulty position indicated on the DME switch would have resulted in the distance being shown on the captain’s HSI as corresponding to the VOR and not to the runway threshold. The crew shortened the approach maneuver and proceeded to a point by which the aircraft should already have been established on the localizer, thus increasing the crew’s workload. The crew then probably lost visual contact with the ground when the aircraft entered a fog bank in the valleys near the airport and did not realize they were making an approach to the VOR and not to the runway.
The contributing factors were:
- The lack of operational procedures of an aircraft authorized to be operated by a single pilot operated by a crew with two members.
- The overall condition of the aircraft and the instruments and the crew’s mistrust of the onboard instruments.
- The fatigue built up over the course of working at a time when they should have been sleeping after an unplanned duty period.
- The concern with having to divert to the alternate without sufficient fuel combined with the complacency arising from finally reaching their destination.
Final Report:

Crash of a Technoavia SM-92G Turbo Finist in Bollullos de la Mitación

Date & Time: Jul 1, 2012 at 1045 LT
Registration:
HA-NAH
Flight Phase:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Bollullos de la Mitación - Bollullos de la Mitación
MSN:
003
YOM:
1994
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
8
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
340
Captain / Total hours on type:
24.00
Aircraft flight hours:
2575
Circumstances:
The aircraft started taking off from runway 27 threshold. Upon reaching a speed deemed proper by the pilot for rotation, the pilot noticed that the aircraft was not taking off, so he decided to abort the takeoff. While trying to stop the aircraft, it exited via the left side of the runway near the end, breaking through the fence that surrounds the aerodrome before coming to rest in trees. While all ten occupants were uninjured, the aircraft was damaged beyond repair with both wings sheared off.
Probable cause:
Whenever this aircraft is doing a short-field takeoff with a high weight, it is recommended that the flaps be set to their takeoff position of 20°. The evidence indicates that the pilot was attempting to take off on runway 27 and forgot to place the flaps in the takeoff position (20°).
Final Report:

Crash of a Partenavia P.68 Observer II in Sant Pere de Vilamajor: 2 killed

Date & Time: Jun 23, 2009 at 1045 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
EC-IPG
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Site:
Schedule:
Sabadell - Sabadell
MSN:
421-21-OB2
YOM:
2003
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
2
Captain / Total flying hours:
5686
Captain / Total hours on type:
155.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
6689
Copilot / Total hours on type:
9
Circumstances:
The airplane, a Vulcan Air PA68 Observer 2, registration EC-IPG, had taken off from Sabadell airport to conduct a local flight. Onboard were the instructor and a pilot who was being tested for a CRI (SPA) (Class Rating Instructor). As they were flying over the town of Sant Pere de Vilamajor (Barcelona), the aircraft plunged to the ground, falling within the property limit of a private dwelling (a chalet). Several eyewitnesses reported that they stopped hearing the engine noise and that they then saw the airplane spinning in a nose down attitude. The front part of the airplane (cockpit) impacted the ground first. The crash resulted in a fire, the flames from which reached a part of the aircraft and an arbor next to the house, but not the house itself, though it was affected by the smoke. The two occupants perished immediately and were trapped inside the airplane. They were extracted by emergency personnel. The aircraft was destroyed by the impact and subsequent fire. The post-accident inspection did not reveal any signs of a fault or malfunction of any aircraft component. It has been determined that the accident resulted from a stall caused by flying the aircraft at a low speed. It has also been concluded that there were three contributing factors: the low altitude, the very likely possibility that the crew did not establish guidelines for action prior to the flight and the absence of an authority gradient between the crew members.
Probable cause:
The accident was caused when the aircraft stalled during the performance of a slow flying maneuver with the right engine stopped. Factors that contributed to the accident were the low altitude, the possibility that the crew did not define the responsibilities of each prior to the flight and which may have resulted in a lack of coordination when faced with the circumstances in the final moments of the flight, and the lack of an authority gradient between the crew members.
Final Report:

Crash of a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 in Madrid: 154 killed

Date & Time: Aug 20, 2008 at 1424 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
EC-HFP
Flight Phase:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Madrid - Las Palmas
MSN:
53148/2072
YOM:
1993
Flight number:
JKK5022
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
6
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
166
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
154
Captain / Total flying hours:
8476
Captain / Total hours on type:
5776.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
1276
Copilot / Total hours on type:
1054
Aircraft flight hours:
31963
Aircraft flight cycles:
28133
Circumstances:
An MD-82 passenger plane, registered EC-HFP, was destroyed when it crashed on takeoff at Madrid-Barajas Airport (MAD), Spain. Of the aircraft’s occupants, 154 were killed, including all six crew members. Eighteen passengers were seriously injured. The MD-82 aircraft operated Spanair flight JK5022 from Madrid-Barajas (MAD) to Gran Canaria (LPA). The estimated departure time was 13:00. The aircraft was authorized by control for engine start-up at 13:06:15. It then taxied to runway 36L from parking stand T21, which it occupied on the apron of terminal T2 at Barajas. The flaps were extended 11°. Once at the runway threshold, the aircraft was cleared for takeoff at 13:24:57. The crew informed the control tower at 13:26:27 that they had a problem and that they had to exit the runway. At 13:33:12, they communicated that they were returning to the stand. The crew had detected an overheating Ram Air Temperature (RAT) probe. The aircraft returned to the apron, parking on remote stand R11 of the terminal T2 parking area. The crew stopped the engines and requested assistance from maintenance technicians to solve the problem. The mechanic confirmed the malfunction described in the ATLB, checked the RAT probe heating section of the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) and opened the electrical circuit breaker that connected the heating element. Once complete, it was proposed and accepted that the aircraft be dispatched. The aircraft was topped off with 1080 liters of kerosene and at 14:08:01 it was cleared for engine start-up and to taxi to runway 36L for takeoff. The crew continued with the tasks to prepare the airplane for the flight. The conversations on the cockpit voice recorder revealed certain expressions corresponding to the before engine start checklists, the normal start list, the after start checklist and the taxi checklist. During the taxi run, the aircraft was in contact with the south sector ground control first and then with the central sector. On the final taxi segment the crew concluded its checks with the takeoff imminent checklist. At 14:23:14, with the aircraft situated at the head of runway 36L, it was cleared for takeoff. Along with the clearance, the control tower informed the aircraft that the wind was from 210° at 5 knots. At 14:23:19, the crew released the brakes for takeoff. Engine power had been increased a few seconds earlier and at 14:23:28 its value was 1.4 EPR. Power continued to increase to a maximum value of 1.95 EPR during the aircraft’s ground run. The CVR recording shows the crew calling out "V1" at 14:24:06, at which time the DFDR recorded a value of 147 knots for calibrated airspeed (CAS), and "rotate" at 14:24:08, at a recorded CAS of 154 knots. The DFDR recorded the signal change from ground mode to air mode from the nose gear strut ground sensor. The stall warning stick shaker was activated at 14:24:14 and on three occasions the stall horn and synthetic voice sounded in the cockpit: "[horn] stall, [horn] stall, [horn] stall". Impact with the ground took place at 14:24:23. During the entire takeoff run until the end of the CVR recording, no noises were recorded involving the takeoff warning system (TOWS) advising of an inadequate takeoff configuration. During the entire period from engine start-up while at parking stand R11 to the end of the DFDR recording, the values for the two flap position sensors situated on the wings were 0°. The length of the takeoff run was approximately 1950 m. Once airborne, the aircraft rose to an altitude of 40 feet above the ground before it descended and impacted the ground. During its trajectory in the air, the aircraft took on a slight left roll attitude, followed by a fast 20° roll to the right, another slight roll to the left and another abrupt roll to the right of 32°. The maximum pitch angle recorded during this process was 18°. The aircraft’s tail cone was the first part to impact the ground, almost simultaneously with the right wing tip and the right engine cowlings. The marks from these impacts were found on the right side of the runway strip as seen from the direction of the takeoff, at a distance of 60 m, measured perpendicular to the runway centerline, and 3207.5 m away from the threshold, measured in the direction of the runway. The aircraft then traveled across the ground an additional 448 m until it reached the side of the runway strip, tracing out an almost linear path at a 16° angle with the runway. It lost contact with the ground after reaching an embankment/drop-off beyond the strip, with the marks resuming 150 m away, on the airport perimeter road, whose elevation is 5.50 m lower than the runway strip. The aircraft continued moving along this irregular terrain until it reached the bed of the Vega stream, by which point the main structure was already in an advanced state of disintegration. It is here that it caught on fire. The distance from the initial impact site on the ground to the farthest point where the wreckage was found was 1093 m.
Probable cause:
The crew lost control of the airplane as a consequence of entering a stall immediately after takeoff due to an improper airplane configuration involving the non-deployment of the slats/flaps following a series of mistakes and omissions, along with the absence of the improper takeoff configuration warning.
The crew did not identify the stall warnings and did not correct said situation after takeoff. They momentarily retarded the engine throttles, increased the pitch angle and did not correct the bank angle, leading to a deterioration of the stall condition.
The crew did not detect the configuration error because they did not properly use the checklists, which contain items to select and verify the position of the flaps/slats, when preparing the flight. Specifically:
- They did not carry out the action to select the flaps/slats with the associated control lever (in the "After Start" checklist);
- They did not cross check the position of the lever or the status of the flap and slat indicating lights when executing the" After Start" checklist;
- They omitted the check of the flaps and slats during the "Takeoff briefing" item on the "Taxi" checklist;
- The visual check done when executing the "Final items" on the "Takeoff imminent" checklist was not a real check of the position of the flaps and slats, as displayed on the instruments in the cockpit.
The CIAIAC has identified the following contributing factors:
- The absence of an improper takeoff configuration warning resulting from the failure of the TOWS to operate, which thus did not warn the crew that the airplane's takeoff configuration was not appropriate. The reason for the failure of the TOWS to function could not be reliably established.
- Improper crew resource management (CRM), which did not prevent the deviation from procedures in the presence of unscheduled interruptions to flight preparations.
Final Report:

Crash of a Pilatus PC-6/B2-H4 Turbo Porter in Lillo: 2 killed

Date & Time: May 30, 2008 at 1545 LT
Operator:
Registration:
EC-JXH
Flight Phase:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Lillo - Lillo
MSN:
700
YOM:
1969
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
1
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
10
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
2
Captain / Total flying hours:
1100
Captain / Total hours on type:
150.00
Aircraft flight hours:
15833
Aircraft flight cycles:
26931
Circumstances:
The airplane had taken off from runway 30 at the Lillo (Toledo) Aerodrome for a local parachute drop. On board were the pilot and 10 skydivers, six of whom consisted of instructor-student pairs doing tandem jumps. When at an altitude of approximately 14,000 feet and having sounded the acoustic signal indicating two minutes to go before the jump, the airplane was subjected to an instantaneous and sharp negative acceleration that pushed two occupants against the ceiling of the aircraft. As soon as the airplane regained a normal attitude, the left wing fractured and detached. As a result, the airplane started to fall to the ground. Nine of the parachutists were ejected out and were able to open their parachutes at a sufficient enough altitude to land normally. The airplane eventually impacted the ground and burst into flames at a site located 4.5 km north of the aerodrome. The fire destroyed the area between the firewall and the aft end of the passenger cabin. The pilot and one parachutist were unable to exit the aircraft and died on impact. Several components, including the detached wing and its control surfaces, as well as part of the horizontal stabilizer, were thrown off and found between 1.5 km and 2.5 km to the northeast of the main crash site.
Probable cause:
The accident took place as the aircraft was entering an area of strong turbulence inside a storm. The aircraft was turning left to align with the heading used for the parachuting run, and as a result of the turn both the wing and the tail were subjected to loads in excess of design loads. This caused several of their components to fracture, resulting in the detachment of the left wing and the horizontal stabilizer. Contributing significantly to the accident is the fact that neither the company that operated the aircraft nor the jump supervisors were aware of the violent storm present to the north of the aerodrome, exactly over the area where the flight and the skydiving activity were going to take place.
Final Report: