Ambulance

The aircraft took off at 0041 hrs from Hanover (EDDV) for a positioning flight to Munich (EDDM) with a crew of two pilots. The intention was to make a subsequent air ambulance flight from Munich to Kiel. During the climb the crew received the instruction for a direct flight to Munich and the clearance for a climb to Flight Level (FL) 230. The radar data showed that the aircraft turned south-east and climbed to FL230 after take-off. At 0123:45 hrs the crew made radio contact with Munich Radar. About five minutes later, the controller advised the crew that both runways were closed for snow removal, but that the southern runway would re-open in about 25-30 minutes. In response, the crew advised they would reduce the speed somewhat. The crew stated that the temperature in flight altitude had been -40 °C. At 0133:58 hrs the controller issued descent clearance to FL110. According to crew statements in this phase there were problems with the left engine. A system check indicated that the engine’s Interstage Turbine Temperature (ITT) had exceeded 900°C and the torque had reduced to zero. The crew then first worked through the memory items before "beginning with the engine failure checklist". In the presence of the BFU the crew gave their reasons for the shut-off of the engine as being the fast increase of the ITT and the decrease of the torque to zero. The crew could not give any other engine parameters like Ng per cent RPM, propeller RPM, fuel flow, oil pressure or oil temperature. The co-pilot reported via radio: "… we request to maintain FL150 … we have engine failure on the left side, call you back." At that time, the radar data showed the aircraft at FL214. As the controller asked at 0138:15 hrs if a frequency change to approach control were possible, the co-pilot answered: "... give us a minute, please, and then we report back, until we have everything secured ..." At 0143:22 hrs the co-pilot advised the controller that the engine had been "secured" and a frequency change was now possible. The crew subsequently reported that, three to five minutes later there had been brief, strong vibrations in the right engine. The crew could not state which actions they had carried out after the descent clearance and during shut-off and securing of the left engine. Both pilots stated that there was no attempt to re-start the left engine. After changing frequency to Munich Approach Control the crew was advised that runway 26L was available. The co-pilot declared emergency at 0143:48 hrs, about 25 NM away from the airport of destination, mentioning again the failure of the left engine. The controller responded by asking the crew what assistance they would require, and asked if a ten-mile approach would be acceptable. This was affirmed. At 0149:28 hrs the controller gave clearance for an ILS approach to runway 26L. At that time the radar data showed the airplane in FL78 flying with a ground speed of 210 kt to the south-east. The aircraft turned right towards the final approach and at 0151:53 hrs it reached the extended runway centre line about 17 NM prior to the runway threshold in 5,400 ft AMSL with a ground speed of 120 kt. At 0154:12 hrs the controller said: "… observe you a quarter mile south of the centre line." According to the radar data the aircraft was in 5,000 ft AMSL with a ground speed of 90 kt at that time. The co-pilot answered: "Ja, we are intercepting…". Twenty seconds later the controller gave clearance to land on runway 26L. Up until about 0157:30 hrs the ground speed varied between 80 and 90 kt. From 0157:43 hrs on, within about 80 seconds, the speed increased from 100 kt to 120 kt. Thereby, the airplane had come within 5.5 NM of the threshold of runway 26L. Up until 0200:53 hrs the airplane flew with a ground speed of 100 - 110 kt. At 0201:32 hrs ground speed decreased to 80 kt. At that time, the airplane was in 1,900 ft AMSL and about 1.5 NM away from the threshold. Up until the last radar recording at 0202:27 hrs the ground speed remained at 80 kt. The crew stated the approach was flown with Blue Line Speed. During the final approach the aircraft veered slightly to the left and tended to sink below the glidepath. Approximately 3 NM from the threshold the approach lights had become visible and the flaps and the landing gear were extended. Then the airplane veered to the left and sank below the glidepath. The co-pilot stated a decision for a go-around was made. When an attempt was made to increase power from the right engine, no additional power was available. The aircraft had lost speed and to counteract it the elevator control horn was pushed. Prior to the landing, rescue and fire fighting vehicles were positioned at readiness in the vicinity of the airport’s southern fire station. The weather was described as very windy with a light snow flurry. The fire fighters subsequently reported they had seen two white landing lights and the dim outline of an approaching aircraft. The aircraft’s bank attitude was seen to alter a number of times. Shortly before landing, the landing lights suddenly disappeared and the aircraft was no longer visible. The aircraft impacted the ground about 100 metres prior to the threshold of runway 26L. The crew turned off all the electrical systems and left the aircraft unaided. During the initial interviews by BFU and police the co-pilot repeatedly talked about a go-around the crew had intended and he had, therefore, pushed the power lever for the right engine forward. In later statements he stated that the engine power was to be increased. A few days after the accident, the BFU asked both pilots for a detailed written statement concerning the course of events. The BFU received documents with a short description of the accident in note form. The statements of the two pilots were almost identical in content and format.

On 18 November 2009, the flight crew of an Israel Aircraft Industries Westwind 1124A aircraft, registered VH-NGA, was attempting a night approach and landing at Norfolk Island on an aeromedical flight from Apia, Samoa. On board were the pilot in command and copilot, and a doctor, nurse, patient and one passenger. On arrival, weather conditions prevented the crew from seeing the runway or its visual aids and therefore from landing. The pilot in command elected to ditch the aircraft in the sea before the aircraft’s fuel was exhausted. The aircraft broke in two after ditching. All the occupants escaped from the aircraft and were rescued by boat.

The Sky North Air Ltd. Beechcraft A100 (registration C-FSNA, serial number B-227) operating as SN683 departed Runway 32 at Gods Lake Narrows, Manitoba, for Thompson, Manitoba with two pilots, a flight nurse, and two patients on board. Shortly after takeoff, while in a climbing left turn, smoke and then fire emanated from the pedestal area in the cockpit. The crew continued the turn, intending to return to Runway 14 at Gods Lake Narrows. The aircraft contacted trees and came to rest in a wooded area about one-half nautical mile northwest of the airport. The accident occurred at 2140 central standard time. All five persons onboard evacuated the aircraft; two received minor injuries. At approximately 0250, the accident site was located and the occupants were evacuated. The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and a post-crash fire. The emergency locator transmitter was consumed by the fire and whether or not it transmitted a signal is unknown.

The pilot of the multiengine airplane was flying two passengers at night on an instrument-flight-rules flight plan. One of the passengers had been on an organ recipient waiting list and his wife was accompanying him. A viable matched organ was available at a distant hospital and the passenger had to arrive on short notice for surgery the following morning. All radio communications during the flight between the pilot and air traffic control (ATC), a flight service station (FSS), and a fixed-based operator (FBO) were routine. The pilot was aware of the weather at the destination airport, and had commented to ATC about 75 miles from the destination that the weather was "going up and down…like a real thin fog layer.” Additionally, better weather conditions prevailed at nearby suitable airports. The pilot mentioned one of those airports to ATC in the event he decided to divert. According to an employee at an FBO located at the destination airport, the pilot contacted him via radio and asked about the current weather conditions. The employee replied that the visibility was low due to fog and that he could not see the terminal lights from the FBO. The pilot then asked which of the two alternate airports was closer and the employee stated that he did not know. The employee then heard the pilot “click” the runway lights and contact the local FSS. about 5 miles from runway 29, just prior to the initial approach fix, the pilot radioed on the common traffic advisory frequency and reported a 5-mile final leg for runway 29. The FSS reported that the current weather was automated showing an indefinite ceiling of 100 feet vertical visibility and 1/4 mile visibility in fog. The pilota cknowledged the weather information. The weather was below the minimum published requirements for the instrument-landing-system (ILS) approach at the destination airport. Radar data showed that the flight intercepted and tracked the localizer, then intercepted the glideslope about 1 minute later. There were a few radar targets without altitude data due to intermittent Mode C transponder returns. The last recorded radar target with altitude indicated the airplane was at 600 feet, on glideslope and heading for the approach; however, the three subsequent and final targets did not show altitude information. The last recorded radar target was about 1.4 miles from the runway threshold. The airplane flew below glideslope and impacted 100-foot-tall trees about 4,150 feet from the runway 29 threshold. On-ground facility checks and a postaccident flight check of the ILS runway 29 approach conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration did not reveal malfunctions with the ILS. The cabin and cockpit area, including the NAV/COMM/APP, equipment were consumed by a postimpact fire which precluded viable component testing. Detailed examination of the wreckage that was not consumed by fire did not reveal preimpact mechanical malfunctions that may have contributed to the accident. Given that the pilot was aware of the weather conditions before and during the approach, it is possible that the pilot’s goal of expeditiously transporting a patient to a hospital for an organ transplant may have affected his decision to initiate and continue an instrument approach while the weather conditions were below the published minimum requirements for the approach.

One minute after takeoff from Asunción-Silvio Pettirossi Airport, while climbing to a height of about 1,000 feet, the aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed in an eucalyptus plantation located 6,5 km northeast of the airport. The aircraft was destroyed by a post crash fire and all five occupants were killed, two pilots and three nurses.

The private pilot arrived at the accident airport as part of an Angel Flight volunteer program to provide transportation of a passenger who had undergone medical treatment at a local hospital. About 0937, the airplane landed on runway 30 (3,900 feet by 150 feet) with winds from 073-080 degrees and 5-6 knots, which continued to increase due to an atmospheric pressure gradient. The pilot met the passengers and departed the terminal about 1003, with winds at 101-103 degrees and 23-36 knots. About 1005 the airplane was near the approach end of runway 30 with wind from 089-096 degrees and 21-31 knots. The pilot stated that he began rotating the airplane about 3,000 feet down the runway. About 1006, the airplane was approximately 3,553 feet down the runway while flying about 30 feet above the runway. The airplane experienced an aerodynamic stall, and the left wing dropped before it impacted the ground. No mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane were noted during the investigation. The fatally injured passenger, who had received medical treatment, was 2 years and 10 months of age at the time of the accident. She was held by her mother during the flight, as she had been on previous Angel Flights, but was otherwise unrestrained. According to 14 CFR 91.107(3), each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft must occupy an approved seat with a safety belt properly secured during takeoff, and only unrestrained children who are under the age of 2 may be held by a restrained adult. Although the accident was survivable (both the pilot and the adult passenger survived with non-life-threatening injuries), an autopsy performed on the child revealed that the cause of death was blunt force trauma of the head.

The crew was completing a flight to Bahia Piña Airport on behalf of the Ministry of Social Development to pickup a woman and her child. Approaching the destination, the crew encountered engine problems when the aircraft crashed near Punta Caracoles. Both pilots were injured and the aircraft was destroyed.

The twin engine aircraft departed Bogotá-El Dorado Airport runway 13L on an ambulance flight to Leticia, carrying three doctors and two pilots. Shortly after takeoff, during initial climb, the crew contacted ATC and declared an emergency. The aircraft rolled to the right then entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed onto several houses located in the Fontibón neighborhood, bursting into flames. All five occupants were killed as well as two people on the ground.

The pilot contacted air traffic control, using the wrong call sign, requesting radar flight following. The airplane initially climbed to 13,500 feet, descended to 11,500 feet, climbed to 13,500 feet, and then began a descent until it impacted terrain at 11,900 feet. One minute prior to impact, the pilot asked the air traffic controller about various minimum altitudes for his route of flight. The controller responded with a minimum instrument altitude of 15,000 to 15,300 feet. A review of the handling of the accident flight showed that the controller was aware of the airplane's position, altitude, general route of flight, and its proximity to terrain. No safety alert was issued to the accident flight. Weather depiction charts, infrared satellite imagery, and local weather observations indicate instrument meteorological conditions prevailed along the route of flight, closest to the accident location. The moon had set at 1539 on the day of the accident. The pilot reported a planned flight altitude of 12,500 feet to his dispatcher. No record of a preflight weather briefing was located. An examination of the airplane, engines, and related systems revealed no anomalies.

The emergency medical services (EMS) airplane took off toward the east in dark night visual conditions. The purpose of the Part 135 commercial air ambulance flight was to transport a 15-month-old patient from one hospital to another. Immediately following the takeoff from an airport elevation of 6,814 feet above mean sea level (msl), witnesses observed the airplane initiate a left turn to the north and disappear. Satellite tracking detected the airplane a shortly after departure, when the airplane was flying at an altitude of 6,811 feet msl, an airspeed of 115 knots, and a course of 072 degrees. The airplane impacted terrain at an elevation of 6,860 msl feet shortly thereafter, about 4 miles southeast of the departure airport. The pilot, flight nurse, paramedic, patient, and patient's mother were fatally injured. When the airplane failed to arrive at its destination, authorities initiated a search and the wreckage was located the next morning. Documentation and analysis of the accident site by the NTSB revealed that debris path indicated a heading away from the destination airport. Initial impact with trees occurred at an elevation of 6,860 feet. Fragmented wreckage was strewn for 1,100 feet down a 4.5-degree graded hill on a magnetic heading of 141 degrees. The aircraft's descent angle was computed to be 13 degrees, and the angle of impact was computed to be 8.5 degrees. There was evidence of a post-impact flash fire. Both engine and propeller assemblies were recovered and examined; the assemblies bore signatures consistent with engine power in a mid to high power range. The flaps and landing gear were retracted, indicating that the pilot did not attempt to land the airplane at the time of the accident. Flight control continuity was established, and control cable and push rods breaks exhibited signatures consistent with overload failures. There was no evidence of any pre-impact mechanical malfunction found during examination of the available evidence. The pilot had logged 2,775 total flight hours, of which 23 hours were in the accident airplane. Toxicology testing detected chlorpheniramine (an over-the-counter antihistamine that results in impairment at typical doses) and acetaminophen (an over-the-counter pain reliever and fever reducer often known by the trade name Tylenol and frequently combined with chlorpheniramine). No blood was available for tox testing, so it is not possible to accurately estimate the time of last use, nor determine if the level of impairment that these substances would have incurred during the flight. The airplane was not equipped with either a flight data recorder or a cockpit voice recorder, nor were they required by Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR). The impact damage to the aircraft, presence of dark night conditions, experience level of the pilot, and anomalous flight path are consistent with spatial disorientation.