Cargo

The airplane departed Juba Airport Runway 13 at 1233LT on a cargo flight to Maban, carrying five crew members and a load consisting of 28 drums of diesel. Three minutes after takeoff, while climbing, the crew declared an emergency. One minute later, the entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed less than 2 km past the runway end, bursting into flames. The aircraft was destroyed and all five occupants were killed. Registration and MSN to be confirmed. It is believed that the aircraft was operated on behalf of Euro Airlines.

The single engine aircraft departed Dekai-Nop Goliat Airport for a short cargo flight to the Dagi Baru Airstrip with two pilots on board. Weather conditions were considered as good upon arrival. After landing, the aircraft went out of control, veered off runway and came to rest down a ravine. Both occupants were injured and the aircraft was destroyed.

On final approach to Ilaga Airport, the crew encountered poor visibility due to foggy conditions. The single engine airplane impacted ground near the runway 25 threshold, lost its undercarriage and slid for few dozen metres before coming to rest on the runway. One of the pilot was killed.

The captain and first officer were assigned a two-leg overnight on-demand cargo flight. The flight crew were accustomed to flying night cargo flights, had regularly flown together, and were experienced pilots. The first leg of the trip was uneventful and was flown by the captain; however, their trip was delayed 2 hours and 20 minutes at the intermediate stop due to a delay in the freight arriving. The flight subsequently departed with the first officer as the pilot flying. While enroute, about forty minutes from the destination, the flight crew asked the air traffic controller about the NOTAMs for the instrument landing system (ILS) instrument approach procedure at the destination. The controller informed the flight crew of two NOTAMs: the first pertained to the ILS glidepath being unserviceable and the second applied to the localizer being unserviceable. When the controller read the first NOTAM, he stated he did not know what “GP” meant, which was the abbreviation for the glideslope/glidepath on the approach. The controller also informed the flight crew that the localizer NOTAM was not in effect until later in the morning after their expected arrival, which was consistent with the published NOTAM. The flight crew subsequently requested the ILS approach and when the flight was about 15 miles from the final approach fix, the controller cleared the flight for the ILS or localizer approach, to which the captain read back that they were cleared for the ILS approach. As the flight neared the final approach fix, the captain reported that they had the airport in sight; he cancelled the instrument flight rules flight plan, and the flight continued flying towards the runway. The airplane crossed the final approach fix off course, high, and fast. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) transcript revealed that the captain repeatedly instructed the first officer to correct for the approach path deviations. Furthermore, the majority of the approach was conducted with a flight-idle power setting and no standard altitude callouts were made during the final approach. Instead of performing a go-around and acknowledging the unstable approach conditions, the captain instructed the first officer to use the air brakes on final approach to reduce the altitude and airspeed. Shortly after this comment was made, the captain announced that they were low on the approach and a few seconds later the captain announced that trees were observed in their flight path. The CVR captured sounds consistent with power increasing; however, the audible stall warning tone was also heard. Subsequently, the airplane continued its descent and impacted terrain about .70 nautical mile from the runway. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and both occupants were killed.

On 15 September 2021, a DHC-6-300 (Twin Otter) aircraft registered PK-OTW was being operated for an unscheduled cargo flight from Douw Aturure Airport (WABI), Nabire, Papua to Bilorai Airport (WAYB), Intan Jaya, Papua. The aircraft was operated by two pilots accompanied by one engineer on board. The filed flight plan for the flight indicated that the aircraft would be operated under Visual Flight Rule (VFR) with fuel endurance of 2 hours 30 minutes. The estimate time departure for the flight was at 0640 LT. At 0610 LT, the pilot received weather observation report from the Bilorai aeronautical communication officer (ACO) that the visibility was 5 up to 7 kilometers, several clouds over the airport and all final areas were clear. About 7 minutes later, the ACO updated the observation report which indicated that the visibility changed to 7 up to 8 kilometers (km). After the cargo loading process and the flight preparation had completed, the aircraft taxied to Runway 16. At 0644 LT, the aircraft departed and climbed to the cruising altitude of 9,500 feet. Prior to the departure, there was no record or report of aircraft system malfunction. The Pilot in Command (PIC) acted as Pilot Monitoring (PM) while the Second in Command (SIC) acted as Pilot Flying (PF). At 0658 LT, the PK-OTW pilot reported to the Nabire air traffic control that the aircraft was at 25 Nm with altitude of 9,500 feet. At 0702 LT, the SIC asked the PIC to have the aircraft control as PF. During flight, the PK-OTW pilots monitored weather information provided by the pilots of two other aircraft that flew ahead of the PK-OTW to Bilorai. Both pilots monitored that the first aircraft (Cessna 208B EX) landed using Runway 27 while the second aircraft (Cessna 208B) would use Runway 09. At 0715 LT, the PIC advised the SIC to use the Runway 27 for landing. At 0719 LT, the SIC made initial contact with the ACO and advised that the aircraft was approaching Bilai at altitude of 9,500 feet and the estimate time arrival at Bilorai was 0726 LT. The ACO acknowledged the pilot report and provided current weather observation as follows “…wind westerly 3 until 5 knots, final 09 open with broken fog and final 27 open, visibility 5 until 7 km, blue sky overhead”. The SIC acknowledged the weather information and advised the ACO would report when the aircraft position was on left downwind Runway 27. At 0721 LT, the SIC read the descent checklist included the item of Landing Data/Approach Briefing and was replied by completed. The Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) did not record any pilot’s discussion regarding to the airport minimum safe altitude since the beginning of the recording. At 0723 LT, a pilot of DHC-6-400 aircraft registered PK-OTJ, asked the PK-OTW pilot of the weather condition in Bilorai. The PK-OTJ flew behind the PK-OTW with from Nabire to Bilorai. The SIC then responded that the PK-OTW was on descend and would fly through clouds about 5 Nm to Bilorai. Thereafter, the ACO provided traffic information to PK-OTW pilot that there was an aircraft (Cessna 208B aircraft) on final Runway 09. The PIC who acted as PF acknowledged the traffic information and advised to the ACO that the PK-OTW would join left downwind Runway 27 for the landing approach. At 0725 LT, the SIC advised to the ACO that the aircraft was on left downwind Runway 27. The ACO then advised the PK-OTW pilot to report when on final Runway 27. At 07:26:12 LT, a stall warning recorded in the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) then the PIC asked to the SIC to check the aircraft speed. The SIC responded the aircraft speed was 65 knots. At 07:26:16 LT, the PIC asked to the SIC to advise the ACO that they were making a go around. The SIC then advised the ACO that the PK-OTW was making a go around and was responded to report when on final. The CVR did not record pilot’s discussion about the plan maneuver of the go around. At 07:26:45 LT, the PIC informed that they were making a go around to the PK-OTJ pilot. The PK-OTJ pilot responded that the aircraft was approaching Homeyo and would reduce the speed to make enough separation with the PK-OTW. The PIC then advised the PK-OTJ that the PK-OTW would attempt to land using Runway 09. Based on the data transmitted from the flight following system, at 07:27:57 LT, the aircraft was about 3 Nm outbound from Bilorai on direction of 238°. At 07:28:22 LT, the PK-OTJ pilot advised to the ACO that the aircraft was about 6 nm to Bilai and the pilot intended to make holding maneuver over Bilai to make enough separation with the PK-OTW. At 07:28:33 LT, the SIC advised the PIC that the aircraft was at 8,200 feet and was responded that the PIC initiated turning the aircraft. A few second later, the SIC advised to the PIC that the aircraft was turning, and the aircraft was at 3.2 Nm outbound from Bilorai. At 07:28:38 LT, the last data of the flight following system recorded that the aircraft was on direction of 110°. At 07:29:25 LT, the SIC advised the PIC to fly left. Thereafter, the SIC advised the PIC that the aircraft was passing 8,000 feet. At 07:29:35 LTC, the PIC asked to the SIC about the distance to Bilorai and was responded 2.5 Nm. The SIC, reminded the PIC to fly left as the aircraft flew too close to the terrain. At 07:29:49 LT, the CVR recorded the first impact sound and the CVR recording stopped at 07:29:55 LT. At 0730 LT, the ACO asked the PK-OTW pilot intention as the aircraft was not visible from the ACO working position, and the pilot did not respond the ACO. At about the same time, the ACO heard impact sound that was predicted coming from terrain area on west of Bilorai. The ACO then called the PK-OTW pilot several times without response. Several pilots also attempted to contact the PK-OTW with the same result. The PK-OTW was found on a ridge at elevation of 8,100 feet, about 2 Nm on bearing 260° from Bilorai.

Transair flight 810, a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 cargo flight, experienced a partial loss of power involving the right engine shortly after takeoff and a water ditching in the
Pacific Ocean about 11.5 minutes later. This analysis summarizes the accident and evaluates (1) the right engine partial loss of power, (2) the captain's communications with air traffic control (ATC) and the first officer's left and right engine thrust reductions, (3) the first officer's misidentification of the affected engine and the captain's failure to verify the information, (4) checklist performance, and (5) survival factors. Maintenance was not a factor in this accident. The flight data recorder (FDR) showed that, when the initial thrust was set for takeoff, the engine pressure ratios (EPR) for the left and right engines were 2.00 and 1.97, respectively. Shortly after rotation, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recorded a “thud” and the sound of a low-frequency vibration. The captain (the pilot monitoring at the time) and the first officer (the pilot flying) reported that they heard a “whoosh” and a “pop,” respectively, at that time. As the airplane climbed through an altitude of about 390 ft while at an airspeed of 155 knots, the right EPR decreased to 1.43 during a 2-second period. The airplane then yawed to the right; the first officer countered the yaw with appropriate left rudder pedal inputs. The CVR showed that the captain and the first officer correctly determined that the No. 2 (right) engine had lost thrust within 5 seconds of hearing the thud sound. After moving the flaps to the UP position, the captain reduced thrust to maximum continuous thrust, causing the left EPR to decrease from 1.96 to 1.91 while the airplane was in a climb. (The right EPR remained at 1.43). The captain reported that he did not move the thrust levers again until after he became the pilot flying. The first officer stated that, after the airplane leveled off at an altitude of about 2,000 ft, he reduced thrust on both engines. FDR data showed that thrust was incrementally reduced to near flight idle (1.05 EPR on the left engine and then 1.09 EPR on the right engine) and that airspeed decreased from about 250 to 210 knots. (A decrease in airspeed to 210 knots was consistent with the operator’s simulator guide procedures for a single-engine failure after the takeoff decision speed [V1]. The simulator guide, which supplemented information in the company’s flight crew training manual, contained the most recent operator guidance for single-engine failure training at the time of the accident.) The captain was unaware of the first officer’s thrust changes because he was busy contacting the controller about the emergency. The captain told the controller, “we’ve lost an engine,” but he had declared the emergency to the controller twice before this point, as discussed later in this analysis. The captain instructed the first officer to maintain a target speed of 220 knots (which the captain thought would be “easy on the running engine”), a target altitude of 2,000 ft, and a target heading of 240°. (About 52 seconds earlier, the controller had issued the 240° heading instruction to another airplane on the same radio frequency.) About 3 minutes 14 seconds after the right engine loss of thrust occurred, the captain assumed control of the airplane; at that time, the airplane’s airspeed was 224 knots and heading was 242°, but the airplane’s altitude had decreased from about 2,100 ft (the maximum altitude that the airplane reached during the flight) to 1,690 ft. The captain increased the airplane’s pitch to 9°; the airplane’s altitude then increased to 1,878 ft, but the airspeed decreased to 196 knots. The captain subsequently stated, “let’s see what is the problem...which one...what's going on with the gauges,” and “who has the E-G-T [exhaust gas temperature]?” The first officer stated that the left engine was “gone” and “so we have number two” (the right engine), thus misidentifying the affected engine. The captain accepted the first officer’s assessment and did not take action to verify the information. Afterward, the EPR level on the right engine began to increase in response to the captain advancing the right thrust lever so that the airplane could maintain airspeed and altitude. Right EPR increased and decreased several times during the rest of the flight (coinciding with crew comments regarding the EGT on the right engine and low airspeed) while the left EPR remained near flight idle. The first officer asked the captain if they “should head back toward the airport” before the airplane traveled “too far away,” and the captain responded that the airplane would stay within 15 miles of the airport. During a postaccident interview, the captain stated that, because there was no fire and an engine “was running,” he intended to have the airplane climb to 2,000 ft and stay within 15 miles of the airport to avoid traffic and have time to address the engine issue. The captain also stated that he had been criticized by the company chief pilot for returning to the airport without completing the required abnormal checklist for a previous in-flight emergency. Although the captain’s decision resulted in the accident airplane flying farther away from the airport and farther over the ocean at night, the captain’s decision was reasonable for a single-engine failure event. The captain directed the first officer to begin the Engine Failure or Shutdown checklist and stated that he would continue handling the radios. The first officer began to read aloud the conditions for executing the Engine Failure or Shutdown checklist but then stopped to tell the captain that the right EGT was at the “red line” and that thrust should be reduced on the right engine. The captain then decided that the airplane should return to the airport and contacted the controller to request vectors. The flight crew continued to express concern about the right engine. The first officer stated, “just have to watch this though…the number two.” The captain asked the first officer to check the EGT for the right engine, and the first officer responded that it was “beyond max.” Afterward, the captain told the first officer to continue with the Engine Failure or Shutdown checklist and finish as much as possible. The first officer resumed reading aloud the conditions for performing the checklist but then stopped to state, “we have to fly the airplane though,” because the airplane was continuing to lose altitude and airspeed. The captain replied “okay.” As a result, the flight crew did not perform key steps of the checklist, including identifying, confirming, and shutting down the affected (right) engine. The first officer told the captain that the airplane was losing altitude; at that time, the airplane’s altitude was 592 ft, and its airspeed was 160 knots. The captain agreed to select flaps 1 (which the first officer had previously suggested likely because the airplane was slowing). The CVR then recorded the first enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS) annunciation (500 ft above ground level); various EGPWS callouts and alerts continued to be annunciated through the remainder of the flight. The captain then told the controller that “we’ve lost number one [left] engine…there’s a chance we’re gonna lose the other engine too it’s running very hot….we’re pretty low on the speed it doesn't look good out here.” Also, the captain mentioned that the controller should notify the US Coast Guard (USCG) because he was anticipating a water ditching in the Pacific Ocean. Because of the high temperature readings on the right engine, the flight crew thought, at this point in the flight, that a dual-engine failure was imminent. During a postaccident interview, the captain stated that his priority at that time was figuring out how the airplane could stay in the air and return safely to the airport. The captain also stated that he attempted to resolve the airplane’s deteriorating energy state by advancing the right engine thrust lever. However, with the left engine remaining near flight idle, the right engine was not producing sufficient thrust to enable the airplane to maintain altitude or climb. The captain’s communication with the controller continued, and the first officer stated, “fly the airplane please.” The controller asked if the airport was in sight, and the captain then asked the first officer whether he could see the airport. The first officer responded “pull up we’re low” to the captain and “negative” to the controller; the captain was likely unable to respond to the controller because he was trying to control the airplane. The captain asked the first officer about the EGT for the right engine; the first officer replied “hot…way over.” The captain then asked about, and the controller responded by providing, the location of the closest airport. Afterward, the CVR recorded a sound similar to the stick shaker, which continued intermittently through the rest of the flight. The CVR then recorded sounds consistent with water impact. The airplane came down into the Pacific Ocean about two miles offshore and sank. Both crew members were rescued, one was slightly injured and a second was seriously injured. The wreckage was later recovered for investigation purposes.

The twin engine aircraft departed Bukavu-Kavumu Airport on a cargo flight to Shabunda, carrying one passenger, two pilots and a load consisting of 1,600 kg of metal sheet. Shortly after takeoff, while in initial climb, the aircraft went out of control and crashed in a prairie located near the airport. The aircraft was totally destroyed and all three occupants were killed.

A Cirrus SR22 and a Swearingen AS226TC were approaching to land on parallel runways and being controlled by different controllers on different control tower frequencies. The pilot of the Swearingen was established on an extended final approach for the left runway, while the pilot of the Cirrus was flying a right traffic pattern for the right runway. Data from an on-board recording device showed that the Cirrus’ airspeed on the base leg of the approach was more than 50 kts above the manufacturer’s recommended speed of 90 to 95 kts. As the Cirrus made the right turn from the base leg to the final approach, its flight path carried it through the extended centerline for the assigned runway (right), and into the extended centerline for the left runway where the collision occurred. At the time of the collision, the Cirrus had completed about ½ of the 90° turn from base to final and its trajectory would have taken it even further left of the final approach course for the left runway. The pilot of the Swearingen landed uneventfully; the pilot of the Cirrus deployed the airframe parachute system, and the airplane came to rest upright about 3 nautical miles from the airport. Both airplanes sustained substantial damage to their fuselage. During the approach sequence the controller working the Swearingen did not issue a traffic advisory to the pilot regarding the location of the Cirrus and the potential conflict. The issuance of traffic information during simultaneous parallel runway operations was required by Federal Aviation Administration Order JO 7110.65Y, which details air traffic control procedures and phraseology for use by persons providing air traffic control services. The controller working the Cirrus did issue a traffic advisory to the Cirrus pilot regarding the Swearingen on the parallel approach. Based on the available information, the pilot of the Cirrus utilized a much higher than recommended approach speed which increased the airplane’s radius of turn. The pilot then misjudged the airplane’s flight path, which resulted in the airplane flying through the assigned final approach course and into the path of the parallel runway. The controller did not issue a traffic advisory to the pilot of Swearingen regarding the location of the Cirrus. The two airplanes were on different tower frequencies and had the controller issued an advisory, the pilot of the Swearingen may have been able to identify the conflict and maneuver his airplane to avoid the collision.

On 20 March 2021, a Boeing 737-400F, registered PK-YSF, was being operated by Trigana Air Service on a non-schedule cargo flight from Halim Perdanakusuma International Airport (WIHH), Jakarta, Indonesia with intended destination of Sultan Hasanuddin International Airport (WAAA), South Sulawesi, Indonesia. On board in this flight was two pilots, one engineer and one Flight Operation Officer (FOO). According to the weight and balance sheet, the flight carried 16,672 kgs of general cargo, takeoff fuel of 11,100 kg and the takeoff weight was 60,695 kg (133,835 lbs). The Pilot in Command (PIC) acted as Pilot Flying (PF) and the Second in Command (SIC) acted as Pilot Monitoring (PM). At 0328 UTC (1028 LT), the PM requested clearance to Halim Tower controller (the controller) to pushback and start the engines. At 1031 LT, the PM requested to the controller for taxi clearance. There was no report of aircraft system abnormality prior to the aircraft departure. At 1047 LT, the controller issued clearance to the PK-YSF pilot to enter and to backtrack Runway 24. At 1051 LT, the PM reported ready for departure to the controller. The controller issued takeoff clearance with additional departure clearance that after takeoff, turn left to heading 180° and initially climb to altitude of 3,000 feet. The PM acknowledged the clearance. The takeoff was conducted with reduced takeoff thrust by assumed temperature of 40°C and the aircraft became airborne at 10:52:57 LT. At 1055 LT, the controller advised the pilot to report when established on heading 180°. The PM reported that they were experiencing right engine failure and requested to fly to AL NDB . The controller advised the PM to turn left heading 060° and to climb to 2,500 feet. Furthermore, the controller asked the pilot intention whether to hold over AL NDB or direct for landing approach. The PM replied that they would hold over AL NDB and added the information that no fire was detected. The controller issued clearance to fly to AL NDB at altitude of 2,500 feet. The controller assumed that PK-YSF would return to Halim and advised the Airport Rescue and Fire-Fighting (ARFF) personnel that PK-YSF experienced right engine failure and would return to Halim. At 1058 LT, the controller requested the information of time required for holding over AL NDB and was replied by the PM that holding would require about 15 minutes. Furthermore, the controller requested whether the pilot able to hold at a point about 15 to 20 Nm from AL NDB and was replied by the PM that they did not objection to the proposal. The controller instructed the pilot to maintain outbound heading up to 15 Nm, at altitude of 2,500 feet. This was intended by the controller to manage the departure and arrival aircraft to and from Halim. At 1116 LT, the PM reported that they were ready to turn left for approach. The controller advised the pilot to turn left and to intercept localizer of the Instrument Landing System (ILS) Runway 24. At 1125 LT, the PM reported to the controller that the Runway was in sight. The controller advised that the wind was from 060° at velocity of 6 knots, QNH 1,007 mbs and issued landing clearance. The aircraft touched down on the touchdown zone and shortly after, both wheels of the right main landing gear detached. The controller noticed spark appeared from the aircraft and pressed the crash bell. At 1127 LT, the controller informed pilots of the other aircraft that the runway blocked by the landing aircraft and identified fire on one of the engines. Few seconds later, the PM called the controller whether any fire and was replied by the controller that fire was visible on the left side of the aircraft.

The twin engine airplane departed Detroit-Willow Run (Ypsilanti) Airport at 2337LT on March 6 on a cargo service to Akron-Canton Airport, carrying two pilots and a load of various goods. After takeoff, the crew encountered technical problems and declared an emergency. He completed two low passes in front of the tower, apparently due to gear problems. Eventually, the aircraft belly landed at 0008LT and came to rest on runway 05R. Both pilots evacuated safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.