Cargo

On May 27, 2017 9N-AKY, LET 410 UVP-E20 of Goma Air (now Summit Air), a domestic carrier of Nepal had a published program to operate 5 flights to Lukla from Kathmandu. The first flight departed Kathmandu at 0026 UTC. By the time 0647 UTC they had completed 4 flights. The fifth and the last flight departed Kathmandu at 0744 UTC for Lukla as call sign Goma Air 409. Goma Air 409 was the cargo flight carrying 1680 kg cargo for Lukla. There were two cockpit crews, one cabin crew and no passengers on board the flight. It was pre-monsoon period. Lukla weather on that particular day was cloudy since morning. But ceiling and visibility were reported OK. However, CCTV footage shows rapidly deteriorating weather condition before and after the crash. Automatic VHF recorder of Lukla Tower and CVR recording showed Tower was regularly updating pilots of deteriorating weather. All the pre-and post-departure procedure of the flight was completed in normal manner. Before departure from Kathmandu Pilots were found to have obtained latest weather of Lukla, Phaplu and Rumjatar. PIC decided to remain south of track to avoid the terrain and cloud. When Goma 409 was about 11 miles East from Kathmandu they were informed that Lukla was having heavy rain and airport closed. By that time air traffic congestion in TIA was slowly developing. Traffics were holding in the air and in the ground as well. So Goma 409 continued for Lukla. However, after crossing 26 miles from Kathmandu, they were again informed that the rain had ceased and airport was open. An AS350 helicopter, 9N AGU which departed Lukla at 0803 UTC for Kathmandu had reported unstable wind on final Runway 06. Enroute weather reported by 9N AGU upon request of Lukla Tower was good beyond the Lukla valley. However, it was apprehended that for fixed wing, weather might be difficult to enter valley. Lukla Tower relayed all available information when Goma Air 409 had first established contact at time 0810 UTC. Later, Goma Air and 9N AGY, two reciprocal traffics were also in contact each other. 9N AGY relayed the actual weather status to GOMA AIR. Lukla valley's ceiling and visibility was OK for VFR until 0812UTC ( 6 minutes before crash). Weather started to deteriorate very fast. Mountain Ridges were visible through thin layer of foggy cloud until 0814 UTC. After one minute (approx.) Right Base for Runway 06, was covered up and cloud from left base was moving towards final. Duty ATS Officer of Lukla Tower was regularly up dating pilots about deteriorating weather condition. However, Tower was found to be failed to close the runway as per SOP in spite of rapidly deterioratingweather. Pilots ventured to continue though the weather was marginal. Aircraft reported entering valley at 0816. CVR record showed that First Officer sighted the runway at 0817 (64 seconds before the impact). Instantly PIC acknowledged he had also the runway in sight. Aircraft was at 9100 ft (approx.) when the cockpit crews sighted the runway. It maintained 9000 feet (approx.) for further 21 seconds. At time 0817:12i.e. 48 seconds before the impact Tower gave the latest wind as Westerly 04 knots and runway was clear. PIC was still in doubt and asked whether there was rain. Upon confirmation of having no rain from the Tower the aircraft started to descend further. The PIC, who was also the PF, found to have lost situational awareness deviated to the right with continued descend. At 0817:35 (25 seconds before impact) when the flight was descending through 8650 ft First Officer warned PIC that they were too low. PIC did not respond the F/O's call-out and continued descend. On reaching 8500 ft. F/O again warned PIC in panic. Then PIC asked in panic where the runway was. F/O directed towards the runway. But it was already too low and too late. There was initially two short stall warning sound. Then a continuous stall warning sounded till the impact, which lasted for 13 seconds. The last words in CVR records was "w]/ gtfg " (Do not pull too much). Abrupt change in aircraft attitude in an attempt to climb and reach threshold height at 8900 ft. (on Kathmandu QNH) in a landing configuration, with landing gears down and on full flaps, created excessive drag resulting the aircraft to stall. Subsequently, its left wing first hit a small tree branch 180 ft. short of the threshold. Then impacted the sloppy terrain 100ft. short of the runway. After the crash aircraft engine was reported to be running for about a minute. But there was no postcrash fire. Aircraft was totally damaged by the impact.
Crew:
Paras Kumar Rai, pilot, †
Srijan Manandhar, copilot, †
Pragya Maharjan, cabin crew.

The flight crew was conducting a cargo flight in instrument meteorological conditions. Takeoff from the departure airport and the en route portion of the flight were normal, with no reported weather or operational issues. As the flight neared Charleston Yeager International Airport (CRW) at an altitude of 9,000 ft, the captain and first officer received the most recent automatic terminal information service (ATIS) report for the airport indicating wind from 080º at 11 knots, 10 miles visibility, scattered clouds at 700 ft above ground level (agl), and a broken ceiling at 1,300 ft agl. However, a special weather observation recorded about 7 minutes before the flight crew's initial contact with the CRW approach controller indicated that the wind conditions had changed to 170º at 4 knots and that cloud ceilings had dropped to 500 ft agl. The CRW approach controller did not provide the updated weather information to the flight crew and did not update the ATIS, as required by Federal Aviation Administration Order 7110.65X, paragraph 2-9-2. The CRW approach controller advised the flight crew to expect the localizer 5 approach, which would have provided a straight-in final approach course aligned with runway 5. The first officer acknowledged the instruction but requested the VOR-A circling instrument approach, presumably because the approach procedure happened to line up with the flight crew's inbound flightpath and flying the localizer 5 approach would result in a slightly longer flight to the airport. However, because the localizer 5 approach was available, the flight crew's decision to fly the VOR-A circling approach was contrary to the operator's standard operating procedures (SOP). The minimum descent altitude (MDA) for the localizer approach was 373 ft agl, and the MDA for the VOR-A approach was about 773 ft agl. With the special weather observation indicating cloud cover at 500 ft agl, it would be difficult for the pilots to see the airport while at the MDA for the VOR-A approach; yet, the flight crew did not have that information. The approach controller was required to provide the flight crew with the special weather report indicating that the ceiling at the arrival airport had dropped below the MDA, which could have prompted the pilots to use the localizer approach; however, the pilots would not have been required to because the minimum visibility for the VOR-A approach was within acceptable limits. The approach controller approved the first officer's request then cleared the flight direct to the first waypoint of the VOR-A approach and to descend to 4,000 ft. Radar data indicated that as the flight progressed along the VOR-A approach course, the airplane descended 120 feet below the prescribed minimum stepdown altitude of 1,720 ft two miles prior to FOGAG waypoint. The airplane remained level at or about 1,600 ft until about 0.5 mile from the displaced threshold of the landing runway. At this point, the airplane entered a 2,500 ft-per-minute, turning descent toward the runway in a steep left bank up to 42º in an apparent attempt to line up with the runway. Performance analysis indicates that, just before the airplane impacted the runway, the descent rate decreased to about 600 fpm and pitch began to move in a nose-up direction, suggesting that the captain was pulling up as the airplane neared the pavement; however, it was too late to save the approach. Postaccident examination of the airplane did not identify any airplane or engine malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Video and witness information were not conclusive as to whether the captain descended below the MDA before exiting the cloud cover; however, the descent from the MDA was not in accordance with federal regulations, which required, in part, that pilots not leave the MDA until the "aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal descent rate using normal maneuvers." The accident airplane's descent rate was not in accordance with company guidance, which stated that "a constant rate of descent of about 500 ft./min. should be maintained." Rather than continue the VOR-A approach with an excessive descent rate and airplane maneuvering, the captain should have conducted a missed approach and executed the localizer 5 approach procedure. No evidence was found to indicate why the captain chose to continue the approach; however, the captain's recent performance history, including an unsatisfactory checkride due to poor instrument flying, indicated that his instrument flight skills were marginal. It is possible that the captain felt more confident in his ability to perform an unstable approach to the runway compared to conducting the circling approach to land. The first officer also could have called for a missed approach but, based on text messages she sent to friends and their interview statements, the first officer was not in the habit of speaking up. The difference in experience between the captain and first officer likely created a barrier to communication due to authority gradient. ATC data of three VOR-A approaches to CRW flown by the captain over a period of 3 months before the accident and airport security footage of previous landings by the flight crew 1 month before the accident suggest that the captain's early descent below specified altitudes and excessive maneuvering during landing were not isolated to the accident flight. The evidence suggests that the flight crew consistently turned to final later and at a lower altitude than recommended by the operator's SOPs. The flight crew's performance on the accident flight was consistent with procedural intentional noncompliance, which—as a longstanding concern of the NTSB—was highlighted on the NTSB's 2015 Most Wanted List. The operator stands as the first line of defense against procedural intentional noncompliance by setting a positive safety attitude for personnel to follow and establishing organizational protections. However, the operator had no formal safety and oversight program to assess compliance with SOPs or monitor pilots, such as the captain, with previous performance issues.

The commercial pilot departed on a planned 1-hour cargo cross-country flight in the autopilot-equipped airplane. About 3 minutes after departure, the controller instructed the pilot to fly direct to the destination airport at 2,000 ft mean sea level (msl). The pilot acknowledged the clearance, and there were no further radio transmissions from the airplane. The airplane continued flying past the destination airport in straight-and-level flight at 2,100 ft msl, consistent with the airplane operating under autopilot control, until it was about 100 miles beyond the destination airport. A witness near the accident site watched the airplane fly over at a low altitude, heard three "pops" come from the airplane, and then saw it bank to the left and begin to descend. The airplane continued in the descending left turn until he lost sight of it as it dropped below the horizon. The airplane impacted trees in about a 45° left bank and a level pitch attitude and came to rest in a heavily wooded area. The airplane sustained extensive thermal damage from a postcrash fire; however, examination of the remaining portions of the airframe, flight controls, engines, and engine accessories revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction. The fuel selector valves were found on the outboard tanks, which was in accordance with the normal cruise procedures in the pilot's operating handbook. Calculations based on the airplane's flight records and the fuel consumption information in the engine manual indicated that, at departure, the outboard tanks of the airplane contained sufficient fuel for about 1 hour 10 minutes of flight. The airplane had been flying for about 1 hour 15 minutes when the accident occurred. Therefore, it is likely that the fuel in the outboard tanks was exhausted; without pilot action to switch fuel tanks, the engines lost power as a result of fuel starvation, and the airplane descended and impacted trees and terrain. The overflight of the intended destination and the subsequent loss of engine power due to fuel starvation are indicative of pilot incapacitation. The pilot's autopsy identified no significant natural disease:however, the examination was limited by the severity of damage to the body. Further, there are a number of conditions, including cardiac arrhythmias, seizures, or other causes of loss of consciousness, that could incapacitate a pilot and leave no evidence at autopsy. The pilot's toxicology results indicated that the pilot had used marijuana/tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) at some point before the accident. THC can impair judgment, but it does not cause incapacitation; therefore, the circumstances of this accident are not consistent with impairment from THC, and, the pilot's THC use likely did not contribute to this accident. The reason for the pilot's incapacitation could not be determined.

The airline transport pilot was conducting a commercial visual flight rules (VFR) flight. A passenger who was on the first segment stated that the pilot flew the airplane lower than usual for that route, and that the airplane flew through clouds during the flight. The passenger disembarked and the pilot departed on the second segment of the flight with a load of mail. The route included flight across a peninsula of mountainous terrain to a remote coastal airport that lacked official weather reporting or instrument approach procedures. About 28 minutes after departure, an emergency locator transmitter (ELT) signal from the airplane was received and a search and rescue operation was initiated. The wreckage was located about 24 miles from the destination in deep snow on the side of a steep, featureless mountain at an elevation about 3,000 ft mean sea level. The accident site displayed signatures consistent with impact during a left turn. Examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The airplane was not equipped with any recording or flight tracking devices, nor was it required to be; therefore, the airplane's flight track before the accident could not be determined. The airplane was certified for instrument flight and flight in icing conditions and was equipped with a terrain avoidance warning system (TAWS) which was not inhibited during the accident. Although the TAWS should have provided the pilot with alerts as the airplane neared the terrain, it could not be determined if this occurred or if the pilot heeded the alerts. A review of nearby weather camera images revealed complete mountain obscuration conditions with likely rain shower activity in the vicinity of the accident site. Visible and infrared satellite imagery indicated overcast cloud cover over the accident site at the time of the accident. The graphical forecast products that were available to the pilot before the flight indicated marginal VFR conditions for the entire route. There was no evidence that the pilot obtained an official weather briefing, and what weather information he may have accessed before the flight could not be determined. Additionally, the cloud conditions and snow-covered terrain present in the area likely resulted in flat light conditions, which would have hindered the pilot's ability to perceive terrain features and closure rates. Based on the weather camera, surface, and upper air observations, it is likely that the pilot encountered instrument meteorological conditions inflight, after which he performed a left turn to return to visual meteorological conditions and did not recognize his proximity to the mountain due to the flat light conditions. The pilot and the dispatch agent signed a company flight risk assessment form before the flight, which showed that the weather conditions for the flight were within the company's acceptable risk parameters. Although the village agents at the departure and destination airports stated that the weather at those coastal locations was good, the weather assessment for the accident flight was based on hours-old observations provided by a village agent who was not trained in weather observation and did not include en route weather information, the area forecast, or the AIRMET for mountain obscuration effective during the dispatch time and at the time of the accident. Since acquiring the accident route from another operator years earlier, the company had not performed a risk assessment of the route and its associated hazards. Multiple company pilots described the accident route of flight as hazardous and considered it an undesirable route due to the terrain, rapidly changing weather, and lack of weather reporting infrastructure; however, the company did not address or attempt to mitigate these known hazards through its risk assessment processes. The company's controlled-flight-into-terrain (CFIT)-avoidance program stated that each pilot shall have one classroom training session and one CFIT-avoidance training session in an aviation training device (ATD) each year; however, the pilot's training records indicated that his most recent ATD session was 15 months prior. More recent CFIT avoidance training may have resulted in the pilot recognizing and responding to the reduced visibility and flat light conditions sooner.

On 12 April 2017, a Cessna C208 aircraft registered PK-FSO was being operated by PT. Spirit Avia Sentosa (FlyingSAS) for unscheduled cargo flight. The flights of the day scheduled for the aircraft were Mopah Airport (WAKK) – Tanah Merah Airport (WAKT) – Oksibil Airport (WAJO) – Tanah Merah – Oksibil – Tanah Merah. The estimated time departure of first flight from Mopah Airport to Tanah Merah was 0800 LT and the flight departed at 0848 LT, on board the aircraft were two pilots and seven passengers. The aircraft arrived in Tanah Merah at about 0943 LT. At 1012 LT, the flight departed from Tanah Merah to Oksibil. About 10 Nm from Oksibil the pilot contacted the Oksibil tower controller to get air traffic services and landed at 1044 LT. The flight then departed from Oksibil to Tanah Merah at 1058 LT and arrived about 1126 LT. These flights were single pilot operation. At 1144 LT on daylight condition, the aircraft departed Tanah Merah with intended cruising altitude of 7,000 feet. Prior to departure, there was no report or record of aircraft system malfunction. On board the aircraft was one pilot, 1,225 kg of general cargo and 800 pounds of fuel which was sufficient for about 3 hours of flight time. After departure, the pilot advised Tanah Merah tower controller of the estimate time arrival at Oksibil would be 1224 LT. At 1149 LT, the pilot advised Tanah Merah tower controller that the aircraft position was about 10 Nm from Tanah Merah and passing altitude of 3,500 feet. The Tanah Merah tower controller acknowledged the message and advised the pilot to monitor radio communication on frequency 122.7 MHz for traffic monitoring. At about 29 Nm from Oksibil, the PK-FSO aircraft passed a Cessna 208B aircraft which was flying on opposite direction from Oksibil to Tanah Merah at altitude 6,000 feet. At this time, the aircraft ground speed recorded on the flight following system was about 164 knots. The Cessna 208B pilot advised to the pilot on radio frequency 122.7 MHz that the PK-FSO aircraft was in sight. The pilot responded that the aircraft was maintaining 7,000 feet on direct route to Oksibil. At 1230 LT, the Oksibil tower controller received phone call from the FlyingSAS officer at Jakarta which confirming whether the PK-FSO aircraft has landed on Oksibil. The Oksibil tower controller responded that there was no communication with the PK-FSO pilot. The Oksibil tower controller did not receive the flight plan for the second flight of the PK-FSO flight. Afterwards, the Oksibil tower controller called Tanah Merah tower controller confirming the PK-FSO flight and was informed that PK-FSO departed Tanah Merah to Oksibil at 1144 LT and the reported estimate time of arrival Oksibil was 1224 LT. At 1240 LT, the Oksibil tower controller received another phone call from the FlyingSAS officer at Jakarta which informed that the FlyingSAS flight following system received SOS signal (emergency signal) from PK-FSO aircraft and the last position recorded was on coordinate 04°48’47.7” S; 140°39’31.7” E which located approximately 6 Nm north of Oksibil. Afterwards, the Oksibil air traffic controller advised the occurrence to the Search and Rescue Agency. On 13 April 2017, at 0711 LT, the PK-FSO aircraft was found on ridge of Anem Mountain which located about 7 Nm north of Oksibil. The following figure showed the illustration of the aircraft track plotted on the Google earth refer to the known coordinates of Tanah Merah, Oksibil and the crash site.

On 16.01.2017, the crew of the Boeing 747-412F TC-MCL aircraft was performing a THY6491 flight from Hong Kong via Bishkek (Manas Airport) to Istanbul (Ataturk Airport) in order to transport the commercial cargo (public consumer goods) of 85 618 kg. The cargo was planned to be offloaded in Istanbul (Ataturk Airport). Manas Airport was planned as a transit airport for crew change and refueling. From 12.01.2017 to 15.01.2017, the crew had a rest period of 69 h in a hotel in Hong Kong. The aircraft takeoff from the Hong Kong Airport was performed at 19:12 on 5.01.2017, with the delay of 2 h 02 min in respect to the planned takeoff time. During the takeoff, the climb and the on-route cruise flight, the aircraft systems operated normally. At 00:41, on 16.01.2017, the aircraft entered the Bishkek ATC Area Control Center over the reference point of KAMUD at flight level of 10 400 m (according to the separation system, established in the People's Republic of China). At 00:51, the crew requested a descent and reached the FL 220 (according to the separation system, established in the Kyrgyz Republic). At 00:59, the crew received the weather information for Manas Airport: "the RVR at the RWY threshold 400 m, the RWY midpoint and RWY end 300 m, the vertical visibility 130 ft". At 01:01, the crew received the specified data: " in the center of the runway RVR three zero zero meters, vertical visibility one five zero feet." At 01:03, the crew requested a descent, the controller cleared for the descent not below FL 180. At 01:05, the crew was handed over to the Approach Control. At 01:06, the crew was cleared for the descent to FL 60, TOKPA 1 ILS approach chart, RWY 26. At 01:10, the controller reported the weather: wind calm, visibility 50 m, RVR 300 m, freezing fog, vertical visibility 160 ft, and requested the crew if they would continue the approach. The crew reported that they would continue the approach. The crew conducted the approach to RWY 26 in accordance with the standard approach chart. At 01:11, the controller informed the crew: "… transition level six zero" and cleared them for the ILS approach to RWY 26. At 01:15, the crew contacted the Tower controller. The Tower controller cleared them for landing on RWY 26 and reported the weather: "…wind calm… RVR in the beginning of the runway four hundred meters, in the middle point three hundred two five meters and at the end of the runway four hundred meters and vertical visibility one six zero... feet". The aircraft approached the RWY 26 threshold at the height significantly higher than the planned height. Continuing to descend, the aircraft flew over the entire length of the RWY and touched the ground at the distance of 900 m away from the farthest end of the runway (in relation to the direction of the approach) (the RWY 08 threshold). After the touchdown and landing roll, the aircraft impacted the concrete aerodrome barrier and the buildings of the suburban settlement and started to disintegrate, the fuel spillage occurred. As a result of the impact with the ground surface and the obstacles, the aircraft was completely disintegrated, a significant part of the aircraft structure was destroyed by the post-crash ground fire. At 01.17 UTC, the Tower controller requested the aircraft position, but the crew did not respond.

The crew, one Russian and one Congolese, was performing a cargo flight from Bukavu to Shabunda, carrying various goods for a total weight of 1,300 kilos. After touchdown, after a course of about 300 metres, it is believed that the tire on the right main gear burst. The aircraft veered off runway and eventually collided with banana trees. Both pilots were uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The crew started the takeoff procedure at 1718LT from Puerto Carreño-Germán Olano Airport Runway 07 which is 1,800 metres long. Following a long takeoff roll, the pilot-in-command initiated the rotation when the aircraft overran then rolled for about 95 metres. It collided with two perimeter fences, passed through a road then lifted off. During initial climb, the right main gear was torn off after it collided with a tree and the engine n°3 failed. The airplane continued to climb to an altitude of 790 feet then entered a right turn and eventually crashed in an open field located 7,5 km from the airport, bursting into flames. The flight engineer was seriously injured while five other occupants were killed.

The airline transport pilot delayed his scheduled departure for the night cargo flight due to thunderstorms along the route. Before departing, the pilot explained to the flight follower assigned to the flight that if he could not get though the thunderstorms along the planned route, he would divert to the alternate airport. While en route, the pilot was advised by the air traffic controller in contact with the flight of a "ragged line of moderate, heavy, and extreme" precipitation along his planned route. The controller also stated that he did not see any breaks in the weather. The controller cleared the pilot to descend at his discretion from 7,000 ft mean sea level (msl) to 3,000 ft msl, and subsequently, the controller suggested a diversion to the northeast for about 70 nautical miles that would avoid the most severe weather. The pilot responded that he had enough fuel for such a diversion but concluded that he would "see what the radar is painting" after descending to 3,000 ft msl. About 1 minute 30 seconds later, as the airplane was descending through 7,000 ft msl, the controller stated, "I just lost you on radar, I don't show a transponder, it might have to do with the weather." About 40 seconds later, the pilot advised the controller that he intended to deviate to the right of course, and the controller told the pilot that he could turn left and right as needed. Shortly thereafter, the pilot stated that he was going to turn around and proceed to his alternate airport. The controller cleared the pilot direct to his alternate and instructed him to maintain 3,000 ft msl. The pilot acknowledged the instruction, and the controller then stated, "do you want to climb back up? I can offer you any altitude." The pilot responded that he would try to climb back to 3,000 ft msl. The controller then recommended a heading of 180° to "get you clear of the weather quicker," and the pilot responded, "alright 180." There were no further communications from the pilot. Shortly thereafter, radar data showed the airplane enter a right turn that continued through about 540°. During the turn its airspeed varied between 198 and 130 knots, while its estimated bank angles were between 40 and 50°. Examination of the wreckage indicated that airplane experienced an in-flight breakup at relatively low altitude, consistent with radar data that showed the airplane's last recorded altitudes to be around 3,500 ft msl. The symmetrical nature of the breakup, damage to the outboard wings, and damage to the upper fuselage were all signatures indicative that the left and right wings failed in positive overload almost simultaneously. All of the fracture surfaces examined had a dull, grainy appearance consistent with overstress separation. There was no evidence of pre-existing cracking noted at any of the separation points, nor was there evidence of any mechanical anomalies that would have prevented normal operation. Review of base reflectivity weather radar data showed that, while the pilot was maneuvering to divert to the alternate airport, the airplane was operating in an area of light precipitation that rapidly intensified to heavy precipitation, as shown by radar scans completed shortly after the accident. During this time, the flight was likely operating in clouds along the leading edge of the convective line, where the pilot most likely would have encountered updrafts and severe or greater turbulence. The low visibility conditions that existed during the flight, which was conducted at night and in instrument meteorological conditions, coupled with the turbulence the flight likely encountered, were conducive to the development of spatial disorientation. Additionally, the airplane's maneuvering during the final moments of the flight was consistent with a loss of control due to spatial disorientation. The pilot's continued flight into known convective weather conditions and his delayed decision to divert the flight directly contributed to the accident. Although the operator had a system safety-based program, the responsibility for the safe outcome of the flight was left solely to the pilot. Written company policy required completion of a flight risk assessment tool (FRAT) before each flight by the assigned flight follower; however, a FRAT was not completed for the accident flight. The flight followers responsible for completing the FRATs were not trained to complete them for night cargo flights, and the operator's management was not aware that the FRATs were not being completed for night cargo flights. Further, if a FRAT had been completed for the accident flight, the resultant score would have allowed the flight to commence into known hazardous weather conditions without any further review. If greater oversight had been provided by the operator, it is possible that the flight may have been cancelled or re-routed due to the severity of the convective weather conditions present along the planned route of flight.

A DHC-4 Caribou aircraft, registered PK-SWW was being operated by Perkumpulan Penerbangan Alfa Indonesia, on 31 October 2016 on an unscheduled cargo flight from Moses Kilangin Airport Timika, with intended destination to Kaminggaru Aerodrome, Ilaga Papua. On board on this flight was 4 persons consisted of two pilots, one company engineer and one flight operation officer. At 2257 UTC, the aircraft departed Timika with intended cruising altitude of 12,500 feet and estimated time of arrival Ilaga at 2327 UTC. At 2323 UTC, the pilot made initial contact with Ilaga Aerodrome Flight Information Services (AFIS) officer and reported that the aircraft position was at Ilaga Pass and informed the estimate time of arrival Ilaga would be on 2327 UTC. Ilaga Aerodrome Flight Information Services (AFIS) officer advised to continue descend to circuit altitude and to report when position on downwind. At 2330 UTC, the AFIS officer called the pilot and was not replied. The AFIS officer asked pilot of another aircraft in the vicinity to contact the pilot of the DHC-4 Caribou aircraft and did not reply. At 0020 UTC, Sentani Aeronautical Information Service (AIS) officer declared the aircraft status as ALERFA. At 0022 UTC, Timika Tower controller received information from a pilot of an aircraft that Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) signal was detected approximately at 40 – 45 Nm with radial 060° from TMK VOR (Very High Frequency Omni Range) or approximately at coordinate 4°7’46” S; 137°38’11” E. This position was between Ilaga Pass and Jila Pass. At 0053 UTC, the aircraft declared as DETRESFA. On 1 November 2016, the aircraft wreckage was found on a ridge of mountain between Ilaga Pass and Jila Pass at coordinate 4°5’55.10” S; 137°38’47.60” E with altitude approximately of 13,000 feet. All occupants were fatally injured and the aircraft destroyed by impact force.