Charter/Taxi (Non Scheduled Revenue Flight)

On the afternoon of 13 April 2016, a Pilatus Britten Norman Turbine Islander (BN-2T) aircraft, registered P2-SBC, operated by Sunbird Aviation Ltd, departed from Tekin, West Sepik Province for Kiunga, Western Province, as a charter flight under the visual flight rules. On board were the pilot-in-command (PIC) and 11 passengers (eight adults and three children). The aircraft was also carrying vegetables. The pilot reported departing Oksapmin at 13:56. The pilot had flight planned, Kiunga to Oksapmin to Kiunga. However, the evidence revealed that without advising Air Traffic Services, the pilot flew from Oksapmin to Tekin. On departure from Tekin the pilot transmitted departure details to ATS, stating departure from Oksapmin. The recorded High Frequency radio transmissions were significantly affected by static and hash. The weather at Kiunga was reported to be fine. As the aircraft entered the Kiunga circuit area, the pilot cancelled SARWATCH with Air Traffic Services (ATS). The pilot did not report an emergency to indicate a safety concern. Witnesses reported that during its final approach, the aircraft suddenly pitched up almost to the vertical, the right wing dropped, and the aircraft rolled inverted and rapidly “fell to the ground”. It impacted the terrain about 1,200 metres west of the threshold of runway 07. The impact was vertical, with almost no forward motion. The aircraft was destroyed, and all occupants were fatally injured.

The single engine airplane departed Tayoltita Airfield around 0900LT on a charter flight to Durango, carrying nine passengers and one pilot. Twelve minutes into the flight, the pilot encountered engine problems and declared an emergency. Unable to maintain a safe altitude, he attempted an emergency landing when the aircraft crashed in the bed of the Piaxtla River. The wreckage was found about 16 km northeast of Tayoltita Airfield (N 24° 11' 2.65" W 105° 47' 12.57''). The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and there was no fire. Three passengers were killed and seven other occupants were injured.

The twin engine aircraft left Montreal-Saint-Hubert Airport at 0930LT for a two hours flight to Le Havre-aux-Maisons, on Magdalen Islands. Upon arrival, weather conditions were marginal with low ceiling, visibility up to two miles, rain and wind gusting to 30 knots. During the final approach to Runway 07, when the aircraft was 1.4 nautical miles west-southwest of the airport, it deviated south of the approach path. At approximately 1230 Atlantic Daylight Time, aircraft control was lost, resulting in the aircraft striking the ground in a near-level attitude. The aircraft was destroyed and all seven occupants were killed, among them Jean Lapierre, political commentator and former Liberal federal cabinet minister of Transport. All passengers were flying to Magdalen Islands to the funeral of Lapierre's father, who died last Friday. The captain, Pascal Gosselin, was the founder and owner of Aéro Teknic.
Crew:
Pascal Gosselin, pilot.
Passengers:
Fabrice Labourel, acting as a copilot,
Jean Lapierre,
Nicole Beaulieu, Jean Lapierre's wife,
Martine Lapierre, Jean Lapierre's sister,
Marc Lapierre, Jean Lapierre's brother,
Louis Lapierre, Jean Lapierre's brother.

The Aircraft Sales and Services (Private) Limited (ASSL) aircraft Beechcraft-1900D Registration No. AP-BII was scheduled for a chartered flight on 18th March, 2016 from Karachi to Sui. Just after takeoff from runway 25L at 0820 hrs local time, the crew observed power loss of right engine and made a gear up landing on the remaining runway on the right side of centreline. After touchdown, the aircraft went off the runway towards right side and then came back on the runway before coming to a final stop 1,050 feet short from the end of runway. The Captain and one passenger received serious injuries due to hard impact of the aircraft with ground. All other passengers and technician remained unhurt.

The airline transport pilot was conducting a scheduled passenger flight in an area of remote, snow-covered, mountainous terrain with seven passengers on board. The pilot reported that, after receiving a weather briefing, he chose to conduct the flight under visual flight rules (VFR). While en route about 10,000 ft mean sea level (msl), the visibility began "getting fuzzy." The pilot then descended the airplane to 2,500 ft msl (500 ft above ground level) to fly along a river. When the airplane was about 10 miles southwest of the airport, he climbed the airplane to about 3,000 ft msl in order to conduct a straight-in approach to the runway. He added that the visibility was again a little "fuzzy" due to snow and clouds, and that he never saw the airport. The pilot also noted that the flat light conditions limited his ability to determine his distance from the surrounding mountainous, snow-covered terrain. Shortly after climbing to 3,000 ft msl, the airplane collided with the rising terrain about 6 miles southwest of the airport. Another pilot, who had just departed from the airport, confirmed that flat light and low-visibility conditions existed in the area at the time of the accident. Further, camera images of the weather conditions recorded at the airport showed that, although conditions were marginal VFR at the surface at the time of the accident, there was mountain obscuration and reduced visibility due to light snow and clouds along the accident flight path and that the worst conditions were located along and near the higher terrain. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that that the pilot encountered flat light and low-visibility conditions as he neared the airport at 3,000 ft msl while operating under VFR and that he did not see the rising, snow-covered mountainous terrain and subsequently failed to maintain clearance from it.

The pilots were conducting an international chartered flight in the small, twin-engine jet with five passengers onboard. Since the weather at the destination was marginal, the flight crew had discussed an alternate airport in case weather conditions required a missed approach at their destination. As the airplane neared the non-towered destination airport, the flight crew received updated weather information, which indicated that conditions had improved. Upon contacting the center controller, the crew was asked if they had the weather and NOTAMS for the destination airport. The crew reported that they received the current weather information, but did not state if they had NOTAM information. The controller responded by giving the flight a heading for the descent and sequence into the airport. The controller did not provide NOTAM information to the pilots. About 2 minutes later, airport personnel entered a NOTAM via computer closing the runway, effective immediately, for snow removal. Although the NOTAM was electronically routed to the controller, the controller's system was not designed to automatically alert the controller of a new NOTAM; the controller needed to select a display screen on the equipment that contained the information. At the time of the accident, the controller's workload was considered heavy. About 8 minutes after the runway closure NOTAM was issued, the controller cleared the airplane for the approach. The flight crew then canceled their instrument flight plan with the airport in sight, but did not subsequently transmit on or monitor the airport's common traffic advisory frequency, which was reportedly being monitored by airport personnel and the snow removal equipment operator. The airplane landed on the runway and collided with a snow removal vehicle about halfway down the runway. The flight crew reported they did not see the snow removal equipment. The accident scenario is consistent with the controllers not recognizing new NOTAM information in a timely manner due to equipment limitations, and the pilots not transmitting or monitoring the common traffic advisory frequency. Additionally, the accident identifies a potential problem for flight crews when information critical to inflight decision-making changes while en route, and problems when controller workload interferes with information monitoring and dissemination.

Shortly after takeoff from Acandí-Alcides Fernandez Airport, while in initial climb, the twin engine aircraft stalled and crashed in a house located in the district of Miramar, near the airport. The pilot and a passenger were killed and eight other occupants were injured. There were no victims on the ground and the aircraft was destroyed.

The aircraft departed controlled flight while on a non precision localizer approach to runway 25 at Akron Fulton International Airport (AKR) and impacted a four-unit apartment building in Akron, Ohio. The captain, first officer, and seven passengers died; no one on the ground was injured. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and post crash fire. The airplane was registered to Rais Group International NC LLC and operated by Execuflight under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 as an on-demand charter flight. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed. The flight departed from Dayton-Wright Brothers Airport, Dayton, Ohio, about 1413 and was destined for AKR. Contrary to Execuflight’s informal practice of the captain acting as pilot flying on flights carrying revenue passengers, the first officer was the pilot flying, and the captain was the pilot monitoring. While en route, the flight crew began preparing for the approach into AKR. Although company standard operating procedures (SOPs) specified that the pilot flying was to brief the approach, the captain agreed to the first officer’s request that the captain brief the approach. The ensuing approach briefing was unstructured, inconsistent, and incomplete, and the approach checklist was not completed. As a result, the captain and first officer did not have a shared understanding of how the approach was to be conducted. As the airplane neared AKR, the approach controller instructed the flight to reduce speed because it was following a slower airplane on the approach. To reduce speed, the first officer began configuring the airplane for landing, lowering the landing gear and likely extending the flaps to 25° (the airplane was not equipped with a flight data recorder, nor was it required to be). When the flight was about 4 nautical miles from the final approach fix (FAF), the approach controller cleared the flight for the localizer 25 approach and instructed the flight to maintain 3,000 ft mean sea level (msl) until established on the localizer. The airplane was already established on the localizer when the approach clearance was issued and could have descended to the FAF minimum crossing altitude of 2,300 ft msl. However, the first officer did not initiate a descent, the captain failed to notice, and the airplane remained level at 3,000 ft msl. As the first officer continued to slow the airplane from about 150 to 125 knots, the captain made several comments about the decaying speed, which was well below the proper approach speed with 25° flaps of 144 knots. The first officer’s speed reduction placed the airplane in danger of an aerodynamic stall if the speed continued to decay, but the first officer apparently did not realize it. The first officer’s lack of awareness and his difficulty flying the airplane to standards should have prompted the captain to take control of the airplane or call for a missed approach, but he did not do so. Before the airplane reached the FAF, the first officer requested 45° flaps and reduced power, and the airplane began to descend. The first officer’s use of flaps 45° was contrary to Execuflight’s Hawker 700A non precision approach profile, which required the airplane to be flown at flaps 25° until after descending to the minimum descent altitude (MDA) and landing was assured; however, the captain did not question the first officer’s decision to conduct the approach with flaps 45°. The airplane crossed the FAF at an altitude of about 2,700 ft msl, which was 400 ft higher than the published minimum crossing altitude of 2,300 ft msl. Because the airplane was high on the approach, it was out of position to use a normal descent rate of 1,000 feet per minute (fpm) to the MDA. The airplane’s rate of descent quickly increased to 2,000 fpm, likely due to the first officer attempting to salvage the approach by increasing the rate of descent, exacerbated by the increased drag resulting from the improper flaps 45° configuration. The captain instructed the first officer not to descend so rapidly but did not attempt to take control of the airplane even though he was responsible for safety of the flight. As the airplane continued to descend on the approach, the captain did not make the required callouts regarding approaching and reaching the MDA, and the first officer did not arrest the descent at the MDA. When the airplane reached the MDA, which was about 500 ft above the touchdown zone elevation, the point at which Execuflight’s procedures dictated that the approach must be stabilized, the airspeed was 11 knots below the minimum required airspeed of 124 knots, and the airplane was improperly configured with 45° flaps. The captain should have determined that the approach was unstabilized and initiated a missed approach, but he did not do so. About 14 seconds after the airplane descended below the MDA, the captain instructed the first officer to level off. As a result of the increased drag due to the improper flaps 45° configuration and the low airspeed, the airplane entered a stalled condition when the first officer attempted to arrest the descent. About 7 seconds after the captain’s instruction to level off, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recorded the first sounds of impact.

The purpose of the flight was for the commercial pilot/owner to pick up passengers at the destination airport and return to the departure airport. The airplane was 33 miles from its destination in cruise flight at 3,300 ft mean sea level (msl) and above a solid cloud layer when the pilot declared to air traffic control (ATC) that he had the destination airport "in sight" and cancelled his instrument flight rules (IFR) clearance. During the 13 minutes after cancellation of the IFR clearance, the airplane's radar track made an erratic sequence of left, right, and 360° turns that moved the airplane away from the destination airport in a westerly direction. The altitudes varied between about 4,000 and 900 ft msl. Later, the pilot reestablished communication with ATC, reported he had lost visual contact with the airport, and requested an instrument approach to the destination airport. The controller then provided a sequence of heading and altitude assignments to vector the airplane onto the approach, but the pilot did not maintain these assignments, and the controller provided several corrections. The pilot expressed his inability to identify the initial approach fix (IAF) and asked the controller for the correct spelling. The radar target then climbed and subsequently entered a descending right turn at 2,500 ft msl and 180 knots ground speed near the IAF, before radar contact with the airplane was lost. Although a review of airplane maintenance records revealed that the airplane was overdue for several required inspections, examination of the wreckage revealed signatures consistent with both engines being at high power at impact, and no evidence of any preimpact mechanical anomalies were found that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of the airplane's panel-mounted GPS, which the pilot was using to navigate the flight, revealed that the navigation and obstruction databases were expired. During a weather briefing before the flight, the pilot was warned of low ceilings and visibility. The weather conditions reported near the destination airport about the time of the accident also included low ceilings and visibilities. The restricted visibility conditions and the high likelihood of inadvertent entry into instrument meteorological conditions were conducive to the development of spatial disorientation. The flight's erratic track, which included altitude and directional changes inconsistent with progress toward the airport, were likely the result of spatial disorientation. After reestablishing contact with ATC and being cleared to conduct an instrument approach to the destination, the airplane's flight track indicated that the pilot was not adequately prepared to execute the controller's instructions. The pilot's subsequent loss of control was likely the result of spatial disorientation due to his increased workload and operational distractions associated with his attempts to configure his navigation radios or reference charts. Postaccident toxicological testing of samples obtained from the pilot revealed the presence of ethanol; however, it could not be determined what percentage was ingested or produced postmortem. The testing also revealed the presence of amphetamine, an opioid painkiller, two sedating antihistamines, and marijuana. Although blood level quantification of these medications and drugs could not be made from the samples provided, their combined effects would have directly impacted the pilot's decision-making and ability to fly the airplane, even if each individual substance was only present in small amounts. Based in the reported weather conditions at the time the pilot reported the airport in sight and canceled his IFR clearance, he likely was not in a position to have seen the destination airport even though he may have been flying between cloud layers or may have momentarily observed the ground. His decision to cancel his IFR clearance so far from the destination, in an area characterized by widespread low ceilings and reduced visibility, increased the pilot's exposure to the hazards those conditions posed to the successful completion of his flight. The pilot showed other lapses in judgment associated with conducting this flight at the operational, aircraft, and the personal level. For example, 1) the pilot did not appear to recognize the significance of widespread low ceilings and visibility along his route of flight and at his destination (nor did he file an alternate airport even though conditions warranted); 2) the accident airplane was being operated beyond mandatory inspection intervals; and 3) toxicological testing showed the pilot had taken a combination of multiple medications and drugs that would have likely been impairing and contraindicated for the safe operation of an airplane. The pilot's decision-making was likely affected by the medications and drugs.

The aircraft departed Sharm el-Sheikh at 0549LT bound for Saint Petersburg-Pulkovo Airport and was cleared to climb to FL350. On board were 217 passengers and a crew of seven. Some 23 minutes after takeoff, the aircraft entered a steep descent and reached a descent rate of 6,000 feet per minute with a simultaneous reduction of speed before all radar and radio contact were lost at 0613LT. The aircraft crashed in a desert area located about 50 km southeast of Hasna, in the Sinai. None of the 224 occupants survived the accident. It appears the aircraft crashed in a slightly flat attitude and was destroyed by impact forces and a post crash fire (the central part of the fuselage and wings). Based on the debris scattered on a zone of 16 km2, it is now understood that the engines and the tail have been found few hundred metres from the main wreckage. It is believed the aircraft partially disintegrated in the air but probably during the last phase of the descent and not at high altitude.