Executive/Corporate/Business

The approach to Mumbai-Chhatrapati Shivaji Airport was completed in poor weather conditions with reduced visibility due to heavy rain falls. On short final, the airplane was in a nose down attitude and rolling to the right when it impacted the runway surface. It went out of control, veered off runway and came to rest in a grassy area, broken in two. A small fire was quickly extinguished. All eight occupants were injured.

Shortly after takeoff from runway 18 at Little Rock-Bill & Hillary Clinton (Adams Field) Airport, while in initial climb in marginal weather conditions, the twin engine airplane went out of control and crashed in a wooded area located about 1,500 metres past the runway end, near a stone quarry, bursting into flames. The airplane was totally destroyed by impact forces and a post crash fire and all five occupants were killed. Employees of the CTEH Company, they were en route to Columbus responding to an emergency response plan. At the time of the accident, weather conditions were marginal with a visibility of 2 SM due to rain. Four minutes prior to the accident, the wind was 19 knots gusting to 27 knots and five minutes after the accident, the wind was gusting to 40 knots.

The twin engine airplane departed Legazpi-Bicol Airport in the early morning on an executive flight to the capital City. Few minutes after takeoff, while climbing to an altitude of 6,000 feet, it impacted the rocky slope of Mt Mayon located about 16 km north of Legazpi Airport. The wreckage was found the next day near the crater of the volcano. The airplane disintegrated on impact and all four occupants were killed.

The pilot encountered an unexpected situation and elected to make an emergency landing in an open muddy field. He lowered the landing gear and upon touchdown, the airplane overturned and came to rest upside down. All five occupants were rescued and the airplane was destroyed.
Crew:
Zvikomborero Nyamakura, pilot,
Passengers:
Salfina Karimazondo, Murowa Diamonds’ security officer,
Obey Mabvundwi, constable of CID Minerals Flora and Fauna Unit,
Petros Chaguruka, Fawcett's guard,
Fredrick Maroyi, Fawcett's guard.

After an uneventful flight, a jet airplane on a business flight was landing at its destination. The pilot reported to the tower controller that the airport was in sight and requested to land. The pilot further reported that, while on left base, he started to lower the flaps and extended the gear handle. He did not recall confirming whether the gear was down and locked but reported that there were no landing caution annunciations or aural warnings. Before making contact with the runway, the pilot noticed that the airplane floated longer than expected and upon touchdown realized that the landing gear was not extended. The airplane skidded down the runway and came to a stop just past the departure end of the runway. The pilot secured the engines and assisted the passengers out of the airplane. During the evacuation, the pilot reported that the airplane was on fire near the right engine. Shortly thereafter, the airplane was engulfed in flames. When the airplane was raised for recovery, all three-landing gear were free from their uplocks and dropped down to the extended position. Post accident examination confirmed the main landing gear uplocks were in the gear release (unlocked) position. In addition, the left main landing gear door was also partially extended on the airplane after it came to rest. The landing gear handle was observed in the down (extended) position during the examination. Accounting for the position of the landing gear uplocks, the landing gear door upon landing, and the witnesses’ observation of the airplane not having its landing gear extended, it is likely that the pilot positioned the landing gear handle to the down (extended) position just before or during landing. Nevertheless, the pilot failed to ensure that the landing gear was down and locked before landing. Examination of the landing gear handle and landing gear circuit cards revealed no anomalies. A review of the ADS-B data revealed that the airplane’s airspeed was fast on the approach and landing. The airplane’s ground speed was about 143 knots as it passed over the runway threshold, which was above the airspeed that the landing gear not extended warning system would activate (130 knots). Additionally, the airplane’s flaps were likely configured in the takeoff/approach setting (15°), which would not activate the landing gear not extended warning system. Stabilized approach criteria for airspeed and configuration were not maintained on the approach and landing.

The flight crew of the jet obtained weather information for the destination airport, which indicated quartering tailwind conditions for the runway in use at the time, with wind at 3 knots gusting to 16 knots. The crew determined the wind to be within limitations. The cockpit voice recorder transcript and airport surveillance video indicated that the landing approach was normal. The captain, who was the pilot flying, stated that, after touchdown, the thrust reversers were deployed and the airplane turned “sharply to the right.” He reported that remedial control inputs were ineffective in maintaining directional control. Airport surveillance video footage of the landing roll and accident sequence showed that, about 9 seconds into the landing roll, the airplane turned sharply to its right. The airplane departed the runway, its left wingtip struck the ground, the entire wing structure (left wing/right wing/wingbox) separated from the airplane as one assembly, and the fuselage continued a short distance before it came to rest upright. The thrust reversers on each engine were deployed and their extended positions were about equal. A windsock could be seen in the surveillance video footage nearly parallel to the ground, indicating nearly a direct crosswind to the landing runway that would have been towards the airplane’s right side. Recorded wind shortly after the accident was consistent with a 90° right crosswind for the landing runway at 6 knots with gusts to 14 knots. A detailed examination of the airplane and system components revealed that all flight control, steering, and braking systems and their actuator components operated as designed. Although the copilot's yaw force sensor did not meet manufacturer acceptance testing during post accident examination, this would not have affected the directional controllability of the airplane. Based on the available information, it is likely that the pilot’s compensation for the crosswind conditions was inadequate, which resulted in a loss of directional control and runway excursion.

Shortly after takeoff from Piracicaba Airport Runway 35, while climbing, the twin engine aircraft entered a right turn, descended to the ground and crashed in a eucalyptus forest located about 1,5 km north of the airport. The aircraft exploded on impact and was totally destroyed. All seven occupants were killed among them the Brazilian businessman Celso Silveira Mello Filho aged 73 who was travelling with his wife and three kids.
Crew:
Celso Elias Carloni, pilot,
Giovani Dedini Gulo, copilot.
Passengers:
Celso Silveira Mello Filho,
Maria Luiza Meneghel,
Celso Meneghel Silveira Mello,
Camila Meneghel Silveira Mello Zanforlin,
Fernando Meneghel Silveira Mello.

Following an uneventful flight from Cancún, the crew encountered technical problems with the undercarriage while on approach to Toluca-Licenciado Adolfo López Mateos. Decision was taken to complete a belly landing on runway 15/33. The airplane slid for few dozen metres before coming to rest, bursting into flames. All 9 occupants evacuated safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

After a 30-minute uneventful instrument flight rules (IFR) flight, the business jet landed in the rain on the 4,311ft-long runway. The pilot reported, and runway skid marks corroborated, that the airplane touched down about 1,000 ft from the approach end of the runway. The pilot reported braking action was initially normal and the anti-skid system cycled twice before it stopped working and he was unable to slow the airplane using the emergency brakes. The airplane continued off the departure end of the runway where it traveled through wet grass and a fence before coming to rest with the landing gear collapsed. A video of the airplane during the landing roll indicated there was a significant amount of water on the runway. No mechanical anomalies were found with the brake/antiskid systems during the postaccident examination of the airplane. Marks on the runway indicated functionality of the antiskid system. Stopping performance calculations estimated the distance required to stop the airplane on the runway was about 4,127 ft. The runway length remaining after the airplane touched down was about 3,311 ft. The pilot was aware of the runway length and weather conditions prior to departure and reported that he should have not accepted the trip.

After touchdown on runway 29 at São Pedro Airport, the crew initiated the breaking procedure but the airplane failed to stop within the remaining distance. It overran, collided with various obstacles, went down an embankment of 10 metres and eventually came to rest 130 metres further, bursting into flames. All four occupants evacuated safely and the airplane was destroyed by a post crash fire.