Private

The pilot stated that on the morning of the accident he filled both wing fuel tanks to full. After takeoff, he climbed to his planned cruise altitude of 24,000 ft mean sea level (msl). While en route to his destination, the pilot reported that the left engine experienced a flame-out. The pilot opted to divert from the originally planned destination and descended. When the airplane was about 7,900 ft msl, the pilot reported that the right engine experienced a loss of power and that he was not going to be able to make it to the airport. Shortly thereafter, the airplane collided with trees and the airplane came to rest with the right wing and empennage severed from the fuselage.

The single engine airplane departed Cannes-Mandelieu Airport on a private flight to Courchevel with two passengers and one pilot on board. The goal of the flight was to maintain the validity of the pilot to access to the Courchevel Altiport. Following a right hand base leg, the pilot configured the airplane to land on runway 22. On final, the altimeter showed an altitude close to the runway threshold, and the aircraft was levelled off to the runway threshold. A few seconds before landing, the stall warning sounded, the engine power was increased and then reduced completely. The undercarriage impacted an embankment above the runway threshold and were torn off. The airplane lifted a bit then fell back onto the runway. It slid for about 100 metres before coming to rest. A fire erupted on the right side of the fuselage. The pilot and the front passenger exited the aircraft through the rear door and managed to extract the rear passenger, who was unconscious and died a few minutes later.

The captain and first officer (FO) departed on a non-revenue flight operating under instrument flight rules with four passengers bound for Truckee, California. Most of the flight was uneventful. During the descent, air traffic control (ATC) told the flight crew to expect the area navigation (RNAV [GPS]) approach for runway 20. The captain (pilot flying [PF]) stated and the FO (pilot monitoring [PM]) calculated and confirmed that runway 20 was too short for the landing distance required by the airplane at its expected landing weight. Instead of making a request to ATC for the straight-in approach to runway 11 (the longer runway), the captain told the FO they could take the runway 20 approach and circle to land on runway 11, and the FO relayed this information to ATC. ATC approved, and the flight crew accepted the circle-to-land approach. Although the descent checklist required that the flight crew brief the new circle-to-land approach, and the flight crew’s acceptance of the new approach invalidated the previous straight-in approach brief, they failed to brief the new approach. ATC instructed the flight crew to hold, but the captain was slow in complying with this instruction, so the FO started the turn to enter the holding pattern and then informed ATC once they were established in the hold. About 20 seconds later, ATC cleared them for the approach. Before the FO confirmed the clearance, he asked the captain if he was ready for the approach, and the captain stated that he was. The FO subsequently commented that they had too much airspeed at the beginning of the approach and then suggested a 360° turn to the captain, but the captain never acknowledged the excessive airspeed and refused the 360° turn. After the FO visually identified the airport, he told the captain to make a 90° right turn to put the airplane on an approximate heading of 290°, which was parallel to runway 11 and consistent with the manufacturer’s operating manual procedures for the downwind leg of the circling approach. However, the FO instructed the captain to roll out of the turn prematurely, and the captain stopped the turn on a heading of about 233° magnetic, which placed the airplane at an angle 57° left of the downwind course parallel with runway 11. As a result of the early roll-out, the flight crew established a course that required an unnecessarily tight turning radius. When they started the turn to final, the airplane was still about 1.3 nautical miles (nm) from the maximum circling radius that was established for the airplane’s approach category. The FO also deployed flaps 45° after confirming with the captain (the manufacturer’s operating manual procedures for the downwind leg called for a flaps setting of 30°, but the manufacturer stated that a flight crew is not prohibited from a flaps 45° configuration if the approach remains within the limitations of the airplane’s flight manual). The airplane’s airspeed was 44 kts above the landing reference speed (Vref) of 118 kts that the flight crew had calculated earlier in the flight; the FO told the captain, “I’m gonna get your speed under control for you.” The FO likely reduced the throttles after he made this statement, as the engine fan speeds (N1) began to decrease from about 88% to about 28%, and the airplane began to slow from 162 kts. After the FO repeatedly attempted to point out the airport to the captain, the captain identified the runway; the captain's difficulty in finding the runway might have been the result of reduced visibility in the area due to smoke. The FO continuously reassured and instructed the captain throughout the circle-to-land portion of the approach. On the base leg to the runway and about 25 seconds before impact with the ground, the FO started to repeatedly ask for control of the airplane, but neither flight crewmember verbalized a positive transfer of control as required by the operator’s general operating manual (GOM); we could not determine who had control of the airplane following these requests. As the airplane crossed the runway extended centerline while maneuvering toward the runway, the FO noted that the airplane was too high. One of the pilots (recorded flight data did not indicate which) fully deployed the flight spoilers, likely to increase the airplane's sink rate. (The flight spoilers are deployed using a single control lever accessible to both pilots.) The airspeed at the time was 135 kts, 17 kts above the Vref based on the erroneous basic operating weight (BOW) programmed into the airplane’s flight management system (FMS). About 7 seconds later, the left bank became steeper, and the stall protection system (SPS) stick shaker and stick pusher engaged. The captain asked the FO, “What are you doing,” and the FO again asked the captain multiple times to “let [him] have the airplane.” The stick shaker and stick pusher then briefly disengaged before engaging again. The airplane then entered a rapid left roll, consistent with a left-wing stall, and impacted terrain. A postcrash fire consumed most of the wreckage. All six occupants, four passengers and two pilots, were killed.

Before taking off, the pilot canceled an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan that she had filed and requested a visual flight rules (VFR) on-top clearance, which the controller issued via the Monterey Five departure procedure. The departure procedure included a left turn after takeoff. The pilot took off and climbed to about 818 ft then entered a right turn. The air traffic controller noticed that the airplane was in a right-hand turn rather than a left-hand turn and issued a heading correction to continue a right-hand turn to 030o , which the pilot acknowledged. The airplane continued the climbing turn for another 925 ft then entered a descent. The controller issued two low altitude alerts with no response from the pilot. No further radio communication with the pilot was received. The airplane continued the descent until it contacted trees, terrain, and a residence about 1 mile from the departure airport. Review of weather information indicated prevailing instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) in the area due to a low ceiling, with ceilings near 800 ft above ground level and tops near 2,000 ft msl. Examination of the airframe and engines did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The airplane’s climbing right turn occurred shortly after the airplane entered IMC while the pilot was acknowledging a frequency change, contacting the next controller, and acknowledging the heading instruction. Track data show that as the right-hand turn continued, the airplane began descending, which was not consistent with its clearance. Review of the pilot’s logbook showed that the pilot had not met the instrument currency requirements and was likely not proficient at controlling the airplane on instruments. The pilot’s lack of recent experience operating in IMC combined with a momentary diversion of attention to manage the radio may have contributed to the development of spatial disorientation, resulting in a loss of airplane control.

The pilot reported that he performed the “before starting engine” and “starting engine” checklists and everything was normal before taking off in the twin-engine airplane. He performed an engine runup and then started his takeoff roll. The pilot reported that about halfway down the runway the airplane was not accelerating as fast as it should. He attempted to rotate the airplane; however, “the airplane mushed off the runway.” The airplane settled back onto the runway, then exited the departure end of the runway, where it sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. The airplane engine monitor data indicated the airplane’s engines were operating consistent with each other at takeoff power at the time of the accident. Density altitude at the time of the accident was 7,170 ft and according to performance charts, there was adequate runway for takeoff. The reason for the loss of performance could not be determined.

On the 5th July, 2021 at approximately 3:45PM, EDT (1945UTC), an Israeli Aircraft Industries, (IAI) Westwind 1124A aircraft, United States registration N790JR, crashed a short distance from the end of runway 32 at the Treasure Cay International Airport (MYAT), Treasure Cay, Abaco, Bahamas. The aircraft plowed through airport lighting equipment at the end of the runway, hitting and breaking several trees along its path. A trail of aviation fuel and pieces of the aircraft and avionics equipment from the flight deck, were left behind before the aircraft finally hit a small mound (hill), spinning, hitting several additional trees, breaking apart and bursting into flames. The aircraft came to rest at coordinates 26°45’21.50”N, 77°24’7.26”W, approximately 2,000 feet (.33 miles) from the end of runway 32. As this airport did not have a fire truck or crash and rescue personnel stationed on site, assistance with fire services were requested from the town. Two firetrucks from the township responded, however, due to the location of the crash, and no access road available, the trucks were unable to reach the crash site and assist in extinguishing the blaze. The fire continued unimpeded, dampened only by the intermittent downpour of rain, which did not aid in extinguishing the blaze, but rather, only limited the spread of the fire to surrounding bushes. The raging fire totally destroyed the aircraft and much of the control surfaces and components in the direct area of the blaze. On July 6, a team of investigators from the AAIA and CAA-B were dispatched to the scene. Upon arrival of the investigation team, surrounding brush and trees, as well as some parts and components of the aircraft were still burning. Initial assessments pointed to a possible failure of the aircraft to climb and perform as required. Runway 14/32 is 7,001 x 150 feet with an asphalt surface and based on the distance the aircraft traveled from the end of the runway to its final resting place, the signature marking on trees and airport lighting fixtures struck by the aircraft, in addition to the ground scars, along with pieces of the aircraft beyond the runway, up to the final resting place of the aircraft, it appears the aircraft was approximately 2 to 5 feet about the surface and not developing any lift or climb performance, while developing full power over the ground, striking trees and brush along its path. Investigations uncovered the private flight with a crew of two (2), proposed a flight time departure of 2:10PM EDT from the Treasure Cay International Airport (MYAT), with a planned destination of Nassau, Bahamas (MYNN) and an arrival time of 2:33PM EDT, according to flight plan retrieved from Flightaware.com. The flight plan did not specify whether the flight would be operated under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) or Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). According to witness statements taken at Treasure Cay, witnesses recalled two pilots entering the ramp after 3 pm. Witnesses also stated that one of the persons onboard advised customs that they will be departing for Marsh Harbor for fuel in the aircraft (N790JR).

The pilot was conducting a cross-country flight when, about 8 miles north of his intended destination, he reduced engine power, pitched for level flight, and waited for indicated airspeed to drop below 174 kts to add 20° of flaps. As soon as the drag was introduced, the airplane began to “buck back and forward,” and the two engines were “throttling up and down on their own.” He noted that the right engine seemed to be “sputtering and popping” more than the left engine, so he decided to raise the flaps and to shut down and feather the right engine. He declared an emergency to air traffic control. The pilot then noticed that the left engine was “slowly spooling down” and the airplane was not able to maintain airspeed and altitude. The pilot performed a forced landing to a flat, muddy wheat field about 4 nautical miles from the airport. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and to both wings. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector traveled to the accident site to examine the airplane. Flight control and engine control continuity were confirmed. The master switch was turned on and the fuel gauges showed a zero indication. There was no evidence of fuel at the accident site or in the airplane. During the recovery of the airplane from the field, no fuel was found in the three intact fuel tanks, nor in any of the engine fuel lines. The pilot later stated that he ran the airplane out of fuel during the accident flight. The pilot reported that, during the preflight checks and twice during the accident flight, he activated the low fuel warning light, and no anomalies were noted. Postaccident testing of the low fuel warning light in an exemplar Piper Aerostar 602P revealed no anomalies.

The instrument-rated pilot of the business jet airplane, pilot-rated passenger, and five passengers departed on a cross-country flight and entered the clouds while performing a climbing right turn. The airplane then began to descend, and air traffic control (ATC) asked the pilot to confirm altitude and heading. The pilot did not respond. After a second query from ATC, the pilot acknowledged the instructions. The airplane entered a climbing right turn followed by a left turn. After ATC made several attempts to contact the pilot, the airplane entered a rapid descending left turn and impacted a shallow reservoir at a high rate of speed. Postaccident examination of the recovered wreckage and both engines revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Flight track data revealed that after takeoff, the airplane entered the clouds and made a series of heading changes, along with several climbs and descents, before it entered a steep, descending left turn. This type of maneuvering was consistent with the onset of a type of spatial disorientation known as somatogravic illusion. According to a National Transportation Safety Board performance study, accelerations associated with the airplane’s increasing airspeed were likely perceived by the pilot as the airplane pitching up although it was in a continuous descent. This occurred because the pilot was experiencing spatial disorientation and he likely did not effectively use his instrumentation during takeoff and climb. As a result of the pilot experiencing spatial disorientation, he likely experienced a high workload managing the flight profile, which would have had a further adverse effect on his performance. As such, the airplane entered a high acceleration, unusual attitude, descending left turn from which the pilot was not able to recover. The pilot and the pilot-rated passenger did not report any medication use or medical conditions to the Federal Aviation Administration on their recent and only medical certification examinations. Postaccident specimens were insufficient to evaluate the presence of any natural disease during autopsy. However, given the circumstances of this accident, it is unlikely that the pilot’s or pilot-rated passenger’s medical condition were factors in this accident. Low levels of ethanol were detected in the pilot’s muscle tissue and the pilot-rated passenger’s muscle and kidney tissue; n-butanol was also detected in the pilot’s muscle tissue. Given the length of time to recover the airplane occupants from the water and the circumstances of this accident, it is reasonable that some or all of the identified ethanol in the pilot and the pilot-rated passenger were from sources other than ingestion. Thus, the identified ethanol in the pilot and the pilot-rated passenger did not contribute to this accident.

The airplane departed Myrtle Beach International Airport (MYR), Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, at 1812, with the intended destination of Grand Strand Airport (CRE), North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. According to automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast and air traffic control (ATC) communications information, the pilot established contact with ATC and reported that he was ready for departure from runway 18. He was instructed to fly runway heading, climb to 1,700 ft mean sea level (msl), and was cleared for takeoff. Once airborne, the controller instructed the pilot to turn left; however, the pilot stated that he needed to return to runway 18. The controller instructed the pilot to enter a right closed traffic pattern at 1,500 ft msl. As the airplane continued to turn to the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, it reached an altitude of about 1,000 ft mean sea level (msl). While on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, the airplane descended to 450 ft msl, climbed to 700 ft msl, and then again descended to 475 ft msl before radar contact was lost. About 1 minute after the pilot requested to return to the runway, the controller asked if any assistance was required, to which the pilot replied, “yes, we’re in trouble.” There were no further radio communications from the pilot. The airplane crashed in a field and was destroyed by impact forces and a post crash fire. The pilot, sole on board, was killed.

The pilot in command (PIC) and second-in-command (SIC) completed an uneventful positioning flight to pick up passengers and then continued to the destination airport. Cockpit voice recorder (CVR) information revealed that, while en route, the PIC expressed a desire to complete the flight as quickly as possible and arrive at the destination before another airplane that was also enroute to the destination airport, presumably to please the passengers. The PIC compared the flight with an automobile race, and the airplane’s overspeed warning annunciated multiple times during the descent. The flight crew elected to conduct a straight-in visual approach to land. Throughout the final approach, the airplane was high and fast, as evidenced by the SIC’s airspeed callouts. When the SIC asked whether s-turns should be made, and the PIC responded that such turns were not necessary. An electronic voice recorded by the CVR repeatedly provided “sink rate” and “pull up” warnings while the airplane was on final approach, providing indications to the crewmembers that the approach was unstable, but they continued the landing. The airplane touched down about 1,000 ft down the 4,200-ft-long runway. The PIC described that the airplane’s wheel brakes, thrust reversers, and ground air brakes did not function after touchdown, but witness and video evidence showed that the thrust reversers deployed shortly after touchdown. In addition, tire skid marks indicated that wheel braking occurred throughout the ground roll and increased heavily during the final 1,500 ft of the runway when the antiskid system activated. The ground air brakes did not deploy. The airplane overran the runway and came to rest about 400 ft past the departure end of the runway in marshy terrain. The fuselage and wings sustained substantial damage. The switch that controlled the automatic deployment of the ground air brake system was found in a position that should have allowed for their automatic deployment upon landing. There was no evidence to indicate a preaccident mechanical malfunction or failure with the hydraulic system, wheel brakes, thrust reversers, and weight-on-wheel switches, or electrical issues with either air brake switches. The airplane’s ground air brake deployment system logic required that both throttle levers be below 18° (throttle lever angle) in order to activate. The accident airplane’s throttle lever position microswitches were tested after the accident. The left throttle microswitch tested normal, but the right throttle microswitch produced an abnormal electrical current/resistance during initial testing. When the throttle was touched and then further manipulated by hand, the electrical resistance tested normal. The investigation was unable to determine whether the intermittent right throttle microswitch resistance prevented the ground air brakes from deploying because the testing was inconclusive. Landing performance calculations showed that, without ground air brakes, the landing ground roll exceeded the runway that was available from the airplane’s touchdown point about 1,000 ft down the runway. Mobile phone video evidence revealed that a quartering tailwind of about 10 to 15 knots persisted during the landing, which exceeded the manufacturer’s tailwind landing limitation of 10 knots for the airplane, and thus would have further increased the actual ground roll distance beyond that calculated. Throughout the final approach, the flight crew received several indications that the approach was unstable. The flight crew was aware that the airplane was approaching the runway high, fast, and at an abnormal sink rate. Both pilots had an opportunity to call for a go-around, which would have been the appropriate action. However, it is likely that the external pressures that the PIC and SIC accepted to complete the flight as quickly as possible influenced their decision-making in continuing the approach.