Private

The pilot was flying a non precision approach in instrument meteorological conditions at night. While flying the procedure turn for the approach, the airplane’s speed decayed toward the stall speed before the airplane accelerated back to the standard approach speed. During the descent from the final approach fix, the airplane’s descent stopped for about 30 seconds and then the airplane descended at a rate of about 1,300 ft per minute. The airplane decelerated and continued to descend until the airspeed was about 85 knots (about 7 knots above the calculated stall speed for flaps 20°) and the altitude was 500 ft mean sea level. The last recorded data point showed the airplane about 460 ft mean sea level and 750 ft from the accident site. The airplane impacted a private residence, and a postcrash fire ensued and destroyed the airplane. Impact signatures were consistent with a low-energy impact. Examination of the airframe and engines did not detect any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operations. Signatures on the engines and propellers were consistent with both engines providing power at impact. A review of the pilot’s toxicological information found that the level of eszopiclone in his specimens was subtherapeutic and thus not likely a factor in the accident. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with an inadvertent aerodynamic stall from which the pilot was unable to recover.

Crashed in unknown circumstances, killing the pilot, sole on board.

The pilot was conducting an instrument flight rules cross-country flight and climbing to a planned altitude of 23,000 ft mean sea level (msl). According to air traffic control data, as the airplane climbed through 18,600 ft msl, its groundspeed was 171 knots, and a gradual reduction in groundspeed began. After reaching an altitude of about 20,200 ft msl, the airplane began a descent on a southeast heading. Just before the descent began, the airplane’s groundspeed had decreased to 145 knots. About 2 minutes after the descent began, the airplane turned right to a northeast heading on which it continued for about 30 seconds. The flightpath then became erratic before the data ended. The pilot made no distress calls and did not respond to repeated calls from the controller. The main wreckage of the airplane was located in densely forested terrain at an elevation of about 930 ft about 1,000 ft south of the last radar return. The outboard portion of the right wing, right aileron, right horizontal stabilizer, and right elevator were not located with the main wreckage and, despite ground and aerial searches with a small unmanned aircraft system, were not found. Examination of the wreckage indicated that the missing wing and tail sections separated in flight due to overload. Examination of the recovered airframe and engine did not reveal evidence of any pre-existing mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Weather forecasts indicated that the accident site was in an area where moderate icing conditions up to 25,000 ft msl, embedded thunderstorms, and 2-inch hail were forecasted. Review of preflight weather information received by the pilot indicated that he was aware of the conditions forecast on the route of flight before initiating the flight. Meteorological data revealed that the airplane likely entered icing conditions that ranged from light to heavy as it climbed through 14,000 ft msl about 23 minutes after takeoff and remained in icing conditions for the remaining 16-minute duration of the flight. Freezing drizzle conditions were likely present along the flightpath. Although the airplane was equipped for flight in icing conditions, the pilot’s operating handbook contained a warning about flight into severe icing conditions, which stated that flight in freezing drizzle could result in ice build-up on protected surfaces exceeding the capability of the ice protection system. The airplane’s gradual loss of groundspeed as it climbed was consistent with ice accumulating on the airplane. It is likely that during the 16 minutes the airplane was operating in icing conditions, the capability of the ice protection system was exceeded, which resulted in a degradation of aircraft performance and subsequent aerodynamic stall. During the ensuing uncontrolled descent, the structural capability of the airplane was exceeded, which resulted in an inflight break up. A review of the pilot’s records revealed multiple certificate application failures for reasons that included inadequate knowledge of cross-country flight planning, aircraft performance, and stalls. Review of the pilot’s airman knowledge written tests found areas answered incorrectly over multiple exams included meteorology, aircraft performance, aeronautical decision-making, and stalls. The ethanol identified in the pilot’s cavity blood was most likely the result of postmortem production. Therefore, effects from ethanol did not play any role in this accident. The cargo was documented as it was removed from the airplane and remained secure until after it was weighed. Based upon the weight of the cargo, passengers, airplane, and fuel from the filed flight plan, at the time of departure, the airplane would have been about 361 lbs over maximum gross weight. According to the FAA Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, an overloaded airplane “may exhibit unexpected and unusually poor flight characteristics,” which include reduced maneuverability and an increased stall speed.

The airplane crashed moments after takeoff from the South Bimini Int’l Airport (MYBS), Bimini, Bahamas. The private flight departed MYBS with intended final destination of Opa Locka Airport (KOPF), Opa Locka, Florida, USA. The pilot sustained serious injuries and after being seen by medical personnel in South Bimini, was flown to Nassau, Bahamas for further medical attention. The passenger who occupied the right seat of the aircraft, succumbed to injuries he sustained as a result of the initial impact and subsequent crash sequence and subsequent submersion in the waters at the end of the runway environment. The pilot was a US certified commercial pilot with ratings for airplane land, single and multi-engine as well as an instrument airplane rating. The pilot’s medical certificate was valid at the time of the accident. The passenger (pilot’s son) also held a valid US certified private pilot – single engine land – airplane certificate. It is unknown what role (if any) the passenger (son) played during the takeoff to crash sequence. The weather conditions at the time of the accident was night (instrument meteorological conditions). A weak high pressure ridging was forecasted to continue to dominate the weather over the Bahamas throughout the night. However, no significant weather was anticipated.

The aircraft was under the command of a CPL holder pilot-in-command (PIC), who was Pilot Flying (PF). PIC was assisted by a CPL holder copilot, who was pilot monitoring (PM). One passenger (Director of Operations M/s PAPL) was also onboard. The aircraft took off from Bhopal airport uneventfully. After takeoff, at about 20 NM, the crew observed abnormal noise followed by low oil pressure and high oil temperature indication on aircraft’s LH engine. Crew assessed the situation and decided to turn back to Bhopal. The crew however, reported to ATC Bhopal that they are returning back due to wind and turbulence. While returning, crew shutdown the LH engine. Post LH engine shut down, crew gave a call to ATC, Bhopal requested to land the aircraft on the taxiway (disuse runway). ATC did not agree to the request, as there was no cross runway at Bhopal. The ATC was also not made aware of the prevailing emergency situation by the crew. When ATC declined the request, the crew informed ATC, that they might be doing force landing. ATC Bhopal immediately responded and asked the crew to land on Runway 12. However, the crew carried out a force landing in an agriculture field approximately 3 NM from Bhopal Airport. During the force landing, the PIC received serious injury and the copilot and passenger received minor injuries.The aircraft sustained substantial damages.

After departing runway 23 at Hermosillo-General Ignacio Pesqueira Garcia Airport, the twin engine aircraft entered a slight turn to the right but encountered difficulties to gain height. It struck power cables and crashed in a field located about 7 km west of the airport, bursting into flames. Three passengers were seriously injured while four other occupants including the pilot were killed. Few hours later, two of the three survivors died from their injuries. The undersecretary of Economic Development of Sonora Leonardo Ciscomani seems to be the only survivor.

The aircraft, registered 5Y-NJS operated by Westwind Aviation Ltd crashed at Ngong Racecourse. The flight with two onboard was on a private mission to Kisumu, Eldoret and back to Nairobi. The aircraft departed Wilson Airport (HKNW) at 0420Z and landed at Kisumu Airport (HKKI) at 0502Z. It then departed HKKI to HKEL at 1142Z and landed at 1200Z where it picked one passenger. The flight then departed HKEL to HKNW with three onboard at 1247Z with an estimated flight time of 40 minutes. According to the preliminary information obtained from the Captain, the aircraft attained flight level 250 42NM from Eldoret VOR. The flight was then cleared to fly direct to GV VOR by Nairobi Area Control Centre. During descend to flight level 100 they encountered bad weather whereby the wings developed heavy icing. The Captain deployed deicing systems on the wings but the problem persisted. The situation prompted the Captain to request Wilson Control to descend to “Monstry fix” for landing at HKNW which was approved. As the flight continued descending the left engine went off. The Captain requested Wilson Tower for assistance. After 30 seconds, the right engine also went off. The Captain elected to make an emergency landing at Ngong Racecourse. On landing along, the left wing collided with trees and broke-off and separated together with the left engine and the left main landing gear. The turned clockwise through 180° and faced the opposite direction. All three onboard escaped unhurt but the aircraft was destroyed.

According to the pilot, during the takeoff roll from the 5,000-ft-long runway, after reaching an airspeed of 90 knots, the airplane’s acceleration slowed. The airplane reached a maximum airspeed of about 92 knots, which was below the planned rotation speed of 100 knots. The pilot elected to abort the takeoff with about 1,500 ft of remaining runway. He reduced the power to idle and initiated maximum braking. The pilot stated that he did not sense the airplane slowing down but observed tire marks on the runway postaccident that were consistent with braking. The airplane continued off the end of the runway and collided with a fence before coming to a stop. All of the occupants exited the airplane safely, and a post-crash fire ensued. Examination of the runway revealed tire skid marks that began 1,200 ft from the runway end and continued into the grass leading to the airplane. An examination of the airplane revealed that the entire cockpit and cabin areas were destroyed by fire. The engines did not display evidence of a catastrophic failure but were otherwise unable to be examined in more detail due to the degree of fire damage. The parking brake control was found in the off position. All hydraulic brake lines were destroyed by fire, and the main landing gear sustained fire and impact damage. Although the tire marks on the runway indicated that some braking action took place, the extensive fire damage precluded a detailed examination of the braking system, and there was insufficient evidence to determine the reason for the runway excursion.

The non-instrument-rated pilot departed on a cross-country flight. Radar track data revealed the airplane traveled on a relatively straight course to the northeast for about 32 minutes. Near the end of the flight track data, the track showed an increasingly tight left spiraling turn near the accident site. The airplane impacted steep sloping terrain, and a postimpact fire ensued. As a result of the impact, the airplane was segmented into several sections. Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunction or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The attitude indicator instrument was disassembled, and the vacuum-powered rotor and housing revealed rotational scoring damage, indicating the instrument vacuum system was operational at the time of the accident. The investigation found no evidence indicating the pilot checked the weather or received weather information before departure. The surrounding weather reporting stations near the accident site reported wind conditions with peak gusts up to 47 knots around the time of the accident. The pilot likely encountered mountain wave activity with severe turbulence, which resulted in loss of control of the airplane and impact with terrain. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s failure to obtain a preflight weather briefing, which would have alerted him to the presence of hazardous strong winds and turbulent conditions. Postmortem toxicology testing of the pilot’s lung and muscle tissue samples detected several substances that are mentally and physically impairing individually and even more so in combination for performing hazardous and complex tasks. However, blood concentrations are needed to determine the level of impairment, and no blood samples for the pilot were available. While the pilot was taking potentially impairing medications and likely had conditions that would influence decision making and reduce performance, without blood concentrations, it was not possible to determine whether the potentially impairing combination of medications degraded his ability to safely operate the airplane.

The flight crew was conducting a flight with two passengers and one flight attendant onboard the multiengine jet airplane. The flight crew later stated that at rotation speed, the captain applied back pressure to the control yoke; however, the nose did not rotate to a takeoff attitude. The captain attempted to rotate the airplane once more by relaxing the yoke then pulling it back again, and, with no change in the airplane’s attitude, he made the decision to reject the takeoff by retarding the thrust levers and applying maximum braking. The airplane overran the end of the runway onto a gravel pad where the landing gear collapsed. Continuity was confirmed from the flight controls to the control surfaces. No mechanical anomalies with the engines or airplane systems were noted during the investigation that would have precluded normal operation. A review of performance data indicated that the flight crew attempted to takeoff with the airplane 2,975 lbs over the maximum takeoff weight (MTOW), a center of gravity (CG) close to the most forward limit, and an incorrect stabilizer trim setting. The digital flight data recorder (DFDR) data indicated that the captain attempted takeoff at a rotation speed 23 knots (kts) slower than the calculated rotation speed for the airplane at maximum weight. Takeoff performance showed the departure runway was 575 ft shorter than the distance required for takeoff at the airplane’s weight. The captain, who was the pilot flying, did not hold any valid pilot certificates at the time of the accident because they had been revoked 2 years prior due to his falsification of logbook entries and records. Additionally, he had never held a type rating for the accident airplane and had started, but not completed, training in the accident airplane model before the accident. The first officer had accumulated about 16 hours of flight experience in the make and model of the airplane and was not authorized to operate as pilot-in-command. The airplane’s flight management system (FMS) data were not recovered; therefore, it could not be determined what data the flight crew entered into the FMS that allowed the airspeed numbers to be generated. The investigation revealed that had the actual performance numbers been entered, a “FIELD LIMITED” amber message would have illuminated warning the crew that the MTOW was exceeded, and airspeed numbers would not have been generated. Therefore, it is likely that the crew entered incorrect data into the FMS either by manually entering a longer runway length and/or decreased the weight of the fuel, passengers, and/or cargo.