Private

The pilot reported that, shortly after takeoff, the twin-engine airplane's left front baggage door opened. He attempted to return to the airport, but the left engine lost engine power while the airplane was on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern. The airplane subsequently impacted power lines and terrain. An explosion occurred during the impact sequence, and a fire ensued that almost completely consumed the airframe. Tear down examination of the right engine revealed no anomalies. A test run of the left engine revealed no anomalies; however, due to impact and fire damage, it was not possible to fully test or examine the left engine's fuel system. The reason for the left engine’s loss of power could not
be determined.

The private pilot was conducting a personal flight during day, instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions. The pilot checked in with an air route traffic control center, and, after radar data showed multiple changes in altitude that were not in accordance with the assigned altitudes, an air traffic controller queried the pilot about the altitude changes. The pilot reported an autopilot problem and then later requested clearance to deviate around weather at a higher altitude. The airplane passed through several sectors and controllers, and it was understood that the pilot was aware of the adverse weather due to the deviation information in the flight strip. The air traffic controller did not provide additional adverse weather information and updates to the pilot, as required by a Federal Aviation Administration order; however, general broadcasts of this weather information were recorded on the frequency the pilot was using before the accident. Multiple weather resources showed rapidly developing multicellular to supercell-type convective activity with cloud tops near 48,000 ft. Forecasts and advisories warned of potential strong to severe thunderstorms with the potential for moderate-to-severe turbulence, hail, lightning, heavy rains, and high wind. Radar data indicated that the pilot turned into the intense weather cells instead of away from them as he had requested. The pilot declared a "mayday" and reported that he had lost visual reference and was in a spin. Damage to the airplane and witness marks on the ground were consistent with the airplane impacting in a level attitude and a flat spin. No mechanical anomalies were noted that would have precluded normal operation before the loss of control and impact with the ground. The investigation could not determine if there was an anomaly with the autopilot or if the rapidly developing thunderstorms and associated weather created a perception of an autopilot problem. The autopsy identified coronary artery disease. Although the coronary artery disease could have led to an acute coronary syndrome with symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, or fainting, it was unlikely to have impaired the pilot's judgment following a preflight weather briefing or while decision-making en route. Thus, there is no evidence that a medical condition contributed to the accident. The toxicology testing of the pilot identified zolpidem in the pilot's blood and tetrahydrocannabinol and its metabolite in the pilot's cavity blood, which indicated that he was using two potentially impairing substances in the days to hours before the accident. It is unlikely that the pilot's use of zolpidem contributed to the accident; however, the investigation could not determine whether the pilot's use of marijuana contributed to the cause of the accident.

The pilot arrived at the fixed-base operator on the morning of the accident and requested that his airplane be brought outside and prepared for an immediate departure; this occurred 1 hour 15 minutes before his scheduled departure time. Radar data showed that the airplane departed 23 minutes later. According to air traffic control data, shortly thereafter, the ground and departure controllers contacted the tower controller and asked if the airplane had departed yet; the tower controller responded, "I have no idea. We have zero visibility." Weather conditions about the time of the accident included a 200-ft overcast ceiling with about 1/4-mile visibility. Only five radar targets identified as the accident airplane were captured, and all of the targets were located over airport property. The first three radar targets began about midpoint of the 6,500-ft-long runway, and each of these targets was at an altitude of about 60 ft above ground level (agl). The final two targets showed the airplane in a shallow right turn, consistent with the published departure procedure track, at altitudes of 161 and 261 ft agl, respectively. The final radar target was about 1/2 mile from the accident site. Witnesses reported observing the airplane impact trees in a wings-level, slightly right-wing-down attitude at high speed. Examination of the wreckage revealed no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies of the airplane. The pilot's personal assistant reported that the pilot had an important meeting that required his attendance on the day of the accident flight. His early arrival to the airport and his request to have the airplane prepared for an immediate departure were actions consistent with self-induced pressure to complete the flight. Due to the poor weather conditions, which were expected to continue or worsen, he likely felt pressure to expedite his departure to ensure he was able to make it to his destination and to attend the meeting. This pressure may have further affected his ability to discern the risk associated with departing in low-visibility and low-ceiling conditions. As noted, the weather conditions were so poor that the local air traffic controller stated that he could not tell whether the airplane had departed. Such weather conditions are highly conducive to the development of spatial disorientation. Further, the altitude profile depicted by the radar data and the airplane's near wings-level attitude and high speed at impact were consistent with the pilot experiencing a form of spatial disorientation known as "somatogravic illusion," in which the pilot errantly perceives the airplane's acceleration as increasing pitch attitude, and efforts to hold the nose down or arrest the perception of increasing pitch attitude can exacerbate the situation. Such an illusion can be especially difficult to overcome because it typically occurs at low altitudes after takeoff, which provides little time for recognition and subsequent corrective inputs, particularly in very low-visibility conditions.

Shortly after takeoff from Starosel'ye Airfield, while in initial climb, the aircraft impacted trees, stalled and crashed in a wooded area, bursting into flames. The aircraft was totally destroyed by a post crash fire and both occupants were killed. It was reported that the aircraft was not on the Russian Aviation Register and that the registration RF-02883 was unknown to the authority. Also, the pilot decided to takeoff from an airstrip that was closed to traffic and failed to announce his flight to ATC.

The aircraft crashed after it overran the end of runway 11 during a rejected takeoff at Laurence G. Hanscom Field (BED), Bedford, Massachusetts. The airplane rolled through the paved overrun area and across a grassy area, collided with approach lights and a localizer antenna, passed through the airport’s perimeter fence, and came to a stop in a ravine. The two pilots, a flight attendant, and four passengers died. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a postcrash fire. The corporate flight, which was destined for Atlantic City International Airport, Atlantic City, New Jersey, was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91. An instrument flight rules flight plan was filed. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. During the engine start process, the flight crew neglected to disengage the airplane’s gust lock system, which locks the elevator, ailerons, and rudder while the airplane is parked to protect them against wind gust loads. Further, before initiating takeoff, the pilots neglected to perform a flight control check that would have alerted them of the locked flight controls. A review of data from the airplane’s quick access recorder revealed that the pilots had neglected to perform complete flight control checks before 98% of their previous 175 takeoffs in the airplane, indicating that this oversight was habitual and not an anomaly. A mechanical interlock between the gust lock handle and the throttle levers restricts the movement of the throttle levers when the gust lock handle is in the ON position. According to Gulfstream, the interlock mechanism was intended to limit throttle lever movement to a throttle lever angle (TLA) of no greater than 6° during operation with the gust lock on. However, postaccident testing on nine in-service G-IV airplanes found that, with the gust lock handle in the ON position, the forward throttle lever movement that could be achieved on the G-IV was 3 to 4 times greater than the intended TLA of 6°. During takeoff, the pilot-in-command (PIC) manually advanced the throttle levers, but the engine pressure ratio (EPR) did not reach the expected level due to the throttles contacting the gust lock/throttle lever interlock. The PIC did not immediately reject the takeoff; instead, he engaged the autothrottle, and the throttle levers moved slightly forward, which allowed the engines to attain an EPR value that approached (but never reached) the target setting. As the takeoff roll continued, the second-in-command made the standard takeoff speed callouts as the airplane successively reached 80 knots, the takeoff safety speed, and the rotation speed. When the PIC attempted to rotate the airplane, he discovered that he could not move the control yoke and began calling out “(steer) lock is on.” At this point, the PIC clearly understood that the controls were locked but still did not immediately initiate a rejected takeoff. If the flight crew had initiated a rejected takeoff at the time of the PIC’s first “lock is on” comment or at any time up until about 11 seconds after this comment, the airplane could have been stopped on the paved surface. However, the flight crew delayed applying brakes for about 10 seconds and further delayed reducing power by 4 seconds; therefore, the rejected takeoff was not initiated until the accident was unavoidable. Among the victims was Lewis Katz, co-owner of the 'Philadelphia Inquirer'.

The aircraft was returning to its base in Gryazi after taking part to a demonstration in Terbuny. After takeoff, while in initial climb, the engine lost power. The aircraft encountered difficulties to gain height, impacted power cables and crashed in an open field. All nine occupants evacuated safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The twin engine aircraft departed Termas de Río Hondo Airport on a flight to Río Cuarto, carrying six passengers and one pilot who took part to a motorcycle GP in Termas de Río Hondo. About 45 minutes into the flight, while cruising at an altitude of 6,500 feet, the left engine failed. The pilot contacted ATC and was cleared to divert to Deán Funes Airfield. On approach, he realized he could not make it and attempted an emergency landing on the National Road 60 at km 835. After touchdown, the aircraft veered off the street, lost its nose gear and came to rest in bushes. One passenger and the pilot were injured while five other occupants escaped unhurt. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

On 22 April 2014 at approximately 0716Z the Commercial pilot accompanied by a passenger departed Cape Town International Airport (FACT) on an IFR flight to Swartwater in the Limpopo Province. Approximately 16 minutes after take-off with the aircraft climbing through an altitude of 13500 feet to 17000 feet, the Air Traffic Controller advised the pilot that the aircraft’s Mode C transponder started transmitting erroneous altitude data and indicating that the aircraft was descending whereas the pilot thought he was ascending. The pilot notified the ATC that the aircraft was not descending and attempted to rectify the problem by recycling the Mode C transponder that however didn’t resolve the problem. As the transponder information was intermittent during the IFR flight to Swartwater, the ATC requested the pilot to descent to the VFR flight level FL 135. The pilot then requested Area West for approval to ascent to flight level (FL 195) which was approved. It appears that the pilot was unaware that the pitot static tube system that supplies both pitot and static air pressure for the airspeed indicator, altimeter and triple indicator was most probably blocked by dust or sand. The aircraft exceeded the Maximum Structural Air Speed (VNO) of the aircraft and the VNE air speed of 1 hour 44 minutes and 9 minutes respectively. The VNO of 173 airspeed and VNE of 203 airspeed exceedance resulted in the catastrophic inflight breakup of the aircraft. The wreckage was found scattered in a 1.58km path in mountainous terrain. Both occupants on board the aircraft sustained fatal injuries.

About 3 months before the accident, the pilot received about 9 hours of flight instruction, including completion of an instrument proficiency check, in the airplane. The accident flight was a personal cross-country flight operated under instrument flight rules (IFR). Radar track data depicted the flight proceeding on a west-southwest course at 15,800 ft mean sea level (msl) as it approached the destination airport. The flight was cleared by the air traffic controller for a GPS approach, passed the initial approach fix, and, shortly afterward, began a descent as permitted by the approach procedure. The track data indicated that the flight became established on the initial approach segment and remained above the designated minimum altitude of 12,000 ft msl. Average descent rates based on the available altitude data ranged from 500 feet per minute (fpm) to 1,000 fpm during this portion of the flight. At the intermediate navigation fix, the approach procedure required pilots to turn right and track a north-northwest course toward the airport. The track data indicated that the flight entered a right turn about 1 mile before reaching the intermediate fix. As the airplane entered the right turn, its average descent rate reached 4,000 fpm. The flight subsequently tracked northbound for nearly 1-1/2 miles. During this portion of the flight, the airplane initially descended at an average rate of 3,500 fpm then climbed at a rate of 1,800 fpm. The airplane subsequently entered a second right turn. The final three radar data points were each located within 505 ft laterally of each other and near the approximate accident site location. The average descent rate between the final two data points (altitudes of 10,100 ft msl and 8,700 ft msl) was 7,000 fpm. About the time that the final data point was recorded, the pilot informed the air traffic controller that the airplane was in a spin and that he was attempting to recover. No further communications were received from the pilot. The airplane subsequently impacted the surface of a reservoir at an elevation of about 6,780 ft and came to rest in 60 ft of water. A detailed postaccident examination of the airframe, engine and propeller assembly did not reveal any anomalies consistent with a preimpact failure or malfunction. The available meteorological data suggested that the airplane encountered clouds (tops about 16,000 ft msl or higher and bases about 10,000 ft msl) and was likely operating in IFR conditions during the final 15 minutes of the flight; however, no determination could be made regarding whether the clouds that the airplane descended through were solid or layered. In addition, the data suggested the possibility of both light icing and light turbulence between 12,000 ft msl and 16,000 ft msl along the flight path. Although the pilot appeared to be managing the flight appropriately during the initial descent, it could not be determined why he was unable to navigate to the approach fixes and maintain control of the airplane as he turned toward the airport and continued the descent.

The pilot's friend reported that the pilot planned to fly his recently purchased twin-engine airplane over his friend's home to show it to him and another friend. The pilot's friends and several other witnesses reported observing the pilot performing low-level, high-speed aerobatic maneuvers before the airplane collided with trees and then terrain. A 1.75-liter bottle of whiskey was found in the airplane wreckage. A review of the pilot's Federal Aviation Administration medical records revealed that he had a history of alcohol dependence but had reportedly been sober for almost 4 years. Toxicological testing revealed that the pilot had a blood alcohol content of 0.252 milligrams of alcohol per deciliter of blood, which was over six times the limit (0.040) Federal Aviation Regulations allowed for pilots operating an aircraft.