Scheduled Revenue Flight

The airline transport pilot was conducting an air taxi commuter flight between two Hawaiian islands with eight passengers on board. Several passengers stated that the pilot did not provide a safety briefing before the flight. One passenger stated that the pilot asked how many of the passengers had flown over that morning and then said, “you know the procedures.” The pilot reported that, shortly after takeoff and passing through about 500 ft over the water, he heard a loud “bang,” followed by a total loss of engine power. The pilot attempted to return to the airport; however, he realized that the airplane would not be able to reach land, and he subsequently ditched the airplane in the ocean. All of the passengers and the pilot exited the airplane uneventfully. One passenger swam to shore, and rescue personnel recovered the pilot and the other seven passengers from the water about 80 minutes after the ditching. However, one of these passengers died before the rescue personnel arrived. Postaccident examination of the recovered engine revealed that multiple compressor turbine (CT) blades were fractured and exhibited thermal damage. In addition, the CT shroud exhibited evidence of high-energy impact marks consistent with the liberation of one or more of the CT blades. The thermal damage to the CT blades likely occurred secondary to the initial blade fractures and resulted from a rapid increase in fuel flow by the engine fuel control in response to the sudden loss of compressor speed due to the blade fractures. The extent of the secondary thermal damage to the CT blades precluded a determination of the cause of the initial fractures. Review of airframe and engine logbooks revealed that, about 1 1/2 years before the accident, the engine had reached its manufacturer-recommended time between overhaul (TBO) of 3,600 hours; however, the operator obtained a factory-authorized, 200-hour TBO increase. Subsequently, at an engine total time since new of 3,752.3 hours, the engine was placed under the Maintenance on Reliable Engines (MORE) Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) inspection program, which allowed an immediate increase in the manufacturer recommended TBO from 3,600 to 8,000 hours. The MORE STC inspection program documents stated that the MORE STC was meant to supplement, not replace, the engine manufacturer’s Instructions for Continued Airworthiness and its maintenance program. Although the MORE STC inspection program required more frequent borescope inspections of the hot section, periodic inspections of the compressor and exhaust duct areas, and periodic power plant adjustment/tests, it did not require a compressor blade metallurgical evaluation of two compressor turbine blades; however, this evaluation was contained in the engine maintenance manual and an engine manufacturer service bulletin (SB). The review of the airframe and engine maintenance logbooks revealed no evidence that a compressor turbine metallurgical evaluation of two blades had been conducted. The operator reported that the combined guidance documentation was confusing, and, as a result, the operator did not think that the compressor turbine blade evaluation was necessary. It is likely that, if the SB had been complied with or specifically required as part of the MORE STC inspection program, possible metal creep or abnormalities in the turbine compressor blades might have been discovered and the accident prevented. The passenger who died before the first responders arrived was found wearing a partially inflated infant life vest. The autopsy of the passenger did not reveal any significant traumatic injuries, and the autopsy report noted that her cause of death was “acute cardiac arrhythmia due to hyperventilation.” Another passenger reported that he also inadvertently used an infant life vest, which he said seemed “small or tight” but “worked fine.” If the pilot had provided a safety briefing, as required by Federal Aviation Administration regulations, to the passengers that included the ditching procedures and location and usage of floatation equipment, the passengers might have been able to find and use the correct size floatation device.

The scheduled commuter flight departed 40 minutes late for a two-stop flight. During the first leg of the night visual flight rules (VFR) flight, weather at the first destination airport deteriorated, so the pilot diverted to the second destination airport. The pilot requested and received a special VFR clearance from an air route traffic controller into the diversion airport area. Review of automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast data transmitted by the airplane showed that, after the clearance was issued, the airplane's track changed and proceeded in a direct line to the diversion airport. Postaccident examination of the pilot's radio showed that his audio panel was selected to the air route traffic control (ARTCC) frequency rather than the destination airport frequency; therefore, although the pilot attempted to activate the pilot-controlled lighting at the destination airport, as heard on the ARTCC frequency, it did not activate. Further, witnesses on the ground at St. Mary's reported that the airport lighting system was not activated when they saw the accident airplane fly over, and then proceed away from the airport. Witnesses in the area described the weather at the airport as deteriorating with fog and ice. About 1 mile from the runway, the airplane began to descend, followed by a descending right turn and controlled flight into terrain. The pilot appeared to be in control of the airplane up to the point of the right descending turn. Given the lack of runway lighting, the restricted visibility due to fog, and the witness statements, the pilot likely lost situational awareness of the airplane's geographic position, which led to his subsequent controlled flight into terrain. After the airplane proceeded away from the airport, the witnesses attempted to contact the pilot by radio. When the pilot did not respond, they accessed the company's flight tracking software and noted that the airplane's last reported position was in the area of the airplane's observed flightpath. They proceeded to search the area where they believed the airplane was located and found the airplane about 1 hour later. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. About 3/4 inch of ice was noted on the nonprotected surfaces of the empennage. However, ice formation on the airplane's inflatable leading edge de-ice boots was consistent with normal operation of the de-ice system, and structural icing likely was not a factor in the accident. According to the company's General Operations Manual (GOM), operational control was held by the flight coordinator for the accident flight, and the flight coordinator and pilot-in-command (PIC) were jointly responsible for preflight planning, flight delay, and release of the flight, which included the risk assessment process. The flight coordinator assigned the flight a risk level of 2 (on a scale of 1 to 4) due to instrument meteorological and night conditions and contaminated runways at both of the destination airports. The first flight coordinator assigned another flight coordinator to create the manifest, which listed eight passengers and a risk assessment level of 2. According to company risk assessment and operational control procedures, a risk level of 2 required a discussion between the PIC and flight coordinator about the risks involved. However, the flight coordinators did not discuss with the pilot the risks and weather conditions associated with the flight. Neither of the flight coordinators working the flight had received company training on the risk assessment program. At the time of the accident, no signoff was required for flight coordinators or pilots on the risk assessment form, and the form was not integrated into the company manuals. A review of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) surveillance activities revealed that aviation safety inspectors had performed numerous operational control inspections and repeatedly noted deficiencies within the company's training, risk management, and operational control procedures. Enforcement Information System records indicated that FAA inspectors observed multiple incidences of the operator's noncompliance related to flight operations and that they opened investigations; however, the investigations were closed after only administrative action had been taken. Therefore, although FAA inspectors were providing surveillance and noting discrepancies within the company's procedures and processes, the FAA did not hold the operator sufficiently accountable for correcting the types of operational deficiencies evident in this accident, such as the operator's failure to comply with its operations specifications, operations training manual, and GOM and applicable federal regulations.

Aircraft left Maputo Airport at 1126LT on flight LAM470 to Luanda, Angola. En route, while overflying Botswana and Namibia, aircraft encountered bad weather conditions with CB's at high altitude and turbulence. In unknown circumstances, aircraft went out of control and disappeared from radar screens at 1230LT, most probably after diving into the ground. As the aircraft did not arrive at Luanda, SAR commenced but were suspended by night due to low visibility and bad weather conditions (heavy rain falls). The day after, on 30NOV, Namibia Police forces announced they located the wreckage in the Bwabwata National Park, near Divundu. Aircraft was completely destroyed by impact forces and post impact fire. All 33 occupants were killed, among them 16 Mozambicans, 9 Angolans, 5 Portuguese, one French, one Brazilian and one Chinese. The aircraft crashed in a dense wooded and isolated area, sot SAR are difficult. No distress call was sent by the crew.

On final approach to Kazan from Domodedovo in marginal weather conditions, crew was forced to make a go around as the aircraft was not correctly aligned with the runway centerline. While climbing to a height of 700 meters, the aircraft went out of control, nosed down and hit the ground. The aircraft disintegrated on impact and all 50 occupants were killed. MAK reported in a first statement that the crew did not follow the standard approach profile and the approach was unstable. TOGA mode was selected, autopilot deactivated and flaps raised from 30 to 15 degrees. As gear were retracted, the aircraft pitched up to about 25 degrees nose up and the indicated airspeed decreased from 150 to 125 knots. Crew countered the nose up by control inputs and the climb was stopped. Aircraft reached a maximum height of 2,300 feet and began to rapidly descend until it impacted the ground with a near vertical angle of 75 degrees at a speed of 242 knots, some 20 seconds after reaching the height of 2,300 feet. The crash was no survivable.

Flight from Sioux Lookout was uneventful till the final descent to Red Lake completed by night and in light snow with a ceiling at 2,000 feet and visibility 8 SM. On final approach to runway 26, crew reported south of the airport and declared an emergency. Shortly after this mayday message, aircraft hit power cables and crashed in flames in a dense wooded area located 800 meters south of the airport. Two passengers seating in the rear were seriously injured while all five other occupants including both pilots were killed.

Following an uneventful flight from Trinidad, the crew started the descent to Riberalta Airport in poor weather conditions with a visibility reduced to 3 km due to rain falls. After touchdown on wet runway 14, the aircraft was unable to stop within the remaining distance. It overran, collided with obstacles and came to rest upside down, bursting into flames, some 300 metres short of runway 32 threshold. Ten people were rescued while eight passengers were killed. The aircraft was totally destroyed. The exact circumstances of the accident remains unclear.

A first approach procedure to runway 15 was aborted by the crew due to insufficient visibility. On the circuit to complete a second approach in bad weather conditions, the ATR72-600 crashed some 8 km short of runway and was completely submerged in the Mekong River. None of the 49 occupants (44 pax and 5 crew) survived, among them 7 French citizens and 6 Australians. Aircraft left Vientiane at 1445LT and should arrive in Pakse one hour later. Aircraft was built and delivered to Lao Airlines in March this year. First crash involving an ATR72-600 series. Up to date, worst accident in Laos.
The Laotian Authorities released the following key sentences of analysis:
"Under IMC conditions, with no reference to the ground, the SOPs lead to conducting an instrument approach. In Pakse the VOR DME approach procedure is in force. There is no radar service. The flight crew has to fly to the initial approach fix or the intermediate fix at an altitude above 4600ft, then start the descent to 2300ft until final approach fix. Finally the flight crew descends to the minima (990ft), if visual references with the ground are available and sufficient the flight crew may continue until touchdown. If ground visual references are not available or not sufficient, the flight crew may level off up to the missed approach point and then must start the missed approach procedure. From the FOR data, the flight crew set 600 ft as the minima. This is contrary to the published minima of 990 ft. Even if the flight crew had used the incorrect height as published in the JEPPESEN Chart at that time the minima should have been set to 645 ft or above. The choice of minima lower than the published minima considerably reduces the safety margins. Following the chart would lead the flight crew to fly on a parallel path 345 ft lower than the desired indicated altitude. The recordings show that the flight crew initiated a right turn according to the lateral missed approach trajectory without succeeding in reaching the vertical trajectory. Specifically, the flight crew didn't follow the vertical profile of missed approach as the missed approach altitude was set at 600 ft and the aircraft system went into altitude capture mode. When the flight crew realized that the altitude was too close to the ground, the PF over-reacted, which led to a high pitch attitude of 33°. The aircraft was mostly flying in the clouds during the last part of flight."

The single engine aircraft departed Loreto Airport at 0901LT on a flight to Ciudad Constitución, carrying 13 passengers and one pilot. Weather conditions were poor with limited visibility and heavy rain falls due to the presence of the tropical storm 'Octave'. Six minutes after takeoff, while cruising at an altitude of 3,900 feet, the airplane impacted the slope of a rocky mountain located in the Sierra de La Giganta. The wreckage was found two days later some 26 km west of Loreto. The aircraft disintegrated on impact and all 14 occupants were killed.

A de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter 310, operated by MASwings, sustained substantial damage in an accident at Kudat Airport (KUD), Malaysia. The copilot and one passenger died, four others were injured. MASwings flight MH3002 operated on a domestic flight from Kota Kinabalu Airport (BKI) to Kudat. The captain was the pilot flying for this sector and the first officer was pilot monitoring. As the aircraft was approaching Kudat Airfield, Kudat Tower reported the weather conditions to be: wind at 270 degrees at 17 kts gusting 31 kts. The aircraft continued the approach on runway 04 and leveled off at 500 feet with flaps set at 10°. At this point the crew noticed that the approach for runway 04 had a strong tail wind. This was evident from the indicated airspeed observed by the crew which indicated 100 kts where the airspeed for flaps 10° should be 65kts. The windsock also indicated a tail wind. Noticing the approach for runway 04 was a tail wind condition, the crew decided to go around at a height of 500ft. Maintaining runway heading, the crew initiated a go around climbing to 1,000ft making a left tear drop and reposition for runway 22. On the approach for runway 22 the captain informed the first officer that if they could not land they would return to Kota Kinabalu. The aircraft was aligned with the centerline of runway 22 and 20° flaps was set. The aircraft continued to descend to 300ft. At this point the wind appeared to be calm as the aircraft did not experience any turbulence and the captain told the first officer that he was committed to land. Upon reaching 200ft the captain called for the flaps to be lowered to full down. As they were about to flare the aircraft to land, approximately 20ft above the runway, the aircraft was suddenly hit by a gust of wind which caused the aircraft to veer to the right with the right wing low and left wing high and the nose was pointing 45° to the right of runway 22. The crew decided to go around by applying maximum power; however the aircraft did not manage to climb successfully. The flaps were not raised and were still in the full flaps down position as the crew thought the aircraft was still low hence the flaps were not raised. The aircraft continued to veer to the right with right wing low and managed to only climb at a shallow rate. The aircraft failed to clear the approaching trees ahead and was unable to continue its climb because the airspeed was reducing. The presence of a full flaps configuration made it more difficult for the aircraft to climb. As the aircraft was on full power on both the engines, it continued to fly almost perpendicularly in relation to the runway and at a low height above the ground. The aircraft hit a tree top at the airfield perimeter fencing, disappeared behind the row of trees, hit another tree behind a house. It hit the right rear roof of the house, ploughed through the roof top of the kitchen, toilet and dining area, hit the solid concrete pillars of the car garage and finally hit the lamp post just outside the house fence. It swung back onto the direction of the runway and came to rest on the ground with its left engine still running. A woman and her 11-year old son who were in the living room at the time escaped unhurt.

Following an uneventful flight from Chiang Mai, the crew completed the landing on runway 30 at Udon Thani Airport. The aircraft vacated runway and was taxiing when control was lost. The airplane veered to the right, entered a soft grassy area, lost its nose gear and came to rest. All 28 occupants evacuated safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.