Scheduled Revenue Flight

Thai Airways International flight 261, an Airbus A310, left Bangkok-Don Mueang International Airport, Thailand at 17:54 hours local time for a domestic flight to Surat Thani. At 18:26 hours, the copilot first established contact with the Surat Thani approach controller while the aircraft was 70 nautical miles away from Surat Thani Airport. The controller radioed that the crew could expect a VOR/DME instrument approach to runway 22. At that time surface wind was calm with a visibility of 1500 meters, light rain and a cloud base of 1800 feet. At 18:39 hours the copilot contacted Surat Thani aerodrome controller and reported over the Intermediate Fix (IF). The controller informed him that the precision approach path indicators (PAPI) on the right side of runway 22 were unserviceable while the left lights were in use. At 18:41 hours, the copilot reported passing final approach fix (FAF). The controller informed the pilot that the aircraft was not in sight but it was cleared to land on runway 22. The surface wind was blowing from 310 degrees at a velocity of 5 knots so the pilots should be careful or the slippery runway. At 18:42 hours, the copilot reported that the runway was in sight and later on the controller also had the aircraft in sight. The pilot decided to go-around. The controller asked the pilot about the distance where the runway could be seen. The copilot reported that it could be seen at 3 nautical miles and requested for the second approach. The controller requested to report over FAF . When the copilot reported that the flight was over the FAF again, the controller cleared the flight to land although he again could not see the runway. When the flight crew failed to observe the runway lights, the captain decided to go around again. Again the controller instructed the flight to report over the FAF and reported that visibility had decreased to 1,000 meters in light rain. At 19:05, after reporting over the FAF, the flight was cleared to land on runway 22. The flight maintained the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) but the crew were unable to see the runway. The autopilot was disconnected and a little later the captain decided to go around. The pitch attitude increased continuously. The pitch attitude reached approximately 40°, when the pilot applied the elevator decreasing the pitch attitude to 32-33°. When he discontinued applying elevator the pitch increased to 47-48°. Consequently the speed decreased to 100 knots. The captain was not aware of the attitude due to stress and the expectation that the go around was flown exactly like the first two go-arounds. The airplane lost altitude until it impacted terrain to the left of the runway. 45 people survived and 101 others were killed, including 11 crew members.

Air Satellite=s Flight 501 was scheduled to fly from the airport at Baie-Comeau, Quebec, to Rimouski. After a five-hour delay because of adverse weather conditions, the Britten-Norman aircraft, serial number 2028, took off at 1109 eastern standard time. Eight passengers and two pilots were on board. The reported ceiling was 800 feet, the sky was obscured, and visibility was 0.5 statute mile in moderate snow showers. Shortly after take-off, the aircraft, which was climbing at approximately 500 feet above sea level, pitched up suddenly and became unstable when the flaps were retracted while entering the cloud layer. The pilot-in-command pushed the control column down to level the aircraft. After deciding that the aircraft could not safely continue the flight, he began turning left to return to Baie-Comeau. While turning, the aircraft rolled rapidly to the left and began to dive. The aircraft crashed into the St. Lawrence River approximately 0.5 nautical mile from shore and less than 1 nautical mile from the airport. Four passengers were fatally injured in the crash. Two passengers died while awaiting rescue, which came 98 minutes after take-off. The body of the co-pilot was carried away by the current and has not been recovered. The pilot-in-command and two passengers sustained serious injuries.

At approximately 1536 eastern standard time, First Air flight 802, a Hawker Siddeley HS-748-2A, serial number 1759, was on a scheduled flight from Iqaluit to Igloolik, Nunavut. On board were two flight crew, one flight attendant, one loadmaster, and three passengers. During the take-off run on runway 36, at the rotation speed (VR), the captain rotated the aircraft; however, the aircraft did not get airborne. Approximately seven seconds after VR, the captain called for and initiated a rejected take-off. The aircraft could not be stopped on the runway, and the nose-wheel gear collapsed as the aircraft rolled through the soft ground beyond the end of the runway. The aircraft hit the localizer antenna and continued skidding approximately 700 feet. It came to rest in a ravine in a nose-down attitude, approximately 800 feet off the declared end of the runway. The flight attendant initiated an evacuation through the left, main, rear cabin door. The two pilots evacuated the aircraft through the cockpit windows and joined the passengers and the flight attendant at the rear of the aircraft. The flight attendant was slightly injured during the sudden deceleration of the aircraft. The aircraft was substantially damaged.

After takeoff from Lago Argentino Airport, a red warning light came on in the cockpit panel, informing the crew about the incomplete retraction of the left main gear. The crew proceeded to a visual inspection and after confirmation that the left main gear was properly secured in its wheel well, the crew decided to continue to Río Gallegos. On approach, the left main gear did not deploy. After the crew failed to extend it manually, he raised the other landing gear and completed a belly landing. On short final, just prior to flare, both engines were shut down and their propellers were feathered. The aircraft landed on its belly, slid for few dozen metres and came to rest. All seven occupants escaped uninjured and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The single engine airplane was completing a charter flight with seven passengers and two pilots on board. While approaching Koror Airport, the crew encountered poor weather conditions with limited visibility due to heavy rain falls. The crew decided to abandon the approach and made a go-around procedure. Few minutes later, a second attempt to land was also abandoned, as well as a third and a fourth attempt. During the fifth approach, the aircraft crashed few km from the airport, killing all nine occupants. It was reported that the crew was trying to land under VFR mode in IMC conditions.

The Ilyushin II-62M was parked at gate with its 12 crew members on board, awaiting the passengers for the next leg to San Francisco. An Asiana Boeing 747-400 (HL7414) was taxiing to gate N6 for a refueling stop on the flight Seoul - New York (flight 211). While trying to make a U-turn, the Boeing's n°1 engine struck the wing of the Ilyushin. Then the left winglet struck the base of the Ilyushin's tail. The Asiana crew added more power causing the wing to cut through nearly half of the tail of the Russian aircraft. The maximum ground speed recorded by the on-board recorders was 16 knots, while according to the company flight manual it should have been "10 knots or below (5 knots if wet or slippery)".

The first officer of AirTran Airways flight 890, which preceded AirTran flight 867 in the accident airplane, identified and reported a leak from the right engine of the Boeing 737-200 during a postflight inspection at William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport (ATL), Georgia. AirTran mechanics at ATL identified the source of the leak as a chafed hydraulic pressure line to the right thrust reverser. They found the part in the illustrated parts catalog (IPC), which was not designed as a troubleshooting document and does not contain sufficient detail for such use. One of the mechanics telephoned an AirTran maintenance controller in Orlando, Florida, for further instructions. The mechanics who initially identified the source of the leak had little experience working on the Boeing 737 because they had worked for ValuJet Airlines, which flew DC-9s only, until ValuJet and AirTran merged in September 1997. On the basis of the information provided by the mechanic, and without questioning his description of the line or verifying the part number that he had provided against the IPC or some other appropriate maintenance document, the maintenance controller instructed the mechanic to cap the leaking line and deactivate the right thrust reverser in accordance with AirTran's Minimum Equipment List procedures. However, instead of capping the hydraulic pressure line, the mechanics capped the right engine hydraulic pump case drain return line. The mechanics performed a leak check by starting the auxiliary power unit and turning on the electric hydraulic pumps to pressurize the airplane's hydraulic systems; no leaks were detected. Although the mechanics were not required by company procedures to test their repair by running the engines, this test would have alerted the mechanics that they had incorrectly capped the hydraulic pump case drain line, which would have overpressurized the hydraulic pump and caused the hydraulic pump case seal to rupture. However, because the mechanics did not perform this test, the overpressure and rupture occurred during the airplane's climb out, allowing depletion of system A hydraulic fluid. Depletion of system A hydraulic fluid activated the hydraulic low-pressure lights in the cockpit, which alerted the flight crew that the airplane had a hydraulic problem. The crew notified air traffic control that the airplane would be returning to ATL and subsequently declared an emergency. The flight crew's initial approach to the airport was high and fast because of the workload associated with performing AirTran's procedures for the loss of hydraulic system A and the limited amount of time available to perform the procedures. Nevertheless, the crew was able to configure and stabilize the airplane for landing. However, depletion of system A hydraulic fluid disabled the nosewheel steering, inboard flight spoilers, ground spoilers, and left and right inboard brakes. The flight crew was able to land the airplane using the left thrust reverser (the right thrust reverser was fully functional but intentionally deactivated by the mechanics), outboard brakes (powered by hydraulic system B), and rudder. The flight crew used the left thrust reverser and rudder in an attempt to control the direction of the airplane down the runway, but use of the rudder pedals in this manner had depleted the system A accumulator pressure, which would have allowed three emergency brake applications. The use of the right outboard brake without the right inboard brake at a higher-than-normal speed (Vref for 15-degree flaps is faster than Vref for normal landing flaps) and with heavy gross weight (the airplane had consumed only 4,650 pounds of the 28,500 pounds of fuel on board at takeoff) used up the remaining friction material on the right outboard brake, causing it to fail. (The left outboard brake was still functional at this point.) The lack of brake friction material on the right outboard brake caused one of the right outboard brake pistons to overtravel and unport its o-ring, allowing system B hydraulic fluid to leak out; as a result, the left outboard brake also failed. Loss of the left and right inboard and outboard brakes, loss of nosewheel steering, and use of asymmetric thrust reverse caused the flight crew to lose control of the airplane, which departed the left side of the runway and came to rest in a ditch.

The aircraft departed Sibay Airport with 13 passengers and a crew of three including one inspector. Despite marginal weather conditions, the crew initiated the flight under VFR mode. After takeoff, the crew failed to follow the departure route and deviated from the published one. About half an hour into the flight, weather conditions deteriorated with low clouds. After the aircraft entered clouds, the captain decided to return to Sibay but this decision was taken too late. At this time, the aircraft was off course by 45 km to the northeast of the initial route. While making a turn to the left, still in the clouds, the crew failed to realize his altitude was too low when, at an altitude of 980 metres, the aircraft collided with trees and crashed on the slope of Mt Masim (1,040 metres high). All 16 occupants were rescued, among them three passengers were injured.

Shortly after takeoff from Maputo Airport, while climbing, the engine n°3 failed, exploded and caught fire. Debris struck the engine n°4 and punctured the right wing and a fuel tank, causing a severe fire. The crew was cleared for an immediate return. Following a normal approach and landing, the aircraft was stopped on the main runway and all 66 occupants evacuated safely. The aircraft was considered as damaged beyond repair.

The aircraft departed Palaly Airport at 1340LT on a schedule flight to Colombo, carrying 48 passengers and seven crew members. While climbing to an altitude of 8,000 feet, the captain contacted ATC and reported a cabin depressurization following an explosion. The aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed in the sea some 2 km south of Iranativu Island, 45 km south of Jaffna. The aircraft disintegrated on impact and all 55 occupants were killed. About 30% of the debris were found in May 2013.