Training

The crew was performing a training flight on behalf of the Iranian constructor HESA (Iran Aircraft Manufacturing Industrial Company) which built the Antonov AN-140 under licence with the name HESA IrAn-140-100. On final approach to Isfahan-Shahin Shahr-HESA Airport, the aircraft crashed in unknown circumstances and was destroyed. All five occupants, one instructor and four pilots under training, were killed.

The crew departed Zagreb Airport on a training flight to Zadar. While descending to Zadar Airport, he encountered marginal weather with icing conditions. At an altitude of 6,500 feet in clouds, the aircraft lost height and crashed in the Velebit Mountain Range. The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and all four occupants were killed.

During the takeoff roll, the airplane began to drift to the right. Despite the certified flight instructor's and student's attempts, they were unable to stop the yaw and drift. As the airplane was about to depart the runway, the pilots did not reduce the throttles or apply brakes as they felt that it would be safer to attempt to get airborne. After departing the runway surface, the airplane collided with a series of berms, which sheared off the left landing gear and left engine. The right landing gear collapsed, and the airplane came to rest in a nose down attitude. Post accident e examination revealed that the student pilot had inadvertently set the rudder trim to the full right position when he adjusted the rudder pedals during the prestart checks. The rudder trim was in the full right position for the takeoff, and found in the same position upon post accident inspection.

The crew was performing a training flight in the region of Hanover. While flying at low altitude in the area of Frielendorf, passing from IFR to VFR mode, the aircraft collided with trees. The crew diverted to Wunstorf AFB where he landed safely. All occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair due to serious damages to tail and stabilizers.

The crew departed Puerto Montt-El Tepual for a training flight. En route, the twin engine aircraft collided with the cables of a 23,000 volts powerline and crashed on a hilly terrain, bursting into flames. All three crew members were killed.

The airline's chief pilot was giving a newly-hired pilot a required competency/proficiency check. Memory data from the airplane's global positioning system showed the airplane made
steep 360-degree turns to the left and right before continuing towards a practice area at gradually decreasing airspeed and altitude. A low cloud ceiling prevailed. Witnesses said they
heard both engines "sputter, then quit," and saw the airplane clear a grove of trees, stall, and strike the ground. The landing gear was down and the flaps were in the approach setting. Both propellers were in the low pitch/high rpm setting, and bore little rotational signatures. Both engine fuel supply lines contained only residual fuel. Those familiar with the chief pilot's flying practices stated that he always followed a certain routine when giving a check ride. The routine consisted of the following: After performing steep 360-degree turns, he would ask the trainee to configure the airplane for landing and demonstrate minimum control maneuvers. Prior to executing steep turns, he would turn the boost pumps on. At the completion of the maneuver, the pumps would be turned off. The investigation revealed that there are unguarded fuel shutoff switches next to the boost pumps, and the circumstances of the accident are consistent with the these fuel shutoff switches being inadvertently placed in the off position, instead of the fuel boost pumps.

Shortly after take off from Krems-Langenlois Airport, the single engine airplane encountered difficulties to gain height. Both right wings struck a tree and the aircraft crashed in an open field located about 200 metres from the runway. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair while all 12 skydivers and the pilot escaped uninjured.

The flight was a skill-test for a candidate that was hired as a first officer on SA226-T(B) Merlins for the operator Helitrans. He was one of two candidates that were employed by the company in early 2008. They underwent ground school and flight training in cooperation with the Swedish Type Rating Training Organisation (TRTO) Trafikkhögskolan. Later it became clear that the Swedish Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) did not accept skill-tests limited to first officer duties on a single pilot certified airplane, as the Norwegian CAA did. The candidates did not possess the skills to act as commanders on the Merlin, and there was a period of uncertainty while the operator and the Norwegian CAA discussed how to conduct the skill-tests, in particular whether to use a simulator or an actual airplane. After several months the issues were resolved and an examiner was appointed. There was a limited slot on a Thursday and a Friday where the examiner, the instructor/commander and the aircraft was available at Bergen Airport Flesland. The first candidate performed the skill-test on Thursday. The weather was not suited for flying skill tests. It was low ceiling, rain showers and winds up to 40 kt and turbulence. Turbulence caused the stick pusher to activate during the demonstration of slow flight. The commander decided to pull the circuit breaker for the Stall Avoidance and Stability Augmentation System (SAS) presumably to avoid nuisance activations of the stick pusher. After the slow flight demonstration, the examiner asked the candidate to demonstrate a stall. The candidate found this exercise frightening as she experienced great difficulties, having to use all her available physical strength to regain normal flight with the engines on full power and in IMC conditions. The weather was similar on Friday with even stronger winds. The SAS circuit breaker was not reset. This was confirmed during the start-up check. The examiner requested a similar program during this skill-test as he did the day before. However, when it came to demonstrating stalls, the examiner asked for a slow flight up to first indication of stall, and not an actual stall. He asked for call outs and a minimum loss of altitude recovery. The commander undertook the tasks of adding power and retracting gear and flaps on the candidate’s request. It was IMC. During this exercise the crew lost control of attitude and airspeed. The stall warning came on, but the airspeed decreased, even with full power applied. Radar data show that the altitude increased 200 – 400 ft during the period where control was lost. Airspeed decreased to about 30 kt and a sink rate of about 10 000 ft/min eventually developed. The airplane hit the sea in a near horizontal attitude about 37 sec. after control was lost. All three on board were fatally injured. The accident aircraft was used for coastguards duties and was modified with external sensors and antennas. The AIBN made a Computational Fluid Dynamics analysis in order to determine whether these installations influenced on stability and flight characteristics in the slow flight and pre-stall regime. It was found that the modifications reduced the overall performance, but did not result in any significant degradation of stability and control in this regime. There was no investigation as to any influence on the characteristics of a fully developed stall. The AIBN is of the opinion that this accident highlights the need for a change in the current training on initial stall recovery techniques, especially the focus on minimum loss of altitude at the expense of breaking the stall by lowering the nose and thus reducing the angle of attack. The AIBN has issued two safety recommendations to the Norwegian CAA; one regarding the conduct of skill-tests for pilots in a multi crew concept on single pilot airplanes, and one suggesting increased focus on flight examiners tasks.

The crew was completing a local training flight at Sidra Airport when the accident occurred in unknown circumstances. The aircraft came to rest in a sandy area with its undercarriage and left wing sheared off. Both pilots evacuated safely.

The crew was completing a night training flight on behalf of the U.S. Air Force 86th Flying Training Squadron, 47th Flying Training Wing, Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas. After several manoeuvres in the vicinity of the Lubbock-Preston Smith Airport, the crew started an non precision approach to runway 17R. At that time, weather conditions were not so good with rain showers and winds up to 40 knots. On final approach, the aircraft seems to sink and pitched down. The captain increased both engines power but the aircraft hit the ground 1,1 mile short of runway 17R threshold. On impact, the nose gear was sheared off and the aircraft came to rest in a field. Both pilots were slightly injured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.