Training

The four engine aircraft Harbin SH-5 (Shuishang Hongzha 5) was engaged in a training mission off Qingdao with a crew of five on board. In unknown circumstances, the seaplane crashed in the Jiaozhou Bay few km offshore, killing all five occupants.

The pilot and two passengers departed Sarlat-Domme Airport for a training mission over the region of Bordeaux. A precision approach was completed at Bordeaux-Mérignac Airport followed by a go-around procedure. The IFR flight plan was closed and the pilot continued under VFR mode to Bordeaux-Léognan-Saucats Aerodrome where he landed. A passenger deplaned, the engine remained running and the aircraft took off few minutes later to Bergerac where a refueling was planned. Approximately 10 minutes after takeoff, while cruising at an altitude of 2,000 feet, both engines failed. The pilot reduced his altitude, selected gear down and attempted and emergency landing in a vineyard. Upon landing, the undercarriage were torn off and the aircraft slid for few dozen metres before coming to rest. Both occupants escaped uninjured and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The crew was completing a local training flight at Santa Lucía AFB when the single engine aircraft crashed in unknown circumstances in an open field near the airfield. The aircraft was destroyed and both occupants were killed.

The lineman who spoke with the pilot/owner of the accident airplane before its departure reported that the pilot stated that he and the flight instructor were going out to practice for about an hour. The flight instructor had given the pilot/owner his initial instruction in the airplane and flew with the pilot/owner regularly. The flight instructor had also given the pilot/owner about 58 hours of dual instruction in the accident airplane. The pilot/owner had accumulated about 51 hours of pilot-in-command time in the airplane make and model. It is likely that the pilot/owner was the pilot flying. Several witnesses reported observing the accident sequence. One witness reported seeing the airplane pull up into vertical flight, bank left, rotate nose down, and then impact the ground. One witness reported observing the airplane go from east to west, turn sharply, and then go north of the runway. He subsequently saw the airplane hit the ground. One witness, who was a pilot, stated that he observed the airplane enter a left bank and then a nose-down attitude of about 75 degrees at an altitude of about 300 feet above ground level, which was too low to recover. It is likely that the pilot was attempting a go-around and pitched up the airplane excessively and subsequently lost control, which resulted in the airplane impacting flat desert terrain about 100 feet north of the active runway at about the midfield point in a steep nose-down, left-wing-low attitude. The airplane was destroyed by postimpact forces and thermal damage. All components necessary for flight were accounted for at the accident site. A postaccident examination of the airframe and both engines revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Additionally, an examination of both propellers revealed rotational scoring and twisting of the blades consistent with there being power during the impact sequence. No anomalies were noted with either propeller that would have precluded normal operation. Toxicological testing of the pilot was negative for drugs and alcohol. The flight instructor’s toxicology report revealed the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Given the elevated levels of metabolite in the urine and kidney, the absence of quantifiable THC in the urine, and the low level of THC in the kidney and liver, it is likely that the flight instructor most recently used marijuana at least several hours before the accident. However, the effects of marijuana use on the flight instructor’s judgment and performance at the time of the accident could not be determined. A review of the flight instructor’s personal medical records indicated that he had a number of medical conditions that would have been grounds for denying his airman medical certificate. The ongoing treatment of his conditions with more than one sedating benzodiazepine, including oxazepam, simultaneously would also likely not have been allowed. However, none of the prescribed, actively sedating medications were found in the flight instructor’s tissues, and oxazepam was only found in the urine, which suggests that the flight instructor used the medication many hours and possibly several days before the accident. The toxicology findings indicate that the flight instructor likely did not experience any impairment from the benzodiazepine medication itself; however, the cognitive effects from the underlying mood disturbance could not be determined.

The pilot receiving instruction conducted three full-stop landings without incident. After the fourth takeoff, the flight instructor simulated a prearranged left engine failure about 600 ft above ground level (agl). The pilot followed emergency procedures, used the checklist, and prepared to land. The pilot reported that, when the airplane was about 50 to 100 ft agl on final approach, he thought that it was a little too high, so he chose to initiate a go-around. He moved the throttle levers full forward, but neither engine responded. The flight instructor pushed the airplane's nose down, and the pilot continued the approach. On touchdown, the right main and nose landing gear collapsed. A postimpact fire ensued, which consumed most of the airplane. Postaccident examination of the landing gear revealed that it collapsed due to bending overload consistent with a hard landing. The reason for the failure of both engines to respond to power inputs could not be determined because of the postcrash fire damage.

While on the right downwind leg, the flight crew advised the air traffic control tower controller that they would make a full stop landing. The tower controller acknowledged, told them to extend their downwind, and stated that he would call their base turn. The controller then called out the landing traffic on final, which was an Airbus A300-600 heavy airplane. The flight crew replied that they had the traffic in sight, and the controller cleared the flight to land behind the Airbus, and to be cautious of wake turbulence. The flight crew observed the Airbus abeam their current position and estimated that they made their base turn about 3 miles from the runway. Before turning onto final approach, the flight crew discussed wake turbulence avoidance procedures and planned to make a steeper approach and land beyond the Airbus's touchdown point. They also added 10 to 15 knots to the Vref speed as an additional precaution against a wake turbulence encounter. The reported wind provided by the tower controller was 180 degrees at 4 knots. The flight crew observed tire smoke from the Airbus as it touched down and discussed touching down beyond that touchdown point. The tower controller advised the flight crew to be prepared for a go-around if the Airbus did not clear the runway in time, which the flight crew acknowledged. The flight crew estimated that the Airbus had turned off the runway when their airplane was about 1,000 feet from the threshold and about 200 feet above ground level (agl). The flight crew reported having a stabilized approach to their planned landing point. When the airplane was about 150 feet agl and established on the runway centerline, the airplane experienced an uncommanded left roll. The heading swung to the left and the nose dropped. The crew reported that the airplane was buffeting heavily. Immediately, they set full power, and the flying pilot used both hands on the control wheel in an attempt to roll the airplane level and recover the pitch. He managed to get the airplane nearly back to level when the right main gear struck the ground short of the threshold and left of the runway. The airplane collided with a small drainage ditch and a dirt service road, causing the right main gear and the nose gear to collapse. Videos from cameras at the airport recorded the accident sequence, and the accident airplane was about 51 seconds behind the Airbus. A wake vortex study indicated that the accident airplane encountered the Airbus's right vortex, and the airplane's direction of left roll was consistent with the counter-clockwise rotation of the right vortex.

The crew was performing a training mission off the Crimea coast on behalf of the Black Sea Fleet. En route, an engine failed, forcing the crew to return to Kacha NAS. On short final, the airplane descended fast and landed hard, got airborne and climbed to several meters before stalling and crashing near the runway, bursting into flames. The captain, the copilot and the navigator were killed and the radio operator was seriously injured. The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and a post impact fire. The antisubmarine seaplane was also registered RF-12008.

The crew was completing a local training mission at Lohegaon Airport. On final approach to runway 28, the aircraft impacted ground, teared off several runway lights and came to rest. All three occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

In the afternoon, the crew departed Annino AFB (Gorelovo) to complete a local training mission consisting of touch-and-go maneuvers. After two circuits, the aircraft landed normally and the crew took off and started the rotation without informing ATC. After liftoff, at a height of about 10-15 metres, the aircraft rolled to the right to an angle of 70° then stalled and crashed in a kindergarten located one km from the airport, bursting into flames. The aircraft was destroyed and both pilots were killed.

The crew was completing a local training mission at Migalovo AFB and was performing touch-and-go manoeuvres. By night, the aircraft was approaching in a nose-down attitude when the nose gear landed hard first. It penetrated the floor just behind the cockpit. The aircraft slid for few dozen metres before coming to rest on runway. All four crew members evacuated safely while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair as the fuselage was wrinkled.