Country
Operator Image

Crash of a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 in Machiques: 160 killed

Date & Time: Aug 16, 2005 at 0300 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
HK-4374X
Flight Phase:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Panama City - Fort-de-France
MSN:
49484
YOM:
1986
Flight number:
YH708
Location:
Country:
Crew on board:
8
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
152
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
160
Captain / Total flying hours:
5942
Captain / Total hours on type:
1128.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
1341
Copilot / Total hours on type:
862
Aircraft flight hours:
49494
Aircraft flight cycles:
24312
Circumstances:
The MD-82 arrived at Panama City-Tocumen after a flight from Medellín-José María Córdova Airport (MDE). The plane was then prepared to carry out a flight to the Caribbean island of Martinique. Flight WCW 708 departed Panama City at about 06:00 UTC and climbed to its cruising altitude of FL310. This altitude was reached at about 06:25 UTC. Sixteen minutes later the airplane began a normal climb to FL330. At 06:49 the speed began to steadily decrease from Mach 0.76. The horizontal stabilizer moved from about 2 units nose up to about 4 units nose up during this deceleration. At 06:51 UTC the crew reported at FL330 over the SIDOS waypoint, over the Colombian/Venezuelan border, and requested a direct course to the ONGAL waypoint. The controller instructed the crew to continue on the present heading and to await further clearance direct to ONGAL. The flight crew meanwhile discussed weather concerns that included possible icing conditions and the possible need to turn on engine and airfoil anti-ice. At 06:57 UTC the flight crew requested permission to descend to FL310, which was approved. The autopilot was disconnected and the airplane started to descend. As the airplane descended past about FL315, the airspeed continued to decrease and the engine EPR decreased to about flight idle. Two minutes later a further descent to FL290 was requested, but the controller at Maiquetía did not understand that this was a request from flight 708 and asked who was calling. Flight 708 responded and immediately requested descent to FL240. The controller inquired about the state of the aircraft, to which they responded that both engines had flamed out. The controller then cleared the flight to descent at pilot's discretion. In the meantime, the altitude alert warning had activated, followed by the stick shaker and the aural stall warning alert. The airspeed had reached a minimum of about 150 indicated air speed (IAS) knots at about FL250. The crew reported descending through FL140 and reported that they were not able to control the airplane. The aircraft descended at 7,000 ft/min, and finally crashed in a swampy area. The aircraft disintegrated on impact and all 160 occupants were killed. Debris were found on an area of 205 metres long and 110 metres wide. The entire descent from FL330 had taken approximately 3 minutes and 30 seconds.
Probable cause:
Given the aerodynamic and performance conditions, the aircraft was taken to a critical state, which led to a loss of lift. Consequently, the cockpit resource management (CRM) and decision-making during the development of emergency were misguided. This was caused by the following:
a) Awareness of environment (or situational awareness) insufficient or improper that allowed the cockpit crew, not being full and timely aware of what was happening regarding the performance and behavior of the aircraft.
b) Lack of effective communication between the cockpit crew that limited, within the decision making process, the possibility to timely choose appropriate alternatives and options and to set respective priorities in the actions taken at the time when it was established that there was a critical or emergency situation (stall condition at high altitude).
It is found that the cause of the accident is determined by the absence of appropriate action to correct the stall of the aircraft, and also in the emergency up to the impact with the ground, at an inappropriate hierarchy of priorities in implementing the procedures. Subsequently, the operations were conducted outside of the limits and parameters set by the manufacturer's manual performance, together with an inadequate flight planning by failing to consider meteorological aspects, in addition a misinterpretation and late of the energy state of the aircraft by the flight crew. Therefore, the evidence shows the classification of "Human Factor" as a cause of this accident.
Final Report:

Crash of a Let L-410UVP-E in El Embrujo: 9 killed

Date & Time: Mar 26, 2005 at 0951 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
HK-4146
Flight Phase:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
El Embrujo – San Andrés
MSN:
90 24 26
YOM:
1990
Flight number:
YH9955
Country:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
12
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
9
Captain / Total flying hours:
6038
Captain / Total hours on type:
145.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
868
Copilot / Total hours on type:
653
Aircraft flight hours:
6901
Circumstances:
The crew already completed four round trips the same morning on the same routing. During the takeoff roll from runway 35 at El Embrujo Airport, around V1 speed, the left engine speed. The crew continued the takeoff procedure while the speed dropped. Shortly after rotation, the aircraft rolled to the right to an angle of 135° then entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed in a wooded area located 117 metres past the runway end. Both pilots and seven passengers were killed while five others passengers were injured.
Probable cause:
The non-observance of the procedures described for an engine failure after V1, especially those relating to the maintenance of safe takeoff speed of 84 knots, the retraction of the flaps, automatic operation of the landing gear lever and the use of contingency power. The erroneous operation of the fuel-flow-control lever (FCL) of engine number one, the move from the open to the closed position during the chain of events, which left the plane and the inappropriate use of the fuel-flow-control lever (FCL) of engine number two, to bring it to the MAX NG position in an attempt to obtain performance of the engine. Maintaining an attitude of the plane on take-off after nr. 2 engine failure with the consequent reduction of speed and then maintaining the aircraft in a climbing attitude, after an engine shutdown, which came at stall speed and the subsequent lack of control of the aircraft. The failure of the engine for undetermined reasons during the takeoff roll, after V1, which forced the crew to perform a series of emergency procedures to deal with the fault and continue with the initial climb. The absence or failure of resource management among flight crew members during the sequence of events. The unmeasurable reduction in the situational awareness of the crew as a result of the financial situation of the company and the divorce in which the Captain of the aircraft was involved.
Final Report: