Flight

On 01 August 2018, after completing 2 hours of survey work near Penticton, British Columbia (BC), an Aries Aviation International Piper PA-31 aircraft (registration C-FNCI, serial number 31-8112007) proceeded on an instrument flight rules flight plan from Penticton Airport (CYYF), BC, to Calgary/Springbank Airport (CYBW), Alberta, at 15 000 feet above sea level. The pilot and a survey technician were on board. When the aircraft was approximately 40 nautical miles southwest of CYBW, air traffic control began sequencing the aircraft for arrival into the Calgary airspace and requested that the pilot slow the aircraft to 150 knots indicated airspeed and descend to 13 000 feet above sea level. At this time, the right engine began operating at a lower power setting than the left engine. About 90 seconds later, at approximately 13 500 feet above sea level, the aircraft departed controlled flight. It collided with terrain near the summit of Mount Rae at 1336 Mountain Daylight Time. A brief impact explosion and fire occurred during the collision with terrain. The pilot and survey technician both received fatal injuries. The Canadian Mission Control Centre received a 406 MHz emergency locator transmitter signal from the occurrence aircraft and notified the Trenton Joint Rescue Coordination Centre. Search and rescue arrived on site approximately 1 hour after the accident.

The crew was completing a positioning flight from Kiev to Khartoum with an intermediate stop in El Alamein, Egypt. While cruising by night, the crew informed ATC that he was short of fuel and attempted an emergency landing in a desert area located about 50 km east of El Alamein Airport. The aircraft belly landed, slid for few dozen metres and came to rest, broken in two. There was no fire. All six crew members escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. It is reported that the crew was forced to make an emergency landing due to fuel shortage, probably caused by strong headwinds all along the flight.

The airline transport pilot was conducting a commercial visual flight rules (VFR) flight transporting 10 passengers from a remote fishing lodge. According to the pilot, while in level cruise flight about 1,100 ft mean sea level (msl) and as the flight progressed into a mountain pass, visibility decreased rapidly. In an attempt to turn around and return to VFR conditions, the pilot initiated a climbing right turn. Before completing the 180° right turn, he saw what he believed to be a body of water and became momentarily disoriented, so he leveled the wings. Shortly thereafter, he realized that the airplane was approaching an area of snow-covered mountainous terrain, so he applied full power and initiated a steep climb; the airspeed decayed, and the airplane collided with an area of rocky, rising terrain, which resulted in substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. The pilot reported no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation, and the examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The weather forecast at the accident time included scattered clouds at 2,500 ft msl, overcast clouds at 5,000 ft msl with cloud tops to 14,000 ft and clouds layered above that to flight level 250, and isolated broken clouds at 2,500 ft with light rain. AIRMET advisory SIERRA for "mountains obscured in clouds/precipitation" was valid at the time of the accident. Conditions were expected to deteriorate. Passenger interviews revealed that through the course of the flight, the airplane was operating in marginal visual meteorological conditions and occasional instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) with areas of precipitation, reduced visibility, obscuration, and, at times, little to no forward visibility. Thus, based on weather reports and forecasts, and the pilot's and passengers' statements, it is likely that the flight encountered IMC as it approached mountainous terrain and that the pilot then lost situational awareness. The airplane was equipped with a terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS); however, the alerts were inhibited at the time of the accident. Although the TAWS was required to be installed per Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, there is no requirement for it to be used. All company pilots interviewed stated that the TAWS inhibit switch remained in the inhibit position unless a controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) escape maneuver was being accomplished. However, the check airman who last administered the accident pilot's competency check stated that the TAWS inhibit switch was never moved, even during a CFIT escape maneuver. The unwritten company policy to leave the TAWS in the inhibit mode and the failure of the pilot to move the TAWS out of the inhibit mode when weather conditions began to deteriorate were inconsistent with the goal of providing the highest level of safety. However, if the pilot had been using TAWS, due to the fact that he was operating at a lower altitude and thus would have likely received numerous nuisance alerts, the investigation could not determine the extent to which TAWS would have impacted the pilot's actions. At the time of the accident, the director of operations (DO) for the company resided in another city and served as DO for another air carrier as well. He traveled to the company's main base of operation about once per month but was available via telephone. According to the chief pilot, he had assumed a large percentage of the DO's duties. The president of the company said that the chief pilot had taken over "officer of the deck" and "we're just basically using him [the DO] for his recordkeeping." The FAA was aware that the company's DO was also DO for another commuter operation. FAA Flight Standards District Office management and principal operations inspectors allowed him to continue to hold those positions, although it was contrary to the guidance provided in FAA Order 8900.1. The company's General Operations Manual (GOM) only listed the DO, the chief pilot, and the president by name as having the authority to exercise operational control. However, numerous company personnel stated that operational control could be and was routinely delegated to senior pilots. The GOM stated that the DO "routinely" delegated the duty of operational control to flight coordinators, but the flight coordinator on duty at the time of the accident stated that she did not have operational control. In addition, the investigation revealed numerous inadequate and missing operational control procedures and processes in company manuals and operations specifications. Based on the FAA's inappropriate approval of the DO, the insufficient company onsite management, the inadequate operational control procedures, and the exercise of operational control by unapproved persons likely resulted in a lack of oversight of flight operations, inattentive and distracted management personnel, and a loss of operational control within the air carrier. However, the investigation could not determine the extent to which any changes to operational control, company management, and FAA oversight would have influenced the pilot's decision to continue the VFR flight into IMC.

The twin engine airplane departed Guarantã do Norte on a flight to a remote area located on km 180 on the Transamazonica Road. En route, both passengers started to fight in the cabin and one of them was killed. The pilot was apparently able to kill the assassin and later decided to attempt an emergency landing. He ditched the airplane in the Rio Novo near Jardim do Ouro. The pilot was later arrested but no drugs, no weapons, no ammunition as well a both passengers bodies were not found. Apparently, the goal of the flight was illegal but Brazilian Authorities were unable to prove it.

The twin engine airplane was carrying two technicians and two pilots bound for a mine field located near Lero, Kankan. It made an intermediate stop at Conakry on a flight from Sal, Cape Verde. En route, the crew encountered poor weather conditions with low clouds and fog when the airplane struck the slope of a mountain and disintegrated on impact. All four occupants were killed.

Two wheel-equipped, high-wing airplanes, a Cessna 207 and a Cessna 175, collided midair while in cruise flight in day visual meteorological conditions. Both airplanes were operating under visual flight rules, and neither airplane was in communication with an air traffic control facility. The Cessna 175 pilot stated that he was making position reports during cruise flight about 1,000ft above mean sea level when he established contact with the pilot of another airplane, which was passing in the opposite direction. As he watched that airplane pass well below him, he noticed the shadow of a second airplane converging with the shadow of his airplane from the opposite direction. He looked forward and saw the spinner of the converging airplane in his windscreen and immediately pulled aft on the control yoke; the airplanes subsequently collided. The Cessna 207 descended uncontrolled into the river. Although damaged, the Cessna 175 continued to fly, and the pilot proceeded to an airport and landed safely. An examination of both airplanes revealed impact signatures consistent with the two airplanes colliding nearly head-on. About 4 years before the accident, following a series of midair collisions in the Matanuska Susitna (MatSu) Valley (the area where the accident occurred), the FAA made significant changes to the common traffic advisory frequencies (CTAF) assigned north and west of Anchorage, Alaska. The FAA established geographic CTAF areas based, in part, on flight patterns, traffic flow, private and public airports, and off-airport landing sites. The CTAF for the area where the accident occurred was at a frequency changeover point with westbound Cook Inlet traffic communicating on 122.70 and eastbound traffic on 122.90 Mhz. The pilot of the Cessna 175, which was traveling on an eastbound heading at the time of the accident, reported that he had a primary active radio frequency of 122.90 Mhz, and a nonactive secondary frequency 135.25 Mhz in his transceiver at the time of the collision. The transceivers from the other airplane were not recovered, and it could not be determined whether the pilot of the Cessna 207 was monitoring the CTAF or making position reports.

The crew was completing a crop spraying flight in Băleni and was spraying insecticides on fields. While passing from a field to an other, the crew failed to realize his altitude was insufficient when, passing over a road, the airplane struck the roof of a truck. Out of control, the airplane crash landed in a field and came to rest, bursting into flames. Both pilots were injured and the aircraft was destroyed by a post crash fire.

The aircraft took-off from Kitale Airstrip (HKKT) at 16.05 hours and set course to Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (HKJK) after climbing to FL 110 with ten onboard. Once established, there were slight peripheral variations in groundspeed and track. The aircraft Flight Level was sustained at 110 with some occasional deviations. Aircraft height above ground level (AGL) varied between 1,102 feet and 4,187 feet. One minute before its impact with the cliff, the aircraft was at 11,100 feet or 3,000 feet AGL, 159 knots ground speed, and tracking radial 338 NV. Immediately before radar signal was lost, the elevation of the highest ground level was 12,876 feet, the aircraft altitude was 11,200 feet, the ground speed was 156 knots, and track was radial 339 NV. Information retrieved from the Radar transcript recorded various parameters of the aircraft from 1605hrs up to 1702hrs, the time radar signal was lost. This information was consistent with information extracted from the on-board equipment the ST3400 and the aera GPS. The radar system transmits information including aircraft position in relation to NV VOR, Flight Level or altitude, ground speed, vertical speed and heading. Information retrieved from the GPS captured the last recorded time, date and location as 14:00:52, on 06/05/2018 and elevation 3,555.57 metres. The aircraft impacted the bamboo-covered terrain at an elevation of 3,645 metres at 0.36’56’’S 36 42’44’’ where the wreckage was sited. The aircraft was totally destroyed by impact forces and all 10 occupants were killed.

The airplane manufacturer was conducting spin flight testing for the installation of a cargo pod when the airplane exhibited aberrant behavior and the testing was halted. The chief design engineer (CDE) was consulted, and, to provide a margin of safety for further flights, a forward center of gravity position was authorized for flaps up and flaps takeoff entries to gain more insight into the airplane's behavior on the previous flight. At the final briefing, before the next flight, the flight crew added spins with flaps in the landing configuration (flaps landing) into the test plan without the CDE's consultation or authorization. According to the pilot flying, after two wings-level, power on, flaps landing spins with left rudder and right aileron, a third spin entry was flown in the same configuration except that the entry was from a 30° left-bank turn. The airplane entered a normal spin, and, at one turn, flight controls were inputted for a normal recovery; however, the airplane settled into a fully developed spin. When recovery attempts failed, the decision was made to deploy the anti-spin parachute. After repeated unsuccessful attempts to deploy the anti-spin parachute, and when the airplane's altitude reached about 500 ft above the briefed minimum bailout altitude, both pilots called for and executed a bailout. The airplane impacted the ground and was destroyed. A postaccident examination of the anti-spin parachute system revealed that half of the connector hook had opened, which allowed the activation pin lanyard for the anti-spin parachute to become disengaged. Based on the airplane's previous aberrant behavior and the conservative parameters that the CDE had previously set, it is not likely that the CDE would have authorized abused spin entries without a prior testing buildup to those entries. Thus, the flight crew made an inappropriate decision to introduce flaps landing entry spin testing, and the failure of the anti-spin parachute contributed to the accident.

The twin engine aircraft crashed in unknown circumstances in an open field located near Génova. The aircraft came to rest upside down and both occupants were killed. It is understood that the registration was false as N113FT is officially attributed to a Piper PA-46 according to the FAA. Thus, it is believed that the flight was illegal.