Flight

The crew was completing a training mission. In unknown circumstances, the single engine aircraft crashed in a prairie located near Mount Nicholas, between Queenstown and Te Anau, coming to rest upside down. Both pilots were seriously injured and the aircraft was destroyed.

The pilot reported that, while the float-equipped airplane was in cruise flight about 1,200 ft above ground level, the engine made a loud noise and lost partial power, so he maneuvered the airplane to land on a nearby lake. During the approach, the engine lost total power, and the airplane descended into an area of trees before reaching the lake, which resulted in substantial damage to the wings, fuselage, and empennage. The operator reported that the engine had been overhauled (zero-timed) 31 hours before the accident. A postaccident engine examination revealed metal fragments and heavy gouging damage to the rotating components within the crankcase. The bottom portion (crankshaft end) of the n°1 linkrod and its respective bushing were missing from the n°1 linkpin; the oil sump contained metal debris consistent with heavily damaged remnants of these (and other) components. The n°2 cylinder barrel and linkrod and the n°3 linkrod showed deformation to the left (in the direction of engine rotation). Based on the damage observed in the engine, it is likely that the event that initiated the engine failure involved either the the n°1 linkrod bushing or the bottom portion of the n°1 linkrod; however, the extensive damage to these components precluded determination of the failure mode.

The crew was completing a crop spraying flight in the Krasnoperekopsk District of the autonomous Republic of Crimea. While flying at a height of about 35-40 metres, the engine failed. The crew attempted an emergency landing in a rice paddy field near Pyatykhatki but the wheels got stuck in the soft ground and the aircraft nosed over, coming to rest upside down. While both occupants escaped uninjured, the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The twin engine aircraft departed South Africa on a flight to Tanzania with intermediate stops in Tete and Lilongwe, carrying one passenger and one pilot. The aircraft was en route to Dar es-Salaam to perform a Lidar (Laser Imaging Detection And Ranging) mission. En route, the pilot encountered engine problems and elected to make an emergency landing. Upon landing in an open field, the aircraft lost its tail and crashed landed about 45 km southwest of Lilongwe. Both occupants were rescued and the aircraft was destroyed.

The crew was engaged in a crop spraying flight in Terenozek. While flying at low height, the pilot-in-command initiated a left turn when the aircraft crashed in a field, bursting into flames. The copilot was seriously injured and the captain was killed.

The single engine aircraft departed Khabarovsk on a charter flight to Samarga, carrying two pilots and seven fishermen flying to a fish camp. En route, the crew encountered engine problems and elected to return to Khabarovsk. Unable to maintain a safe altitude, the crew attempted to carry out an emergency landing when the airplane impacted trees and crashed in a wooded area, coming to rest in a small river. All nine occupants were injured, five of them seriously. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The aircraft departed the Dominican Republic for an international flight and no flight plan was filed. While cruising in the region of Jérémie, the twin engine aircraft hit a mountain some 30 km from Jérémie. The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and a post-crash fire and both occupants were killed. According to Dominican Authorities, the owner of the plane, a businessman, leased it to a couple from Honduras who were certainly performing an illegal flight.

The purpose of the flight was for the pilot to accomplish a flight review with a flight instructor. According to air traffic control records, after takeoff, the pilot handling radio communications requested maneuvering airspace for airwork in an altitude block of 13,000 to 15,000 feet mean sea level (msl). About 8 minutes later, the air traffic controller asked the pilot to state his heading, but he did not respond. A review of recorded radar data revealed that, about 14,000 msl and 3 miles southeast of the accident site, the airplane made two constant-altitude 360-degree turns and then proceeded on a north-northeasterly heading for about 2.5 miles. The airplane then abruptly turned right and lost altitude, which is consistent with a loss of airplane control. The airplane continued to rapidly descend until it impacted trees and terrain on a southerly heading. No discernible distress calls were noted. The wreckage was found generally fragmented, and all of the airplane’s structural components and flight control surfaces were accounted for within the wreckage debris path. Subsequent examination of the engines revealed evidence of rotation and operation at impact and no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.

Four minutes after taking off on an instrument flight rules flight, during an assigned climb to 4,000 feet, the pilot advised the departure air traffic controller that the airplane was having "instrument problems" and that he wanted to "stay VFR" (visual flight rules), which the controller acknowledged. As directed, the pilot subsequently contacted the next sector departure controller, who instructed him to climb to 8,000 feet. The pilot stated that he would climb the airplane after clearing a cloud and reiterated that the airplane was having "instrument problems." The controller told the pilot to advise when he could climb the airplane. About 30 seconds later, the pilot told the controller that he was climbing the airplane to 8,000 feet, and, shortly thereafter, the controller cleared the airplane to 11,000 feet, which the pilot acknowledged. Per instruction, the pilot later contacted a center controller, who advised him of moderate-to-heavy precipitation along his (northbound) route for the next 10 miles and told him that he could deviate either left or right and, when able, proceed direct to an intersection near his destination. The pilot acknowledged the direct-to-intersection instruction, and the controller told the pilot to climb the airplane to 13,000 feet, which the pilot acknowledged. The pilot did not advise the center controller about the instrument problems. The airplane subsequently began turning east, eventually completing about an 80-degree turn toward heavier precipitation, and the controller told the pilot to climb to 15,000 feet, but the pilot did not respond. After two more queries, the pilot stated that he was trying to maintain "VFR" and that "I have an instrument failure here." The controller then stated that he was showing the airplane turning east, which "looks like a very bad idea." He subsequently advised the pilot to turn to the west but received no further transmissions from the airplane. Radar indicated that, while the airplane was turning east, it climbed to 9,500 feet but that, during the next 24 seconds, it descended to 7,500 feet and, within the following 5 seconds, it descended to just above ground level (the ground-based radar altitude readout was 0 feet). The pilot recovered the airplane and climbed it northeast-bound to 1,500 feet during the next 20 seconds. It then likely stalled and descended northwest-bound into shallow waters of a wildlife refuge. Weather radar returns indicated that the airplane's first descent occurred in an area of moderate-to-heavy rain but that the second descent occurred in light rain. The ceiling at the nearest recording airport, located about 20 nautical miles from the accident site, was 1,500 feet, indicating that the pilot likely climbed the airplane back into instrument meteorological conditions (IMC)before finally losing control. The investigation could not determine the extent to which the pilot had planned the flight. Although a flight plan was on file, the pilot did not receive a formal weather briefing but could have self-briefed via alternative means. The investigation also could not determine when the pilot first lost situational awareness, although the excessive turn to the east toward heavier precipitation raises the possibility that the turn likely wasn't intentional and that the pilot had already lost situational awareness. Earlier in the flight, when the pilot reported an instrument problem, the two departure controllers coordinated between their sectors in accordance with air traffic control procedures, allowing him to remain low and out of IMC. Although the second controller told the pilot to advise when he was able to climb, the pilot commenced a climb without further comment. The controller was likely under the impression that the instrument problem had been corrected; therefore, he communicated no information about a potential instrument problem to the center controller. The center controller then complied with the level of service required by advising the pilot of the weather conditions ahead and by approving deviations. The extent and nature of the deviation was up to the pilot with controller assistance upon pilot request. The pilot did not request further weather information or assistance with deviations and only told the center controller that the airplane was having an instrument problem after the controller pointed out that the airplane was heading into worsening weather. Due to impact forces, only minimal autopsy results could be determined. Federal Aviation Administration medical records indicated that the 16,560-hour former military pilot did not have any significant health issues, and the pilot's wife was unaware of any preexisting significant medical conditions. The wreckage was extremely fractured, which precluded thorough examination. However, evidence indicated that all flight control surfaces were accounted for at the accident scene and that the engines were under power at the time of impact. The airplane was equipped with redundant pilot and copilot flight instruments, redundant instrument air sources, onboard weather radar, and a storm scope. The pilot did not advise any of the air traffic controllers about the extent or type of instrument problem, and the investigation could not determine which instrument(s) might have failed or how redundant systems could have been failed at the same time. Although the pilot stated on several occasions that the airplane was having instrument problems, he opted to continue flight into IMC. By doing so, he eventually lost situational awareness and then control of airplane but regained both when he acquired visual ground contact. Then, for unknown reasons, he climbed the airplane back into IMC where he again lost situational awareness and airplane control but was then unable to regain them before the airplane impacted the water.

The pilot reported that the accident flight was his fourth flight and the third tour flight of the day in a float-equipped airplane. The weather had deteriorated throughout the day with lowering ceilings, light rain, and fog on the mountain ridges. The pilot said that when approaching a mountain pass, he initiated a climb by adding a “little bit” of flap (about 1 pump of the flap handle actuator) but did not adjust the engine power from the cruise power setting. He noted his airspeed at 80 knots, with a 200-feet-per-minute climb on the vertical speed indicator. He was having difficulty seeing over the cowling due to the nose-high attitude, when he suddenly noticed trees in his flight path. He initiated an immediate left turn; the airplane stalled, and began to drop, impacting the mountainous, tree-covered terrain. A passenger reported that the weather conditions at the time of the accident consisted of tufts of low clouds, and good visibility. They did not enter the clouds at any time during the flight. He reported that the airplane made a left turn, stalled, and then made a sharp left turn right before impact. The airplane seemed to be operating fine, and he heard no unusual sounds, other than the engine speed seemed to increase significantly right before impact. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation, and the postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.