Flight

The airplane departed Kunming-Wujiaba Airport at 1315LT on a schedule service (flight MU5735) to Guangzhou, carrying 123 passengers and a crew of nine. At 1420LT, while cruising at an altitude of 29,100 feet, the aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent until 7,400 feet then climbed to 8,600 feet. It finally entered a steep descent and crashed almost two minutes later in a vertical attitude on hilly and wooded terrain located some 20 km southwest of Wuzhou. The airplane disintegrated on impact and all 132 occupants were killed. Two days after the accident, the CVR was found while the DFDR was found on March 27.

On 08 March 2022, the Bamaji Air Inc. (Bamaji) wheel-equipped Cessna 208 Caravan aircraft (registration C-GIPR, serial number 20800343) was conducting a series of visual flight rules (VFR) flights from Sioux Lookout Airport (CYXL), Ontario. At 1031, after checking the aerodrome forecast (TAF) valid from 0900 to 2000, and the graphic area forecast (GFA) valid from 0600 to 1800, the pilot departed on a flight to an ice runway on Springpole Lake, Ontario, about 78 nautical miles (NM) north-northwest of CYXL. The aircraft returned to CYXL with 2 passengers at 1200. In preparation for a second flight to Springpole Lake, the pilot loaded approximately 900 pounds of freight into the cabin and secured it under a cargo net. The aircraft had 750 pounds of fuel remaining on board, which was sufficient for the planned flight. The pilot and 1 passenger boarded the aircraft. The pilot occupied the left cockpit seat and the passenger occupied the right cockpit seat. Both occupants were wearing the available 5-point-harness safety belt system. At 1250, a snow squall began to move across CYXL, reducing ground visibility. The pilot taxied the aircraft to a position on the apron and waited for the fast-moving snow squall to pass. At 1301, the pilot taxied the aircraft to Runway 34 and took off in visual meteorological conditions. The aircraft climbed to approximately 1800 feet above sea level (ASL), then, once clear of the control zone, it descended to approximately 1600 to 1700 feet ASL, roughly 500 to 600 feet above ground level (AGL), to remain below the overcast ceiling. As the aircraft began to cross Lac Seul, Ontario, the visibility straight ahead and to the west was good. However, when the aircraft was roughly midway across the lake, it encountered turbulence and immediately became enveloped in whiteout conditions generated by a snow squall. The pilot turned his head to inspect the left wing and saw that ice appeared to be accumulating on the leading edge. He turned his attention back to the flight instruments and saw that the altimeter was descending rapidly. He then pulled back on the control column to stop the descent; however, within a few seconds, the aircraft struck the frozen surface of Lac Seul, approximately 17 NM north-northwest of CYXL. The aircraft was substantially damaged. There was no fire. The aircraft occupants received minor injuries. The Artex Model Me406 emergency locator transmitter (ELT) activated on impact and the signal was detected by the Cospas-Sarsat satellite system. The Joint Rescue Coordination Centre in Trenton, Ontario, re-tasked a Royal Canadian Air Force aircraft that was in the area and 3 search and rescue technicians (SAR Techs) parachuted into the site within 1 hour of the accident. The aircraft occupants and the SAR Techs were extracted from the site by a civilian helicopter later that day.

The single engine airplane departed Moroni Airport at 1155LT on a schedule flight to Mohéli, carrying 12 passengers and two pilots. While approaching Mohéli, the crew encountered marginal weather conditions when the aircraft crashed in the sea some 2,5 km northwest of Mohéli-Bander es Eslam Airport. After 24 hours of intense research, only few debris were found floating on water (such a wheel and wing fragments). No trace of the 14 occupants was found.

The aircraft crashed in unknown circumstances in a snow covered field located in Ostrogozhsk. Russian Authorities reported that all occupants were killed.

The aircraft crashed in an open field located in Zhukivtsi, about 30 km south of Kiev-Borispol Airport. It is believed there were 14 people on board and that five of them were killed. Maybe the aircraft was shot down by Russian Forces that entered Ukraine territory few hours earlier.

The single engine airplane departed Kyzylorda on an ambulance flight to Aralsk, carrying one doctor and two pilots. En route, the crew encountered an unexpected situation and apparently attempted to make an emergency landing when the aircraft crashed in a desert area, coming to rest upside down and bursting into flames. All three occupants evacuated with minor injuries while the aircraft was totally destroyed by a post crash fire. Registration UP-A0279?

Before departing on the flight, the pilot of the turbo-propeller-equipped, single-engine airplane and student pilot-rated passenger seated in the right front seat of the airplane attempted to enter a flight plan into the airplane’s integrated flight management system. They ultimately did not complete this task prior to takeoff with the pilot remarking, “we’ll get to it later.” The pilot subsequently departed and climbed into instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) without an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan. After entering IMC, he contacted air traffic control and asked for visual flight rules (VFR) flight following services and an IFR clearance to the destination airport. From shortly after when the airplane leveled after takeoff through the final seconds of the flight, the pilot attempted to program, delete, reprogram, and activate a flight plan into the airplane’s flight management system as evidenced by his comments recorded on the airplane’s cockpit voice recorder (CVR). After departing, the pilot also attempted to navigate around restricted airspace that the airplane had flown into. The CVR audio showed that during the final 10 minutes of the flight, the pilot was unsure of the spelling of the fix he should have been navigating to in order to begin the instrument approach at the destination airport, and more generally expressed frustration and confusion while attempting to program the integrated flight management system. As the pilot continued to fixate on programming the airplane’s flight management system and change the altimeter setting, the airplane’s pitch attitude increased to 10° nose up, while the airspeed had decayed to 109 knots. As a result of his inattention to this airspeed decay, the stall warning system activated and the autopilot disconnected. During this time the airplane began climbing and turning to the right and then to the left before entering a steep descending right turn that continued until the airplane impacted the ocean. For the final 2 and 1/2 minutes of the flight, the pilot was provided with stall warnings, stick shaker activations, autopilot disconnect warnings, and terrain avoidance warning system alerts. The airplane impacted the ocean about 3 miles from the coast. Examination of the recovered sections of the airplane did not reveal evidence of any mechanical failures or malfunctions of the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. The instrument meteorological conditions present in the area at the time of the accident were conducive to the development of spatial disorientation. The airplane’s erratic flight track in the final 2 minutes of flight, culminating in the final rapidly descending right turn, were consistent with the known effects of spatial disorientation. It is likely that the pilot’s inadequate preflight planning, and his subsequent distraction while he unsuccessfully attempted to program the airplane’s flight management system during the flight resulted in his failure to adequately monitor the airplane’s speed. This led to the activation of the airplane’s stall protection and warning systems as the airplane approached and entered an aerodynamic stall. The resulting sudden deactivation of the autopilot, combined with his inattention to the airplane’s flight attitude and speed, likely surprised the pilot. Ultimately, the pilot failed to regain control of the airplane following the aerodynamic stall, likely due to spatial disorientation. The pilot had a history of mantle cell lymphoma that was in remission and his maintenance treatment with a rituximab infusion was over 60 days prior to the accident. The pilot also had a history of back pain and had received steroid injections and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. By self-report, he had taken oxycodone for pain management; it is unknown how frequently he used this medication or if he had used the medication on the day of the accident. While oxycodone can result in fatigue and dizziness, and may interfere with reaction time, given the information from the CVR, it could not be determined if the pilot had these side effects. A few weeks prior to the accident, the pilot reported having COVID-19 and receiving a 5-day treatment course of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. While there are some impairing side effects associated with the use of those medications, enough time had elapsed that no adverse effects would be expected. There is an increased risk of a sudden incapacitating cardiovascular event such as a dysrhythmia, stroke, or pulmonary embolism in people who have recovered from their COVID-19 infection. The risk is slight for those not hospitalized for the infection. The pilot did not have an underlying cardiovascular disease that would pose an increased risk for a sudden incapacitating event and the CVR did not provide evidence of a sudden incapacitating event occurring. Thus, it could not be determined if the pilot’s medical conditions of mantle cell lymphoma, back pain, and recent history of COVID-19 and the medications used to treat these conditions, including rituximab, oxycodone, hydroxychloroquine, and ivermectin, were contributing factors to this accident.

En route, the pilot encountered engine problems and elected to make an emergency landing on a motorway. Upon landing, the aircraft impacted the road bank, lost its left wing and came to rest. All six occupants evacuated with minor injuries and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

A Cessna 208B airplane collided with a powered paraglider during cruise flight at 5,000 feet mean sea level (msl) in Class E airspace. Based on video evidence, the powered paraglider operator impacted the Cessna’s right wing leading edge, outboard of the lift strut attachment point. The outboard 10 ft of the Cessna’s right wing separated during the collision. The Cessna impacted terrain at high vertical speed in a steep nose-down and inverted attitude. The powered paraglider operator was found separated from his seat style harness. The paraglider wing, harness, and emergency parachute were located about 3.9 miles south of the Cessna’s main wreckage site. Based on video evidence and automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) data, the Cessna and the powered paraglider converged with a 90° collision angle and a closing speed of about 164 knots. About 8 seconds before the collision, the powered paraglider operator suddenly turned his head to the right and about 6 seconds before the collision, the powered paraglider maneuvered in a manner consistent with an attempt to avoid a collision with the converging Cessna. Research indicates that about 12.5 seconds can be expected to elapse between the time that a pilot sees a conflicting aircraft and the time an avoidance maneuver begins. Additionally, research suggests that general aviation pilots may only spend 30-50% of their time scanning outside the cockpit. About 8 seconds before the collision (when the powered paraglider operator’s head suddenly turned to the right), the Cessna would have appeared in the powered paraglider operator’s peripheral view, where research has demonstrated visual acuity is very poor. Additionally, there would have been little apparent motion because the Cessna and the powered paraglider were on a collision course. Under optimal viewing conditions, the powered paraglider may have been recognizable to the Cessna pilot about 17.5 seconds before the collision. However, despite the powered paraglider’s position near the center of his field of view, the Cessna pilot did not attempt to maneuver his airplane to avoid a collision. Further review of the video evidence revealed that the powered paraglider was superimposed on a horizon containing terrain features creating a complex background. Research suggests that the powered paraglider in a complex background may have been recognizable about 7.4 seconds before the collision. However, the limited visual contrast of the powered paraglider and its occupant against the background may have further reduced visual detection to 2-3 seconds before the collision. Thus, after considering all the known variables, it is likely that the Cessna pilot did not see the powered paraglider with sufficient time to avoid the collision. The Cessna was equipped with a transponder and an ADS-B OUT transmitter, which made the airplane visible to the air traffic control system. The operation of the powered paraglider in Class E airspace did not require two-way radio communication with air traffic control, the use of a transponder, or an ADS-B OUT transmitter and therefore was not visible to air traffic control. Neither the Cessna nor the powered paraglider were equipped with ADS-B IN technology, cockpit display of traffic information, or a traffic alerting system. Postmortem toxicological testing detected the prescription antipsychotic medication quetiapine, which is not approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in the Cessna pilot’s muscle specimen but the test results did not provide sufficient basis for determining whether he was drowsy or otherwise impaired at the time of the collision (especially in the absence of any supporting details to suggest quetiapine use). Testing also detected ethanol at a low level (0.022 g/dL) in the Cessna pilot’s muscle specimen, but ethanol was not detected (less than 0.01 g/dL) in another muscle specimen. Based on the available results, some, or all of the small amount of detected ethanol may have been from postmortem production, and it is unlikely that ethanol effects contributed to the accident. The Cessna pilot likely did not have sufficient time to see and avoid the powered paraglider (regardless of whether he was impaired by the quetiapine) and, thus, it is unlikely the effects of quetiapine or an associated medical condition contributed to the accident.

The company pilot and two employees had departed on an aerial imagery survey flight of forest vegetation. The airplane began to level off at an altitude of about 16,100 ft mean sea level (msl) and accelerated to a maximum recorded groundspeed of 209 knots. Less than 2 minutes later, the groundspeed decreased to about 93 knots, and the airplane descended about 500 ft while on a steady heading. The airplane subsequently entered a rapid descent and a right turn, and “mayday, mayday, mayday” and “we’re in a spin” transmissions were broadcast to air traffic control (ATC). A witness, who was located near the accident site, noticed the airplane nose down at high rate of speed and then saw the airplane spinning rapidly about its longitudinal axis. The airplane wreckage was located in remote wetlands and wooded terrain. Postaccident examination revealed that the airplane impacted the ground in a nose-low vertical attitude and at high speed. All major components of the airplane were located at the accident site. Examination of the airframe, engines, and propellers revealed no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. According to the aircraft performance study for this accident, when the airplane pitched down, the normal load factor decreased rapidly from about 1.6 to less than 1 G. A rapid decrease in normal load factor is consistent with a stall when the wing exceeds its critical angle of attack. At that point, the air flow becomes separated at the wing, and the wing can no longer generate the necessary lift. If the airplane is in uncoordinated flight at the stall, a spin can result. Thus, the pilot likely did not maintain adequate airspeed, causing the airplane to exceed its critical angle of attack and enter a stall and spin. An important but unknown factor before and during the initial stall was the behavior of the pilot regarding his flight control inputs, including his possible attempt to recover. The airplane’s Pilot Operating Handbook states that spins are not authorized and does not include a procedure for inadvertent spin recovery.