Flight

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.

The twin engine aircraft departed Waterford Airport for a local survey flight. While flying at low altitude, the pilot reported technical difficulties and attempted an emergency landing when the aircraft crashed on a beach located in Carnsore Point and came to rest partially submerged in water. All four occupants were taken to hospital and the aircraft was destroyed.

The airplane was engaged in a calibration mission at Khabarovsk-Novy Airport, carrying six crew members. The goal of the flight was to caliber the ILS system of runway 05R. In the afternoon, the airplane departed Khabarovsk-Novy Airport and completed several circuits over the aerodrome and the area. The crew was instructed to climb away from the airport to an altitude of 600 metres and to turn to follow the reverse approach course. However, the minimum published altitude for that sector up to a distance of 46 km was fixed to 1,200 metres. The crew continued at an altitude of 600 metres with a heading of 220° for few minutes. While initiating a slight climb and while flying at an altitude of 742 metres in poor visibility due to marginal weather conditions, the airplane impacted trees and crashed on the wooded slope of Mt Khrebtovaya (793 metres high) located in the Bolchoï Khekhtsir Mountain Range, some 40 km southwest of Khabarovsk Airport. The aircraft was totally destroyed by impact forces and all six occupants were killed.

The pilot was performing a short cross-country flight, which was his third solo flight in the high-performance single-engine airplane. The airplane departed and climbed to 20,000 ft mean sea level (msl) before beginning to descend. About 8 minutes before the accident, the airplane was southbound, descending to 11,000 ft, and the pilot established communications with air traffic control (ATC). About 4 minutes later, the controller cleared the pilot to descend to 10,000 ft msl and proceed direct to his destination; the pilot acknowledged the clearance. While descending through 13,000 ft msl, the airplane entered a descending left turn. The controller observed the left turn and asked the pilot if everything was alright; there was no response from the pilot. The controller’s further attempts to establish communications were unsuccessful. Following the descending left turn, the airplane entered a high speed, nose-down descent toward terrain. A witness observed the airplane at a high altitude in a steep nose-down descent toward the terrain. The witness noted no signs of distress, such as smoke, fire, or parts coming off the airplane, and he heard the airplane’s engine operating at full throttle. The airplane impacted two powerlines, trees, and the terrain in a shallow descent with a slightly left-wing low attitude. Examination of the accident site revealed a long debris field that was consistent with an impact at a high speed and relatively shallow flightpath angle. All major components of the airplane were located in the debris field at the accident site. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. A performance study indicated the airplane entered a left roll and dive during which the airplane exceeded the airspeed, load factor, and bank angle limitations published in the Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH). An important but unknown factor during these maneuvers was the behavior of the pilot and his activity on the flight controls during the initial roll and dive. The pilot responded normally to ATC communications only 98 seconds before the left roll started. It is difficult to reconcile an alert and attentive pilot with the roll and descent that occurred, but there is insufficient information available to determine whether the pilot was incapacitated or distracted during any part of the roll and dive maneuver. Although all the available toxicological specimens contained ethanol (the alcohol contained in alcoholic drinks such as beer and wine), the levels were very low and below the allowable level for flight (0.04 gm/dl). While it is possible that some of the identified ethanol had been ingested, it is also possible that all or most of the identified ethanol was from sources other than ingestion (such as postmortem production). In either case, the levels were too low to have caused incapacitation. It is therefore unlikely that any effects from ethanol contributed to the circumstances of the accident. There was minimal available autopsy evidence to support any determination of incapacitation. As a result, it could not be determined from the available evidence whether medical incapacitation contributed to the accident.

Owned and operated by the Russian Navy, the aircraft was dispatched in Turkey in July to help the Turkish government (General Directorate of Forestry) to fight raging forest fires in the southeast part of the country. On board were eight crew members, five Russian and three Turkish. After the aircraft drop water on fire, the crew elected to gain height when the aircraft impacted terrain and crashed on the slope of a mountain, bursting into flames. The aircraft was totally destroyed and all 8 occupants were killed.

The accident flight was the pilot’s second passenger sightseeing flight of the day that overflew remote inland fjords, coastal waterways, and mountainous, tree-covered terrain in the Misty Fjords National Monument. Limited information was available about the airplane’s flight track due to radar limitations, and the flight tracking information from the airplane only provided data in 1-minute intervals. The data indicated that the airplane was on the return leg of the flight and in the final minutes of flight, the pilot was flying on the right side of a valley. The airplane impacted mountainous terrain at 1,750 ft mean sea level (msl), about 250 ft below the summit. Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of pre accident failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. Damage to the propeller indicated that it was rotating and under power at the time of the accident. The orientation and distribution of the wreckage indicated that the airplane impacted a tree in a left-wing-low attitude, likely as the pilot was attempting to maneuver away from terrain. Review of weather information for the day of the accident revealed a conditionally unstable environment below 6,000 ft msl, which led to rain organizing in bands of shower activity. Satellite imagery depicted that one of these bands was moving northeastward across the accident site at the accident time. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) weather cameras and local weather observations also indicated that lower visibility and mountain obscuration conditions were progressing northward across the accident area with time. Based on photographs recovered from passenger cell phones along with FAA weather camera imagery, the accident flight encountered mountain obscuration conditions, rain shower activity, and reduced visibilities and cloud ceilings, resulting in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) before the impact with terrain. The pilot reviewed weather conditions before the first flight of the day; however, there was no indication that he obtained updated weather conditions or additional weather information before departing on the accident flight. Based on interviews, the accident pilot landed following the first flight of the day in lowering visibility, ceiling, and precipitation, and departed on the accident flight in precipitation, based on passenger photos. Therefore, the pilot had knowledge of the weather conditions that he could have encountered along the route of flight before departure. The operator had adequate policies and procedures in place for pilots regarding inadvertent encounters with IMC; however, the pilot’s training records indicated that he was signed off for cue-based training that did not occur. Cue-based training is intended to help calibrate pilots’ weather assessment and foster an ability to accurately assess and respond appropriately to cues associated with deteriorating weather. Had the pilot completed the training, it might have helped improve his decision-making skills to either cancel the flight before departure or turn around earlier in the flight. The operator’s lack of safety management protocols resulted in the pilot not receiving the required cue-based training, allowed him to continue operating air tours with minimal remedial training following a previous accident, and allowed the accident airplane to operate without a valid FAA registration. The operator was signatory to a voluntary local air tour operator’s group letter of agreement that was developed to improve the overall safety of flight operations in the area of the Misty Fjords National Monument. Participation was voluntary and not regulated by the FAA, and the investigation noted multiple instances in which the LOA policies were ignored, including on the accident flight. For example, the accident flight did not follow the standard Misty Fjords route outlined in the LOA nor did it comply with the recommended altitudes for flights into and out of the Misty Fjords. FAA inspectors providing oversight for the area reported that, when they addressed operators about disregarding the LOA, the operators would respond that the LOA was voluntary and that they did not need to follow the guidance. The FAA’s reliance on voluntary compliance initiatives in the local air tour industry failed to produce compliance with safety initiatives or to reduce accidents in the Ketchikan region.

The single engine aircraft departed Jigjiga Airport on a humanitarian mission to Dire Dawa, carrying two pilots and two employees of the World Food Program. En route, the crew encountered an unexpected situation and was forced to attempt an emergency landing. Upon landing, the aircraft came to rest on its nose in a near vertical position with its right wing partially torn off. All four occupants escaped with minor injuries.