Landing (descent or approach)

The pilots were performing skydiving flights while the right-seated pilot was training the left-seated pilot on the operation. The pilots completed six flights without incident and completed the drop of the skydivers on the accident flight normally. The right-seated pilot could not completely recollect the minutes leading up to the accident due to his injuries. He did recall that airplane was descending as expected with the power at idle. The recorded ADS-B data revealed that after turning onto final approach, the airplane then completed a right 360° turn presumably because the altitude was too high. The right-seated pilot attempted to increase the power by slightly nudging the throttle forward and thought the engine power did not increase as expected. A performance study revealed that in the last 70 seconds of recorded data, the airplane underwent a series of speed and thrust oscillations consistent with a pilot increasing and then decreasing the power lever. The right seat pilot recalls aiming for an open dirt field and observing a berm in the immediate flight path. In an effort to avoid the berm, he maneuvered the airplane into a right turn. The airplane landed short of the runway, resulting in a collision with the berm. The engine was producing power at the time of impact. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The right-seated pilot was in the process of training the left-seated pilot and stated that he took over the controls during the final approach. It is unknown when he took over the controls, so it is unknown which pilot was at the controls during the speed oscillations. The right-seated pilot likely took over the controls too late and the airplane impacted the terrain. The left-seated pilot’s ability to hear the changes in engine power might have been hindered because she was listening to music through her headset at an elevated decibel level. The airplane was modified by a Supplemental Type Certificate that replaces the original Pratt & Whitney PT-6 turbine engine with a Honeywell TPE331 turbine engine. The TPE331 engine’s characteristics are such that if the airplane is on final approach with the power near idle, the throttle sensitivity (change in thrust per unit of power lever movement) increases around the transition between the propellergoverning and underspeed-governing modes of the engine, which corresponds to a zero-thrust condition. Near this transition point, small movements of the power lever (about ¼ to ½ inch of deflection) can result in relatively large thrust changes that can surprise pilots inexperienced with this behavior and result in pilot-induced oscillations (PIO). Given the thrust oscillations observed shortly before the end of the ADS-B data, it is likely that the left-seated pilot was at the controls and experienced such a PIO on a short final approach to land.

The purpose of the flight was to transport three passengers and cargo. The pilot reported that, during takeoff, the airplane’s tail came up slightly lowered to the runway when he attempted to raise the tail by applying forward elevator. He stated that he thought this was unusual and attributed it to an aft-loaded airplane. He applied additional nose-down trim and departed without incident. While en route, the tail of the airplane seemed to move up and down, which the pilot attributed to turbulence. Upon arrival at his destination, the pilot entered a left downwind, reduced the power and extended the flaps to 10° abeam the end of the runway. He turned onto the base leg about ½ mile from the approach end of the runway and slowed the airplane to 80 mph. Turning final, he noticed the airplane seemed to pitch up, so he applied full nose-down pitch trim and extended the flaps an additional 10°. On short final he applied full flaps, and the airplane abruptly pitched up to about a 45° angle. He stated that he applied full nose-down elevator, verified the pitch trim, and reduced the power to idle. When the airplane was about 300 ft above ground level, the airplane stalled, the left wing dropped slightly, and the airplane entered about a 45° nose-down dive. After allowing the airplane to gain airspeed, the pilot applied full back elevator. The airplane impacted forested terrain near the approach end of runway 23 at an elevation of about 18 ft. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Elevator and rudder control continuity was confirmed from the cockpit to the respective control surfaces. The airplane's estimated gross weight at the time of the accident was about 7,796 lbs and the airplane's estimated center of gravity was about 3.2 to 5.6 inches beyond the approved aft limit. Maximum gross weight for the airplane is 8,000 lbs.

The airplane departed Jundiaí on a cargo flight to Eldorado do Sul, carrying two pilots and a load of automotive parts. On final approach, the airplane crash landed in a rice paddy field and came to rest with its left wing detached. Both pilots were slightly injured.

After landing on runway 23 at Villavicencio-La Vanguardia Airport, the airplane veered off runway to the left and entered a grassy area. It rolled for few hundred metres then the pilot attempted to takeoff when the left wing dropped. The aircraft stalled, impacted trees and crashed about 200 metres to the right of the runway 05 threshold. All 14 occupants were rescued, among them few were injured.

The pilot flew two RNAV (GPS) runway 20 instrument approaches at the Burley Municipal Airport, Burley, Idaho in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The accident occurred during the second approach. For the first instrument approach, the pilot configured the airplane with flaps up and flew the final approach segment at speeds above the operator’s training standard of 120 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS).The pilot flew a low pass over the runway, most likely to assess the landing conditions in accordance with company policy, determined the conditions were acceptable, initiated the missed approach and requested to return flying the same approach. The pilot elected to not use flaps during the second approach but slowed the approach speed during the final approach leg. Reported weather had improved and visibility had increased to about 2.5 miles. During this approach, the airplane intercepted and remained on the glide path to the stepdown fix. The last automatic dependent surveillance - broadcast (ADS-B) equipment plot recorded the airplane about a mile past this fix, or about 0.6 nautical miles (nm) from the displaced threshold, on the glide path, and at an estimated 85 knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS), which was slower than the airplane’s 95-knot minimum speed for flaps up in icing conditions. Shortly afterward, the airplane descended about 130 ft below the glide path, striking an agglomerate stack atop a potato processing plant, fatally injuring the pilot and substantially damaging the airplane. A witness reported seeing the airplane come out of the clouds and immediately enter a steam cloud coming from six other stacks before striking the accident stack. A security camera at the processing plant captured the last moments of the airplane’s flight as it came into view in a wings-level, flaps-up, nose-high descent and just before it impacted the stack. While snow and visible moisture were present, the agglomerate stack was always in clear view during the Page 2 of 24 WPR22FA151 video, with only partial sections obscured. The witness’s account of hearing the engine noise increase and then the nose lift-up may have been the pilot’s attempt to avoid the obstacle. The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Aeronautical Information Manual advises pilots to avoid overflight of exhaust stacks; however, the accident stack was directly underneath the instrument approach course and overflight would be expected. Postaccident examination of the airplane, conducted hours after the accident, revealed no structural icing on the wings and empennage. Examination of the airframe and powerplant revealed no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The flaps were up, and a review of the manifest revealed the airplane was loaded within the specifications of the manifest and within the center of gravity limits. Between 2016 and 2017, the FAA conducted two aeronautical studies regarding the stack structures. In the first study, the FAA determined that many of the stack structures were a hazard to air navigation that required mitigation by the processing plant. As an interim measure, the FAA placed the runway 20 visual approach slope indicator (VASI) out of service because the stacks penetrated the obstruction clearance surface and were deemed hazardous to aviation. After determining that they needed to increase the height of the stacks, the plant then modified their proposal; the proposed height increase necessitated a second study. The second study determined the agglomerate stack and the row-of-six stacks exceeded the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 77 standards and provided mitigating actions that included painting the stacks with high visibility white and aviation orange paint and equipping the stacks with red flashing warning lights. The control measures also included the permanent removal of the VASI. On the day of the accident, the agglomerate stack and row-of-six stacks had not been painted to the standard required by the FAA. The warning lights had been installed, and five of the row-of-six stacks were equipped with flashing red lights. The agglomerate stack warning light was stolen following the accident, so an accurate determination of its operating status could not be made. The existing paint scheme and the visible moisture emitted by the stacks provided a low contrast to the environmental background. This low contrast and the lack of a visual glide slope indicator may have caused difficulty for the pilot in maintaining a safe altitude during the visual portion of the approach to the runway. A white and aviation orange paint scheme, as identified in the regulations, may have offered a higher contrast and thus an adequate warning once the pilot transitioned to visual conditions.

The airplane departed San José-Juan Santamaría Airport runway 07 at 0940LT on a cargo service (flight JOS7216) to Guatemala City, carrying two pilots and a load of various goods. When the crew reached FL210, he declared an emergency and reported technical problems with the hydraulic system. The crew encountered a 'HYDRAULIC QUANTITY indication then a HYDRAULIC SYSTEM PRESSURE (L ONLY) second indication. At this time, the left autopilot and yaw damper disengaged. After being cleared to return, the crew followed a holding pattern and the airplane landed at a speed of 137 knots (Vref 130 kts) on runway 07. Following a normal touchdown, the crew initiated the braking procedure when the airplane started to veer to the right. It skidded to the right, made an almost 90° turn, descended a bank, lost its undercarriage and came to rest in a grassy area located about five metres below the runway elevation, broken in two. Both pilots evacuated with minor injuries.

The pilot, sole on board, departed Los Mochis International Airport on a flight to the Club Aéreo Nuevo Santa Rosa located east-northeast of the city. After landing on a road, the airplane suffered an apparent undercarriage failure, veered to the right and came to rest in a grassy area, bursting into flames. The pilot evacuated safely while the aircraft suffered serious damages due to fire.

Crashed in unknown circumstances in bushes near Cobán, Guatemala, while engaged in an illegal flight. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair and no one was found on the scene. The registration seems to be false.

The flight crew of the jet obtained weather information for the destination airport, which indicated quartering tailwind conditions for the runway in use at the time, with wind at 3 knots gusting to 16 knots. The crew determined the wind to be within limitations. The cockpit voice recorder transcript and airport surveillance video indicated that the landing approach was normal. The captain, who was the pilot flying, stated that, after touchdown, the thrust reversers were deployed and the airplane turned “sharply to the right.” He reported that remedial control inputs were ineffective in maintaining directional control. Airport surveillance video footage of the landing roll and accident sequence showed that, about 9 seconds into the landing roll, the airplane turned sharply to its right. The airplane departed the runway, its left wingtip struck the ground, the entire wing structure (left wing/right wing/wingbox) separated from the airplane as one assembly, and the fuselage continued a short distance before it came to rest upright. The thrust reversers on each engine were deployed and their extended positions were about equal. A windsock could be seen in the surveillance video footage nearly parallel to the ground, indicating nearly a direct crosswind to the landing runway that would have been towards the airplane’s right side. Recorded wind shortly after the accident was consistent with a 90° right crosswind for the landing runway at 6 knots with gusts to 14 knots. A detailed examination of the airplane and system components revealed that all flight control, steering, and braking systems and their actuator components operated as designed. Although the copilot's yaw force sensor did not meet manufacturer acceptance testing during post accident examination, this would not have affected the directional controllability of the airplane. Based on the available information, it is likely that the pilot’s compensation for the crosswind conditions was inadequate, which resulted in a loss of directional control and runway excursion.

The twin engine airplane departed Acapulco-General Juan N. Álvarez Airport on a private flight to Cuernavaca, carrying six passengers and one pilot. On final approach to Cuernavaca Airport runway 20, the airplane crashed on a supermarket located in Temixco, some 2 km short of runway. The pilot and two passengers were killed while four other occupants were injured.