Landing (descent or approach)

On final approach to Punta Pájaros Airport, the crew encountered poor weather conditions (stormy weather). He initiated a go-around and was trying to gain height when the single engine aircraft collided with bushes and crashed in a lagoon. All 14 occupants evacuated with minor injuries while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. Weather conditions were marginal at the time of the accident.

Kustbevakningen (The Swedish Coastguard), henceforth called KBV, intended on that particular day to perform two routine maritime surveillance tasks with flights over the southern Baltic Sea and along the south and west coasts of Sweden, including a flight over the Kattegatt. The flights would be carried out by the aircraft registered SE-IVF, with call sign 585. The crew consisted of two pilots and two system operators. The first flight of the day would take off from Ronneby, with Malmö/Sturup as the landing airport. According to the submitted flight plan the flight from Ronneby would depart north-east outwards across the southern tip of Öland, via reporting point KOLJA and onwards to a point south of Gotland. Thereafter the route would be via KOLJA back on a south-west course to a point south of Smygehamn in the southern Baltic Sea and then directly to Malmö/Sturup airport.

The take off from Ronneby
When KBV 585 taxied out for take off, route clearance had been obtained for take off in accordance with the submitted flight plan. The flight would be undertaken in VFR (Visual Flight Rules) weather conditions. The flight plan did not state the desired altitude, so at the initiative of air traffic control KBV 585 was assigned the altitude band “1500 feet or lower” in connection with the flight clearance. Take off was at 11:09 on runway 19. Immediately after take off the crew requested a “360”, i.e. to make a complete turn from their current position. This request was accepted by air traffic control and KBV 585 performed a circuit at about 500 feet in a left turn around the airfield. No comments or explanations were offered by the crew during this manoeuvre. In an interview with SHK the air traffic controller stated that he thought that the aircraft had suffered a technical fault and/or the crew wanted to carry out some form of check. It later transpired that the reason for the extra circuit may have been to show off the aircraft to a practical work experience student who was at the KBV as part of work experience training. After the completed left hand circuit the pilots returned to their original flight plan and continued, with an initial climb to the south, to then turn left and follow the planned flight route.

The first phase of the flight
During the continuing climb the pilots received an instruction to change radio frequency from Ronneby air traffic control tower to Ronneby control, i.e. the air traffic control section covering the Ronneby terminal area, that normally includes radar surveillance. As KBV 585 continued to climb, the air traffic controller noted that it continued to climb above the maximum altitude of 1500 feet that the stated flight clearance had included. At about 2000 feet while still climbing the pilots requested permission to climb to and maintain 2500 feet, which was granted. When the aircraft left the Ronneby terminal area the pilots changed radio frequency without reporting this to the air traffic control area controller. The air traffic controller on duty on that particular day at Ronneby stated that this was unusual behaviour by the KBV pilot, both to climb through the cleared altitude and to depart from the radio frequency without reporting it. The flight continued to the north-west in accordance with the flight plan. Apart from the routine tasking order concerning environmental and fishing surveillance, the tasking included instructions to search for traces from a previously sunken barge. The flight was performed without any problems being reported. During the flight the pilots were in radio contact both with air traffic controllers and the KBV coordination centre. As the aircraft was en route south-west after having turned at the southern tip of Gotland, the crew received a message from the coordination centre concerning a request they had received to perform a fly-by over Falsterbo. KBV has a base at the Falsterbo canal, which on that particular day was hosting a study visit by two school classes. Therefore a request came from the base to ask whether the pilots could consider performing a fly-by as they were on their way to Malmö/Sturup, so as to demonstrate the aircraft. The pilots accepted this and revised the final part of their flight plan so that a demonstration of the aircraft over the Falsterbo canal could be performed.

The fly-by over the KBV base
At 13:23 KBV 585 came in over the coast at Falsterbonäset on a north-northwesterly course along the canal. The aircraft then continued out over the sea and after a left turn returned to approach the base. The aircraft then performed another fly-by at low speed over the base and along the canal in the opposite direction, i.e. south-south-east, at low altitude. The route of the flight was partly over the canal, partly over the strip of beach and the buildings along the north-eastern shore. Beyond the far end of the canal the aircraft performed a 180 degrees left turn, first climbing and then descending. On its last approach to the base the aircraft came over the beach at the northeastern side of the canal, on a north-westerly course, which was later altered to north-north-westerly as it once again came over the canal.

The accident
As the aircraft neared the base once more it began wing tipping. After two or three wing tippings, by which time the aircraft was approximately above the bridge at the north-west entrance to the canal, a loud bang was heard and the entire left wing separated from the aircraft, to fall into the basin. The aircraft then rolled over onto its back and also fell into the basin, somewhat further out. The impact created a huge cascade of water. The remains of the aircraft and wing then quickly sank to the bottom. The whole sequence of events took place quickly and afterwards various pieces of wreckage could be seen floating on the surface at the point of impact. All on board were fatally injured. The accident took place at position 55° 25' N 012° 56' E; at sea level.

The single engine aircraft was engaged in a military training exercise with 2 pilots and 13 soldiers (paratroopers from the Special Forces) for a routine local paratroop flight. Few minutes after takeoff, the crew decided to return to Aranchi Airport because weather conditions deteriorated. On final approach, the crew encountered local patches of fog and in a reduced visibility, the aircraft descended too low and impacted ground few hundred metres short of runway. The aircraft was destroyed and all 15 occupants were killed.

The commercial certificated pilot was attempting to land on a remote runway during a Title 14, CFR Part 135, cargo flight. The approach end of the runway is located at the edge of a river. During the pilot's fourth attempt to land, the airplane collided with the river embankment, and sustained structural damage. The director of operations for the operator reported that he interviewed several witnesses to the accident. They told him that the weather conditions in the area had been good VFR, but as the pilot was attempting to land, rain and mist moved over the area, reducing the visibility to about 1/4 mile. Within 30 minutes of the accident, the weather conditions were once again VFR. The pilot told an FAA inspector that the weather conditions consisted of a 500 foot ceiling and 2 miles of visibility. The pilot reported that he made 3 passes over the runway before attempting to land. On the last landing approach, while maintaining 80 knots airspeed, the pilot said the nose of the airplane dropped, he applied full power and tried to raise the nose, but the airplane collided with the river bank.

With all cockpit indications showing the landing gear was down and locked, the airplane touched down on the runway. Immediately after touchdown, the pilots heard the landing gear warning horn sound intermittently for several seconds, and then the right main landing gear collapsed. The airplane veered to the right, exited the runway, and came to rest. A post crash fire ensued, and the crew exited without injury. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the collapsed right main landing gear had penetrated the right main fuel tank and the majority of the right side of the fuselage had been consumed by fire. Examination of the left and right main landing gear assemblies revealed, that both downlock plates had been installed backwards, providing only a fraction of the design contact area between the plate and throat of the downlock hook. Examination of the manufacturer's component maintenance manual, which was used for the assembly and installation of the left and right main landing gear, revealed no guidance regarding downlock plate orientation during installation.

After landing on wet gravel runway 11/29, the aircraft veered off runway and came to rest in a wooded area, broken in two. All five occupants escaped uninjured.

At 0724 hours, Flesland approach gave clearance for FLI670 to start to descend to 4,000 feet. Three minutes later, it was cleared to leave controlled airspace and transfer to Sørstokken's frequency. In the meantime, the AFIS duty officer at Stord airport had visual contact with the plane and obtained confirmation of its position from Flesland approach. Based on aerodrome data, wind direction and wind speed, temperature and the aircraft's landing weight, the crew found it acceptable to plan for a visual approach and landing on runway 33. This would shorten the approach. They assumed that landing on runway 33 would involve a small tailwind component. The AFIS duty officer was informed of the decision to land on runway 33. The AFIS duty officer confirmed that the wind was 110° 6 kt. When asked, the crew also stated that there were 12 passengers on board. 1.1.6 The approach proceeded as normal. The landing gear was extended and the flaps were extended stepwise. At 07:31:12 hours, the aircraft was 2 NM from the threshold for runway 33 at a height of 800 ft and with a ground speed of 150 kt. The flaps were then extended to 33° and, according to radar data, the ground speed dropped to 130 kt. At 07:31:27 hours, the AFIS duty officer repeated the 'runway free' message and described the wind as 120° 6 kt. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) tells us that at 07:31:43 hours the first officer then confirmed that the plane was stabilised and held a speed of plus 5 (kt). Six seconds later, the first officer announced that the speed was plus 3 (kt). At 07:31:51 hours, the CVR recorded that a warning sound (ping) was emitted by the aircraft's audible warning Accident Investigation Board Norway system. The commander later told AIBN that he aimed for three red and one white on the PAPI (Precision approach path indicator). The first officer then announced twice that the speed was correct (bug speed). From the aircraft cockpit voice recorder (CVR) it is documented that the pilots kept a speed over threshold at Vref. According to the aircraft flight manual (AFM) correct airspeed is Vref =112 kt. According to data from the ground radar the aircraft's ground speed was 120 kt on passing the threshold for runway 33. The flight commander has stated that when the aircraft was approximately 50 ft above the runway, he lowered the thrust levers as normal to the 'Flight Idle' position. At 07:32:14 hours, sounds from the CVR indicated that the wheels touched the runway. Both pilots have stated that the landing took place a few metres beyond the standard landing point, and that it was a ‘soft’ landing. Next, the following occurred (times are stated in seconds
after nose wheel touchdown):
- 1 second: 'and spoilers' announced by first officer
- 1.5 seconds: sound of spoiler lever being moved to aft position (LIFT SPLR)
- 4 seconds: 'no spoilers' announced by first officer (standard phrase in accordance with the airline's standard operating procedures (SOP) when spoiler indicator lights does not come on)
- 6.6 seconds: sound of brake selector switch being turned
- 7.9 seconds: audio signal (single chime) from the aircraft's warning system
- 12.8 seconds: The first screeching noises from the tyres are audible
- 12.8 – 22.8 seconds: Varying degrees of screeching noises from the tyres can be heard
- 22.8 seconds: The aircraft leaves the runway, at the same time as the AFIS duty officer activates the crash alarm.
- 26 seconds: The cockpit voice recorder stops recording sound.
The first officer has informed the AIBN that, after landing, he verified that the commander moved the thrust levers from 'Flight Idle' to 'Ground Idle', at the same time as the nose of the aircraft was lowered. He also saw that the commander moved the spoiler lever from 'AIR BRAKE' (air brake fully engaged) to 'LIFT SPLR' (spoilers deployed). The first officer expected the two spoiler indicator lights (SPLR Y and SPLR G, see section 1.6.6.3) to come on after approximately three seconds. He was therefore surprised when this did not happen. In accordance with the airline's procedures, the first officer then verified, among other things, that hydraulic pressure and other instruments showed normal values and that the switches in question were set to the correct positions. The commander has explained to the AIBN that, when the speed had dropped to approximately 80 kt, he kept his left hand on the nose wheel steering and his right hand on the thrust levers. The first officer then took over the control wheel. The commander has stated that he felt that the brakes were working until they were about half way down the runway, after which the expected retardation did not occur. The aircraft had then got so far down the runway that it was too late to abort the landing. The commander applied full force on both brake pedals, without achieving a normal braking action. In an attempt to improve retardation he moved the brake selector lever from the 'Green' position to the 'Yellow' position, but this did not help. He then moved the lever to the 'Emergency Brake' position, whereby the aircraft's anti-skid system was disconnected. At that point the commander realised that it was impossible to stop the aircraft, even by continuously applying full pressure on the brake pedals, and that the aircraft would probably run off the runway. He considered that it was not advisable to let the aircraft run off the runway towards the steep area to the left of the aircraft or towards the rocks on the right. His local knowledge told him that the best alternative was therefore to steer the aircraft towards the end of the runway. In a last attempt to stop the aircraft, he steered it towards the right half of the runway and then manoeuvred it with the intent to skid sideways towards the left. The commander hoped that skidding would increase friction and hopefully help to reduce the speed of the aircraft. The aircraft left the runway in a skid a few metres to the left of the centerline. The commander believed that he would have been able to stop the aircraft had the runway been longer by approximately 50-100 metres. The first officer believed that the aircraft had a speed of approximately 5-10 km/h when it left the edge and that they would have been able to stop had the runway been 10-15 metres longer. The AFIS duty officer has stated that he followed OY-CRG visually during parts of the approach and landing. He believed that the aircraft may have flown a little higher and faster than normal during the final approach. The duty officer was not quite sure about where the aircraft touched down, but he estimated that it was within the first third of the runway. For a moment during the rollout OY-CRG was obscured for the AFIS duty officer behind an aircraft of the same type (OY-RCW) from Atlantic Airways that was parked at the apron (see Figure 2). When the AFIS duty officer again got the aircraft in sight, he realised that something was not right. The aircraft had a greater speed than normal. He saw that the aircraft towards the end turned into the right half and then turned back towards the left half of the runway. The duty officer observed the plane leave the runway in a skid at approximately 45° in relation to the runway direction. The duty officer immediately triggered the crash alarm. The AFIS duty officer has stated that the speed of the aircraft was moderate enough for him to hope for a while that it would be able to stop before reaching the end of the runway. He suggested that the aircraft would perhaps have been able to stop had the runway been another 50 metres long. He felt that it was unreal when the aircraft's tail fin moved high into the air and he witnessed the aircraft disappear off the end of the runway. The AFIS duty officer had previously seen blue smoke coming from the main wheels of other aircraft of the same type during braking. He observed a great deal of dampness and smoke emanating from the back of the main wheels of OY-CRG during rollout. The spray, which was about 30% higher than the top of the main wheels, appeared to form a triangle behind the wheels. The spray was of a white colour, extended considerably higher than during previous landings and continued along the length of the runway. He did not register whether the aircraft's spoilers were deployed or not, but he saw that the aircraft continued to produce wake vortices during rollout. When smoke started rising from the crash site, he saw that the fire crews were already on their way. In accordance with procedure, the fire and rescue service at Stord airport are on standby beside the fire engines when aircraft take off and land at the airport. The duty officer and three firemen were therefore in position at the fire station and observed the landing. The duty officer believed that the aircraft touched down in the standard place, possibly a little further along the runway than usual. Everything appeared to be normal until an estimated five to ten seconds after touchdown, when they noticed that the speed of the aircraft was higher than usual. When OY-CRG passed the taxiway to the south, the duty officer and firefighter n°1 both heard that the aircraft was beginning to brake heavy, because of the extremely loud noises emitted by the aircraft’s tyres and brakes. The duty officer had heard similar noises on some other occasions, but only for a second or two as aircraft were brought to a full stop or passed painted areas of the runway. In the case of OY-CRG the noises were persistent. They also observed that the wings continued to produce wake vortices during rollout, something they had not seen before. They realised that the aircraft would need assistance and prepared to respond. The last that the duty officer saw of the aircraft was when it skidded with its nose pointing an estimated 45° towards the left and banked violently to the right as it left the runway. In his opinion, the speed of the aircraft at that point was approximately 30-70 km/h (16-38 kt). When the aircraft disappeared over the edge of the runway and the crash alarm was activated, the airport's two fire engines were on their way to the site. The passengers interviewed by the AIBN provided varying descriptions of the approach and landing, but none of them noticed any braking action after touchdown. All the passengers have confirmed that the aircraft swayed from side to side when nearing the end of the runway. They heard the 'screeching' of brakes and the aircraft turned leftwards. One person observed blue smoke coming from the wheels. One person believed that one of the engines on the left increased its speed. Most passengers felt that the speed was relatively low when the aircraft tipped over the edge of the runway. The cabin crew seated at the back of the cabin have stated that the flight proceeded as usual until the landing at Stord airport, apart from the fact that, shortly before landing, she heard a relatively loud whistling noise. She said that she has heard similar noises during other flights, but not so loud. She assumed that the noise came from the seal around the door to her left. She did not otherwise register anything out of the ordinary until the aircraft left the runway.

On approach to Tarakan-Juwata Airport, the crew was informed of the poor visibility due smoke emanating from forest fire. After touchdown on runway 06/24 which is 1,845 metres long, the aircraft went out of control, veered off runway, lost its undercarriage and one engine and came to rest. All 110 occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. At the time of the accident, the visibility was reported to be about 400 metres, below minimums.

The crew was performing a local training flight at Decatur Airport, consisting of touch-and-go maneuvers. On final approach to runway 24, the instructor elected to simulate a failure of the right engine. Anticipating the touch-and-go procedure, the instructor deactivated the yaw damper system while the aircraft was about 10-20 feet above the runway. As the speed increased, the instructor called out 'speed' twice when the copilot reduced the power on the left engine. The aircraft rolled to the right, causing the right wingtip to struck the ground. The aircraft went out of control, veered off runway and came to rest, bursting into flames. Both pilots escaped with minor injuries while the aircraft was destroyed.

Following an uneventful flight from Kinshasa, the crew started the approach to Kikwit Airport in heavy rain falls. After touchdown, the aircraft deviated to the left, veered off runway, lost its left main gear and came to rest in bushes. All occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.