Landing (descent or approach)

The twin engine turbofan powered airplane was ditched into a river after a complete loss of power from both engines. The airplane was on a second approach to land on runway 30R after having been instructed by air traffic control (ATC) to climb during the final approach segment of the first approach due to inadequate separation from another airplane. Subsequent to the first approach, the airplane was issued vectors for the second approach by ATC. Communications transcripts show that the flight crew asked ATC how far they would be vectored during the second approach, but the flight crew did not inform ATC of their low fuel state until the airplane was already on a "base turn...to join final." The airplane subsequently lost power from both engines. During interviews, both pilots stated that there were no problems with the airplane. The second-in-command (SIC) stated that the airplane "ran out of fuel" and that the fuel quantity indicators read 0 and 100 pounds when each respective engine stopped producing power. The SIC also stated that after being instructed to climb to 5,000 feet after their first approach, he questioned the pilot-in-command about landing at another airport located about 14 nautical miles west-southwest of the destination airport. The SIC said that the PIC elected to continue with the second approach to the original destination. Research indicated that the flight crew did not obtain a weather briefing prior to the accident flight. Additionally, the Terminal Aerodrome Forecast that was valid at the time the aircraft's flight plan was filed showed a forecast ceiling consisting of overcast clouds at 1,500 feet above ground level at the aircraft's arrival time at the destination. 14 CFR Part 91.169 requires that an alternate airport be listed in the flight plan when forecast ceilings are less than 2,000 feet. No alternate was listed in the flight plan for the accident flight. Additionally, 14 CFR Part 91.167 requires that aircraft operated in instrument meteorological conditions maintain fuel reserves that allow flight to the intended destination and then continued flight to the listed alternate, and an additional 45 minutes at normal cruise speed. In 1993, the FAA/industry advisory committee developed advisory material for fuel planning and management for 14 CFR Part 121 and 135 air carrier flight operations, but the material was never published.

The flight crew of the Fan Jet Falcon (DA-20) were practicing ILS approaches in instrument meteorological conditions with low clouds and rime ice. A first officer (FO) in training occupied the right seat, while the pilot-in-command (PIC), who was also the company chief pilot/check airman/designated flight instructor, occupied the left seat and was handling the radios. On the second approach, the airplane struck trees and burned, 1.57 nm from approach end of the runway. The landing gear was found extended, and the trailing edge and droop leading edge flaps were retracted. The wing and engine cowl anti-ice valves were found closed, consistent with it being off in the cockpit. Radar data revealed that on approach, the airspeed decreased from 188 knots to 141 knots at the outer marker, and continued to decrease down to 106 knots, when the airplane entered an abrupt descent and disappeared from radar. Simulator flights matched the radar profile with a flight idle approach, a power reduction inside the outer marker, and 1/4 inch of ice on the wings. In the simulator, the airplane stalled about 2 miles from the end of the runway with an airspeed of 103 kts. At flight idle, the engine power in the last 2 minutes of approach was below the recommended power setting for wing or engine anti-ice to be effective. Vref and stall speeds were computed to be 129 kts and 96 kts, with wing flaps and droop leading edges retracted. The PIC had about 1,100 hours in the make and model. The PIC did not have any documented previous flight instruction experience in make and model or any other multi-engine airplanes. The PIC had given 4 pilot proficiency checks in the DA-20 since receiving his check airman designation. The company Director of Operations reported that the accident FO was the first student the PIC had taken through the initial second-in-command course. The PIC and FO had received all of their turbojet experience with the operator.

The aircraft took off at 1000LT from Barcelona (LEBL) on a private flight to Zurich (LSZH). The flight took place under instrument flight rules. Using radar vectors, EC-HFA was cleared at 1205 LT for an approach on the runway 14 instrument landing system (ILS). In the final approach phase, the aircraft entered a snow shower. The aircraft touched down on the grass about 700 metres before the runway threshold and skidded in a wide right turn in the direction of the threshold of runway 16. The aircraft was badly damaged. The three occupants were unharmed.

While on approach to the airport, the airplane entered a left turn, which the surviving passenger described as "almost completely upside down." The airplane briefly leveled, then entered another left turn with a bank angle of the same severity. The airplane seemed to roll level, then entered a steep dive, until it impacted a building. The passenger reported that the engines were running normally throughout the entire flight, and the steep turns performed by the pilot did not concern her, as she had flown with him before and knew he "liked to make sharp turns." Examination of the airplane and engines revealed no pre-impact mechanical anomalies, and weather at the time of the accident included a broken cloud ceiling of 1,100 feet, with 3 miles visibility in mist. According to the FAA, Airplane Flying Handbook,"...[An] airplane will stall at a higher indicated airspeed when excessive maneuvering loads are imposed by steep turns, pull-ups, or other abrupt changes in its flightpath." A review of the "Stall Speeds - Power Idle" chart from the POH revealed that with approach flaps selected, at a bank angle of 60 degrees, the airplane would stall at about 123 knots. Radar data indicated the airplane descended along the approach course at an average speed of 120 knots. Toxicology testing performed on the pilot revealed imipramine and carbamazepine in the pilot's urine and blood, and morphine in the pilot's urine. According to the pilot's medical and pharmacy records, he suffered from a severe neurological disorder, possibly a seizure disorder, which resulted in frequent, unpredictable episodes of debilitating pain. Additionally, approximately three months prior to the accident, the pilot was diagnosed with viral meningitis, and a severe skin infection with multiple abscesses on his extremities. The pilot had been prescribed imipramine, an antidepressant that has detrimental effects on driving skills and other cognitive functions. He had also been prescribed carbamazepine, typically used to control seizures or treat certain chronically painful conditions. Carbamazepine has measurable impairment of performance on a variety of psychomotor tests. Morphine, a prescription opiate painkiller, is also a metabolite of heroin and many prescription medications, such as codeine, used to control moderate pain. No indication was observed in the pilot's medical records that he was recently prescribed any opiates. Neither the pilot's medical condition, nor the medication he was routinely taking was reported on his application for an airman medical certificate.

The pilot first reported that the engine oil temperature had dropped below what he normally observed while en route. When he tired to exercise the left propeller control, and then later tried to feather the left engine, he was unable to change the engine rpm. He then heard a pop from the right engine, and advised air traffic control (ATC), he needed to perform a landing at Bradford. He also reported a double power loss. While being radar vectored for the ILS runway 32 approach, he told ATC he was getting some power back. He was radar vectored inside of the outer marker, and broke out mid-field and high. At the departure end of the runway, he executed a right turn and during the turn, the airplane descended into trees, and a post crash fire destroyed it. A witness reported he heard backfiring when the airplane over flew the runway. When the airplane was examined, the landing gear was found down, and the wing flaps were extended 15 degrees. Neither propeller was feathered. Both engines were test run and performed satisfactorily. The left engine fuel servo was used on the right engine due to impact damage on the right engine fuel servo. The right fuel servo was examined and found to run rich. However, no problems were found that would explain a power loss, prevent the engine from running, or explain the backfiring heard by a witness. Both propellers were examined and found to be satisfactory, with an indication of more power on the left propeller than on the right propeller. The weather observation taken at 1253 included a ceiling of 1,100 feet broken, visibility 1 mile, light snow and mist. The weather observation taken at 1310 included a ceiling of 900 feet broken, visibility 3/4 mile, and light snow and mist. According to the pilot's handbook, the airplane could maintain altitude or climb on one engine, but it required the propeller to be feathered, and the landing gear and wing flaps retracted.

While on a cargo flight, the crew encountered engine problems and diverted to Rumbek Airstrip. After touchdown, the aircraft was unable to stop within the remaining distance, overran and came to rest with its right wing broken in two. There were no injuries among the occupants.

About 50 minutes into the flight, the aircraft returned to Humberside circuit and was cleared by ATC for a touch-and-go landing on Runway 21. The landing was firm but otherwise uneventful and witnesses heard the power being applied as it accelerated for takeoff. Just before rotation two large "puffs of smoke" were seen to come from the vicinity of the mainwheels as both propellers struck the runway. The aircraft then lifted off and almost immediately began to yaw and roll to the left. The left bank reached an estimated maximum of 90° but reduced just before the left wing tip struck the ground. The aircraft then cartwheeled across the grass to the south of the runway and burst into flames. The owner in the left pilot's seat and the pilot in the right pilot's seat escaped from the wreckage, but the flight examiner, who was occupying a seat in the passenger cabin, was unable to vacate the aircraft and subsequently died of injuries sustained in the post impact fire. An engineering investigation found no fault with the aircraft that might have caused the accident. The investigation concluded that the most probable cause was an inadvertent retraction of the landing gear whilst the aircraft was still on the ground.

During a night approach, the aircraft landed 20 metres to the right of runway 06 in a slight right bank. It continued to roll for several hundred metres before coming back onto the paved surface. Doing so, the nose gear collapsed and the aircraft came to rest. All 60 occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. The visibility was reported to be 1,600 metres at the time of the accident.

The aircraft departed Rio de Janeiro-Santos Dumont Airport on a flight to Santos, carrying one passenger and two pilots. Following an approach via the local NDB, the crew started the descent to Santos Airport but was forced to initiate a go-around procedure because he was not properly aligned. A second attempt to land was started to runway 35 with a tailwind component. Following an unstabilized approach, the aircraft landed 450 metres past the runway threshold (runway 35 is 1,390 metres long). Unable to stop within the remaining distance, the aircraft overran and came to rest in the Bertioga Canal. All three occupants evacuated safely while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

After landing on runway 36R at Tainan Airport, while decelerating, the aircraft struck construction vehicles parked beside the runway. The crew was able to stop the aircraft on the main runway and all 175 occupants evacuated safely. Two workers on the ground were injured. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair.