Landing (descent or approach)

The crew was completing an illegal flight in Central America and was apparently attempting to land on a remote area near Santa Marta. The accident occurred in unclear circumstances and nobody was found in the wreckage. The registration XA-DOC is false and the MSN of the airplane remains unknown.

While in cruise flight at 19,000 ft mean sea level (msl), the pilot declared an emergency to air traffic control and stated that the airplane had lost engine power and that he needed to divert. The pilot elected to divert to an airport that was about 5 miles south of his position. Archived automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast data and commercially available flight track data showed that a descent was initiated from 19,000 ft and the airplane proceeded directly to, and circled around, the airport one time while descending. The last data point showed the airplane at 1,250 ft msl (about 750 ft above ground level) and about 1 mile north of the approach end of the runway. From the cruise altitude of 19,000ft until the last data point, about 12 minutes and 45 seconds had elapsed, which equated to an average descent rate of about 1,392ft per minute. Witnesses located about 1/4 mile south of the end of the runway on a miniature golf course noticed the propeller on the airplane was not turning. They stated that they saw the airplane in a “really hard” left bank; the nose of the airplane dropped, and it impacted the ground in a near vertical attitude. The airplane came to rest along a road about 200 ft south of the airport property. The airplane impacted the terrain in a nose low, near vertical attitude and sustained substantial damage to fuselage and both wings. It is likely that, based on the location of the runway, relative to the miniature golf course, the pilot initiated the left bank to avoid bystanders on the ground and inadvertently exceeded the wing’s critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall. The airplane was equipped with an engine trend monitor (ETM), which captured various events concerning the accident flight, including engine start, operating limit exceedances, and power checks. The ETM captured a power check while the airplane was at 19,100 ft. About 3 minutes 32 seconds later, an engine off event was recorded. The ETM further captured a logon message, which was consistent with the power being cycled, at an altitude of 3,542 ft, 9 minutes, 52 seconds later. The ETM did not record any start attempts between the logged engine off event and when power was lost to the unit. A postaccident examination of the airframe, engine, and accessories did not reveal any mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Although it cannot be determined whether a restart attempt would have been successful, the data were consistent with a restart not being attempted. Both the engine failure and power off landing checklists contained instructions for the pilot to establish the airspeed at 90 knots; however, when the winds aloft were applied to the reported groundspeeds, it was evident this did not occur. Furthermore, the power off landing checklist instructed the pilot to be about 1,500 ft above the airport on the downwind leg; however, data indicate that the airplane was about 5,000 ft above the airport on the downwind leg. The rapid descent from 5,000 ft on the downwind leg to about 750 ft above ground level on the final leg resulted in an unstabilized approach.

The single engine airplane departed Cremona-Migliaro Airport in the morning on a local skydiving flight, carrying eight skydivers and one pilot. This was the second sortie of the day. Once the altitude of 4,000 metres was reached, all eight skydivers successfully jumped out and the pilot started the descent to return to the airport. While descending to runway 11, the airplane collided with the eighth skydivers that hit the left wing and the vertical stabilizer. A large section of the left wing separated, causing the airplane to enter an uncontrolled descent and to crash in a cornfield located in Livrasco, about two km north of the airport. The pilot and the skydiver were killed. The airplane was totally destroyed.

While the airplane was in cruise flight and being flown by the copilot, the left engine fuel pressure fluctuated, which was followed by a brief loss of engine power. Concerned that the airplane might have a failed engine-driven fuel pump, the pilot turned the boost pumps to high and asked the passenger (the airplane’s mechanic) to open the fuel cross-feed valve. As the airplane approached its intended destination, both fuel pressure needles began to fluctuate. The pilot assumed that fuel starvation to the engines was occurring and decided to make an off-airport landing to a field behind their airplane’s position due to residential areas located between the airplane’s location and the airport. The pilot stated that he took control of the airplane from the copilot and initiated a right turn toward the field, and that, shortly afterward, both engines lost total power. During the landing roll, the pilot observed a ditch in front of the airplane and was able to get the airplane airborne briefly to avoid the first ditch; however, he was not able to avoid a second, larger ditch. Subsequently, the airplane struck the second ditch, became airborne, and impacted the ground, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage. Recovery company personnel reported that, during recovery of the wreckage, about 1 gallon of fuel was removed from the two forward and the two aft wing fuel tanks. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of any pre-existing anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of either engine except that all four main fuel tank fuel gauges displayed erroneous indications after each tank was filled with water. No leaks were observed throughout the fuel system. The airplane was last refueled on the day before the accident with 497.7 gallons. When the airplane was last refueled, the fuel tanks were reportedly filled to about 3 inches below the fuel filler neck. The investigation could not determine, based on the available evidence for this accident, how much of the airplane’s fuel load (maximum capacity was 670 gallons) the airplane had onboard after it was refueled. Additionally, the pilot reported that he commonly used a fuel burn rate of 150 gallons per hour for flight planning purposes; that figure included takeoff fuel burn. Recorded automatic dependent surveillance broadcast data showed that the airplane had flown for 4 hours 1 minute since refueling and included six takeoffs and five landings (but did not include taxi times). As part of the investigation, the pilot estimated that 485.9 gallons of fuel had been used since the last refueling. However, on the basis of the pilot’s initial planned fuel load and recorded flight times, the airplane would have used about 600 gallons of fuel. The pilot later submitted an estimated fuel burn for the flights since refueling of 485.9 gallons. The flight manual did not have fuel burn references for the exact power settings and altitudes flown; thus, the hourly fuel burn could not be determined. The pilot, copilot, and passenger did not visually verify the fuel levels in all four main fuel tanks before the accident flight. The pilot also underestimated the amount of fuel that would be used for the planned flights. As a result, fuel exhaustion occurred, which led to a total loss of engine power.

The aircraft departed Mogadishu-Aden Abdulle Airport on a cargo flight to Beledweyne, carrying four crew members and various goods on behalf of the AMISOM, the African Union Mission in Somalia. After takeoff, the crew informed ATC about hydraulic problems and was cleared to return. After touchdown on runway 05, the aircraft went out of control, veered off runway to the right and collided with a concrete wall. Two crew members were slightly injured while both pilots were seriously injured after the cockpit was severely damaged on impact.

The instructor pilot reported that while practicing an engine-out landing in the traffic pattern, the pilot-rated student overshot the turn from base leg to final rolling out to the right of the runway centerline. The student pilot attempted to turn back toward the runway and then saw that the airplane’s airspeed was rapidly decreasing. The instructor reported that when he realized the severity of the situation it was too late to do anything. The student attempted to add power for a go-around but was unable to recover. The airplane stalled about 10 ft above the ground, impacted the ground right of the runway, and skidded onto the runway where it came to rest. Both wings and the forward fuselage were substantially damaged. Both pilots stated there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.

Crashed in unknown circumstances in Maji Moto, Rift Valley. All three occupants escaped with various injuries and the aircraft was destroyed.

The crew was completing a local training flight at Belo Horizonte-Pampulha Airport, consisting of touch-and-go maneuvers. After landing on runway 13, the pilot-in-command decided to abort the takeoff. Unable to stop within the remaining distance, the aircraft overran, lost its landing gear and came to rest near a concrete block. All three occupants evacuated, among them the captain was slightly injured.

In unknown circumstances, the crew made a belly landing near Palenque Airport. By night, the aircraft crash landed in an open field and came to rest. The occupant(s) was/were not found but law enforcement officials found 3 tons of cocaine on board. The aircraft seems to be written off.

At 1541 hrs, the airplane took off from Marl-Lohmühle Airfield with the pilot and 2 passengers on board to a VFR flight to Arnsberg-Menden Airfield which is located approximately 30 NM to the south-east. One of the passengers was seated in the right-hand seat next to the pilot and the other in the passenger seat behind the pilot. The radar recording of the air navigation service provider showed that the airplane climbed up to 2,200 ft AMSL. Ten minutes after take-off, the pilot established radio contact with Dortmund Tower with the request to cross Dortmund Airport control zone via the reporting point WHISKEY towards reporting point ECHO on his way to Arnsberg. At 1552:14 hrs, the tower controller answered: “[…] melden Sie WHISKEY und dann erwarten Sie Durchflug nach Arnsberg oder ECHO, wie Sie möchten, QNH eins null null eins (report WHISKEY and then expect cross flight to Arnsberg or ECHO, as you like, QNH one zero zero one)“. The pilot confirmed QNH and approach point. At 1555:22 hrs, the pilot reported having reached reporting point WHISKEY at 2,200 ft AMSL. The controller approved the flight through the control zone towards the south. The GPS and radar data showed that at 1556 hrs, the airplane turned tight towards 120° to a direct heading to Arnsberg. At 1559 hrs, as the airplane had left the control zone the controller issued the clearance to leave Tower frequency. At 1600 hrs, about 2.5 NM west of the destination aerodrome, the airplane turned left towards the east. About one minute later the airplane intersected the extended runway centre line of runway 23 at a distance of 0.7 NM from the threshold with an eastern heading. At the time, ground speed was approximately 150 kt. At 1601:39 hrs, the airplane turned left towards the final approach of runway 23. At 1602 hrs, about 1 NM from the threshold of runway 23 at about 1,500 ft AMSL, the airplane reached the extended runway centre line. The Flugleiter (A person required by German regulation at uncontrolled aerodromes to provide aerodrome information service to pilots.) stated that during final approach flaps and landing gear of the airplane had been extended. The approach looked normal. For a short time he had no longer observed the airplane because he had made some entries in the computer. His colleague had then addressed him and drew his attention to the speed of the airplane. The Flugleiter saw that the airplane had an upward large pitch angle, then plunged and disappeared from his sight. The airplane impacted the ground and the 3 occupants suffered severe injuries. The Flugleiter stated he had tried in vain to contact the pilot twice and then raised the alarm. His colleague and other first aiders had driven to the accident site immediately.