Landing (descent or approach)

On Thursday, 20 February 2020, the Piper PA-60-602P aircraft, with registration EC-HRJ, took off from Sabadell Airport (LELL) bound for Pamplona Airport (LEPP). At 17:51:43 hours local time, when the aircraft was in the vicinity of the SURCO waypoint, a sudden change in course from 300º to 317º was observed on the aircraft's radar trace. Moments later, at 17:53:12, the pilot of the aircraft contacted the Madrid air control units to report problems with one of his engines, adding verbatim: “I’m not sure if I’ve lost the turbo”. In a subsequent communication with the same air traffic controller, at 17:57:22 h, the pilot stated: "I’ve lost an engine”. At 17:57:58 h, the pilot contacted the controller of the Pamplona control tower. The controller asked him if he required any assistance, and the pilot replied that he did not. At 18:16:15 h, the pilot told the control tower controller that he was on right base for runway 33. The controller cleared him to land and asked him to notify him when he was on final. At 18:19:40 h, the control tower controller alerted the airport Fire Extinguishing Service (SEI) when he saw the aircraft crash and a column of smoke coming from the wreckage area. The aircraft had impacted the ground during the final approach manoeuvre. As it fell, it hit and severed a power line. The pilot, who was the sole occupant of the aircraft, was killed during the accident. The impact and subsequent fire completely destroyed the aircraft.

The pilot was receiving a checkride from a designated pilot examiner for his single-pilot type rating in a turbine airplane. After a series of maneuvers, emergencies, and landings, the examiner asked the pilot to complete a no-flap landing. The pilot reported that he performed the Before Landing checklist with no flaps and believed that he had put the gear down. During touchdown, the pilot felt a "thump" and thought a tire had blown; however, he saw that the landing gear handle was in the "up" position, and he noted that the landing gear warning horn did not sound because he had performed a no-flaps landing. The examiner confirmed that the landing gear handle was in the "up" position. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector who examined the airplane reported that the landing gear handle was in the "up" position and that the fuselage had sustained substantial damage. The landing gear was lowered and locked into place without issue after the airplane was lifted from the runway.

Following an uneventful flight from Moscow-Vnukovo Airport, the crew initiated the descent to Usinsk Airport Runway 13. On short final, the aircraft hit a snow bank (1,1 metre high) located 32 metres short of runway threshold, still on the concrete zone. Upon impact, both main gears were torn off and the airplane belly landed and slid for few hundred metres before coming to rest. All 100 occupants evacuated safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

While the pilot was on a visual approach to the airport and descending over water on the left base leg, about 100 ft above the water's surface, the airplane entered instrument meteorological conditions with no forward visibility. The pilot looked outside his left window to gauge the airplane's altitude and saw "black waves of water approaching extremely rapidly." He tried to pull back on the yoke to initiate a climb, but the nosewheel contacted the water. Subsequently, the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted in the water. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.

Following an uneventful flight from Izmir-Adnan Menderes Airport, the crew initiated the approach to Istanbul-Sabiha Gökçen Airport runway 06. Weather conditions were poor with thunderstorm activity, rain, CB's and a wind from 290 gusting to 37 knots. After touchdown on a wet runway, the airplane was unable to stop within the remaining distance. It overran, turned slightly to the left then went down an embankment (25 meters high) and came to rest, broken in three. Three passengers were killed while all 180 other occupants were evacuated to local hospitals. It is understood that the airplane apparently landed 1,500 meters past the runway threshold (runway 06 is 3,000 meters long) with a non negligible tailwind component that must be confirmed.

The pilot was conducting a cross-country flight at a cruise altitude of 10,500 ft mean sea level when the left engine lost all power. He secured the engine and elected to continue to his destination. Shortly thereafter, the right engine lost all power. After selecting an airport for a forced landing, he overflew the runway and entered the pattern. The pilot stated that on short final, after extending the landing gear, "the plane quit flying and the airspeed went to nothing." The airplane landed 200 to 300 yards short of the runway threshold, resulting in substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. During a postaccident examination, only tablespoons of fuel were drained from the left tank. Due to the position of the airplane, the right tank could not be drained; however, when power was applied to the airplane, both fuel quantity gauges indicated empty fuel tanks. Neither fuel tank was breached during the accident, and there was no discoloration present on either of the wings or engine nacelles to indicate a fuel leak; therefore, the loss of engine power is consistent with fuel exhaustion.

The pilot was conducting an instrument landing system (ILS) approach in instrument meteorological conditions at the conclusion of a cross-country flight. The airplane had been cleared to land, but the tower controller canceled the landing clearance because the airplane appeared not to be established on the localizer as it approached the locator outer marker. The approach controller asked the pilot if he was having an issue with the airplane’s navigation indicator, and the pilot replied, “yup.” Rather than accept the controller’s suggestion to use approach surveillance radar (ASR) approach instead of the ILS approach, the pilot chose to fly the ILS approach again. The pilot was vectored again for the ILS approach, and the controller issued an approach clearance after he confirmed that the pilot was receiving localizer indications on the airplane’s navigation equipment. The airplane joined the localizer and proceeded toward the runway while descending. The pilot was instructed to contact the tower controller; shortly afterward, the airplane entered a left descending turn away from the localizer centerline. At that time, the airplane was about 3 nautical miles from the locator outer marker. The pilot then told the tower controller, “we’ve got a prob.” The tower controller told the pilot to climb and maintain 3,000 ft msl and to turn left to a heading of 180°. The pilot did not respond. During the final 5 seconds of recorded track data, the airplane’s descent rate increased rapidly from 1,500 to about 5,450 ft per minute. The airplane impacted terrain about 1 nm left of the localizer centerline in a left-wing-down and slightly nose down attitude at a groundspeed of about 90 knots. A postimpact fire ensued. Although the pilot was instrument rated, his recent instrument flight experience could not be determined with the available evidence for this investigation. Most of the fuselage, cockpit, and instrument panel was destroyed during the postimpact fire, but examination of the remaining wreckage revealed no anomalies. Acoustic analysis of audio sampled from doorbell security videos was consistent with the airplane's propellers rotating at a speed of 2,500 rpm before a sudden reduction in propeller speed to about 1,200 rpm about 2 seconds before impact. The airplane’s flightpath was consistent with the airplane’s avionics receiving a valid localizer signal during both instrument approaches. However, about 5 months before the accident, the pilot told the airplane’s current maintainer that the horizontal situation indicator (HSI) displayed erroneous heading indications. The maintainer reported that a replacement HSI was purchased and shipped directly to the pilot to be installed in the airplane; however, the available evidence for the investigation did not show whether the malfunctioning HSI was replaced before the flight. The HSI installed in the airplane at the time of the accident sustained significant thermal and fire damage, which prevented testing. During both ILS approaches, the pilot was cleared to maintain 3,000 ft mean sea level (msl) until the airplane was established on the localizer. During the second ILS approach, the airplane descended immediately, even though the airplane was below the lower limit of the glideslope. Although a descent to the glideslope intercept altitude (2,100 ft msl) would have been acceptable after joining the localizer, such a descent was not consistent with how the pilot flew the previous ILS approach, during which he maintained the assigned altitude of 3,000 ft msl until the airplane intercepted the glideslope. If the HSI provided erroneous heading information during the flight, it could have increased the pilot’s workload during the instrument approach and contributed to a breakdown in his instrument scan and his ability to recognize the airplane’s deviation left of course and descent below the glideslope; however, it is unknown if the pilot had replaced the HSI.

On Jan. 27, 2020, at 03:12 UTC Caspian Airlines (CPN) Flight 6936, an MD83, EP-CPZ took off from Mehrabad International Airport and climbed to FL320 as final cruising level. At about 03:45:37 UTC, the aircraft was flying according to the flight plan route on Airway B417 at an assigned FL320. Due to another traffic departing flight, an A320, IRA356 from Abadan Airport (OIAA) to destination Mashhad International Airport (OIMM), the ACC controller issued direct routing to the flight CPN 6936 position GODMO. At 03:49:34 UTC, CPN6936 requested descent clearance, so the flight was cleared to FL100. At 03:52:30 UTC, the pilot called Mahshahr AFISO and reported position 50 nm inbound GODMO and estimated time over GODMO at 03:59 UTC. At 03:52:51 UTC, Mahshahr AFISO reported necessary information as below: "RWY active is 31; wind is now 280/08kts, CAVOK, temperature +06, DP 04 and QNH 1023, expected VOR approach RWY 31 via GODMO 1E ARRIVAL" At 03:53: 33 UTC, the pilot requested RWY 13 and Mahshahr AFISO performed VOR/DME approach RWY 13, via GODMO 1F arrival. At 03:59:39 UTC, the pilot reported, “we are approaching position GODMO in contact with destination Mahshahr.” At 04:00:41UTC, the pilot reported his position “GODMO” to Mahshahr AFISO. At 04:02:46 UTC, the pilot reported leaving of IAF and received landing clearance for RWY13. Finally, at 04:06:11 UTC, the aircraft landed on RWY 13, passed two-thirds of RWY length and ran off the end of runway13 after landing at Mahshahr Airport at 04:06 UTC, Khuzestan province. The accident flight was being operated on an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan in a Visual Meteorological Condition (VMC). The main door of the accident aircraft was opened in emergency condition, but the slide skid did not operate automatically. The cabin floor was just too close to the ground (grass surface) due to the impact of the nose and main landing gears strut which were broken after the runway overrun. The evacuation was performed from the main door, and all 136 passengers and 8 crew members disembarked.

The four engine airplane was completing a flight from Beni to Goma, carrying 59 South African troops and eight crew members from the 28th Squadron on behalf of the MONUSCO (Mission de l’Organisation des Nations unies pour la stabilisation en République Démocratique du Congo). The approach and landing were completed in heavy rain falls. After touchdown, the airplane veered off runway to the left and came to rest in a grassy area with the left wing broken in two and the n°1 engine on fire. All 67 occupants escaped uninjured and the fire was quickly contained. However, the aircraft seems to be damaged beyond repair.

After touchdown on a wet earth runway, the airplane went out of control. It veered off runway to the right, struck a shoulder and lost its nose gear before coming to rest. All 18 occupants escaped uninjured while the airplane was substantially damaged.