Landing (descent or approach)

The CFR Part 135 cargo flight departed at night on an IFR flight with a load of mining equipment. Route of flight was over remote/mountainous terrain. About 2 hours after takeoff, while cruising at 12,000' feet msl, the right engine and propeller began to overspeed. The captain feathered the #2 engine and declared an emergency. He began to divert to an alternate destination, about 120 miles away in an area of lower terrain, but the aircraft would not maintain altitude (single engine service ceiling, as loaded, was about 8,700 feet). The captain increased power to the left engine, but it began to produce banging and coughing noises. The captain elected to perform an emergency landing at a nearby, remote, military airfield (A/F). The A/F was located in mountainous terrain and had a one-way, daylight only approach. The captain lowered the gear and flaps, and began a visual approach while attempting to keep the runway end identifier lights (REIL) in view. The aircraft encountered severe turbulence, and the captain applied full throttle to the left engine in an attempt to climb. The REIL disappeared from view, and the aircraft collided with snow covered terrain about 2 miles west of the A/F. Ground personnel at the A/F reported high winds and blowing snow with limited visibility. Postcrash exam of the right engine revealed a loss of the propeller control system hydraulic oil. Flight at 12,000 feet was conducted without crew oxygen. The crew had exceeded their maximum allowable duty day without adequate crew rest.

The aircraft was completing a flight from Norilsk to Krasnoyarsk with intermediate stops in Podkamenaya Tunguska and Shushenskoye, carrying 23 passengers and 4 crew members on behalf of KrasAir (Krasnoyarskie Avialinii). While approaching Shushenskoye, the crew encountered poor weather conditions with a visibility limited to 400 metres due to snow falls. In such conditions, the crew lost his orientation and was unable to locate the destination airport. The captain decided to attempt an emergency landing when the aircraft crash landed in the taiga about 18 km from the airport. All 27 occupants were rescued, among them one passenger was slightly injured. The aircraft was written off.

On final approach, the crew encountered limited visibility due to snow falls but the pilot-in-command was able to maintain a visual contact with the approach light system. Nevertheless, he failed to realized he descended below the MDA when the aircraft struck the ground 178 metres short of runway threshold and 77 metres to the right of its extended centerline. On impact, the nose gear collapsed and the aircraft came to rest against meteo installations. All 17 occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

Suffered an accident upon landing at Nuevo Laredo-Quetzalcóatl Airport. Both pilots escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The pilot had made a refueling stop at Vandalia, Illinois. She did not observe the refueling process, but the FBO also operated a King Air and she felt he knew the proper procedure to follow. The airplane was reportedly serviced with 235 gallons of Jet-A fuel (total capacity is 384 gallons). The pilot flew between 7,500 and 10,500 feet. When the airplane was 45 minutes from its destination, the fuel transfer pump lights illuminated, indicating the wing tanks were empty. The nacelle tank gauges registered 3/4 full and the pilot determined she had sufficient fuel to complete the flight. When the airplane was three minutes from its destination, both engines flamed out and the pilot made a wheels up forced landing. When the salvage company recovered the airplane, they reported finding no evidence of fuel aboard. The pilot was provided and used performance charts for the Beech 65-A90 instead of the Beech B90.

Last January 9, the aircraft suffered a belly landing at Uberaba Airport while completing a local training flight. Following temporary repairs, it was decided to transfer the airplane to São Paulo for further controls. After the pressurization system was selected, the aircraft suffered additional damages to the fuselage and the crew was forced to return. The aircraft landed safely but was damaged beyond repair.

According to the pilot, the airplane '...began moving to the left side of the runway...' immediately upon touchdown. He attempted to abort the landing but the airplane contacted snow at the runway's left edge. The airplane exited the runway's left edge and slid sideways, about 300 yards.

After touchdown at Kananga Airport, the right main gear collapsed. The aircraft veered off runway and came to rest, bursting into flames. All five occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

After touchdown, the crew started the braking procedure when the aircraft went out of control, veered off runway and came to rest in a ditch. All 21 occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The flight was being vectored for the approach to runway 3R at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) when the aircraft descended and impacted the ground. The aircraft struck the ground in a steep nose-down attitude in a level field in a rural area about 19 nm southwest of DTW. The flight carried 26 passengers and 3 crew members. There were no survivors and the airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a post crash fire. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The investigation revealed that it was likely that the airplane gradually accumulated a thin, rough glaze/mixed ice coverage on the leading edge deicing boot surfaces, possibly with ice ridge formation on the leading edge upper surface, as the airplane descended from 7,000 feet mean sea level (msl) to 4,000 feet msl in icing conditions, which may have been imperceptible to the pilots. The pilots had been instructed by air traffic control to slow to 150 knots and according to flight data recorder information, the airplane began to show signs of departure from controlled flight as it decelerated from 155 to 156 knots while in a flaps-up configuration. The investigation disclosed that the FAA failed to adopt a systematic and proactive approach to the certification, and operational issues of turbopropeller-driven transport airplane icing. The icing certification process has been inadequate because it has not required manufacturers to demonstrate the airplane's flight handling and stall characteristics under a sufficiently realistic range of adverse ice accretion/flight handling conditions. The aircraft manufacturer had issued a revision in April, 1996 to the approved flight manual which included activation of the leading edge deicing boots at the first sign of ice formation. The airplane operator did not incorporate the procedure, because it was contrary to the company's trained procedures and practices and of the belief that enacting the changes would result in potentially unsafe operation. Investigators' discussion with management personnel at each of the seven U.S.-based operators of the aircraft indicated that at the time of the accident only two of these operators had changed their procedures to reflect the information in the revision. The FAA, at the time of the accident, did not require manufacturers of all turbine-engine driven airplanes to publish minimum airspeed information for various flap configurations and phases and conditions of flight. During Safety Board investigators postaccident interviews with company pilots, there were inconsistent answers on the complex and varied minimum airspeed requirements established by the company for both icing and nonicing conditions. It was also noted that the pilots uncertainty of the appropriate airspeeds might have been associated with the language used, the different airspeeds and criteria contained in the guidance, the company's methods of distribution, and the company's failure t o incorporate the guidance as a formal, permanent revision to the flight standards manual.