Landing (descent or approach)

The pilot was conducting a GPS circling instrument approach in instrument meteorological conditions to an airport with which he was familiar. During the final minute of the flight, the airplane descended to and leveled off near the minimum descent altitude (MDA) of about 600 ft mean sea level (msl). During this time, the airplane’s groundspeed slowed from about 90 knots to a low of 65 knots. In the few seconds after reaching 65 knots groundspeed, the flight track abruptly turned left off course and the airplane rapidly descended. The final radar point was recorded at 200 ft msl less than 1/10 mile from the accident site. Two home surveillance cameras captured the final few seconds of the flight. The first showed the airplane in a shallow left bank that rapidly increased until the airplane descended in a steep left bank out of camera view below a line of trees. The second video captured the final 4 seconds of the flight; the airplane entered the camera view already in a steep left bank near treetop level, and continued to roll to the left, descending out of view. Both videos showed the airplane flying below an overcast cloud ceiling, and engine noise was audible until the sound of impact. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. The propeller signatures, witness impact marks, audio recordings, and witness statements were all consistent with the engines producing power at the time of impact. The pilot likely encountered restricted visibility of about 2 statute miles with mist and ceilings about 700 ft msl. When the airplane deviated from the final approach course and descended below the MDA, the destination airport remained 3.5 statute miles to the northeast. Although the airplane was observed to be flying below the overcast cloud layer, given the restricted visibility, it is likely that the pilot was unable to visually identify the airport or runway environment at any point during the approach. According to airplane flight manual supplements, the stall speed likely varied from 76 to 67 knots indicated airspeed. The exact weight and balance and configuration of the airplane could not be determined. Based upon surveillance video, witness accounts, and automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast data, it is likely that, as the pilot leveled off the airplane near the MDA, the airspeed decayed below the aerodynamic stall speed, and the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall and spin from which the pilot was unable to recover. Based on a readout of the pilot’s cardiac monitoring device and autopsy findings, while the pilot had a remote history of arrhythmia, sudden incapacitation was not a factor in this accident. Autopsy findings suggested that the pilot’s traumatic injuries were not immediately fatal; soot material in both the upper and lower airways provided evidence that the pilot inhaled smoke. This autopsy evidence supports that the pilot’s elevated carboxyhemoglobin level was from smoke inhalation during the postcrash fire. In addition, there were no distress calls received from the pilot and there was no evidence found that would indicate there was an in-flight fire. Thus, carbon monoxide exposure, as determined by the carboxyhemoglobin level, was not a contributing factor to the accident.

At approximately 0745 Central Daylight Time on 26 October 2019, the Blue Water Aviation float-equipped deHavillandDHC-3 Otteraircraft (registration C-GBTU, serial number 209) departed Bissett Water Aerodrome, Manitoba, with the pilot, 2 passengers, and approximately 800 pounds of freight on board. The destination was Little Grand Rapids, Manitoba, on the eastern shore of Family Lake. At approximately 0845, while on approach to Family Lake, the aircraft’s right wing separated from the fuselage. The aircraft then entered a nose-down attitudeand struck the water surface of the lake. The pilot and the 2 passengers were fatally injured. The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces. The emergency locator transmitter activated momentarily.

On the 18th October 2019, at approximately 4:30 PM local time, a Douglas DC-3C aircraft, registration N437GB crashed in the ocean; at coordinates 25°05.55N 077°30.29W, approximately 2.87miles from Runway 14 at the Lynden Pindling International Airport (MYNN) Nassau, Bahamas. There were 2 souls on board. The pilot reported that the left engine failed approximately 25-30 nautical miles from MYNN. The pilot further stated that during single engine operation, the aircraft performance was not optimal so the decision was made to land the aircraft in the ocean. The Air Traffic Control tower was notified by the crew of N437GB, that they will be performing a control water landing. The Royal Bahamas Defense Force was notified. Rescue efforts were then put into place. No injuries were received by the occupants of the aircraft. Aircraft could not be located for physical analysis to be carried out. The weather at the time of the accident was visual meteorological conditions and not a factor in this accident. A limited scope investigation was conducted, no safety message or recommendations were issued.

On October 17, 2019, a Saab SA-2000 airplane, operated by Peninsula Aviation Services Inc. d.b.a. PenAir flight 3296, overran the end of runway 13 at Unalaska Airport (DUT), Unalaska, Alaska. The flight crew executed a go-around during the first approach to runway 13; the airplane then entered the traffic pattern for a second landing attempt on the same runway. Shortly before landing, the flight crew learned that the wind at midfield was from 300° at 24 knots, indicating that a significant tailwind would be present during the landing. Because an airplane requires more runway length to decelerate and stop when a tailwind is present during landing, a landing in the opposite direction (on runway 31) would have favored the wind at the time. However, the flight crew continued with the plan to land on runway 13. Our postaccident calculations showed that, when the airplane touched down on the runway, the tailwind was 15 knots. The captain reported after the accident that the initial braking action after touchdown was normal but that, as the airplane traveled down the runway, the airplane had “zero braking” despite the application of maximum brakes. The airplane subsequently overran the end of the runway and the adjacent 300-ft runway safety area (RSA), which was designed to reduce airplane damage during an overrun, and came to rest beyond the airport property. The airplane was substantially damaged during the runway overrun; as a result, of the 3 crewmembers and 39 passengers aboard, 1 passenger sustained fatal injuries, and 1 passenger sustained serious injuries. Eight passengers sustained minor injuries, most of which occurred during the evacuation. The crewmembers and 29 passengers were not injured.

The pilot reported that, during the approach and while the airplane was about 500 ft above ground level and 81 knots, he "felt the descent rate increase significantly." The pilot increased engine power, but "the high rate of descent continued," and he then increased the engine power further. A slow left roll developed, and he applied full right aileron and full right rudder to arrest the left roll. He also reduced the engine power, and the left roll stopped. The pilot regained control of the airplane, but the airplane's heading was 45° left of the runway heading, and the airplane impacted trees and then terrain. The airplane caught fire, and the pilot and passenger exited through the emergency exit. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the windscreens and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.

On 03.10.2019, the crew of An-12BK UR-CAH aircraft operated by PJSC «AIRLINE «UKRAINE-AIR ALLIANCE», consisting of flight crew members and two aircraft technicians, performed flight UKL4010 en-route Toronto (Canada) - Toulouse (France) and at 06:15 UTC, it landed at the Toulouse aerodrome (France). The plane delivered 1537 kg cargo to the Toulouse aerodrome (France). After the completion of post-flight procedures, the flight crew went to rest at the hotel, while the technicians remained on the aircraft to perform technical works. The next flight was scheduled from Toulouse to Birmingham airport (Great Britain). However, during the day, at the initiative of the operator, it was decided to change the route and perform the flight en-route Toulouse - Vigo (Spain) - Istanbul (Turkey). At the Toulouse aerodrome, the plane was filled with 6,000 liters of fuel. Also in Toulouse, a flight engineer was replaced. At 16:16 UTC, the plane took off from Toulouse to Vigo without cargo. Landing at the Vigo aerodrome (Spain) was performed on 03.10.2020 at 18:20 UTC. At the Vigo aerodrome, the plane was loaded with vehicle spare parts with a total weight of probably 14078 kg. From the Vigo aerodrome (Spain), the plane took off on 03.10.2019 at 22:20, flight UKL4050, with a delay of 2 h 20 minutes. On 04.10.2020, at 03:17:29 UTC, the plane approached the airspace border of the Lviv control area. The crew contacted the controller of the Lviv ACC of LVE + LVW sector and reported about the approach to waypoint MALBE at FL250. The controller informed the crew about the establishment of the radar identification of the aircraft and instructed to wait for the procedure for radar guidance to RW-31 using the ILS system. At 03:20:27, under instruction the ACC controller, the crew listened to the ATIS "Romeo" information as follows: “Lviv, ATIS “Romeo” for 03:20. The ILS approach at the aerodrome uses low visibility procedures. Runway in use is RW-31. Runway surface condition known at 19:53 - wet, clear. The measured friction coefficient is 0.55. Estimated surface friction assessed as good. Transition level - 110. Warning: large flocks of birds in the aerodrome area and on the landing final. There is no wind. Visibility - 150 meters; visibility range on the runway at the touchdown point - 550 meters, in the middle of the runway - 550 meters, at the end of the runway - 550 meters, fog. Vertical visibility - 50 meters. Temperature + 3ºС, dew point + 3ºС. Atmospheric pressure QNH - 1013 hectopascals, QFE - 974 hectopascals. Weather forecast for TREND landing: visibility sometimes is 400 meters, fog; vertical visibility - 60 meters. Attention: the frequency "Lviv-taxiing" does not work, while taxiing, get in touch with the "LvivTower" at a frequency of 128.0 MHz. Please acknowledge receipt of Romeo's information." ATIS information was transmitted in English. At 03:22:14, the crew informed the controller about the completion of listening to ATIS information and received clearance to descend to FL120. At 03:22:40, the aircraft began its descent from FL250 and at 03:28:35 switched to the frequency of the ACC controller of the LVT sector. After contacting the controller of the ACC of the LVT sector, the crew reported a descend to FL120 to KOKUP point. At 03:29:08, the ACC controller of the LVT sector instructed the crew to continue descending to an altitude of 10,000 feet at atmospheric pressure QNH-1013 hPa, reported the transition level, and instructed to wait for radar guidance for ILS approach on RW-31. The crew confirmed the instruction to descent to 10,000 feet, QNH, transition level and reported expectation for radar guidance. At 03:30:14, LVT sector ACC controller began radar guidance. At 03:32:49, the controller instructed the crew to descend to 4,000 feet. At 03:35:33, LVT sector ATC controller instructed to descend to an altitude of 3200 feet, taking into account the temperature correction. The procedure for temperature correction at determination of flight levels by an air traffic controller during the radar vectoring was published in the Aeronautical Information Publication of Ukraine, UKLL AD 2.24.7-1 dated 12.09.2019. At 03:38:33, the ATC controller of the LVT sector provided the crew with information about its location of 27 km from VOR/DME LIV, instructed by the left turn to take a 340º heading, cleared the ILS landing approach to runway 31 and gave the control instruction to inform of “the localizer beam capture.” At 03:40:01 (the height above the runway was 1170 m, descent rate: -4 ... -4.5 m/s, speed 352 km/h, distance from the runway threshold: 15.7 km), the crew reported of the localizer beam capture. At 03:40:09, ATC controller of LVT sector instructed the crew to continue the ILS approach to RWY 31. At 03:40:26, the controller informed the crew about the weather conditions at the aerodrome: RW-31 runway visual range (RVR) in the touchdown zone – 800 meters, in the middle of the runway – 800 meters, at the end of the runway – 750 meters, vertical visibility – 60 meters, fog. The crew confirmed receipt of the information. At 03:41:22, the ATC controller of LVT sector instructed to switch the communication to the ATC Lviv controller at a frequency of 128.0 MHz. There were no irregularities in air traffic servicing of the An-12 aircraft, flight UKL4050, during the flight in the area of responsibility of the TMA Lviv "LVT" sector. To enter the glide path, the PIC increased the vertical descent rate. At 03:41:47, the crew established communication with the Tower controller. The distance from the threshold was 11.3 km, the elevation over the glide path was 70 m, the vertical rate of descent was -5.5 ... -6 m/s. After communication with the air traffic controller, the crew reported an ILS approach to RW-31 and the atmospheric pressure QNH setting of 1013 hPa. At 03:41:58, the Tower controller informed the crew about the absence of wind on the surface of RW-31 and gave clearance to land. The crew confirmed the landing clearance. According to the recorders, at this time the distance to the touchdown point was 7.58 km, the plane was 11 m below the glide path, the vertical descent rate was -4.5-5.5 m/s, and the speed was 290 km/h, the flight heading – 315º. At a distance of 5.0 km to the touchdown point, the plane was 25 m below the glide path. At a distance of 3 km from the touchdown, the plane descended to an altitude of 105 meters and continued the flight with the constant descent. At an altitude of 60 meters, an audible alarm was triggered on board the aircraft, when the decision height had been reached, to which none of the crew members responded. At a distance of 1348 meters from the threshold of the RW-31, at an altitude of 5-7 meters, the aircraft collided with trees, fell to the ground and came to rest at a distance of 1117 meters from the runway threshold. All three passengers were seriously injured and all five crew members were killed.

The pilot was conducting an instrument approach at the conclusion of a cross-country flight when the airplane entered a shallow climb and left turn away from the runway heading about 0.5-mile from the intended runway. According to airspeeds calculated from automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast position data, the airplane’s calibrated airspeed was 166 knots when it crossed over the final approach fix inbound toward the runway and was about 84 knots when it was on a 0.5-mile final approach. The airplane continued to decelerate to 74 knots while it was in a shallow climb and left turn away from the runway heading. At no point during the approach did the pilot maintain the airframe manufacturer’s specified approach speed of 85 knots. The airplane impacted the ground in an open grass field located to the left of the extended runway centerline. The airplane was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain in a wings level attitude. The postaccident examination did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. The altitude and airspeed trends during the final moments of the flight were consistent with the airplane entering an aerodynamic stall at a low altitude. Based on the configuration of the airplane at the accident site, the pilot likely was retracting the landing gear and flaps for a go around when the airplane entered the aerodynamic stall. The airplane was operating above the maximum landing weight, and past the aft center-of-gravity limit at the time of the accident which can render the airplane unstable and difficult to recover from an aerodynamic stall. Additionally, without a timely corrective rudder input, the airplane tends to roll left after a rapid application of thrust at airspeeds less than 70 knots, including during aerodynamic stalls. Although an increase in thrust is required for a go around, the investigation was unable to determine how rapidly the pilot increased thrust, or if a torque-roll occurred during the aerodynamic stall.

The vintage, former US military bomber airplane was on a tour that allowed members of the public to purchase an excursion aboard the airplane for an LHFE flight. The accident flight was the airplane’s first flight of the day. During the initial climb, one of the pilots retracted the landing gear, and the crew chief/flight engineer (referred to as the loadmaster) left the cockpit to inform the passengers that they could leave their seats and walk around the airplane. One of the pilots reported to air traffic control that the airplane needed to return to the airport because of a rough magneto. At that time, the airplane was at an altitude of about 600 ft above ground level (agl) on the right crosswind leg of the airport traffic pattern for runway 6. The approach controller asked the pilot if he needed any assistance, to which the pilot replied, “negative.” When the loadmaster returned to the cockpit, he realized that the airplane was no longer climbing, and the pilot, realizing the same, instructed the copilot to extend the landing gear, which he did. The loadmaster left the cockpit to instruct the passengers to return to their seats and fasten their seat belts. When the loadmaster returned again to the cockpit, the pilot stated that the No. 4 engine was losing power; the pilot then shut down that engine and feathered the propeller without any further coordination or discussion. When the airplane was at an altitude of about 400 ft agl, it was on a midfield right downwind leg for runway 6. Witness video showed that the landing gear had already been extended by that time, even though the airplane still had about 2.7 nautical miles to fly in the traffic pattern before reaching the runway 6 threshold. During final approach, the airplane struck the runway 6 approach lights in a right-wing-down attitude about 1,000 ft before the runway and then contacted the ground about 500 ft before the runway. After landing short of the runway, the airplane traveled onto the right edge of the runway threshold and continued to veer to the right. The airplane collided with vehicles and a deicing fluid tank before coming to rest upright about 940 ft to the right of the runway. A postcrash fire ensued. Both pilots and five passengers were killed and all six other occupants as well as one people on the ground were injured, five seriously.

Apparently engaged in an illegal flight, the aircraft crashed in unknown circumstances in a field located in Blue Creek after the crew attempted to land on a dirt road. The aircraft crashed and came to rest, broken in two. All occupants escaped from the area and no one was found in the airplane. Also, it was reported that no contraband was found on board.

Upon landing at San Salvador de Paúl Airfield, the single engine airplane lost its nose gear and came to rest upside down. All seven occupants were injured and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.