Landing (descent or approach)

While descending to Bangkok-Suvarnabhumi Airport, the twin engine aircraft crashed in unknown circumstances in a swamp and came to rest against a wood bridge. The wreckage was found about 15 km from the airport, along the borders of Nong Chok and Min Buri districts. The captain was killed while three other occupants were injured.

Owned by Fenatracoop (Federação Nacional dos Trabalhadores Celestitas nas Cooperativas no Brasil), the twin engine aircraft departed Cuiabá-Marechal Rondon Airport on a flight to Londrina, carrying two pilots and six passengers, three adults and three children. On final approach to Londrina-Governador José Richa Runway 13, the pilot informed ATC about a loss of power on the left engine. Shortly later, control was lost and the aircraft crashed on a hangar housing six tanker trucks and located 9,2 km short of runway. Several explosions occurred and the aircraft and the hangar were totally destroyed. All eight occupants were killed but there were no injuries on the ground.

The pilot executed an instrument approach and landing in heavy rain. The airplane touched down about 21 knots above the applicable landing reference speed, which was consistent with an unstabilized approach. The airplane touched down near the displaced runway threshold about 128 kts, and both wing ground spoilers automatically deployed. The pilot reported that the airplane touched down “solidly,” and he started braking promptly, but the airplane did not slow down. The main wheels initially spun up; however, both wheel speeds subsequently decayed consistent with hydroplaning in the heavy rain conditions. When the wheel speeds did not recover, the brake control unit advised the flight crew of an anti-skid failure; the pilot recalled an anti-skid CAS message displayed at some point during the landing. The pilot subsequently activated the emergency brake system and the wheel speeds decayed. The airplane ultimately overran the departure end of the runway about 60 kts, crossed an airport perimeter road, and encountered a small creek before coming to rest. The wings had separated from, and were located immediately adjacent to, the fuselage. The pilot reported light to moderate rain began on final approach. Weather data and surveillance images indicated that heavy rain and limited visibility prevailed at the airport during the landing. Thunderstorms were active in the vicinity and the rainfall rate at the time of the accident landing was between 4.2 and 6.0 inches per hour. About 4 minutes before the accident, a surface observation recorded the visibility as 3 miles. However, 3 minutes later, the observed visibility had decreased to 3/8 mile. A review of the available information indicated that the tower controller advised the pilot of changing wind conditions and of better weather west of the airport but did not update the pilot regarding visibility along the final approach course or precipitation at the airport. The pilot stated that the rain started 2 to 3 minutes before he landed and commented that it was not the heaviest rain that he had ever landed in. The pilot was using the multifunction display and a tablet for weather radar, which showed green and yellow returns indicating light to moderate rain during the approach. He chose not to turn on the airplane’s onboard weather radar because the other two sources were not indicating severe weather. The runway exhibited skid marks beginning about 1,500 ft from the departure end and each main tire had one patch of reverted rubber wear consistent with reverted rubber hydroplaning. The main landing gear remained extended and both tires remained pressurized. The tire pressures corresponded to a minimum dynamic hydroplaning speed of about 115 kts. The airplane flight manual noted that, in the case of an antiskid failure, the main brakes are to be applied progressively and brake pressure is to be modulated as required. The emergency brake is to be used in the event of a brake failure; however, the pilot activated the emergency brake when the main brakes still functioned; although, without anti-skid protection.

A Beech 200 Super King Air aircraft operated by Air Nunavut as flight 200, was on a training flight at Iqaluit, NU (CYFB) to upgrade a candidate to captain status. A VFR circuit was executed to simulate a flapless landing. While in the circuit, the crew experienced an actual communication failure on COM 1 while two other aircraft were inbound to Iqaluit. At the end of the downwind leg, a flap failure was simulated and the crew carried out the appropriate checklist. However, the landing checklist was not completed and the aircraft landed with the landing gear in the up position on runway 16. The aircraft skidded on the belly and came to a stop on the runway between taxiway A and G. The crew declared an emergency and evacuated the airplane with no injuries. The aircraft sustained damage to the belly pod and both propellers.

On approach to Santa Rosa de Yacuma Airport, the pilot encountered poor weather conditions and initiated a go-around as the visibility was poor due to rain falls. Few minutes later, during a second attempt to land, the aircraft passed over the runway threshold when the pilot decided to initiate a second go-around procedure. He made a left turn when he lost control of the airplane that crashed 500 metres past the runway threshold, bursting into flames. The aircraft was destroyed and all six occupants were killed.

According to the pilot in command (PIC), he was conducting an instructional flight for his "new SIC (second in command)," who was seated in the left seat. He reported that they had flown two previous legs in the retractable landing gear-equipped airplane. He recalled that, during the approach, they discussed the events of their previous flights and had complied with the airport control tower's request to "keep our speed up." During the approach, he called for full flaps and retarded the throttle to flight idle. The PIC asserted that there was no indication that the landing gear was not extended because he did not hear a landing gear warning horn; however, he was wearing a noise-cancelling headset. He added that the landing gear position lights were not visible because the SIC's knee obstructed his view of the lights. He recalled that, following the flare, he heard the propellers hit the runway and that he made the decision not to go around because of unknown damage sustained to the propellers. The airplane touched down and slid to a stop on the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage bulkheads, longerons, and stringers. The SIC reported that the flight was a training flight in visual flight rules conditions. He noted that the airspace was busy and that, during the approach, he applied full flaps, but they failed to extend the landing gear. He added that he did not hear the landing gear warning horn; however, he was wearing a noise-cancelling headset. The Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Safety Inspector that examined the wreckage reported that, during recovery, the pilot extended the nose landing gear via the normal extension process. However, due to significant damage to the main landing gear (MLG) doors, the MLG was unable to be extended hydraulically or manually. He added that an operational check of the landing gear warning horn was not accomplished because the wreckage was unsafe to enter after it was removed from the runway. The landing gear warning horn was presented by an aural tone in the cockpit and was not configured to be heard through the pilots' noise-cancelling headsets. When asked, the PIC and the SIC both stated that they could not remember who read the airplane flight manual Before Landing checklist.

On June 19, 2016, Mahan Air flight IRM 4525 was a scheduled passenger flight which took off from Ahwaz Airport at 1257 LMT (0827 UTC) to destination and landed at Khark Island Airport at 1335 LMT (0905 UTC). After delivery of the flight from BUZ approach to Khark tower, the flight was cleared to land on RWY 31 via visual approach. At 10 NM on final the pilot has asked weather information of the destination so, the captain requested to perform a visual approach for RWY 13. Finally the pilot in command accomplished an un-stabilized approach and landed on the runway after passing long distance of the Runway. Regarding to the length of the runway (7,657 feet) the aircraft overran the end of runway and made runway excursion on runway 13 and came to rest on the unpaved surface after 54 meters past the runway end. The nose landing gear strut has broken and collapsed. The captain instructed the cabin crew to evacuate the aircraft. No unusual occurrences were noticed during departure, en-route and descent.

The commercial pilot was completing an instrument flight rules air taxi flight on a route that he had flown numerous times for the customer on board. Radar and voice communication data revealed that the airplane was vectored to the final approach course for the precision approach and was given a radio frequency change to the destination airport control tower frequency. The tower controller issued a landing clearance, which the pilot acknowledged; there were no further communications with the pilot. Weather conditions at the airport at the time of the accident included an overcast ceiling at 300 ft with 1 mile visibility in mist. The wreckage was located in densely-wooded terrain. Postaccident examination revealed no evidence of any mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The wreckage path and evidence of engine power displayed by numerous cut tree branches was consistent with a controlled, wings-level descent with power. A radar performance study revealed that, as the airplane crossed the precision final approach fix 6.7 nautical miles (nm) from the runway threshold, the airplane was 800 ft above the glideslope. At the outer marker, 5.5 nm from the runway threshold, the airplane was 500 ft above the glideslope. When radar contact was lost 3.2 nm from the threshold, the airplane was about 250 ft above the glideslope. Although the airplane remained within the lateral limits of the approach localizer, its last two recorded radar returns would have correlated with a full downward deflection of the glideslope indicator in the cockpit, and therefore, an unstabilized approach. Further interpolation of radar data revealed that, during the last 2 minutes of the accident flight, the airplane's rate of descent increased from 400 ft per minute (fpm) to greater than 1,700 fpm, likely as a result of pilot inputs. During the final minute of the flight, the rate decreased briefly to 1,000 fpm before radar contact was lost. The company's standard operating procedures stated that, if a rate of descent greater than 1,000 fpm was encountered during an instrument approach, a missed approach should be performed. The airplane's relative position to the glideslope and its rapid changes in descent rate after crossing the outer marker suggest that the airplane never met the operator's stabilized approach criteria. Rather than executing a missed approach procedure as outlined in the company's operating procedures, the pilot chose to continue the unstabilized approach, which resulted in a descent into trees and terrain. It is unlikely that the pilot's well-controlled diabetes and effectively treated sleep apnea contributed to the circumstances of this accident. However, whether or not the pilot's multiple sclerosis contributed to this accident could not be determined.

The single engine airplane departed Wamena Airport at 0739LT on a cargo flight to Lolat, carrying two passengers, one pilot and a load of building materials for a total weight of 1,190 kilos. On short final to Lolat Airfield, the aircraft impacted the roof of a wooded house and crashed, bursting into flames. All three occupants of the airplane evacuated safely while three people in the house were injured. The aircraft was totally destroyed by a post crash fire.

After touchdown at Bor Airport, the twin engine aircraft was unable to stop within the remaining distance. It overran, lost its undercarriage and came to rest with the left wing broken in two. All three crew members were unhurt while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. The crew was completing a humanitarian flight from Juba to Malakal with an intermediate stop in Bor on behalf of the World Food Program.