Crash of a Cessna 425 Conquest in Windhoek: 3 killed

Date & Time: Jan 29, 2016 at 1010 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
V5-MJW
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Windhoek - Windhoek
MSN:
425-0077
YOM:
1981
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
3
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
3
Captain / Total flying hours:
11686
Copilot / Total flying hours:
3765
Copilot / Total hours on type:
256
Aircraft flight hours:
10108
Circumstances:
On 29 January 2016, at 08:10 a Cessna 425 Conquest, which was privately operated, crashed approx. 300 meters NNE of threshold Runway 26. 1.1.2 According to the flight plan filled on the 28th January 2016, the flight was scheduled for a renewal of CPL and IR ratings for the two pilots by a Designated Examiner (DE). Departure time was scheduled at 07:45 at a cruising altitude of FL100 for Hosea Kutako Airport. The pilots requested a procedure for an Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach. The Air Traffic Controller (ATC) cleared them for the procedure for runway 26 ILS approach with QNH 1024. They were also asked to report when at nine miles-inbound. At around nine miles they reported their location and were instructed to continue the approach along the glide slope. The DE requested a VOR approach for their next approach and an early right hand turnout that was approved by ATC who also required them to report when going around. The ATC stated that he saw them at around 4nm on final approach. He then stated that he looked away for a moment after which he heard a slight bang, then saw a ball of flames at about 300 meters north of threshold runway 26. He called out to the aircraft three times whilst looking out for it when he finally concluded that it could have been V5-MJW that had crashed. The ATC pressed a crash alarm after a moment when it did not go off, the controller then called the fire station and alerted them of the occurrence. The Airport’s Fire and Rescue team after receiving the initial notification from the ATC took around 10 minutes to reach the site, by that time fire had engulfed the plane and its occupants. The team took 3-4 minutes to extinguish the fire. The weather was reported as fine with winds about 140° at 08 kts with scattered clouds at 4000ft and unrestricted visibility.
Probable cause:
The aircraft stalled at low altitude and consequently impacted the ground.
Contributory Factors:
- Loss of control of the aircraft,
- Non-adherence of go-around procedures as set on the AIP,
- Normalization of deviation -where non-standard go-around procedures are executed.
Final Report:

Crash of a McDonnell Douglas MD-83 in Mashhad

Date & Time: Jan 28, 2016 at 1937 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
EP-ZAB
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Isfahan – Mashhad
MSN:
49930/1720
YOM:
1990
Flight number:
ZV4010
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
8
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
154
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
9224
Captain / Total hours on type:
4341.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
633
Copilot / Total hours on type:
471
Aircraft flight hours:
51446
Aircraft flight cycles:
30255
Circumstances:
Following an uneventful flight from Isfahan, the crew initiated the approach to Mashhad Airport by night and poor weather conditions with low visibility due to snow falls. After touchdown on runway 31R, the crew started the braking procedure and activated the reverse thrust systems. The aircraft skidded then veered off runway to th left, lost its both main undercarriage and came to rest 55 metres to the left of the runway, some 1,311 metres from the runway threshold. All 162 occupants evacuated safely while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.
Probable cause:
The following findings were identified:
- Loss of control after touchdown due to an abnormal use by the captain of the reverse thrust systems, which caused the aircraft to slid and to become out of control,
- Weather conditions deteriorated with a sudden drop in temperature and a reduced visibility,
- Limited RVR to 811 metres,
- The crew failed to initiate a go-around procedure,
- Overconfidence on part of the captain due to his high experience,
- Poor crew resource management,
- The braking coefficient was low due to an excessive deposit of rubber on the runway surface, combined with a layer of snow that the airport authorities did not consider necessary to clear in due time.
Final Report:

Crash of a Cessna 208 Caravan I in Whitsunday Island

Date & Time: Jan 28, 2016 at 1518 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
VH-WTY
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Hamilton Island - Whitsunday Island
MSN:
208-0522
YOM:
2010
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
1
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
10
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
1350
Captain / Total hours on type:
230.00
Aircraft flight hours:
1510
Circumstances:
On 28 January 2016 the pilot of a Cessna Aircraft Company Caravan 208 amphibian aircraft, registered VH-WTY (WTY) was conducting a series of charter flights in the Whitsunday region of Queensland. The pilot was conducting his third flight of the day when the aircraft departed Hamilton Island Airport at about 1415 Eastern Standard Time with 10 passengers on board. The tour included a scenic flight over the Great Barrier Reef for about 50 minutes before heading to Chance Bay, on the south-east tip of Whitsunday Island, about 11 km north east of Hamilton Island Airport. Following a water landing at Chance Bay, the group was to spend 90 minutes at the beach before a short flight back to Hamilton Island. The tour was originally planned to include a landing at Whitehaven Beach, however wind conditions at the time required the water landing be altered to Chance Bay. Radar surveillance data showed WTY approach Whitsunday Island from the north and conduct an orbit about 2 km north of Whitehaven Beach at about 1510, before heading toward Whitehaven Beach. WTY flew over the southern end of Whitehaven Beach and the strip of land that separates it from Chance Bay. At about 1515, after crossing Chance Bay beach in a southerly direction, WTY descended below radar surveillance for the remainder of the flight. The pilot advised that he flew WTY over the western end of Chance Bay’s main beach in order to conduct a visual pre-landing check of the bay. The pilot noted the positions of various vessels moored in the bay to determine the best taxi path to the beach. During this fly-over, the pilot also noted the sea state and observed evidence of wind gusts on the water surface. The pilot then initiated a right downwind turn toward the landing area. The approach was from the south with the intent to land in the most suitable location within the designated landing area and then taxi to the beach. The pilot reported setting up for landing at about 50 ft above the water and then delayed the landing in order to fly through an observed wind gust. Passenger video footage indicated that, during the subsequent landing, WTY bounced three times on the surface of the water. After the second bounce, with WTY getting closer to the beach and terrain, the pilot increased engine power and initiated a go-around. The third bounce, which occurred almost immediately after the second, was the most pronounced and resulted in the aircraft rebounding about 30 to 50 ft above the water. While increasing power, the pilot perceived that the torque was indicating red, suggesting an over-torque for the selected propeller configuration. Noticing that the climb performance was less than expected with the flaps at 30˚, the pilot stopped increasing power and reduced the flap to 20˚. As the aircraft climbed straight ahead towards a saddle, climb performance was still below the pilot’s expectations and he assessed that WTY would not clear the terrain. In response, the pilot turned right to avoid the surrounding rising terrain. WTY clipped trees during this turn, before colliding with terrain and coming to rest in dense scrub about 150 m from the eastern end of the main beach, near the top of the ridge. The pilot promptly advised the passengers to exit and move away from the aircraft. Some of the 11 people on board suffered minor injuries but all were able to quickly leave the aircraft. There was no post-impact fire. The aircraft’s fixed emergency beacon self-activated during the collision with terrain and was detected by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), resulting in a search and rescue response being initiated by the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre (JRCC) Australia. The pilot reported also activating his personal locator beacon, however this was not detected by AMSA. In addition, the pilot used the company satellite phone to advise the operator of the occurrence and current status of all on board. At about the same time, several witnesses who were located in Chance Bay made their way to the aircraft before assisting everyone down to the beach. A tourist boat was utilized to transfer the pilot and passengers to Hamilton Island, arriving at about 1600. From there, one passenger was transferred by helicopter to Mackay for further treatment.
Probable cause:
From the evidence available, the following findings are made with respect to the collision with terrain involving amphibian Cessna Aircraft Company C208 Caravan aircraft, registered VH-WTY that occurred at Chance Bay, 11 km north-east of Hamilton Island airport, Queensland, on 28 January 2016. These findings should not be read as apportioning blame or liability to any particular organisation or individual.
Contributing factors:
- The aircraft's initial touches with water were past the nominated decision point and beyond the northern boundary of the ALA, which reduced the safety margins available for a successful water landing or go-around.
- The pilot initiated a go-around without using all available power and the optimal speed, turned towards higher terrain and placed the aircraft in a down-wind situation, which ultimately resulted in the collision with terrain.
Other findings:
- The aircraft was equipped with lap-sash seatbelts, which have been demonstrated to reduce injury, and the use of emergency beacons and satellite phone facilitated a timely response to the accident.
Final Report:

Crash of a Beechcraft C90GTi King Air in Paraty: 2 killed

Date & Time: Jan 3, 2016 at 1430 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
PP-LMM
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Site:
Schedule:
Campo de Marte - Paraty
MSN:
LJ-1866
YOM:
2008
Country:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
2
Captain / Total flying hours:
801
Captain / Total hours on type:
319.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
159
Circumstances:
The twin engine aircraft departed Campo de Marte Airport at 1334LT on a positioning flight to Paraty, with an ETA at 1415LT. While descending to Paraty Airport, the crew encountered instrument meteorological conditions. On final, while approaching under VFR mode, the aircraft impacted trees and crashed in a dense wooded area located in hilly terrain few km short of runway. The aircraft was destroyed and both pilots were killed.
Probable cause:
Contributing factors:
- Attention - undetermined
Moments before the accident, another aircraft successfully completed the landing at the Paraty aerodrome. It is possible that the pilot's attention was focused on this information, which indicated the possibility of landing, despite the critical conditions faced, leading him to take high risks to make the landing in critical conditions.
Also, the presence of a copilot not qualified to operate the aircraft may have influenced the pilot's cognitive processes, causing deconcentration or deviation of attention from the pilot.
- Attitude - contributed
Recurring attempts to make the landing indicated an excess of self-confidence on the part of the pilot, leading him to continue the flight to the Paraty aerodrome, even in adverse weather conditions.
The bold operational profile of the pilot, his past experience and the rules and values ​​adopted informally in the group of pilots are possible factors that influenced the development of this attitude of excessive self-confidence.
- Adverse weather conditions - contributed
On the day of the accident, the weather conditions were not favorable for visual flight at the Paraty aerodrome.
- Culture of the working group - contributed
Among the pilots who operated in the Paraty region, competitive behavior had been installed, valued by the social recognition attributed to those who managed to operate in critical conditions. Above all, landing under conditions adverse weather conditions in the region was considered a manifestation of proficiency and professional competence. The values ​​shared by that group of pilots favored the weakening of the collective perception about the present operational risks. The presence of other pilots who were also trying to land in the region on the day of the occurrence, as well as the landing made by one of these aircraft, moments before the accident, and also the accomplishment of two failed attempts of the PP-LMM aircraft, translates clear evidence of that behavior.
- Pilot forgetfulness - undetermined
The fact that the landing gear was not retracted during the second launch in the air indicated a failure, fueled by the possible forgetfulness of the crew, to perform the planned procedure. Maintaining the landing gear in the lowered position affected the aircraft's performance during the ascent, which may have contributed to the aircraft not reaching the height required to clear obstacles.
- Pilotage Judgment - undetermined
The possible decision not to retract the landing gear during the launch affected the aircraft's performance during the climb, which may have contributed to the aircraft not reaching the height necessary to clear the obstacles.
- Motivation - undetermined
The successful landing by the pilot of another aircraft, even under unfavorable conditions, may have increased the motivation of the pilot of the PP-LMM aircraft to complete the landing, in order to demonstrate his proficiency and professional competence.
- Perception - contributed
The occurrence of a collision with the ground, in controlled flight, indicated that the crew had a low level of situational awareness at the time of the occurrence. This inaccurate perception of the circumstances of the flight made it impossible to adopt the possible measures that could prevent the collision.
- Decision making process - contributed
The pilot chose to make two landing attempts at the Paraty aerodrome, despite adverse weather conditions, indicating an inaccurate assessment of the risks involved in the operation. This evaluation process may have been adversely affected by the competition behavior installed among the pilots. In this context, it is possible that the pilot based his decision only on the successful landing of another aircraft, a fact that limited his scope of evaluation.
- Organizational processes - undetermined
The PP-LMM aircraft was operated by a group of pilots, mostly composed of freelance professionals, who were informally managed by a hired pilot. Therefore, there was no formal system used by the operator to recruit, select, monitor and evaluate the performance of professionals. The failures related to the management of this process, possibly, caused inadequacies in the selection of pilots, in the crew scale, in untimely activations and, as in the case in question, in the choice of crew member not qualified to exercise function on board.
Final Report:

Crash of an Airbus A310-304F in Mbuji-Mayi: 8 killed

Date & Time: Dec 24, 2015 at 1630 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
9Q-CVH
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Lubumbashi – Mbuji-Mayi
MSN:
413
YOM:
1986
Region:
Crew on board:
5
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
8
Circumstances:
The crew completed the approach and landing on runway 17 in poor weather conditions with heavy rain falls. After touchdown on a wet runway surface, the aircraft was unable to stop within the remaining distance (runway 17 is 2,000 metres long). It overran and collided with several houses before coming to rest 300 metres further. All five crew members evacuated safely while eight people on the ground were killed.

Crash of a Beechcraft BeechJet 400A in Telluride

Date & Time: Dec 23, 2015 at 1415 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
XA-MEX
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Monterrey – El Paso – Telluride
MSN:
RK-396
YOM:
2004
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
5
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
7113
Captain / Total hours on type:
1919.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
8238
Copilot / Total hours on type:
1412
Aircraft flight hours:
5744
Circumstances:
The pilots were conducting an international chartered flight in the small, twin-engine jet with five passengers onboard. Since the weather at the destination was marginal, the flight crew had discussed an alternate airport in case weather conditions required a missed approach at their destination. As the airplane neared the non-towered destination airport, the flight crew received updated weather information, which indicated that conditions had improved. Upon contacting the center controller, the crew was asked if they had the weather and NOTAMS for the destination airport. The crew reported that they received the current weather information, but did not state if they had NOTAM information. The controller responded by giving the flight a heading for the descent and sequence into the airport. The controller did not provide NOTAM information to the pilots. About 2 minutes later, airport personnel entered a NOTAM via computer closing the runway, effective immediately, for snow removal. Although the NOTAM was electronically routed to the controller, the controller's system was not designed to automatically alert the controller of a new NOTAM; the controller needed to select a display screen on the equipment that contained the information. At the time of the accident, the controller's workload was considered heavy. About 8 minutes after the runway closure NOTAM was issued, the controller cleared the airplane for the approach. The flight crew then canceled their instrument flight plan with the airport in sight, but did not subsequently transmit on or monitor the airport's common traffic advisory frequency, which was reportedly being monitored by airport personnel and the snow removal equipment operator. The airplane landed on the runway and collided with a snow removal vehicle about halfway down the runway. The flight crew reported they did not see the snow removal equipment. The accident scenario is consistent with the controllers not recognizing new NOTAM information in a timely manner due to equipment limitations, and the pilots not transmitting or monitoring the common traffic advisory frequency. Additionally, the accident identifies a potential problem for flight crews when information critical to inflight decision-making changes while en route, and problems when controller workload interferes with information monitoring and dissemination.
Probable cause:
The limitations of the air traffic control equipment that prevented the controller's timely recognition of NOTAM information that was effective immediately and resulted in the issuance of an approach clearance to a closed runway. Also causal was the pilots' omission to monitor and transmit their intentions on the airport common frequency. Contributing to the accident was the controller's heavy workload and the limitations of the NOTAM system to distribute information in a timely manner.
Final Report:

Crash of a Embraer ERJ-190-200LR in Kupang

Date & Time: Dec 21, 2015 at 1746 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
PK-KDC
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Ende - Kupang
MSN:
190-00057
YOM:
2006
Flight number:
KD676
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
5
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
120
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
9800
Captain / Total hours on type:
598.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
2997
Copilot / Total hours on type:
557
Aircraft flight hours:
16862
Aircraft flight cycles:
14765
Circumstances:
On 21 December 2015, an ERJ 190-200 (Embraer 195) aircraft, registered PK-KDC, was being operated by Kalstar Aviation on a scheduled passenger flight. The crew was scheduled to fly three sectors from I Gusti Ngurah Rai International Airport (WADD) Bali – H. Hasan Aroeboesman Airport (WATE) Ende – El Tari International Airport (WATT) Kupang – Sultan Hasanuddin International Airport (WAAA), Makassar. The aircraft departed Bali at 0734 UTC which was delayed for 74 minutes from the normal schedule, due to late arrival of the aircraft from the previous flight. On the flight from Bali to Ende, the Pilot in Command (PIC) acted as pilot monitoring (PM) and the Second in command (SIC) acted as pilot flying (PF). The aircraft landed in Ende at 0839 UTC. During transit, the PIC received a short message from a flight operations officer of Kalstar Aviation in Kupang which informed him that the visibility at Kupang was 1 km. Considering the weather forecast in the Terminal Aerodrome Forecast (TAFOR) showed that the visibility at Kupang would improve at the time of arrival, the PIC decided to depart to Kupang. Another consideration was the operating hours of Ende which would be closed at 0900 UTC. The operating hours of Ende was extended and the aircraft departed Ende at 0916 UTC, with flight number KD676. On board this flight were two pilots, three flight attendants, and 125 passengers. The PIC acted as PM and the SIC acted as PF. There was no departure briefing performed by the PF. After takeoff, the pilot set the Flight Management System (FMS) to fly direct to KPG VOR and climbed to a cruising altitude of Flight Level (FL) 175 (17,500 feet). During climbing, the PIC instructed the SIC to reduce the aircraft speed by 20 knots with the intention to wait for the weather improvement at Kupang. During cruising, the pilots monitored communication between El Tari Tower controller with another pilot. El Tari Tower controller advised that the visibility at Kupang was 1 km while the minima for approach was 3.9 km. At 0927 UTC, the pilot established communication with El Tari Tower controller and requested for direct to initial approach point SEMAU. At 0932 UTC, the aircraft was at 62 Nm, the aircraft started to descend which was approved to 10,000 feet. When the aircraft passed FL 150, the pilot requested to turn left to fly direct to the inbound track of the VOR/DME approach for runway 07 in order to avoid cloud formation which was indicated by magenta color on the aircraft weather radar. At 0941 UTC, the El Tari Tower controller informed that the visibility on runway 07 was 4 km and issued clearance for RNAV approach to runway 07 and requested that the pilot report when the runway was in sight. Both pilots discussed the plan to make an RNAV approach to runway 07, with landing configuration with flap 5 and auto-brake set to position low. At 0943 UTC, the pilot reported that the runway was in sight when passing 2,500 feet and the El Tari Tower controller informed that the wind was calm and issued a landing clearance. During the approach, the PF noticed that all Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) lights indicated a white color, which indicated that the aircraft was too high for the approach. Recognizing that the aircraft was too high, the crew performed a non-standard configuration setting by extending the landing gear down first with the intention to increase drag. The landing gear was extended at approximately 7 Nm from the runway 07 threshold and afterwards selected the flaps to 1 and 2. The published approach procedure stated that the sequence for establishing landing configuration is by selecting flap 1, flap 2, landing gear down, flap 3 and flap 5. On final approach, the crew noticed the aural warning “HIGH SPEED HIGH SPEED”. The SIC also noticed that the aircraft speed was about 200 knots. The pilots decided to continue the approach considering the runway was 2,500 meters long and would be sufficient for the aircraft to stop with the existing conditions. The pilots compared the runway condition at Kupang with the condition at Ende which had 1,650 meter length runway. On short final approach, the aircraft was on the correct glide path and the speed was approximately 205 knots. The PF noticed the Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) warning of “TOO LOW TERRAIN” activated. The aircraft then touched down at approximately the middle of the runway. After touchdown, the PF immediately applied thrust reverser. Realizing that the aircraft was about to overrun the end of the runway, and with the intention to avoid the approach lights on the end of the runway, the PIC turned the aircraft to the right. The aircraft stopped approximately 200 meters from the end of runway 07. At 0946 UTC, the El Tari Tower controller saw the aircraft overrun, then pushed the crash bell and informed the Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF).
Probable cause:
Contributing Factors:
- The steep authority gradient resulted in lack of synergy that contributed to least of alternation to correct the improper condition.
- Improper flight management on approach resulted to the aircraft not fully configured for landing, prolong and high speed on touchdown combined with low brake pressure application resulted in insufficient runway for deceleration.
- The deviation of pilot performance was undetected by the management oversight system.
Final Report:

Crash of a Cessna 340A in Augsburg

Date & Time: Dec 8, 2015 at 0942 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
D-IBEL
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Mönchengladbach – Augsburg
MSN:
340A-1814
YOM:
1984
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
1
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
4
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
5188
Captain / Total hours on type:
75.00
Aircraft flight hours:
3747
Circumstances:
The twin engine aircraft departed Mönchengladbach on a flight to Augsbourg, carrying four passengers and one pilot. On descent to Augsburg Airport, the pilot was informed by ATC that weather conditions at destination were worse than predicted, that the visibility was estimated between 225 and 250 metres, thus below minimums. The pilot acknowledged and informed ATC about his intention to attempt an approach and that he would divert to Oberpfaffenhofen if necessary. On short final, at a height of 200 feet, the pilot established a visual contact with the runway lights and decided to continue. After passing over the threshold, he reduced the engine power when the aircraft entered a stall and impacted the runway surface. On impact, the undercarriage were torn off and the aircraft slid for 104 metres before coming to rest, bursting into flames. Four occupants were seriously injured and the fifth was slightly injured. The aircraft was partially destroyed by a post crash fire.
Probable cause:
The accident is the consequence of the pilot's decision to continue the approach and not to initiate a go-around procedure, which resulted in the aircraft entering an attitude he was unable to control. Poor approach planning on part of the pilot and poor decision making during the approach contributed to the accident, as well as the fact that the runway visual range (RVR) was 250 metres, which was below minimums.
Final Report:

Crash of a De Havilland DHC-8-402Q in Jabalpur

Date & Time: Dec 4, 2015 at 1922 LT
Operator:
Registration:
VT-SUC
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Mumbai – Jabalpur
MSN:
4377
YOM:
2011
Flight number:
SG2458
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
4
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
49
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
7748
Captain / Total hours on type:
2148.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
7804
Copilot / Total hours on type:
137
Aircraft flight hours:
11928
Aircraft flight cycles:
11214
Circumstances:
Bombardier Q-400 aircraft VT-SUC belonging to M/s Spice jet Ltd. was involved in wild life strike accident during landing roll at Jabalpur while operating scheduled flight SG2458 from Mumbai to Jabalpur on 04.12.2015. The aircraft was under the command of pilot holding ATPL & duly qualified on type with First Officer also an ATPL holder and qualified on type. There were 49 passengers and 02 cabin crew on board the aircraft. The aircraft VT-SUC took-off from Mumbai for Jabalpur at around 1200 UTC. The enroute flight was uneventful. The aircraft came in contact with ATC Jabalpur at around 1323 UTC. The ATC reported prevailing weather at Jabalpur as surface winds calm, visibility 5000 meters, weather Haze, nonsignificant clouds, and temp 24° C. At 1342 UTC the pilot requested ATC for visual approach runway 06. The ATC cleared VT-SUC for visual approach runway 06 and asked to confirm when runway in sight. At 1347 UTC the pilot confirmed the runway in sight and requested for landing clearance and the same was acknowledged by ATC. The aircraft landed on runway 06 and about 05 to 06 seconds after touch down at around 1350 UTC the aircraft hit wild boars on the runway. The pilot stated that as it was dawn they did not see the wild boars on runway during approach, and saw the wild boars only after touch down and when they were very close to them, also they did not had adequate time to react so as to take any evasive action. Hence, one of the wild boars on runway impacted with LH main landing gear due which the LH Main landing gear got collapsed and the aircraft started drifting towards left. Thereafter LH engine propeller blades came in contact with ground and got sheared off. The aircraft dragged on its belly for around 182 feet and in the process the nose landing gear also collapsed. The aircraft then veered to the left of the center line and subsequently exited the runway onto the left side and came to final halt position in Soft Ground. The pilot then confirmed with first officer about fire and once getting assured that there was no fire gave evacuation call outs. The pilot then contacted ATC for assistance and informed that there were 10 to 11 pigs on the runway and the aircraft had hit the pig and gone off the runway. The Crash Fire Tender (CFT) team along with operational jeep reached the accident site. The pilot shut down the engines. All the passengers were then evacuated safely from the RH side. There was no injury to any of the occupants on board the aircraft and there was no fire.
Probable cause:
The aircraft during its landing roll had a wild life (Wild Boars) strike on the runway, resulting in collapse of left main landing gear and subsequently the aircraft veered to the left of the runway.
Contributory factor:
The presence of wild life in the operational area and the runway was due to several breaches in the boundary wall.
Final Report:

Crash of a BAe 125-800SP in Palm Springs

Date & Time: Dec 4, 2015 at 1420 LT
Type of aircraft:
Registration:
N164WC
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Palm Springs – Boise
MSN:
258072
YOM:
1986
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Aircraft flight hours:
2500
Circumstances:
After takeoff from Palm Springs Airport, while on a positioning flight to Boise, the crew encountered technical problems with the undercarriage. Following a holding circuit, the crew decided to return to Palm Springs and to complete a gear up landing. Upon touchdown, the aircraft slid on its belly for few dozen metres before coming to rest. Both pilots evacuated safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.
Probable cause:
No investigations completed by the NTSB.