Landing (descent or approach)

The aircraft planned to fly from Avignon Airport, France to Blackpool Airport, with two flight crew and two passengers. The co-pilot performed the external checks; this included checking the fluid level in the hydraulic reservoir, as stated in the ‘Pilot Checklist’. The aircraft was refuelled to 3,000 lb and, after the passengers boarded, it departed for Blackpool. The commander was the pilot flying (PF). The takeoff and cruise to Blackpool were uneventful. Prior to the descent the crew noted ATIS Information ‘Lima’, which stated: Runway 10, wind from 150° at 18 kt, visibility 9 km, FEW clouds at 2,000 ft aal, temperature 11°C, dew point 8°C, QNH 1021 hPa, runway damp over its whole length. The commander planned and briefed for the NDB approach to Runway 10, which was to be flown with the autopilot engaged. Whilst descending through FL120, the left, followed by the right, hydraulic low pressure cautions illuminated. Upon checking the hydraulic pressure gauge, situated to the left of the commander’s control column, the pressure was noted to be ‘cycling up and down’, but for the majority of the time it indicated about 2,800 psi (in the green arc). During this time the hydraulic low pressure cautions went on and off irregularly, with the left caution being on more often than the right. The co-pilot then actioned the ‘HYDRAULIC SYSTEM - HYDRAULIC PUMP FAILURE’ checklist. It stated that if the hydraulic pressure was a minimum of 2,800 psi, the flight could be continued. Just before the aircraft reached the Blackpool NDB, the commander commented “it’s dropping”, but he could not recall what he was referring to. This was followed by the roll fail and speed brk [brake] fail caution messages illuminating. The co-pilot then actioned the applicable checklists. These stated that the Landing Distances Required (LDR) would increase by approximately 65% and 21%, respectively. As the roll fail LDR increase was greater than that of the speed brk fail, the crew used an LDR increase of 65% which the co-pilot equated to 5,950 ft. Runway 10 at Blackpool has an LDA of 6,131 ft, therefore they elected to continue to Blackpool. The roll fail checklist stated that a ‘FLAPS UP’ landing was required. The co-pilot then calculated the VREF of 132 kt, including a 20 kt increment, as stipulated by the ‘FLAPS UP, 10, OR 20 APPROACH AND LANDING’ checklist. The commander then continued with the approach. At about 4 nm on final approach the co-pilot lowered the landing gear, in response to the commander’s request. About 8 seconds later the commander said “just lost it all”; referring to the general state of the aircraft. This was followed almost immediately by the landing gear unsafe aural warning, as the main landing gear was not indicating down and locked. Whilst descending through 1,000 ft, at just over 3 nm from the threshold, the commander asked the co-pilot to action the ‘ALTERNATE GEAR EXTENSION’ checklist. The commander then discontinued the approach by selecting ALT HOLD, increased engine thrust and selected a 500 ft/min rate of climb on the autopilot. However, a few seconds later, before the co-pilot could action the checklist, the main gear indicated down and locked. The commander disconnected the autopilot and continued the approach. The crew did not consider reviewing the ‘HYDRAULIC SYSTEM - HYDRAULIC PUMP FAILURE’ checklist as they had not recognised the symptoms of loss of hydraulic pressure. When ATC issued the aircraft its landing clearance the wind was from 140° at 17 kt. This equated to a headwind component of about 10 kt and a crosswind of about 12 kt. As the aircraft descended through 500 ft (the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) for the approach) at 1.5 nm from the threshold, the commander instructed the co-pilot to advise ATC that they had a hydraulic problem and to request the RFFS to be put on standby. There was a slight delay in transmitting this request, due to another aircraft on frequency, but the request was acknowledged by ATC. The aircraft touched down about 1,500 ft from the start of the paved surface at an airspeed of 132 kt and a groundspeed of 124 kt. When the commander applied the toe (power) brakes he felt no significant retardation. During the landing roll no attempt was made to apply the emergency brakes, as required in the event of a power brake failure. The co-pilot asked if he should try to operate the lift dump, but it failed to function, due to the lack of hydraulic pressure. At some point, while the aircraft was on the runway, the co-pilot transmitted a MAYDAY call to ATC. When an overrun appeared likely, the commander shut down the engines. The aircraft subsequently overran the end of the runway at a groundspeed of about 80 kt. The commander later commented that he was in a “state of panic” during the landing roll and was unsure whether or not he had applied the emergency brake. As the aircraft left the paved surface the commander steered the aircraft slightly right to avoid a shallow downslope to the left of runway’s extended centreline. The aircraft continued across the rough, uneven ground, during which the nose gear collapsed and the wing to fuselage attachments were severely damaged (Figure 1). Once it had come to a stop, he shut down the remaining aircraft systems. The passengers and crew, who were uninjured, vacated the aircraft via the entry/exit door and moved upwind to a safe distance. The RRFS arrived shortly thereafter.

On 08.03.2015 M/s Spice Jet Ltd. Bombardier Q-400 aircraft VT-SUA, was operating a scheduled flight from Bangalore to Hubli under the command of ATPL license holder endorsed on type with duly qualified First Officer on type. There were 78 passengers and 4 crew members on board the aircraft. Previous to the accident flight, the aircraft VT-SUA had operated a flight Chennai – Bangalore with the same PIC. The flight was uneventful and there was no snag reported by the PIC on the completion of the flight. Subsequently the aircraft was scheduled for SG-1085, Bangalore - Hubli on 08.03.2015 at around 13:00 UTC. The aircraft took off from Bangalore at around 1300 UTC and the visibility reported for Hubli was 10 km. When the aircraft came in contact with Mangalore ATC, Mangalore ATC cleared aircraft direct to Hubli and informed heavy rains and thunder showers over Hubli with visibility 3000 m. Since the weather at Hubli had deteriorated, the PIC reduced aircraft speed for reassuring the flight parameters. As there is no refueling facility available at Hubli, the sector is a tankering sector hence the aircraft had enough fuel for holding. While approaching into Hubli the pilot requested latest weather from ATC Hubli. At around 60 nm from Hubli, the weather reported by ATC Hubli was heavy rain and visibility 4000 meters. The ATC cleared aircraft for NDB approach runway 26, however the PIC preferred to carry out VOR DME trial procedure for runway 26. The runway condition was neither asked by the cockpit crew nor intimated by the ATC. The descent was commenced and about 25 nm short of Hubli, ATC again advised visibility has reduced to 3000 m due heavy rain and thunderstorm. Thereafter the crew decided to hold over Hubli until the weather improves. 20 minutes into holding, the ATC again informed that visibility has improved to 4000m in moderate rain. Subsequently descent was requested by the pilot for runway 26. The PIC stated that he had established visual reference with runway at about 6 nm on the final approach course. The crew also selected vipers on short finals to have a better visibility. The aircraft landed normally. The PIC had stated that after touch down and reducing power to DISC, as he was concentrating on the far end of the runway as the runway was wet, he did not realize that the aircraft was drifting to the left of the center line. He further mentioned that he selected full reverse on both the engines to maintain the aircraft on the center line however the aircraft veered toward the left side of the runway and in the process overrun the runway edge light followed by LH landing gear collapsed. After the left landing gear collapsed the left propeller blades hit the runway surface and sheared off from the root attachment. The PIC maneuvered the aircraft however the nose wheel tyre failed under over load conditions and the nose landing gear collapsed and the aircraft belly came in contact with the runway surface. Subsequently, the aircraft exited the runway on the left side on Kutcha and came to the final stop at round 52 meters away from the runway center line. The cockpit crew switched off the engines and the electrical power supply and cockpit door and announced evacuation. The cabin crew opened and the cabin doors on the right for evacuation. The ATC had alerted the fire services and the fire vehicles reached the aircraft after it came to final halt position. The fire personnel also assisted in the safe evacuation of all the passengers from the RH side. There was no injury to any of the occupants on board the aircraft. There was no postaccident fire.

The twin engine aircraft departed Sarajevo Airport on a cargo flight to Ancona, carrying three crew members and a load of various goods. On approach to Ancona-Falconara Airport, the crew encountered strong winds. Upon touchdown on runway 04, the nose gear collapsed. The aircraft skidded for few dozen metres before coming to rest, bursting into flames. All three occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair due to severe damages in the cockpit area due to fire.

The aircraft was landing on runway 13 at LaGuardia Airport (LGA), New York, New York, when it departed the left side of the runway, contacted the airport perimeter fence, and came to rest with the airplane’s nose on an embankment next to Flushing Bay. The 2 pilots, 3 flight attendants, and 98 of the 127 passengers were not injured; the other 29 passengers received minor injuries. The airplane was substantially damaged. Flight 1086 was a regularly scheduled passenger flight from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Atlanta, Georgia, operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121. An instrument flight rules flight plan had been filed. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The captain and the first officer were highly experienced MD-88 pilots. The captain had accumulated about 11,000 hours, and the first officer had accumulated about 3,000 hours, on the MD-88/-90. In addition, the captain was previously based at LGA and had made many landings there in winter weather conditions. The flight crew was concerned about the available landing distance on runway 13 and, while en route to LGA, spent considerable time analyzing the airplane’s stopping performance. The flight crew also requested braking action reports about 45 and 35 minutes before landing, but none were available at those times because of runway snow clearing operations. The unavailability of braking actions reports and the uncertainty about the runway’s condition created some situational stress for the captain, who was the pilot flying. After runway 13 became available for arriving airplanes, the flight crews of two preceding airplanes (which landed on the runway about 16 and 8 minutes before the accident landing) reported good braking action on the runway, so the flight crew expected to see at least some of the runway’s surface after the airplane broke out of the clouds. However, the flight crew saw that the runway was covered with snow, which was inconsistent with their expectations based on the braking action reports and the snow clearing operations that had concluded less than 30 minutes before the airplane landed. The snowier-than-expected runway, along with its relatively short length and the presence of Flushing Bay directly off the departure end of the runway, most likely increased the captain’s concerns about his ability to stop the airplane within the available runway distance, which exacerbated his situational stress. The captain made a relatively aggressive reverse thrust input almost immediately after touchdown. Reverse thrust is one of the methods that pilots use to decelerate the airplane during the landing roll. Reverse thrust settings are expressed as engine pressure ratio (EPR) values, which are measurements of engine power (the ratio of the pressure of the gases at the exhaust compared with the pressure of the air entering the inlet). Both pilots were aware that 1.3 EPR was the target setting for contaminated runways.As reverse thrust EPR was rapidly increasing, the captain’s attention was focused on other aspects of the landing, which included steering the airplane to counteract a slide to the left and ensuring that the spoilers had deployed (a necessary action for the autobrakes to engage). The maximum EPR values reached during the landing were 2.07 on the left engine and 1.91 on the right engine, which were much higher than the target setting of 1.3 EPR. These high EPR values likely resulted from a combination of the captain’s stress; his relatively aggressive reverse thrust input; and operational distractions, including the airplane’s continued slide to the left despite the captain’s efforts to steer it away from the snowbanks alongside the runway. All of these factors reduced the captain’s monitoring of EPR indications. The high EPR values caused rudder blanking (which occurs on MD-80 series airplanes when smooth airflow over the rudder is disrupted by high reverse thrust) and a subsequent loss of aerodynamic directional control. Although the captain stowed the thrust reversers and applied substantial right rudder, right nosewheel steering, and right manual braking, the airplane’s departure from the left side of the runway could not be avoided because directional control was regained too late to be effective.

On 4 March 2015 a BAe-ATP registration PK-DGB operated by PT. Deraya Air as scheduled cargo flight from Sentani to Wamena Airport. On board of this flight was two pilots while the Pilot in Command (PIC) acted as pilot flying and First Officer (FO) acted as pilot monitoring. The aircraft departed Sentani at 0524 UTC to Wamena airport. The pilot contacted Wamena Tower controller while position on Jiwika way point at altitude 10,000 feet. Wamena Tower controller instructed to use runway 33 and to proceed to left runway 33. At 0602 UTC the pilot requested to proceed to Pyramid waypoint and to descend to 8,000 feet and made holding due to weather. At 0613, a C-130 pilot that was on approach reported making go around runway 33 and ATC instructed to C-130 pilot to proceed to Pyramid waypoint and hold. At 0619 UTC, Wamena Tower controller informed that the weather reported continuous heavy rain, visibility was reported 2 up to 3 km and wind was from 060° with velocity of 6 knots. The PK-DGB aircraft left Pyramid waypoint for approach runway 33. The aircraft proceed to left downwind and descent to 6,500 feet. During turning base leg, the pilot observed runway insight and continued the approach. At 0620 UTC, the aircraft touched down, thereafter veered off to the right of the runway and skid. The aircraft re-entered the runway at approximately 400 meters from beginning runway 33 and stopped near taxiway Delta at approximately 800 meters from beginning runway 33.

The aircraft departed Istanbul at 1818LT on March 3 on a scheduled flight to Tribhuvan International Airport (TIA), Kathmandu with 11 crew members and 224 passengers .The aircraft started contacting Kathmandu Control from 00:02 hrs to 00:11hrs while the aircraft was under control of Varanasi and descending to FL 250 but there was no response because Kathmandu Control was not yet in operation. The airport opened at its scheduled time of 00:15hrs. The aircraft established its first contact with Kathmandu Approach at 00:17 hrs and reported holding over Parsa at FL 270. Kathmandu Approach reported visibility 100 meters and airport status as closed. At 00:22 hrs the aircraft requested to proceed to Simara due to moderate turbulence. The Kathmandu Approach instructed the aircraft to descend to FL 210 and proceed to Simara and hold. At 01:05 hrs when Kathmandu Approach provided an updated visibility of 1000 meters and asked the flight crew of their intentions, the flight crew reported ready for RNAV (RNP) APCH for runway 02. The aircraft was given clearance to make an RNP AR APCH. At 01:23 hrs when the aircraft reported Dovan, Kathmandu Approach instructed the flight crew to contact Kathmandu Tower. Kathmandu Tower issued a landing clearance at 01:24 hrs and provided wind information of 100° at 03 knots. At 01:27 hrs the aircraft carried out a missed approach due to lack of visual reference. The aircraft was given clearance to proceed to RATAN hold via MANRI climbing to 10500 feet as per the missed approach procedure. During the missed approach the aircraft was instructed to contact Kathmandu Approach. At 01:43 hrs the aircraft requested the latest visibility to which Kathmandu Approach provided visibility 3000 m and Kathmandu Tower observation of 1000 meters towards the south east and few clouds at 1000 ft, SCT 2000 ft and BKN 10,000 feet. When the flight crew reported their intention to continue approach at 01:44 hrs, Kathmandu Approach cleared the aircraft for RNAV RNP APCH runway 02 and instructed to report RATAN. The aircraft reported crossing 6700 ft at 01:55 hrs to Kathmandu Tower. Kathmandu Tower cleared the aircraft to land and provided wind information of 160° at 04 kts. At 01:57 hrs Kathmandu Tower asked the aircraft if the runway was insight. The aircraft responded that they were not able to see the runway but were continuing the approach. The aircraft was at 880 ft AGL at that time. At 783 ft AGL the aircraft asked Kathmandu Tower if the approach lights were on. Kathmandu Tower informed the aircraft that the approach lights were on at full intensity. The auto-pilots remained coupled to the aircraft until 14 ft AGL, when it was disconnected, a flare was attempted. The maximum vertical acceleration recorded on the flight data recorder was approximately 2.7 G. The aircraft pitch at touchdown was 1.8 degree nose up up which is lower than a normal flare attitude for other landings. From physical evidence recorded on the runway and the GPS latitude and longitude coordinate data the aircraft touched down to the left of the runway centerline with the left hand main gear off the paved runway surface. The aircraft crossed taxiways E and D and came to a stop on the grass area between taxiway D and C with the heading of the aircraft on rest position being 345 degrees (North North West) and the position of the aircraft on rest position was at N 27° 41' 46", E 85° 21'29" At 02:00 hrs Kathmandu Tower asked if the aircraft had landed. The aircraft requested medical and fire assistance reporting its position at the end of the runway. At 02:03 hrs the aircraft requested for bridge and stairs to open the door and vacate passengers instead of evacuation. The fire and rescue team opened the left cabin door and requested the cabin attendant as well as to pilot through Kathmandu Tower to deploy the evacuation slides. At 02:10 hrs evacuation signal was given to disembark the passengers. All passengers were evacuated safely and later, the aircraft was declared as damaged beyond repair.

Earlier on the day of the accident, the pilot-in-command (PIC) and second-in-command (SIC) had landed the airplane on a 5,008-ft-long, asphalt-grooved runway. After touchdown with the flaps fully extended, the ground spoilers and thrust reversers were deployed, and normal braking occurred. The PIC, who was the flying pilot, and the SIC subsequently departed on an executive/corporate flight with a flight attendant, the airplane owner, and five passengers onboard. The PIC reported that he flew a visual approach to the dry, 5,000-ft-long runway while maintaining a normal glidepath at Vref plus 4 or 5 knots at the runway threshold with the flaps fully extended. He added that the touchdown was "firm" and between about 300 to 500 ft beyond the aiming point marking. After touchdown, the PIC tried unsuccessfully to deploy the ground spoilers. He applied "moderate" brake pressure when the nose landing gear (NLG) contacted the runway, but felt no deceleration. He also attempted to deploy the thrust reversers without success. The PIC then informed the SIC that there was no braking energy, released the brakes, and turned off the antiskid system. He then reapplied heavy braking but did not feel any deceleration, and he again tried to deploy the thrust reversers without success. He maintained directional control using the nosewheel steering and manually modulated the brakes. However, the airplane did not slow as expected. While approaching the runway end and realizing that he was not going to be able to stop the airplane on the runway, the PIC intentionally veered the airplane right to avoid water ahead. However, the airplane exited the runway end into sand, and the NLG collapsed. The airplane then came to rest about 250 ft past the departure end of the runway. The passengers exited the airplane, and shortly after, airport personnel arrived and rendered assistance. The airplane owner, who was a passenger in the cabin, stated that he left his seat and moved toward the cabin door when he realized that the airplane would not stop on the runway, and he sustained serious injuries. Examination of the airplane revealed that there was minimal pressure at the No. 2 (left inboard) brake due to failure of a spring in the upper brake control valve (BCV), and the coupling subassembly of the No. 1 wheel speed sensor (WSS) was fractured. A representative from the airplane manufacturer reported that, during certification of the brake system, the failure of the BCV spring was considered acceptably low and would be evident to flight crewmembers within five landings of the failure. Because the airplane did not pull while braking during the previous landing earlier that day to a similar length runway, the spring likely failed during the accident landing. Although the PIC was unable to manually deploy the ground spoilers and thrust reversers during the landing roll, they functioned normally during the landing earlier that day and during postaccident operational testing and examination, with no systems failures or malfunctions noted. Additionally, there were no malfunctions or failures with the weight-onwheels system found during postaccident examinations that would have precluded normal operation. Therefore, the PIC's unsuccessful attempts to deploy the ground spoilers and thrust reversers were likely due to errors made while multitasking when presented with an unexpected situation (inadequate deceleration) with little runway remaining. Airplane stopping distance calculations based on the airplane's reported weight, weather conditions, calculated and PIC-reported Vref speed, flap extension, and estimated touchdown point (300 to 500 ft beyond the aiming point marking as reported by the PIC and SIC and corroborated by security camera footage) and assuming the nonuse of the ground spoilers and thrust reversers, operational antiskid and steering systems, and the loss of one brake per side (symmetric half braking) showed that the airplane would have required 690 ft of additional runway; under the same conditions but with thrust reversers used, the airplane still would have required 27 ft of additional runway. Even though there were no antiskid failure annunciations, the PIC switched off the antiskid system, which led to the rupture of the Nos. 1, 3, and 4 tires and likely fractured the No. 1 WSS's coupling subassembly, both of which would have further contributed to the loss of braking action. Therefore, the combination of the failure of a spring in the No. 2 brake's upper BCV and the fracture of the coupling subassembly of the No. 1 WSS, the pilot's failure to attain the proper touchdown point, the slightly excess speed, and the subsequent failure of three of the tires resulted in there being insufficient runway remaining to avoid a runway overrun. Although the BCV manufacturer reported that there was 1 previous case involving a failed BCV spring and 43 instances of units with relaxed springs within the BCVs, none of these failed or relaxed springs would have been detected by maintenance personnel because a focused inspection of the BCV was not required.

En route from Saurimo to Luanda, the crew encountered technical problems and was cleared to divert to Malanje Airport for an emergency landing. Upon landing on an unlit runway, the aircraft veered off runway and came to rest, bursting into flames. All 50 occupants escaped uninjured and the aircraft was totally destroyed by a post crash fire. The exact cause of the technical failure remains unknown.

After landing at Roseau-Canefield, the pilot encountered difficulties to stop the aircraft that overran. It collided with a fence and came to rest against various obstacles. All seven occupants evacuated safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The instrument-rated commercial pilot was approaching the destination airport after a cross country flight in night instrument meteorological conditions. According to radar track data and air traffic control communications, while receiving radar vectors to the final approach course, the pilot did not always immediately comply with assigned headings and, on several occasions, allowed the airplane to descend below assigned altitudes. According to airplane performance calculations based on radar track and GPS data, the pilot made an engine power reduction about 2.5 minutes before the accident as he maneuvered toward the final approach fix. Following the engine power reduction, the airplane's airspeed decreased from 162 to 75 knots calibrated airspeed, and the angle of attack increased from 2.7° to 14°. About 4 miles from the final approach fix, the airplane descended below the specified minimum altitude for that segment of the instrument approach. The tower controller subsequently alerted the pilot of the airplane's low altitude, and the pilot replied that he would climb. At the time of the altitude alert, the airplane was 500 ft below the specified minimum altitude of 2,000 ft mean sea level. According to airplane performance calculations, 5 seconds after the tower controller told the pilot to check his altitude, the pilot made an abrupt elevator-up input that further decreased airspeed, and the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall. A witness saw the airplane abruptly transition from a straight-and-level flight attitude to a nose-down, steep left bank, vertical descent toward the ground, consistent with the stall. Additionally, a review of security camera footage established that the airplane had transitioned from a wings-level descent to a near vertical spiraling descent. A post accident examination of the airplane did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation during the accident flight. Although the pilot had monocular vision following a childhood injury that resulted in very limited vision in his left eye, he had passed a medical flight test and received a Statement of Demonstrated Ability. The pilot had flown for several decades with monocular vision and, as such, his lack of binocular depth perception likely did not impede his ability to monitor the cockpit instrumentation during the accident flight. The pilot had recently purchased the airplane, and records indicated that he had obtained make and model specific training about 1 month before the accident and had flown the airplane about 10 hours before the accident flight. The pilot's instrument proficiency and night currency could not be determined from the available records; therefore, it could not be determined whether a lack of recent instrument or night experience contributed to the pilot's difficulty in maintaining control of the airplane.