Landing (descent or approach)

Prior to the flight, the pilot preflighted the airplane and recalled observing the fuel gauge indicating full; however, he did not visually check the fuel tanks. The airplane departed and the en route portion of the flight was uneventful. During the downwind leg of the circling approach, the engines began to surge and the pilot added full power and turned on the fuel boost pumps. While abeam the approach end of the runway on the downwind leg, the engines again started to surge and subsequently lost power. He executed a forced landing and the airplane impacted terrain short of the runway. A postaccident examination by Federal Aviation Administration inspectors revealed the fuselage was buckled in several areas, and the left wing was crushed and bent upward. The fuel tanks were intact and approximately one cup of fuel was drained from the single fuel sump. Fueling records indicated the airplane was fueled 3 days prior to the accident with 135 gallons of fuel or approximately 4 hours of operational time. Flight records indicated the airplane had flown approximately 4 hours since refueling when the engines lost power.

On 20 December 2010, the owner/pilot of a Pacific Aerospace Corporation FU-24-954 Fletcher aircraft, registered VH-FNM, was conducting aerial spreading of urea fertilizer at Wynella Station; a property 40 km south-south-west of Dirranbandi, Queensland. At about 1650 Eastern Standard Time, the pilot was returning to the landing strip after the completion of an application run. The aircraft impacted the terrain, and the pilot was fatally injured.

After an uneventful flight, the IFR flight plan was cancelled at 13:53:09 UTC and the flight continued under visual flight rules. When the crew were requested at 13:54:01 UTC by the Zurich sector south air traffic controller (ATCO) to switch to the Samedan Information frequency, they wanted to remain on the frequency for a further two minutes. The aircraft was on a south-westerly heading, approx. 5 km south of Zernez, when the crew informed the ATCO at 13:57:12 UTC that they would now change frequency. After first contact with Samedan Information, when the crew reported that they were ten miles before the threshold of runway 21, the aircraft was in fact approximately eight miles north-east of the threshold of runway 21. When at 13:58:40 UTC the crew of a Piaggio 180 asked the flight information service officer (FISO) of Samedan Information about the weather as follows: "(…) and the condition for inbound still ok?", the crew of D-IAYL responded at 13:58:46 UTC, before the FISO was able to answer: "Yes, for the moment good condition (…)". D-IAYL was slightly north-east of Zuoz when the crew asked the FISO about the weather over the aerodrome. D-IAYL was over Madulein when at 13:59:46 UTC the FISO informed the crew that they could land at their own discretion. Immediately afterwards, the crew increased their rate of descent to over 2200 ft/min and maintained this until a final recorded radio altitude (RA) of just under 250 ft, which they reached over the threshold of runway 21. The crew then initiated a climb to an RA of approximately 600 ft, turned a little to the left and then flew parallel to the runway centre line. The landing gear was extended and the flaps were set to 20 degrees with a high probability. At the end of runway 21 the crew initiated a right turn onto the downwind leg, during which they reached a bank angle of 55 degrees; in the process their speed increased from 110 to 130 knots. Abeam the threshold of runway 21, the crew turned onto the final approach on runway 21. The bank angle in this turn reached up to 62 degrees, without the speed being noticeably increased. The aircraft then turned upside down and crashed almost vertically. Both pilots suffered fatal injuries on impact. A power line was severed, causing a power failure in the Upper Engadine valley. An explosion-type fire broke out. The aircraft was destroyed.

The air traffic controller had cleared the flight for the instrument approach and the pilot acknowledged the clearance. Radar data depicted the airplane turning toward the final approach course and then continuing the turn 180 degrees before disappearing from radar at 11,200 feet. The wreckage was located at an elevation of 10,725 feet. Examination of the terrain and ground scars indicated the airplane impacted terrain in a nose down, right turn. Impact forces and a postimpact fire resulted in substantial damage to the airplane. Examination of the airplane, engines, and de-icing systems revealed no mechanical anomalies. Weather at the time of the accident was depicted as overcast skies, reduced visibility, with snow showers in the area. An icing probability chart depicted a probability of moderate rime and mixed icing. Both AIRMETs and SIGMENTs advised of moderate icing between the freezing level and flight level 220 and occasional severe rime and mixed icing below 16,000 feet. During his weather briefing, the pilot stated that he was aware of the adverse weather conditions.

While approaching Nassau-Lynden Pindling Airport runway 27 in poor weather conditions (cold front), the twin engine aircraft crashed into the sea few km offshore. Some debris were found floating on water north of Nassau. Both pilots were killed.

After landing on runway 16 at Rogachevo AFB (Anderma-2), the aircraft encountered difficulties to stop within the remaining distance. It overran, lost its left main gear and came to rest 8 metres further. All 39 occupants escaped uninjured and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

On final approach to Londrina-Governador José Richa airport in poor weather conditions, aircraft encountered windshear. It hit a small hill and eventually crashed in a field short of runway. All seven occupants injured and aircraft destroyed by fire.

Daghestan Airlines (Avialinii Dagestana) flight DAG372 departed Moscow-Vnukovo Airport at 1408LT bound for Makhatchkala, Daghestan. Fourteen minutes after takeoff, while cruising at an altitude of 9,000 metres some 80 kilometers south of Moscow, the crew informed ATC about the failure of the engines n°1 and 3 and was cleared to return to Moscow-Domodedovo Airport. On final, the aircraft descended below the clouds at a height of 500 feet but was not properly aligned with the runway centerline. It landed hard to the right of runway 32R, went out of control, impacted an earth mound and bushed before coming to rest, broken in two. Two passengers were killed while 78 other occupants were injured.

The flight from Nampula was uneventful until the approach to Maputo. Due to bad weather conditions at destination, the crew was vectored to a holding pattern. After two circuits, the captain decided to start the descent despite ATC informed him about very poor conditions. At this time, the visibility was reduced due to the night, heavy rain falls, thunderstorm activity with turbulences and lightnings. On final approach to runway 23, the aircraft was too low and impacted ground short of runway in a slight nose-up attitude. Upon impact, the aircraft broke in two and came to rest in a field. All 17 occupants escaped with minor injuries and the aircraft was destroyed.

The instrument-rated pilot was executing a night instrument approach when the airplane impacted the water. The published approach minimums for the area navigation/global positioning system approach were 460-foot ceiling and one-mile visibility. Recorded air traffic control voice and radar data indicated that prior to the approach the pilot had turned to an approximately 180-degree heading and appeared to be heading in the direction of another airport. The controller reassigned the pilot a heading in order to intercept the final approach. The airplane was located in the water approximately 5,000 feet from the runway threshold. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the left main landing gear was in the retracted position and the right main and nose landing gear were in the extended position. Examination of the left main landing gear actuator revealed no mechanical anomalies. The pilot had likely just commanded the landing gear to the down position and the landing gear was in transit. It is further possible that, as the gear was in transit, the airplane impacted the water in a left-wing and nose-down attitude and the left gear was forced to a gear-up position.