Takeoff (climb)

The vintage de Havilland DH-89A MKIV Dragon Rapide biplane (U.S. registration N683DH, serial number 6782) operated by Historic Flight Foundation was part of the static aircraft display at the Abbotsford International Airshow at Abbotsford Airport (CYXX), British Columbia. Following the conclusion of the airshow that day, the aircraft was being used to provide air rides. At approximately 1731 on 11 August 2018, the aircraft began its takeoff from Runway 25 with the pilot and 4 passengers on board for a local flight to the southeast. During the takeoff, the aircraft encountered strong, gusting crosswinds. It climbed to about 30 feet above ground level before descending suddenly and impacting the runway, coming to rest on its nose immediately off the right edge of the runway. Within 2 minutes, 2 aircraft rescue firefighting trucks arrived on the scene along with an operations/command vehicle. About 10 minutes later, 2 St. John Ambulances arrived. A representative of the HFF was escorted to the scene to ensure all electronics on the aircraft were turned off. Shortly thereafter, 2 BC Ambulance Service ground ambulances arrived, followed by 2 City of Abbotsford fire trucks. Two BC Ambulance Service air ambulances arrived after that. The fire trucks stabilized the aircraft, and the first responders who arrived with the fire truck finished evacuating the occupants. The pilot and 1 passenger received serious injuries; the other 3 passengers received minor injuries. All of the aircraft occupants were taken to the hospital. The aircraft was substantially damaged. There was a fuel spill, but no fire. The emergency locator transmitter activated.

The pilot was conducting a personal flight with four passengers. A witness observed the airplane take off and climb slowly from the airport. A pilot flying in the vicinity observed the airplane maneuver erratically before the airplane impacted terrain in a near-vertical attitude. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a postimpact fire. The wreckage was contained to a confined area in the field and the remains of the major airplane components were all accounted for. Extensive thermal damage to the airframe and engine limited the scope of the postaccident examination. The impact energy needed to drive the engine into the ground suggested that the engine was producing power at the time of the accident. A postaccident examination of the remaining airframe and engine components did not reveal any anomalies which would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. Depending on the amount of fuel, baggage and equipment on board, and the location of the adult passenger, the center of gravity (CG) could have been within or aft of the recommended CG. Since fuel load and location of the passengers could not be determined or may have shifted during flight, it is not known if loading contributed to the accident. The pilot was not operating with valid medical certification. His second-class medical certificate had expired several years prior to the accident and Federal Aviation Administration records did not indicate that he had obtained BasicMed medical certification. A pilot-rated passenger was seated in the rightfront seat. Investigators were unable to determine who was manipulating the flight controls of the airplane at the time of the accident. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with the pilot’s loss of control. However, the reason for the loss of control could not be determined with the available evidence.

The crew was engaged in an agricultural mission in an area located about 32 km northeast of Tongjiang. After takeoff, the engine failed and the airplane crash landed in a paddy field. Both crew members escaped uninjured and the airplane was damaged beyond repair.

The takeoff from Durango-Guadalupe Victoria Airport was initiated in poor weather conditions as a thunderstorm just passed over the airport five minutes prior to the accident. The takeoff from runway 03 was completed with a wind from 047° at 33 knots. Eight seconds after liftoff, the aircraft climbed to a height of 8 feet with a speed of 145 knots. At this time, the wind came from 103° at 11 knots. The aircraft continued to climb to 30 feet when the wind changed with a tailwind component of 22 knots from 030°. The aircraft started to descend and impacted ground, causing both engines to be torn off. The aircraft continued, overran and slid for 380 metres before coming to rest, bursting into flames. All 103 occupants were evacuated and 39 were injured, 14 seriously. The aircraft was totally destroyed by a post crash fire. At the time of the accident, weather conditions were poor with thunderstorm activity, heavy rain falls and strong winds. Notable variations in wind components were noticed at the time of the accident.

The single engine aircraft departed a remote area located 250 km west of Tura, carrying five passengers and two pilots who were returning from a fishing camp. Shortly after takeoff, at a height of one meter, the engine started to vibrate and the crew noticed a 'pop' noise. The airplane descended and the crew positioned the flaps to 40°. The aircraft passed over the river then impacted the opposite bank and crashed. All seven occupants evacuated safely, except the pilot who was slightly injured. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The single engine airplane departed Kamako Airport on a flight to Tshikapa with intermediate stops in Nsumbula and Diboko, carrying five passengers and two pilots. After takeoff, while climbint to a height of about 3,500 feet, the crew spotted birds in the vicinity when the engine lost power. The captain decided to return to Kamako but as he was unable to maintain a safe altitude, he attempted an emergency landing when the aircraft crashed in a marshy field located 3 km from the airport, bursting into flames. The captain and a passenger survived while five other occupants were killed.

According to the copilot, before takeoff, he and the pilot had briefed that the copilot would conduct the takeoff for the planned cross-country flight and be the pilot flying and that the pilot would be the pilot monitoring. The accident flight was the copilot's first takeoff in the accident airplane with it at or near its maximum gross weight. The pilot reported that he taxied the airplane onto the runway and locked the tailwheel in place and that the copilot then took over the controls. About 13 seconds after the start of the takeoff roll, the airplane veered slightly right, and the copilot counteracted with left rudder input. The airplane then swerved left, and shortly after the pilot took control of the airplane. The airplane briefly became airborne; the pilot stated that he knew the airplane was slow as he tried to ease it back over to the runway and set it back down. Subsequently, he felt the shudder “of a stall,” and the airplane rolled left and impacted the ground, the right main landing gear collapsed, and the left wing struck the ground. After the airplane came to a stop, a postimpact fire ensued. All the airplane occupants egressed through the aft left door. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the flight controls or tailwheel. Both outboard portions of the of the aluminum shear pin within the tailwheel strut assembly were sheared off, consistent with side load forces on the tailwheel during the impact sequence. The copilot obtained his pilot-in-command type rating and his checkout for the accident airplane about 2 months and 2 weeks before the accident, respectively. The copilot had conducted two flights in the accident airplane with a unit instructor before the accident. The instructor reported that, during these flights, he noted that the copilot had directional control issues; made "lazy inputs, similar to those for small airplanes"; tended to go to the right first; and seemed to overcorrect to the left by leaving control inputs in for too long. He added that, after the checkout was completed, the copilot could take off and land without assistance; however, he had some concern about the his reaction time to a divergence of heading on the ground. Given the evidence, it is likely the copilot failed to maintain directional control during the initial takeoff roll. It is also likely that, if the pilot, who had more experience in the airplane, had monitored the copilot's takeoff more closely and taken remedial action sooner, he may have been able to correct the loss of directional control before the airplane became briefly airborne and subsequently experienced an aerodynamic stall.

The mechanic who maintained the airplane reported that, on the morning of the accident, the right engine would not start due to water contamination in the fuel system. The commercial pilot and mechanic purged the fuel tanks, flushed the fuel system, and cleaned the left engine fuel injector nozzles. After the maintenance work, they completed engine ground runs for each engine with no anomalies noted. Subsequently, the pilot ordered new fuel from the local fixed-based operator to complete a maintenance test flight. The pilot stated that he completed a preflight inspection, followed by engine run-ups for each engine with no anomalies noted and then departed with one passenger onboard. Immediately after takeoff, the right engine stopped producing full power, and the airplane would not maintain altitude. No remaining runway was left to land, so the pilot conducted a forced landing to a field about 1 mile from the runway; the airplane landed hard and came to rest upright. Postaccident examination revealed no water contamination in the engines. Examination of the airplane revealed numerous instances of improper and inadequate maintenance of the engines and fuel system. The fuel system contained corrosion debris, and minimal fuel was found in the lines to the fuel servo. Although maintenance was conducted on the airplane on the morning of the accident, the right engine fuel injectors nozzles were not removed during the maintenance procedures; therefore, it is likely that the fuel flow volume was not measured. It is likely that the corrosion debris in the fuel system resulted when the water was recently purged from the fuel system. The contaminants were likely knocked loose during the subsequent engine runs and attempted takeoff, which subsequently blocked the fuel lines and starved the right engine of available fuel.

The pilot was conducting an on-demand air taxi flight in a float-equipped airplane from a seaplane base on a public lake to a remote lakeside home, with a passenger and her young son. The passenger brought cargo to transport as well, including an unexpected 800 lbs of mortar bags. Witnesses who labored to push the airplane out after loading reported that the airplane appeared very aft heavy and the pilot said he would offload "cement blocks" if he could not take off. A review of witness videos revealed that the pilot attempted one takeoff using only 3/4 of the available waterway, then step taxied around the lake and performed a step-taxi takeoff, again not using the full length of the lake. The airplane eventually lifted off, and barely climbed over trees on the south end of the lake, before descending and impacting terrain. A home surveillance video that captured the airplane seconds before the crash revealed that 3 seconds before ground impact, the estimated altitude of the airplane was 115 ft above ground level (agl) and the groundspeed was about 64 miles per hour (mph), which was low and much slower than normal climb speed (80 mph). As the airplane banked to the left to turn on course, it rolled through 90° likely experiencing an aerodynamic stall. Analysis of the engine rpm sound revealed that the engine was operating near maximum continuous power up until impact, and a postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. A calculation performed by investigators postaccident revealed the airplane's estimated gross weight at the time of the accident was 75 lbs over the approved maximum gross takeoff weight, and the airplane's estimated center of gravity was 1.76 inches aft of the rear limit. The pilot had been recently hired by the operator and he flew his first commercial flight in the same make and model, float-equipped airplane the week before the accident. He had accumulated 12.9 flight hours, and 13 sea landings/takeoffs in the accident model airplane since being hired as a part-time pilot. Although the airplane was able to takeoff, the aircraft's out-of-limit weight-and-balance condition increased its stall speed and degraded its climb performance, stability, and slow-flight characteristics. When the pilot turned the airplane left, the critical angle of attack was exceeded resulting in an aerodynamic stall at low altitude. If the pilot had performed a proper weight and balance calculation, he may have recognized the airplane was overweight and out of balance and should not have attempted the flight without making a load adjustment.

The single engine airplane departed Nizhneudinsk Airport on a forest fire survey mission, carrying two observers and two pilots. Shortly after takeoff, while climbing to a height of about 150-170 metres, the engine started to vibrate. The captain attempted an emergency landing when the aircraft crash landed in a marshy field located 4,9 km from the airport, coming to rest upside down. All four occupants escaped uninjured and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.