Takeoff (climb)

On April 2, 2011, about 0934 mountain daylight time, an experimental Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation GVI (G650), N652GD, crashed during takeoff from runway 21 at Roswell International Air Center, Roswell, New Mexico. The two pilots and the two flight test engineers were fatally injured, and the airplane was substantially damaged by impact forces and a post crash fire. The airplane was registered to and operated by Gulfstream as part of its G650 flight test program. The flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The accident occurred during a planned one-engine-inoperative (OEI) takeoff when a stall on the right outboard wing produced a rolling moment that the flight crew was not able to control, which led to the right wingtip contacting the runway and the airplane departing the runway from the right side. After departing the runway, the airplane impacted a concrete structure and an airport weather station, resulting in extensive structural damage and a post crash fire that completely consumed the fuselage and cabin interior.

Witnesses reported that the airplane’s takeoff ground roll appeared to be normal. Shortly after the airplane lifted off, it stopped climbing and yawed to the left. Several witnesses heard abnormal sounds, which they attributed to propeller blade angle changes. The airplane’s flight path deteriorated to a left skid and its airspeed began to slow. The airplane’s left bank angle increased to between 45 and 90 degrees, and its nose dropped to a nearly vertical attitude. Just before impact, the airplane’s bank angle and pitch began to flatten out. The airplane had turned left about 100 degrees when it impacted the ground about 1,500 feet from the midpoint of the 10,000-foot runway. A fire then erupted, which consumed the fuselage. Review of a security camera video of the takeoff revealed that the airplane was near the midpoint of the runway, about 140 feet above the ground, and at a ground speed of about 130 knots when it began to yaw left. The left yaw coincided with the appearance, behind the airplane, of a dark grayish area that appeared to be smoke. A witness, who was an aviation mechanic with extensive experience working on airplanes of the same make and model as the accident airplane, reported hearing two loud “pops” about the time the smoke appeared, which he believed were generated by one of the engines intermittently relighting and extinguishing. Post accident examination of the airframe, the engines, and the propellers did not identify any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Both engines and propellers sustained nearly symmetrical damage, indicating that the two engines were operating at similar low- to mid-range power settings at impact. The airplane’s fuel system was comprised of two separate fuel systems (one for each engine) that consisted of multiple wing fuel tanks feeding into a nacelle tank and then to the engine. The left and right nacelle tanks were breached during the impact sequence and no fuel was found in either tank. Samples taken from the fuel truck, which supplied the airplane's fuel, tested negative for contamination. However, a fuels research engineer with the United States Air Force Fuels Engineering Research Laboratory stated that water contamination can result from condensation in the air cavity above a partially full fuel tank. Both diurnal temperature variations and the atmospheric pressure variations experienced with normal flight cycles can contribute to this type of condensation. He stated that the simplest preventive action is to drain the airplane’s fuel tank sumps before every flight. There were six fuel drains on each wing that the Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH) for the airplane dictated should be drained before every flight. The investigation revealed that the pilot’s previous employer, where he had acquired most of his King Air 200 flight experience, did not have its pilots drain the fuel tank sumps before every flight. Instead, maintenance personnel drained the sumps at some unknown interval. No witnesses were identified who observed the pilot conduct the preflight inspection of the airplane before the accident flight, and it could not be determined whether the pilot had drained the airplane’s fuel tank sumps. He had been the only pilot of the airplane for its previous 40 flights. Because the airplane was not on a Part 135 certificate or a continuous maintenance program, it is unlikely that a mechanic was routinely draining the airplane's fuel sumps. The witness observations, video evidence, and the postaccident examination indicated that the left engine experienced a momentary power interruption during the takeoff initial climb, which was consistent with a power interruption resulting from water contamination of the left engine's fuel supply. It is likely that, during the takeoff rotation and initial climb, water present in the bottom of the left nacelle tank was drawn into the left engine. When the water flowed through the engine's fuel nozzles into the burner can, it momentarily extinguished the engine’s fire. The engine then stopped producing power, and its propeller changed pitch, resulting in the propeller noises heard by witnesses. Subsequently, a mixture of water and fuel reached the nozzles and the engine intermittently relighted and extinguished, which produced the grayish smoke observed in the video and the “pop” noises heard by the mechanic witness. Finally, uncontaminated fuel flow was reestablished, and the engine resumed normal operation. About 5 months before the accident, the pilot successfully completed a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 pilot-in-command check flight in a King Air 90. However, no documentation was found indicating that he had ever received training in a full-motion King Air simulator. Although simulator training was not required, if the pilot had received this type of training, it is likely that he would have been better prepared to maintain directional control in response to the left yaw from asymmetrical power. Given that the airplane’s airspeed was more than 40 knots above the minimum control speed of 86 knots when the left yaw began, the pilot should have been able to maintain directional control during the momentary power interruption. Although the airplane’s estimated weight at the time of the accident was about 650 pounds over the maximum allowable gross takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds, the investigation determined that the additional weight would not have precluded the pilot from maintaining directional control of the airplane.

On 27 February 2011, at approximately 12:12:20 UTC, a mechanic working on McKinnon G-21G, registration mark N221AG, called the operational telephone line of Al Ain International Airport tower and informed the Aerodrome Controller (ADC) that the Aircraft would depart that evening. The Aerodrome Controller requested the estimated time of departure (ETD) and the mechanic stated that the departure would not be before 1400 outbound to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The ADC asked if the flight crew were still planning to perform a test flight before departure to the planned destination. The mechanic answered that they have not flown the Aircraft for a while and they want to stay in the pattern to make sure everything is “okay” prior to departure on the cleared route. The ADC advised that they could expect a clearance to operate in the circuit until they were ready to depart. The mechanic advised that there would be no need land, they only wished to stay in the circuit and to go straight from there towards the cleared route. The ADC asked the mechanic about the Aircraft type, the mechanic answered that it is Grumman Goose equipped with turbine engines and it would be heading back to the United States for an autopilot installation and annual inspection and “everything”. The mechanic commented to the ADC that the Aircraft was unique in the world with the modifications that it had. At 13:53:15, the ADC contacted the mechanic and requested an ETD update. The mechanic advised that there would be a further one-hour delay due to waiting for fuel. A witness, who is an instructor at the flight academy where the Aircraft was parked, stated that he had formed the impression that the maintenance personnel “…looked stressed out and they were obviously behind schedule and were trying to depart as soon as possible for the test flight so everything would go as planned and they could depart to Riyadh the same evening”. At approximately 14:10, the Aircraft was pushed out of the hangar, and the two mechanics moved luggage from inside the hangar and loaded it onboard the Aircraft. The mechanics also loaded a bladder extra fuel tank onboard and placed it in the cabin next to the main passenger door. At 14:17, the Aircraft was fueled with 1,898 liters of Jet-A1 which was 563 liters less than the 650 USG (2,461 liters) requested by the crew. At approximately 15:00, and after performing exterior checks, the male, 28 year old pilot in command (PIC), and another male, 61 years old pilot boarded the Aircraft and occupied the cockpit left and right seats, respectively. The two mechanics occupied the two first row passenger seats. The PIC and the other pilot were seen by hangar personnel using torchlights while following checklists and completing some paperwork. At 15:44:48, the PIC contacted the Airport Ground Movement Controller (GMC) on the 129.15 MHz radio frequency in order to check the functionality of the two Aircraft radios. Both checks were satisfactory as advised by the GMC. Thereafter, and while the Aircraft was still on the hangar ramp, the PIC informed the GMC that he was ready to copy the IFR clearance to Riyadh. The GMC queried if the Aircraft was going to perform local circuits and then pick up the IFR flight plan to the destination. The PIC replied that he would like to make one circuit in the pattern, if available, then to [perform] low approach and from there he (the PIC) would be able to accept the clearance to destination. The GMC acknowledged the PIC’s request and advised him to expect a left closed circuit not above two thousand feet and to standby for a clearance. The PIC read back this information correctly. At 15:48:58, the GMC gave engine start clearance and, at 15:50:46, the PIC reported engine start and requested taxi clearance at 15:52:16. The GMC cleared the Aircraft to taxi to the holding point of Runway (RWY) 19. The GMC advised, again, to expect a left hand (LH) closed circuit not above two thousand feet VFR and to request IFR clearance from the tower once airborne. The GMC instructed the squawk as 3776, which was also read back correctly. At 15:55:13, the PIC requested a three-minute delay on the ramp. The GMC acknowledged and instructed the crew to contact the tower once the Aircraft was ready to taxi. At 15:56:03, the PIC called the GMC and requested taxi clearance; he was recleared to the holding point of RWY 19. At 15:57:53, the GMC advised that, after completion of the closed circuit, route to the destination via the ROVOS flight planned route on departure RWY 19 and to make a right turn and maintain 6,000 ft. The PIC read back the instructions correctly. At 16:02:38, and while the Aircraft was at the holding point of RWY 19, the PIC contacted the ADC on 119.85 MHz to report ready-for-departure for a closed circuit. The ADC instructed to hold position then he asked the PIC if he was going to perform only one closed circuit. The PIC replied that it was “only one circuit, then [perform] a low approach and from there capture the IFR to Riyadh.” At 16:03:56, the ADC instructed the PIC “to line up and wait” RWY 19 which, at that time, was occupied by a landing aircraft that vacated the runway at 16:05:23. At 16:05:37, the Aircraft was cleared for takeoff. The ADC advised the surface wind as 180°/07 kts and requested the crew to report left downwind which was acknowledged by the PIC correctly. The Aircraft completed the takeoff acceleration roll, lifted off and continued initial climb normally. When the Aircraft reached 300 to 400 ft AGL at approximately the midpoint of RWY 19, it turned to the left while the calibrated airspeed (CAS) was approximately 130 kts. The Aircraft continued turning left with increasing rate and losing height. At approximately 16:07:11, the Aircraft impacted the ground of Taxiway ‘F’, between Taxiway ‘K’ and ‘L’ with a slight nose down attitude and a slight left roll. After the impact, the Aircraft continued until it came to rest after approximately 32 m (105 ft) from the initial impact point. There was no attempt by the PIC to declare an emergency. The Aircraft was destroyed due to the impact forces and subsequent fire. All the occupants were fatally injured.

Eight minutes after takeoff from Bukavu-Kavumu Airport, while climbing, the twin engine aircraft crashed in unknown circumstances on the slope of Mt Biega, some 25 km north of Bukavu. The aircraft was destroyed and both pilots were killed. They were completing a cargo flight to Lusenge.

Shortly after take off from Sulaymaniyah Airport runway 31, while in initial climb, the aircraft stalled and crashed 2,100 metres from the airport, bursting into flames. The aircraft was totally destroyed by a post crash fire and all seven occupants were killed, among them four employees of the Iraqi communications company Asiacell. Weather conditions at the time of the accident were as follow: 1,500 metres visibility in snow falls, overcast 3,500 feet.

The twin engine aircraft was engaged in a local post maintenance test flight from Nairobi-Wilson Airport. The crew consisted of two pilots and two engineers. During the takeoff roll from runway 07, the captain decided to abort. Unable to stop within the remaining distance, the aircraft overran, went through a fence, lost its nose gear and came to rest in a field. All four occupants escaped with minor injuries while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The single engine aircraft departed Kumamoto Airport runway 07 at 1711LT on a private flight to Kitakyūshū, with two persons on board: a PIC in the left seat and a passenger in the right seat. At 17:12:11, the radar of the Kumamoto aerodrome station C captured the aircraft. The pilot made a position report at 6 nm north of the airport at 2,300 feet. While climbing to the altitude of 6,500 feet, the pilot was instructed to change the frequency. About three minutes after takeoff, the aircraft collided with trees and crashed in a wooded area located on the southeast slope of Mt Yago, about 14 km northeast of Kumamoto Airport. The wreckage was found in the afternoon of the following day at an altitude of 850 metres. The aircraft was destroyed and both occupants were killed, Mr. & Mrs. Hiroshi and Hiromi Kanda.

The pilot arrived at the aircraft at approximately 0900 hrs to prepare it for a flight to drop parachutists. The aircraft had been outside overnight and there had been a heavy frost. The pilot removed a cover from the windscreen and began his pre-flight check during which he noticed no ice or frost on the upper surface of the wings. He returned to the operations building to complete his pre-flight planning and went back to the aircraft in time to start the engine at 1000 hrs. There was a very light wind from the north-west across the grass Runway 06L, the temperature was -4°C and the QNH was 1004 mb. While the engine was warming up, eight parachutists boarded the aircraft and sat down in the cabin. There were three parachute instructors, who were connected to three students, and two other parachutists with video cameras, one of whom was the jump supervisor. After the pilot judged that the engine had warmed up, he carried out a power check and the before takeoff checks, during which he selected the flaps to TAKEOFF. All indications appeared normal to the pilot and he taxied onto the runway and selected takeoff power, which was 29 inches of Manifold Air Pressure (MAP)and 2,500 rpm. The acceleration seemed, to the pilot, to be normal but, although VR was 60 kt, he delayed the rotation until 65 kt. At about the time the aircraft rotated, the pilot selected the flaps to FULL. As the aircraft crossed the hedge at the upwind end of the runway, the pilot began a left turn, which was the usual noise abatement manoeuvre to avoid flying over buildings situated on the runway’s extended centreline. During the turn, he realised the aircraft was descending and checked the engine instruments, observing that the MAP, fuel pressure and rpm were indicating correctly. He called “BRACE, BRACE, BRACE” and the aircraft hit the ground immediately afterwards in a left wing low attitude. After crossing a ditch, during which the landing gear detached, the aircraft skidded to a halt in the next field. The pilot was able to exit the aircraft through the door on his left but found that he could not stand up because of an injury to his leg. The sliding door on the rear left side of the cabin was jammed and the parachutists were unable to use it to leave the aircraft and so they exited through the same door as the pilot. One parachutist received a whiplash injury but the rest were unhurt. The pilot was subsequently airlifted to hospital.

On 27th November, 2010 the operating crew of mishap aircraft flew from Fujairah (UAE) to JIAP, Karachi (Pakistan) at 1000 UTC. The load onboard was weighing 9 tons (Packaged Boeing
747 engine). The aircraft had flown to Fujairah airport from Kandahar. According to the provided information on the 27-11-2010 the crew comprising Aircraft Commander, Second Pilot, Navigator, Flight Engineer, Flight Radio Operator, and Flight Operator flew from Fujairah (UAE) to JIAP Karachi. After landing the crew members were shifted to “Regent Plaza” hotel in Karachi. The stay of crew in the hotel was not less than 8 hours. The aircraft was refuelled at JIAP, Karachi and total fuel onboard was 74 tons. A cargo load of 30.5 tons was also loaded after refuelling the aircraft. The aircraft mass was 197 tons with its CG at 30% Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC) before undertaking the mishap flight. The aircraft was scheduled for departure from JIAP, Karachi at 2025 UTC 28th November, 2010) on route “Karachi – Khartoum – Douala, Cameroon to deliver humanitarian aid (tents). The crew arrived at airport around 1900 UTC. The weather conditions were satisfactory. The weather details are mentioned in this report at Para 1.7. After starting engines the crew taxied the plane to Runway 25L and reported to the air traffic controller that the plane would take off in 3 minutes and the aircraft took off at 2048 UTC. According to the radar data the aircraft ascended to 600 feet, started descending and then disappeared from the radar screen. The air traffic controller did not receive any information from the crew members about emergency conditions onboard. The aircraft crashed at about 2050 UTC on a bearing of 070 degree and approximately 02 NM from JIAP, Karachi at geographical location N24°53.651’, E 067°06.406’.

Shortly after takeoff from Monterrey-General Mariano Escobido Airport runway 11, the aircraft banked right and crashed near the VIP tarmac, bursting into flames. All five occupants, three officers and two pilots, were killed. The crew was performing a logistic support mission to Santa Lucía AFB.