Takeoff (climb)

Shortly after take off from an open field located in Goryachy Klyuch, Krasnodar krai, while at a height of about 15 metres, the single engine aircraft stalled and crashed on a river shore. Both pilots were injured and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. The crew was supposed to treat a wooded area with chemical products and the aircraft was carrying about 700 liters of this product at the time of the accident.

Shortly after take off from a field located 3 km from Marianivka, west from Odessa, while climbing to a height of about 150 metres, the engine failed. The crew attempted an emergency landing when the aircraft stalled and crashed, bursting into flames. Both occupants were injured and the aircraft was destroyed by a post crash fire.

The pilot was engaged in a crop spraying mission on a plantation close to a farm located in Waipukurau. The accident occurred on takeoff in unknown circumstances. While the pilot was seriously injured, the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

Just after liftoff, at a height of about 3 meters, left engine thrust reverser deployed. The takeoff procedure was aborted but the aircraft veered off runway and came to rest in a field with the cockpit partially separated. All five occupants were injured, both pilots seriously. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair. Configured in a VIP version, it was used by the FSB's Director Nikolai Patrushev and flying back to Moscow at the time of the accident.

About one minute after takeoff, the pilot reported to the air traffic controller that the airplane's control wheels were locked. The controller subsequently cleared the pilot to land on any runway. No further transmissions were received from the pilot and the airplane continued straight ahead. Witnesses observed the airplane in a slow, level descent, until it impacted wires and then the ground. During a postaccident examination of the airplane, flight control continuity was confirmed to all the flight controls. Due to the impact and post-crash fire damage, a cause for the flight control anomaly, as reported by the pilot, could not be determined; however, several unsecured cannon plugs and numerous unsecured heat damaged wire bundles were found lying across the control columns forward of the firewall. Examination of the airplane logbooks revealed the most recent maintenance to the flight controls was performed about four months prior to the accident. The airplane had flown 91 hours since then.

Aircraft crashed moments after takeoff from runway 29 at Darwin Airport, Northern Territory, fatally injuring both pilots. The flight was for the purpose of revalidating the command instrument rating of the pilot under check and was under the command of a training and checking captain, who occupied the copilot’s seat. The takeoff included a simulated engine failure. Data from the aircraft’s flight recorders was used to establish the circumstances leading to the accident and showed that the pilot in command (PIC) retarded the left power lever to flight idle to simulate an engine failure. That introduced a simulated failure of the left engine and propeller autofeathering system. The increased drag from the ‘windmilling’ propeller increased the control forces required to maintain the aircraft’s flightpath. The pilot under check allowed the speed to decrease and the aircraft to bank toward the inoperative engine. Additionally, he increased power on the right engine, and engaged the yaw damper in an attempt to stabilize the aircraft’s flight. Those actions increased his workload and made control of the aircraft more difficult. The PIC did not restore power to the left engine to discontinue the manoeuvre. The few seconds available before the aircraft became uncontrollable were insufficient to allow ‘trouble shooting’ and deliberation before resolving the situation.

The airline transport pilot was taking off on a passenger flight under Title 14, CFR Part 135, when the accident occurred. He reported that during takeoff the wind was reported from 290-300 degrees, at 15 knots, gusting to 27 knots. He chose to make an intersection takeoff on runway 25 at its intersection with runway 29, rather than use the full length of runway 29. He said his airspeed did not develop as quickly as he had anticipated, and that with his airspeed lagging and poor climb performance, he realized the airplane was not going to clear the ridge at the end of the runway. He said he initiated a right descending turn to maintain his airspeed, but impacted trees alongside the runway. He reported that the airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage when it impacted trees. He said there were no mechanical problems with the airplane prior to the accident.

Three minutes after takeoff from Tegucigalpa-Toncontin Airport, while in initial climb, the twin engine aircraft went out of control and crashed few km from the airport, bursting into flames. The aircraft was totally destroyed and all three occupants were killed.

The aircraft was completing an ambulance flight from Palm Beach to Rio de Janeiro with intermediate stops in Aguadilla and Manaus, carrying one patient, a medical team and two pilots. During the takeoff roll from 10 at Manaus-Eduardo Gomes Airport, just before V1 speed, the crew heard a loud noise coming from the right side of the airplane. In the mean time, the aircraft started to deviate to the right. The captain decided to abandon the takeoff procedure and initiated a braking maneuver. Unable to stop within the remaining distance, the aircraft overran and came to rest 400 metres past the runway end. All six occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damage beyond repair.

During takeoff, one witness noted that at least one engine seemed to be running rough and not making power. Several other witnesses, located about 1/2 mile northwest of the airport, observed the accident airplane pass overhead in a right turn. They reported that the engine noise did not sound normal. Two of the witnesses noted grayish black smoke emanating from the airplane. The airplane then rolled left and descended nose down into the front yard of a residence. Review of maintenance records revealed the airplane underwent an annual inspection and extensive maintenance about 3 months prior to the accident. One of the maintenance issues was to troubleshoot the right engine that was reportedly running rough at cruise. During the maintenance, the right engine fuel pump, metering valve, and fuel manifold were removed and replaced with overhauled units. Additionally, the right engine fuel flow was reset contrary to procedures contained in an engine manufacturer service information directive; however, the fuel pump could not be tested due to thermal damage and the investigation could not determine if the fuel flow setting procedure contributed to the loss of power on the right engine. On-scene examination of the wreckage and teardown examination of both engines did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions. Teardown examination of the right propeller revealed that the blades were not at or near the feather position, which was contrary to the emergency procedure published by the manufacturer, to secure the engine and feather the propeller in the event of an engine power loss. The right propeller exhibited signatures consistent with low or no power at impact, while the left propeller exhibited signatures consistent of being operated with power at impact.