Takeoff (climb)

A friend of the copilot reported this was the multiengine airplane’s first flight since the (single engine-rated) copilot purchased it five years before the accident. He stated that the purpose of the flight was to conduct touch-and-go landings. Another (multiengine-rated) pilot was flying in the left seat, with the copilot flying in the right seat. On the day of the accident, when the friend arrived at the airport, he noticed that the airplane was not in the traffic pattern. After a few hours, he became concerned and reported the airplane missing to local authorities, and it was found the next morning in a heavily wooded area about one mile away from the airport. There were no witnesses to the accident. Post accident examination of the wreckage revealed that the airplane’s left propeller displayed signatures indicative of low rotational speed at impact, suggesting that the airplane’s left engine may have lost at least partial power. The right propeller showed signatures consistent with high rotational speed/power settings at the time of impact. Examination of the left engine’s fuel servo revealed that it was heavily contaminated with sediment and that the fuel pump had weak suction and compression. Either or both of these conditions could have reduced the left engine’s performance during the flight. Additionally, the airplane was found with its wing flaps extended, the landing gear not retracted, and the left engine’s propeller was not feathered. A representative from the airplane’s type certificate holder stated that, depending on the airplane’s takeoff weight, it generally could not maintain level flight during an engine-out condition unless the flaps and landing gear were up and the failed engine’s propeller was feathered. While there were no witnesses to the accident or other recorded data to suggest what flight regime the airplane was in when the loss of engine power occurred, given the stated purpose of the flight and the findings of the post accident examination of the wreckage, it is likely that, while maneuvering the airplane in the airport traffic pattern, the airplane’s left engine lost power and the airplane subsequently impacted trees and terrain. Given the configuration of the wing flaps and landing gear and the unfeathered position of the left propeller, it is likely that the airplane’s single-engine performance was degraded.

The pilot reported that, he was departing in the float-equipped airplane in strong gusty wind conditions. After accelerating on the water for about 3 seconds, the airplane suddenly became airborne and crabbed into the wind about 60° to 90° from the intended takeoff path and started to climb as it continued to track away from the intended flight path. As the climb continued, the airplane stalled and impacted the water in a nose low attitude which resulted in substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.

Shortly after takeoff from Santiago de Querétaro Airport, while climbing, the twin engine airplane went out of control and crashed inverted in a maize field located near the airport. The aircraft was destroyed and both occupants were killed.

The airplane was returning to its base in San Fernando following an ambulance flight from Comodoro Rivadavia to Río Grande. After takeoff from Río Grande-Gobernador Ramón Trejo Noel Airport runway 26, while in initial climb, the airplane rolled to the left, nosed down and crashed in a huge explosion about 350 metres south from the runway 08 threshold. The wreckage was found 1,870 metres from the runway 26 threshold and 300 metres to its left. The aircraft was totally destroyed by impact forces and a post crash fire and all four occupants were killed.
Crew:
Claudio Canelo, pilot,
Héctor Vittore, copilot.
Passengers:
Diego Ciolfi, doctor,
Denise Torres Garcá, nurse.

The airplane departed Dyagilevo AFB (Ryazan) on a night flight apparently to Belgorod, carrying nine crew members. After takeoff, the engine n°4 caught fire. The crew elected to return for an emergency landing but the aircraft went out of control and crashed about one km from the airbase, bursting into flames. Four crew members were seriously injured and five others were killed. The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and a post crash fire.

Shortly after takeoff from Deadmans Cay Airport Runway 09, while climbing, both engines lost power simultaneously. The airplane went out of control, impacted trees and crashed some 3 km northwest of the airfield. The airplane came to rest in bushes and was destroyed by impact forces. There was no fire. Among the seven people on board, a woman passenger was killed and six other occupants were injured.

The airplane was departing Chongqing-Jiangbei Airport on a regular schedule service to Nyingchi, Tibet, carrying 113 passengers and a crew of nine. During the takeoff roll on runway 03, at a speed of 145 knots (just below V1 speed), the captain encountered an unexpected situation and decided to abandon the takeoff procedure. He initiated an emergency braking manoeuvre when the airplane started to deviate to the left. It veered off runway and went through a grassy area. While contacting the parallel concrete taxiway, the nose gear was sheared off. The airplane continued for 120 metres when it impacted a drainage ditch, causing both main landing gears and both engines to be sheared off as well. The airplane later came into a stop, bursting into flames. 36 occupants were injured while all others evacuated safely. The aircraft was destroyed.

The single engine airplane departed Boituva Aerodrome on a local skydiving mission, carrying 14 skydivers and one pilot. After takeoff, the pilot apparently encountered electrical problems and elected to return for an emergency landing. Shortly later, the aircraft collided with high tension wires, stalled and crashed inverted in a field. Two passengers were killed while all other occupants were injured.

The pilot reported that, before the flight, the airplane was fueled with 140 gallons of Jet A fuel. Shortly after takeoff, both engines lost total power. Because the airplane had insufficient altitude to return to the airport, the pilot executed a forced landing to a field and the left wing sustained substantial damage. A postcrash fire ensued. The investigation determined that the airplane was inadvertently fueled with Jet A fuel rather than AVGAS, which was required for the airplane’s reciprocating engines. The line service worker who fueled the airplane reported that there were no decals at the airplane fuel ports; however, postaccident examination of the airplane found that a decal specifying AVGAS was present at the right-wing fuel port. The investigation could not determine whether the same or a similar decal was present at the left-wing fuel port because the left wing was partially consumed during the postimpact fire.

The student pilot, who was the new owner of the multi-engine airplane, and a private pilot flew commercially to Lubbock, Texas, utilized a ride-hailing service to drive to Portales, New Mexico; they met with the former owner of the airplane to finalize the purchase of the airplane and flew it back to Georgia the same day. The next day, the student pilot commenced flight training with the private pilot who offered to provide flight instruction to the student pilot in the student pilot’s newly acquired multi-engine airplane, even though he did not possess a flight instructor’s rating or a multi-engine airplane rating. Radar data showed that the track of the accident airplane's route consisted of their departure airport, a midway stop, and the third leg of the flight, where it crashed during the approach to their destination airport. Witnesses observed a sharp right turn before the airplane’s spiraling descent and impact with terrain and unoccupied semi-trailers. Surveillance footage from a parking lot security camera captured the airplane in a right spiral turn just before the accident. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and the postimpact fire. The postaccident examination of the airframe, engines, and propellers revealed no anomalies that would preclude normal engine and airplane performance. Additionally, a review of the maintenance logbook revealed that the airplane was overdue for its annual maintenance inspection; no special flight permit (ferry permit) was obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for its return flight to Georgia. Toxicological testing of the student pilot revealed the presence amphetamine, a prescription Schedule II controlled substance that may result in cognitive deficits that pose a risk to aviation safety; however, its effect, if any on the accident flight could not be determined. It is likely that the private pilot’s failure to maintain aircraft control was exacerbated by his lack of a multi-engine airplane rating, his lack of a flight instructor rating, and his poor decision making.