Takeoff (climb)

The pilot of the twin turbo-prop airplane lost control of the aircraft during the initial takeoff climb phase while in instrument meteorological conditions. An instrument flight rules flight plan was filed for the planned 169-nautical mile cross-country flight. The aircraft impacted terrain approximately 1.7 miles northwest of the departure airport. The 2,893-hour instrument rated private pilot, who had accumulated over 765 flight hours in the same make and model, had been cleared to his destination "as filed," and told to maintain 7,000 feet, and to expect 17,000 feet in 10 minutes. After becoming airborne, the flight was cleared for a left turn. The tower controller then cleared the flight to contact air route traffic control center. The pilot did not acknowledge the frequency change; however, he did establish radio contact with center on 133.1, and reported "climbing through 4,900 feet for assigned 7,000." The weather reported at the time of flight was winds from 010 degrees at 15 knots with 700 feet overcast and 3 miles visibility in mist. The radar controller observed the aircraft climbing through 5,500 feet and subsequently observed the airplane starting a descent. No distress calls were received from the flight. Signatures at the initial point of impact were consistent with a nose-low ground impact in a slight right bank. A post-impact fire consumed the airplane. No discrepancies or anomalies were found at the accident site that could have prevented normal operation of the airplane.

The commercial pilot was positioning the airplane from the departure airport to another airport. The flight took place on a dark night with overcast skies, and no discernible horizon. The pilot departed and climbed to a cruise altitude between 1,200 and 1,400 feet msl. About 4 miles south of the departure airport, the airplane collided with an east-west ridge at 1,200 feet msl. The ridgeline is perpendicular to the direct route of flight between the departure and destination airports, and rises from west to east with a summit elevation of 1,714 feet msl. The departure airport was a newly commissioned airport 3 miles east-northeast of the old airport. The accident flight was the pilot's second trip to the new airport, and his first night departure from either the old or new airport. Direct flight from the new airport to the destination airport requires a higher altitude to clear the ridgeline than does a direct flight from the old airport. A direct flight from the old airport crosses the same ridgeline farther to the west, where the elevation of the ridge is less than 500 feet msl.

The airplane was destroyed by impact forces. There was no evidence of fire. Wreckage examinations and all recovered wreckage from the impact area revealed no evidence of an inflight collisionor breakup, or of external contact by a foreign object. An examination of the engine and the propeller indicated that the engine was producing power at impact. The recovered components showed no evidence of preexisting powerplant, system, or structural failures. Wreckage examinations showed crushing and bending consistent with a moderate angle of descent and a moderate right-wing-down attitude at impact. The amount of wreckage recovered indicates that all parts of the airplane were at the crash site. The wreckage was scattered over an area of about 600 feet. An examination of radar and airplane performance data indicated that the accident airplane initiated a descent from 3,000 feet immediately after the accident pilot was given a second traffic advisory by air traffic control. The pilot reported that the traffic was above him. At the time the pilot stated that he needed to deviate, data indicate that the accident airplane was in or entering an uncontrolled descent. Radar data indicated that, after departure from the airport, the closest identified airplane to the accident airplane was a DC-10, which was at an altitude of about 4,000 feet. The horizontal distance between the two airplanes was about 1.1 nautical miles, and the vertical distance between the airplanes was about 1,600 feet. The accident airplane was never in a location at which wake turbulence from the DC-10 would have intersected the Cessna's flightpath (behind and below the DC-10's flightpath). Given the relative positions of the accident airplane and the DC-10, wake turbulence was determined to not be a factor in this accident. Although the DC-10 was left of the position given to the pilot by Mobile Terminal Radar Approach Control, air traffic controllers do not have strict angular limits when providing traffic guidance. The Safety Board's airplane performance simulation showed that, beginning about 15 seconds before the time of the pilot's last transmission ("I needed to deviate, I needed to deviate"), his view of the DC-10 moved diagonally across the windscreen from his left to straight in front of the Cessna while tripling in size. The airplane performance simulation also indicated that the airplane experienced high bank and pitch angles shortly after the pilot stated, "I needed to deviate" (about 13 seconds after the transmission, the simulation showed the airplane rolling through 90° and continuing to roll to a peak of about 150° 3 seconds later) and that the airplane appeared to have nearly recovered from these extreme attitudes at impact. Performance data indicated that the airplane would had to have been structurally/aerodynamically intact to reach the point of ground impact from the point of inflight upset. There was no evidence of any other aircraft near the accident airplane or the DC-10 at the time of the accident. Soon after the accident, U.S. Coast Guard aircraft arrived at the accident scene. The meaning of the pilot's statement that he needed to deviate could not be determined. A review of air traffic control radar and transcripts revealed no evidence of pilot impairment or incapacitation before the onset of the descent and loss of control. A sound spectrum study conducted by the Safety Board found no evidence of loud noises during the pilot's last three radio transmissions but found that background noise increased, indicating that the cockpit area was still intact and that the airspeed was increasing. The study further determined that the overspeed warning had activated, which was consistent with the performance study and extreme fragmentation of the wreckage. Radar transponder data from the accident airplane were lost below 2,400 feet. The signal loss was likely caused by unusual attitudes, which can mask transponder antenna transmissions. A garbled transponder return recorded near the DC-10 was likely caused by the accident airplane's transponder returns masking the DC-10's returns (since the accident airplane was projected to be in line between the DC-10 and the ground radar) or by other environmental phenomena. Red transfer or scuff marks were observed on many pieces of the airplane wreckage, and these marks were concentrated on the lower airframe skin forward of the main landing gear and the nose landing gear area. The Safety Board and four laboratories compared the red-marked airplane pieces to samples of red-colored items found in the wreckage. These examinations determined that most of the red marks were caused by parts of the airplane, cargo, and items encountered during the wreckage recovery. The marks exhibited random directions of motion, and none of the marks exhibited evidence of an in-flight collision with another aircraft. A small piece of black, anodized aluminum found embedded in the left wing was subsequently identified as a fragment from a cockpit lighting dimmer. The accident occurred at night, with the moon obscured by low clouds. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed, although visual conditions were reported between cloud layers. The terminal aerodrome forecast reported a possible cloud layer at 3,000 feet. Weather data and observations by the DC-10 pilot indicated that, after flying about 100 to 500 feet above the cloud layer and soon after sighting the DC-10, the accident airplane would have entered clouds. A number of conditions were present on the night of the accident that would have been conducive to spatial disorientation. For example, no visible horizon references existed between the cloud layers in which the pilot was flying because of the night conditions. In addition, to initiate a visual search and visually acquire the DC-10, varying degrees of eye and head movements would have accompanied the pilot's shifting of attention outside the cockpit. Once the DC-10 was visually acquired by the pilot, it would have existed as a light source moving against an otherwise featureless background, and its relative motion across and rising in the Cessna's windscreen could have been disorienting, especially if the pilot had fixated on it for any length of time. Maneuvering the airplane during this search would likely have compounded the pilot's resultant disorientation.

The airplane crashed into rising terrain after departure from an uncontrolled public airport. The runway used by the pilot is 4,600 feet long and has a 1.8 percent upward gradient. The density altitude was 4,937 feet msl, and a slight quartering tailwind existed at the time. The pilot held in position, powered up the engines, and started his departure. The airplane was observed using most of the runway length before rotation and then it assumed a higher than normal pitch attitude in the initial climb. Witnesses watched the airplane turn left following the route of a canyon and into rising terrain. The reciprocal runway departs towards decreasing elevations. In the area of the crash, two witnesses reported the airplane was at a low altitude, nose high, and wallowing just before it descended into a drainage area 0.69 miles from the runway. Post accident examination of the engines revealed worn camshaft lobes and tappets, which would negatively affect the ability of the engines to produce full rated power. One engine exhibited severe rust on the entire crankshaft. The accident site was located in a canyon, and the wreckage and ground scars was confined to an area about the diameter of the wing span. Major portions of the airframe and most of the engine accessories were consumed by a post accident fire. Examination of the wreckage established that all major components of the airframe and powerplants were at the site.

The airplane veered off the runway during a rejected takeoff, overran an airport sign, and impacted a hangar. The captain stated that during the after start checklist he moved the power levers to disengage the start locks on the propellers. Post accident examination found that the left propeller was still in the start lock position, while the right propeller was in the normal operating range. The captain was the pilot flying (PF) and the second-in-command (SIC) was the non flying pilot (NFP). After receiving their clearance, the PF taxied onto the runway and initiated the takeoff sequence. The SIC did not set and monitor the engine power during takeoff, as required by the company procedures. During the takeoff acceleration when the speed was between 40 and 60 knots, the captain released the nose gear steering control switch as the rudder became aerodynamically effective. When the switch was released, the airplane began immediately veering left due to the asymmetrical thrust between the left and right engine propellers. The PIC did not advise the SIC that he had lost directional control and was aborting the takeoff, as required by company procedures. The distance between where the PIC reported that he began the takeoff roll and where the first tire marks became apparent was about 630 feet, and the distance between where the marks first became apparent and where the airplane's left main landing gear tire marks exited the left side of the runway was about 220 feet. Thereafter, marks (depressions in the dirt) were noted for a 108-foot-long distance in the field located adjacent to the runway. Medium intensity tire tread marks were apparent on the parallel taxiway and the adjacent vehicle service road. These tread marks, over a 332-foot-long distance, led directly to progressively more pronounced marks and rubber transfer, and to the accident airplane's landing gear tires. Based on an examination of tire tracks and skid marks, the PIC did not reject the takeoff until the airplane approached the runway's edge, and was continuing its divergent track away from the runway's centerline. The airplane rolled on the runway through the dirt median and across a taxiway for 850 feet prior to the PIC applying moderate brakes, and evidence of heavier brake application was apparent only a few hundred feet from the impacted hangar. No evidence of preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions was found with the propeller assemblies, nose wheel steering mechanism, or brakes.

The single engine aircraft departed Manskiy Airfield on a local flight with 13 skydivers and one pilot on board. Shortly after takeoff, while climbing to a height of 120 metres, the aircraft stalled and crashed in a near flat attitude in an open field, bursting into flames. The wreckage was found 2,5 km from the village of Shalinskoye. Three passengers were seriously injured while 11 other occupants were killed. Few days later, two of the three survivors died from their injuries. The aircraft was totally destroyed by a post crash fire.

For unknown reasons, the aircraft was unable to take off, overran and came to rest at Inongo Airfield. There were no casualties but the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. It was reported that the certificate of airworthiness was suspended last July.

The pilot, sole on board, was completing a post maintenance check flight after the engine was subject to several modifications. After takeoff from Roanne-Renaison Airport, while climbing to a height of 300 feet, the pilot initiated a left turn in a relative flat attitude and followed a perpendicular trajectory from the runway. Suddenly, it collided with a weather pylon (8 meters high), overturned and crashed, bursting into flames. The aircraft was destroyed and the pilot was killed.

The crew was forced to make an emergency landing at Kashtak Airfield near Chita. There were no casualties but the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The pilot attempted to take off from a private grass airstrip (2,400 feet long) located at 22678 Purple Hill Road, about 13,5 km north of London Airport, Ontario. The aircraft failed to get airborne and eventually came to rest in a cornfield. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair and both occupants were injured. A witness observed smoke coming from the aircraft's wheels and the pilot suspected that the parking brake was not fully disengaged.