Airport (less than 10 km from airport)

The flight crew was supporting a United States Navy (USN) training mission and ended the flight early due to icing conditions. The flight crew calculated a landing reference speed (Vref) of 140 knots (kts) indicated airspeed (KIAS) and landing distance required of 4,200 ft for a wet runway and a flap setting of 20°. Due to underwing-mounted external storage, the landing flaps were limited to a maximum extension of 20°. The flight crew configured the airplane with 20° flaps and reported that the airplane touched down at 140 kts. Although the runway was 8,001 ft long, an arresting cable was located 1,701 ft from the runway threshold, resulting in a runway distance available of about 6,300 ft. After landing, the second in command (SIC) reported that the pilot-in-command (PIC) deployed the spoilers and brakes, then announced that the airplane was not slowing down. The PIC stated that the airplane did not decelerate normally, that the brake anti-skid system was active, and that the airplane seemed to be hydroplaning. He cycled the brakes, which had no effect.The airplane subsequently overran the departure end of the runway, breached an ocean sea wall and came to rest in a nose-down attitude on a sandbar. The airport weather observation system recorded that 0.06 inches of liquid equivalent precipitation fell between 18 and 9 minutes before the accident. In the 4 hours before the accident, the airport received 0.31 inches of liquid equivalent precipitation. A landing performance study conducted by the airplane manufacturer modeled a variety of landing scenarios considered during the investigation. The modeling used factual information provided by the investigation, including ADS-B data, as well as manufacturer-provided airplane performance data specific to the airplane. The study considered the effect on landing distance of both a wet and dry runway, a contaminated runway, both full and intermittent hydroplaning, a localized tailwind (which was not present in the weather data), and an inboard brake failure. The study showed that the most likely scenario, based on the available data, was that the airplane touched down with a ground speed well in excess of the 140 kts Vref speed reported by the crew, and that subsequent to the touchdown encountered full hydroplaning at speeds above 104 kts. The airplane sat overnight on the sandbar and was submerged in saltwater before the airplane was recovered. As a result, the airplane’s braking system could not be functionally tested. However, the physical evidence from the brakes as found post accident, combined with the results of the landing distance modeling, did not indicate that a brake failure occurred. Similarly, ADS-B data did not support the presence of a localized tailwind when such a landing was modeled in the study. Thus, it’s likely that the flight crew landed too fast and then encountered hydroplaning during the landing roll as a result of a recent heavy rain shower, which diminished the calculated stopping distance.

The airplane was completing local skydiving flights out from Piotrków Trybunalski Airport located 45 km southeast from Łodz. After 20 skydivers have been dropped, the crew was returning to the airport when, on descend, the airplane went out of control and crashed in a near vertical attitude in a field. The aircraft was totally destroyed by impact forces and both occupants were killed.

Shortly after takeoff from Johannesburg-Rand Airport runway 29, while climbing, the single engine went out of control and crashed. All five passengers were killed and the pilot was injured.

The pilot of the single-engine airplane was operating in the airport traffic pattern and had been making position reports on the airport’s common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF). The pilot of the multi-engine airplane made an initial radio call on the CTAF 10 miles from the airport, announcing his intention to perform a straight-in approach for landing. Both pilots continued to make appropriate position reports, but did not communicate with each other until the multi engine airplane was about one mile from the airport and the single-engine airplane had turned onto the base leg of the traffic pattern for landing. Realizing that the multi-engine airplane was converging upon him, the pilot of the single-engine airplane announced a go-around, and the airplanes collided on final approach for the runway about 150 ft above ground level (agl). Examination of the airplanes revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The multi-engine airplane’s wing flaps and landing gear were both retracted at the accident site, consistent with the pilot’s failure to configure the airplane for landing, and flight track information indicated that the pilot maintained a ground speed of about 180 knots throughout the approach until the collision occurred, which may have reduced the time available for him to see and avoid the single engine airplane. The toxicology report for the pilot of the single-engine airplane revealed THC, metabolites for THC, metabolites for cocaine, and ketamine; the low amounts of each drug were not considered causal to the accident. The toxicology report for the multi-engine airplane pilot revealed THC, and metabolites of THC; the low amounts of each drug were not considered causal to the accident.

The aircraft departed Goiânia-Nacional de Aviação Airport Runway 14 at 1012LT on a local test flight with three crew members on board. After reaching FL340, several tests were completed then the crew made a high speed descent before landing on runway 32. After touchdown and a course of about 700 metres, the airplane veered off runway to the right, collided with a concrete wall, lost its nose gear and came to rest near the perimeter fence. All three occupants evacuated safely.

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.

Upon landing at Mogadishu-Aden Abdulle Airport runway 05, the airplane went out of control, veered off runway, lost its left wing and crashed upside down, bursting into flames. The fire was quickly extinguished and all 36 occupants evacuated, three passengers suffered minor injuries.

On July 17, 2022, about 1204 pacific daylight time, a Piper PA-46-350P airplane, N97CX, and a Cessna 172N airplane, N160RA, were destroyed when they were involved in an accident near Las Vegas, Nevada. The two pilots in the PA-46, and the flight instructor and student pilot in the Cessna 172, were fatally injured. The PA-46 was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 personal flight, and the Cessna 172 was operated as a Title 14 CFR Part 91 instructional flight. Both airplanes were maneuvering to land at North Las Vegas Airport (VGT), Las Vegas Nevada, when the accident occurred. N97CX had been instructed by air traffic control (ATC) to fly left traffic for runway 30L and N160RA had been instructed to fly right traffic for runway 30R. The airplanes collided about 0.25 nautical miles from the approach end of runway 30R. Figure 1 shows a simplified flight path diagram for the accident flights based on Federal Aviation Administration Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) data. N97CX was operating as an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight and had departed from Coeur d'Alene Airport - Pappy Boyington Field (COE), Coeur d'Alene, Idaho about 0943, destined for VGT. N160RA was operating as a visual flight rules (VFR) training flight at VGT. N160RA was in the VFR traffic pattern for runway 30R, flying a right-hand traffic pattern and communicating with the VGT local controller. N97CX was inbound from the north on an IFR flight plan from COE. At 1156:08, the Nellis Radar Approach Control air traffic controller cleared N97CX for the visual approach and instructed the pilot to overfly VGT at midfield for left traffic to runway 30L. Air traffic control responsibility for the flight was transferred from Nellis Radar Approach Control to VGT at 1158:26. At 1158:43, the pilot of N97CX contacted the VGT local controller and reported “descending out of 7,600 feet msl for landing on three zero left and ah Nellis said to cross midfield.” The VGT local controller responded, “continue for three zero left.” The pilot acknowledged and stated, “okay continue for runway three zero left nine seven charlie x-ray we will cross over midfield.” At 1200:03, the pilot of N160RA requested a “short approach.” The VGT local controller transmitted “zero romeo alpha short approach approved runway three zero right cleared for the option,” which was acknowledged by N160RA. This information is preliminary and subject to change. At 1201:36, the VGT local controller transmitted “november seven charlie x-ray runway three zero left cleared to land.” The pilot of N97CX responded “three zero left cleared to land nine seven charlie x-ray.” At 1201:57, the VGT local controller transmitted “seven charlie x-ray I think I said it right runway three zero left seven charlie x-ray runway three zero left.” At 1202:02 the pilot of N97CX transmitted “yeah affirmative runway three zero left that’s what i heard nine seven charlie x-ray”. There were no further transmissions from either airplane. Examination of N97CX revealed that the airplane impacted in a nose low, right wing down attitude. The landing gear was down, and the right main landing gear was displaced outboard. The right wing displayed an impact separation around wing station (WS) 93. The right inboard wing section remained attached to the fuselage but was canted aft. The right wing flap was fractured about midspan; the inboard section remained attached to the wing and was found in the extended position. The outboard half of the flap was found about 10 ft forward of the right wing. The right wing leading edge displayed a series of crush impressions to the leading edge about 2.5 ft outboard of the wing root. The impressions contained flakes of green primer, and cuts to the de-ice boot. The outboard right wing section remained attached to the inboard wing by the aileron control cables. The aileron remained attached to the outboard wing section but was impact damaged. The outboard leading edge was crushed up and aft. The right wingtip fairing and pitot tube were also impact separated. Longitudinal scratches were visible along the right side of the fuselage. Examination of N160RA revealed that, the airplane had impacted terrain in a left-wing and nose-low attitude before coming to rest inverted on a 304°magnetic heading. Both inboard portions of the wings sustained thermal damage in the areas surrounding the fuel tanks, and the cabin and fuselage, except for the cabin roof, were consumed by a post-impact fire. Blue paint transfer was observed on the lower surface of the separated outboard left wing and the lower surface of the left wing flap. Black de-ice boot material transfer was observed on the lower surface of the separated outboard left wing, the lower surface of the attached portion of the left wing at approximately WS 100, and for an approximate 5 ft long distance outboard of the strut attach point, along the lower leading edge. About 4 ft of the left wing, which included the left aileron, was separated from the left wing, and was found on the edge of a culvert just south of the main wreckage. The left outboard wing section aft of the forward spar was found to be separated near the aileron-flap junction. The left wing flap was found to be separated from the wing.

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.