Airport (less than 10 km from airport)

Following an uneventful flight from Kralendijk, Bonaire Island, the crew started a night approach to Santo Domingo-Mayor Buenaventura Vivas Airport, Venezuela. On final, the aircraft struck trees and crashed in a wooded area located 9 km short of runway. The aircraft was destroyed and both pilots were killed.

On 5 October 2007, a Fletcher FU24-950M aircraft operated by PT. Sinar Mas Super Air, registered PK-PNZ was conducting aerial agriculture spraying activities at palm plantations of Rokan Estate, Pekanbaru, Riau. The aerial agriculture spraying divided into two sessions. Session #1 was in the morning at 23:35 UTC (06:35 LT) and conducted 27 cycles for about 3 hours flight. Session #1 was in the afternoon after daybreak at 05:00 UTC and conducted 28 cycles. The session #1 was carried out with normal and safely. One Pilot was on-board in the aircraft. The session #2, the aircraft was take-off at 05:00 using runway 18. After take-off, the pilot turned to the left to the fertilization area. The fertilization area was on the left of the runway. The pilot informed while the aircraft turned to the left, he felt the strong wind from the right. Then the aircraft was descending and the left wing hit the palm tree. After losing the wing tip, the aircraft difficult to control and crashed into the palm trees on the left runway for about 238 meters from the end of runway 18. The aircraft was substantial damaged. The pilot suffered minor injured. The weather of that day was clear and wind speed around 6 – 10 knots.

The crew was scheduled to perform a geophysical survey flight for the government of Uganda between Entebbe and Masindi. Shortly after takeoff from Entebbe Airport runway 17, while climbing to a height of about 1,500 metres, the twin engine aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed in an open field. Both occupants were killed and the aircraft was destroyed.

On final approach to Malemba Nkulu, the twin engine aircraft stalled and crashed in a cemetery located 500 metres short of runway. The copilot was killed while four passengers and the captain were seriously injured. The stewardess escaped unhurt. The aircraft was destroyed.

The airplane's right engine experienced a complete loss of power immediately after takeoff and the airplane began to slow. The airplane reached an altitude of approximately 91 feet above ground level and then entered an uncontrolled descent consistent with the onset of a velocity minimum control (VMC) roll to the right. No evidence of any preimpact failures or malfunctions with either the engine or airframe was discovered, and evidence at the scene indicated that the landing gear had been retracted and the right engine propeller feathered. Examination of the cockpit revealed the right engine fuel selector was positioned between the "60 GAL RIGHT AUX" detent and the "RIGHT ENG OFF" detent. Examination of the fuel system between the selector and the right engine indicated that it was in this position prior to impact. Also, placards next to the fuel selectors stated, "WARNING POSITION SELECTORS IN DETENTS ONLY. NO FUEL FLOW TO ENGINES BETWEEN DETENTS." The pilot loaded the majority of the cargo and performed the weight and balance calculations. Examination of the fuselage revealed that all six cargo bins were full. The investigation also discovered that the furthest aft bin contained 265 pounds of cargo even though placarded for a maximum of 75 pounds. All other bins were loaded considerably below their maximum weight limits. Weight and balance calculations revealed the information listed on the weight and balance form produced by the pilot was erroneous and that the actual center of gravity (CG) of the airplane was rear of the aft CG limit, which would have created instability in the handling characteristics of the airplane, especially after a loss of engine power. In addition, the aft-of-limit CG would have increased the airspeed needed to prevent the airplane from entering a VMC roll. Performance calculations indicate that with the right engine having lost power immediately after takeoff, the airplane would most likely not have been able to continue the departure on one operating engine.

The airline transport pilot was departing in a twin engine turboprop airplane on a ferry flight from a remote lodge airstrip that was about 1,000 feet long and 40 feet wide. The airplane had previously received substantial damage to the nose wheel assembly on a previous flight to the airstrip. Repairs were made to the airframe, and the pilot was departing for a maintenance facility. The pilot had flown in and out of the airstrip on numerous occasions, but not in the accident type airplane. The lodge owner reported that the pilot started both engines and taxied the length of the airstrip, stopping momentarily several times. The pilot ran the engines for about 20 minutes, and then began a takeoff to the south. The airplane appeared to accelerate and remain on the centerline of the airstrip, but did not liftoff until the very end of the airstrip. The owner did not notice any unusual sounds or appearance of the engines. After liftoff, the wheels of the airplane struck and broke off the tops of trees and shrubs, that were about 6 to 7 feet above the ground. The airplane immediately veered to the right, and went out of the lodge owner's sight, but he continued to hear the airplane hitting trees until final impact. The airplane crashed in a shallow lake, coming to rest about 300 feet from shore, in about 5 feet of water. The entire cockpit area, forward of the wings, was torn off the airframe. The validity of any postaccident cockpit and instrument findings was unreliable due to the extensive damage to the cockpit. Likewise, structural damage to the airframe precluded determining wing flap settings during takeoff. Performance calculations indicated that the airplane's takeoff distance would have been about 950 feet, although the lodge owner said that in his experience, the accident airplane was capable of lifting off about half way down the airstrip without difficulty. The circumstances of the takeoff indicated that the left engine had been producing sufficient power to chop through several trees during the crash. Testing and inspection of the right engine was inconclusive, and although it was run on a test stand at reduced power, full power could not be attained due to ingestion of foreign material during the test run.

Prior to departing, the pilot looked at the fuel quantity indicators, and believed that approximately 3 hours of fuel was available for the estimated 1 hour 20 minute flight. Upon reaching the cruise portion of the flight, the pilot realized that an insufficient quantity of fuel remained in order to complete the planned flight, and he elected to divert to a closer airport. While on final approach to the diversionary airport, both engines lost power, and the pilot made a forced landing to a parking lot. When asked about the performance and handling of the airplane during the flight, the pilot stated, "the airplane performed the way it was suppose to when it ran out of fuel."

On 16 September 2007 at approximately 14:30 hours, One Two Go Airlines' McDonnell-Douglas MD-82 airplane with nationality and registration mark HS-OMG, departed on a scheduled passenger flight number OG269 from Don Mueang International Airport for Phuket International Airport with 123 passengers and 7 crew members on board. The Pilot-in-Command (PlC) seated on the left was a Pilot not Flying (PNF) / Pilot Monitoring and the Co-pilot seated on the right was a Pilot Flying (PF). The flight was en route on airways G458 at Flight Level (FL) 320 (32,000 feet) and the estimated time of arrival at Phuket International Airport was 15:50 hours. At 15:36:21, during the time that flight OG269 was approaching the Phuket International Airport, the Orient Thai Airlines flight OX2071, while vacating from Runway 27 after landed at the Phuket International Airport, reported the Air Traffic Controller (ATC) of the weather condition prior to landing that Cumulonimbus (CB) was over the airport area and there was windshear at 5 nautical miles before reaching the Instrument Landing System (ILS) station, resulted in airspeed gain and loss of 15 knots. The ATC asked flight OG269 whether they acknowledged the weather conditions reported by flight OX2071, because both flights were on the same aerodrome radio frequency (118.1 MHz). The PlC of flight OG269 acknowledged the information and extended the landing gears for landing. At 15:37:31, the ATC informed flight OG269 of surface winds from 240 degrees at 15 knots and gave clearance to land on Runway 27 with-wet runway precaution. At 15:38:27, the ATC informed flight OG269 of surface winds from 240 degrees at 30 knots and asked the flight OG269 to state its intention of landing. The flight OG269 affirmed. At 15:39:00, the flight OG269 requested for information of surface wind condition. The ATC informed a surface wind condition of 240 degrees at 40 knots and the flight OG269 acknowledged. At that instant, the Radio Altitude Aural Call-Out system automatically called out '500 feet' and the PlC called out that the airspeed was at 136 knots. At 15:39:23, the PlC ordered for more engine power and reminded the copilot that the airplane was descending below the ILS glide path. The copilot affirmed the correction. The PIC then ordered to increase engine power three more times. During that time, the airplane was at the altitude of 100 feet. At 15:39:45, the Radio Altitude Aural Call-Out system automatically called out '40 feet' and the Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) called out 'sink rate - sink rate' . At 15:39:49, the copilot called out for a go-around and the PIC said 'Okay, Go Around'. At 15.39.50, the copilot called for 'flaps 15' and transferred the airplane control to the PIC. Then, the PIC told the copilot to set the autopilot airplane heading and to retract the landing gear. At 15 :40: 11, the airplane veered off and hit an embankment located in the North of Runway 27 and broke up in flames. 40 people were rescued while 90 others were killed, among them five crew members.

On approach to Guadalajara-Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla Airport, the crew selected flaps and slats down but noticed an asymmetry. During the second approach, flaps were selected down via the alternate system. The airplane landed with the landing gear in a transit position, causing both engines to struck the ground after touchdown. After a course of few hundred metres, the aircraft came to rest, bursting into flames due to the engine friction on the ground. The fire was quickly extinguished but the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. All 109 occupants evacuated safely.

The pilot-in-command (PIC) of the of the airplane was the flight department's chief pilot, who was in the right seat and monitoring the approach as the non-flying pilot. The second-in-command (SIC) was a captain for the flight department, who was in the left seat and the flying pilot. On arrival at their destination, they were vectored for an instrument-landing-system (ILS) approach to a 6,001-foot-long runway. Visibility was 1-1/4 miles in rain. The autopilot was on and a coupled approach was planned. After the autopilot captured the ILS, the airplane descended on the glideslope. The PIC announced that the approach lights were in sight and the SIC stated that he also saw the lights and disengaged the autopilot. The SIC turned on the windshield wipers and then lost visual contact with the runway. He announced that he lost visual contact, but the PIC stated that he still saw the runway. The SIC considered a missed approach, but continued because the PIC still had visual contact. The PIC stated, "I have the lights" and began to direct the SIC. He then "took over the controls." The airplane touched down, the speed brakes extended and, approximately 1,000 feet later, the airplane overran the runway. The PIC stated that he was confused as to who was the PIC, and that he and the SIC were "co-captains." When asked about standard operating procedures (SOPs), the PIC advised that they did not have any. They had started out with one pilot and one airplane, and they now had five pilots and two airplanes. The PIC later stated that they probably should have gone around when the flying pilot could not see out the window. The PIC added that the windshields had no coating and did not shed water. One year prior, while flying in rain, his vision through the windshield was blurred but he did not report it to their maintenance provider. Manufacturer's data revealed that the windshield was coated to enhance vision during rain conditions. The manufacturer advised that the coating might not last the life of the windshield and provided guidance to determine both acceptable and unacceptable rain repellent performance.