Airport (less than 10 km from airport)

The 700-hour private pilot flying the twin-engine airplane with four passengers aboard used approximately three-quarters of runway 18 before becoming airborne. After establishing a positive rate of climb, the pilot retracted the landing gear and pitched the airplane for a 92 knot climb. Shortly thereafter the rate of climb decreased and the airplane's control authority began to decay. The pilot responded by applying full throttle to both engines and reduced the angle of attack in an attempt to regain airspeed. The pilot was able to arrest the airplane's decaying airspeed and descent; however, the airplane collided with a barn and then a grassy field before coming to rest in an upright position. The pilot and passengers were able to egress the airplane unassisted and the airplane was engulfed in flames a few minutes later. About 23 minutes after the mishap the weather reporting station 24 miles north of the accident site reported, the wind from 230 degrees at 6 knots, the temperature 84 degrees Fahrenheit, and dew point of 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Runway 18 was reported as a 4,002-foot long by 60-foot wide asphalt runway with trees near the departure end. The field elevation at the airport was reported at 544 feet and the density altitude was calculated at 1,860 feet. The estimated weight of the airplane at the time of departure was near its maximum gross weight of 6,000 pounds. The pilot reported that he had not performed a weight and balance check, calculated density altitude, and was not sure of how much fuel was onboard the airplane prior to departure. The pilot further reported that there were no apparent anomalies with the airplane.

On 19 September 2005, the type F-Swearingen SA227-AC aircraft with registration PH-DYM was scheduled to make a charter flight from Rotterdam Airport to Birmingham Airport. Seventeen passengers and two cockpit crew members were on board. The planned departure time was 07.30 hours. The aircraft taxied to the beginning of runway 24 and lined up for take-off. During line-up, the speed levers for the engines were moved from taxi position to flight position. The nose wheel steering fault indicator lit up and the first officer, who was steering the aircraft, responded by saying that he had no nose wheel steering. The captain informed the first officer that he had forgotten to press the switch on the throttles, which activates the nose wheel steering system. The first officer then confirmed that he had nose wheel steering. With the engines in the low RPM range (taxi position, up to 70% of maximum RPM), the pilot can steer the aircraft using the rudder pedals while taxing. When the engines are operated in the high RPM selection (flight position, between 70% and 100% of the maximum RPM), the switch on the throttles, which activates the nose wheel steering system, must be pressed in during the first part of the take-off roll in order to be able to operate the nose wheel with the rudder pedal. At a speed around 50 knots, the switch which activates the nose wheel steering system is released. The aerodynamic forces of on the rudder are then sufficient to take over the steering from the nose wheel. Once take-off clearance was given by air traffic control, the first officer engaged power and started the take-off roll. He stated that once the nose wheel operating switch had been released, the aircraft almost immediately began moving towards the left hand side of the runway. He tried to use the brakes and the directional rudder, to return the aircraft to the centre of the runway. The aircraft had a speed of between 50 and 60 knots at that point. The crew rejected the take-off but could not prevent the aircraft ending up alongside the runway, on the left hand side. The captain stated that various forces influence the directional control of an aircraft during the take-off, such as wind, propeller wash, increasing air speed, etc. These forces necessitate steering corrections during the take-off. Only when the nose wheel steering system was disengaged the captain realized something was wrong. The grass area alongside the runway is lower than the runway and the ground was soft. The left landing gear sank in the soft ground first and, as a result, the aircraft decelerated heavily and the left landing gear broke off almost immediately. The tip of the left wing struck the ground. This caused a ground loop effect and turned the aircraft further left. As a consequence the right landing gear and the nose gear also broke off. Once the aircraft had come to a standstill, the captain switched off all onboard systems and cut off the fuel supply to the engines. Simultaneously, the first officer was given the task of evacuating the passengers. The passengers were calm and left the aircraft without problems via the left hand door at the front of the aircraft. A moment later, the airport fire service arrived at the location of the accident. One of the passengers was taken to hospital for a check-up; he was able to leave hospital the same morning. There was severe damage despite the relatively slow speed at which the aircraft left the runway.

The 641-hour private pilot and passenger were departing on a 155-nautical mile night cross country flight. Shortly after the airplane took off, the tower controller heard a weak transmission that she could not completely understand, but did hear the words "engine" and "power." The controller asked the pilot to "say again", but there was no response. She again asked, "say again" and the pilot transmitted, " I'm going down." There were no further communications from the pilot. While approximately 400 feet above ground level, the airplane's engine stopped producing power. While in a left turn, the left wingtip impacted the ground and the airplane cartwheeled. The debris field encompassed an area approximately 125 feet long and approximately 50 feet wide. Witness reports of the airplane's flight path along with the wreckage distribution path were consistent with the pilot's attempt to return to the airport. A post-impact fire consumed the fuselage and caused extensive thermal damage to the engine and wings. An examination of the wreckage revealed the landing gear and wing spoilers were in the retracted position. The position of the flaps could not be determined. No mechanical deficiencies were noted with the airframe that could have prevented normal operations. Examination of the engine revealed no preimpact anomalies. The reason for loss of engine power could not be determined.

The airplane collided with a berm following a loss of directional control while landing. The airplane was on a 14 CFR Part 91 positioning flight at the time of the accident. The pilots reported that they encountered what they thought were rough spots on the runway during the takeoff roll. The captain reported that after takeoff, he called for the co-pilot to raise the gear and engage the yaw damper. The crew then noticed an unsafe gear indication for the nose gear. The captain stated they leveled off at 5,000 feet and decreased the airspeed so they could recycled the landing gear. Cycling the landing gear did not resolve the problem. The crew then requested to return to the departure airport for landing. The landing gear was extended and a gear down and locked indication for all three landing gear was observed. The captain stated that on touchdown, the co-pilot extended the spoilers and armed the thrust reversers. He stated that after the nose wheel touched down the airplane made a sharp left turn and traveled off the side of the runway through the grass. The airplane contacted a four-foot high berm prior to coming to a stop on another runway. The captain stated he attempted to taxi the airplane only to discover that they did not have any nose wheel steering. Post accident inspection revealed the seal on the nose gear strut had failed which prevented the nose gear from centering.

The approach and landing at Mae Sot Airport were completed in rainy conditions. After touchdown, the aircraft was unable to stop within the remaining distance, collided with a fence and came to rest. All 28 occupants evacuated safely while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

After landing on runway 15 (2,207 metres long) at Rome-Ciampino Airport, the aircraft was unable to stop within the remaining distance. It overran, collided with the localizer antenna and came to rest. While the aircraft was considered as damaged beyond repair, all five occupants escaped uninjured. It was raining at the time of the accident and the runway was wet.

The crew was completing a local training flight at Samarinda Airport. While on a fourth approach, the twin engine airplane stalled and crashed on a softball field located in the Segiri sports complex near the airport. Both pilots were injured and the aircraft was destroyed.

On final approach to Isiro Airport, the crew encountered poor visibility due to fog. Too low, the aircraft collided with a palm tree and crashed 1,500 metres short of runway 31. All 11 occupants were killed.

The single engine aircraft was engaged in a local survey flight (forest fire) in the region of Zielona Góra. Shortly after takeoff, while in initial climb, the engine failed. The aircraft stalled and crashed in a wooded area. All three occupants were injured and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The small, twin-engine business jet was about 15 feet above the runway on takeoff, when a flock of birds from both sides of the runway flew up in front of the airplane. The number two engine "surged," and "loud reports" were heard before the copilot noted a complete loss of power on the number two engine instruments. The airplane climbed for about 10 seconds, before the copilot observed the gas producer (N1) gauge on the number one engine decay through 50 percent. The stall warning horn sounded, and the pilot adjusted the flight controls for landing. The airplane contacted the runway with the landing gear retracted, overran the runway, struck a fence, crossed a road, and came to rest in a cornfield about 1,000 feet beyond the initial point of ground contact. Post accident examination of both engines revealed evidence and damage consistent with multiple bird ingestion.