Airport (less than 10 km from airport)

The four engine airplane departed Seoul-Incheon Airport on a cargo flight to Vienna, with an intermediate stop in Novosibirsk, carrying 14 crew members and a load consisting of 84 tons of automobile parts. Shortly after takeoff from runway 25 at Novosibirsk-Tolmachevo Airport, while in initial climb, a catastrophic failure occurred on the engine n°2. Several debris punctured the fuselage, damaging slats on both left and right side. As a result, radio communications were cut, the power supply failed and the thrust control on all three remaining engines dropped. The crew entered a circuit for an immediate return despite the aircraft was in an overweight condition for an emergency landing. After touchdown on runway 25 that offered an LDA of 3,597 metres, the crew started the braking procedure but the aircraft was unable to stop within the remaining distance. It overran, lost its both nose gears and slid in a snow covered field before coming to rest 300 metres further. All 14 occupants evacuated safely and the aircraft seems to be damaged beyond repair.

After touchdown on runway 29 at São Pedro Airport, the crew initiated the breaking procedure but the airplane failed to stop within the remaining distance. It overran, collided with various obstacles, went down an embankment of 10 metres and eventually came to rest 130 metres further, bursting into flames. All four occupants evacuated safely and the airplane was destroyed by a post crash fire.

After touchdown on runway 06 at Iquitos-Coronel Francisco Secada Vignetta Airport, the aircraft went out of control and veered off runway to the left. It contacted small trees and bushes, lost its right wing and came to rest 100 metres to the left of the runway, broken in two. A fire erupted but was quickly extinguished. All four crew members were slightly injured and the aircraft was destroyed.

The single engine airplane suffered an accident while taking off from Mundri Airfield, causing the right main gear and the nose gear to be torn off. Also, both wings were severely damaged. There were no fire and no injuries. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair. It seems it was owned by Newton Air and leased to Zantas Air Services.

The copilot, who was seated in the right seat, reported that after an uneventful run-up and taxi, the pilot, who was seated in the left seat, initiated the takeoff. The airplane remained on the runway past the point at which takeoff should have occurred and the copilot observed the pilot attempting to pull back on the control yoke but it would not move. The copilot then also attempted to pull back on the control yoke but was also unsuccessful. Observing that the end of the runway was nearing, the copilot aborted the takeoff by reducing the throttle to idle and applying maximum braking. The airplane overran the runway into rough and marshy terrain, where it came to rest partially submerged in water. Postaccident examination of the airplane and flight controls found no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Specifically, examination of the elevator flight control rigging, in addition to functional checks of the elevator, confirmed continuity and normal function. Additionally, the flight control lock was found on the floor near the rudder pedals on the left side of the cockpit. Due to a head injury sustained during the accident, the pilot was unable to recall most of the events that transpired during the accident. The pilot did state that he typically removed the control lock during the preflight inspection and that he would place it in his flight bag. He thought that a shoulder injury may have led to the control lock missing the flight bag, and why it was found behind the rudder pedals after the accident. Review and analysis of a video that captured the airplane during its taxi to the runway showed that the elevator control position was similar to what it would be with the control lock installed. While the pilot and copilot reported that they did not observe the control lock installed during the takeoff, the position of the elevator observed on the video, the successful postaccident functional test of elevator, and the unsecured flight control lock being located behind the pilot’s rudder pedals after the accident suggest that the control anomaly experienced by the pilots may have been a result of the control lock remaining inadvertently installed and overlooked by both pilots prior to the takeoff. According to the airframe manufacturer’s preflight and before takeoff checklists, the flight control lock must be removed during preflight, prior to engine start and taxi, and the flight controls must be checked prior to takeoff. Regardless of why the elevator control would not move during the takeoff, a positive flight control check prior to the takeoff should have detected any such anomaly. It is likely that the pilot failed to conduct a flight control check prior to takeoff. Further, the pilot failed to abort the takeoff at the first indication that there was a problem. Although delayed, the copilot’s decision to take control of the airplane and abort the takeoff likely mitigated the potential for more severe injury to the occupants and damage to the airplane.

On the morning of the day of the accident, the pilot, accompanied by a passenger, flew under IFR flight mode from La Môle (83) to Quiberon (56). The flight took 3 hours and 40 minutes and the return was scheduled in the afternoon. After landing in Quiberon, the pilot learned that there was no possibility to refuel with AVGAS, information that was not specified by NOTAM. The pilot then decided to refuel at Vannes-Meucon Airport before leaving to St Tropez-La Môle. He said he was upset by this situation and by the bad weather conditions in the area. During the pre-flight visit to Quiberon, the pilot added oil. He indicates that he also carried out a pre-flight inspection before takeoff from Vannes. During the takeoff roll from runway 22 at Vannes-Meucon Airport, the rotation took place in the first third of the runway. Just after liftoff, he saw the engine cowling open. He immediately thaught he forgot to tighten the dipstick and decided to abort the takeoff and landed on the remaining runway. The runway being long, he believed he can stop before the runway end. He put the power levers in the "full, reduced and choke" position and tried to land the plane quickly. As the aircraft already reached a high speed, it landed 200 metres short of runway end and deviated longitudinally and crossed the runway end safety area, known as RESA. It came to a stop a 100 metres further on an embankment. The left wing was partially torn off and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. There was no fire. Both occupants escaped uninjured.

On October 2, 2020, about 1512 central daylight time (CDT), a Piper PA-46-500TP, N62ZM, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Lake Elmo, Minnesota. The airline transport pilot sustained serious injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 personal flight. The pilot reported that shortly after takeoff from runway 32 at the Lake Elmo airport (21D) and following landing gear retraction, he noticed a “hiccup” in the engine power and immediately started a turn back towards the airport. During the turn, all engine power was lost and the pilot executed a forced landing into a field of standing corn. The airplane impacted the terrain, bounced, and came to rest upright in the corn about ½ mile northwest of the departure end of runway 32. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing as a result of the impact and post-crash fire. The airplane was equipped with a Pratt & Whitney PT6A turboprop engine.

The aircraft was engaged in a local training flight at Chuhuiv AFB, carrying 7 crew members and 20 cadets. On approach to runway 16, the crew apparently encountered engine problems when the aircraft lost height and crashed 2 km short of runway threshold near motorway E40, bursting into flames. Two passengers were seriously injured while 25 other occupants were killed. Few hours later, one of the survivors died from his injuries.

After takeoff from Guaymaral-Flaminio Suárez Camacho Airport runway 29, while climbing to a height of 200 feet, the engine suffered and explosion and lost power. The airplane started to descend, impacted a brick wall and lost its undercarriage. It then crash landed in a prairie and slid for few dozen metres before coming to rest. All five occupants escaped uninjured. The accident occurred three minutes after takeoff.

While in cruise flight at 19,000 ft mean sea level (msl), the pilot declared an emergency to air traffic control and stated that the airplane had lost engine power and that he needed to divert. The pilot elected to divert to an airport that was about 5 miles south of his position. Archived automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast data and commercially available flight track data showed that a descent was initiated from 19,000 ft and the airplane proceeded directly to, and circled around, the airport one time while descending. The last data point showed the airplane at 1,250 ft msl (about 750 ft above ground level) and about 1 mile north of the approach end of the runway. From the cruise altitude of 19,000ft until the last data point, about 12 minutes and 45 seconds had elapsed, which equated to an average descent rate of about 1,392ft per minute. Witnesses located about 1/4 mile south of the end of the runway on a miniature golf course noticed the propeller on the airplane was not turning. They stated that they saw the airplane in a “really hard” left bank; the nose of the airplane dropped, and it impacted the ground in a near vertical attitude. The airplane came to rest along a road about 200 ft south of the airport property. The airplane impacted the terrain in a nose low, near vertical attitude and sustained substantial damage to fuselage and both wings. It is likely that, based on the location of the runway, relative to the miniature golf course, the pilot initiated the left bank to avoid bystanders on the ground and inadvertently exceeded the wing’s critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall. The airplane was equipped with an engine trend monitor (ETM), which captured various events concerning the accident flight, including engine start, operating limit exceedances, and power checks. The ETM captured a power check while the airplane was at 19,100 ft. About 3 minutes 32 seconds later, an engine off event was recorded. The ETM further captured a logon message, which was consistent with the power being cycled, at an altitude of 3,542 ft, 9 minutes, 52 seconds later. The ETM did not record any start attempts between the logged engine off event and when power was lost to the unit. A postaccident examination of the airframe, engine, and accessories did not reveal any mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Although it cannot be determined whether a restart attempt would have been successful, the data were consistent with a restart not being attempted. Both the engine failure and power off landing checklists contained instructions for the pilot to establish the airspeed at 90 knots; however, when the winds aloft were applied to the reported groundspeeds, it was evident this did not occur. Furthermore, the power off landing checklist instructed the pilot to be about 1,500 ft above the airport on the downwind leg; however, data indicate that the airplane was about 5,000 ft above the airport on the downwind leg. The rapid descent from 5,000 ft on the downwind leg to about 750 ft above ground level on the final leg resulted in an unstabilized approach.