Crash of a Cessna 208B Grand Caravan in Seronera: 2 killed

Date & Time: Sep 23, 2019
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
5H-AAM
Flight Phase:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Seronera - Grumeti Hills
MSN:
208B-2430
YOM:
2013
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
1
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
1
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
2
Circumstances:
The single engine airplane departed Seronera Airstrip in the early morning on a short flight to Grumeti Hills, about 40 km northwest, according to a statement from the operator. Shortly after takeoff, the airplane went out of control, struck a concrete wall and crashed upside down. The pilot and the sole passenger were killed.

Statement from the operator:
https://www.auricair.com/About-Us/5HAAM_Accident_23Sept2019

Crash of a Cessna 208B Grand Caravan in Manaus

Date & Time: Sep 16, 2019 at 1225 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
PT-MHC
Flight Phase:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Manaus - Maués
MSN:
208B-0543
YOM:
1996
Country:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
8
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
22800
Captain / Total hours on type:
14150.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
947
Copilot / Total hours on type:
791
Circumstances:
The single engine airplane departed Manaus-Eduardo Gomes Airport Runway 29 in heavy rain falls as weather conditions deteriorated shortly prior to takeoff. After liftoff, while in initial climb, the airplane lost altitude and crashed in a dense wooded area located 600 metres past the runway end. The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and all 10 occupants were injured, among them six seriously. At the time of the accident, weather conditions were poor with heavy rain falls, turbulence and windshear.
Probable cause:
The accident was the consequence of the combination of the following factors:
- Control skills – undetermined.
While facing adverse conditions, the use of controls may have been inappropriate for the situation and may have contributed to the aircraft not being able to maintain a positive climb rate.
- Attitude – undetermined.
Familiarization with the region may have led to an attitude, on the part of the PIC, of minimizing the importance of analyzing adverse weather conditions, to the detriment of compliance with the minimum limits established by the company in its manuals.
- Training – undetermined.
It is possible that, due to possible inadequate training, the SIC did not identify the critical situation that arose shortly after the take-off in time to assist the PIC in maintaining flight control.
- Tasks characteristics – undetermined.
The characteristics present in the type of operation, compliance with schedules without the possibility of delays, due to the runway closing period, may have favored the self imposed pressure on the part of the PIC, leading him to operate with reduced safety margins.
- Adverse meteorological conditions – a contributor.
The conditions at the time of the take-off contributed to the aircraft not being able to maintain the flight with a positive climb rate. The probable occurrence of Windshear determined that the trajectory of the aircraft was modified until its collision with the ground.
- Crew Resource Management – undetermined.
On the part of the SIC, no assertive attitude was perceived in the sense of alerting the PIC that those conditions were not favorable for takeoff. Thus, the crew decided to carry out the take-off despite the company's SOP.
- Organizational culture – undetermined.
The company encouraged compliance with the legs even though, within the planning of flights, there was not an adequate margin of time to absorb any delays. This culture may have influenced the PIC's decision-making, which, despite encountering adverse conditions, chose to take off, since the short time on the ground in the intermediate locations did not allow room for delays.
- Emotional state – undetermined.
The reports indicated that the PIC felt pressured to perform the take-off even in the weather conditions found on the day of this occurrence. Also, according to the interviewees, this pressure would be related to the fulfillment of the flight schedule and the need to keep to the scheduled times. In this way, it is possible that their assessment of the performance of the flight was influenced by the stress resulting from the pressure to complete the flight within the expected time, given the closing time of the runway for works.
- Flight planning – a contributor.
The flight planning was not carried out properly, considering that the planned schedules and routes would end after the closing time of the SBEG runway for works, provided for in the NOTAM. This meant that there was little time to adjust the legs, increasing the workload and stress in the cabin.
- Decision-making process – a contributor.
There was a wrong assessment of the meteorological conditions, which contributed to the decision of performing it in an adverse situation.
- ATS publication– undetermined.
The TWR-EG did not inform, before the take-off, of the changes in the significant weather conditions that were occurring at the terminal, which could have contributed to the PIC's decision-making.
Final Report:

Crash of a Cessna 208 Caravan I in Gransee: 1 killed

Date & Time: Sep 11, 2019 at 1505 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
D-FIDI
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Gransee - Gransee
MSN:
208-0301
YOM:
1999
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
1
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
1
Captain / Total flying hours:
1553
Captain / Total hours on type:
288.00
Aircraft flight hours:
4066
Aircraft flight cycles:
4983
Circumstances:
At 1448 hrs, the pilot took off from Gransee Special Airfield with the Cessna 208 Caravan to a commercial flight in accordance with visual flight rules. On board were the pilot and 15 skydivers, which were dropped at flight level 130. On this day, the pilot had already conducted three flights dropping skydivers with a total flight time of 48 min. After having dropped the skydivers during the fourth flight, the airplane was last captured by the radar at 1505:49 hrs, during approach to land at the airfield, close to the accident site at about 550 ft AMSL. At the time, ground speed was 168 kt and heading 330°. The Flugleiter stated that he had observed the last phase of the approach. The airplane had been in a left-hand turn with a bank angle of up to 90° close to the ground. He assumed that the pilot might have “overshot” the extended centre line of runway 29 when he entered the final approach coming from the south. Then the airplane had vanished behind the trees. The pilot did not transmit an emergency call. The Flugleiter also stated that with the previous flight he had witnessed a similar manoeuvre. The radar recording of the third flight ended at 1417:54 hrs with a recorded altitude of about 1,400 ft AGL. At the time, ground speed was 168 kt and heading 355°. During both flights the skydivers had been dropped at flight level 130 at a heading of about 300° south of the airfield. After dropping the skydivers, at 1415:07 hrs and at 1502:52 hrs, respectively, the airplane entered a descent with a very high rate of descent and flew in a wide left-hand turn back to the airfield. During the third flight a right-left-hand turn with bank angles of about 50° to 60° occurred during descent.
Probable cause:
The air accident was due to a risky flight manoeuvre close to the ground which resulted in a controlled impact with the ground. The speed during the approach exceeded the operations limitations of the airplane. The approach was not stabilized.
Contributing Human Factors:
- Recurrent acceptance of risky flight manoeuvres close to the ground by the pilot (routine violations),
- Overconfidence and insufficient risk assessment of the pilot.
Contributing Operational Factors:
- Unsuitable wording in the operations manual in regard to approaches after dropping skydivers.
Final Report:

Crash of a Convair CV-440F in Toledo: 2 killed

Date & Time: Sep 11, 2019 at 0239 LT
Registration:
N24DR
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Millington-Memphis - Toledo
MSN:
393
YOM:
1957
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
2
Captain / Total flying hours:
8000
Copilot / Total flying hours:
11287
Aircraft flight hours:
47742
Circumstances:
The accident occurred during the second of a two-leg nonscheduled cargo flight. The initial leg of the flight departed the preceding evening. The pilots landed about 3.5 hours later for fuel and departed on the accident flight an hour after refueling. The flight entered a cruise descent about 39 miles from the destination airport in preparation for approach and landing. The pilots reported to air traffic control that they were executing a wide base and were subsequently cleared for a visual approach and landing. The landing clearance was acknowledged, and no further communications were received. No problems or anomalies were reported during the flight. The airplane was briefly established on final approach before radar contact was lost. The airplane impacted trees and terrain about 0.5 mile short of the runway and came to rest in a trucking company parking lot. A postimpact fire ensued. Damage to the landing gear indicated that it was extended at the time of impact. The position of the wing flaps could not be determined. Disparities in the propeller blade angles at impact were likely due to the airplane’s encounter with the wooded area and the impact sequence. No evidence of mechanical anomalies related to the airframe, engines, or propellers was observed. A review of air traffic control radar data revealed that the airplane airspeed decayed to about 70 to 75 kts on final approach which was at or below the documented aerodynamic stall speed of the airplane in the landing configuration. Although there was limited information about the flight crew’s schedules, their performance was likely impaired by fatigue resulting from both the total duration of the overnight flights and the approach being conducted in the window of the circadian low. This likely resulted in the flight crew’s failure to maintain airspeed and recognize the impending aerodynamic stall conditions.
Probable cause:
The flight crew’s failure to maintain the proper airspeed on final approach, which resulted in an inadvertent aerodynamic stall and impact with trees, and terrain. Contributing to the accident was the flight crew’s fatigue due to the overnight flight schedule.
Final Report:

Crash of a Cessna 510 Citation Mustang in El Monte

Date & Time: Aug 31, 2019 at 1105 LT
Operator:
Registration:
N551WH
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
El Monte - Thermal
MSN:
510-0055
YOM:
2008
Crew on board:
1
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
1
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
2217
Captain / Total hours on type:
477.00
Circumstances:
The pilot reported that, while holding short of the runway, he set the parking brake while waiting for his takeoff clearance. Upon receiving takeoff clearance, he reached down to the parking brake handle and, "quickly pushed the parking brakes back in"; however, he did not visually verify that he disengaged the parking brake. During the takeoff roll, he noticed that the airplane was not accelerating beyond about 70 knots and decided to abort the takeoff. The airplane subsequently veered to the left, exited the departure end of the runway, and impacted an airport perimeter fence. The pilot reported that he must have not fully disengaged the parking brake before takeoff and that there were no mechanical issues with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the parking brake handle was partially extended, which likely resulted in the airplane’s decreased acceleration during the takeoff roll.
Probable cause:
The pilot's failure to disengage the parking brake before takeoff, which resulted in decreased acceleration and a subsequent runway overrun following an aborted takeoff.
Final Report:

Ground fire of an Airbus A330-343 in Beijing

Date & Time: Aug 27, 2019 at 1648 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
B-5958
Flight Phase:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Beijing - Tokyo
MSN:
1587
YOM:
2014
Flight number:
CA183
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
14
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
147
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Aircraft flight hours:
19007
Aircraft flight cycles:
4596
Circumstances:
The airplane was parked at gate 530 (Terminal 3) at Beijing Capital and being prepared for flight CA183 to Tokyo-Haneda. 14 crew members were on board as well as 147 passengers when an abnormal sound was heard coming from the L2 door connected to the jetbridge. The cargo smoke alarm came on in the cockpit while smoke spread in the cabin. The pilot declared an emergency and decision was taken to evacuate all 161 occupants and no one was injured while the aircraft was partially destroyed by fire. The origin of the fire is still under investigation.

Crash of a Cessna 560XL Citation Excel in Aligarh

Date & Time: Aug 27, 2019 at 0840 LT
Operator:
Registration:
VT-AVV
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
New Delhi - Aligarh
MSN:
560-5259
YOM:
2002
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
4
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
5484
Captain / Total hours on type:
1064.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
1365
Copilot / Total hours on type:
1060
Aircraft flight hours:
7688
Circumstances:
On 27 Aug 19, M/s Air Charter Services Pvt Ltd Cessna Citation 560 XL aircraft (VTAVV), while operating a flight from Delhi to Aligarh (Dhanipur Airstrip) was involved in an accident during landing on runway 11.The operator is having a maintenance facility at Aligarh Airport and aircraft was scheduled to undergo ADS-B modification. There were 02 cockpit crew and 04 SOD onboard the aircraft. The aircraft was under the command of a PIC, who was an ATPL holder duly qualified on type with a CPL holder co-pilot, duly qualified on type as Pilot Monitoring. This was the first flight of the day for both pilots. Both, PIC and Co-Pilot had prior experience of operating to Aligarh airport, which is an uncontrolled airport. As per the flight plan, ETD from Delhi was 0800 IST and ETA at Aligarh was 0820 IST. The crew had reported around 0630 IST at Delhi airport and underwent BA test. The MET report to operate the aircraft to Aligarh was well within the VFR conditions. The aircraft Take-off weight was within limits including 1900 Kgs of fuel on board. As per the statement of PIC, the Co-pilot was briefed about pre departure checklists including METAR before approaching the aircraft. Once at the aircraft, prefight checks were carried out by PIC before seeking clearance from Delhi delivery (121.95 MHz). Aircraft was accorded start up clearance by Delhi ground (121.75 Mhz) at 0800 IST.ATC cleared the aircraft to line up on runway 11 and was finally cleared for takeoff at 0821 IST. After takeoff, aircraft changed over to Delhi radar control from tower frequency for further departure instructions. Aircraft was initially cleared by Radar control to climb to FL090 and was given straight routing to Aligarh with final clearance to climb to FL130. Thereafter, aircraft changed to Delhi area control for further instructions. While at approximately 45 Nm from Aligarh, VT-AVV made contact with Aligarh (personnel of M/s Pioneer Flying Club manning radio) on 122.625 MHz. Ground R/T operator informed “wind 100/2-3 Kts, QNH 1005, Runway 11 in use” and that flying of Pioneer Flying Club is in progress. Further, he instructed crew to contact when at 10 Nm inbound. After obtaining initial information from ground R/T operator, VT-AVV requested Delhi area control for descent. The aircraft was cleared for initial descent to FL110 and then further to FL080. On reaching FL080, aircraft was instructed by Delhi area control to change over to Aligarh for further descent instruction in coordination with destination. At approx 10 Nm, VT-AVV contacted ground R/T operator on 122.625 MHz and requested for long finals for runway 11. In turn, ground R/T operator asked crew to report when at 5 Nm inbound. As per PIC, after reaching 5 Nm inbounds, Aligarh cleared VTAVV to descend to circuit altitude and land on runway 11. Aircraft had commenced approach at 5 Nm at an altitude of 2200 ft. Approach and landing checks briefing including wind, runway in use were carried out by PIC. During visual approach, Co-pilot called out to PIC “Slightly low on profile”. As per PIC, Co-pilot call out was duly acknowledged and ROD was corrected. Thereafter, PIC was visual with runway and took over controls on manual. Co-pilot was monitoring instruments and parameters. While PIC was focused on landing, a loud bang from left side of the aircraft was heard by PIC when the aircraft was below 100 feet AGL. Aircraft started pulling towards left and impacted the ground short of runway 11 threshold. After impact, aircraft veered off the runway and its left wing caught fire. The aircraft stopped short of airfield boundary wall. Crew carried out emergency evacuation. Co-pilot opened main exit door from inside of the aircraft for evacuation of passengers. Aircraft was destroyed due to post crash fire. The fire tender reached the crash site after 45 Minutes.
Probable cause:
While landing on runway 11, aircraft main landing gears got entangled in the powerline crossing extended portion of runway , due to which aircraft banked towards left and crash landed on extended portion of runway 11.
Contributory factors:
- It appears that there was a lack of proper pre-flight briefing, planning, preparation and assessment of risk factors.
- Non-Adherence to SOP.
- Sense of complacency seems to have prevailed.
Final Report:

Crash of a Cessna 560XL Citation Excel in Oroville

Date & Time: Aug 21, 2019 at 1132 LT
Operator:
Registration:
N91GY
Flight Phase:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Oroville - Portland
MSN:
560-5314
YOM:
2003
Flight number:
DPJ91
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
8
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
6482
Captain / Total hours on type:
192.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
4748
Copilot / Total hours on type:
858
Aircraft flight hours:
9876
Circumstances:
The crew was conducting an on-demand charter flight with eight passengers onboard. As the flight crew taxied the airplane to the departure runway, the copilot called air traffic control using his mobile phone to obtain the departure clearance and release. According to the pilot, while continuing to taxi, he stopped the airplane short of the runway where he performed a rudder bias check (the last item in the taxi checklist) and applied the parking brake without verbalizing the parking brake or rudder bias actions because the copilot was on the phone. After the pilot lined up on the runway and shortly before takeoff, the flight crew discussed and corrected a NO TAKEOFF annunciation for an unsafe trim setting. After the copilot confirmed takeoff power was set, he stated that the airplane was barely moving then said that something was not right, to which the pilot replied the airplane was rolling and to call the airspeeds. About 16 seconds later, the pilot indicated that the airplane was using more runway than he expected then made callouts for takeoff-decision speed and rotation speed. The pilot stated that he pulled the yoke back twice, but the airplane did not lift off. Shortly after, the pilot applied full thrust reversers and maximum braking, then the airplane exited the departure end of the runway, impacted a ditch, and came to rest 1,990 ft beyond the departure end of the runway. The airplane was destroyed by a postcrash fire, and the crew and passengers were not injured.
Probable cause:
The pilot’s failure to release the parking brake before attempting to initiate the takeoff, which produced an unexpected retarding force and airplane nose down pitching moment. Also causal was the flight crew’s delayed decision to abort the takeoff, which resulted in a runway excursion. Contributing to the accident was the lack of a NO TAKEOFF annunciation warning that the parking brake was engaged, and lack of a checklist item to ensure the parking brake was fully released immediately before takeoff.
Final Report:

Crash of a Cessna 750 Citation X at La Carlota AFB

Date & Time: Aug 21, 2019 at 1100 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
1060
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
La Carlota - La Carlota
MSN:
750-0134
YOM:
2000
Country:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
The crew was engaged in a local test flight at La Carlota-General Francisco de Miranda AFB in Caracas. During the takeoff roll, a tire burst on the right main gear that collapsed and was torn off. The airplane veered off runway to the left then the left main gear collapsed as well and the airplane came to rest on its belly with the nose gear still extended. There were no injuries among the crew.

Crash of a De Havilland DHC-8-202 in Kichwa Tembo

Date & Time: Aug 16, 2019 at 1100 LT
Operator:
Registration:
5Y-SLM
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Nairobi – Kichwa Tembo
MSN:
506
YOM:
1997
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
0
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
Following an uneventful flight from Nairobi-Wilson Airport, the crew landed on a gravel runway at Kichwa Tembo Airport. After touchdown, the aircraft collided with two wildebeests. Upon impact, the left main gear was torn off and the aircraft veered off runway to the left and came to rest. All occupants evacuated safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. Both wildebeests were killed.
Probable cause:
Loss of control upon landing following a ground collision with two wildebeests.