Airport (less than 10 km from airport)

On final approach to Charallave-Óscar Machado Zuloaga Airport in marginal weather conditions, the twin engine airplane crashed in unknown circumstances about 8 km from the runway threshold. The aircraft was destroyed and all nine occupants were killed.

Parked at Fresno-Yosemite Airport, the twin engine airplane was stolen by a teenager aged 17. She lost control of the airplane that collided with a fence and a building. The only occupant was uninjured and arrested. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

On 14 December 2019, at 1046 Eastern Standard Time, an Angel Aircraft Corporation Model 44 aircraft, registered VH-IAZ, commenced taxiing at Mareeba Airport, Queensland. On board the aircraft were two pilots. The pilot in the left seat (‘the pilot’) owned the aircraft and was undertaking a flight review, which was being conducted by the Grade 1 flight instructor in the right seat (‘the instructor’). The planned flight was to operate in the local area, as a private flight and under visual flight rules. As the aircraft taxied towards the runway intersection, the pilot broadcast on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) that VH-IAZ was taxiing for runway 28. The pilot made another broadcast when entering and backtracking the runway, then at 1058, broadcast that the aircraft had commenced the take-off roll. Witnesses who heard the aircraft during the take-off reported that it sounded like one of the engines was hesitating and misfiring. An aircraft maintainer who observed the aircraft take off, reported seeing black sooty smoke trailing from the right engine. The maintainer then watched the aircraft climb slowly and turn right towards the north. Another witness who heard the aircraft in flight soon afterwards, reported that it sounded normal for that aircraft, which had a distinctive sound because the engines’ exhaust gases pass through the propellers. Once airborne, the pilot broadcast that they were ‘making a low-level right-hand turn and then climbing up to not above 4,500 [feet] for the south-west training area.’ About 2 minutes later, the instructor broadcast that they were just to the west of the airfield in the training area at 2,500 ft and on climb to 4,000 ft, and communicated with a helicopter pilot operating in the area. After 8 minutes in the training area, the pilot broadcast that they were inbound to the aerodrome. At 1112, the aircraft’s final transmission was broadcast by the pilot, advising that they were joining the crosswind circuit leg for runway 28. Witnesses then saw the aircraft touch down on the runway and continue to take off again, consistent with a ‘touch-and-go’ manoeuvre, and heard one engine ‘splutter’ as the aircraft climbed to an estimated 100–150 ft above ground level. At about 1115, the aircraft was observed overhead a banana plantation beyond the end of the runway, banked to the right in a descending turn, before it suddenly rolled right. Witnesses observed the right wing drop to near vertical and the aircraft impacted terrain in a cornfield. Both pilots were fatally injured and the aircraft was destroyed.

The airline transport pilot departed on a night cargo flight into conditions that included an overcast cloud ceiling and “hazy” visibility, as reported by another pilot. About one minute after takeoff, the pilot made a series of course changes and large altitude and airspeed deviations. Following several queries from the air traffic controller concerning the airplane’s erratic flight path, the pilot responded that he had “some instrument problems.” The pilot attempted to return to land at the departure airport, but the airplane impacted terrain after entering a near-vertical dive. The airplane was one of two in the operator’s fleet equipped with an inverter system that electrically powered the pilot’s (left side) flight instruments. Examination of the annunciator panel lighting filaments revealed that the inverter system was not powered when the airplane impacted the ground. Without electrical power from an inverter, the pilot’s side attitude indicator and horizontal situation indicator (HSI) would have been inoperative and warning flags would have been displayed over the respective instruments. The pilot had a history of poor procedural knowledge and weak flying skills. It is possible that he either failed to turn on an inverter during ground operations and did not respond to the accompanying warning flags, or he did not switch to the other inverter in the event that an inverter failed inflight. Due to impact damage, the operational status of the two inverters installed in the airplane could not be confirmed. However, the vacuum-powered flight instruments on the copilot’s (right side) were operational, and the pilot could have referenced these instruments to maintain orientation. Based on the available information, the pilot likely lost control of the airplane after experiencing spatial disorientation. The night marginal visual flight rules conditions and instrumentation problems would have been conducive to the development of spatial disorientation, and the airplane’s extensive fragmentation indicative of a high-energy impact was consistent with the known effects of spatial disorientation. Ethanol identified during toxicology testing may have come from postmortem production and based on the low levels recorded, was unlikely to have contributed to this accident. Morphine identified in the pilot’s liver could not be used to extrapolate to antemortem blood levels; therefore, whether or to what extent the pilot’s use of morphine contributed to the accident could not be determined.

The pilot and passengers flew in the day before the accident and the airplane remained parked outside on the airport ramp overnight. Light to moderate snow and freezing drizzle persisted during the 12 to 24-hour period preceding the accident. In addition, low instrument meteorological conditions existed at the time of the accident takeoff. Before the flight, the pilot removed snow and ice from the airplane wings. However, the horizontal stabilizer was not accessible to the pilot and was not cleared of accumulated snow. In addition, the airplane was loaded over the maximum certificated gross weight and beyond the aft center-of-gravity limit. A total of 12 occupants were on board the airplane, though only 10 seats were available. None of the occupants qualified as lap children under regulations. The takeoff rotation was initiated about 88 kts which was about 4 kts slower than specified with the airplane configured for icing conditions. After takeoff, the airplane entered a left turn. Airspeed varied between 89 and 97 kts during the initial climb; however, it decayed to about 80 kts as the airplane altitude and bank angle peaked. The airplane ultimately reached a left bank angle of 64° at the peak altitude of about 380 ft above ground level. The airplane then entered a descent that continued until impact. The stall warning and stick shaker activated about 1 second after liftoff. The stick pusher became active about 15 seconds after liftoff. All three continued intermittently for the duration of the flight. A witness located about 1/2-mile northwest of the airport reported hearing the airplane takeoff. It was cloudy and snowing at the time. He was not able to see the airplane but noted that it entered a left turn based on the sound. He heard the airplane for about 4 or 5 seconds and the engine seemed to be “running good” until the sound stopped. The airplane impacted a dormant corn field about 3/4-mile west of the airport. A postaccident airframe examination did not reveal any anomalies consistent with a preimpact failure or malfunction. On board recorder data indicated that the engine was operating normally at the time of the accident. An airplane performance analysis indicated that the accumulated snow and ice on the empennage did not significantly degrade the airplane performance after takeoff. However, the effect of the snow and ice on the airplane center-of-gravity and the pitch (elevator) control forces could not be determined. Simulations indicated that the pitch oscillations recorded on the flight could be duplicated with control inputs, and that the flight control authority available to the pilot would have been sufficient to maintain control until the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall about 22 seconds after lifting off (the maximum bank angle of 64° occurred after the critical angle-of-attack was exceeded). In addition, similar but less extreme pitch oscillations recorded on the previous flight (during which the airplane was not contaminated with snow but was loaded to a similar center-of-gravity position) suggest that the pitch oscillations on both flights were the result of the improper loading and not the effects of accumulated snow and ice. Flight recorder data revealed that the accident pilot tended to rotate more rapidly and to a higher pitch angle during takeoff than a second pilot who flew the airplane regularly. Piloted simulations suggested that the accident pilot’s rotation technique, which involved a relatively abrupt and heavy pull on the control column, when combined with the extreme aft CG, heavy weight, and early rotation on the accident takeoff, contributed to the airplane’s high angle-of attack immediately after rotation, the triggering of the stick shaker and stick pusher, and the pilot’s pitch control difficulties after liftoff. The resulting pitch oscillations eventually resulted in a deep penetration into the aerodynamic stall region and subsequent loss of control. Although conditions were conducive to the development of spatial disorientation, the circumstances of this accident are more consistent with the pilot’s efforts to respond to the activation of the airplane stall protection system upon takeoff. These efforts were hindered by the heightened airplane pitch sensitivity resulting from the aft-CG condition. As a result, spatial disorientation is not considered to be a factor in this accident.

On November 21, 2019, a regular THY2UT flight en-route Istanbul – Odesa at B737-800 aircraft, nationality and registration mark TC-JGZ of the Turkish Airlines, was performed by the aircraft crew consisting of the Pilot-in-Command (PIC), co-pilot and four flight attendants of the aircraft. In fact, the departure from Istanbul Airport was performed at 17:33. The actual aircraft landing took place at 18:55. According to the flight plan, the alternate aerodromes were Istanbul and Chișinău. There were 136 passengers and 2793 kg of luggage on board the aircraft. The PIC was a Pilot Flying, and the co-pilot was a Pilot Monitoring of the aircraft. The pre-flight briefing of the crew, according to its explanations, was carried out before departure from the Istanbul Airport, after which the PIC took the decision to perform the flight. The climb and level flight were performed in the normal mode. The landing approach was performed to the Runway16 with ILS system at a significant crosswind component of variable directions. At the final stage of approaching with ILS to Runway 16, the ATC controller of the aerodrome control tower (ATC Tower) gave the aircraft crew a clearance for landing. The aircraft crew confirmed the controller’s clearance and continued the landing approach. Subsequently, from a height of about 50 meters, the aircraft performed a go-around due to the aircraft non-stabilization before landing. Following the go-around, the aircraft headed to the holding area to wait for favorable values of wind force and direction. At 18:45, the PIC took the decision to carry out a repeated landing approach, reported of that to the ATC controller, who provided ATS in the Odesa Terminal Maneuvering Area (TMA.) At 18:51, the crew re-contacted the Tower controller and received the clearance to land. At 18:55, after touchdown, during the runway run, the aircraft began to deviate to the left and veered off of the runway to the left onto the cleared and graded area. After 550 m run on the soil, the aircraft returned to the runway with its right main landing gear and nose part (while moving on the soil, the nose landing gear collapsed) and came to rest at the distance of 1612 m from the runway entrance threshold. The crew performed an emergency evacuation of passengers from the aircraft. As a result of the accident, the aircraft suffered a significant damage to the nose part of the fuselage and left engine. None of the passengers or crew members was injured.

The aircraft took off from the Comandante Rolim Adolfo Amaro Aerodrome (SBJD), Jundiaí - SP, to the Barra Grande Aerodrome (SIRI), Maraú - BA, at about 1458 (UTC), in order to carry out a private flight, with two pilots and eight passengers on board. Upon arriving at the destination Aerodrome, at 1717 (UTC), the aircraft made an undershoot landing on runway 11, causing the main and auxiliary landing gear to burst. The airplane moved along the runway, dragging the lower fuselage and the lower wing, leaving the runway by its left side, and stopping with the heading lagged, approximately, 210º in relation to the landing trajectory. Afterwards, there was a fire that consumed most of the aircraft. The aircraft was destroyed. One crewmember and four passengers suffered fatal injuries and the other crewmember and four passengers suffered serious injuries.

On October 17, 2019, a Saab SA-2000 airplane, operated by Peninsula Aviation Services Inc. d.b.a. PenAir flight 3296, overran the end of runway 13 at Unalaska Airport (DUT), Unalaska, Alaska. The flight crew executed a go-around during the first approach to runway 13; the airplane then entered the traffic pattern for a second landing attempt on the same runway. Shortly before landing, the flight crew learned that the wind at midfield was from 300° at 24 knots, indicating that a significant tailwind would be present during the landing. Because an airplane requires more runway length to decelerate and stop when a tailwind is present during landing, a landing in the opposite direction (on runway 31) would have favored the wind at the time. However, the flight crew continued with the plan to land on runway 13. Our postaccident calculations showed that, when the airplane touched down on the runway, the tailwind was 15 knots. The captain reported after the accident that the initial braking action after touchdown was normal but that, as the airplane traveled down the runway, the airplane had “zero braking” despite the application of maximum brakes. The airplane subsequently overran the end of the runway and the adjacent 300-ft runway safety area (RSA), which was designed to reduce airplane damage during an overrun, and came to rest beyond the airport property. The airplane was substantially damaged during the runway overrun; as a result, of the 3 crewmembers and 39 passengers aboard, 1 passenger sustained fatal injuries, and 1 passenger sustained serious injuries. Eight passengers sustained minor injuries, most of which occurred during the evacuation. The crewmembers and 29 passengers were not injured.

The pilot reported that, during the approach and while the airplane was about 500 ft above ground level and 81 knots, he "felt the descent rate increase significantly." The pilot increased engine power, but "the high rate of descent continued," and he then increased the engine power further. A slow left roll developed, and he applied full right aileron and full right rudder to arrest the left roll. He also reduced the engine power, and the left roll stopped. The pilot regained control of the airplane, but the airplane's heading was 45° left of the runway heading, and the airplane impacted trees and then terrain. The airplane caught fire, and the pilot and passenger exited through the emergency exit. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the windscreens and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.

On October 11, 2019 at about 0902 Kenya daylight time, a Silverstone Air Services Fokker 27 Mark 050 registration 5Y-IZO experienced runway excursion on takeoff runway 14 at Wilson Airport with 55 occupants onboard (5 crew and 50 passengers). The aircraft was performing a scheduled flight from Wilson airport to Mombasa, Lamu and back to Wilson airport. The aircraft was fueled then the passengers boarded the plane before the normal pre take off procedures which were reported as uneventful as collaborated by the information from the FDR. The Right Hand engine receded the Left Hand engine in startup as depicted by the parameters from the recorders. From engine startup, taxi, lineup runway 14, power up and including the initial stages of ground roll were uneventful. At 06.02.50 GMT, while still on ground roll take off, the LH engine ITT began to fluctuate, dropped from 707.8 to 175.8. The RH ITT remained stable. The other parameters of both engines were stable. Subsequent power down ensued at 06.03.01, IAS dropped from 110.2Knots and the aircraft magnetic heading increased gradually to 144 consistent with the deviation of the aircraft to the right of the runway axis when it left the paved surface of the runway, before colliding with the airport perimeter fence, went through an embankment before coming to rest tilted to the right after the starboard wing made contact with a tree. The passengers were deplaned through the two left hand side front and rear exit doors. Immediately the event occurred, ATS Wilson airport issued a crash alert and Wilson Airport Fire Service (AFS) responded without delay, found the passengers already evacuated from the aircraft and applied foam to the sections of the aircraft with leaking fuel. Runway 14/32 was closed and all inbound and departure traffic made use of the remaining runway. Preliminary information retrieved from the Flight Data Recorder Radar regarding the engine ITT seems to correlate with the flight crew statements regarding the observed fluctuations on the LHS engine ITT.