Airport (less than 10 km from airport)

The airplane departed Curitiba-Afonso Pena Airport at 1240LT on an executive flight to Foz do Iguaçu, carrying one passenger and two pilots. Following an uneventful flight, the crew started the descent to Foz do Iguaçu-Cataratas Airport. The aircraft was stabilized and landed on wet runway 32. After touchdown, the crew encountered difficulties to stop the aircraft that overran and came to rest into a ravine. All three occupants evacued safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The pilot of the float-equipped airplane reported that, during the initial climb after a water takeoff, about 200 feet, he turned right, and the engine lost power. He immediately switched fuel tanks and attempted to restart the engine to no avail. The airplane descended and struck trees, and the right wing impacted terrain. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot reported to the Federal Aviation Administration inspector that, during the initial climb and after the engine lost power, he noticed that the center tank, which was selected for takeoff, was empty. He added that passengers stated that the engine did regain power after switching tanks, but the airplane had already struck trees. The pilot reported as a recommendation to more closely follow checklists.

The private pilot of the multi-engine airplane was conducting an instrument approach during night visual meteorological conditions. About 1.3 nautical miles (nm) from the final approach fix, the right engine lost total power. The pilot continued the approach and notified air traffic control of the loss of power about 1 minute and 13 seconds later. Subsequently, the pilot contacted the controller again and reported that he was unable to activate the airport's pilot-controlled runway lighting. In the pilot's last radio transmission, he indicated that he was over the airport and was going to "reshoot that approach." The last radar return indicated that the airplane was about 450 ft above ground level at 72 kts groundspeed. The airplane impacted the ground in a steep, vertical nose-down attitude about 1/2 nm from the departure end of the runway. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the landing gear and the flaps were extended and that the right propeller was not feathered. Data from onboard the airplane also indicated that the pilot did not secure the right engine following the loss of power; the left engine continued to produce power until impact. The airplane's fuel system held a total of 203 gallons. Fuel consumption calculations estimated that there should have been about 100 gallons remaining at the time of the accident. The right-wing locker fuel tank remained intact and contained about 14 gallons of fuel. Fuel blight in the grass was observed at the accident site and the blight associated with the right wing likely emanated from the right-wing tip tank. The elevator trim tab was found in the full nose-up position but was most likely pulled into this position when the empennage separated from the aft pressure bulkhead during impact. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Although there was adequate fuel on board the airplane, the pilot may have inadvertently moved the right fuel selector to the OFF position or an intermediate position in preparation for landing instead of selecting the right wing fuel tank, or possibly ran the right auxiliary fuel tank dry, which resulted in fuel starvation to the right engine and a total loss of power. The airplane manufacturer's Pilot Operating Handbook (POH) stated that the 20-gallon right- and left-wing locker fuel tanks should be used after 90 minutes of flight. However, 14 gallons of fuel were found in the right-wing locker fuel tank which indicated that the pilot did not adhere to the POH procedures for fuel management. The fuel in the auxiliary fuel tank should be used when the main fuel tank was less than 180 pounds (30 gallons) per tank. As a result of not using all the fuel in the wing locker fuel tanks, the pilot possibly ran the right auxiliary fuel tank empty and was not able to successfully restart the right engine after he repositioned the fuel selector back to the right main fuel tank. Postaccident testing of the airport's pilot-controlled lighting system revealed no anomalies. The airport's published approach procedure listed the airport's common traffic advisory frequency, which activated the pilot-controlled lighting. It is possible that the pilot did not see this note or inadvertently selected an incorrect frequency, which resulted in his inability to activate the runway lighting system. In addition, the published instrument approach procedure for the approach that the pilot was conducting indicated that the runway was not authorized for night landings. It is possible that the pilot did not see this note since he gave no indication that he was going to circle to land on an authorized runway. Given that the airplane's landing gear and flaps were extended, it is likely that the pilot intended to land but elected to go-around when he was unable to activate the runway lights and see the runway environment. However, the pilot failed to reconfigure the airplane for climb by retracting the landing gear and flaps. The pilot had previously failed to secure the inoperative right engine following the loss of power, even though these procedures were designated in the airplane's operating handbook as "immediate action" items that should be committed to memory. It is likely that the airplane was unable to climb in this configuration, and during the attempted go-around, the pilot exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall. Additionally, the pilot had the option to climb to altitude using singleengine procedures and fly to a tower-controlled airport that did not have any landing restrictions, but instead, he decided to attempt a go-around and land at his destination airport.

On 31.08.2018 Boeing 737-800 VQ-BJI operated by UTAir Airlines conducted the scheduled flight UT 579 from Moscow (Vnukovo airport) to Sochi (Adler airport). During the preflight briefing (at 19:50) the crew was provided with the necessary weather information. At 20:15, the crew had passed the medical examination at Vnukovo airport mobile RWY medical unit. The Daily Check line maintenance (DY) was done on 30.08.2018 at Vnukovo airport by UTG aviation services, ZAO; job card # 11465742. The A/C takeoff weight was 68680 kg and the MAC was 26.46 %, that was within the AFM limitations for the actual conditions. At 21:33 the takeoff from Vnukovo airport was performed. The flight along he prescribed route was performed on FL350 in auto mode and without any issues. The F/O acted as the pilot flying (PF). When approaching the Sochi aerodrome traffic control area, the flight crew was provided by the aerodrome approach control with the approach and descending conditions, as well as with the weather conditions near the aerodrome. After descending to the height specified by Sochi Approach, the pilot contacted Sochi Radar, waited for the weather that met his minimum and was cleared for landing. In course of the first approach to landing (from the altitude about 30 m) when RVR got down because of heavy showers, the PIC took controls and performed the go-around. In course of the second approach, the crew performed the landing but failed to keep the airplane within the RWY. The airplane had landed at about 1285 m from the RWY threshold, overrun the threshold, broke through the aerodrome fencing, and came to rest in Mzymta river bed. This ended with the fire outbreak of fuel leaking from the damaged LH wing fuel tank. The crew performed the passenger evacuation. The aerodrome alert measures were taken and the fire was brought under control. Eighteen occupants were injured while all other occupants were unhurt. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The commercial pilot and three passengers departed on a cross-country flight in a twin-engine airplane. As the flight neared the destination airport, the pilot canceled his instrument flight rules (IFR) clearance. The approach controller transferred the flight to the tower controller, and the pilot reported to the tower controller that the airplane was about 2 miles from the airport. However, the approach controller contacted the tower controller to report that the airplane was 200 ft over a nearby joint military airport at the time. GPS data revealed that, when pilot reported that the airplane was 2 miles from the destination airport, the airplane's actual location was about 10 miles from the destination airport and 2 miles from the joint military airport. The airplane impacted a remote wooded area about 8 miles northwest of the destination airport. At the time of the accident, thunderstorm cells were in the area. A review of the weather information revealed that the pilot's view of the airport was likely obscured because the airplane was in an area of light precipitation, restricting the pilot's visibility. A review of airport information noted that the IFR approach course for the destination airport passes over the joint military airport. The Federal Aviation Administration chart supplement for the destination airport noted the airport's proximity to the other airport. However, it is likely that the pilot mistook the other airport for the destination airport due to reduced visibility because of weather. The accident circumstances were consistent with controlled flight into terrain. The ethanol detected in the pilot's blood specimens but not in his urine specimens was consistent with postmortem bacteria production. The carbon monoxide and cyanide detected in the pilot's blood specimens were consistent with inhalation after the postimpact fire.

The twin engine airplane, owned by IMAO specialized in aerial photo missions, departed Limoges-Bellegarde Airport at 1009LT with one pilot (the Director of the Company, aged 58) and a female operator in charge of the aerial photo program. The goal of the mission was to fly over the sector of Peyrelevade at 7,000 feet then a second sector over Ussel at an altitude of 6,500 feet. Following an uneventful flight, the pilot return to Limoges, contacted ATC and was instructed to recall for a right base leg approach for a landing on runway 03. Two minutes after passing the altitude of 3,000 feet on approach, the pilot informed ATC he was short of fuel and that he was attempting an emergency landing. The airplane impacted trees and crashed in a field located near Verneuil-sur-Vienne, some 3,6 short of runway 03. Both occupants were seriously injured and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

On August 16, 2018, about 1555UTC/2355H local time, a Boeing 737-800 type of aircraft with Registry No. B-5498 operating as flight CXA 8667 sustained substantial damage following a runway excursion after second approach while landing on Runway 24 of Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), Manila, Philippines. The flight was a scheduled commercial passenger from Xiamen, China and operated by Xiamen Airlines. The one hundred fifty-seven (157) passengers and two (2) pilots together with the five (5) cabin crew and one air security officer did not sustain any injuries while the aircraft was substantially damaged. An instrument flight rules flight plan was filed. Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) prevailed at the time of the accident. During the first approach, the Captain who was the pilot flying aborted the landing at 30 feet Radio Altitude (RA) due to insufficient visual reference. A second approach was considered and carried out after briefing the First Officer (FO) of the possibility of another aborted landing should the flight encounter similar conditions. The briefing included a diversion to their planned alternate airfield. The flight was “stabilized” on the second approach with flaps set at 30 degrees landing position, all landing gears extended and speed brake lever appropriately set in the ARM position. On passing 1,002 feet Radio Altitude (RA), the autopilot was disengaged; followed by the disengagement of the auto-throttle, three (3) seconds later. The ILS localizer lateral path and Glide slope vertical path were accurately tracked and no deviations were recorded. The “reference” landing speed for flaps 30 for the expected aircraft gross weight at the time of landing was 145 knots and a target speed of 150 knots was set on the Mode Control Panel (MCP). The vertical descent rate recorded during the approach was commensurate with the recommended descent rate for the profile angle and ground speed; and was maintained throughout the approach passing through the Decision Altitude (DA) of 375 feet down to 50 feet radio altitude (RA). As the aircraft passed over the threshold, the localizer deviation was established around zero dot but indicated the airplane began to drift to the left of the centerline followed by the First Officer (FO) making a call out of “Go-Around” but was answered by the Captain “No”. The throttle levers for both engines were started to be reduced to idle position at 30 feet RA and became fully idle while passing five (5) feet RA. At this point, the aircraft was in de-crab position prior to flare. At 13 feet RA, the aircraft was rolling left and continuously drifting left of the runway center line. At 10 feet RA another call for go-around was made by the FO but was again answered by the Captain with “No” and “It’s Okay”. At this point, computed airspeed was approximately 6 knots above MCP selected speed and RA was approaching zero feet. Just prior to touchdown, computed airspeed decreased by 4 knots and the airplane touched down at 151 knots (VREF+6). The wind was recorded at 274.7 degrees at 8.5 knots. Data from the aircraft’s flight data recorder showed that the aircraft touched down almost on both main gears, to the left of the runway centerline, about 741 meters from the threshold of runway 24. Deployment of the speed brakes was recorded and auto brakes engagement was also recorded. The auto brakes subsequently disengaged but the cause was undetermined. Upon touchdown, the aircraft continued on its left-wards trajectory while the aircraft heading was held almost constant at 241 degrees. After the aircraft departed the left edge of the runway, all landing gears collided with several concrete electric junction boxes that were erected parallel outside the confines of the runway pavement. The aircraft was travelling at about 147 knots as it exited the paved surface of the runway and came to rest at approximately 1,500 meters from the threshold of Runway 24, with a geographical position of 14°30’23.7” N; 121°0’59.1” E and a heading of 120 degrees. Throughout the above sequence of events from touchdown until the aircraft came to a full stop, the CVR recorded 2 more calls of “GO-AROUND” made by the FO. Throughout the landing sequence, the thrust reversers for both engines were not deployed. Throttle Lever Position (TLP) were recorded and there was no evidence of reverse thrust being selected or deployment of reversers. After the aircraft came to a complete stop, the pilots carried out all memory items and the refence items in the evacuation non-normal checklist, which includes extending the flaps to a 40 degrees position. The aircraft suffered total loss of communication and a failure in passenger address system possibly due to the damage caused by the nose gear collapsing rearwards and damaging the equipment in the E/E compartment or the E-buss wires connecting the Very High Frequency (VHF) 1 radio directly to the battery was broken. The Captain then directed the FO to go out of the cockpit to announce the emergency evacuation. The cabin crew started the evacuation of the passengers utilizing the emergency slides of the left and right forward doors. There were no reported injuries sustained by the passengers, cabin crew, flight crew or the security officer.

The vintage de Havilland DH-89A MKIV Dragon Rapide biplane (U.S. registration N683DH, serial number 6782) operated by Historic Flight Foundation was part of the static aircraft display at the Abbotsford International Airshow at Abbotsford Airport (CYXX), British Columbia. Following the conclusion of the airshow that day, the aircraft was being used to provide air rides. At approximately 1731 on 11 August 2018, the aircraft began its takeoff from Runway 25 with the pilot and 4 passengers on board for a local flight to the southeast. During the takeoff, the aircraft encountered strong, gusting crosswinds. It climbed to about 30 feet above ground level before descending suddenly and impacting the runway, coming to rest on its nose immediately off the right edge of the runway. Within 2 minutes, 2 aircraft rescue firefighting trucks arrived on the scene along with an operations/command vehicle. About 10 minutes later, 2 St. John Ambulances arrived. A representative of the HFF was escorted to the scene to ensure all electronics on the aircraft were turned off. Shortly thereafter, 2 BC Ambulance Service ground ambulances arrived, followed by 2 City of Abbotsford fire trucks. Two BC Ambulance Service air ambulances arrived after that. The fire trucks stabilized the aircraft, and the first responders who arrived with the fire truck finished evacuating the occupants. The pilot and 1 passenger received serious injuries; the other 3 passengers received minor injuries. All of the aircraft occupants were taken to the hospital. The aircraft was substantially damaged. There was a fuel spill, but no fire. The emergency locator transmitter activated.

The aircraft departed Santiago de Querétaro Airport on a night cargo flight to Laredo, Texas, carrying two pilots and a load consisting of automotive parts. En route, the crew encountered engine problems and was clearted to divert to San Luis Potosí-Ponciano Arriaga Airport for an emergency landing. On approach, the crew realized he could not make it and decided to attempt an forced landing. The airplane struck the ground, lost its undercarriage and came to rest in an agricultural area located in Peñasco, about 6 km northeast of runway 14 threshold. The left wing was bent and partially torn off. Both crew members escaped with minor injuries and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The pilot was conducting a personal flight with four passengers. A witness observed the airplane take off and climb slowly from the airport. A pilot flying in the vicinity observed the airplane maneuver erratically before the airplane impacted terrain in a near-vertical attitude. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a postimpact fire. The wreckage was contained to a confined area in the field and the remains of the major airplane components were all accounted for. Extensive thermal damage to the airframe and engine limited the scope of the postaccident examination. The impact energy needed to drive the engine into the ground suggested that the engine was producing power at the time of the accident. A postaccident examination of the remaining airframe and engine components did not reveal any anomalies which would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. Depending on the amount of fuel, baggage and equipment on board, and the location of the adult passenger, the center of gravity (CG) could have been within or aft of the recommended CG. Since fuel load and location of the passengers could not be determined or may have shifted during flight, it is not known if loading contributed to the accident. The pilot was not operating with valid medical certification. His second-class medical certificate had expired several years prior to the accident and Federal Aviation Administration records did not indicate that he had obtained BasicMed medical certification. A pilot-rated passenger was seated in the rightfront seat. Investigators were unable to determine who was manipulating the flight controls of the airplane at the time of the accident. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with the pilot’s loss of control. However, the reason for the loss of control could not be determined with the available evidence.