Airport (less than 10 km from airport)

The single engine airplane depart Ekimchan Airport at 0834LT on a cargo flight to Udskoye, carrying two pilots and a load of 1,199 kilos of various goods. Six minutes after takeoff, while climbing to an altitude of 1,600 metres, the crew noticed a strong smell of fuel in the cockpit and decided to return. During the descent, flames came out from the engine that started to rough and eventually stopped on short final. The airplane stalled, impacted a birch tree and crashed in a wooded area located 132 metres short of runway 06, bursting into flames. The copilot was killed and the captain was seriously injured. The aircraft was totally destroyed by a post crash fire.

The pilot of the turbine-powered airplane reported that, while landing in a gusting crosswind, it was "obvious" the wind had changed directions. He performed a go-around, but "the wind slammed [the airplane] to the ground extremely hard." Subsequently, the airplane veered to the right off the runway and then back to the left before coming to rest. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The automated weather observation system located at the accident airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 270° at 19 knots, gusting to 25 knots. The pilot landed on runway 20.

On 02 November 2017, a Perimeter Aviation LP Fairchild SA227-AC Metro III (serial number AC-756B, registration C-FLRY) was operating as flight 959 (PAG959) from Gods River Airport, Manitoba, to Thompson Airport, Manitoba, with 2 flight crew members on board. When the aircraft was approximately 40 nautical miles southeast of Thompson Airport, the crew informed air traffic control that they had received a low oil pressure indication on the left engine that might require the engine to be shut down. The crew did not declare an emergency, but aircraft rescue and firefighting services were put on standby. After touchdown on Runway 24 with both engines operating, the aircraft suddenly veered to the right and exited the runway. The aircraft came to rest in snow north of the runway. The captain and first officer exited the aircraft through the left side over-wing emergency exit and were taken to hospital with minor injuries. The aircraft was substantially damaged. The 406-MHz emergency locator transmitter did not activate. The occurrence took place during the hours of darkness, at 1920 Central Daylight Time.

After touchdown at Lobo Airstrip deserving the Lobo Wildlife Lodge located in the Serengeti National park, the single engine aircraft went out of control, veered off runway to the left and came to rest against a tree. The pilot and two passengers were injured while eight other occupants were unhurt. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair. There was no fire.

The commercial pilot and passenger departed on a local flight in the twin-engine airplane. According to a witness, the pilot took off from the private grass runway and departed the area for about 10 minutes. The airplane then returned to the airport, where the pilot performed a low pass over the runway and entered a steep climb followed by a roll. The airplane entered a nose-low descent, then briefly leveled off in an upright attitude before disappearing behind trees and subsequently impacting terrain. The pilot's toxicology testing was positive for ethanol with 0.185 gm/dl and 0.210 gm/dl in urine and cavity blood samples, respectively. The effects of ethanol are generally well understood; it significantly impairs pilot performance, even at very low levels. Federal Aviation Administration regulations prohibit any person from acting or attempting to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft while having 0.040 gm/dl or more ethanol in the blood. While the identified ethanol may have come from sources other than ingestion, such as postmortem production, the possibility that the source of some of the ethanol was from ingestion and that pilot was impaired by the effects of ethanol during the accident flight could not be ruled out. Toxicology also identified a significant amount of diphenhydramine in cavity blood (0.122 µg/ml, which is within or above the therapeutic range of 0.0250 to 0.1120 µg/ml; diphenhydramine undergoes postmortem redistribution, and central postmortem levels may be about two to three times higher than peripheral or antemortem levels.). Diphenhydramine is a sedating antihistamine that causes more sedation than other antihistamines; this is the rationale for its use as a sleep aid. In a driving simulator study, a single dose of diphenhydramine impaired driving ability more than a blood alcohol concentration of 0.100%. The pilot had been diagnosed with memory loss about 8 months before the accident. It appears that he had some degree of mild cognitive impairment, but whether his cognitive impairment was severe enough to have contributed to the accident could not be determined from the available evidence. However, it is likely that the pilot's mild cognitive impairment combined with the psychoactive effects of diphenhydramine and possibly ethanol would have further decreased his cognitive functioning and contributed to his decision to attempt an aerobatic maneuver at low altitude in a non-aerobatic airplane.

Apparently following technical issues, the pilot was forced to attempt an emergency landing at Dabajuro Airport. The twin engine aircraft crash landed near the runway and struck two motorcyclists. One of them was killed while the second was injured. The airplane was damaged beyond repair and the pilot was uninjured.

The instrument-rated private pilot departed on a cross-country flight in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) with an overcast cloud layer at 500 ft above ground level (agl)
and visibility restricted to 1 ¾ miles in mist, without receiving an instrument clearance or opening his filed instrument flight rules flight plan. There was an outage of the ground communications system at the airport and there was no evidence that the pilot attempted to open his flight plan via his cellular telephone. In addition, there was a low-level outage of the radar services in the vicinity of the accident site and investigators were unable to determine the airplane's route of flight before impact. The airport manager observed the accident airplane depart from runway 35 and enter the clouds. Witnesses located to the north of the accident site did not see the airplane but reported hearing an airplane depart about the time of the accident. One witness reported hearing a lowflying airplane and commented that the engines sounded as if they were operating at full power. The witness heard a thud as he was walking into his home but attributed it to a thunderstorm in the area. The airplane impacted a field about 3.5 miles to the northeast of the departure end of the runway and off the track for the intended route of flight. The airplane was massively fragmented during the impact and debris was scattered for about 300 ft. The damage to the airplane and ground scars at the accident site were consistent with the airplane impacting in a left wing low, nose low attitude with relatively high energy. A postaccident examination of the engines and propeller assemblies did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Signatures were consistent with both engines producing power and both propellers developing thrust at the time of impact. While the massive fragmentation precluded functional testing of the equipment, there was no damage or failure that suggested preimpact anomalies with the airframe or flight controls.Several days before the accident flight, the pilot encountered a "transient flag" on the air data attitude heading reference system. The pilot reported the flag to both the co-owner of the airplane and an avionics shop; however, exact details of the flag are not known. The unit was destroyed by impact forces and could not be functionally tested. If the flag affecting the display of attitude information had occurred with the unit after takeoff, the instrument panel had adequate stand-by instrumentation from which the pilot could have continued the flight. It is not known if this unit failed during the takeoff and investigators were unable to determine what role, if any, this transient issue may have played in the accident. Based upon the reported weather conditions, the location of the wreckage, and the attitude of the airplane at the time of impact with the ground, it is likely that the pilot experienced spatial disorientation shortly after takeoff which resulted in a loss of control and descent into terrain.

The aircraft departed Atatürk Airport in Istanbul at 2105LT bound for Ercan with a crew of three and one passenger on board. Shortly after takeoff, an unexpected situation forced the crew to return for an emergency landing. After touchdown on runway 35L, the twin engine aircraft went out of control, veered off runway, struck a concrete drainage ditch and came to rest, broken in two and bursting into flames. All four occupants evacuated safely while the aircraft was destroyed by a post crash fire.

The commercial pilot stated that, shortly after taking off for a cross-country, personal flight and while accelerating, he noticed high airplane nose-down control forces and that the airplane became increasingly difficult to control. He used manual trim to attempt to trim out the control forces and verified that the autopilot was not engaged; however, the nose-down tendency continued, and the pilot had trouble maintaining altitude. During the subsequent emergency landing, the airframe sustained substantial damage. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the elevator trim push rod assembly was separated from the elevator trim tab actuator, and the end of the elevator trim push rod assembly was found wedged against the elevator's main spar. The elevator trim indicator in the cockpit was found in the nose-up stop position; however, the elevator trim tab was deflected 24° trailing edge up/airplane nose down (the maximum airplane nose-down setting is 6°). A drilled bolt was recovered from inside the right elevator; however, the associated washer, castellated nut, and cotter pin were not found. Examination of the bolt revealed that the threads were damaged and that the bolt hole on one of the clevis yoke halves exhibited deformation, consistent with the bolt separating. About 2 weeks before the accident, the pilot flew the airplane to a maintenance facility for an annual inspection. At that time, Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-07-24, which required installation of new hardware at both ends of the pushrod for the elevator trim tab, was overdue. While the airplane was in for the annual inspection, AD 2016-07-24 was superseded by AD 2016-17-08, which also required the installation of new hardware. The ADs were issued to prevent jamming of the elevator trim tab in a position outside the normal limits of travel due to the loss of the attachment hardware connecting the elevator trim tab actuator to the elevator trim tab push-pull rod, which could result in loss of airplane control. While in for the annual inspection, the airplane was stripped and painted, which would have required removal of the right elevator. Although the repair station personnel indicated that they did not disconnect the elevator trim pushrod from the elevator trim tab actuator when they painted the airplane, photographs taken of the airplane while it was undergoing inspection and painting revealed that the pushrod likely had been disconnected. The repair station owner reported that he reinstalled the right elevator and the elevator trim pushrod after the airplane was painted; however, he did not replace the hardware at either end of the pushrod as required by the ADs. Subsequently, the airplane was approved for return to service. After the annual inspection, no work, repairs, or adjustments were made to the elevator trim system. The airplane had accrued about 58 hours since the annual inspection at the time of the accident. Although reusing the self-locking nut might have resulted in it coming off by itself, the cotter pin should have prevented this from happening. Therefore, although the castellated self-locking nut, washer, and cotter pin normally used to secure the elevator trim pushrod at the elevator trim tab actuator were not found, given the evidence it is likely that the hardware, which was not the required hardware, was not properly secured at installation, which allowed it to separate in flight. It is also likely that the pushrod assembly then moved aft and jammed in a position well past the maximum nose-down trim setting, which rendered controlled flight impossible.

Shortly after takeoff from Goma Airport, while on a cargo flight to Bunia, the crew reported technical problems with the right engine and was cleared to return for an emergency landing. The crew landed long (about half way down the runway) and after touchdown, the airplane was unable to stop within the remaining distance. It overran and while contacting lava ground, the right main gear and the nose gear collapsed. The airplane came to rest with its right wing bent and all four crew members evacuated safely.