Airport (less than 10 km from airport)

The commercial pilot was departing on a routine positioning flight in dark night visual meteorological conditions. Footage from a security camera at the airport showed the airplane
take off normally and initiate a right turn, which was the established direction of traffic for the takeoff runway. The airplane continued the right turn, then entered an increasingly rapid descent and subsequently impacted terrain about 1 mile southwest from the airport. The wreckage distribution was consistent with a high-energy impact. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Autopsy and toxicology testing of the pilot did not reveal any evidence of impairment or incapacitation. Visual conditions prevailed in the area at the time of the accident; however, the setting Moon was obscured by cloud cover, and the airport was located in an area of remote, sparsely-populated high desert terrain. This would have resulted in few visual references to which the pilot could have oriented the airplane. Although the pilot had experience operating in this environment in night conditions and held an instrument rating, the circumstances of the accident are consistent with the known effects of spatial disorientation. The investigation could not determine the initiating event which led to the pilot's mismatch between the airplane's perceived and actual attitude; however, he likely experienced a sensory illusion as a result of spatial disorientation, which led to a loss of control.

On 10 December 2016, JAV Boeing 737-400 Aircraft, registration JY-JAQ, operating a leased scheduled passenger flight SFW 502, on behalf of SAFI Airways under wet lease contract with the later call sign, departed a domestic flight from Herat Airport (OAHR), at 07:00 Z from RWY 36 to Kabul International Airport (OAKB) Afghanistan. At approximately 07:57:45 Z, the Aircraft touched down RWY 29 at Kabul. The aircraft departed Herat with 164 passengers ,07 Operating Crewmembers and 02 Engineers , Total on board were 173 person. As the flight approached OAKB, the crew received the automatic terminal information service (ATIS) from OAKB station at 07:45 Z indicating normal weather with visibility of 6 Km, temperature 07 degrees Celsius and wind of 150/07. The Aircraft was configured for landing with the flaps set to 30, and approach speed selected of 152 knots (VREF + 10) indicated airspeed (IAS). The Aircraft was cleared to approach ILS 29. The Aircraft was vectored by the radar for RWY 29. Air traffic control cleared the flight to land, with the wind reported to be 190 degrees at 15 knots. The crew stated that a few seconds after the touchdown, they felt the aircraft vibrating, during which they applied brakes and deployed the reverse thrust. The vibration was followed by the aircraft rolling slightly low to the right. It later came to a full stop left of the runway centre line, resting on its left main landing gear and the right engine, with the nose landing gear in the air. The occurrence occurred at approximately 3,806 ft / 1,160 m past the threshold. The PIC declared Emergency to the ATC and the cockpit crew initiated an evacuation command from the left side of the aircraft. Evacuation was successfully accomplished with No reported injuries. Kabul airport RFF reached the occurrence aircraft and observed the smoke coming from right side and immediately deployed their procedures by spraying foam on engine # 2. The aircraft sustained substantial damage due to the separation of the right main gear resulting on the aircraft skidding on the right engine cowlings. No injuries were sustained by any of the occupants during the occurrence or the evacuation sequence. Operating crew of the incident flight were called by the Afghani Civil Aviation Authority (ACAA) for interview and medical examination (alcohol and drugs, blood test). No injuries were reported by the occupants of the Aircraft or the ground crew.

The commercial pilot of the jet reported that he initially requested that 100 lbs of fuel be added to both fuel tanks. During the subsequent preflight inspection, the pilot decided that more fuel was needed, so he requested that the airplane's fuel tanks be topped off with fuel. However, he did not confirm the fuel levels or check the fuel gauges before takeoff. He departed on the flight and did not check the fuel gauges until about 1 hour after takeoff. He stated that, at that time, the fuel gauges were showing about 900-1,000 lbs of fuel per side, and he realized that the fuel tanks had not been topped off as requested. He reduced engine power to conserve fuel and to increase the airplane's flight endurance while he continued to his destination. When the fuel gauges showed about 400-500 lbs of fuel per side, the low fuel lights for both wing fuel tanks illuminated. The pilot reported to air traffic control that the airplane was low on fuel and diverted the flight to the nearest airport. The pilot reported that the airplane was high and fast on the visual approach for landing. He misjudged the height above the ground and later stated that the airplane "landed very hard." The airplane's left main landing gear and nose gear collapsed and the airplane veered off the runway, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.

The airplane was equipped with an air sampling system used to collect air samples at various altitudes. The accident occurred when the pilot was returning to the airport after taking air samples at various altitudes over oil fields. As he was being vectored for an instrument approach, the airplane overshot the runway's extended centerline. The pilot then reported that he had a fire on board. The airplane lost altitude rapidly, and radar contact was lost. Examination of the accident site indicated that the airplane struck the ground at high velocity and a low impact angle. One piece of the airplane's shattered Plexiglas windshield exhibited soot streaking on its exterior surface. This soot streaking did not extend onto the piece's fracture surface, indicative of the smoke source being upstream of the windshield and the smoke exposure occurring before windshield breakup at impact. Both nose baggage compartment doors were found about 2 miles south of the main wreckage, which indicative that they came off at nearly the same time and most likely before the pilot's distress call. Although there was no soot deposits, thermal damage, or deformation to the doors consistent with a "high energy explosion," the separation of the luggage compartment doors could have occurred due to an overpressure caused by the ignition of a fuel air mixture within the nose portion of the airplane. The ignition of fuel air mixtures can create overpressure events when they occur in confinement. An overpressure in the nose baggage compartment may have stretched the airframe enough to allow the doors to push open without deforming the latches. If it was a lean fuel air mixture, it would likely leave no soot residue. Post-accident examination revealed no evidence that the air sampling system, which was strapped to the seat tracks behind the copilot's seat, was the cause of the fire. The combustion heater, which was mounted in the right front section of the nose baggage compartment, bore no evidence of fuel leakage, but a fuel fitting was found loose.

After landing at Pitu-Leo Wattimena Airport, the twin engine aircraft went out of control and veered off runway to the right. The left main landing gear collapsed and the right wing broke at the root. All 14 occupants evacuated safely while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

While taking off from a grassy runway at Zielona Góra-Przylep Airport, the airplane nosed down, impacted ground and crashed. Both engines were torn off and the aircraft was destroyed by impact forces. There was no fire. The pilot, sole on board, was killed. He was completing a ferry flight to Nordhorn, Lower Saxony.

The commercial pilot was conducting an on-demand passenger flight at night in instrument meteorological conditions that were at/near straight-in approach minimums for the runway. The pilot flew the approach as a non precision LNAV approach, and he reported that the approach was stabilized and that he did not notice anything unusual. A few seconds after leveling the airplane at the missed approach altitude, he saw the runway end lights, the strobe lights, and the precision approach path indicator. He then disconnected the autopilot and took his hand off the throttles to turn on the landing lights. However, before he could turn on the landing lights, the runway became obscured by clouds. The pilot immediately decided to conduct a missed approach and applied engine power, but the airplane subsequently impacted terrain short of the runway in a nose-up level attitude. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely the pilot lost sight of the runway due to the visibility being at/near the straight-in approach minimums and that the airplane got too low for a missed approach, which resulted in controlled flight into terrain. A passenger stated that he and the pilot were not wearing available shoulder harnesses. The passenger said that he was not informed that the airplane was equipped with shoulder harnesses or told how to adjust the seats. The pilot sustained injuries to his face in the accident.

The airline transport pilot departed in the twin-engine, turbine-powered airplane on an air ambulance flight with two medical crew members and a patient on board in night visual meteorological conditions. According to a witness, during the initial climb, the airplane made a left turn of about 30° from the runway heading, then stopped climbing, made an abrupt left bank, and began to descend. The airplane impacted a parking lot and erupted into flames. In the 2 months before the accident, pilots had notified maintenance personnel three times that the left engine was not producing the same power as the right engine. In response, mechanics had replaced the left engine's bleed valve three times with the final replacement taking place three days before the accident. In addition, about 1 month before the accident, the left engine's fuel control unit was replaced during trouble shooting of an oil leak. Post accident examination revealed that the right engine and propeller displayed more pronounced rotational signatures than the left engine and propeller. This is consistent with the left engine not producing power or being at a low power setting at impact. Further, the abrupt left bank and descent observed by the witness are consistent with a loss of left engine power during initial climb. The extensive fire and impact damage to the airplane precluded determination of the reason for the loss of left engine power.

The airline transport pilot, who was the pilot flying, and commercial pilot, who was the pilot not flying and was acting as a safety pilot and was not expected to know the airplane's systems, limitations, or characteristics, were preparing to depart for a personal flight with eight passengers on board. When the pilot arrived at the airport, he determined that the airplane had 900 lbs of fuel onboard. He instructed the lineman to fuel the airplane with 211 gallons of fuel (1,413.7 lbs) for a fuel total of 2,313.7 lbs. The pilot reported that he was aware that the total weight of the eight passengers, their bags, and the fuel caused the airplane to be overweight but that he did not complete a weight and balance form or determine the expected takeoff performance before the flight. He informed the other pilot that the flight would be heavy, but he did not tell him how much the airplane exceeded the airplane's maximum gross takeoff weight. After the accident, the pilot determined that the airplane was 623 lbs over the maximum gross takeoff weight. The pilot reported that the airplane's flight controls and engines were operating normally during the pretakeoff check and that the elevator pitch trim was positioned in the "green" range. The pilot taxied the airplane onto the runway and applied the brakes and increased the throttles to takeoff power before releasing the brakes for the takeoff roll. However, he did not confirm the power settings that he applied when he advanced the throttles. The airplane did not accelerate as quickly as the pilot expected during the takeoff roll. When the airplane was about halfway down the runway, the airspeed was 80 kts, so the pilot continued the takeoff roll, but the airplane was still not accelerating as expected. He stated that he heard the other pilot say "redline," so he decreased the power. At this point, the airplane had reached the last third of the runway, and the pilot pulled back on the control yoke to lift the airplane off the runway, but the stall warning sounded. He lowered the nose, but the airplane was near the end of the runway. He added that he did not get "on" the brakes or put the propellers into reverse pitch and that the airplane then departed the runway. The pilot veered the airplane right to avoid the instrument landing system antenna, which was 500 ft from the end of the 5,500-ft-long runway, but the left wing struck the antenna, the left main landing gear and nose gear collapsed, and both propellers contacted the ground. The airplane then skidded left before stopping about 680 ft from the end of the runway. The pilot reported that the airplane did not have any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures. The evidence indicates that the pilot decided to depart knowing that the airplane was over its maximum gross takeoff weight and without determining the expected takeoff performance. During the takeoff roll, he did not check his engine instruments to determine if he had applied full takeoff power, although the acceleration may have been sluggish because of the excess weight onboard. The other pilot was not trained on the airplane and was not able to provide the pilot timely performance information during the takeoff. Neither the pilot nor the other pilot called out for an aborted takeoff, and when they recognized the need to abort the takeoff, it was too late to avoid a runway excursion.

Following an uneventful flight from Pereira, the twin engine airplane was cleared to land on Bogotá-El Dorado Airport Runway 13L. Apparently, the aircraft bounced three times before landing firmly. After touchdown, it went out of control, veered off runway, lost its nose gear and came to rest in a grassy area. All 11 occupants evacuated safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. Among the passengers was Juan Fernando Cristo, Minister for Internal Affairs.