City

The aircraft collided with terrain while on an instrument approach to the Midland Airpark (MDD), near Midland, Texas. The commercial pilot, who was the sole occupant, sustained serious injuries. The airplane was registered to and operated by Quality Lease Air Services LLC., under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a positioning flight. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan had been filed for the cross-country flight. The flight originated from the Wharton Regional Airport (ARM), Wharton, Texas, about 0626. The pilot obtained a weather briefing for the flight to MDD. The briefing forecasted light freezing drizzle for the proposed time and route of flight. While on approach to MDD, the airplane was experiencing an accumulation of moderate to severe icing and the pilot stated that he had all the deicing equipment on. According to the pilot, the autopilot was flying the airplane to a navigational fix called JIBEM. He switched the autopilot to heading mode and flew to the final approach fix called WAVOK. He deployed the deice boots twice before approaching WAVOK. An Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) controller informed the pilot, that according to radar, he appeared to be flying to JIBEM. The pilot responded that he was correcting back and there was something wrong with the GPS. The controller canceled the airplane's approach clearance and the controller issued the pilot a turning and climbing clearance to fly for another approach. The pilot stated that his copilot's window iced up at that point. The pilot was vectored for and was cleared for another approach attempt. The pilot said that his window was "halfway iced up." About two minutes after being cleared for the second approach, the controller advised the pilot that the airplane appeared to be "about a half mile south of the course." The pilot responded, "Yep ya uh I got it." The pilot was given heading and climb instructions in case of a missed approach and was subsequently cleared to change to an advisory frequency. The pilot responded with, "Good day." The pilot had configured the aircraft with approach flaps and extended the landing gear prior to reaching the final approach fix. The pilot stated the aircraft remained in this configuration and he did not retract the gear and flaps. The pilot stated that he descended to 3,300 feet and was just under the cloud deck where he was looking for the runway. The pilot's accident report, in part, said: Everything was flying smooth until I accelerated throttles from about halfway to about three quarters. At this point I lost roll control and the airplane rolled approximately 90 degrees to the left. I disengaged autopilot and began to turn the yoke to the right and holding steady. It was slow to respond and when I thought that I had it leveled off the airplane continued to roll approximately 90 degrees to the right. At this time I was turning the yoke back to the left and pulling back to level it off, but it continued to roll to the left again. I was turning the yoke to the right again as I continued to pull back and the airplane rolled level, and the stall warning horn came on seconds before impact on the ground. The pilot stated he maintained a target airspeed speed of 120 knots on approach and 100 knots while on final approach. He stated he was close to 80 knots when the aircraft was in the 90° right bank. Witnesses in the area observed the airplane flying. A witness stated that the airplane's wings were "rocking." Other witnesses indicated that the airplane banked to the left and then nosed down. The airplane impacted a residential house, approximately 1 mile from the approach end of runway 25, and a post crash fire ensued. The pilot was able to exit the airplane and there were no reported ground injuries.

Shortly after takeoff from runway 09 at Tijuana-General Abelardo L. Rodríguez Airport, while in initial climb, the twin engine aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed onto a garage, bursting into flames. Both occupants as well as one people in his car were killed.

The airplane, registered to SV Leasing Company of Florida, operated by SOCATA North America, Inc., sustained substantial damage during a forced landing on a highway near Hollywood, Florida, following total loss of engine power. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 maintenance test flight from North Perry Airport (HWO), Hollywood, Florida. The airline transport pilot and pilot-rated other crew member sustained minor injuries; there were no ground injuries. The flight originated from HWO about 1216. The purpose of the flight was a maintenance test flight following a 600 hour and annual inspection. According to the right front seat occupant, in anticipation of the flight, he checked the fuel load by applying electrical power and noted the G1000 indicated the left fuel tank had approximately 36 gallons while the right fuel tank had approximately 108 gallons. In an effort to balance the fuel load with the indication of the right fuel tank, he added 72.4 gallons of fuel to the left fuel tank. At the start of the data recorded by the G1000 for the accident flight, the recorded capacity in the left fuel tank was approximately 105 gallons while the amount in the right fuel tank was approximately 108 gallons. The PIC reported that because of the fuel load on-board, he could not see the level of fuel in the tanks; therefore, he did not visually check the fuel tanks. By cockpit indication, the left tank had approximately 105 gallons and the right tank had approximately 108 gallons. The flight departed HWO, but he could not recall the fuel selector position beneath the thrust lever quadrant. He further stated that the fuel selector switch on the overhead panel was in the "auto" position. After takeoff, the flight climbed to flight level (FL) 280, and levelled off at that altitude about 20 minutes after takeoff. While at that altitude they received a "Fuel Low R" amber warning CAS message on the G1000. He checked the right fuel gauge which indicated 98 gallons, and confirmed that the fuel selector automatically switched to the left tank. After about 10 seconds the amber warning CAS message went out. He attributed the annunciation to be associated with a failure or malfunction of the sensor, and told the mechanic to write this issue down so it could be replaced after the flight. The flight continued and they received an amber warning CAS message, "Fuel Unbalance" which the right fuel tank had more fuel so he switched the fuel selector to supply fuel from the right tank to the engine. The G1000 indicates they remained at that altitude for approximately 8 minutes. He then initiated a quick descent to 10,000 feet mean sea level (msl) and during the descent accelerated to Vmo to test the aural warning horn. They descended to and maintained 10,000 feet msl for about 15 minutes and at an unknown time, they received an amber warning CAS message "Fuel Low R." Once again he checked the right fuel gauge which indicated it had 92 gallons and confirmed that the fuel tank selector automatically switched to the left tank. After about 10 seconds the CAS message went out. Either just before or during descent to 4,000 feet, they received an amber CAS message "Fuel Unbalance." Because the right fuel gauge indicated the fullest tank was the right tank, he switched the fuel selector to supply fuel to the engine from the right tank. The flight proceeded to the Opa-Locka Executive Airport, where he executed an ILS approach which terminated with a low approach. The pilot cancelled the IFR clearance and proceeded VFR towards HWO. While in contact with the HWO air traffic control tower, the flight was cleared to join the left downwind for runway 27L. Upon entering the downwind leg they received another amber CAS message "Fuel Unbalance" and at this time the left fuel gauge indicated 55 gallons while the right fuel gauge indicated 74 gallons. Because he intended on landing within a few minutes, he put the fuel selector to the manual position and switched to the fullest (right) tank. Established on final approach to runway 27L at HWO with the gear down, flaps set to landing, and minimum speed requested by air traffic for separation (85 knots indicated airspeed). When the flight was at 800 feet, the red warning CAS message "Fuel Press" illuminated and the right seat occupant with his permission moved the auxiliary fuel boost pump switch from "Auto" to "On" while he, PIC manually moved the fuel selector to the left tank. In an effort to restore engine power he pushed the power lever and used the manual over-ride but with no change. Assured that the engine had quit, he put the condition lever to cutoff, the starter switch on, and then the condition lever to "Hi-Idle" attempting to perform an airstart. At 1332:42, a flight crew member of the airplane advised the HWO ATCT, "…just lost the engine"; however, the controller did not reply. The PIC stated that he looked to his left and noticed a clear area on part of the turnpike, so he banked left, and in anticipation of the forced landing, placed the power lever to idle, the condition lever to cutoff, the fuel tank selector to off, and put the electrical gang bar down to secure the airplane's electrical system. He elected to retract the landing gear in an effort to shorten the landing distance. The right front seat occupant reported that the airplane was landed in a southerly direction in the northbound lanes of the Florida Turnpike. There were no ground injuries.

The float-equipped de Havilland DHC-6-300 Twin Otter (registration C-GARW, serial number 367) was landing at the float-plane base (CEN9) located in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, along the western shore of Great Slave Lake, beside the area known as Old Town. There were 2 crew members and 7 passengers on board, and the first officer was the pilot flying. On touchdown, the aircraft bounced, porpoised and landed hard on the right float. The flight crew initiated a go-around; the aircraft lifted off at low speed in a nose-high, right-wing-low attitude, and it continued in a right turn towards the shore. As the turn continued, the aircraft’s right wing contacted power lines and cables before the float bottoms impacted the side of an office building. The aircraft then dropped to the ground on its nose and cart-wheeled into an adjacent parking lot. Both crew members were fatally injured, 4 passengers were seriously injured, and 3 passengers sustained minor injuries. The aircraft was substantially damaged. The 406-megahertz emergency locator transmitter activated. There was no fire. The accident occurred at 1318 Mountain Daylight Time.

M/s Air Charter Services Pvt Ltd. offered their aircraft VT-ACF for operating medical evacuation flight to pick one critically ill patient from Patna on 25/05/2011. The Aircraft took off from Delhi to Patna with two crew members, two doctors and one male nurse. The Flight to Patna was uneventful. The Air Ambulance along with patient and one attendant took off from Patna at 20:31:58 IST, the aircraft during arrival to land at Delhi crashed near Faridabad on a Radial of 145 degree and distance of 15.2 nm at 22:42:32 IST. Aircraft reached Patna at 18:31 IST. Flight Plan for the flight from Patna to Delhi was filed with the ATC at Patna via W45-LLK-R594 at FL260, planned ETD being 22:00 hours IST and EET of 2hours for a planned ETA at VIDP being 24:00 hours IST. The crew took self-briefing of the weather and same “Self Briefing” was recorded on the flight plan submitted at ATC Patna. The passenger manifest submitted at Patna indicated a total of 2 crew and 5 passengers inclusive of the patient. Weather at Patna at the time of departure was 3000m visibility with Haze. Total fuel on board for departure at Delhi was 1516 lts. The preflight/transit inspection of the aircraft at Patna was carried out by the crew as per laid down guidelines. The crew requested for startup at 20:21 IST from Patna ATC and reported airborne at 20:33:43 IST. The aircraft climbed and maintained FL 260 for cruise. On handover from Varanasi Area Control (Radar), the aircraft came in contact with Delhi Area Control (East) Radar at 21:53:40 IST at 120.9 MHz. At 21:53:40 IST aircraft was identified on Radar by squawking code 3313. At 22:02:05 IST the crew requested for left deviation of 10° due to weather, the same was approved by the RSR controller. At 22:05:04 IST the crew informed that they have a critical patient on board and requested for priority landing and ambulance on arrival. The same was approved by the RSR controller. The aircraft was handed over to Approach Control on 126.35 MHz at 22:28:03 IST. At 22:28:18 IST VT-ACF contacted TAR (Terminal Approach Radar) on 126.35 MHz and it was maintaining FL160. At 22:32:22 IST, VT-ACF was asked to continue heading to DPN (VOR) and was cleared to descend to FL110. At 22:36:34 IST, the TAR controller informed VT-ACF about weather on HDG 330°, the crew replied in “Affirmative” and requested for left heading. At 22:38:12 IST, TAR controller gave aircraft left heading 285° which was copied by the aircraft. The aircraft started turning left, passing heading 289, it climbed from FL125 to FL141. At 22:40:32 IST the TAR controller gave 3 calls to VT-ACF. At 22:40:43 IST aircraft transmitted a feeble call “Into bad weather”, at that instance the aircraft had climbed FL 146.Thereafter the aircraft was seen turning right in a very tight turn at a low radar ground speed and loosing height rapidly from FL146 to FL 016. Again at 22:41:32 IST TAR controller gave call to VT-ACF, aircraft transmitted a feeble call “Into bad weather. Thereafter the controller gave repeated calls on both 126.35 MHz and also 121.5 MHz, before the blip on radar became static on a radial of 145 degree at 15.2 nm from DPN VOR at 22:42:32 IST. All attempts to raise contact with the aircraft failed. The TAR controller then informed the duty WSO and also the ATC Tower. At 22:50:00 IST, the tower informed the WSO that they have got a call from the City Fire Brigade confirming that an aircraft has crashed near Faridabad in a congested residential area known as Parvatia Colony. After the accident, local residents of the area and police tried to put off the fire and extricate the bodies from the wreckage of the aircraft.

After taking off from runway 9L at his home airport and making an easterly departure, the pilot, who was also the president, director of operations, and chief pilot for the on-demand passenger and cargo operation, advised the air traffic controller that he was turning downwind. According to witnesses, the airplane did not sound like it was developing full power. The airplane climbed to about 100 feet, banked to the left, began losing altitude, and impacted a tree, a fence, and two vehicles before coming to rest in a residential area. A postcrash fire ensued, which consumed the majority of the cabin area and left wing. Examination of the accident site revealed that the airplane had struck the tree with its left inboard wing about 20 feet above ground level. Multiple tree branches exhibiting propeller cuts were found near the base of the tree. Propeller strike marks on the ground also corresponded to the location of the No. 1 (left side) propeller. There were minimal propeller marks from the No. 2 (right side) propeller. Examination of the propellers revealed that the No. 1 propeller blades exhibited chordwise scratching and S-bending, consistent with operation at impact, but the No. 2 propeller blades did not exhibit any chordwise scratching or bending, which indicates that the No. 2 engine was not producing power at the time of impact. There was no evidence that the pilot attempted to perform the manufacturer’s published single engine procedure, which would have allowed him to maintain altitude. Contrary to the procedure, the left and right throttle control levers were in the full-throttle position, the mixture control levers were in the full-rich position, neither propeller was feathered, and the landing gear was down. Postaccident examination of the No. 1 engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact malfunction or failure. However, the No. 2 engine's condition would have resulted in erratic and unreliable operation; the engine would not have been able to produce full rated horsepower as the compression on four of the nine cylinders was below specification and both magnetos were not functioning correctly. Moisture and corrosion were discovered inside the magneto cases; the left magneto sparked internally in a random pattern when tested and its point gap was in excess of the required tolerance. The right magneto's camshaft follower also exhibited excessive wear and its points would not open, rendering it incapable of providing electrical energy to its spark plugs. Additionally, the main fuel pump could not be rotated by hand; it exhibited play in the gear bearings, and corrosion was present internally. When the airplane was not flying, it was kept outdoors. Large amounts of rain had fallen during the week before the accident, which could have led to the moisture and corrosion in the magnetos. Although the pilot had been having problems with the No. 2 engine for months, he continued to fly the airplane, despite his responsibility, particularly as president, director of operations, and chief pilot of the company, to ensure that the airplane was airworthy. During this period, the pilot would take off with the engine shuddering and would circle the departure airport to gain altitude before heading to the destination. On the night before the accident, the director of maintenance (DOM) replaced the No. 1 cylinder on the No. 2 engine, which had developed a crack in the fin area and had oil seeping out of it. After the DOM performed the replacement, he did not do a compression check or check the magnetos; such checks would have likely revealed that four of the remaining cylinders were not producing specified compression, that the magnetos were not functioning correctly, and that further maintenance was necessary. Review of the airplane's maintenance records did not reveal an entry for installation of the cylinder. The last entry in the maintenance records for the airplane was an annual and a 100-hour inspection, which had occurred about 11 months before the accident.

The multi-engine airplane was being repositioned to its base airport, and the pilot had requested to change the destination, but gave no reason for the destination change. Radar data indicated that the airplane entered the left downwind leg of the traffic pattern, flew at pattern attitude, and then performed a right approximate 250-degree turn to enter the final leg of the approach. During the final leg of the approach, the airplane crashed short of the runway into a house located in a residential neighborhood near the airport. According to the airplane's pilot operating handbook, the minimum multi-engine approach speed was 95 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS), and the minimum controllable airspeed was 82 KIAS. According to radar data, the airplane's ground speed was about 69 knots with the probability of a direct crosswind. Post accident examination of the propellers indicated that both propellers were turning at a low power setting at impact. During a controlled test run of the right engine, a partial power loss was noted. After examination of the throttle and control assembly, two o-rings within the assembly were found to be damaged. The o-rings were replaced with comparable o-rings and the assembly was reinstalled. During the subsequent test run, the engine operated smoothly with no noted anomalies. Examination of the o-rings revealed that the damage was consistent with the o-rings being pinched between the corner of the top o-ring groove and the fuel inlet surface during installation. It is probable that the right engine had a partial loss of engine power while on final approach to the runway due to the damaged o-ring and that the pilot retarded the engine power to prevent the airplane from rolling to the right. The investigation found no mechanical malfunction of the left engine that would have prevented the airplane from maintaining the published airspeed.

At 1503 Central Standard Time, the Construcciones Aeronauticas SA (CASA) C-212-CC40 (registration C-FDKM, serial number 196) operated by Fugro Aviation Canada Ltd., departed from Saskatoon/Diefenbaker International Airport, Saskatchewan, under visual flight rules for a geophysical survey flight to the east of Saskatoon. On board were 2 pilots and a survey equipment operator. At about 1814, the right engine lost power. The crew shut it down, carried out checklist procedures, and commenced an approach for Runway 27. When the flight was 3.5 nautical miles from the runway on final approach, the left engine lost power. The crew carried out a forced landing adjacent to Wanuskewin Road in Saskatoon. The aircraft impacted a concrete roadway noise abatement wall and was destroyed. The survey equipment operator sustained fatal injuries, the first officer sustained serious injuries, and the captain sustained minor injuries. No ELT signal was received.

The four engine airplane departed Brazzaville-Maya Maya Airport on a cargo service to Pointe-Noire, carrying five passengers, four crew members and a load of 750 kilos of meat. On final approach to Pointe-Noire Airport runway 17, the aircraft rolled to the right, got inverted and crashed in the residential area of Mvoumvou located 4 kilometers short of runway. The aircraft was totally destroyed as well as several houses. All nine occupants and 14 people on the ground were killed.

On 27th November, 2010 the operating crew of mishap aircraft flew from Fujairah (UAE) to JIAP, Karachi (Pakistan) at 1000 UTC. The load onboard was weighing 9 tons (Packaged Boeing
747 engine). The aircraft had flown to Fujairah airport from Kandahar. According to the provided information on the 27-11-2010 the crew comprising Aircraft Commander, Second Pilot, Navigator, Flight Engineer, Flight Radio Operator, and Flight Operator flew from Fujairah (UAE) to JIAP Karachi. After landing the crew members were shifted to “Regent Plaza” hotel in Karachi. The stay of crew in the hotel was not less than 8 hours. The aircraft was refuelled at JIAP, Karachi and total fuel onboard was 74 tons. A cargo load of 30.5 tons was also loaded after refuelling the aircraft. The aircraft mass was 197 tons with its CG at 30% Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC) before undertaking the mishap flight. The aircraft was scheduled for departure from JIAP, Karachi at 2025 UTC 28th November, 2010) on route “Karachi – Khartoum – Douala, Cameroon to deliver humanitarian aid (tents). The crew arrived at airport around 1900 UTC. The weather conditions were satisfactory. The weather details are mentioned in this report at Para 1.7. After starting engines the crew taxied the plane to Runway 25L and reported to the air traffic controller that the plane would take off in 3 minutes and the aircraft took off at 2048 UTC. According to the radar data the aircraft ascended to 600 feet, started descending and then disappeared from the radar screen. The air traffic controller did not receive any information from the crew members about emergency conditions onboard. The aircraft crashed at about 2050 UTC on a bearing of 070 degree and approximately 02 NM from JIAP, Karachi at geographical location N24°53.651’, E 067°06.406’.