Country
code

Karnataka

Crash of a De Havilland DHC-8-402Q in Hubli

Date & Time: Mar 8, 2015 at 1915 LT
Operator:
Registration:
VT-SUA
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Bangalore – Hubli
MSN:
4373
YOM:
2011
Flight number:
SG1085
Location:
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
4
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
78
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
7050
Captain / Total hours on type:
1850.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
1343
Copilot / Total hours on type:
1083
Aircraft flight hours:
10224
Aircraft flight cycles:
9440
Circumstances:
On 08.03.2015 M/s Spice Jet Ltd. Bombardier Q-400 aircraft VT-SUA, was operating a scheduled flight from Bangalore to Hubli under the command of ATPL license holder endorsed on type with duly qualified First Officer on type. There were 78 passengers and 4 crew members on board the aircraft. Previous to the accident flight, the aircraft VT-SUA had operated a flight Chennai – Bangalore with the same PIC. The flight was uneventful and there was no snag reported by the PIC on the completion of the flight. Subsequently the aircraft was scheduled for SG-1085, Bangalore - Hubli on 08.03.2015 at around 13:00 UTC. The aircraft took off from Bangalore at around 1300 UTC and the visibility reported for Hubli was 10 km. When the aircraft came in contact with Mangalore ATC, Mangalore ATC cleared aircraft direct to Hubli and informed heavy rains and thunder showers over Hubli with visibility 3000 m. Since the weather at Hubli had deteriorated, the PIC reduced aircraft speed for reassuring the flight parameters. As there is no refueling facility available at Hubli, the sector is a tankering sector hence the aircraft had enough fuel for holding. While approaching into Hubli the pilot requested latest weather from ATC Hubli. At around 60 nm from Hubli, the weather reported by ATC Hubli was heavy rain and visibility 4000 meters. The ATC cleared aircraft for NDB approach runway 26, however the PIC preferred to carry out VOR DME trial procedure for runway 26. The runway condition was neither asked by the cockpit crew nor intimated by the ATC. The descent was commenced and about 25 nm short of Hubli, ATC again advised visibility has reduced to 3000 m due heavy rain and thunderstorm. Thereafter the crew decided to hold over Hubli until the weather improves. 20 minutes into holding, the ATC again informed that visibility has improved to 4000m in moderate rain. Subsequently descent was requested by the pilot for runway 26. The PIC stated that he had established visual reference with runway at about 6 nm on the final approach course. The crew also selected vipers on short finals to have a better visibility. The aircraft landed normally. The PIC had stated that after touch down and reducing power to DISC, as he was concentrating on the far end of the runway as the runway was wet, he did not realize that the aircraft was drifting to the left of the center line. He further mentioned that he selected full reverse on both the engines to maintain the aircraft on the center line however the aircraft veered toward the left side of the runway and in the process overrun the runway edge light followed by LH landing gear collapsed. After the left landing gear collapsed the left propeller blades hit the runway surface and sheared off from the root attachment. The PIC maneuvered the aircraft however the nose wheel tyre failed under over load conditions and the nose landing gear collapsed and the aircraft belly came in contact with the runway surface. Subsequently, the aircraft exited the runway on the left side on Kutcha and came to the final stop at round 52 meters away from the runway center line. The cockpit crew switched off the engines and the electrical power supply and cockpit door and announced evacuation. The cabin crew opened and the cabin doors on the right for evacuation. The ATC had alerted the fire services and the fire vehicles reached the aircraft after it came to final halt position. The fire personnel also assisted in the safe evacuation of all the passengers from the RH side. There was no injury to any of the occupants on board the aircraft. There was no postaccident fire.
Probable cause:
Loss of visual cues after touch down in inclemental weather conditions resulted in veering of the aircraft towards left of the centerline leading to runway excursion and accident.
Following are the contributory factors:
1. Inappropriate handling technique of the aircraft controls by the PIC to maintain the directional control of the aircraft after landing.
2. Non-standards callouts by the first officer to correct situation after landing.
3. Impact of the landing gear with the non-frangible erected runway edge light resulted in retraction of the same.
4. At the time of the accident DGCA O.M. No. AV.15026/006/92- AS dated 3rd February 1992 was in force, which dictated examiners and instructors of the operators only to carry out trial procedures in VMC and during Daytime only. M/s Spice jet instructions to the flight crew did not reflect the same and allowed flight crew with less experience & below VMC flight conditions to carry out trial procedures. This may have contributed to the accident.
Final Report:

Crash of a Boeing 737-800 in Mangalore: 158 killed

Date & Time: May 22, 2010 at 0605 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
VT-AXV
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Dubai - Mangalore
MSN:
36333/2481
YOM:
2007
Flight number:
IX812
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
6
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
160
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
158
Captain / Total flying hours:
10215
Captain / Total hours on type:
2844.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
3620
Copilot / Total hours on type:
3319
Aircraft flight hours:
7199
Aircraft flight cycles:
2833
Circumstances:
Air India Express flight IX-811/812 is a daily round trip between Mangalore and Dubai. The outbound flight IX-811 was uneventful and landed at Dubai at 23:44 hours Local Time. The airplane was serviced and refuelled. The same flight crew operated the return leg, flight IX-812. The airplane taxied out for departure at 01:06 LT (02:36 IST). The takeoff, climb and cruise were uneventful. There was no conversation between the two pilots for about 1 hour and 40 minutes because the captain was asleep. The First Officer was making all the radio calls. The aircraft reported position at IGAMA at 05:33 hours IST and the First Officer was told to expect an ILS DME Arc approach to Mangalore. At about 130 miles from Mangalore, the First Officer requested descent clearance. This was, however, denied by the ATC Controller, who was using standard procedural control, to ensure safe separation with other air traffic. At 05:46 IST, the flight reported its position when it was at 80 DME as instructed by Mangalore Area Control. The aircraft was cleared to 7000 ft and commenced descent at 77 DME from Mangalore at 05:47 IST. The visibility reported was 6 km. Mangalore airport has a table top runway. As the AIP India states "Aerodrome located on hilltop. Valleys 200ft to 250ft immediately beyond paved surface of Runway." Owing to the surrounding terrain, Air India Express had made a special qualification requirement that only the PIC shall carry out the take off and landing. The captain on the accident flight had made a total of 16 landings in the past at this airport and the First Officer had operated as a Co-pilot on 66 flights at this airport. While the aircraft had commenced descent, there was no recorded conversation regarding the mandatory preparation for descent and landing briefing as stipulated in the SOP. After the aircraft was at about 50 miles and descending out of FL295, the conversation between the two pilots indicated that an incomplete approach briefing had been carried out. At about 25 nm from DME and descending through FL184, the Mangalore Area Controller cleared the aircraft to continue descent to 2900 ft. At this stage, the First Officer requested, if they could proceed directly to Radial 338 and join the 10 DME Arc. Throughout the descent profile and DME Arc Approach for ILS 24, the aircraft was much higher than normally expected altitudes. The aircraft was handed over by the Mangalore Area Controller to ATC Tower at 05:52 IST. The Tower controller, thereafter, asked the aircraft to report having established on 10 DME Arc for ILS Runway 24. Considering that this flight was operating in WOCL (Window Of Circadian Low), by this time the First Officer had also shown signs of tiredness. This was indicated by the sounds of yawning heard on the CVR. On having reported 10 DME Arc, the ATC Tower had asked aircraft to report when established on ILS. It appears that the captain had realized that the aircraft altitude was higher than normal and had selected Landing Gear 'DOWN' at an altitude of approximately 8,500 ft with speed brakes still deployed in Flight Detent position, so as to increase the rate of descent. As indicated by the DFDR, the aircraft continued to be high and did not follow the standard procedure of intercepting the ILS Glide Path at the correct intercept altitude. This incorrect procedure led to the aircraft being at almost twice the altitude as compared to a Standard ILS Approach. During approach, the CVR indicated that the captain had selected Flaps 40 degrees and completed the Landing Check List. At 06:03 hours IST at about 2.5 DME, the Radio Altimeter had alerted an altitude of 2500 ft. This was immediately followed by the First Officer saying "It is too high" and "Runway straight down". In reply, the captain had exclaimed "Oh my god". At this moment, the captain had disconnected the Auto Pilot and simultaneously increased the rate of descent considerably to establish on the desired approach path. At this stage, the First Officer had queried "Go around?" To this query from the First Officer, the captain had called out "Wrong loc .. ... localiser .. ... glide path". The First Officer had given a second call to the captain for "Go around" followed by "Unstabilized". However, the First Officer did not appear to take any action, to initiate a Go Around. Having acquired the runway visually and to execute a landing, it appears that the captain had increased the rate of descent to almost 4000 ft per minute. Due to this, there were numerous warnings from EGPWS for 'SINK RATE' and 'PULL UP'. On their own, the pilots did not report having established on ILS Approach. Instead, the ATC Tower had queried the same. To this call, the captain had forcefully prompted the First Officer to give a call of "Affirmative". The Tower controller gave landing clearance thereafter and also indicated "Winds calm". The aircraft was high on approach and touched down on the runway, much farther than normal. The aircraft had crossed the threshold at about 200 ft altitude with indicated speed in excess of 160 kt, as compared to 50 ft with target speed of 144 kt for the landing weight. Despite the EGPWS warnings and calls from the First Officer to go around, the captain had persisted with the approach in unstabilized conditions. Short of touchdown, there was yet another (Third) call from the First Officer, "Go around captain...We don't have runway left". However, the captain had continued with the landing and the final touchdown was about 5200 ft from the threshold of runway 24, leaving approximately 2800 ft of remaining paved surface. The captain had selected Thrust Reversers soon after touchdown. Within 6 seconds of applying brakes, the captain had initiated a 'Go Around', in contravention of Boeing SOP. The aircraft overshot the runway including the strip of 60 metres. After overshooting the runway and strip, the aircraft continued into the Runway End Safety Area (RESA) of 90 metres. Soon after which the right wing impacted the localiser antenna structure located further at 85 metres from the end of RESA. Thereafter, the aircraft hit the boundary fence and fell into a gorge.
Probable cause:
The Court of Inquiry determines that the cause of this accident was Captain's failure to discontinue the unstabilized approach and his persistence in continuing with the landing, despite three calls from the First Officer to go around and a number of warnings from the EGPWS.
Contributing Factors were:
1. In spite of availability of adequate rest period prior to the flight, the Captain was in prolonged sleep during flight, which could have led to sleep inertia. As a result of relatively short period of time between his awakening and the approach, it possibly led to impaired judgment. This aspect might have got accentuated while flying in the Window of Circadian Low (WOCL).
2. In the absence of Mangalore Area Control Radar (MSSR), due to unserviceability, the aircraft was given descent at a shorter distance on DME as compared to the normal. However, the flight crew did not plan the descent profile properly, resulting in remaining high on approach.
3. Probably in view of ambiguity in various instructions empowering the 'copilot' to initiate a 'go around ', the First Officer gave repeated calls to this effect, but did not take over the controls to actually discontinue the ill-fated approach.
Final Report:

Crash of a NAL Saras near Bangalore: 3 killed

Date & Time: Mar 6, 2009 at 1534 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
VT-XRM
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Bangalore - Bangalore
MSN:
SP002
YOM:
2007
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
3
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
3
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
3
Captain / Total flying hours:
2414
Captain / Total hours on type:
310.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
2080
Copilot / Total hours on type:
315
Aircraft flight hours:
50
Aircraft flight cycles:
49
Circumstances:
On 06.3.2009 Saras Prototype PT2 aircraft VT-XRM manufactured and owned by National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore was scheduled for carrying out its test flight n°49. Test flight programme includes general a ir tests/handling checks to ascertain the aircraft flying characteristics after the 50 hrs Scheduled servicing, dummy approach in simulated single engine configuration at 5000' AMSL, go around at 300' AGL in a simulated one engine inoperative condition, landing in a simulated one engine inoperative condition and to carry out in-flight engine shut down and relight procedure at 10000' AMSL within 130 - 150 kts speed. Tests are to be carried out as per existing SOP and test procedures and limitations and pre flight test briefing meeting. Aircraft was cleared by approved inspectors of NAL after carrying out daily inspection on 6.3.2009 for test flight n°49 and was duly accepted by the Chief test pilot. Preflight briefing was taken by the Wg Cdr (22917-S), F(P), chief test pilot was on commander seat , Wg Cdr (23165-H), F(P) - test pilot was on co-pilot seat and Sqn Ldr (24746-M), AE(M) was on Flight test engineer on board. The test team also accepted flight test schedule of flight n°49. Total duration of the tests was estimated to about 45 minutes. Engines were started at 0913 UTC at ASTE, dispersal area . All engine parameters were reported normal. After carrying out post startup and pre taxi checks, aircraft taxied out for Runway 09 at HAL airport. As pe r departure instructions after departure R/W 09 aircraft to climb on R/W heading 5000’, turn right set course to southwest -2 and in coordination with approach radar to operate upto 10 miles and level 100. Aircraft was cleared for takeoff from R/W 09 with surface wind 090º/06kts. Aircraft took-off at 0925 UTC and changed over to radar at 0926 UTC. There was no event. Aircraft was then cleared to level 100, operating up to 10 miles. After completing general handling checks at 9000’ AMSL without any events, Aircraft was stabilized with simulated single engine approach to the landing r/w 09. Single engine simulated approach was carried out. At about 0941 UTC aircraft was cleared for overshoot, wind 090/06 kts. Aircraft made overshoot at 300’ AGL. Aircraft was then changed over to radar again. At 0942 UTC aircraft was cleared to climb level 100 and proceed sector southwest 2. Aircraft right engine was throttled up to match left engine and aircraft climbed out to 9000’ AMSL in sector southwest. At about 0948 UTC aircraft reported 15 miles and FL90 and reported turning around. But HAL radar as well as BIAL radar showing level was 72 for which aircraft replied that it has descended and climbing back to 9000’ AMSL. At about 0955 UTC aircraft reported “OPS NORMAL” at 20 Nm in sector southwest 2. This was the last contact by aircraft with radar. After 0955 UTC Radar contact with the aircraft was completely lost. As per ASTE Telemetry, after turned round to point towards HAL airfield aircraft was observed about 20 miles at 9000’ AMSL with 140 kts speed. Telemetry link was good at this position Left engine was then shut down and secured following the test procedure at about 10:00:40 UTC. Pilot was in touch with Flight test director on R/T at telemetry desk. After about 47 secs, left engine relight procedure was initiated at around 9200’ AMSL. Pilot also reported to Telemetry the start of relight of the engine. Telemetry indications also showed the rise in Ng and ITT. At about 100 secs prior to crash aircraft went into sudden dive from 9200’ to 7300’ for about 13 secs. Meanwhile During the relighting of left engine, FTD desk also lost RT contact with aircraft about 37 secs prior to crash and telemetry link with the aircraft was also intermittent. At 37 secs prior to crash when Telemetry called aircraft “ can you call up. What is going on”, aircraft replied “Standby” this was the last contact of Telemetry with aircraft. After that there was no contact from the pilot. Just before 7 secs of crash when the telemetry data signal was restored aircraft already lost to the height of 4260’ AMSL(1900’AGL) and in continuous loss of height and Ng was about 31%. There was no response from pilots even after repeated calls from FTD desk. Aircraft was rapidly losing the height without any control. Cockpit voice recording clearly showed that on last moments just 10 secs prior to crash ,commander called out “ Aircraft has departed” indicating aircraft completely gone out of control. During the last moment of crash telemetry recorded Ng : about 54% (63% as per FDR), Engine oil pressure 88, fuel flow 94%,ITT 647 deg C, indicating engine relight was successful. But by the time aircraft was almost on ground. Aircraft crashed at about 1004 UTC (10:03:44). All possible communication means including through en -route traffic to contact the aircraft went in vain. Search operation by ALH helicopter (A67) ,Chetak(T45) and T55 was effected. At about 1033 UTC police control room reported that an aircraft had crashed near Bidadi. After extensive search efforts, at about 1100 UTC, A67 found out the crash site having bearing 251° and 17 Nm from HAL airport. Later it was affirmed that the aircraft crashed at a village called Sehsagirihalli (close to wonderland amusement park) near Bidadi and 37 km by road(off Mysore road) Southwest of HAL airport, Bangalore. The crash site was a wide -open residential plot area of uneven hard terrain surrounded by poles and wild plants. It was on a radial of 251° /17 NM from HAL, Bangalore airport having coordinates LAT : N12° 50’56”, LONG: E077° 23’46”). All the three persons on board were charred to death and were on their seats. There was post impact fire. Aircraft fuselage was broken from rear of the main plane and found in an inverted position. The vertical fin leading edge was facing the ground and the respective tail mounted engines by the side of it. The nose portion of the aircraft was facing East direction. Aircraft was completely destroyed due impact and fire.
Probable cause:
Incorrect relight procedure devised by the designer and adopted by the crew at insufficient height leading to rapid loss of altitude and abnormal behavior of aircraft resulted into accident.
Contributory factors:
a) Lack of crew coordination and cockpit procedures,
b) Handling of the controls,
c) Non-aborting of flight by the crew in coordination with the flight test Director after failure of first relight attempt,
d) Devising engine relight procedures by NAL without consulting the propeller manufacturer.
Final Report:

Crash of a Partenavia P.68C Victor in Bangalore: 4 killed

Date & Time: Sep 8, 2007 at 1520 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
VT-JOY
Flight Phase:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Bangalore – Cochin
MSN:
436
YOM:
2004
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
1
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
3
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
4
Captain / Total flying hours:
3140
Circumstances:
The aircraft departed Bangalore-Hindustan Airport runway 27 at 1514LT on a flight to Cochin with 3 passengers and one pilot on board. Six minutes after takeoff, the pilot reported technical problems and elected to return for an emergency landing. However, the aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed in the lakebed of the Gawdanapalya Lake located about 9 km southwest of the airport. The aircraft was destroyed and all four occupants were killed.
Probable cause:
Engine power loss during initial climb after the aircraft had been refueled with Jet fuel instead of Avgas 100LL.
The following contributing factors were identified:
- The low experience of the pilot on type,
- The non-compliance of correct refueling procedure and its supervision by IOC personnel and pilot or operator's representative.
Final Report:

Crash of an ATR72-212A in Bangalore

Date & Time: Mar 11, 2006 at 1017 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
VT-DKC
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Coimbatore – Bangalore
MSN:
721
YOM:
2005
Flight number:
DN108
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
4
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
40
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
The twin engine aircraft landed hard on runway 27 at Bangalore-Hindustan Airport. After touchdown, it veered off runway and came to rest. All 44 occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. Brand new, it was delivered four months ago.

Crash of a Cessna 340 in Bangalore

Date & Time: Jul 16, 2005 at 1150 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
N888HB
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
MSN:
340-0101
YOM:
1972
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
Shortly after takeoff from Bangalore-Jakkur Airport runway 08, while in initial climb, the aircraft suffered an engine failure. It stalled and crashed in shallow water in Jakkur Lake, about one km northeast of the aerodrome. Both pilots were rescued and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.
Probable cause:
Engine failure for unknown reasons.

Crash of an Antonov AN-32 in Bangalore

Date & Time: Feb 23, 2000
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
K2690
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Site:
MSN:
03 05
YOM:
1984
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
0
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
The aircraft was approaching Bangalore-Hindustan Airport when it crashed in unknown circumstances in the district of Vijayanagar, about 13 km short of runway 09 threshold. There were no casualties.

Crash of a Hindustan Aeronautics HAL-748-2M at Yellahanka AFB: 28 killed

Date & Time: Mar 24, 1991 at 0815 LT
Operator:
Registration:
H1513
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Yellahanka - Yellahanka
MSN:
551
YOM:
1984
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
3
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
25
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
28
Circumstances:
After takeoff from Yellahanka AFB, while climbing to a height of 165 feet, the aircraft stalled and crashed in an open field, bursting into flames. The aircraft was totally destroyed by fire and all 28 occupants were killed, among them 25 cadets.
Probable cause:
Loss of control during initial climb following an engine failure for unknown reasons.

Crash of an Airbus A320-231 in Bangalore: 92 killed

Date & Time: Feb 14, 1990 at 1303 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
VT-EPN
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Bombay - Bangalore
MSN:
79
YOM:
1989
Flight number:
IC605
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
7
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
139
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
92
Captain / Total flying hours:
10339
Captain / Total hours on type:
212.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
9307
Copilot / Total hours on type:
68
Aircraft flight hours:
370
Aircraft flight cycles:
302
Circumstances:
Indian Airlines Flight 605 took off from Mumbai, India, at 11:58 for a domestic flight to Bangalore. At 12:25 Bangalore approach was contacted and prevailing weather was passed on to the crew (wind variable 5 knots, visibility 10 km, clouds 2 octa 2,000 feet, temperature 27° C, QNH 1018). At 12:44 the aircraft was cleared to descend to FL110. Reaching FL110, vectors were given for a visual runway 09 approach. On final approach, the aircraft descended well below the normal approach profile and kept descending until it struck the boundaries of the Karnataka Golf Club (2,300 feet short of the runway and 200 feet right of the extended centerline. The aircraft rolled for 80 feet and lifted off again for about 230 feet and came down again on the 17th green of the golf course. The landing gear wheels dug into the ground and the aircraft impacted a 12 feet high embankment, causing the gears and engines to be sheared off. The aircraft continued over the embankment and came to rest in a grassy, marshy and rocky area.
Probable cause:
Failure of the pilots to realize the gravity of the situation and respond immediately towards proper action of moving the throttles, even after the radio altitude call-outs of "Four hundred", "Three hundred" and "Two hundred" feet, in spite of knowing that the plane was in idle/open descent mode. However, identification of the cause for the engagement of idle/open descent mode in short final approach during the crucial period of the flight is not possible.
Final Report:

Crash of a De Havilland DH.104 Dove 1 at Yelahanka AFB

Date & Time: Mar 15, 1982
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
HW204
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Yelahanka - Yelahanka
MSN:
04081
YOM:
1947
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
0
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
The crew was engaged in a local training flight at Yelahanka Airbase. Control was lost upon landing after the crew attempted to land on one engine. There were no casualties.