Beechcraft Beechjet 400

PDII

Flight Options

The pilots of the business jet were conducting a cross-country positioning flight. According to the pilot flying (PF), the flight was uneventful until the landing. While completing the descent checklist and while passing through 18,000 ft mean sea level (msl), the pilot monitoring (PM), received the automated weather report from the destination airport and briefed the PF that the wind was variable at 6 knots, gusting to 17 knots. The PF then programmed the flight management system for a visual approach to runway 7 and briefed the reference speed (Vref) as 107 knots and the go-around speed as 129 knots based on an airplane weight. The PF further reported that he knew the runway was over 4,400 ft long (the runway was 4,495 ft long) and he thought that the airplane needed about 2,900 ft of runway to safely land. During the left descending turn to the base leg of the traffic pattern, the PF overshot the final approach and had to turn back toward the runway centerline as the airplane was being “pushed by the winds.” About 500 ft above ground level (agl), both pilots acknowledged that the approach was “stabilized” while the airspeed was fluctuating between 112 and 115 knots. About 200 ft agl, both pilots noticed that the airplane was beginning to descend and that the airspeed was starting to decrease. The PF added power to maintain the descent rate and airspeed. The PF stated that, after adding power and during the last 200 ft of the approach, the wind was “gusty,” that a left crosswind existed, that the ground speed seemed “very fast,” and that excessive power was required to maintain airspeed. When the airplane was between about 75 and 100 ft agl, the PF asked the PM for the wind information, and the PM responded that the wind was variable at 6 knots, gusting to 17 knots. Both pilots noted that the ground speed was “very fast” but decided to continue the approach. Neither pilot reported seeing the windsock located off the right side of the runway. Review of weather data recorded by the airport’s automated weather observation system revealed that about 3 minutes before the landing, the wind was from 240° at 16 knots, gusting to 26 knots, which would have resulted in a 3- to 5-knot crosswind and 16- to 26-knot tailwind. Assuming these conditions, the airplane’s landing distance would have been about 4,175 ft per the unfactored landing distance performance chart. Tire skid marks were found beginning about 1,000 feet from the approach end of runway 7. The PF stated that the airplane touched down “abruptly at Vref+5 and he applied the brakes while the PM applied the speed brakes. Neither pilot felt the airplane decelerating, so the PF applied harder pressure to the brakes with no effect and subsequently applied full braking pressure. When it was evident that the airplane was going to depart the end of the runway, the PM applied the emergency brakes, at which point he felt some deceleration; however, the airplane overran the end of the runway and travelled through grass and mud for about 370 feet before stopping. Examination of the airplane revealed that the nose landing gear (NLG) had collapsed, which resulted in the forward fuselage striking the ground and the airframe sustaining substantial damage. Although the pilots reported that they never felt the braking nor antiskid systems working and that they believed that they should have been able to stop the airplane before it departed the runway, postaccident testing of the brake and antiskid systems revealed no evidence of preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation, and they functioned as designed. Given the tire skid marks observed on the runway following the accident, as well as the postaccident component examination and testing results, the brakes and antiskid system likely operated nominally during the landing. Based on the available evidence, the pilots failed to recognize performance cues and use available sources of wind information that would have indicated that they were landing in significant tailwind conditions and conduct a go-around. Landing under these conditions significantly increased the amount of runway needed to stop the airplane and resulted in the subsequent runway overrun and the collapse of the NLG.

Aerolíneas Ejecutivas

The pilots were conducting an international chartered flight in the small, twin-engine jet with five passengers onboard. Since the weather at the destination was marginal, the flight crew had discussed an alternate airport in case weather conditions required a missed approach at their destination. As the airplane neared the non-towered destination airport, the flight crew received updated weather information, which indicated that conditions had improved. Upon contacting the center controller, the crew was asked if they had the weather and NOTAMS for the destination airport. The crew reported that they received the current weather information, but did not state if they had NOTAM information. The controller responded by giving the flight a heading for the descent and sequence into the airport. The controller did not provide NOTAM information to the pilots. About 2 minutes later, airport personnel entered a NOTAM via computer closing the runway, effective immediately, for snow removal. Although the NOTAM was electronically routed to the controller, the controller's system was not designed to automatically alert the controller of a new NOTAM; the controller needed to select a display screen on the equipment that contained the information. At the time of the accident, the controller's workload was considered heavy. About 8 minutes after the runway closure NOTAM was issued, the controller cleared the airplane for the approach. The flight crew then canceled their instrument flight plan with the airport in sight, but did not subsequently transmit on or monitor the airport's common traffic advisory frequency, which was reportedly being monitored by airport personnel and the snow removal equipment operator. The airplane landed on the runway and collided with a snow removal vehicle about halfway down the runway. The flight crew reported they did not see the snow removal equipment. The accident scenario is consistent with the controllers not recognizing new NOTAM information in a timely manner due to equipment limitations, and the pilots not transmitting or monitoring the common traffic advisory frequency. Additionally, the accident identifies a potential problem for flight crews when information critical to inflight decision-making changes while en route, and problems when controller workload interferes with information monitoring and dissemination.

Dewberry Air

The aircraft was substantially damaged when it overran runway 28 during landing at Macon Downtown Airport (MAC), Macon, Georgia. The airplane departed from Charleston Air Force Base/International Airport (CHS), Charleston, South Carolina, about 0930. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed. Both Airline Transport Pilots (ATP) and one passenger sustained minor injuries. The airplane was owned by Dewberry, LLC and operated by The Aviation Department. The corporate flight was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91. According to an interview with the pilots, they arrived at DeKalb-Peachtree Airport (PDK), Atlanta, Georgia, which was their home base airport, about 0400, and then drove about 4 1/2 hours to CHS for the 0930 flight. The flight departed on time, the airspeed index bug was set on the co-pilot's airspeed for a decision takeoff speed (V1) of about 102 knots and a single engine climb speed (V2) on the pilot's side of 115 knots. The flight climbed to 16,000 feet prior to beginning the descent into MAC. When the flight was about 11 miles from the airport the flight crew visually acquired the airport and cancelled their IFR clearance with the Macon Radar Approach controller and proceeded to the airport visually. The second-in-command activated the runway lights utilizing the common traffic advisory frequency for the airport. Both crew members reported that about 3 seconds following activation of the lights and the precision approach path indicator (PAPI) lights, the PAPI lights turned off and would not reactivate. During the approach, the calculated reference speed (Vref) was 108 knots and was set on both pilots' airspeed indicator utilizing the index bug that moved around the outside face of the airspeed instrument. The landing was within the first 1,000 feet of the runway and during the landing roll out the airplane began to "hydroplane" since there was visible standing water on the runway and the water was "funneling into the middle." Maximum reverse thrust, braking, and ground spoilers were deployed; however, both pilots reported a "pulsation" in the brake system. The airplane departed the end of the runway into the grass, went down an embankment, across a road, and into trees. They further added that the airplane "hit hard" at the bottom of the embankment. They also reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions with the airplane prior to the landing. According to an eyewitness statement, a few minutes prior to the airplane landing, the airport experienced a rain shower with a "heavy downpour." The witness reported observing the airplane on approach, heard the engine thrust reverse, and then observed the airplane "engulfed in a large ball of water vapor." However, he did not observe the airplane as it departed the end of the runway. Another witness was located in a hangar on the west side of the airport and heard the airplane, looked outside and then saw the airplane with the reverse thrusters deployed. He watched it depart the end of the runway and travel into the nearby woods.

N79TE LLC

The second-in-command (SIC) was the pilot flying for most of the flight (takeoff, climb, cruise, and descent) and was in the left seat, while the pilot-in-command (PIC) was the pilot monitoring for most of the flight and was in the right seat. Before takeoff, the PIC calculated reference speed (Vref) for the estimated landing weight and flaps 30-degree extension was 120 knots, with a calculated landing distance of 3,440 ft. Further, before takeoff, there were no known mechanical difficulties with the brakes, flaps, antiskid, or traffic alert and collision avoidance (TCAS) systems. After takeoff and for most of the flight, the PIC coached/instructed the SIC, including instructions on how to set the airspeed command cursor, a request to perform the after-takeoff checklist, and a comment to reduce thrust to silence an overspeed warning aural annunciation. When the flight was northwest of Dekalb Peachtree Airport (PDK), Atlanta, Georgia, on a right base leg for a visual approach to runway 20L with negligible wind, air traffic controllers repeatedly announced the location and distance of a Cessna airplane (which was ahead of the Beech 400A on a straight-in visual approach to runway 20R). Because the Beech 400A flight crew did not see the other airplane, the controllers appropriately instructed them to maintain their altitude (which was 2,300 ft mean sea level [msl]) for separation until they had the traffic in sight; radar data indicated the Beech 400A briefly descended to 2,200 ft msl then climbed back to 2,300 ft msl. According to the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) transcript, at 1004:42, which was about 12 seconds after the controller instructed the Beech 400A flight crew to maintain altitude, the on board TCAS alerted "traffic traffic." While the Beech 400A did climb back to 2,300 ft msl, this was likely a response to the air traffic control (ATC) instruction to maintain altitude and not a response to the TCAS "traffic traffic" warning. At 1004:47, the CVR recorded the SIC state, "first degree of," likely referring to flap extension, but the comment was not completed. The CVR recorded an immediate increase in background noise, which was likely due to the landing gear extension. The PIC then advised the local controller that the flight was turning onto final approach. The CVR did not record any approach briefing or discussion of runway length or Vref speed. After landing on runway 20L at Atlanta-DeKalb Peachtree Airport, aircraft did not stop as expected. It overrun the runway, went through a fence and came to rest near a road, broken in two. All four occupants were injured, both pilots seriously.

Líder Taxi Aéreo

The crew departed São Paulo-Congonhas Airport on a positioning flight to São José dos Campos. While descending to São José dos Campos, the captain led the controls to the copilot who was still under instruction. On final, the aircraft was too high on the glide. The captain took over controls but his reaction was excessive. The aircraft suddenly rolled to the right, causing the right wing to struck the ground few dozen metres short of runway 15 threshold. The aircraft landed and came to rest on the main runway. Both pilots evacuated safely while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

Vecellio Group

The airplane touched down about 1/3 beyond the approach end of Runway 28, a 5,000 footlong, asphalt runway. The PIC stated, 'as usual,' he applied 'light' braking and attempted to actuated the airplane's thrust reverser (TR) system; however, the TR handles could not be moved beyond the 'Deploy-Reverse-Idle' position. After the PIC cycled the levers two or three times, he began to apply maximum braking. A passenger in the airplane stated he looked out of the cockpit window, saw the end of the runway, and the airplane seemed like it was still moving 'pretty fast.' As the airplane approached the end of the runway, he could see smoke, which he believed was coming from the airplane's tires. He then sensed the airplane was falling. The co-pilot stated he had no memory at all of the accident flight. Review of the CVR revealed the co-pilot said that the airplane was 'Vref plus about twenty,' when the airplane was 100 feet over the runway threshold. The PIC could not recall the airplane's touchdown speed, however, he stated that it seemed like the airplane was still traveling 50 to 60 knots when it departed the end of the runway. A pair of parallel tire marks were observed 3,200 feet beyond the approach end of the runway. The tire marks extended past the end of the runway and onto a 106 foot-long grass area. The airplane came to rest on a plateau about 90 feet below the runway elevation. Examination of the airplane, including the optional TR system did not reveal any pre-impact malfunctions. The airplane's estimated landing distance was calculated to be about 3,100 feet. The PIC reported about 4,700 hours of total flight experience, of which, 107 hours were in make and model. The PIC stated he had never performed a landing in the accident airplane without using the TR system. Winds reported at the time of the accident were from 290 degrees at 15 knots, with 21 knot gusts.

Transair USA

The approach to Bucharest-Otopeni Airport was completed in poor weather conditions with a visibility reduced to 100 metres in fog. The aircraft landed slightly to the right of the runway 26L centerline, causing the right wing to struck a 60 cm high snow wall. The aircraft went out of control and eventually collided with an observation tower. All 10 occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

Bruno's Inc.

Before takeoff, an IFR flight plan was filed for a 15 minutes flight from Rome, GA, to Huntsville, AL. Takeoff was commenced at 0937 est with the copilot flying the aircraft. After a VFR takeoff, the captain contacted Atlanta Center to obtain an IFR clearance. The controller advised that other traffic was in the area and instructed the flight to remain VFR (while an IFR clearance was being arranged). At that time, the flight reported at 1,300 feet in VFR conditions. While waiting for an IFR clearance, the crew became concerned about higher terrain and low ceilings. At about 0940, the captain directed the copilot to fly 'back to the right.' Approximately one minute later, the CVR stopped recording and radio contact was lost with the aircraft. Later, the aircraft was found where it had collided with the top of Mt Lavender. Elevation of the crash site was approximately 1,580 feet msl. The aircraft was not equipped with a ground proximity warning system. All nine occupants were killed, among them Angelo J. Bruno, the chairman of Bruno's Inc. company; his brother, Lee J. Bruno, vice chairman; Sam A. Vacarella, senior vice president for merchandising; Edward C. Hyde, vice president for store operations, and R. Randolph Page Jr., vice president for personnel.

Aliserio

On final approach to Parma Airport, the aircraft struck the ground and crashed 400 metres short of runway. Both pilots were injured and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. At the time of the accident, the visibility was below minimums and the aircraft descended below the MDA until ground impact.