Boeing 737-800

China Eastern Airlines

The airplane departed Kunming-Wujiaba Airport at 1315LT on a schedule service (flight MU5735) to Guangzhou, carrying 123 passengers and a crew of nine. At 1420LT, while cruising at an altitude of 29,100 feet, the aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent until 7,400 feet then climbed to 8,600 feet. It finally entered a steep descent and crashed almost two minutes later in a vertical attitude on hilly and wooded terrain located southwest of Wuzhou. The aircraft disintegrated on impact and all 132 occupants were killed. Two days after the accident, the CVR was found while the DFDR was found on March 27.

Air India Express

Air-India Express Limited B737-800 aircraft VT-AXH was operating a quick return flight on sector Kozhikode-Dubai-Kozhikode under ‘Vande Bharat Mission’ to repatriate passengers who were stranded overseas due to closure of airspace and flight operations owing to the Covid-19 pandemic. The aircraft departed from Kozhikode for Dubai at 10:19 IST (04:49 UTC) on 07 August 2020 and landed at Dubai at 08:11 UTC. The flight was uneventful. There was no change of crew and no defect was reported on the first sector. The aircraft departed from Dubai for Kozhikode at 10:00 UTC as flight AXB 1344 carrying 184 passengers and six crew members. AXB 1344 made two approaches for landing at Kozhikode. The aircraft carried out a missed approach on the first attempt while coming into land on runway 28. The second approach was on runway 10 and the aircraft landed at 14:10:25 UTC. The aircraft touched down approximately at 4,438 ft on 8,858 ft long runway, in light rain with tailwind component of 15 knots and a ground speed of 165 knots. The aircraft could not be stopped on the runway and this ended in runway overrun. The aircraft exited the runway 10 end at a ground speed of 84 knots and then overshot the RESA, breaking the ILS antennae and a fence before plummeting down the tabletop runway. The aircraft fell to a depth of approximately 110 ft below the runway elevation and impacted the perimeter road that runs just below the tabletop runway, at a ground speed of 41 knots and then came to an abrupt halt on the airport perimeter road just short of the perimeter wall. There was fuel leak from both the wing tanks; however, there was no postcrash fire. The aircraft was destroyed and its fuselage broke into three sections. Both engines were completely separated from the wings. The rescue operations were carried out by the ARFF crew on duty with help of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel stationed at the airport and several civilians who rushed to the crash site when the accident occurred. Upon receipt of the information about the aircraft crash the district administration immediately despatched fire tenders and ambulances to the crash site. Nineteen passengers were fatally injured and Seventy Five passengers suffered serious injuries in the accident while Ninety passengers suffered minor or no injuries. Both Pilots suffered fatal injuries while one cabin crew was seriously injured and three cabin crew received minor injuries. The rescue operation was completed at 16:45 UTC (22:15 IST).

Pegasus Airlines

Following an uneventful flight from Izmir-Adnan Menderes Airport, the crew initiated the approach to Istanbul-Sabiha Gökçen Airport runway 06. Weather conditions were poor with thunderstorm activity, rain, CB's and a wind from 290 gusting to 37 knots. After touchdown on a wet runway, the airplane was unable to stop within the remaining distance. It overran, turned slightly to the left then went down an embankment (25 meters high) and came to rest, broken in three. Three passengers were killed while all 180 other occupants were evacuated to local hospitals. It is understood that the airplane apparently landed 1,500 meters past the runway threshold (runway 06 is 3,000 meters long) with a non negligible tailwind component that must be confirmed.

Ukraine International Airlines

On Wednesday, January 08, 2020, at 00:53, the inbound flight No. 751 of Ukraine International, Boeing 737-800, UR-PSR, en route to Tehran Imam Khomeini INTL. Airport from Kyiv Boryspyl INTL. Airport was cleared for landing, and after four minutes landed on the IKA runway. After disembarking 58 passengers and refueling, the flight crew went on to check into the hotel located at IKA. From 01:16 to 01:38, the aircraft was refueled with 9510 kg (11800 liters) of fuel. Once the total weight of the cargo received from passengers (310 packages weighing 6794 kg) was determined, in order to comply with the maximum takeoff weight allowed for aircraft, 82 packages in 2094 kg in weight, were separated by Airport Service Company, that is, they were not loaded. Initially, 78 packages of the passenger's luggage were not loaded first, then due to the large volume of passengers' hand luggage, the flight attendants passed some of them on to the Airport Service Company personnel to be placed in the aircraft cargo. After that, 4 packages belonging to the passengers were removed from the aft cargo door, where the hand luggage was placed. At 04:35, the flight crew embarked on the aircraft. After checking the aircraft and cabin, boarding was announced at 04:45, and passengers started to board the plane. Based on the available documents, 167 passengers proceeded to the Airport Services Co. counter at the airport terminal, all of whom went on board. Only one of the passengers who received the boarding pass online the night before the flight, due to the delay in arriving in Tehran from another city did not go to the airport in person, and therefore had been removed from the list of passengers provided by the UIA. At 05:13, the pilot made his first radio contact with the IKA's control tower ground unit and requested the initial clearance for flying, which was issued by the controller subsequently. At 05:48, all the aircraft documents required to start the flight operations were filled out, and all the doors were then closed at 05:49. The flight was initially scheduled for 05:15, and based on the flight coordinator's report form, the reason given for its delay was the aircraft being overweight and the decision not to load the passengers' lugga for reducing the aircraft weight. At 05:51 the pilot notified his position at the airport parking, declared his readiness to exit the parking and start up the aircraft. The IKA tower asked him to wait for receiving the clearance since they wanted to make the coordination required with other relevant units. At 05:52, the IKA tower made the necessary coordination with the Mehrabad approach unit, who contacted Tehran ACC asking for clearance. Accordingly, the controller in ACC made coordination on Ukrainian flight clearance with the CMOCC. The clearance was issued by the CMOCC. At 05:54, the Mehrabad approach unit, received the FL260 clearance for the flight AUI752 from ACC, and forwarded it to IKA via the telecommunication system. Flight no. 752 was detached from the A1 Jet Bridge and at about 05:55 started to leave its parking position, NO 116 on the right, by a pushback truck. Following that, at 05:55 the ground controller cleared the AUI752 flight for startup and exiting the parking, which was read back by the pilot. At 06:12, the aircraft took off from the Runway 29 Right of IKA and was delivered to the Mehrabad approach unit. The pilot contacted the approach unit, and announced the IKA 1A radar procedure as SID procedure. Next, the Mehrabad approach identified and cleared the flight to climb to FL260. The controller instructed the pilot to turn to the right after 6,000 feet, and continue straight to PAROT. After it was read back by the pilot, the controller again instructed the pilot to continue to PAROT point once passing the 6000-foot altitude, which was read back by the pilot. From 06:17 onwards, upon the disappearance of the PS752 information from the radarscope, the controller called the captain repeatedly, but received no response. According to the data extracted from the surveillance systems and FDR, the aircraft climbed to an altitude of 8,100 feet; thereafter, the label including the call sign and altitude of aircraft disappeared from the radarscope, yet no radio contact indicating unusual conditions was received from the pilot. FDR recording terminated at 06:14:56. This time corresponds to the termination of Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) and ADS-B information. After the mentioned time, the aircraft was still being detected by the Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR), according to which the aircraft veered right and after approximately three minutes of flying, it disappeared from the PSR at 06:18 too. The aircraft was conducting the flight under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and the accident occurred around half an hour before the sunset.

Turkish Airlines - THY Türk Hava Yollari

On November 21, 2019, a regular THY2UT flight en-route Istanbul – Odesa at B737-800 aircraft, nationality and registration mark TC-JGZ of the Turkish Airlines, was performed by the aircraft crew consisting of the Pilot-in-Command (PIC), co-pilot and four flight attendants of the aircraft. In fact, the departure from Istanbul Airport was performed at 17:33. The actual aircraft landing took place at 18:55. According to the flight plan, the alternate aerodromes were Istanbul and Chi<U+0219>inau. There were 136 passengers and 2793 kg of luggage on board the aircraft. The PIC was a Pilot Flying, and the co-pilot was a Pilot Monitoring of the aircraft. The pre-flight briefing of the crew, according to its explanations, was carried out before departure from the Istanbul Airport, after which the PIC took the decision to perform the flight. The climb and level flight were performed in the normal mode. The landing approach was performed to the Runway16 with ILS system at a significant crosswind component of variable directions. At the final stage of approaching with ILS to Runway 16, the ATC controller of the aerodrome control tower (ATC Tower) gave the aircraft crew a clearance for landing. The aircraft crew confirmed the controller’s clearance and continued the landing approach. Subsequently, from a height of about 50 meters, the aircraft performed a go-around due to the aircraft non-stabilization before landing. Following the go-around, the aircraft headed to the holding area to wait for favorable values of wind force and direction. At 18:45, the PIC took the decision to carry out a repeated landing approach, reported of that to the ATC controller, who provided ATS in the Odesa Terminal Maneuvering Area (TMA.) At 18:51, the crew re-contacted the Tower controller and received the clearance to land. At 18:55, after touchdown, during the runway run, the aircraft began to deviate to the left and veered off of the runway to the left onto the cleared and graded area. After 550 m run on the soil, the aircraft returned to the runway with its right main landing gear and nose part (while moving on the soil, the nose landing gear collapsed) and came to rest at the distance of 1612 m from the runway entrance threshold. The crew performed an emergency evacuation of passengers from the aircraft. As a result of the accident, the aircraft suffered a significant damage to the nose part of the fuselage and left engine. None of the passengers or crew members was injured.

SpiceJet

On 01.07.2019, B737-800 aircraft was involved in an accident (runway excursion) at Mumbai airport while landing in moderate to heavy rain. The aircraft was under the command of an ATPL holder (PF) with a CPL holder as First Officer (PM). There were 160 passengers and 7 crew members on board. There was no injury to any of the passengers or crew members. The aircraft suffered substantial damage. The subject flight was fifth of the day for the aircraft and second for the flight crew. The flight crew had earlier operated Mumbai-Jaipur sector and the incident flight was from Jaipur to Mumbai. There were no technical issues reported by the flight crew either during Mumbai Jaipur sector or on the return leg (Jaipur- Mumbai) till descent into Mumbai. The pilots had carried out briefing amongst themselves for the approach including the weather and Go Around actions, if required. The aircraft commenced descent into Mumbai in the late evening hours. As per the reported weather at the time of approach visibility was 2100 metres in rain making it dark. Reported winds were 090/12 Knots. Runway was wet and the trend provided was ³temporary reduction in visibility to 1500 metres with thunder/ showers of rain´. During descend at approximately 7000' Pressure Altitude, the crew observed an indication for IAS disagree, indicating a discrepancy of airspeed between the instrument sources for the flight crew. Although this indication was momentary, the 'Non-Normal Checklist' was carried out. The indication discrepancy did not recur for the remainder of the flight. The aircraft was radar vectored for an ILS approach for Runway 27 at Mumbai. The approach was stabilized by 3800' Pressure Altitude with landing gear down, flaps 30 and auto brake selected at 3. The autopilot was engaged throughout the descent phase and during approach, the second autopilot was also coupled for the ILS approach. At 100', the autopilot and the auto-throttle were disengaged by the PF. The flare manoeuvre consumed approximately 5807' of the runway length prior to the aircraft touchdown with 3881' of runway remaining. After touchdown, the speed brakes deployed automatically and maximum reverse thrust and wheel brakes were applied. The aircraft exited the paved surface at 65 Knots and came to rest at a distance of 615' beyond the end of the runway. Once the aircraft came to rest, the flight crew advised cabin crew to be at their stations. The pilots were unable to contact ATC through VHF communication. The PF contacted his airline personnel using mobile phone and informed that the aircraft had overrun the runway and requested for step ladders. The ATC activated fire services and the runway was closed for operation. The Cabin crew carried out check on the passengers in the cabin. The fire services reached the aircraft location and verbal communication was established with the flight crew once the cockpit window was opened. Two Fire Services personnel boarded the aircraft from the L1 door using a fire ladder. An assessment of the aircraft structure and occupants was made and the fire services personnel informed the cabin crew that deplaning was to be carried out using fire ladders. There were no injuries during evacuation or otherwise.

Miami Air International

According to both pilots, the takeoff, climb, and cruise portions of the flight were uneventful. The No. 1 (left) thrust reverser was not operational and deferred for the flight in accordance with the airplane’s minimum equipment list. The captain was the pilot flying for the accident flight, and the first officer was the pilot monitoring. The captain was also performing check airman duties for the first officer who was in the process of completing operating experience training. During the approach to Jacksonville Naval Air Station (NIP), the flight crew had two runway change discussions with air traffic controllers due to reported weather conditions (moderate to heavy precipitation) near the field; the pilots ultimately executed the area navigation GPS approach to runway 10, which was ungrooved and had a displaced threshold 997 ft from the threshold, leaving an available landing distance of 8,006 ft. As the airplane descended through 1,390 ft mean sea level (msl), the pilots configured it for landing with the flaps set at 30º and the landing gear extended; however, the speedbrake handle was not placed in the armed position as specified in the Landing checklist. At an altitude of about 1,100 ft msl and 2.8 nm from the runway, the airplane was slightly above the glidepath, and its airspeed was on target. Over the next minute, the indicated airspeed increased to 170 knots (17 knots above the target approach speed), and groundspeed reached 180 knots, including an estimated 7-knot tailwind. At an altitude of about 680 ft msl and 1.6 nm from the threshold, the airplane deviated further above the 3° glidepath such that the precision approach path indicator (PAPI) lights would have appeared to the flight crew as four white lights and would retain that appearance throughout the rest of the approach. Eight seconds before touchdown, multiple enhanced ground proximity warning system alerts announced “sink rate” as the airplane’s descent rate peaked at 1,580 fpm. The airplane crossed the displaced threshold 120 ft above the runway (the PAPI glidepath crosses the displaced threshold about 54 ft above the runway) and 17 knots above the target approach speed, with a groundspeed of 180 knots and a rate of descent about 1,450 ft per minute (fpm). The airplane touched down about 1,580 ft beyond the displaced threshold, which was 80 ft beyond the designated touchdown zone as specified in the operator’s standard operating procedures (SOP). After touchdown, the captain deployed the No. 2 engine thrust reverser and began braking; he later reported, however, that he did not feel the aircraft decelerate and increased the brake pressure. The speedbrakes deployed about 4 seconds after touchdown, most likely triggered by the movement of the right throttle into the idle reverse thrust detent after main gear tire spinup. The automatic deployment of the speedbrakes was likely delayed by about 3 seconds compared to the automatic deployment that could have been obtained by arming the speedbrakes before landing. The airplane crossed the end of the runway about 55 ft right of the centerline and impacted a seawall 90 ft to the right of the centerline, 9,170 ft beyond the displaced threshold, and 1,164 ft beyond the departure end of runway 10. After the airplane came to rest in St. Johns River, the flight crew began an emergency evacuation.

Air Niugini

On 28 September 2018, at 23:24:19 UTC2 (09:24 local time), a Boeing 737-8BK aircraft, registered P2-PXE (PXE), operated by Air Niugini Limited, was on a scheduled passenger flight number PX073, from Pohnpei to Chuuk, in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) when, during its final approach, the aircraft impacted the water of the Chuuk Lagoon, about 1,500 ft (460 m) short of the runway 04 threshold. The aircraft deflected across the water several times before it settled in the water and turned clockwise through 210 deg and drifted 460 ft (140 m) south east of the runway 04 extended centreline, with the nose of the aircraft pointing about 265°. The pilot in command (PIC) was the pilot flying, and the copilot was the support/monitoring pilot. An Aircraft Maintenance Engineer occupied the cockpit jump seat. The engineer videoed the final approach on his iPhone, which predominantly showed the cockpit instruments. Local boaters rescued 28 passengers and two cabin crew from the left over-wing exits. Two cabin crew, the two pilots and the engineer were rescued by local boaters from the forward door 1L. One life raft was launched from the left aft over-wing exit by cabin crew CC5 with the assistance of a passenger. The US Navy divers rescued six passengers and four cabin crew and the Load Master from the right aft over-wing exit. All injured passengers were evacuated from the left over-wing exits. One passenger was fatally injured, and local divers located his body in the aircraft three days after the accident. The Government of the Federated States of Micronesia commenced the investigation and on 14th February 2019 delegated the whole of the investigation to the PNG Accident Investigation Commission. The investigation determined that the flight crew’s level of compliance with Air Niugini Standard Operating Procedures Manual (SOPM) was not at a standard that would promote safe aircraft operations. The PIC intended to conduct an RNAV GPS approach to runway 04 at Chuuk International Airport and briefed the copilot accordingly. The descent and approach were initially conducted in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC), but from 546 ft (600 ft)4 the aircraft was flown in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). The flight crew did not adhere to Air Niugini SOPM and the approach and pre-landing checklists. The RNAV (GPS) Rwy 04 Approach chart procedure was not adequately briefed. The RNAV approach specified a flight path descent angle guide of 3º. The aircraft was flown at a high rate of descent and a steep variable flight path angle averaging 4.5º during the approach, with lateral over-controlling; the approach was unstabilised. The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) recorded a total of 17 Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) alerts, specifically eight “Sink Rate” and nine “Glideslope”. The recorded information from the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) showed that a total of 14 EGPWS aural alerts sounded after passing the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA), between 307 ft (364 ft) and the impact point. A “100 ft” advisory was annunciated, in accordance with design standards, overriding one of the “Glideslope” aural alert. The other aural alerts were seven “Glideslope” and six “Sink Rate”. The investigation observed that the flight crew disregarded the alerts, and did not acknowledge the “minimums” and 100 ft alerts; a symptom of fixation and channelised attention. The crew were fixated on cues associated with the landing and control inputs due to the extension of 40° flap. Both pilots were not situationally aware and did not recognise the developing significant unsafe condition during the approach after passing the Missed Approach Point (MAP) when the aircraft entered a storm cell and heavy rain. The weather radar on the PIC’s Navigation Display showed a large red area indicating a storm cell immediately after the MAP, between the MAP and the runway. The copilot as the support/monitoring pilot was ineffective and was oblivious to the rapidly unfolding unsafe situation. He did not recognise the significant unsafe condition and therefore did not realise the need to challenge the PIC and take control of the aircraft, as required by the Air Niugini SOPM. The Air Niugini SOPM instructs a non-flying pilot to take control of the aircraft from the flying pilot, and restore a safe flight condition, when an unsafe condition continues to be uncorrected. The records showed that the copilot had been checked in the Simulator for EGPWS Alert (Terrain) however there was no evidence of simulator check sessions covering the vital actions and responses required to retrieve a perceived or real situation that might compromise the safe operation of the aircraft. Specifically sustained unstabilised approach below 1,000 ft amsl in IMC. The PIC did not conduct the missed approach at the MAP despite the criteria required for visually continuing the approach not being met, including visually acquiring the runway or the PAPI. The PIC did not conduct a go around after passing the MAP and subsequently the MDA although: • The aircraft had entered IMC; • the approach was unstable; • the glideslope indicator on the Primary Flight Display (PFD) was showing a rapid glideslope deviation from a half-dot low to 2-dots high within 9 seconds after passing the MDA; • the rate of descent high (more than 1,000 ft/min) and increasing; • there were EGPWS Sink Rate and Glideslope aural alerts; and • the EGPWS visual PULL UP warning message was displayed on the PFD. The report highlights that deviations from recommended practice and SOPs are a potential hazard, particularly during the approach and landing phase of flight, and increase the risk of approach and landing accidents. It also highlights that crew coordination is less than effective if crew members do not work together as an integrated team. Support crew members have a duty and responsibility to ensure that the safety of a flight is not compromised by non-compliance with SOPs, standard phraseology and recommended practices. The investigation found that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of PNG (CASA PNG) policy and procedures of accepting manuals rather than approving manuals, while in accordance with the Civil Aviation Rules requirements, placed a burden of responsibility on CASA PNG as the State Regulator to ensure accuracy and that safety standards are met. In accepting the Air Niugini manuals, CASA PNG did not meet the high standard of evidence-based assessment required for safety assurance, resulting in numerous deficiencies and errors in the Air Niugini Operational, Technical, and Safety manuals as noted in this report and the associated Safety Recommendations. The report includes a number of recommendations made by the AIC, with the intention of enhancing the safety of flight (See Part 4 of this report). It is important to note that none of the safety deficiencies brought to the attention of Air Niugini caused the accident. However, in accordance with Annex 13 Standards, identified safety deficiencies and concerns must be raised with the persons or organisations best placed to take safety action. Unless safety action is taken to address the identified safety deficiencies, death or injury might result in a future accident. The AIC notes that Air Niugini Limited took prompt action to address all safety deficiencies identified by the AIC in the 12 Safety Recommendations issued to Air Niugini, in an average time of 23 days. The quickest safety action being taken by Air Niugini was in 6 days. The AIC has closed all 12 Safety Recommendations issued to Air Niugini Limited. One safety concern prompting an AIC Safety Recommendation was issued to Honeywell Aerospace and the US FAA. The safety deficiency/concern that prompted this Safety Recommendation may have been a contributing factor in this accident. The PNG AIC is in continued discussion with the US NTSB, Honeywell, Boeing and US FAA. This recommendation is the subject of ongoing research and the AIC Recommendation will remain ACTIVE pending the results of that research.

UTAir

On 31.08.2018 Boeing 737-800 VQ-BJI operated by UTAir Airlines conducted the scheduled flight UT 579 from Moscow (Vnukovo airport) to Sochi (Adler airport). During the preflight briefing (at 19:50) the crew was provided with the necessary weather information. At 20:15, the crew had passed the medical examination at Vnukovo airport mobile RWY medical unit. The Daily Check line maintenance (DY) was done on 30.08.2018 at Vnukovo airport by UTG aviation services, ZAO; job card # 11465742. The A/C takeoff weight was 68680 kg and the MAC was 26.46 %, that was within the AFM limitations for the actual conditions. At 21:33 the takeoff from Vnukovo airport was performed. The flight along he prescribed route was performed on FL350 in auto mode and without any issues. The F/O acted as the pilot flying (PF). When approaching the Sochi aerodrome traffic control area, the flight crew was provided by the aerodrome approach control with the approach and descending conditions, as well as with the weather conditions near the aerodrome. After descending to the height specified by Sochi Approach, the pilot contacted Sochi Radar, waited for the weather that met his minimum and was cleared for landing. In course of the first approach to landing (from the altitude about 30 m) when RVR got down because of heavy showers, the PIC took controls and performed the go-around. In course of the second approach, the crew performed the landing but failed to keep the airplane within the RWY. The airplane had landed at about 1285 m from the RWY threshold, overrun the threshold, broke through the aerodrome fencing, and came to rest in Mzymta river bed. This ended with the fire outbreak of fuel leaking from the damaged LH wing fuel tank. The crew performed the passenger evacuation. The aerodrome alert measures were taken and the fire was brought under control. Eighteen occupants were injured while all other occupants were unhurt. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

Xiamen Air

On August 16, 2018, about 1555UTC/2355H local time, a Boeing 737-800 type of aircraft with Registry No. B-5498 operating as flight CXA 8667 sustained substantial damage following a runway excursion after second approach while landing on Runway 24 of Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), Manila, Philippines. The flight was a scheduled commercial passenger from Xiamen, China and operated by Xiamen Airlines. The one hundred fifty-seven (157) passengers and two (2) pilots together with the five (5) cabin crew and one air security officer did not sustain any injuries while the aircraft was substantially damaged. An instrument flight rules flight plan was filed. Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) prevailed at the time of the accident. During the first approach, the Captain who was the pilot flying aborted the landing at 30 feet Radio Altitude (RA) due to insufficient visual reference. A second approach was considered and carried out after briefing the First Officer (FO) of the possibility of another aborted landing should the flight encounter similar conditions. The briefing included a diversion to their planned alternate airfield. The flight was “stabilized” on the second approach with flaps set at 30 degrees landing position, all landing gears extended and speed brake lever appropriately set in the ARM position. On passing 1,002 feet Radio Altitude (RA), the autopilot was disengaged; followed by the disengagement of the auto-throttle, three (3) seconds later. The ILS localizer lateral path and Glide slope vertical path were accurately tracked and no deviations were recorded. The “reference” landing speed for flaps 30 for the expected aircraft gross weight at the time of landing was 145 knots and a target speed of 150 knots was set on the Mode Control Panel (MCP). The vertical descent rate recorded during the approach was commensurate with the recommended descent rate for the profile angle and ground speed; and was maintained throughout the approach passing through the Decision Altitude (DA) of 375 feet down to 50 feet radio altitude (RA). As the aircraft passed over the threshold, the localizer deviation was established around zero dot but indicated the airplane began to drift to the left of the centerline followed by the First Officer (FO) making a call out of “Go-Around” but was answered by the Captain “No”. The throttle levers for both engines were started to be reduced to idle position at 30 feet RA and became fully idle while passing five (5) feet RA. At this point, the aircraft was in de-crab position prior to flare. At 13 feet RA, the aircraft was rolling left and continuously drifting left of the runway center line. At 10 feet RA another call for go-around was made by the FO but was again answered by the Captain with “No” and “It’s Okay”. At this point, computed airspeed was approximately 6 knots above MCP selected speed and RA was approaching zero feet. Just prior to touchdown, computed airspeed decreased by 4 knots and the airplane touched down at 151 knots (VREF+6). The wind was recorded at 274.7 degrees at 8.5 knots. Data from the aircraft’s flight data recorder showed that the aircraft touched down almost on both main gears, to the left of the runway centerline, about 741 meters from the threshold of runway 24. Deployment of the speed brakes was recorded and auto brakes engagement was also recorded. The auto brakes subsequently disengaged but the cause was undetermined. Upon touchdown, the aircraft continued on its left-wards trajectory while the aircraft heading was held almost constant at 241 degrees. After the aircraft departed the left edge of the runway, all landing gears collided with several concrete electric junction boxes that were erected parallel outside the confines of the runway pavement. The aircraft was travelling at about 147 knots as it exited the paved surface of the runway and came to rest at approximately 1,500 meters from the threshold of Runway 24, with a geographical position of 14°30’23.7” N; 121°0’59.1” E and a heading of 120 degrees. Throughout the above sequence of events from touchdown until the aircraft came to a full stop, the CVR recorded 2 more calls of “GO-AROUND” made by the FO. Throughout the landing sequence, the thrust reversers for both engines were not deployed. Throttle Lever Position (TLP) were recorded and there was no evidence of reverse thrust being selected or deployment of reversers. After the aircraft came to a complete stop, the pilots carried out all memory items and the refence items in the evacuation non-normal checklist, which includes extending the flaps to a 40 degrees position. The aircraft suffered total loss of communication and a failure in passenger address system possibly due to the damage caused by the nose gear collapsing rearwards and damaging the equipment in the E/E compartment or the E-buss wires connecting the Very High Frequency (VHF) 1 radio directly to the battery was broken. The Captain then directed the FO to go out of the cockpit to announce the emergency evacuation. The cabin crew started the evacuation of the passengers utilizing the emergency slides of the left and right forward doors. There were no reported injuries sustained by the passengers, cabin crew, flight crew or the security officer.

Pegasus Airlines

The airplane departed Ankara-Esenboga Airport at 2233LT bound for Trabzon. Following an uneventful flight, the crew started the approach by night to runway 11 and the landing was completed in heavy rain falls at 2325LT. After touchdown at a speed of 143 knots, the airplane rolled for about 2,400 metres then veered off runway to the left, went through a grassy area then down a steep slope. It lost its right engine and came to rest few metres above the sea. All 168 occupants evacuated safely. The right engine was sheared off and fell into the sea. According to first report, it is believed something went wrong with the right engine after touchdown (unintentional forward thrust and asymmetrical thrust).

FlyDubai

At the overnight into 19.03.2016 the Flydubai airline flight crew, consisting of the PIC and F/O, was performing the round-trip international scheduled passenger flight FDB 981/982 on route Dubai (OMDB) – Rostov-on-Don (URRR) – Dubai (OMDB) on the B737-8KN A6-FDN aircraft. At 18:37 on 18.03.2016 the aircraft took off from the Dubai airport. The flight had been performed in IFR. At 18:59:30 FL360 was reached. The further flight has been performed on this very FL. The descent from FL has been initiated at 22:17. Before starting the descent, the crew contacted the ATC on the Rostov-on-Don airport actual weather and the active RWY data. In progress of the glide path descent to perform landing with magnetic heading 218° (RWY22) the crew relayed the presence of “windshear” on final to the ATC (as per the aboard windshear warning system activation). At 22:42:05 from the altitude of 1080 ft (330 m) above runway level performed go-around. Further on the flight was proceeded at the holding area, first on FL080, then on FL150. At 00:23 on 19.03.2016, the crew requested descent for another approach. It was an ILS approach. The A/P was disengaged by the crew at the altitude of 2165 ft QNH (575 m QFE), and the A/T at the altitude of 1960 ft QNH (510 m QFE). . In the progress of another approach the crew made the decision to initiate go-around and at 00:40:50, from the altitude of 830 ft (253 m) above the runway level, started the maneuver. After the reach of the altitude of 3350 ft (1020 m) above the runway level the aircraft transitioned to a steep descent and at 00:41:49 impacted the ground (it collided the surface of the artificial runway at the distance of about 120 m off the RWY22 threshold) with the nose-down pitch of about 50° and IAS about 340 kt (630 km/h). The aircraft disintegrated on impact and all 62 occupants were killed.

Lion Air

On 13 April 2013, a Boeing 737-800 aircraft, registered PK-LKS, was being operated by PT. Lion Mentari Airlines (Lion Air) on a scheduled passenger flight as LNI 904. The aircraft departed from Husein Sastranegara International Airport (WICC) Bandung at 0545 UTC to Ngurah Rai International Airport (WADD), Bali, Indonesia. The flight was the last sector of four legs scheduled for the crew on that day which were Palu (WAML) - Balikpapan (WALL) - Banjarmasin (WAOO) - Bandung (WICC) - Bali (WADD). The aircraft flew at FL 390, while the Second in Command (SIC) was the Pilot Flying (PF) and the Pilot in Command (PIC) was the Pilot Monitoring (PM). There were 2 pilots, 5 flight attendants and 101 passengers comprising 95 adults, 5 children and 1 infant making a total of 108 persons on board. The flight from the departure until start of the approach into Bali was uneventful. At 0648 UTC, the pilot made first communications with the Bali Approach controller (Bali Director) when the aircraft was located 80 Nm from BLI VOR. The pilot received clearance to proceed direct to the TALOT IFR waypoint and descend to 17,000 feet. At 0652 UTC, the Bali Director issued a further clearance for the pilot direct to KUTA point and descent to 8,000 feet. At 0659 UTC, the aircraft was vectored for a VOR DME approach for runway 09 and descent to 3,000 feet. At 0703 UTC, while the aircraft was over KUTA point, the Bali Director transferred communications with the aircraft to Bali Control Tower (Ngurah Tower). At 0704 UTC, the pilot contacted Ngurah Tower controller and advised that the aircraft was leaving KUTA point. The Ngurah Tower controller instructed the pilot to continue the approach and to reduce the aircraft speed to provide sufficient separation distance with another aircraft. At 0707 UTC, the Ngurah Tower issued take-off clearance for a departing aircraft on runway 09. At 0708 UTC, with LKS at approximately 1,600 feet AGL, the Ngurah Tower controller saw the aircraft on final approach and gave a landing clearance with additional information that the wind was from 120° at 05 knots. At 0708:47 UTC, the aircraft Enhance Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) aural alert called “ONE THOUSAND”, the SIC said one thousand, stabilized, continue, prepare for go-around missed approach three thousand. The FDR showed that the pilot flown using LNAV (Lateral Navigation) and VNAV (Vertical Navigation) during the approach until disengagement of the Auto Pilot. The sequence of events during the final approach is based on the recorded CVR and FDR data, and information from crew interviews as follows: At 0708:56 UTC, while the aircraft altitude was approximately 900 feet AGL, the SIC commented that the runway was not in sight, whereas the PIC commented “OK. Approach light in sight, continue”. At 0709:33 UTC, after the EGPWS aural alert “MINIMUM” sounded at an aircraft altitude of approximately 550 feet AGL, the SIC disengaged the autopilot and the auto-throttle and then continued the approach. At 0709:43 UTC, the EGPWS called “THREE HUNDRED”. At 0709:47 UTC, the CVR recorded a sound similar to rain hitting the windshield. At 0709:49 UTC, the EGPWS called “TWO HUNDRED”. At 0709:53 UTC, while the aircraft altitude was approximately 150 feet AGL, the PIC took over control of the aircraft. The SIC handed control to the PIC and stated that he could not see the runway. At 0710:01 UTC, after the EGPWS called “TWENTY”, the PIC commanded for go-around. At 0710:02 UTC, the aircraft impacted the water, short of the runway. The aircraft stopped facing to the north at about 20 meters from the shore or approximately 300 meters south-west of the beginning of runway 09. Between 0724 UTC to 0745 UTC, three other aircraft took-off and six aircraft landed using runway 09. At 0750 UTC, the airport was closed until 0850 UTC. At 0755 UTC, all occupants were completely evacuated, the injured passengers were taken to the nearest hospitals and uninjured occupants to the airport crisis centre.

Corendon Airlines

During the push back process, the pilots noticed smoke spreading in the cockpit and in the cabin and stopped the aircraft. All 196 occupants were evacuated but some were standing on wings and jumped down to the tarmac. 27 passengers were injured, some of them seriously. The aircraft was considered as damaged beyond repair due to smoke.

Caribbean Airlines - Trinidad %26 Tobago

The flight originated in New York as BW 523, and made a passenger and fuel stop in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad where there was also a change of crew comprising two pilots and four flight attendants before proceeding to Georgetown, Guyana. The flight departed Piarco at 04:36UTC. The aircraft proceeded to Georgetown from Port of Spain at Flight Level (FL) 330, was given descent clearance and was cleared for an RNAV (GPS) approach to RWY 06, landing at 05:32 UTC. There were no reported anomalies in the en-route profile, although during the transition from cruise to approach to RWY 06 the aircraft deviated to avoid some thunderstorm cells north and east of the Airport. The reported visibility was 9,000m. Light rain was encountered during the approach. The pilot reported that after visual contact was made and after crossing the Final Approach Fix (FAF), he disengaged the auto pilot and configured the aircraft for landing. The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) indicated that the flight was normal until the aircraft was approaching the runway. Even before the aircraft was over the threshold, the captain commented that he was not landing here. As the flight continued over the runway, comments on the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), revealed that the captain indicated to the First Officer (FO) that the aircraft was not touching down. A go-around call was made by the Captain and acknowledged by the First Officer, however three seconds elapsed and the aircraft subsequently touched down approximately 4700ft from the threshold of RWY06, leaving just over 2700 feet of runway surface remaining. Upon touchdown, brake pressure was gradually increased and maximum brake pressure of 3000psi was not achieved until the aircraft was 250ft from the end of the runway or 450ft from the end of the paved area. The ground spoilers were extended on touchdown. The thrust reversers were partially deployed after touchdown. The aircraft did not stop and overran the runway. It then assumed a downward trajectory followed by a loud impact.

Air India Express

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.

Ethiopian Airlines

On 25 January 2010, at 00:41:30 UTC, Ethiopian Airlines flight ET 409, a Boeing 737-800 registered ET-ANB, crashed into the Mediterranean Sea about 5 NM South West of Beirut Rafic Hariri International Airport (BRHIA), Beirut, Lebanon. ET 409 was being operated under the provisions of the Ethiopian Civil Aviation Regulations (ECAR) and as a scheduled international flight between BRHIA and Addis Ababa Bole International Airport (ADD) - Ethiopia. It departed Beirut with 90 persons on board: 2 flight crew (a Captain and a First Officer), 5 cabin crew, an IFSO and 82 regular passengers. The flight departed at night on an instrument flight plan. Low clouds, isolated cumulonimbus (CB) and thunderstorms were reported in the area. The flight was initially cleared by ATC on a LATEB 1 D departure then the clearance was changed before take-off to an “immediate right turn direct Chekka”. After take-off ATC (Tower) instructed ET 409 to turn right on a heading of 315°. ET 409 acknowledged and heading 315° was selected on the Mode Control Panel (MCP). As the aircraft was on a right turn, Control suggested to ET 409 to follow heading 270° “due to weather”. However, ET 409 continued right turn beyond the selected heading of 315° and Control immediately instructed them to “turn left now heading 270°”. ET 409 acknowledged, the crew selected 270° on the MCP and initiated a left turn. ET 409 continued the left turn beyond the instructed/selected heading of 270° despite several calls from ATC to turn right heading 270° and acknowledgment from the crew. ET 409 reached a southerly track before sharply turning left until it disappeared from the radar screen and crashed into the sea 4<U+201F> 59” after the initiation of the take-off roll (4<U+201F>17” in the air). The aircraft impacted the water surface around 5 NM South West of BRHIA and all occupants were fatally injured. Search and Rescue (S&R) operations were immediately initiated. The DFDR and CVR were retrieved from the sea bed and were read, as per the Lebanese Government decision, at the BEA facility at Le Bourget, France. The recorders data revealed that ET 409 encountered during flight two stick shakers for a period of 27” and 26”. They also recorded 11 “Bank Angle” aural warnings at different times during the flight and an over-speed clacker towards the end of the flight. The maximum recorded AOA was 32°, maximum recorded bank angle was 118° left, maximum recorded speed was 407.5 knots, maximum recorded G load was 4.76 and maximum recorded nose down pitch value 63.1°. The DFDR recording stopped at 00:41:28 with the aircraft at 1291<U+201F>. The last radar screen recording was at 00:41:28 with the aircraft at 1300<U+201F>. The last CVR recording was a loud noise just prior to 00:41:30.

American Airlines

American Airlines Flight AA331, a Boeing 737-823 in United States registration N977AN, carrying 148 passengers, including three infants, and a crew of six, was being operated under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121. The aircraft departed Miami (KMIA) at 20:22 Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 22 December 2009 (01:22 Universal Coordinated Time (UTC) on 23 December 2009) on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan, on a scheduled flight to Norman Manley International Airport (NMIA), ICAO identifier: MKJP, Kingston, Jamaica. The aircraft landed at NMIA on runway 12 in the hours of darkness at 22:22 EST (03:22 UTC) in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) following an Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach flown using the heads up display (HUD) and becoming visual at approximately two miles from the runway. The aircraft touched down at approximately 4,100 feet on the 8,911 foot long runway in heavy rain and with a 14 knot left quartering tailwind. The crew was unable to stop the aircraft on the remaining 4,811 feet of runway and it overran the end of the runway at 62 knots ground speed. The aircraft broke through a fence, crossed above a road below the runway level and came to an abrupt stop on the sand dunes and rocks between the road and the waterline of the Caribbean Sea. There was no post-crash fire. The aircraft was destroyed, its fuselage broken into three sections, while the left landing gear collapsed. The right engine and landing gear were torn off, the left wingtip was badly damaged and the right wing fuel tanks were ruptured, leaking jet fuel onto the beach sand. One hundred and thirty four (134) passengers suffered minor or no injury, while 14 were seriously injured, though there were no life-threatening injuries. None of the flight crew and cabin crew was seriously injured, and they were able to assist the passengers during the evacuation.

Turkish Airlines - THY Türk Hava Yollari

Turkish Airlines Flight 1951, a Boeing 737-800, departed Istanbul-Atatürk International Airport (IST) for a flight to Amsterdam-Schiphol International Airport (AMS), The Netherlands. The flight crew consisted of three pilots: a line training captain who occupied the left seat, a first officer under line training in the right seat and an additional first officer who occupied the flight deck jump seat. The first officer under line training was the pilot flying. The en route part of the flight was uneventful. The flight was descending for Schiphol and passed overhead Flevoland at about 8500 ft. At that time the aural landing gear warning sounded. The aircraft continued and was then directed by Air Traffic Control towards runway 18R for an ILS approach and landing. The standard procedure for runway 18R prescribes that the aircraft is lined up at least 8 NM from the runway threshold at an altitude of 2000 feet. The glidepath is then approached and intercepted from below. Lining up at a distance between 5 and 8 NM is allowed when permitted by ATC. Flight 1951 was vectored for a line up at approximately 6 NM at an altitude of 2000 feet. The glide slope was now approached from above. The crew performed the approach with one of the two autopilot and autothrottle engaged. The landing gear was selected down and flaps 15 were set. While descending through 1950 feet, the radio altimeter value suddenly changed to -8 feet. And again the aural landing gear warning sounded. This could be seen on the captain’s (left-hand) primary flight display. The first officer’s (right-hand) primary flight display, by contrast, indicated the correct height, as provided by the right-hand system. The left hand radio altimeter system, however, categorised the erroneous altitude reading as a correct one, and did not record any error. In turn, this meant that it was the erroneous altitude reading that was used by various aircraft systems, including the autothrottle. The crew were unaware of this, and could not have known about it. The manuals for use during the flight did not contain any procedures for errors in the radio altimeter system. In addition, the training that the pilots had undergone did not include any detailed system information that would have allowed them to understand the significance of the problem. When the aircraft started to follow the glidepath because of the incorrect altitude reading, the autothrottle moved into the ‘retard flare’ mode. This mode is normally only activated in the final phase of the landing, below 27 feet. This was possible because the other preconditions had also been met, including flaps at (minimum) position 15. The thrust from both engines was accordingly reduced to a minimum value (approach idle). This mode was shown on the primary flight displays as ‘RETARD’. However, the right-hand autopilot, which was activated, was receiving the correct altitude from the right-hand radio altimeter system. Thus the autopilot attempted to keep the aircraft flying on the glide path for as long as possible. This meant that the aircraft’s nose continued to rise, creating an increasing angle of attack of the wings. This was necessary in order to maintain the same lift as the airspeed reduced. In the first instance, the pilots’ only indication that the autothrottle would no longer maintain the pre-selected speed of 144 knots was the RETARD display. When the speed fell below this value at a height of 750 feet, they would have been able to see this on the airspeed indicator on the primary flight displays. When subsequently, the airspeed reached 126 knots, the frame of the airspeed indicator also changed colour and started to flash. The artificial horizon also showed that the nose attitude of the aircraft was becoming far too high. The cockpit crew did not respond to these indications and warnings. The reduction in speed and excessively high pitch attitude of the aircraft were not recognised until the approach to stall warning (stick shaker) went off at an altitude of 460 feet. The first officer responded immediately to the stick shaker by pushing the control column forward and also pushing the throttle levers forward. The captain however, also responded to the stick shaker commencing by taking over control. Assumingly the result of this was that the first officer’s selection of thrust was interrupted. The result of this was that the autothrottle, which was not yet switched off, immediately pulled the throttle levers back again to the position where the engines were not providing any significant thrust. Once the captain had taken over control, the autothrottle was disconnected, but no thrust was selected at that point. Nine seconds after the commencement of the first approach to stall warning, the throttle levers were pushed fully forward, but at that point the aircraft had already stalled and the height remaining, of about 350 feet, was insufficient for a recovery. According to the last recorded data of the digital flight data recorder the aircraft was in a 22° ANU and 10° Left Wing Down (LWD) position at the moment of impact. The airplane impacted farmland. The horizontal stabilizer and both main landing gear legs were separated from the aircraft and located near the initial impact point. The left and right engines had detached from the aircraft. The aft fuselage, with vertical stabilizer, was broken circumferentially forward of the aft passenger doors and had sustained significant damage. The fuselage had ruptured at the right side forward of the wings. The forward fuselage section, which contained the cockpit and seat rows 1 to 7, had been significantly disrupted. The rear fuselage section was broken circumferentially around row 28.

Ryanair

The airplane departed Hahn Airport at 0630LT on a flight to Rome-Ciampino Airport, carrying 14 passengers and a crew of 8. The first officer was the Pilot Flying on the leg whilst the captain was the Pilot Monitoring. The flight was uneventful until the approach phase at the destination airport. The aircraft established the first radio contact with Ciampino Tower, communicating that it was 9 NM from the runway and stabilised on the ILS for runway 15. The aircraft, authorized and configured for the approach, was proceeding for landing, when, at a height of 136 ft and a distance of about 300 m from the runway, the captain noticed birds on the flight trajectory. He stated "Ahi", repeated in rapid sequence. At a distance of about 100 m from the runway, the TO/GA pushbutton was activated. The first officer acknowledged: "Go around, flaps 15", setting the go around attitude. At the same time as the TO/GA was activated, the aircraft collided with a thick flock of some 90 starlings. A loud bang was heard and both engines stalled. The aircraft climbed to 173 feet and then continued to lose height, despite the nose-up command. There was a progressive speed reduction and an increase of the angle of attack until the activation of the stick shaker, which was recorded at 21 feet. The aircraft hit the ground in aerodynamic stall conditions, near taxiway AC, about half way along the total length of the runway at a vertical acceleration of 2.66g. First contact with the runway occurred with the main landing gear properly extended and with the lower part of the fuselage tail section. The left main landing gear detached from its attachment during the landing run and the lower part of the left engine nacelle came into contact with the runway. The aircraft stopped near the threshold of runway 33. The fire brigade sprayed extinguishing foam around the area where the engine nacelle had come into contact with the runway. The captain then arranged for the disembarkation of the passengers and crew using a ladder truck from the right front door, with the addition of the right rear slide, later activated and used.

China Airlines

The aircraft departed Taipei-Taoyuan Airport at 0814LT on a schedule service to Naha with 157 passengers and a crew of 8. Following an uneventful flight, the crew was cleared to land on runway 18 and vacated via taxiway E6 then A5. After being stopped at spot 41, engines were shot down when a fire broke out somewhere in an area aft of the right engine and spread to the right wing leading edge near the n°5 slat and the apron surface below the right engine. All 165 occupants evacuated safely while the aircraft was totally destroyed by fire.

Kenya Airways

During the night of 4th May 2007, the B737-800, registration 5Y-KYA, operating as flight KQ507 from Abidjan international Airport, Ivory Coast, to the Jomo Kenyatta Airport in Nairobi (Kenya), made a scheduled stop-over at the Douala international Airport. The weather was stormy. The aircraft took off and climbed into the dark night. There were no external visual references, yet no instrument scanning was done by the crew. At 1000 feet climbing, the pilot flying released the flight controls for 55 seconds without having engaged the autopilot. The bank angle of the airplane increased continuously by itself very slowly up to 34° right and the captain appeared unaware of the airplane’s changing attitude. Just before the "Bank Angle" warning sounds, the captain grabbed the controls, appeared confused about the attitude of the airplane, and made corrections in an erratic manner increasing the bank angle to 50° right. At about 50° bank angle, the autopilot was engaged and the inclination tended to stabilize; then movements of the flight controls by the pilot resumed and the bank angle increased towards 70° right. A prolonged right rudder input brought the bank angle to beyond 90°. The aircraft descended in a spiral dive until it crashed at approximately 0008LT (May 5) in a mangrove swamp located 5,5 km southeast of Douala Airport. The aircraft disintegrated on impact and all 114 occupants were killed.

GOL Transportes Aéreos

The B737-8EH airplane was operating as flight GLO1907, regular passenger transport, under the rules of RBHA 121. It had departed Eduardo Gomes International Airport (SBEG) in Manaus – Amazonas State, at 18:35 UTC, destined to Rio de Janeiro – Rio de Janeiro State (SBGL), carrying 6 crewmembers and 148 passengers. The aircraft was scheduled to make a technical stop at Brasilia International Airport (SBBR), in the Brazilian capital city. The EMB-135BJ Legacy airplane, with 2 crewmembers and 5 passengers onboard, departed from São José dos Campos (SBSJ), São Paulo State, at 17:51 UTC, destined to Manaus (SBEG), from where it would later proceed to Fort Lauderdale (KFLL), Florida, USA. The B737-8EH airplane made its last radio contact with the Amazonic Area Control Center (ACC AZ) at 19:53 UTC, and was instructed to call the Brasilia Area Control Center (ACC BS) at NABOL position, but the contact was not made. At 20:14 UTC, the ACC AZ received a message from Polar Air Cargo 71, in relay for the Legacy airplane, stating that the N600XL was declaring emergency, having difficulties with its flight control system, and that it would proceed for an emergency landing at SBCC (military aerodrome of the Command of Aeronautics (COMAER), known as Campo de Provas Brigadeiro Veloso, in Novo Progresso county, Pará State). After landing, the N600XL crew reported that their airplane had collided in flight with an unknown object. The airplane sustained damages at the left wingtip and left elevator. The wreckage of the B737-8EH was found the next day, 30 September, in a region of thick forest, in the county of Peixoto de Azevedo, Mato Grosso State. All the 154 occupants of the PR-GTD had perished in the accident.