Canadair CL-601 Challenger

Compañía de Aviación y Logística Empresarial S.A.P.I.

The airplane departed Las Vegas-McCarran Airport at 1452LT on a charter flight to Monterrey, carrying two pilots and 11 passengers who were returning to Mexico after taking part to a boxing match in Las Vegas. The flight was completed at FL370 until the crew was cleared to climb to FL390 for five minutes then to FL410. Suddenly, the airplane entered an uncontrolled descent and eventually crashed in an almost flat attitude in a desert area located near La Rosita, Coahuila. The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and a post crash fire and all 13 occupants were killed. The wreckage was found the following day.

TW 601-C Investment LLC

The pilot, copilot, flight attendant, and six passengers departed on a corporate flight to a private airstrip. After leveling off at flight level 280, the flight crew checked the weather conditions at nearby airports. Based on the weather information that they had, the pilot planned for a visual approach to the runway. As the airplane neared the destination, the pilot flew over the runway and entered a left downwind visual traffic pattern to check if any animals were on the runway and what the windsock on the airstrip indicated. The pilot stated that they did not see the windsock as they passed over the runway. The pilot reported that there were turbulence and wind gusts from the hills below and to the west. When the airplane was over the runway about 50 ft above ground level (agl), the pilot reduced the engine power to idle. The pilot reported the airplane then encountered wind shear; the airspeed dropped rapidly, and the airplane was "forced down" to the runway. A representative at the airstrip reported that the airplane hit hard on landing. The pilot unlocked the thrust reversers, applied brakes, and reached to deploy the ground spoilers. As he deployed the thrust reversers, the pilot said it felt like the right landing gear collapsed. He applied full left rudder and aileron, but the airplane continued to veer to the right. The pilot tried using the tiller to steer to the left but got no response. The airplane left the side of the runway and went into the grass, which resulted in substantial damage; the right main landing gear was broken aft and collapsed under the right wing. Postaccident examinations of the airplane revealed no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. A review of weather conditions showed surface winds out of the north to northwest at 15 kts, with some gusts up to 20 kts. There was potential for turbulence and wind shear below 5,000 ft, but there were no direct observations. The area forecast about 30 minutes after the accident called for northwesterly winds at 10 to 17 kts with a few higher gusts in the afternoon for the general area. Data from an onboard enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS) revealed that the crew received a terrain alert just before the airplane crossed the runway threshold. At the time the airplane was over the runway threshold, it was 48 ft agl and in a 1,391 ft per minute rate of descent. The airplane impacted the runway 3 seconds later. Given the pilot's account, the weather information for the area, and the data from the airplane's EGPWS, it is likely that the airplane encountered wind shear while transitioning from approach to landing.

Six Hundred NP

Earlier on the day of the accident, the pilot-in-command (PIC) and second-in-command (SIC) had landed the airplane on a 5,008-ft-long, asphalt-grooved runway. After touchdown with the flaps fully extended, the ground spoilers and thrust reversers were deployed, and normal braking occurred. The PIC, who was the flying pilot, and the SIC subsequently departed on an executive/corporate flight with a flight attendant, the airplane owner, and five passengers onboard. The PIC reported that he flew a visual approach to the dry, 5,000-ft-long runway while maintaining a normal glidepath at Vref plus 4 or 5 knots at the runway threshold with the flaps fully extended. He added that the touchdown was "firm" and between about 300 to 500 ft beyond the aiming point marking. After touchdown, the PIC tried unsuccessfully to deploy the ground spoilers. He applied "moderate" brake pressure when the nose landing gear (NLG) contacted the runway, but felt no deceleration. He also attempted to deploy the thrust reversers without success. The PIC then informed the SIC that there was no braking energy, released the brakes, and turned off the antiskid system. He then reapplied heavy braking but did not feel any deceleration, and he again tried to deploy the thrust reversers without success. He maintained directional control using the nosewheel steering and manually modulated the brakes. However, the airplane did not slow as expected. While approaching the runway end and realizing that he was not going to be able to stop the airplane on the runway, the PIC intentionally veered the airplane right to avoid water ahead. However, the airplane exited the runway end into sand, and the NLG collapsed. The airplane then came to rest about 250 ft past the departure end of the runway. The passengers exited the airplane, and shortly after, airport personnel arrived and rendered assistance. The airplane owner, who was a passenger in the cabin, stated that he left his seat and moved toward the cabin door when he realized that the airplane would not stop on the runway, and he sustained serious injuries. Examination of the airplane revealed that there was minimal pressure at the No. 2 (left inboard) brake due to failure of a spring in the upper brake control valve (BCV), and the coupling subassembly of the No. 1 wheel speed sensor (WSS) was fractured. A representative from the airplane manufacturer reported that, during certification of the brake system, the failure of the BCV spring was considered acceptably low and would be evident to flight crewmembers within five landings of the failure. Because the airplane did not pull while braking during the previous landing earlier that day to a similar length runway, the spring likely failed during the accident landing. Although the PIC was unable to manually deploy the ground spoilers and thrust reversers during the landing roll, they functioned normally during the landing earlier that day and during postaccident operational testing and examination, with no systems failures or malfunctions noted. Additionally, there were no malfunctions or failures with the weight-onwheels system found during postaccident examinations that would have precluded normal operation. Therefore, the PIC's unsuccessful attempts to deploy the ground spoilers and thrust reversers were likely due to errors made while multitasking when presented with an unexpected situation (inadequate deceleration) with little runway remaining. Airplane stopping distance calculations based on the airplane's reported weight, weather conditions, calculated and PIC-reported Vref speed, flap extension, and estimated touchdown point (300 to 500 ft beyond the aiming point marking as reported by the PIC and SIC and corroborated by security camera footage) and assuming the nonuse of the ground spoilers and thrust reversers, operational antiskid and steering systems, and the loss of one brake per side (symmetric half braking) showed that the airplane would have required 690 ft of additional runway; under the same conditions but with thrust reversers used, the airplane still would have required 27 ft of additional runway. Even though there were no antiskid failure annunciations, the PIC switched off the antiskid system, which led to the rupture of the Nos. 1, 3, and 4 tires and likely fractured the No. 1 WSS's coupling subassembly, both of which would have further contributed to the loss of braking action. Therefore, the combination of the failure of a spring in the No. 2 brake's upper BCV and the fracture of the coupling subassembly of the No. 1 WSS, the pilot's failure to attain the proper touchdown point, the slightly excess speed, and the subsequent failure of three of the tires resulted in there being insufficient runway remaining to avoid a runway overrun. Although the BCV manufacturer reported that there was 1 previous case involving a failed BCV spring and 43 instances of units with relaxed springs within the BCVs, none of these failed or relaxed springs would have been detected by maintenance personnel because a focused inspection of the BCV was not required.

Dinama Aircorp

The aircraft left an airfield located somewhere in the State of Apure, Venezuela, apparently bound for the US with three people on board. While flying north of Punto Fijo, above the sea, the crew was contacted by ATC but failed to respond. Convinced this was an illegal flight, the Venezuelan Authorities decided to send a fighter to intercept the Challenger that was shot down. Out of control, it dove into the Caribbean Sea and crashed off the coast of Aruba Island. All three occupants were killed and on site, more than 400 boxes containing cocaine were found.

Vineland Corporation Company

The airplane, with two flight crewmembers and a pilot-rated passenger on board, was on a cross-country flight. The departure and en route portions of the flight were uneventful. As the flight neared its destination, a high-altitude, terrain-limited airport, air traffic control (ATC) provided vectors to the localizer/distance measuring equipment (LOC/DME)-E approach to runway 15. About 1210, the local controller informed the flight crew that the wind was from 290º at 19 knots (kts) with gusts to 25 kts. About 1211, the flight crew reported that they were executing a missed approach and then requested vectors for a second approach. ATC vectored the airplane for a second LOC/DME-E approach to runway 15. About 1221, the local controller informed the flight crew that the wind was from 330° at 16 kts and the 1-minute average wind was from 320° at 14 kts gusting to 25 kts. The initial part of the airplane's second approach was as-expected for descent angle, flap setting, and spoilers. During the final minute of flight, the engines were advanced and retarded five times, and the airplane's airspeed varied between 135 kts and 150 kts. The final portion of the approach to the runway was not consistent with a stabilized approach. The airplane stayed nose down during its final descent and initial contact with the runway. The vertical acceleration and pitch parameters were consistent with the airplane pitch oscillating above the runway for a number of seconds before a hard runway contact, a gain in altitude, and a final impact into the runway at about 6 g. The weather at the time of the accident was near or in exceedance of the airplane's maximum tailwind and crosswind components for landing, as published in the airplane flight manual. Given the location of the airplane over the runway when the approach became unstabilized and terrain limitations of ASE, performance calculations were completed to determine if the airplane could successfully perform a go-around. Assuming the crew had control of the airplane, and that the engines were advanced to the appropriate climb setting, anti-ice was off, and tailwinds were less than a sustained 25 kts, the airplane had the capability to complete a go-around, clearing the local obstacles along that path.Both flight crewmembers had recently completed simulator training for a type rating in the CL600 airplane. The captain reported that he had a total of 12 to 14 hours of total flight time in the airplane type, including the time he trained in the simulator. The copilot would have had close to the same hours as the captain given that they attended flight training together. Neither flight crew member would have met the minimum flight time requirement of 25 hours to act as pilot-in-command under Part 135. The accident flight was conducted under Part 91, and therefore, the 25 hours requirement did not apply to this portion of their trip. Nevertheless, the additional flight time would have increased the crew's familiarity with the airplane and its limitation and likely improved their decision-making during the unstabilized approach. Further, the captain stated that he asked the passenger, an experienced CL-600-rated pilot. to accompany them on the trip to provide guidance during the approach to the destination airport. However, because the CL-600-rated pilot was in the jumpseat position and unable to reach the aircraft controls, he was unable to act as a qualified pilot-in-command.

Grady International

Two technicians were performing engine tests on apron at Chino Airport. While facing a hangar, the aircraft jumped over the chocks and collided with the metallic door of the hangar before coming to rest half inside. Both occupants escaped uninjured and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

Hop-a-Jet

On November 28, 2004, about 0958 mountain standard time, a Canadair, Ltd., CL-600-2A12, N873G, registered to Hop-a-Jet, Inc., and operated by Air Castle Corporation dba Global Aviation as Glo-Air flight 73, collided with the ground during takeoff at Montrose Regional Airport (MTJ), Montrose, Colorado. The on-demand charter flight was operated under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed, and snow was falling. Of the six occupants on board, the captain, the flight attendant, and one passenger were killed, and the first officer and two passengers were seriously injured. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and post crash fire. The flight was en route to South Bend Regional Airport (SBN), South Bend, Indiana.

Royal Canadian Air Force - RCAF

The crew (one instructor and three pilots under training) departed Shearwater Airport on a local training mission. The crew decided to perform a flapless landing but the aircraft arrived too high and to correct the situation, the pilot-in-command nosed down when the aircraft landed very hard and bounced. The crew initiated a go-around procedure and decided to follow a holding pattern after being informed by ATC based in the tower that the right main gear seems to be damaged. About 40 minutes later, the right main gear fell away. The right engine then lost power and a fire erupted in the right wheel well. The crew declared an emergency and was cleared to return to Shearwater Airport. Upon landing, the aircraft sank on its right side then rolled for few dozen metres before coming to rest, bursting into flames. All four occupants escaped uninjured before an explosion occurred in the central fuel tank.

TAG Aviation

On final approach to Milan-Linate Airport, the crew encountered poor visibility due to foggy conditions. On short final, the radio altimeter warning sounded. The captain initiated a go-around manoeuver when the aircraft struck the ground 44 meters short of runway 36 threshold. Upon impact, the undercarriage were torn off and the aircraft slid on its belly for few dozen meters before coming to rest on the runway. All 12 occupants evacuated safely while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.