Cessna 550 Citation II

GB Aviation Leasing LLC

On December 18, 2025, at 1015 eastern standard time, a Cessna Citation 550, N257BW, was destroyed when it was involved in an accident near Statesville, North Carolina. The pilot and 6 passengers were fatally injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 personal flight. The airplane was positioned on the south parking ramp at Statesville Regional Airport (SVH), Statesville, North Carolina, for passenger loading and preflight. Ground personnel reported the airplane was fully fueled prior to the flight. Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) audio began recording the accident flight at 0944:21. The CVR recording confirmed the airline transport rated pilot was seated in the left seat, the pilot’s adult son, who held a private pilot certificate with a single engine land and an instrument rating, was a passenger in the right seat. A rear seat passenger with a private pilot certificate and ratings for multi-engine land, instrument airplane, and rotorcraft-helicopter was positioned near the cockpit in the cabin area. Engine start was initiated using onboard battery power and, following an initial unsuccessful start of the left (no. 1) engine, both engines were started about 0953. The airplane taxied from the south parking area at 0959, crossed runway 10/28 at midfield, and taxied to the approach end of runway 10. During taxi, the pilot and the two pilot-rated passengers discussed that a thrust reverser indicator light(s) for an unspecified engine was inoperative, but that the thrust reverser for the affected engine was working properly. The airplane departed from runway 10 at SVH, under visual flight rules (VFR) about 1006. The pilot intended to activate an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan, with a planned destination of Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport (SRQ), Sarasota, Florida, once airborne. The pilot performed the takeoff and departure while the right seat passenger performed various checklists and communicated on the radio. During takeoff roll, the rear passenger commented that the left engine was producing more power than the right and indicated there may have been a faulty gauge. The pilot continued the takeoff. Preliminary GPS data showed the airplane made a climbing left turn following takeoff. At 1007:19 the pilot commented that he would remain VFR until they received their IFR clearance. At 1008, the airplane had turned about 180° and attained an altitude of about 2,200 ft mean sea level (msl). The airplane continued to turn left and began to descend. The right-seat passenger attempted to contact ZTL ATC and activate the flight’s IFR flight plan three times between 1008 and 1010 but was unsuccessful due to the controller’s workload and associated radio communications. About 1009 there was discussion between the pilot and rear passenger about climbing to a higher altitude, even though they were technically required to remain VFR. The airplane had descended to about 1,580 ft msl and was established on a heading of about 250° and 164 knots (kts) indicated airspeed (IAS) at that time. The pilot initiated a climb, and shortly after, the rear passenger noted a difference between the left and right engine interstage turbine temperature (ITT) indications. There were no further discussions regarding the engine instruments throughout the remainder of the CVR recording. The autopilot was either disengaged intentionally, or it disengaged independently at 1010:02. Beginning at 1010:14 no intelligible CVR audio was captured from the left seat hot microphone and audio panel for the next 3 minutes and 55 seconds. Starting at 1010:18, the cockpit area microphone captured the pilot making remarks indicating his altitude indicator was not working properly and that additional left side flight instruments may not have been working properly. The Garmin GTN-750 stopped recording airspeed data at 1009:37 and heading data at 1010:58. About 1011, airplane control was transferred to the right seat passenger, at an altitude of about 4,500 ft msl. No comments were recorded during the remainder of the CVR recording to indicate there were any malfunctions with the right side cockpit flight instruments. At 1011:04 severe degradation in CVR audio quality began in all channels, which continued for 3 minutes and 5 seconds. About 1013, at an altitude of about 1,870 ft msl, the pilot and both pilot-rated passengers stated they could see the ground. Although a positive transfer of airplane control was not recorded, subsequent communication between the pilot and right seat passenger was consistent with the pilot having resumed control of the airplane at that time. The pilot requested the flaps be extended at 1013:03, made a right turn to a westerly heading, and requested the landing gear be extended at 1013:22. Subsequent discussions were consistent with the landing gear being configured; however, the gear indicator lights were not illuminated. At 1013:48, the right seat passenger transmitted on the SVH common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) in part “…we’re having some issues here.” At 1014:05 the rear passenger made a query to the pilot regarding power to the “alternator” (NOTE: the CE-550 airplane is not equipped with an alternator). About 4 seconds later audio quality returned to previous levels on all recorded CVR audio channels. After the audio quality returned, the pilot made a comment indicating that was the “problem”, however, did not specify what the “problem” was or what actions were taken to correct it. There were no additional discussions regarding the pilot’s flight instrumentation for the remainder of the CVR recording. The airplane started a left turn (consistent with the base leg) towards runway 28 about 1014:10, at an altitude of about 1,325 ft and 142 kts groundspeed. The Garmin GTN-750 recordings of airspeed data returned at 1014:12. The GPS data showed the airplane rolled out of the turn onto runway heading about 1014:50, at an altitude of about 1,240 ft msl and 114 kts IAS. Recorded CVR audio indicated the right seat passenger visually acquired the runway and provided directions to the pilot as to where the runway was. About 1015:00, the pilot made comments which indicated he had acquired the runway visually. Recorded data from the GTN-750 showed that the airplane’s airspeed and altitude continued to decrease from the time the airplane was aligned on final approach to the runway until 1015:18, when the airplane was at 984 ft msl and 99 kts IAS. The airplane continued to descend to 942 ft msl until the CVR audio and GPS data ended at 1015:23. The IAS increased to 107 kts and then decreased to about 93 kts during the final five seconds of data. Accident Site and Wreckage Examination of the accident site revealed that the first identified point of impact (FIPI) was the first (easternmost) light station of the runway 28 Medium Intensity Approach Light System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR), located about 1,380 ft from the runway threshold. Two lightbulbs, the left and fourth from the left position (when viewed looking towards the runway), approximately 6 ft apart, were separated from the otherwise intact 29 ft tall light station and located on the ground near the station. The upper portion of the second MALSR light station located about 180 ft from the FIPI was separated, of which about 15 ft of the frangible pole was still standing. A group of damaged trees located about 235 ft from the FIPI, were sheared about 12 ft above ground level (agl). The first indication of fire was blackened branches and grass near the west side of the trees. A ground impression was observed about 350 ft from the FIPI, near the airport perimeter fence, and extended through the MALSR decision light station. The debris path continued along a westerly heading through the runway overrun to where the main wreckage came to rest on the runway blast area about 400 ft short of the runway 28 threshold, oriented on an easterly heading. Heavy charring of the ground began near the decision light station and continued along the remaining length of the debris field to the wreckage. A post impact fire consumed a majority of the fuselage and heat damaged both wings, empennage, and both engines. All flight control surfaces were identified in the debris path and main wreckage. No evidence of pre-impact separation of any airplane component or structure was observed. Both engines remained attached to the pylon structures and both thrust reversers were found in the stowed position. There was no evidence of uncontained engine failure with either engine. Examination of the cockpit throttle quadrant found both thrust levers to be in the full forward position and both reverse throttle levers in the down position, consistent with being stowed. The No. 1 engine stage 2 low pressure turbine (LPT) blades, viewed through the exhaust duct, were all full length and appeared undamaged. The No. 1 engine fan blades, viewed through the engine inlet, exhibited various degrees of damage and had missing material at the blade tips. The engine inlet surfaces exhibited circumferential scoring between the fan blades forward to the inlet. The No. 2 engine stage 2 LPT blades, viewed through the exhaust duct, were all full length and appeared undamaged. Most of the engine inlet was not attached to the engine. The No. 2 engine fan blades exhibited various degrees of damage and had missing material at the blade tips. Pilot Experience The pilot had type ratings for the A-320, A-330, A-350, B-737, B-757, B-767, CE-500, and DC-10. As part of the pilot’s CE-500 type rating, he had the limitation “CE-500 Second in Command Required.” The pilot reported civil flight experience that included 17,000 total and 400 hours in the last six months as of his last first-class medical application dated April 29, 2025. Review of the right-seat passenger’s logbook indicated that he had 175.3 total flight hours in single engine land airplanes as of November 29, 2025. The right seat passenger’s most recent first-class medical certificate was issued on August 12, 2024. The right seat passenger was not qualified to perform second in command duties per Title 14 CFR part 61.55. The rear passenger reported civil flight experience that included 3,500 total and 65 hours in last six months as of his last medical application dated February 21, 2025. He was issued a second-class medical certificate without limitation. Weather The SVH Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS), recorded on the CVR audio, reported the weather at 0945 as wind calm, visibility 10, ceiling 3,900 ft broken, 4,800 ft overcast, temperature 7° C, dewpoint -0° C, altimeter 30.19. The SVH AWOS, recorded on the CVR audio, reported the weather at 0954 as wind from 050° at 3 knots, visibility 10, 3,900 ft scattered, ceiling 5,000 ft overcast, temperature 7° Celsius, dewpoint 0° C, altimeter 30.19. The Meteorological Aerodrome Report (METAR), at 1015, reported weather at SVH as: wind calm, visibility of 5 statute miles, heavy drizzle, ceiling broken at 1,200 ft agl, ceiling broken at 2,200 ft agl, overcast clouds at 5,000 ft agl, temperature of 7°C, dew point temperature of 1°C, altimeter setting of 30.19 inHg; Remarks: station with a precipitation discriminator, temperature of 7.2°C and dew point temperature of 1.0°C. Recorders The airplane was equipped with a Fairchild GA-100 tape-based cockpit voice recorder (CVR). The CVR was recovered at the accident site by NTSB personnel. Audio recording of the accident flight was successfully downloaded from the CVR. The recorder contained about 31 minutes of analog audio on a continuous loop tape in a four-channel format: one channel for each flight crew and one channel for the cockpit area microphone (CAM) with one spare channel. Audio quality of the recording was poor with low signal-to-noise ratio and extraordinary means were required to make portions of the recording intelligible. The airplane was not equipped with a flight data recorder, nor was it required to be. A Garmin GTN-750 was recovered at the accident site by NTSB personnel. The GTN-750 is a combination GPS/Navigation receiver/Radio/Multi-Function display that has the capability of recording some data in non-volatile memory. In its configuration on the accident aircraft the unit recorded about 20 parameters for the full accident flight. Weather: METAR KSVH 181515Z AUTO 00000KT 5SM +DZ BKN012 BKN022 OVC050 07/01 A3019 RMK AO2 T00720010 METAR KSVH 181535Z AUTO 00000KT 1 3/4SM +RA SCT004 OVC010 06/04 A3019 RMK AO2 P0001 T00550035

Daviator

N689VP

Prestige Worldwide Flights

South African Civil Aviation Authority

A Cessna S550 Citation S/II of the South African Civil Aviation Authority crashed into the Outeniqua mountains, near the town of Friemersheim. The three occupants were killed and the aircraft was destroyed. The Citation departed Port Elizabeth Airport (FAPE) on a positioning flight to George Airport (FAGG). On approach to FAGG, the flying crew requested to carry out a calibration flight for the very high frequency omnidirectional range (VOR) beacon at FAGG. Due to inclement weather conditions at the time, they were not cleared to conduct VOR calibration. As a result, they decided to land and refuel the aircraft before commencing with the calibration of the Instrument Landing System (ILS) on runway 11 at FAGG. The flying crew requested take-off from runway 11 and an early right turn to intercept radial 250°, 17 nautical miles (nm) DME arc to radial 330° at 3000 feet (ft) climbing to 4,000 feet. The air traffic control (ATC) granted their request. Radar data indicated that at 10:42, the aircraft took off from runway 11 and, once airborne, made a right-hand turn to intercept radial 250° using the George VOR (GRV VOR). The aircraft climbed to 3000ft. Once the aircraft reached 17 nm on the DME from the GRV VOR (DME is co-located with the VOR), it commenced with a right-hand turn to intercept radial 330° while maintaining 17nm DME arc. At 10:46, the ATC at FAGG advised the flying crew that they were now exiting controlled airspace and were advised to broadcast on the special rules frequency. The crew acknowledged the advisory to change frequency and there was no further communication. The aircraft was still being monitored by ATC using secondary surveillance radar. At 10:50, radar data showed the aircraft crossing radial 310° and entered a climb from 3000ft, reaching 3,900 feet. As the aircraft levelled off at 3,900 feet, a rapid descent occurred, and the aircraft lost 1500ft in approximately 9 seconds. Three seconds prior to impact, the aircraft nose pitched up before impacting a ridge at 2,192 feet.

José João Abdalla Filho

The aircraft took off from the Comandante Rolim Adolfo Amaro Aerodrome (SBJD), Jundiaí - SP, to the Barra Grande Aerodrome (SIRI), Maraú - BA, at about 1458 (UTC), in order to carry out a private flight, with two pilots and eight passengers on board. Upon arriving at the destination Aerodrome, at 1717 (UTC), the aircraft made an undershoot landing on runway 11, causing the main and auxiliary landing gear to burst. The airplane moved along the runway, dragging the lower fuselage and the lower wing, leaving the runway by its left side, and stopping with the heading lagged, approximately, 210º in relation to the landing trajectory. Afterwards, there was a fire that consumed most of the aircraft. The aircraft was destroyed. One crewmember and four passengers suffered fatal injuries and the other crewmember and four passengers suffered serious injuries.

Avia Jet

On July 19, 2019, about 1844 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 550 airplane, N320JT, sustained substantial damage while landing at Mesquite Airport (67L), Mesquite, Nevada. The airline transport pilot, the sole occupant, had minor injuries. The airplane was registered to Avia Jet LLC, and operated by the pilot under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a ferry flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the cross-country flight. The flight departed Tri-Cities Airport (PSC), Pasco, Washington about 1625 and was destined for Henderson Executive Airport (HND), Las Vegas, Nevada. A surveillance video at 67L captured the airplane as it was sliding across the runway shortly after landing. The main landing gear had collapsed prior to entering the video frame and a large fire and dark smoke followed the airplane as it continued down the runway. The airplane disappeared from view as it exited the runway near the departure end of the runway. Shortly after the accident, the pilot was placed under arrest for operating an aircraft while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor.

Private American

The pilot was conducting a personal cross-country flight in a turbofan-powered airplane. Shortly after departure, the airplane entered a witness-estimated 90° left bank with the nose parallel to the horizon; as the airplane began to roll out of the turn, the nose remained at or below the horizon before it dropped and the airplane impacted the ground. Flight track data revealed that, shortly after departure, the airplane's ground speed immediately began decreasing from its maximum of 141 knots during takeoff and continued decreasing until the last recorded data point, which showed that the airplane had a ground speed of 100 knots. The surface wind reported about 10 minutes before the accident was from 170° at 9 knots, gusting to 14 knots, which resulted in a 1- to 2-knot tailwind component. Given this information and the airplane's configuration at the time of the accident, the airplane's indicated airspeed (IAS) would have been between about 86 and 93 knots. The airplane's stall speed was calculated to be 100 knots IAS (KIAS) with a bank angle of 45° and 118 KIAS with a bank angle of 60°. Thus, the pilot failed to maintain airspeed or accelerate after departure, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall A pilot who had flown with the accident pilot twice before the accident reported that, during these flights, the pilot had flown at reduced power settings and slower-than-normal airspeeds. During the flight 1 year before the accident, he reached over and pushed the power levers forward himself. He also stated that every time he had flown with the pilot, he was "very behind the airplane." Postaccident examination of the engines revealed no signs of preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation, and both engines exhibited circumferential rub marks on all rotating stages, blade tip bending opposite the direction of rotation, and debris ingestion through the gas path, indicating that the engine had power at impact. Further, the right engine full authority digital electronic control (FADEC) nonvolatile memory recorded no faults. (The left engine FADEC could not be downloaded due to damage.) The Airplane Flight Manual stated that the pilot must, in part, advance the throttle lever to the maximum takeoff detent for the FADEC's nonvolatile memory to record a logic trend snapshot 2 seconds after takeoff. The lack of a FADEC logic trend snapshot is consistent with the pilot not fully advancing the throttles during the takeoff and initial climb and is likely why he did not attain or maintain sufficient airspeed. The flight track data, pilot witness account, and airplane damage are consistent with the pilot failing to fully advance the power levers while maneuvering shortly after takeoff, which led to his failure to maintain sufficient airspeed and resulted in the exceedance of the airplane's critical angle of attack and a subsequent aerodynamic stall.

Dirt Dynamics

The commercial pilot was conducting a cross-country, business flight with 10 passengers onboard the 8-passenger airplane. He reported that air traffic control cleared the flight for an instrument landing system (ILS) approach to the runway. While descending, the airplane entered instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) at 3,100 ft mean sea level (msl), and ice started to accumulate on the wing's leading edges, empennage, and windshield. The pilot activated the pneumatic deice boots multiple times during the approach and slowed the airplane to 120 knots. The airplane then exited the clouds about 400 ft above ground level (agl), and the pilot maintained 120 knots as the airplane flew over the airport fence; all indications for landing were normal. About 100 ft agl, the airplane started to pull right. He applied left correction inputs, but the airplane continued to pull right. He applied engine power to conduct a goaround, but the airplane landed in grass right of the runway, sustaining damage to the wings and landing gear. Witnesses and passengers reported that the airplane stalled. During examination of the airplane immediately after the accident, about 1/2 to 1 inch of mixed ice was found on the right wing's leading edge, the vertical and horizontal stabilizers, and the angle of attack probe. Ice was also observed on the windshield. The flaps were found in the "up" position. Flight control continuity was established. Although the airplane was originally certificated for two-pilot operation, the pilot was flying the airplane under a single-pilot exemption. The pilot received a logbook endorsement indicating that he had received single-pilot training and was properly qualified under the single-pilot exemption. However, he had not met the turbine flight time qualifications (1,000 hours) to be properly authorized to conduct the flight under the single-pilot exemption because he only had 500 hours. A review of cockpit voice recorder information indicated that, although the pilot verbalized that the landing gear was "all green," followed by stating "check, check, check," he did not verbalize all the approach or landing checklist items nor did he make any audible comments about activating the pneumatic deice boots or windshield anti-ice. A review of radar data for the flight indicated that, during the last 2 minutes of flight, while the airplane was on final approach to the runway, the indicated airspeed got as low as 99 knots. The last recorded radar return indicated that the airplane had an airspeed of 104 knots at 900 ft msl. The pilot's lack of minimum flight experience required to fly the airplane without a copilot likely led to task saturation as he flew the airplane entered IMC and icing conditions while on an ILS approach. He subsequently failed to lower the flaps during the approach, which resulted in a no-flap approach instead of a full-flap landing. The ice on the leading edges of the wings, the no-flap approach, and the low airspeed likely led to the exceedance of the airplane's critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall.

Private Venezuelan

Shortly after takeoff from Charallave-Óscar Machado Zuloaga Airport Runway 10, while in initial climb, the aircraft banked right, lost altitude and eventually crashed in a huge explosion in a dense wooded area located down below the airfield. The aircraft disintegrated on impact and both pilots were killed. They were completing a positioning flight to Barinas.

Private Venezuelan

The crew was performing a charter flight from Oranjestad (Aruba) to Charallave with an intermediate stop in Barcelona. While on a night approach to runway 10, the captain initiated a go-around procedure for unknown reasons. During the second attempt to land, the aircraft landed long and the touchdown point appeared to be half way down the runway 10 which is 2,000 meters long. Unable to stop within the remaining distance, the aircraft overran, went down an embankment and came to rest. All eight occupants evacuated safely while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. The passengers were members of the pop band 'Los Cadillac's' accompanied by the Venezuelan singer and actor Arán de las Casas.

U.S. Customs %26 Border Protection

While on the right downwind leg, the flight crew advised the air traffic control tower controller that they would make a full stop landing. The tower controller acknowledged, told them to extend their downwind, and stated that he would call their base turn. The controller then called out the landing traffic on final, which was an Airbus A300-600 heavy airplane. The flight crew replied that they had the traffic in sight, and the controller cleared the flight to land behind the Airbus, and to be cautious of wake turbulence. The flight crew observed the Airbus abeam their current position and estimated that they made their base turn about 3 miles from the runway. Before turning onto final approach, the flight crew discussed wake turbulence avoidance procedures and planned to make a steeper approach and land beyond the Airbus's touchdown point. They also added 10 to 15 knots to the Vref speed as an additional precaution against a wake turbulence encounter. The reported wind provided by the tower controller was 180 degrees at 4 knots. The flight crew observed tire smoke from the Airbus as it touched down and discussed touching down beyond that touchdown point. The tower controller advised the flight crew to be prepared for a go-around if the Airbus did not clear the runway in time, which the flight crew acknowledged. The flight crew estimated that the Airbus had turned off the runway when their airplane was about 1,000 feet from the threshold and about 200 feet above ground level (agl). The flight crew reported having a stabilized approach to their planned landing point. When the airplane was about 150 feet agl and established on the runway centerline, the airplane experienced an uncommanded left roll. The heading swung to the left and the nose dropped. The crew reported that the airplane was buffeting heavily. Immediately, they set full power, and the flying pilot used both hands on the control wheel in an attempt to roll the airplane level and recover the pitch. He managed to get the airplane nearly back to level when the right main gear struck the ground short of the threshold and left of the runway. The airplane collided with a small drainage ditch and a dirt service road, causing the right main gear and the nose gear to collapse. Videos from cameras at the airport recorded the accident sequence, and the accident airplane was about 51 seconds behind the Airbus. A wake vortex study indicated that the accident airplane encountered the Airbus's right vortex, and the airplane's direction of left roll was consistent with the counter-clockwise rotation of the right vortex.

Stevens Aviation

The aircraft, registered to the United States Customs Service, and operated by Stevens Aviation, Inc., was substantially damaged during collision with a deer after landing on Runway 9 at Greenwood County Airport (GRD), Greenwood, South Carolina. The airplane was subsequently consumed by postcrash fire. The two certificated airline transport pilots were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the maintenance test flight, which was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. According to the pilot, the purpose of the flight was to conduct a test of the autopilot and flight director systems on board the airplane, following a "cockpit modernization" their company had performed. The airplane completed the NDB/GPS RWY 27 instrument approach procedure and then circled to land on Runway 9. About 5 seconds into the landing rollout, a deer appeared from the wood line and ran into the path of the airplane. The deer struck the airplane at the leading edge of the left wing above the left main landing gear, and ruptured an adjacent fuel cell. The pilot was able to maintain directional control, and the airplane was stopped on the runway, spilling fuel and on fire. The crew performed an emergency shutdown of the airplane and egressed without injury.Greenwood County Airport did not have a fire station co-located on the airport facility. The fixed base operator called 911 at the time of the accident, and the fire trucks arrived approximately 10 minutes after notification.

Kreuter Engineering

After a night landing on runway 13 at Warroad Airport, the aircraft collided with a White-tailed deer. The crew was able to stop the aircraft that suffered structural damages to the left wing. There were no injuries but the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

Agência Marítima Universal

The aircraft departed Belo Horizonte-Pampulha on an executive flight to Manhuaçu, carrying two pilots and three passengers, among them the Brazilian singer Eduardo Costa. Following an uneventful flight, the crew started the descent to Manhuaçu-Elias Breder Airport. After touchdown on runway 02, the crew activated the reverse thrust systems but the aircraft did not decelerate as expected. So the crew started to brake when the tires burst. Unable to stop within the remaining distance, the aircraft overran, lost its undercarriage, collided with a fence and came to rest. There was no fire. All five occupants were rescued. Nevertheless, Eduardo Costa broke his nose and right hand during the accident.

Zhongfei General Aviation Company - CFGAC

Owned by the Zhongfei General Aviation Company (CFGAC), the airplane was engaged in a survey flight over the north China province of Xinjiang. It departed Korla Airport at 1600LT with a crew of three. En route, it crashed in unknown circumstances in the Manas County, Hui autonomous prefecture of Changji. SAR did not find any trace of the aircraft nor the crew. Fatal index is presumed.

Colnan Inc.

According to postaccident written statements from both pilots, the pilot-in-command (PIC) was the pilot flying and the copilot was the pilot monitoring. As the airplane approached Dare County Regional Airport (MQI), Manteo, North Carolina, the copilot obtained the current weather information. The automated weather system reported wind as 350 degrees at 4 knots, visibility at 1.5 miles in heavy rain, and a broken ceiling at 400 feet. The copilot stated that the weather had deteriorated from the previous reports at MQI. The PIC stated that they would fly one approach to take a look and that, if the airport conditions did not look good, they would divert to another airport. Both pilots indicated in phone interviews that, although they asked the Washington air route traffic control center controller for the global positioning system (GPS) runway 5 approach, they did not expect it due to airspace restrictions. They expected and received a GPS approach to runway 23 to circle-to-land on runway 5. According to the pilots' statements, the airplane was initially fast on approach to runway 23. As a result, the copilot could not deploy approach flaps when the PIC requested because the airspeed was above the flap operating range. The PIC subsequently slowed the airplane, and the copilot extended flaps to the approach setting. The PIC also overshot an intersection but quickly corrected and was on course about 1 mile prior to the initial approach fix. The airplane crossed the final approach fix on speed (Vref was 104) at the appropriate altitude, with the flaps and landing gear extended. The copilot completed the approach and landing checklist items but did not call out items because the PIC preferred that copilots complete checklists quietly. The PIC then stated that they would not circle-to-land due to the low ceiling. He added that a landing on runway 23 would be suitable because the wind was at a 90-degree angle to the runway, and there was no tailwind factor. Based on the reported weather, a tailwind component of approximately 2 knots existed at the time of the accident, and, in a subsequent statement to the Federal Aviation Administration, the pilot acknowledged there was a tailwind about 20 degrees behind the right wing. The copilot had the runway in sight about 200 feet above the minimum descent altitude, which was 440 feet above the runway. The copilot reported that he mentally prepared for a go around when the PIC stated that the airplane was high about 300 feet above the runway, but neither pilot called for one. The flight crew stated that the airplane touched down at 100 knots between the 1,000-foot marker and the runway intersection-about 1,200 feet beyond the approach end of the 4,305-foot-long runway. The speed brakes, thrust reversers, and brakes were applied immediately after the nose gear touched down and worked properly, but the airplane departed the end of the runway at about 40 knots. According to data extracted from the enhanced ground proximity warning system, the airplane touched down about 1,205 feet beyond the approach end of the 4,305-foot-long wet runway, at a ground speed of 127 knots. Data from the airplane manufacturer indicated that, for the estimated landing weight, the airplane required a landing distance of approximately 2,290 feet on a dry runway, 3,550 feet on a wet runway, or 5,625 feet for a runway with 0.125 inch of standing water. The chart also contained a note that the published limiting maximum tailwind component for the airplane is 10 knots but that landings on precipitation-covered runways with any tailwind component are not recommended. The note also indicates that if a tailwind landing cannot be avoided, the above landing distance data should be multiplied by a factor that increases the wet runway landing distance to 3,798 feet, and the landing distance for .125 inch of standing water to 6,356 feet. All distances in the performance chart are based on flying a normal approach at Vref, assume a touchdown point 840 feet from the runway threshold in no wind conditions, and include distance from the threshold to touchdown. The PIC's statement about the airplane being high at 300 feet above the runway reportedly prompted the copilot to mentally prepare for a go around, but neither pilot called for one. However, the PIC asked the copilot what he thought, and his reply was " it's up to you." The pilots touched down at an excessive airspeed (23 knots above Vref), more than 1,200 feet down a wet 4,305-foot-long runway, leaving about 3,100 feet for the airplane to stop. According to manufacturer calculations, about 2,710 feet of ground roll would be required after the airplane touched down, assuming a touchdown speed at Vref; a longer ground roll would be required at higher touchdown speeds. Although a 2 knot crosswind component existed at the time of the accident, the airplane's excessive airspeed at touchdown (23 knots above Vref) had a much larger effect on the outcome of the landing.

Trans Air - Papua New Guinea

The aircraft was conducting a charter flight from Jackson’s International Airport, Port Moresby, National Capital District, Papua New Guinea (PNG), to Bwagaoia Aerodrome, Misima Island, Milne Bay Province, PNG (Misima). There were two pilots and three passengers on board for the flight. The approach and landing was undertaken during a heavy rain storm over Bwagaoia Aerodrome at the time, which resulted in standing water on the runway. This water, combined with the aircraft’s speed caused the aircraft to aquaplane. There was also a tailwind, which contributed the aircraft to landing further along the runway than normal. The pilot in command (PIC) initiated a baulked landing procedure. The aircraft was not able to gain flying speed by the end of the runway and did not climb. The aircraft descended into terrain 100 m beyond the end of the runway. The aircraft impacted terrain at the end of runway 26 at 1615:30 PNG local time and the aircraft was destroyed by a post-impact, fuel-fed fire. The copilot was the only survivor. Other persons who came to assist were unable to rescue the remaining occupants because of fire and explosions in the aircraft. The on-site evidence and reports from the surviving copilot indicated that the aircraft was serviceable and producing significant power at the time of impact. Further investigation found that the same aircraft and PIC were involved in a previous landing overrun at Misima Island in February 2009.

Caribair

During a night, northbound, international over water flight that paralleled the east coast of the southeast United States, the airplane encountered headwinds. Upon arrival at the intended destination, the weather was below forecasted conditions, resulting in multiple instrument approach attempts. After the first missed approach, the controller advised the crew that there was an airport 36 miles to the north with "much better" weather, but the crew declined, citing a need to clear customs. During the third missed approach, the left engine lost power, and while the airplane was being vectored for a fourth approach, the right engine lost power. Utilizing the global positioning system, the captain pointed the airplane toward the intersection of the airport's two runways. Approximately 50 feet above the ground, he saw runway lights, and landed. The captain attempted to lower the landing gear prior to the landing, but it would not extend due to a lack of hydraulic pressure from the loss of engine power, and the alternate gear extension would not have been completed in time. The gear up landing resulted in damage to the underside of the fuselage and punctures of the pressure vessel. The captain stated that the airplane arrived in the vicinity of the destination with about 1,000 pounds of fuel on board or 55 minutes of fuel remaining. However, air traffic and cockpit voice recordings revealed that the right engine lost power about 14 minutes after arrival, and the left engine, about 20 minutes after arrival. Federal air regulations require, for an instrument flight rules flight plan, that an airplane carry enough fuel to complete the flight to the first airport of landing, fly from that airport to an alternate, and fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed. The loss of engine power was due to fuel exhaustion, with no preaccident mechanical anomalies noted to the airplane.

Drug Plastics %26 Glass Company

The air traffic controller, with both ground and local (tower) responsibilities, cleared the accident airplane to land when it was about 8 miles from the runway. Another airplane landed in front of the accident flight, and the controller cleared that pilot to taxi to the hangar. The controller subsequently cleared a tractor with retractable (bat wing) mowers, one on each side, and both in the “up” position, to proceed from the terminal ramp and across the 6,350-foot active runway at an intersection about 2,600 feet from the threshold. The controller then shifted his attention back to the airplane taxiing to its hangar, and did not see the accident airplane land. During the landing rollout, the airplane’s left wing collided with the right side of the tractor when the tractor was “slightly” left of runway centerline. Calculations estimated that the airplane was about 1,000 feet from the collision point when the tractor emerged from the taxiway, and skid marks confirmed that the airplane had been steered to the right to avoid impact. Prior to the crossing attempt, the tractor operator did not scan the runway, and was concentrating on the left side bat wing. Federal Aviation Administration publications do not adequately address the need for ground vehicle operators to visually confirm that active runways/approaches are clear, prior to crossing with air traffic control authorization, thus overlooking an additional means to avoid a collision.

Marlin Air

On June 4, 2007, about 1600 central daylight time, a Cessna Citation 550, N550BP, impacted Lake Michigan shortly after departure from General Mitchell International Airport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (MKE). The two pilots and four passengers were killed, and the airplane was destroyed. The airplane was being operated by Marlin Air under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 and departed MKE about 1557 with an intended destination of Willow Run Airport, near Ypsilanti, Michigan. At the time of the accident flight, marginal visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the surface, and instrument meteorological conditions prevailed aloft; the flight operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan.

Hamilton Ranches

Radar data indicated that the airplane descended on a straight track from flight level (FL) 380 in accordance with the pilot's clearance to descend to 13,000 feet and begin the VOR (very high frequency omni-directional radio range) approach to the destination airport. The last transmission from the pilot was an acknowledgment of the cancellation of radar service and an instruction to switch to the airport advisory frequency. At that time, the airplane was at a mode C reported altitude of 14,000 feet. The airplane maintained a steady descent rate for the next minute and leveled off at 13,000 feet. About 2 1/2 minutes later, the airplane began a turn to the right to head outbound for the procedure turn on the approach and descended to 12,900 feet. The approach procedure specified a minimum altitude of 8,200 feet in the procedure turn. The airplane lost 1,600 feet in the next 10 seconds, and this was the last radar contact. A witness working in his office at the airport heard a loud engine noise, and then a “plop” noise. He said that the engine noise was loud, then softer, and then loud again. He heard it for 3 to 5 seconds. Another witness saw an airplane below the cloud bases that was turning to the right with a nose low pitch attitude of about 75 to 80 degrees. It made six to seven turns before it disappeared from sight behind terrain, and the radius of the turn got tighter as the airplane descended. Examination of the airframe, systems, and engines revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Anti-ice fluid was on the leading edges of the wing and tail anti-ice panels. An Airmen’s Meteorological Information (AIRMET) in effect for an area that included the accident site noted that the freezing level was from 4,000 to 10,000 feet with the potential for icing from the freezing level to 20,000 feet.

Air Ambulance by Air Trek

The Citation 550 was being repositioned for an air ambulance transportation flight, and was on approach to land on a 4,801-foot-long, grooved, asphalt runway. The airplane was being flown manually by the copilot, who reported that the landing approach speed (Vref) was 106 knots. The pilot-in-command (PIC) estimated that the airplane "broke out" of the clouds about two miles from the runway. Both pilots stated that the airplane continued to descend toward the runway, while on the glide slope and localizer. Neither pilot could recall the airplane's touchdown point on the runway, or the speed at touchdown. Witnesses observed the airplane, "high and fast" as it crossed over the runway threshold. The airplane touched down about halfway down the runway, and continued off the departure end. It then struck a wooden localizer antenna platform, and the airport perimeter fence, before crossing a road, and coming to rest about 400 feet from the end of the runway. Data downloaded from the airplane's Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) revealed that the airplane's groundspeed at touchdown was about 140 knots. Review of the cockpit voice recorder suggested that the PIC failed to activate the airplane's speed brake upon touchdown. Braking action was estimated to be "fair" at the time of the accident, with about 1/4 to 1/2 inches of loose, "fluffy" snow on the runway. The PIC reported that he thought the runway might be covered with an inch or two of snow, which did not concern him. The copilot reported encountering light snow during the approach. Both pilots stated that they were not aware of any mechanical failures, or system malfunctions during the accident; nor were any discovered during post accident examinations. According to the airplane flight manual, the conditions applicable to the accident flight prescribed a Vref of 110 knots, with a required landing distance on an uncontaminated runway of approximately 2,740 feet. The prescribed landing distance on a runway contaminated with 1-inch of snow, at a Vref of 110 knots was approximately 5,800 feet. At Vref + 10 knots, the required landing distance increased to about 7,750 feet.

University of North Dakota

The flight crew, an airline transport certificated captain, and a commercial certificated co-pilot, were flying a restricted category, icing research equipped airplane in instrument meteorological icing conditions under Title 14, CFR Part 91. The purpose of the flight was to locate icing conditions for a prototype helicopter's in-flight icing tests. While in cruise flight, the airplane encountered icing conditions, and had accumulated about 1" of ice on the leading edges of the wings. The captain reported that he activated the wing deicing pneumatic boots, and the ice was shed from both wings. About 4 minutes after activating the deice boots, both engines simultaneously lost all power. The crew attempted several engine restarts, but were unsuccessful, and made a forced landing on frozen, snow-covered terrain. During the landing, the airplane struck several small, burned trees, and sustained substantial damage. The airplane's ice control system is comprised of two separate systems, one an anti-ice, the other, a deice. The majority of the wings' surfaces are deiced by pneumatic, inflating boots. The inboard section of the wings, directly in front of the engine air inlets, and the engine air inlets themselves, utilize a heated, anti-ice surface to preclude any ice accretion and potential for ice ingestion into the engines. The anti-ice system is not automatic, and must be activated by the flight crew prior to entering icing conditions. A researcher in the aft cabin photographed the airplane's wings before and after the activation of the deice boots. The photographs taken prior to the deice boot activation depicted about 1" of ice on the wings, as well as on the anti-ice (heated) inboard portion of the wings. The photographs taken after the deice boot activation revealed that the ice had been removed from the booted portion of the wings, but ice remained on the inboard, anti-ice segment. An engineer from the airplane's manufacturer said that if the anti-ice system was activated after ice had accumulated on the wings, it would take 2-4 minutes for the anti-ice portion of the wings and engine inlets to heat sufficiently to shed the ice. A postaccident inspection of the anti-ice components found no anomalies, and there was no record of any recent problems with the anti-ice system. The flight crew reported that the anti-ice activation switch is on the captain's side, and they could not recall if or when the anti-ice system was activated. They stated that they did not discuss its use, or use a checklist that addressed the use of the anti-ice system. A section of the airplane's flight manual states: "Failure to switch on the [anti-ice] system before ice accumulation has begun may result in engine damage due to ice ingestion." An inspection by an NTSB power plant engineer disclosed catastrophic engine damage consistent with ice ingestion.

Haalo

A designated pilot examiner (DPE) was administering a type-rating check ride from the jump seat (located behind co-pilot's seat), and instructed the second-in-command (SIC) (required for the check ride and occupying the front right seat) to reduce the power on one engine to simulate a single engine approach. Approximately 23 seconds later, the airplane began to "drop rapidly." To arrest the descent, both pilots simultaneously applied full power on both engines, and the applicant (occupying the front left seat) increased the airplane's pitch attitude to 12 degrees. However, the airplane continued to descend and touched down short of the landing threshold for the runway. A post-impact fire consumed the airplane. According to the applicant, after takeoff, he demonstrated several maneuvers, and was then provided vectors for a VOR instrument approach. While executing the approach, it was "really bumpy", and they hit a gust of wind, which resulted in him having to correct the airplane's attitude back to straight and level flight. When the airplane was approximately one mile from the end of the runway, he looked outside and saw that he was high on the approach and extended the flaps to 40 degrees. Shortly after, the PIC reduced power on the left engine to simulate a single-engine approach. When the airplane was approximately 1/4 to 1/2-mile from the end of the runway, at 400 feet mean sea level (msl) (about 366 feet above ground level), Vref 110, the airplane began to sink rapidly, and it impacted the ground. The applicant said that he, "never experienced wind shear like that before...and in hindsight it would have been more helpful if they had a better understanding of the wind conditions before they tried to land." Under current FAA regulations, even though the pilot in the right seat (the applicant's flight instructor) acted as the SIC for the purpose of the check ride, the applicant was not type rated in the airplane, and technically, could not be designated as the pilot-in-command (PIC). The instructor was type rated in the airplane; and therefore, was the PIC.

Canada Jet Charters

The aircraft departed Vancouver International Airport, British Columbia, on a medical evacuation flight to the Sandspit Airport in the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia. On board the aircraft were two pilots and a team of two Advanced Life Support Paramedics. When the aircraft arrived at Sandspit, the surface wind was strong, gusty, and across the runway. The crew conducted an instrument approach to Runway 30, and just before touchdown the aircraft's nose pitched down; the captain believed that the nosewheel, and then the main gear, collapsed as the aircraft slid on its belly. The crew carried out an evacuation and proceeded to the airport terminal building. When they returned to the aircraft to retrieve their belongings, the crew discovered that the gear was in the up position, as was the landing gear selector. The accident occurred at 2052 Pacific standard time. There were no injuries. The aircraft was substantially damaged.

Corporate Flight International

On a final approach to runway 26 the flight crew was advised by a flight instructor in the traffic pattern that a wind shear condition existed about one-quarter of the way down the approach end of the runway, which the flight crew acknowledged. On a three mile final approach the flight crew was advised by the instructor that the automated weather observation system (AWOS) was reporting the winds were 060 degrees at 8 knots, and that he was changing runways to runway 08. The flight crew did not acknowledge this transmission. The captain said that after landing smoothly in the touchdown zone on Runway 26, he applied normal braking without any response. He maintained brake pedal pressure and activated the engine thrust reversers without any response. The copilot said he considered the approach normal and that the captain did all he could to stop the airplane, first applying the brakes and then pulling up on the thrust reversers twice, with no sensation of slowing at all. Considering the double malfunction and the mountainous terrain surrounding the airport, the captain elected not to go around. The aircraft subsequently overran the end of the 5,860 foot runway (5,260 feet usable due to the 600 displaced threshold), went through the airport boundary fence, across the perimeter road, and came to rest upright in a dry lakebed approximately 400 feet from the departure end of the runway. With the aircraft on fire, the five passengers and two crew members safely egressed the aircraft without injuries before it was consumed. Witnesses to the landing reported the aircraft touched down at midfield, was too fast, porpoised, and was bouncing trying to get the gear on the runway. Passengers recalled a very hard landing, being thrown about the cabin, and that the speed was excessive. One passenger stated there was a hard bang and a series of smaller bangs during the landing. Federal Aviation Regulations allowed 3,150 feet of runway for a full stop landing. Under the weather conditions reported just after the mishap, and using the anticipated landing weight from the load manifest (12,172.5 pounds), the FAA approved Cessna Flight Manual does not provide landing distance information. Post-accident examination and testing of various wheel brake and antiskid/power brake components revealed no anomalies which would have precluded normal operations.

Airlease

The twin-tubofan airplane overran the runway during an aborted takeoff, impacting two fences before coming to rest. The pilot reported experiencing no anomalies with the airplane during the preflight inspection and taxi portion of the flight. During takeoff roll, at V1 (103 knots), the pilot began to pull aft on the control yoke. The pilot noticed the nose landing gear was not coming off of the runway and at 120 knots, with full aft control input, elected to abort the takeoff. He pulled the power to idle and applied maximum braking. Upon seeing the localizer antennas approaching the airplane at the departure end of the runway, the pilot veered the airplane to the right of centerline. The airplane departed the runway surface and impacted the fences. Post-accident examination of the runway revealed tire skid marks on the runway that led to the airplane's final resting place. The tire skid marks measured 1,765 feet in length. Examination of the wreckage revealed no pre-existing brake system anomalies that would have hindered the airplane's braking capability. Examination of the elevator trim system revealed it was 12 degrees out of trim in the nose down direction. The airplane underwent a Phase B and Phase 1 through 5 inspections approximately 5 months prior to the accident. The manufacturer's inspection manual indicates the elevator system should be examined every Phase 5 inspection. The aircraft's flight manual informs the pilot that the right elevator and trim tab should be inspected during the exterior inspection to ensure the elevator trim tab position matches its indicator.

Riana Táxi Aéreo

On a flight from Porto Alegre to Rio de Janeiro, while cruising at an altitude of 33,000 feet, the aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent. The crew did not send any distress call. The aircraft descended with a rate of 20,000 feet per minute. At an altitude of 1,500 feet, it disintegrated in the air and eventually crashed. Both pilots were killed.

Private Wings Flugcharter

Following an uneventful charter flight from Berlin, the crew was cleared to descend from FL140 and started the approach to Salzburg-Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Airport. After being established on the ILS, the crew was cleared to land when, on short final, the aircraft stalled and crashed in a wooded area located in Freilassing, about 5,5 km short of runway 16, bursting into flames. The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and a post crash fire and all 10 occupants were killed. At the time of the accident, severe icing conditions were reported in the area.

Moran Foods

The flight was cleared for the VOR/DME approach to runway 17 at the Marco Island Airport. The CVR recorded conversation between the pilot and co-pilot reference to the approach, specifically the MDA both in mean sea level and absolute altitude for a straight-in-approach to runway 17. The flight crew announced that the flight was landing on runway 35. The flight crew did not discuss the missed approach procedure nor the circling minimums. The flight continued and the co-pilot announced that the flight was 5 miles from the airport to descend to the MDA to visually acquire the airport. While descending about 8.5 feet of the left wing of the airplane was severed by a guy wire about 587 feet above ground level from an antenna that was 3.36 nautical miles from the threshold of runway 17. The tower is listed on the approach chart that was provided to the flight crew. The airplane then rolled left wing low, recovered to wings level, then was observed to roll to the left, pitch nose down, and impacted the ground. A fireball was then observed by witnesses. The altimeters, air data computer, and pilot's airspeed indicator were last calibrated about 8 months before the accident. The co-pilots altimeter was found set .01 high from the last known altimeter setting provided to the flight crew. The CVR did not record any conversation pertaining to failure or malfunction of either the pilot or copilot's HSI, the DME or Altimeters. There were no alarms from the VOR/DME monitoring equipment the day of the accident. The flight crew of another airplane executed the same approach about 30 minutes before the accident and they reported no discrepancies with the approach. The MDA for the segment of the approach between where the tower is located is no lower than 974 feet above ground level.

Ring Can Corporation

On final approach to Walker's Cay Airfield, the aircraft was too low and struck the ground few metres short of runway threshold. Out of control, it rolled to the right when the right wing collided with a tree and was torn off. The aircraft rolled for another 100 metres before coming to rest, bursting into flames. All five occupants were injured and the aircraft was destroyed.

Viessmann Werke

The descent to Allendorf-Eder Airport was completed in poor weather conditions. On approach, the captain cancelled the IFR flight plan and decided to initiate a go-around procedure for unknown reasons. The aircraft nosed down to 30° then rolled to the right to 60° and crashed in a wooded area. Both pilots were killed. It was reported that the copilot was the PIC at the time of the accident.

Aerocharter Midlands

Cessna Citation G-JETB was to fly eight passengers from Southampton (SOU) to Eindhoven (EIN). Because G-JETB had arrived at Oxford (OXF) the previous evening, the airplane had to be ferried to Southampton early in the morning. This as a regular occurrence. The co-pilot had agreed with the airport authorities at both Oxford and Southampton that the aircraft would operate outside normal hours on the understanding that no fire cover would be provided. Following the takeoff from Oxford at 05:19 the crew contacted Brize Norton ATC and agreed a Flight Information Service. They maintained VMC for the transit at 2,400 feet QNH and called Southampton ATC on their alternate radio at 05:25 when they were approximately 30 nm from Southampton. The Southampton controller was surprised at their initial call and advised them that the airport did not open until 06:00. The crew informed him that arrangements had been made for an early arrival and the controller asked them to standby while he checked this agreement. At 05:27 he called G-JETB, informed the crew that they could land before the normal opening hours and asked them to confirm that no fire cover was required. The crew confirmed this and were then told that runway 02 was in use with a wind of 020 deg./14 kt and that there was a thunderstorm right over the airport. The crew then advised Brize Norton radar that they were going to Southampton ATC and left the Brize Norton frequency. Following a further check with Southampton they were given the 0520 weather observation: "Surface wind 040 deg/12 kt, thunderstorms, 2 oktas of stratus at 800 feet, 3 oktas of cumulonimbus at 1,800 feet, temperature 12 C, qnh 1007 mb, qfe 1006 mb, the runway is very wet." At 05:30 the controller asked the crew for the aircraft type and, after being told that it was a Citation II, told the crew that the visibility was deteriorating ("Now 2,000 metres in heavy thunderstorms" ) and cleared them to the Southampton VOR at 3,000 feet QNH. After checking that they were now IFR the controller confirmed the clearance, and the QNH of 1007 mb, and informed the crew that there was no controlled airspace and that he had no radar available to assist them. Shortly afterwards the controller advised the crew that: "Entirely at your discretion you may establish on the ILS localiser for runway 20 for visual break-off to land on runway 02." The commander accepted this offer and, within the cockpit, asked the co-pilot for the surface wind. He was informed that it was 040 degrees but that earlier they had been given 020 deg/14 kt. At 05:32 the commander had positioned on the ILS for runway 20 and began his descent; the co-pilot advised Southampton that they were established. The controller acknowledged this and again passed the QNH. Shortly afterwards he asked the crew to report at the outer marker and this message was acknowledged. At 05:33 the crew called that they were visual with the runway and the controller cleared them for a visual approach, left or right at their convenience, for runway 02. As this transmission was taking place, the commander informed his co-pilot that they would land on runway 20. The commander decided this because he could see that the weather at the other end of the runway appeared very black and he had mentally computed the tailwind component to be about 10 kt. After a confirmation request from the co-pilot to the commander, the co-pilot informed the Southampton controller that they would land on runway 20. The controller then advised them that: "You'll be landing with a fifteen knot, one five knot, tailwind component on a very wet runway" ; this was immediately acknowledged by the co-pilot with: "roger, copied thank you". The crew continued with their approach, initially at 15 kt above their computed threshold speed (VREF) of 110 kt and then at a constant VREF+10 kt. Within the cockpit the commander briefed the co-pilot that if they were too fast the co-pilot was to select flap to the takeoff position and they would go-around; they also discussed the use of the speedbrake and the commander stated that he would call for it when he wanted it. The speed at touchdown was within 5 kt of the target threshold speed and touchdown was in the vicinity of the Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs), according to witnesses in the Control Tower and on the airport; the commander was certain that he had made a touchdown within the first 300 feet of the runway. The PAPIs are located 267 metres along the runway. Speedbrake was selected as the aircraft touched down and, although the commander applied and maintained heavy foot pressure on the brakes, no retardation was apparent; external observers reported heavy spray from around the aircraft. At some stage down the runway the commander stated that the brakes were not stopping them and the co-pilot called for a go-around ; the commander replied : "No we can't" as he considered that a go-around at that stage would be more dangerous. He maintained brake pressure and, in an attempt to increase distance, steered the aircraft to the right edge of the runway before trying to steer back left. Initially the aircraft nose turned to the left and the aircraft slid diagonally off the right side of the runway on to the grass. It continued across the grass for a distance of approximately 233 metres while at the same time yawing to the left. However, 90 metres beyond the end of the runway there is an embankment which forms the side of the M27 motorway and G-JETB slid down this embankment on to the motorway. The aircraft continued to rotate as it descended and came to rest, having turned through approximately 150 degrees, with its tail on the central barrier. During these final manoeuvres the aircraft collided with two cars travelling on the eastbound carriageway; the aircraft and one of the cars caught fire. During the approach of the aircraft, the airport Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS) duty officer had discussed with the duty ATC controller the imminent arrival of G-JETB. Although not all checks had been complete, the fire officer offered his two fire vehicles as a weather standby ; he did not declare his section operational but agreed with ATC that they would position themselves to the west of the runway. When the aircraft was 1/2 to 2/3 down the runway, the ATC controller considered that the aircraft would not stop in the runway available and activated the crash alarm. The fire section obtained clearance to enter the runway after G-JETB had passed their position and followed the aircraft. Assessing the situation on the move, the fire officer ordered the FIRE 2 vehicle to disperse through the crash gate to the motorway, and took his own vehicle (FIRE 1) to the edge of the embankment. On arrival, the fire section contained the fires. The occupants of the aircraft and cars escaped with minor injuries.

U.S. Department of Energy

During descent into Billings, the Citation was sequenced behind a Boeing 757, and both airplanes were eventually cleared for visual approaches. About 1-1/2 mile from the runway the Citation was observed to roll rapidly to the inverted position and descended almost vertically into the ground. According to ATC transcripts and the airplane's cockpit voice recorder, the crew of the Citation had maintained visual awareness of the position of the B757 throughout the approach. At the time of the upset, the vertical separation between airplanes was 600 - 1,000 feet, and the horizontal separation was decreasing below 2.6 miles. One of the Citation captain's last comments was 'almost ran over a seven fifty seven.' Winds were 5 knots. All eight occupants were killed.

TAM Brasil - Taxi Aéreo Marilia - Transportes Aéreos Regionais

The aircraft departed São Paulo-Congonhas Airport for a local training flight, carrying two pilots under supervision and two instructors. Weather conditions were marginal with ceiling down to 300 metres, horizontal visibility 3 km with rain. After touchdown on wet runway 17R, the aircraft was unable to stop within the remaining distance. It overran, went down an embankment and came to rest. All four occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was destroyed.

Ashaka Cement Company

On final approach to Ashaka Airport in poor weather conditions, the crew apparently initiated a go-around procedure when the aircraft crashed short of runway threshold. All three occupants were killed.

GTE South

During arrival, flight was vectored for NDB runway 06 approach, and advised Raleigh-Durham weather was 500 feet overcast, visibility 3 miles with fog, wind from 140° at 12 knots, altimeter 30.01. After clearance for approach, aircraft crossed final approach fix (faf) at 2,100 feet msl. Radar service was terminated and frequency change was approved. When aircraft did not arrive, search was initiated. The wreckage was found about 2.5 miles southwest of runway 06, where aircraft hit trees and crashed. Elevation of crash site was about 600 feet msl. MDA for approach was 1,160 feet msl (with local altimeter setting; 1,260 feet with Raleigh-Durham setting). Exam revealed aircraft hit trees, while on runway heading in wings level attitude; configured for landing. No preimpact part failure/malfunction was found. Toxicological check of pic's blood showed 0.10 mg/l of diazepam and 0.09 mg/l of nordiazepam. Check of his urine showed metabolite of marijuana (11- nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid) at level of 0.117 mg/l. After surgery for malignant lymphoma (feb 89), pic was restored to flight status on 8/9/89 and cleared for pic duty one week later. He continued flying tho he received maintenance chemotherapy and associates noted that he tired easily. Both occupants were killed.

Nynex Corporation

Witnesses reported aircraft was high during approach and landed nosewheel 1st about 1,600 feet beyond threshold, then became airborne and bounced 2 times. Pilot stated that before touchdown, he started to 'spool up' engines, but noted lack of response, then retarded throttles and landed. He said he applied brakes and selected 'full reverse' and noted no response. Reportedly, nosewheel 'skipped into air' while aircraft still had flying speed. With insufficient runway remaining to stop, he elected to stow reversers and began go-around. He noted no response from engines, tho aircraft had became airborne. Aircraft then settled beyond departure end of runway and crashed on rough terrain. Examination revealed engines had ingested twigs, grass and dirt. Reverse load limiters (l/l) on both engines were found in tripped position. Flight man stated that to avoid actuation of l/l, do not advance primary throttle after returning reverse thrust lever to stow until unlock light is out; maint required to reset actuated l/l. L/l was incorporated on thrust reverser to reduce engine power to idle, if inadvertently deployed in flight. During post-accident check, both engines were operated to 85% after l/l reset.

TAM Brasil - Taxi Aéreo Marilia - Transportes Aéreos Regionais

Following a wrong approach configuration, the aircraft descended too high on the glide and landed too far down a wet runway. After touchdown, unable to stop within the remaining distance (insufficient distance available and poor braking action due to a wet runway surface), the aircraft overran and collided with a dyke. All seven occupants were rescued while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

Weatherford Services

After landing on runway 31L, the aircrew of N100VV requested clearance to turn off to the right at midfield onto runway 22. The request was approved and the aircrew was instructed to use caution for a Cherokee proceeding from the opposite direction. The pilot of N100VV stated that after he turned right onto runway 04/22 and was clear of the Cherokee, he attempted to contact the tower to advise of his intentions. However, the frequency was too busy, so he switched to the ground frequency and transmitted that he was 'off 31L, going to Atlantic.' This transmission ended just as N100VV was entering the intersection of runway 22 and 31R. Just prior to that, N222WL had been cleared for takeoff on runway 31R and had begun its takeoff roll. N222WL was at approximately 70 knots when its aircrew saw N100VV starting to cross the active runway. The pilot of N222WL attempted to takeoff and avoid a collision, but was unable to clear N100VV. N222WL crashed and slid to a stop approximately 400 feet beyond the impact point with N100VV, then burned. All three occupants escaped uninjured.