23 plane crashes in year 2005

The Antonov An-140-100 from Azerbaijan airlines, which was en route from Baku to Aktau, crashed a few minutes after take off. The plane crashed on land near the Caspian Sea shore, north from Baku. All off the 17 passengers and 5 crew members were killed. Azerbaijan Airlines' said that the study of the plane's flight recorders revealed that the pilots' instruments failed immediately after takeoff, making the crew unable to see the parameters necessary to fly, and leaving the crew unable to pilot the aircraft. A few minutes before the crash, the crew reported a system failure and asked air traffic controllers for information on the plane's altitude and direction.

The McDonnell Douglas DC-9 was on a passenger flight from Abuja to Port Harcourt with 103 passengers and 7 crew members onboard. It crashed during landing at Port Harcourt. The plane is believed to have overshot the runway when landing in an electrical storm. Witnesses said an explosion and massive fireball followed the crash, engulfing the plane in flames. Three people survived.

A jetliner from Southwest Airlines was performing a passenger flight from Baltimore to Chicago, with 98 passengers and 5 crew members onboard, when it crashed after landing at Midway-Chicago International Airport. The nose landing gear collapsed after the aircraft touched down. Then, The plane went off the end of the runway and slammed through a fence before striking two vehicles. One person in a car was killed while 8 other people in both cars were injured. Onboard, two passengers were injured. The plane landed in very bad conditions: in extremely low visibility and on a short, snow-covered runway, during a snow storm.

An Iranian military transport plane crashed into a residential area, in the south of Teheran (Iran), as it was trying to make an emergency landing on the Teheran-Mehrabad airport, igniting a huge fire. The Lockheed C-130 aircraft, which belonged to the army air force, had just taken off from the nearby Teheran-Mehrabad Airport en route to the southern port of Bandar Abbas. 84 passengers and 10 crew members were onboard. The plane was carrying many journalists. The crew reported engine problems and requested an emergency landing. The plane was returning to the airport when it hit a 10-story building. All aboard were killed. A witness said the plane appeared to be circling the airport when its tail suddenly burst into flames, leaving a smoke trail as it plummeted.

This Boeing 727 from Miba airline skidded off the runway after landing at the national airport of Kindu, near Maniema. All people onboard survived, but the aircraft has been damaged. After landing, the aircraft veered off the side of the runway coming to rest on soft ground. At the time, the local weather was varying between medium to heavy rainshowers causing slippery runway conditions. The captain said he landed normally, but he has been surprised by a water layer on the runway. 3 crew members and 7 tons of cargo were onboard.

The flight 201 from Bellview airline was performing a passenger flight from Lagos to Abuja with 111 passengers and 6 crew members onboard when it crashed near Lagos a few minutes after take-off. The 737 left Lagos at 20:35 local time and there was thunderstorm activity in the vicinity of the city at the time, which could be the cause of the accident. The exact circumstances surrounding the crash are unclear, although local press reports quote officials as saying that communication was lost with the aircraft around 3min after take-off (possibly following a distress call) and that it crashed 7min later. The crew had asked for air traffic control assistance in avoiding storm activity. Investigations indicate that the aircraft may have “stalled” after passing FL130 (13,000ft/3,970m) and “nose-dived into the ground”. The loss of communications could have been a result of the lightning causing the aircraft’s electrical system to fail. The aircraft came down around 30km (19 miles) north of Lagos, with witnesses reporting that it was on fire before it struck the ground. The impact created a large crater around 12m deep, with little remaining of the aircraft. Another cause of the accident could be a terrorism act.

The aircraft, on a passenger flight from Beni to Isiro-Matari Airport, crashed while attempting to land. About a mile from the field while on approach to runway 31, the plane impacted a grove of trees, crashed, and exploded. Weather at the time of the accident was foggy.

The aircraft crashed while performing a scheduled passenger flight from Medan-Polonia Airport to Jakarta. Shortly after takeoff from Medan, survivors reported that the Boeing began to shake violently, veered left, and crashed into a residential area about 500m off the end of the runway. A failure of one engine could be the root cause of the crash said a transport safety official. "Preliminary investigations show a fuel problem on the engine" he said. The 9 survivors were seated in the same row.

The aircraft was approaching Pucallpa on a domestic flight from Lima with heavy thunderstorms in the vicinity of the airport when, shortly after 3:00pm local time, it encountered windshear and heavy turbulence, and crashed onto a jungle-covered, dirt roadway approximately 2 miles from the runway at 3:06pm.

The aircraft was on a passenger flight from Panama City, Panama to Fort de France on the Caribbean Island of Martinique. The crew announced intentions to divert to Caracas. Then the aircraft began a rapid descent, and crashed into mountainous terrain some 20 miles from the Colombian border with Venezuela. According to the DFDR (Digital Flight Data Recorder) and CVR (Cockpit Voice recorder), the aircraft would have descended nose up. The crew was talking about weather conditions, and discussed possible icing conditions. The crew also thought about enabling wings and engines anti-ice devices. Analysis of the debris showed that both engines exhibited indications of high-speed compressor rotation at the time of impact, which enabled investigators to conclude that the engines were not previously damaged. The investigation shows that the cause of the crash is a combination of several human errors and bad weather conditions. The aircraft was overloaded by 6000 lb (about 2,5 tons), and weighted 155 000 lb at the beginning of cruise. Moreover, the weight was inadequately balanced. Therefore, the plane was more difficult to fly. Then, during cruise, the aircraft entered into a thunderstorm, with severe icing conditions. The engines iced, leading to a loss of thrust. Build-up of ice on wings may have also happened, which would have resulted in a decrease of the aircraft performance. The first officer immediately requested to engage the de-icing, but the captain did not take his request into account. Note that the first officer was inexperienced compare to the captain. Finally, the aircraft began to lose altitude. The crew then made a real mistake when they decided to switch off the auto-pilot. Indeed, the autopilot features a pitch correction function, which helps to fly the plane in this situation. Just after the auto-pilot disconnection, the MD82 stalled. It crashed 50 seconds later. Details about aircraft icing This kind of severe icing can occur when aircraft fly into particular weather conditions (for example, in a cloud of supercooled water droplets). Ice accretion on the wing leading edge may occur. Airflow disruption will reduce the maximum lift coefficient attainable by as much as 30% – 50%, thus raising the stalling speed considerably. And because the aircraft has to fly at a greater angle of attack to maintain lift, the induced drag also increases and the aircraft continues to lose airspeed, making it impossible to sustain altitude if the stall is to be avoided. The weight of the ice is also particularly constraining.Air data probes may also iced, which leads to misleading airspeed indications.Finally, the engine air intake may also be impacted by icing, leading to a loss of power and a possible engine overheating. An aircraft is usually designed to prevent and overcome the icing phenomenon. But in rare cases, the weather conditions are beyond the aircraft qualification conditions. In 1994, an ATR72 crashed near Chicago. Holding in ice for over an hour, the ice built up to the point that the aircraft became completely uncontrollable and spiralled to the ground.

The aircraft departed Larnaca, Cyprus at 9:07am local time for a scheduled passenger flight to Athens, Greece. Shortly after departure, at 9:37am, the aircraft entered Greek airspace, and over the next 30 minutes, the crew failed to make contact with Greek air traffic control. At 10:20am, Greek air traffic controllers contacted their Cypriot counterparts, who reported that the flight crew had reported a problem with the 737's air conditioning packs shortly before entering Greek airspace. Subsequent attempts to establish contact with the flight crew failed, and at 10:55am, two Greek F-16 fighter jets were scrambled to intercept the stricken airliner. The fighter jets established visual contact with the 737 at 11:20am over the Aegean Island of Kea, and subsequently reported that the Captain was not in the cockpit, the first officer was unconscious, slumped over the flight controls, and that the cabin oxygen masks appeared to be deployed. The F-16 jets continued to follow the aircraft as it started descending and, at 12:05pm local time, crashed into arid, mountainous terrain about 19 miles north of Athens' Eleftherios Venizelos Airport. The investigation shows that the cabin pressure regulation valve (located aft the fuselage) would have remained opened. The crew would have set this valve into manual control (so, open), letting the aircraft at atmospheric pressure. The crew would have fainted before being aware of the problem. The aircraft flew until it ran out of fuel.

The aircraft was on a scheduled passenger flight from Bari, Italy to Djerba, Tunisia. While flying off the coast of Palermo, the crew reported that the twin turboprop had developed engine problems, and requested an emergency approach and landing at Palermo. But the aircraft did not reach Palermo, and crashed into the sea. Investigators have revealed that, immediately before the fatal flight, the aircraft had performed a Tunis-Bari service and landed at Bari in Italy with just 305kg of fuel in total – a level which should have triggered a low-fuel alert to the crew. But the gauge incorrectly indicated that the ATR72’s tanks contained 2,300kg. The aircraft subsequently took on just 265kg of fuel at Bari, departing for Djerba with only 570kg in total, but which showed as 2,700kg to the crew. During the flight, no low fuel warning has triggered. This was because the ATR72’s fuel warning system depended on the information from the fuel-quantity indicator, an indicator which was reading incorrectly because it was designed to be fitted only in a smaller plane: the ATR42. The turboprop suffered fuel exhaustion and the ATR72 ditched off the Sicilian coast. Among the 39 passengers and crew members onboard, 14 were killed.

The Air France Airbus A340-313 aircraft (registration F-GLZQ, serial number 0289) departed Paris, France, at 1153 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) as Air France Flight 358 on a scheduled flight to Toronto, Ontario, with 297 passengers and 12 crew members on board. Before departure, the flight crew members obtained their arrival weather forecast, which included the possibility of thunderstorms. While approaching Toronto, the flight crew members were advised of weather-related delays. On final approach, they were advised that the crew of an aircraft landing ahead of them had reported poor braking action, and Air France Flight 358's aircraft weather radar was displaying heavy precipitation encroaching on the runway from the northwest. At about 200 feet above the runway threshold, while on the instrument landing system approach to Runway 24L with autopilot and autothrust disconnected, the aircraft deviated above the glideslope and the groundspeed began to increase. The aircraft crossed the runway threshold about 40 feet above the glideslope. During the flare, the aircraft travelled through an area of heavy rain, and visual contact with the runway environment was significantly reduced. There were numerous lightning strikes occurring, particularly at the far end of the runway. The aircraft touched down about 3800 feet down the runway, reverse thrust was selected about 12.8 seconds after landing, and full reverse was selected 16.4 seconds after touchdown. The aircraft was not able to stop on the 9000-foot runway and departed the far end at a groundspeed of about 80 knots. The aircraft stopped in a ravine at 2002 UTC (1602 eastern daylight time) and caught fire. All passengers and crew members were able to evacuate the aircraft before the fire reached the escape routes. A total of 2 crew members and 10 passengers were seriously injured during the crash and the ensuing evacuation. Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors The crew conducted an approach and landing in the midst of a severe and rapidly changing thunderstorm. There were no procedures within Air France related to distance required from thunderstorms during approaches and landing, nor were these required by regulations. After the autopilot and autothrust systems were disengaged, the pilot flying (PF) increased the thrust in reaction to a decrease in the airspeed and a perception that the aircraft was sinking. The power increase contributed to an increase in aircraft energy and the aircraft deviated above the glide path. At about 300 feet above ground level (agl), the surface wind began to shift from a headwind component to a 10-knot tailwind component, increasing the aircraft's groundspeed and effectively changing the flight path. The aircraft crossed the runway threshold about 40 feet above the normal threshold crossing height. Approaching the threshold, the aircraft entered an intense downpour, and the forward visibility became severely reduced. When the aircraft was near the threshold, the crew members became committed to the landing and believed their go-around option no longer existed. The touchdown was long because the aircraft floated due to its excess speed over the threshold and because the intense rain and lightning made visual contact with the runway very difficult. The aircraft touched down about 3800 feet from the threshold of Runway 24L, which left about 5100 feet of runway available to stop. The aircraft overran the end of Runway 24L at about 80 knots and was destroyed by fire when it entered the ravine. Selection of the thrust reversers was delayed as was the subsequent application of full reverse thrust. The pilot not flying (PNF) did not make the standard callouts concerning the spoilers and thrust reversers during the landing roll. This further contributed to the delay in the PF selecting the thrust reversers. Because the runway was contaminated by water, the strength of the crosswind at touchdown exceeded the landing limits of the aircraft. . There were no landing distances indicated on the operational flight plan for a contaminated runway condition at the Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport (CYYZ). Despite aviation routine weather reports (METARs) calling for thunderstorms at CYYZ at the expected time of landing, the crew did not calculate the landing distance required for Runway 24L. Consequently, they were not aware of the margin of error available for the landing runway nor that it was eliminated once the tailwind was experienced. Although the area up to 150 m beyond the end of Runway 24L was compliant with Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices (TP 312E), the topography of the terrain beyond this point, along the extended runway centreline, contributed to aircraft damage and to the injuries to crew and passengers. The downpour diluted the firefighting foam agent and reduced its efficiency in dousing the fuel-fed fire, which eventually destroyed most of the aircraft. Findings as to Risk In the absence of clear guidelines with respect to the conduct of approaches into convective weather, there is a greater likelihood that crews will continue to conduct approaches into such conditions, increasing the risk of an approach and landing accident. A policy where only the captain can make the decision to conduct a missed approach can increase the likelihood that an unsafe condition will not be recognized early and, therefore, increase the time it might otherwise take to initiate a missed approach. Although it could not be determined whether the use of the rain repellent system would have improved the forward visibility in the downpour, the crew did not have adequate information about the capabilities and operation of the rain repellent system and did not consider using it. The information available to flight crews on initial approach in convective weather does not optimally assist them in developing a clear idea of the weather that may be encountered later in the approach. During approaches in convective weather, crews may falsely rely on air traffic control (ATC) to provide them with suggestions and directions as to whether to land or not. Some pilots have the impression that ATC will close the airport if weather conditions make landings unsafe; ATC has no such mandate. Wind information from ground-based measuring systems (anemometers) is critical to the safe landing of aircraft. Redundancy of the system should prevent a single-point failure from causing a total loss of relevant wind information. The emergency power for both the public address (PA) and EVAC alert systems are located in the avionics bay. A less vulnerable system and/or location would reduce the risk of these systems failing during a survivable crash. Brace commands were not given by the cabin crew during this unexpected emergency condition. Although it could not be determined if some of the passengers were injured as a result, research shows that the risk of injury is reduced if passengers brace properly. Safety information cards given to passengers travelling in the flight decks of Air France Airbus A340-313 aircraft (inspectors or passengers seated on the jump-seats) do not include illustrations depicting emergency exit windows, descent ropes or the evacuation panel in the flight deck doors. There are no clear visual cues to indicate that some dual-lane slides actually have two lanes. As a result, these slides were used mostly as single-lane slides. This likely slowed the evacuation, but this fact was not seen as a contributing factor to the injuries suffered by the passengers. Although all passengers managed to evacuate, the evacuation was impeded because nearly 50 per cent of the passengers retrieved carry-on baggage. Other Findings There is no indication that the captain's medical condition or fatigue played a role in this occurrence. The crew did not request long aerodrome forecast (TAF) information while en route. This did not affect the outcome of this occurrence because the CYYZ forecast did not change appreciably from information the flight crew members received before departure, and they received updated METARs for CYYZ and Niagara Falls International Airport (KIAG). The possibility of a diversion required the flight crew to check the weather for various potential alternates and to complete fuel calculations. Although these activities consumed considerable time and energy, there is no indication that they were unusual for this type of operation or that they overtaxed the flight crew. The decision to continue with the approach was consistent with normal industry practice, in that the crew could continue with the intent to land while maintaining the option to discontinue the approach if they assessed that the conditions were becoming unsafe. There is no indication that more sophisticated ATC weather radar information, had it been available and communicated to the crew, would have altered their decision to continue to land. It could not be determined why door L2 opened before the aircraft came to a stop. There is no indication that the aircraft was struck by lightning. There is no information to indicate that the aircraft encountered windshear during its approach and landing. The flight crew seats are certified to a lower standard than the cabin seats, which may have been a factor in the injuries incurred by the captain.

The aircraft was operating a passenger flight from Malabo to Bata. Shortly after takeoff, the Antonov AN-24B was on fire and lost altitude. It crashed into a jungle mountainous area, about 13 miles from Malabo. All 60 passengers and crew members were killed.

The aircraft, on a passenger flight from Khartoum to el-Fasher, crashed after having aborted the take-off run. The aircraft did not have enough distance to brake, overran the runway and came to a rest with its left side engulfed in flames. 5 out of 40 people onboard were killed.

The aircraft, on a passenger flight from Goma to Kindu, crashed into a forested cliff approximately 30 minutes after takeoff. All 27 passengers and crew members were killed.

The Fairchild Metroliner 227, on a passenger flight from Bamaga to Iron Range, crashed shortly before landing into a fog shrouded hillside surrounding the airport. The bad weather conditions could be the root cause of the accident. All 15 passengers and crew members were killed.

The aircraft was on a scheduled passenger flight from the Gulf city of Kish to Tehran. It landed on its destination airport. But due to a failure of the aircraft's landing gear, the plane wasn't able to brake correctly and ran the length of the runway, then continued several hundred metres through the grass and up to the river, which lies on the airport's perimeter. Rescued passengers said the plane had problems right from take off and landed too fast. The emergency slides did not work, and several passengers jumped out and fell three metres. Several people suffered broken arms and legs, in total 80 people got injured. Three passengers were killed after falling into the river during evacuation.

The aircraft was on a cargo flight from Mwanza Airport to Khartoum (Sudan), carrying fish fillet, when it plunged into Lake Victoria shortly after take-off. All the crew members were killed.

The aircraft, operating a cargo flight from Addis Ababa to Lome (Togo), on behalf of Ethiopian Airlines, crashed into Lake Victoria on its second landing attempt, at it was landing to refuel in Uganda. The flight was initially on an instrument approach to runway 17, but circled to land on runway 35 due to weather which consisted of rain and an 8-kilometer visibility. During the approach to runway 35, the right wing struck a rock in the lake located about 1 kilometer from the shoreline. The crew members sustained some minor injuries, and the aircraft was destroyed.