A preliminary investigation by Azerbaijan concluded that a Russian missile shot down a commercial aircraft manufactured by Embraer in Kazakhstan.
The E190-E1 aircraft operated by Azerbaijan Airlines (AZAL) was conducting a flight between Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, and Grozny, in Chechnya, southern Russia. Onboard were 67 people, 38 of whom died after the aircraft crashed into the ground in Kazakh territory, on the other side of the Caspian Sea.
Signs on the aircraft indicate external damage, allegedly caused by the proximity explosion of an anti-aircraft missile. The Azerbaijani government has reportedly confirmed that a Russian missile struck the aircraft.
The information was provided by Azerbaijani government sources to <a href="https://pt.euronews.com/2024/12/26/exclusivo-investigacao-preliminar-confirma-que-missil-russo-sobre-grozny-causou-a-queda-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Euronews</a>, which exclusively reported that the anti-aircraft system used against the E190 was a Pantsir-S, engaged in countering Ukrainian drone attacks in the same region. This aligns with the decision of <a href="https://aviacionline.com/2024/12/azerbaijan-airlines-suspends-flights-after-embraer-190-crash-in-kazakhstan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">AZAL to suspend flights to Russia following the crash of the E190</a>.
This system features 12 radar-guided anti-aircraft missiles mounted on a launcher vehicle atop a truck, which also includes two 30 mm cannons for close-range defense.
The missile can carry a fragmentation warhead that detonates near the target, releasing numerous fragments (similar to a hand grenade) to cause damage rendering the target unable to continue flying. It remains unclear how the missile failed to fully down the aircraft. One hypothesis is that there was a preemptive detonation commanded by the launch battery upon detecting that the target was not a drone but a civilian aircraft.
According to reports from our partner outlet, <a href="https://aeroin.net/missil-russo-teria-derrubado-aviao-da-embraer-segundo-governo-do-azerbaijao-afirma-jornal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">AEROIN</a>, the Pantsir system was almost acquired by Brazil in 2013, shortly after the purchase of Hind helicopters. At that time, the federal government planned to buy three batteries, each with 12 launchers, to equip one unit from each branch of the Brazilian Armed Forces, primarily to protect airspace during the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympic Games.
However, due to budget constraints, the Brazilian government canceled the purchase and opted instead for used Gepard anti-aircraft vehicles, based on the German Leopard 1 tank platform, already in use by the Brazilian Army. This system, however, lacks anti-aircraft missiles and relies solely on 35 mm cannons to neutralize targets.

Russian Missile Allegedly Downs Azerbaijan Airlines E190 in Kazakhstan: Preliminary Report

In a key development following the accident involving an <a href="https://aviacionline.com/2024/12/azerbaijan-airlines-crash-near-aktau-emergency-landing-attempt-ends-in-disaster-what-we-know/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Azerbaijan Airlines Embraer E190 near Aktau Airport</a> in Kazakhstan, search and rescue teams confirmed the recovery of at least one of the aircraft&#8217;s black boxes. These devices contain crucial data on pilot conversations and flight parameters.
The disaster, which occurred on December 25, resulted in 38 fatalities, according to Kazakhstan&#8217;s Ministry of Emergency Situations. Another 29 occupants were rushed to hospitals in the city, some in critical condition, where they continue to receive medical attention.
Rescue crews, focused on analyzing the wreckage, managed to locate the flight recorders, essential elements for clarifying the circumstances of the accident. Investigations at the site are ongoing, with efforts to collect and analyze parts of the wrecked aircraft’s structure, according to a report from our partner outlet, <a href="https://aeroin.net/caixas-pretas-sao-encontradas-e-38-mortos-sao-confirmados-no-acidente-do-embraer-e190-no-cazaquistao/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">AEROIN</a>.
The aircraft, carrying 67 people, including five crew members, made an emergency landing approximately 3 kilometers from Aktau Airport after being diverted from its original destination in Grozny due to deteriorating weather conditions.
The impact split the fuselage into two large sections, separated by about 300 meters, and caused a fire that was brought under control by firefighters roughly 30 minutes after their arrival at the scene.
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev responded promptly upon being informed of the accident, returning from a conference in St. Petersburg. Aliyev ordered the opening of a criminal investigation led by Azerbaijan&#8217;s general prosecutor&#8217;s office. According to the president&#8217;s initial statements, the aircraft changed its route due to adverse weather conditions in Grozny and was redirected to Aktau.
Aliyev emphasized that the causes of the accident remain unknown and that, while various theories are circulating, it would be premature to speculate without a thorough investigation. Meanwhile, the aircraft manufacturer, Embraer, stated that it is closely monitoring the situation and pledged full cooperation with the relevant authorities in the investigations.

Embraer E190 Crash in Kazakhstan: 38 Fatalities Confirmed, Black Boxes Recovered

Azerbaijan Airlines issued a statement today regarding flight J28243, expressing their sorrow over the incident and the 38 fatalities reported so far.
«We are deeply saddened by the incident that occurred today involving an Embraer 190 near Aktau, Kazakhstan,» the company&#8217;s statement reads.
«We extend our heartfelt condolences to the families, friends, colleagues, and loved ones affected by this incident. We are closely monitoring the situation and remain fully committed to supporting the relevant authorities,» it adds.
So far, at least 38 people have died in the Azerbaijan Airlines crash near the city of Aktau in western Kazakhstan, as confirmed by Azerbaijani authorities.
Of the remaining 29 survivors, including two children and citizens from Azerbaijan, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan, all have been hospitalized, with 11 in critical condition, according to the Russian state news agency Ria Novosti.
Despite initial reports suggesting a lower death toll, Azerbaijani Deputy Prime Minister Kanat Bozumbaev announced the official number following a meeting with officials from his country, hours after the incident.
Both pilots are among the deceased, though other victims have yet to be identified as «the bodies are in poor condition, most of them burned.»
The Embraer 190 aircraft departed from Baku bound for Grozny, the capital of the Chechen Republic in the Caucasus, as reported by the airline. However, it ended up making an emergency landing about three kilometers from the city of Aktau, on the shores of the Caspian Sea in western Kazakhstan.
The preliminary investigation, led by the Russian civil aviation authority Rosaviatsia, indicated that just a couple of hours into the flight, the aircraft began reporting problems. Due to heavy fog in Grozny, it was diverted to Makhachkala in Russia&#8217;s Dagestan region, but the route was eventually redirected toward the Aktau area. It is believed that the aircraft suffered an unspecified impact, which led to «an emergency situation on board.»

Azerbaijan Airlines issued a statement today regarding flight J28243

On a tragic Christmas morning in Central Asia, <a href="https://aviacionline.com/2024/12/azerbaijan-airlines-crash-near-aktau-emergency-landing-attempt-ends-in-disaster-what-we-know/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an Azerbaijan Airlines (AZAL) Embraer 190, operating flight J2 8243, crashed in Aktau</a>, Kazakhstan, after diverting from Makhachkala (MCX) due to low visibility at its original destination, Grozny (GRV).
The accident resulted in the deaths of 38 people, including both pilots and three cabin crew members. However, 29 passengers survived, according to Kazakhstan&#8217;s Ministry of Emergency Situations.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-350004 aligncenter" src="http://aviacionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/AZAL-2.jpeg" alt="" width="965" height="615" srcset="https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/AZAL-2.jpeg 680w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/AZAL-2-300x191.jpeg 300w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/AZAL-2-150x96.jpeg 150w" sizes="(max-width: 965px) 100vw, 965px" />
In recent hours, Russian media have raised the hypothesis that during its diversion to the second Russian airport, the aircraft might have been struck by missiles. Some images circulating on social media show damage to the rudder and rear stabilizers, which could be consistent with the impact of a missile equipped with a proximity fuse. This may have affected the aircraft&#8217;s control surfaces. However, at the time of publishing this article, local authorities have not established official causes for the accident.
In response to the incident, AZAL announced the immediate suspension of its flights to Grozny and Makhachkala, which operated two and four weekly frequencies, respectively. The company stated that this measure would remain in effect until the causes of the accident are determined.
AZAL connects fourteen Russian cities with Baku, operating up to eight daily flights, according to data from the Cirium platform. Meanwhile, UTAir will continue offering services between the Chechen Republic and Baku, being the only airline currently operating this route.

Azerbaijan Airlines Suspends Flights After Embraer 190 Crash in Kazakhstan

This December 25th at 10:28 (+05:00), flight J2 8243, operated by Azerbaijan Airlines on an Embraer 190AR, with registration 4K-AZ65, crashed near Aktau International Airport (SCO), Kazakhstan, after being diverted due to fog and subsequently due to an emergency.
The Embraer was covering the route between Baku (GYD), Azerbaijan, and Grozny (GRV), Russia. The flight proceeded normally until reaching the Russian airport, which was below minimums due to fog, forcing a diversion to Makhachkala, about 155 kilometers from Grozny.
However, for reasons under investigation, a second emergency forced the aircraft to cross the Caspian Sea and divert 445 kilometers to Aktau.
According to Flightradar24, during the last 74 minutes of the flight, the application recorded erratic readings of the Embraer’s speed, altitude, and trajectory, although it cannot rule out that the data was affected by intense GPS signal interference in the area. One hour after declaring an emergency, the aircraft attempted to land at Aktau for the first time without success and, in an attempt to return to the airport, crashed near a densely populated area.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-350005 aligncenter" src="http://aviacionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/AZAL.jpeg" alt="" width="1170" height="1665" srcset="https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/AZAL.jpeg 1170w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/AZAL-211x300.jpeg 211w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/AZAL-632x900.jpeg 632w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/AZAL-768x1093.jpeg 768w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/AZAL-1079x1536.jpeg 1079w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/AZAL-150x213.jpeg 150w" sizes="(max-width: 1170px) 100vw, 1170px" />
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-350003 aligncenter" src="http://aviacionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/azal-3.jpeg" alt="" width="1170" height="1143" srcset="https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/azal-3.jpeg 1170w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/azal-3-300x293.jpeg 300w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/azal-3-921x900.jpeg 921w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/azal-3-768x750.jpeg 768w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/azal-3-150x147.jpeg 150w" sizes="(max-width: 1170px) 100vw, 1170px" />
Several witnesses managed to film the final moments of the flight, observing that the aircraft was in a stabilized approach and in the last stage descended at a steep angle at low altitude, first impacting with its right wing. It then flipped, exploded, and broke into two major pieces.
“Onboard were 67 people, including 62 passengers and 5 crew members. There were no children onboard; information about the victims will be provided soon. According to preliminary information, there are survivors who are receiving first aid,” declared Azerbaijan Airlines.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-350004 size-full" src="http://aviacionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/AZAL-2.jpeg" alt="" width="680" height="433" srcset="https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/AZAL-2.jpeg 680w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/AZAL-2-300x191.jpeg 300w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/AZAL-2-150x96.jpeg 150w" sizes="(max-width: 680px) 100vw, 680px" />
Due to the impact, the rear fuselage detached from the rest of the Embraer; as a result, 32 passengers were rescued alive with varying degrees of injuries. However, both pilots, three cabin crew members, and 30 passengers have died, according to the General Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of Azerbaijan.
Law enforcement authorities in Russia, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan have opened criminal investigations into the crash. In Azerbaijan, in addition to charges related to safety violations, a case has been opened for negligence. A 48-hour mourning period has been declared in both Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan.
In some Russian media, a hypothesis has begun to circulate suggesting that during its diversion to the second Russian airport, the aircraft was attacked by missiles. Some images circulating on social media of the tail and rear stabilizers appear consistent with the impact of a missile with a proximity fuse, which could affect the aircraft&#8217;s control surfaces. However, as of the publication of this article, local authorities have not established potential causes for the crash.
Developing story

Azerbaijan Airlines Crash Near Aktau: Emergency Landing Attempt Ends in Disaster: What We Know

The Center for Investigation and Prevention of Aeronautical Accidents (CENIPA) received a report about an incident involving a GOL Linhas Aéreas aircraft that performed an abnormal landing during a regular flight.
The incident involved a Boeing 737-800, registered under the tail number PR-GUI, which was operating flight G3-1344, transporting passengers between Congonhas Airport, in São Paulo, and Hugo Cantergiani Airport, in Caxias do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, last Tuesday (17), reported <a href="https://aeroin.net/cenipa-recebe-reporte-de-incidente-em-que-boeing-737-da-gol-tocou-a-pista-bruscamente-no-pouso/">Aeroin</a>.
<h5>Trajectory of the aircraft involved in the incident – Image: AirNav</h5>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-349987 size-full" src="http://aviacionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/IMAGE325632.jpg" alt="" width="752" height="524" srcset="https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/IMAGE325632.jpg 752w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/IMAGE325632-300x209.jpg 300w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/IMAGE325632-150x105.jpg 150w" sizes="(max-width: 752px) 100vw, 752px" />
According to information from CENIPA and additional data from AirNav, the aircraft departed from the São Paulo capital at 12:26 a.m. (local time) and traveled without incidents until landing, when it had a hard contact with the runway surface.
CENIPA classified the event as an “ABNORMAL CONTACT WITH THE RUNWAY” incident, with no damage to third parties. Despite the impact, the aircraft continued taxiing to the parking area on its own, with no further issues reported.
Data from AirNav indicates that the aircraft remained on the ground for approximately two hours before taking off again to São Paulo, completing the trip without major complications.

GOL Flight G3-1344 Reports Abnormal Runway Contact During Landing

An Emerald Airlines aircraft, operating for Aer Lingus, experienced the collapse of its nose landing gear during a landing at Belfast City Airport. The incident occurred around 4:00 PM when the aircraft, arriving from Edinburgh, was conducting a positioning flight with no passengers on board. All four crew members were uninjured.
Adverse weather conditions, including strong winds, contributed to a hard landing that caused the collapse of the nose landing gear. As a result, the aircraft came to a stop on the runway, leading to the airport&#8217;s closure for the rest of the day. This caused delays and flight diversions to other airports, such as Belfast International Airport, which quickly reached its maximum capacity.
Emerald Airlines, which has been operating Aer Lingus&#8217; regional routes since 2022, confirmed that there were no passengers on board at the time of the incident and that the four crew members are safe. Airport authorities urged passengers to contact their airlines for updated information regarding their flights. Emergency services remained on-site to manage the situation and ensure safety at the airport.
Cover image: Michail Savekin

Aer Lingus ATR Suffers Landing Gear Collapse in Belfast: What We Know

Two aviators from the United States Navy are safe after their F/A-18F Super Hornet, a two-seat fighter jet, was mistakenly shot down by the missile cruiser USS Gettysburg (CG-64), according to a statement issued by the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) on Saturday night.
The incident occurred while the Super Hornet, assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), was flying over the Red Sea. According to the statement, the cruiser fired at the aircraft by mistake in a case of friendly fire.
«Both aviators [a pilot and a WSO &#8211; Weapon Systems Officer] were safely recovered. Initial assessments indicate that one of the crew members sustained minor injuries,» the CENTCOM statement said, adding that the incident was not the result of hostile fire and that a full investigation is already underway.
<h3>Incident details</h3>
The event took place around 3 a.m. local time on Sunday, or 7 p.m. Saturday on the U.S. East Coast. According to official sources, the Super Hornet was assigned to Carrier Air Wing One, embarked on the USS Truman. Although the statement did not specify the squadron, the only F/A-18F two-seat squadron aboard the carrier is the Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 11, known as the «Red Rippers,» based at Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia.
The USS Truman strike group is part of the Operation Guardian of Prosperity, a U.S.-led mission to protect merchant traffic in the Red Sea from Houthi attacks originating in Yemen. As part of this operation, U.S. forces have intercepted drones, guided missiles, and ballistic missiles launched by the Houthis.
The same weekend, CENTCOM forces carried out deliberate strikes in Sana’a, Yemen&#8217;s capital, targeting missile storage facilities and command-and-control centers. These strikes aim to disrupt and degrade Houthi operations, including those targeting warships and merchant vessels in the Red Sea, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and the Gulf of Aden.
<h3>USS Gettysburg&#8217;s responsibility</h3>
The USS Gettysburg, based at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, is part of the USS Truman strike group and entered the Red Sea last week. As the air defense commander of the group, the cruiser is responsible for detecting and neutralizing threats to the carrier and its escorts.
Equipped with over 100 vertical launch cells for interceptor missiles, the Gettysburg plays a key role in air defense. However, the type of weapon used in this incident has not yet been disclosed.
The USS Truman and its strike group, which departed Norfolk on September 23, previously operated in the Atlantic near Norway and the United Kingdom before arriving in the Red Sea.
<h3>Official CENTCOM statement</h3>
In the official statement, CENTCOM confirmed that «two aviators from the United States Navy safely ejected over the Red Sea in the early hours of December 22 when their F/A-18 was shot down in an apparent case of friendly fire.»

U.S. F/A-18F Super Hornet Shot Down by Friendly Fire Over the Red Sea

The Malaysian government has approved in principle a new agreement with the U.S.-based company Ocean Infinity to restart the search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, which disappeared more than 10 years ago in one of modern aviation&#8217;s greatest mysteries.
Flight MH370, a Boeing 777 carrying 239 people, vanished on March 8, 2014, while en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. Despite extensive international efforts, only isolated debris from the plane has been found on African coasts and Indian Ocean islands.
According to Malaysian Transport Minister Anthony Loke, the new agreement will follow a «no find, no fee» model. Ocean Infinity will only receive a $70 million compensation if it successfully locates significant wreckage of the plane. «Our responsibility is to the victims&#8217; families. We hope this time the results will be positive and that we can provide them with closure,» Loke said at a press conference.
<h3>A new search area</h3>
The identified search area covers 15,000 square kilometers in the southern Indian Ocean, a region defined after new data analysis by experts and Ocean Infinity. Although the exact location has not been disclosed, operations are expected to begin between January and April 2025, according to the minister.
Ocean Infinity had previously participated in a 2018 search but yielded no results. This time, the company has improved its technology and is confident about the chances of locating the wreckage. «The data presented has been evaluated by our team and is considered credible,» Loke added.
<h3>The pain of the families</h3>
Jiang Hui, whose mother was on the flight, welcomed the decision but criticized the time taken to resume operations. «We hope the Malaysian government adopts a more open approach, such as offering public rewards to encourage more parties to participate in the search,» he said.
A report published in 2018 about the plane&#8217;s disappearance concluded that the Boeing 777&#8217;s controls were likely deliberately manipulated to divert it from its route, but it failed to determine who was responsible. Investigators emphasized that solving the mystery depends on finding the plane&#8217;s wreckage.

Malaysia Approves New Search for Missing Flight MH370 After a Decade

In the afternoon of December 18, a Bombardier Challenger 300 with registration LV-GOK veered off the runway after landing at San Fernando Airport (SADF/FDO), in the northern part of Greater Buenos Aires. Preliminary information indicates that after leaving the runway, it collided with a house located outside the airport perimeter.
The aircraft had departed from Punta del Este Airport (Uruguay) around noon. The number of people on board has not yet been confirmed.<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-349287 aligncenter" src="http://aviacionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Captura-de-pantalla-2024-12-18-150813.png" alt="LV-GOK" width="1461" height="744" srcset="https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Captura-de-pantalla-2024-12-18-150813.png 1461w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Captura-de-pantalla-2024-12-18-150813-300x153.png 300w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Captura-de-pantalla-2024-12-18-150813-768x391.png 768w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Captura-de-pantalla-2024-12-18-150813-150x76.png 150w" sizes="(max-width: 1461px) 100vw, 1461px" />
The cause of the accident is still unknown and the airport&#8217;s manoeuvring area was initially closed until midnight.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-349286 aligncenter" src="http://aviacionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Captura-de-pantalla-2024-12-18-150345.png" alt="NOTAM San Fernando" width="1223" height="193" srcset="https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Captura-de-pantalla-2024-12-18-150345.png 1223w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Captura-de-pantalla-2024-12-18-150345-300x47.png 300w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Captura-de-pantalla-2024-12-18-150345-768x121.png 768w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Captura-de-pantalla-2024-12-18-150345-150x24.png 150w" sizes="(max-width: 1223px) 100vw, 1223px" />
After that NOTAM, The airport will remain closed until 23:55 UTC on December 18.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-349289 aligncenter" src="http://aviacionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Captura-de-pantalla-2024-12-18-151639.png" alt="" width="1202" height="532" srcset="https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Captura-de-pantalla-2024-12-18-151639.png 1202w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Captura-de-pantalla-2024-12-18-151639-300x133.png 300w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Captura-de-pantalla-2024-12-18-151639-768x340.png 768w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Captura-de-pantalla-2024-12-18-151639-150x66.png 150w" sizes="(max-width: 1202px) 100vw, 1202px" />
The National Civil Aviation Administration (ANAC) confirms that there were two crew members on board who would be deceased.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
We report that at 13:18 (local time) today, at San Fernando Airport (SADF), the aircraft with registration LV-GOK, operated by New Lines S.A., which departed from Punta del Este Airport (SULS), Uruguay, with two crew members on board, was involved in an accident.
— ANAC (@ANACargentina) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANACargentina/status/1869446607718261174?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 18, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Developing story.

San Fernando Airport Closed After Bombardier Challenger 300 Crash: What We Know

Following the accident involving the <a href="https://aviacionline.com/2024/11/azimuth-airlines-sukhoi-superjet-100-caught-fire-in-antalya-what-we-know/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Superjet 100 on November 24 in Antalya</a>, Russian authorities Rostransnadzor and Rosaviatsia identified more than 20 violations concerning operational safety and aircraft maintenance by Azimuth Airlines, according to a report by <a href="https://iz.ru/1808854/vladimir-gavrilov/letatelnyj-iskhod-u-azimuta-vskryli-massovye-narusheniia-v-bezopasnosti-poletov" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Izvestia</a>.
Among the detected irregularities were concealment of overweight landings, allowing flights without required maintenance, and the use of uncertified tools for repairs. Additionally, the airline fails to adequately oversee the quality of maintenance work and improperly records the results.
12% of landings performed by SSJ-100 aircraft in 2024 included runway bounces after initial contact, a phenomenon known as «bucking.» This type of maneuver can cause structural damage to aircraft and highlights deficiencies in pilot training. In six flights, overloads exceeded 2g with excessive vertical speeds, yet these were not recorded as «hard landings» in the airline&#8217;s reports.
Records indicate that maintenance tasks were incomplete or carried out hastily. For instance, landing gear maintenance was completed in just 6.5 minutes, violating airworthiness directives. Critical inspections were also skipped, such as checking the bolts securing windshield pressure plates, which should be conducted every 500 flight cycles.
The airline underestimated the duration of flight shifts by omitting mandatory medical exams, increasing the workload for pilots. At least 17 cases related to this practice were identified.
As of 2024, Azimuth has recorded one accident and at least 24 incidents classified by Rosaviatsia, 75% of which were related to technical issues. Common failures include depressurization, landing gear issues, and hydraulic failures. Additionally, more than 150 technical events causing delays were documented, including aborted takeoffs and returns to the ramp.
<h3>Consequences and corrective measures</h3>
Following the inspection results, two SSJ-100 aircraft were temporarily grounded but have since returned to service after repairs. Rosaviatsia stated that the identified violations are exclusively related to Azimuth&#8217;s operational procedures and not to design flaws in the Superjet 100.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-93781 aligncenter" src="http://aviacionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/новость_сайт.jpg" alt="" width="1181" height="762" srcset="https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2021/07/новость_сайт.jpg 1181w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2021/07/новость_сайт-300x194.jpg 300w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2021/07/новость_сайт-1024x661.jpg 1024w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2021/07/новость_сайт-768x496.jpg 768w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2021/07/новость_сайт-696x449.jpg 696w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2021/07/новость_сайт-1068x689.jpg 1068w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2021/07/новость_сайт-651x420.jpg 651w" sizes="(max-width: 1181px) 100vw, 1181px" />
However, aviation safety experts such as Andrey Patrakov from RunAvia criticize the lack of a transparency culture in Russian aviation and the absence of a state safety program compliant with ICAO standards. Since 2015, Russia has not implemented a comprehensive policy aligned with this organization&#8217;s recommendations, a situation exacerbated by international sanctions and the dual registration of aircraft.
<h3>Reactions and next steps</h3>
Rostransnadzor issued orders to correct the violations and is currently overseeing their implementation along with Rosaviatsia. According to sources from the Ministry of Transport, Azimuth&#8217;s flight director could face dismissal as a result of the investigations.
With the new Federal Aviation Rules (FAR-367 «Part 145») set to take effect in March 2025, maintenance standards across the Russian aviation industry are expected to improve. However, experts note that unless effective preventive measures are adopted, issues like those identified at Azimuth will continue to jeopardize operational safety.

Safety Breaches at Azimuth Airlines: Russian Authorities Uncover Critical Maintenance Failures

An Airbus A350 from Aeroflot, operating flight SU236 from Moscow Sheremetyevo to Goa, experienced a failure in its in-flight entertainment system (IFE) during the journey. Although the situation was minor, it caused inconvenience for passengers and required technical intervention after landing.
The incident occurred mid-flight, near rows 13 to 30, when a burning wire smell was detected in the cabin. The crew, suspecting the source was the entertainment system, decided to disable the IFE as a precautionary measure. After this action, the smell disappeared, and the flight continued its route normally.
Upon landing at Manohar International Airport in Goa, engineers carried out the necessary inspections and proceeded to disconnect the entertainment system, following the guidelines of the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) to ensure the aircraft&#8217;s operational safety.
The flight was carrying 239 passengers, who experienced no major inconveniences since the incident occurred close to the destination. However, the issue caused discomfort on the return flight to Moscow, where the entertainment system remained inactive, leaving passengers without access to movies or content for the entire journey.
The aircraft in question, an Airbus A350 registered as RA-73154, has been part of Aeroflot&#8217;s fleet since 2021, when it was received from Aurum Leasing under the registration VP-BXA. Although the failure of the entertainment system did not compromise flight safety, it highlights the importance of maintenance and monitoring of electrical systems during long-haul operations, particularly within the context of Russian commercial aviation, which has been impacted by Western sanctions.
So far, Aeroflot has not issued an official statement regarding the cause of the failure or the expected timeframe to resolve the problem with the affected system.

Smoke in the cabin on an Aeroflot Airbus A350: What We Know

The LATAM aircraft that suffered a tailstrike during takeoff in Italy will remain grounded for several more months due to the completion of repair tasks. The Boeing 777-300ER, registration PT-MUG, which prematurely took off from Milan last July after the pilots incorrectly entered data, has not performed commercial flights since returning from Italy after undergoing provisional repairs.
After five months of inactivity, the aircraft will remain at least three more months in LATAM&#8217;s hangar at Guarulhos International Airport to complete repairs, according to the company&#8217;s CEO, Jerome Cadier.
In an interview with <a href="https://valor.globo.com/empresas/noticia/2024/12/15/atrasos-na-cadeia-de-peas-para-avies-devem-piorar-antes-de-melhorar.ghtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Valor Econômico</a>, the executive mentioned the various challenges LATAM is facing due to supply chain delays, both for new aircraft and for parts intended for planes already in operation.
Jerome explained that, in a pre-pandemic scenario, this type of repair on the 777 would take about three months, meaning the aircraft would have been back in service by last October. However, due to current supply chain issues, the timeline has been extended to March 2025, resulting in a total of eight months without operating commercial flights, representing a significant loss for the company.
According to our partner outlet in Brazil, <a href="https://aeroin.net/boeing-777-da-latam-que-foi-danificado-na-italia-ficara-fora-de-operacao-ate-marco/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">AEROIN</a>, this same 777 was involved in another incident in December 2018, when, during a flight between São Paulo and London, a short circuit occurred, forcing the Boeing to make an emergency landing in Confins. The aircraft was significantly overweight for landing, necessitating repairs that, at that time, took 40 days.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Here&#8217;s PT-MUG of LATAM (<a href="https://twitter.com/LATAMAirlines?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@LATAMAirlines</a>) which had a tail strike at Milan Malpensa some days before. Currently, it is on its way back to Sao Paulo and seems like a new tail skid system is attached.
via <a href="https://twitter.com/airwaysmagazine?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@airwaysmagazine</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/airways?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#airways</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/tailstrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#tailstrike</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/malpensa?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#malpensa</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/latam?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#latam</a> <a href="https://t.co/bOGtqD5E7P">pic.twitter.com/bOGtqD5E7P</a>
— Shyam Vimal Kumar (@ShyamVimalKumar) <a href="https://twitter.com/ShyamVimalKumar/status/1812494586897420764?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 14, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

LATAM Boeing 777 Tailstrike Repairs: Aircraft Grounded Until March 2025

On December 16, 1960, a mid-air collision over New York became one of the deadliest aviation disasters in U.S. history, claiming 134 lives and marking a turning point in air traffic control systems and aviation safety.
This was, until 1968, the aviation accident with the highest number of fatalities worldwide and the first to result in the complete destruction of a DC-8.
<h3>The collision</h3>
United Airlines flight 826, a Douglas DC-8 (registration N8013U and named «Mainliner Will Rogers»), en route from Chicago to Idlewild Airport (now John F. Kennedy International Airport), collided with Trans World Airlines (TWA) flight 266, a Lockheed L-1049 Super Constellation (Star of Sicily, N6907C), traveling from Dayton, Ohio, to LaGuardia Airport. The collision occurred at 10:33 a.m. over Staten Island amid dense cloud cover, which reduced visibility and complicated navigation.
The DC-8, flying at 557 km/h, was 19 kilometers off its assigned route due to a navigation error. It struck the fuselage of the Constellation, tearing off its right wing.
The investigation revealed that the DC-8 lost much of its right wing and one engine but remained airborne for another 90 seconds.
<figure id="attachment_348890" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-348890" style="width: 1188px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="http://aviacionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/NYAirDisasterMap-vector.svg_.png"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-348890" src="http://aviacionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/NYAirDisasterMap-vector.svg_.png" alt="Source: Civil Aeronautics Board via Wikimedia Commons" width="1198" height="1025" srcset="https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/NYAirDisasterMap-vector.svg_.png 1198w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/NYAirDisasterMap-vector.svg_-300x257.png 300w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/NYAirDisasterMap-vector.svg_-1052x900.png 1052w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/NYAirDisasterMap-vector.svg_-768x657.png 768w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/NYAirDisasterMap-vector.svg_-150x128.png 150w" sizes="(max-width: 1198px) 100vw, 1198px" /></a><figcaption id="caption-attachment-348890" class="wp-caption-text">Source: Civil Aeronautics Board via Wikimedia Commons</figcaption></figure>
<h3>Immediate consequences</h3>
The Constellation crashed on Staten Island, instantly killing all 44 passengers and crew onboard. Some debris from the aircraft fell into New York Harbor.
<figure id="attachment_348895" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-348895" style="width: 470px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="http://aviacionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Photo_of_TWA_Flight_266_crash_site_2.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-348895" src="http://aviacionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Photo_of_TWA_Flight_266_crash_site_2.jpg" alt="Wreckage of TWA's Super Constellation (Source: FAA)" width="480" height="288" srcset="https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Photo_of_TWA_Flight_266_crash_site_2.jpg 480w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Photo_of_TWA_Flight_266_crash_site_2-300x180.jpg 300w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Photo_of_TWA_Flight_266_crash_site_2-150x90.jpg 150w" sizes="(max-width: 480px) 100vw, 480px" /></a><figcaption id="caption-attachment-348895" class="wp-caption-text">Wreckage of TWA&#8217;s Super Constellation (Source: FAA)</figcaption></figure>
Meanwhile, the DC-8, carrying 84 people, spiraled uncontrollably into a residential area in Park Slope, Brooklyn, destroying several buildings. Six people on the ground also perished, raising the total death toll to 134.
<figure id="attachment_348894" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-348894" style="width: 495px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="http://aviacionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Photo_of_United_826_crash_site_2.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-348894" src="http://aviacionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Photo_of_United_826_crash_site_2.jpg" alt="Wreckage of United Airlines' DC-8" width="505" height="512" srcset="https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Photo_of_United_826_crash_site_2.jpg 505w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Photo_of_United_826_crash_site_2-296x300.jpg 296w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Photo_of_United_826_crash_site_2-96x96.jpg 96w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/Photo_of_United_826_crash_site_2-150x152.jpg 150w" sizes="(max-width: 505px) 100vw, 505px" /></a><figcaption id="caption-attachment-348894" class="wp-caption-text">Wreckage of United Airlines&#8217; DC-8 (Source: FAA)</figcaption></figure>
Eyewitnesses described scenes of chaos and horror. Flames engulfed rows of buildings, and debris from both aircraft was scattered across streets and rooftops. Rescue efforts were hindered by the intensity of the fires and the freezing December temperatures. Initially, only one passenger from both planes survived the impact: Stephen Baltz, an 11-year-old traveling alone on the DC-8, but he sadly passed away the following day.
<h3>Impact on aviation safety</h3>
The tragedy highlighted the need to improve air traffic control and navigation systems. At the time, controllers largely relied on pilot-reported positions and rudimentary radar systems, which were inadequate for managing the increasing volume of air traffic. This accident spurred a comprehensive reform of the U.S. air traffic management system, accelerating the adoption of radar-based systems and stricter aircraft separation rules.
The then Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) outlined key steps to enhance and strengthen air traffic control system efficiency:
<ol>
<li>A special regulation (SR-445) was issued requiring pilots operating under instrument flight rules (IFR) to report in-flight failures of navigation or communication equipment.</li>
<li>A program was established requiring all turbine-powered aircraft to be equipped with distance measuring equipment (DME) by January 1, 1963. A year later, all aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight over 12,500 pounds had to have this equipment installed.</li>
<li>Radar transfer service for arriving and departing aircraft in the New York area was expanded compared to pre-accident levels. Nationally, full-time radar transfer service also increased significantly.</li>
<li>Controllers were instructed to issue advisories to incoming jet aircraft to reduce their speed to the appropriate holding pattern at least three minutes before reaching the holding fix.</li>
<li>The name and identification signal of the Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania VOR (SSB) were changed to Taunersville (TVE) due to potential confusion with the Solberg VOR (SBJ).</li>
<li>A speed rule was enacted prohibiting aircraft from exceeding 250 knots within 30 nautical miles of a destination airport and below 10,000 feet, except when tactical aircraft safety requirements mandated a higher minimum speed, which would then apply.</li>
</ol>
<figure id="attachment_348902" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-348902" style="width: 2038px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="http://aviacionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/radar-trafico-aereo-1950-estados-unidos.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-348902" src="http://aviacionline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/radar-trafico-aereo-1950-estados-unidos.jpg" alt="Air traffic control radar display in the 1950s in the United States (Source: FAA)" width="2048" height="1365" srcset="https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/radar-trafico-aereo-1950-estados-unidos.jpg 2048w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/radar-trafico-aereo-1950-estados-unidos-300x200.jpg 300w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/radar-trafico-aereo-1950-estados-unidos-1350x900.jpg 1350w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/radar-trafico-aereo-1950-estados-unidos-768x512.jpg 768w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/radar-trafico-aereo-1950-estados-unidos-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://aviacionlinecdn.eleco.com.ar/media/2024/12/radar-trafico-aereo-1950-estados-unidos-150x100.jpg 150w" sizes="(max-width: 2048px) 100vw, 2048px" /></a><figcaption id="caption-attachment-348902" class="wp-caption-text">Air traffic control radar display in the 1950s in the United States (Source: FAA)</figcaption></figure>
On March 8, 1961, President Kennedy directed FAA Administrator Najeeb Halaby to conduct a scientific and technical review of aviation facilities and research and development programs, aiming to design a long-term plan to ensure efficient and safe air traffic control in the United States.
In response, the FAA formed the Project Beacon task force, which released its report on September 11, 1961 (a striking coincidence of dates). This document emphasized the need for substantial improvements to address projected aviation growth and recommended a significant reorientation of modernization efforts initiated in 1957. Among the key proposals was the use of an Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon System (ATCRBS) and increased use of general-purpose computers.
Following the 1956 mid-air collision over the Grand Canyon (also involving United Airlines and Trans World Airlines), significant advances had already been made in air traffic control procedures and the broader use of radar for flight surveillance. However, the system still relied heavily on crew navigation to position aircraft in assigned airspace and on flight position reports for controllers to prevent collisions. During the United 826 and TWA 266 accident, the system could not independently determine altitudes, and it was assumed that flights would adhere to received instructions.
The Project Beacon report recommended the implementation of secondary radar, which uses aircraft-installed transponders to transmit unique codes and altitude information, enabling continuous tracking.
The proposed ATCRBS system offered significant improvements by providing 4,096 unique codes and altitude reporting, simplifying controllers&#8217; tasks and enhancing system efficiency. These recommendations were quickly adopted following President Kennedy&#8217;s directive on November 7, 1961.
Despite the tragedy, this accident drove key reforms that significantly improved global aviation safety. It underscored the importance of advanced air traffic control technology and preventive measures, helping transform modern air travel.

Tragedy in the Skies Over New York: 64 Years Since the Accident That Marked a Turning Point in Air Traffic Control

New data from the investigation into an incident that occurred in August 2023 during a Delta flight from Milan to Atlanta, which encountered severe turbulence about 40 minutes before landing, show that injured passengers were not wearing seatbelts, resulting in multiple injuries.
According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the eleven passengers injured during the incident did not have their seatbelts fastened, despite the seatbelt signs being on.
Flight DL-175, operated by an Airbus A350-900, had departed Milan with a delay of over three hours and crossed the Atlantic without issues. However, upon approaching Atlanta, the aircraft encountered turbulence that caused some passengers to be thrown from their seats, resulting in spinal fractures and other injuries, according to details from our partner outlet, <a href="https://aeroin.net/turbulencia-severa-de-2-segundos-deixou-passageiros-com-fratura-na-coluna-e-outros-feridos-no-aviao/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">AEROIN</a>.
Among the injured, two passengers suffered severe spinal fractures, while other victims were treated for neck sprains.
The two cabin crew members who were seriously injured were diagnosed with compression fractures in their spines and broken ribs. Neither of them was seated at the time of the incident, as they were preparing the cabin for arrival.
Other crew injuries included neck and ankle sprains, knee pain, and a concussion.
The flight captain reported noticing areas of rain along the approach route that could cause issues and requested to deviate from the path, but air traffic control in Atlanta denied the request.
Although the radar and systems used by the pilots did not indicate bad weather along the assigned route, the turbulence caught everyone by surprise. The turbulence lasted only 12 seconds, with just 2 seconds classified as severe, but this was enough to cause multiple injuries.
Following the incident, the pilots declared a medical emergency, and the aircraft was met by rescue teams at the gate in Atlanta, where eleven people had to be hospitalized.
NTSB investigations indicate that turbulence-related injuries are more likely during the descent phase of a flight.
Accident data from 2009 to 2018 showed that 36% of turbulence-related injuries occur during this phase, and 65% of these accidents happen when the aircraft is below 20,000 feet. In the case of flight DL-175, the aircraft was at 14,000 feet when it encountered severe turbulence.
<h4>The seatbelt: ALWAYS fastened</h4>
This incident serves as a fresh reminder to passengers of two important points: first, always follow cabin crew instructions; and second, even when the seatbelt signs are turned off, you should keep your seatbelt fastened, as there is never a guarantee of being free from turbulence risks. This is especially critical on long-haul flights where passengers may fall asleep and miss new warnings from the crew.
While this flight had no fatalities, there have been many cases where passengers have not been as fortunate.
The air transport industry has been working for years to prevent turbulence-related incidents. While technology has advanced significantly in recent decades, the threat remains. In 2018, IATA launched the <a href="https://www.iata.org/en/services/data/safety/turbulence-platform/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Turbulence Aware</a> platform, allowing airlines to share real-time turbulence information, helping them avoid such phenomena when planning flights.
According to <a href="https://www.iata.org/en/services/data/safety/turbulence-platform/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IATA</a>, the challenges of turbulence management will grow as climate change continues to impact weather patterns.
During the IATA Media Day held last Tuesday in Geneva, the organization reported that the program recently added six more airlines, including Asiana Airlines, British Airways, Scoot, and Singapore Airlines. Currently, more than 25 airlines are participating, with a combined fleet of 2,500 aircraft, providing approximately 38 million turbulence reports in 2023.

Why Seatbelts Matter: Delta Flight Turbulence Leaves Passengers and Crew Injured

Two new incidents of verbal and physical assaults against <a style="color: #ff0000;" href="http://www.avianca.com">Avianca</a> employees in Cartagena and San Andrés this week have reignited the airline&#8217;s call for authorities to strengthen measures against disruptive passengers. These behaviors not only pose a risk to the safety of air operations but also directly affect crew members, passengers, and the overall travel experience.
<article>
<section>Avianca reports that 402 cases of disruptive passengers have been recorded in 2024, a 16% increase compared to the 347 incidents recorded in 2023. This figure also represents a 118% increase compared to 2022, reflecting the growing frequency of these behaviors in the aviation industry. Among the recent incidents, one stands out that occurred on September 18 on flight AV256, covering the Bogotá-Cancún route. An Argentine passenger physically and verbally assaulted a crew member, leading to his arrest in Mexico. This incident forced the cancellation of the return flight AV257, affecting 111 passengers and incurring costs exceeding USD 30,000 for the airline.</section>
<section></section>
<section>Another case took place on flight AV249 (Bogotá-Sao Paulo), which had to return to its origin after two passengers threw a cell phone, causing the device to overheat and jeopardizing the flight&#8217;s safety.
</section>
<section>The airline has been firm in rejecting any form of aggression, whether physical or verbal, towards its staff or customers. It also reiterated its request to authorities, especially the <a href="https://www.aerocivil.gov.co/">Civil Aeronautics</a>, and other entities to strengthen sanctions against disruptive passengers, including the possibility of prohibiting or suspending their right to fly.</section>
<section>
“The reporting and penalization of these acts are essential steps to protect safety and confidence in air operations. It is necessary for the competent authorities to strengthen control and sanction mechanisms to preserve the integrity and peace of mind of passengers, as well as our crews and airport staff,” said Paola Villota, Vice President of Human Management at Avianca.</section>
<section></section>
<section>
<h4>Impact on the industry</h4>
Disruptive incidents not only pose operational risks but also generate significant costs for airlines and disrupt passengers&#8217; travel plans. According to experts, the implementation of stricter sanctions would help deter such behaviors, preserving the safety and well-being of the industry.
Avianca continues to work closely with authorities to implement stricter measures to protect its crews, passengers, and operations. For the company, air safety remains an absolute priority, and these efforts aim to ensure that air transport remains a safe and reliable means for everyone.
</section>
</article>

Air Safety at Risk: Avianca Faces Rising Cases of Passenger Misconduct

On November 10, 2024, a Boeing 727-227 from Aerosucre, registered as HK5216, suffered a serious incident while taking off from El Dorado International Airport in Bogotá, Colombia. According to the preliminary report by the Directorate of Aircraft Accident Investigation (DIACC), the aircraft struck an antenna of the Instrument Landing System (ILS), causing structural damage, although all five occupants were unharmed.
<article>
<section>The aircraft was carrying 19,323 kilograms of cargo to Valencia, Venezuela, and performed a rolling takeoff from runway 14L under tailwind conditions of 9 knots. It used the entire length of the runway before rotation and subsequently struck an antenna located 300 meters beyond the threshold of runway 32R. After the impact, the crew decided to return to the airport, landing safely on runway 14R.</section>
<section></section>
<section>Post-landing inspections revealed damage to the landing gear, the leading edge of the left slat, the inboard flap, and other structures of the left wing. A burst tire on the main landing gear was also confirmed.</section>
<section></section>
<section>The report indicates that the use of the «Improved Climb Takeoff» procedure under tailwind conditions and with a high weight may have contributed to the incident. This procedure, designed to improve the initial climb gradient, increases the takeoff distance required—a critical factor at high-altitude airports like El Dorado. The Improved Climb Takeoff is a technique used when the most restrictive limitation is in the second segment of the climb. It allows for a steeper ascent, making it useful in airports with obstacles, high altitude, or noise restrictions.</section>
<section></section>
<section>
<h4>Safety recommendations</h4>
<ul>
<li>Prohibit takeoffs with tailwinds when using procedures such as «Improved Climb Takeoff.»</li>
<li>Enhance pilot and dispatcher training in operational performance analysis.</li>
<li>Conduct more rigorous and frequent inspections of operators flying aircraft like the Boeing 727.</li>
</ul>
</section>
<section>The DIACC is collaborating with international organizations such as the U.S. NTSB and Brazil’s CENIPA to analyze flight recorder data and determine the definitive causes of the incident. The final conclusions will be included in the investigation&#8217;s final report.</section>
</article>

Preliminary Report: Aerosucre Boeing 727’s Serious Incident at Bogotá Airport

The Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) reported that at 10:05 am (local time) this Wednesday (12), a Boeing 737-400 (SF) belonging to Allied Air Cargo, registered as 5N-JRT, skidded off runway 22 of Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport (NAIA) in Abuja, veering into a muddy area within the perimeter.
According to initial reports, but subject to investigations by the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) and the Nigerian Safety Investigation Bureau (NSIB), the landing gear of the Boeing 737 failed, and as the aircraft veered off the runway, the landing gear fully collapsed, leaving the fuselage tilted.
The five crew members were evacuated and underwent medical evaluations at Nigerian Air Force (NAF) medical unit 063.
The accident forced the closure of Abuja’s sole runway, causing cancellations and delays at Nigeria’s second most important airport.
Airport authorities are working to remove the damaged aircraft and inspect the runway for potential damage to resume regular flights.
This is not the first accident under similar circumstances involving the cargo airline. In 2012, Flight 111, operated by a Boeing 727 cargo aircraft, overran the runway at Accra (ACC), Ghana, breached the airport perimeter, and collided with a minibus, resulting in the instant deaths of all ten passengers aboard the vehicle.
The investigation concluded that the primary cause was pilot error during a manual landing under adverse conditions when an instrumental landing should have been executed. Additionally, the captain landed 4,000 feet beyond the runway threshold and failed to deploy the aerodynamic brakes.
Story in development

Accidents and Incidents