Military cargo plane, fighter jet collide near Salton Sea

Image
Image
https://twitter.com/JakeKESQ/status/1311095116140933120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311095116140933120%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fcalifornia%2Fstory%2F2020-09-29%2Fmilitary-cargo-plane-fighter-jet-collide-near-salton-sea

A military KC-130 cargo plane collided with a fighter jet Tuesday afternoon over Imperial County, according to the United States Marine Corps and the California Highway Patrol.

At about 4 p.m., an F-35B jet made contact with the cargo plane during an air-to-air refueling effort, causing the jet to crash, the Marine Corps said in a statement. The jet’s pilot – its sole occupant – ejected from the craft and is being treated for injuries that are not life threatening, 1st Lt. Brett Vannier said.

The cargo plane made an emergency landing in a nearby farm area and is now at an airport in Thermal. All eight crew members of the cargo plane are safe, Vannier said.

Emergency personnel were on the scene. KYMA-TV reported that there were fires around the site of the crash.

Link: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-29/military-cargo-plane-fighter-jet-collide-near-salton-sea

Date:Tuesday 29 September 2020
Time:ca 16:00
Type:
Lockheed KC-130J Hercules
Operator:United States Marine Corps
Registration:166765
C/n / msn:5565
First flight:
Crew:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 8
Passengers:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0
Total:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 8
Aircraft damage:Substantial
Location:near Salton City, CA (   United States of America)
Phase:En route (ENR)
Nature:Military
Departure airport:?
Destination airport:?

Narrative:
A U.S. Marine Corps Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II made contact with a Lockheed KC-130J Hercules (166765) during air-to-air refueling. The F-35B pilot successfully ejected and the aircraft crashed. The KC-130J made a forced gear-up landing in a carrot field near Thermal, California.

The KC-130J was attached to the Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 352 (VMGR-352) out of MCAS Miramar, California. Photos of the aircraft show substantial damage to the no. 3 and 4 engines; all propeller blades had separated. The refueling pod mounted between engines no.3 and 4 had separated.

Link: https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20200929-0

Helikopter yang Hilang Kontak di Papua Ditemukan, Seluruh Kru Selamat

tampak yang dilingkari merah merupakan lokasi pendaratan darurat helikopter milik PT. NUH yang hilang kontak di Paniai, sejak Kamis (17/9/2020), Papua, Jumat (18/9/2020)
tampak yang dilingkari merah merupakan lokasi pendaratan darurat helikopter milik PT. NUH yang hilang kontak di Paniai, sejak Kamis (17/9/2020), Papua, Jumat (18/9/2020)(Dok Humas Polda Papua)

JAYAPURA, KOMPAS.com – Helikopter milik PT National Utility Helicopters (NUH) yang hilang kontak setelah lepas landas dari Bandara Nabire pada Kamis (17/9/2020), telah ditemukan. Namun, hingga kini, tim gabungan yang diturunkan belum bisa mengevakuasi para kru helikopter tersebut, karena faktor cuaca. Kabid Humas Polda Papua, Kombes AM Kamal menuturkan, tim evakuasi yang terbang di lokasi tempat munculnya sinyal emergency locator transmitter (ELT).

Ketika tiba di lokasi, ditemukan tanda-tanda kehidupan dan tim yang melakukan pengecekan berhasil melakukan kontak dengan para kru.

“Pencarian mulai dilakukan pukul 08.23 WIT menggunakan pesawat heli dari PT Intan Angkasa Air Services registrasi PK-IWV, lalu sekitar pukul 10.00 WIT posisi ditemukan pada koordinat 5l3.33.3 S, 136:9.28 E pada cekungan sungai,” ujar Kamal, di Jayapura, Jumat (18/9/2020).

“Tim SAR pertama yang menemukan langsung bisa kontak, tapi tidak ada tempat darurat untuk mendarat,” sambung dia. Kamal memastikan, ketiga kru Helikopter tersebut selamat. “Pesawat mendarat darurat, pilot, copilot dan kru selamat.

Sekarang tim sedang dalam proses evakuasi korban, tapi tergantung dari cuaca di sekitar lokasi,” kata Kamal. Dari laporan tim evakuasi yang berjumlah empat orang tersebut, terlihat kondisi helikopter dalam keadaan baik. Hanya posisi heli tidak dalam keadaan tegap. “Kondisi heli masih utuh tapi dalam posisi jatuh, diperkirakan karena tempat pijakannya lembek,” kata dia. Menurut Kamal, saat ini Tim SAR tengah berusaha meminta bantuan dari PT Freeport yang memiliki peralatan penyelamatan lebih lengkap. “Sedang meminta bantuan dari Tim SAR PT Freeport yang memiliki peralatan lebih lengkap,” kata dia.

Sebelumnya, satu unit helikopter milik PT National Utility Helicopters (NUH) dilaporkan hilang kontak ketika terbang dari Bandara Nabire, Papua. Kepala Bandara Nabire, M Nafiq menuturkan, helikopter yang membawa tiga orang di dalamnya tersebut, hilang kontak sejak pukul 10.16 WIB atau 12.06 WIT. Namun, ada sinyal darurat yang dikeluarkan oleh heli tersebut dan sudah terdeteksi oleh emergency group di Jakarta.

Artikel ini telah tayang di Kompas.com dengan judul “Helikopter yang Hilang Kotak di Papua Ditemukan, Seluruh Kru Selamat”, Klik untuk baca: https://regional.kompas.com/read/2020/09/18/13405591/helikopter-yang-hilang-kotak-di-papua-ditemukan-seluruh-kru-selamat?page=all#page2.
Penulis : Kontributor Jayapura, Dhias Suwandi
Editor : Robertus Belarminus

Helikopter Milik PT NUH Hilang Kontak dalam Penerbangan dari Nabire Papua

DSCF0056
Foto helikopter jenis Bell 212 dengan registrasi PK-USS dari weblog
https://donibrahimovic.wordpress.com/2016/08/07/catatan-perjalanan-carstensz-pyramid/

Jayapura – 

Satu unit helikopter milik PT National Utility Helicopters (NUH) dilaporkan hilang kontak ketika terbang dari Bandara Nabire, Papua. Kepala Bandara Nabire, M Nafiq menjelaskan, helikopter yang membawa tiga orang itu hilang kontak sejak pukul 10.16 WIB atau 12.06 WIT.

“Kita masih cek di lokasi, sudah ada sinyal emergency yang keluar. Tapi sinyal emergency itu bisa sengaja dihidupkan atau karena tabrakan, itu yang kita belum tahu,” ujar Nafiq saat dihubungi, Kamis (17/9/2020).

Nafiq belum bisa memastikan dimana titik sinyal darurat yang dikeluarkan oleh helikopter PT NUH itu. Titik koordinatnya juga belum diketahui.

“Tadi kita sudah berangkatkan satu pesawat untuk mengecek lokasi itu, hanya cuaca mendung jadi kita tidak tahu apa bisa terlihat atau tidak. Kalau belum bisa, kita tunggu besok pagi atau siang kalau cuacanya bagus karena sekarang mendung, awannya rendah sekali. Kalau dipaksakan malah membahayakan yang nyari karena itu daerah pegunungan,” sambung Nafiq.

Menurut dia, helikopter tersebut bisa saja melakukan pendaratan darurat karena kondisi cuaca atau ada gangguan pada mesin pesawat. Nafiq mengatakan hal itu biasa dilakukan apabila helikopter membutuhkan lahan terbuka untuk mendarat.

“Heli itu biasanya kalau ada tempat terbuka saat cuaca buruk dia mendarat sementara, karena mungkin dia tidak sempat kasih tahu dia nyalakan sinyal daruratnya supaya stationnya tahu dia ada di posisi itu, semoga itu yang terjadi,” tutur Nafiq.

Hely bell 212 milik PT NUH, menurut Nafiq tengah mengangkut kargo berupa bahan makanan. Rute penerbangan heli tersebut ada di sekitar Nabire hingga Paniai.

“Di dalam heli ada tiga orang dan infonya mereka bawa kargo bahan makanan. Heli itu terbang di satu area pegunungan, jadi dia mampir-mampir, satu hari itu dia terbang di area itu,” kata Nafiq.

Dari informasi yang didapat, heli milik PT NUH terbang dari Nabire menuju kawasan Baya Biru, Kabupaten Paniai.

Link : https://news.detik.com/berita/d-5177045/helikopter-milik-pt-nuh-hilang-kontak-dalam-penerbangan-dari-nabire-papua

B763, Halifax NS Canada, 2019, Loss of Control During Roll Out

Contents

Description

On 4 March 2019, the crew of a Boeing 767-300 (C-FTCA) being operated by Air Canada on a scheduled domestic passenger flight from Toronto International to Halifax International as AC614 were unable to maintain directional control of their aircraft as it slowed after a night touchdown in normal ground visibility and were unable to stop it performing a slow 180° rotation during which the nose gear departed the runway paved surface before the aircraft came to a stop facing the runway landing threshold with all the landing gear on the runway. There were no injuries and inspection of the aircraft showed it was undamaged.

Investigation

An Investigation was carried out by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) focusing primarily on the procedures associated with ensuring that active runways at Halifax were fit for use during adverse weather conditions and that the communications in that respect with aircraft landing there were also adequate. The performance of the flight crew of the aircraft involved was not examined.

What Happened

On reaching the destination vicinity, the weather was below the applicable approach minima for the runway in use so the aircraft entered a holding pattern to await the forecast improvement. After a little over half an hour, the expected improvement had occurred and radar vectors for an approach to runway 32 were given. Following a frequency change from Moncton Centre to the Halifax Terminal, the crew were advised of a just-issued SPECI which gave the prevailing visibility as (equivalent to) 1600 metres in light freezing drizzle and mist with the vertical visibility 200 feet agl and temperature and dew point both -1 °C. The controller also gave the current surface wind velocity as 350° at 20 gusting 30 knots and offered the option of a landing on Runway 23 which had just become available after snow clearance and was longer (2682 metres) than runway 32 (2347 metres) and for which a Cat 2 ILS approach was available. Despite given surface wind representing a crosswind component of between 17 and 26 knots and a tailwind component of 10-15 knots, the crew decided to take this option and the controller then passed them the most recent Runway Surface Condition (RSC) report for the runway to both the 767 crew and the crew of an Embraer aircraft (type not specified) that was number 1 for a 23 approach. This gave almost the full 61 metres width as 20% compacted snow, 80% bare and wet and the edges as 70% wet snow to a maximum height of 25mm and 30% bare and wet. It was noted that “based on this RSC, a Canadian Runway Friction Index was not provided, nor was one required”.

The Embraer aircraft landed four minutes later and its crew then advised the Halifax TWR controller that “we had the field at 300 feet, braking action was very poor, actually” and subsequently after being transferred to GND advised that the runway was “very, very icy, it’s basically a skating rink“. The TWR controller relayed the comments received from the Embraer crew after landing on runway 32 to a DHC-8 which was on approach to Runway 32 as “lights in sight at 300 feet and braking action poor on Runway 23” and then called the Halifax Terminal controller and said that the pilot of the Embraer aircraft had said that “the runway is a skating rink” and that “he barely got stopped by the end of the runway”. The Terminal controller then called the 767 crew and passed on the information provided by the Embraer crew as runway in sight at 300 feet but “the 23 rollout had been very slippery, he barely got stopped towards the end of it”.

Shortly after this, the 767 was transferred to TWR and after they had checked in, the controller asked the crew of the DHC-8 which had just landed on runway 32 for comments and the response included that “braking was good for them but they could see how it was slippery”.

The 767 was then cleared to land on Runway 23 and given a spot wind of 350° at 24 – 31 knots, with instructions to exit the runway at its end. The aircraft subsequently touched down “within the first third of the runway at an airspeed of about 140 knots” and the crew initially used full reverse and auto-braking having understood from ATC “that it was the end portion of the runway that was slippery”. However, as the speed decreased and reverse thrust was reduced, braking action became nil and as it reached about 15 knots, the aircraft began to slide. As it began to ‘weathervane’ due to the effect of the crosswind component, the Captain reported that in the absence of any steering authority, he had attempted to use asymmetric reverse thrust to correct this but the crosswind had “pushed the aircraft sideways, causing the nose wheel to roll into the snow off the right edge of the runway”. This led to the remaining forward motion of the aircraft to be translated into a slow clockwise rotation as the man gear lost traction on the icy runway and it eventually came to a stop facing in the opposite direction to landing with all the landing gear still on the runway paved surface. The aircraft was subsequently found to be undamaged and there were no occupant injuries. The passengers were disembarked to buses and taken to the terminal.

An aerial view showing the landing direction and (inset) the position of the stopped aircraft. [Reproduced from the Official Report]

Meanwhile, three minutes after the 767 event had led to the closure of runway 23, an Airbus 320 successfully completed a landing on Runway 32, but was unable to taxi off it until sand and chemicals had been applied because of ice covering the surfaces of both the runway and the exit taxiway. Runway 32 was subsequently reopened almost two hours later. After release by the TSB (at an unspecified time), the 767 aircraft was subsequently towed off the runway and runway 23 was also reopened.

The aircraft after coming to a stop. [Reproduced from the Official Report]

The Prevailing Weather and Runway Surface Conditions

Four aspects of the prevailing conditions and the airport’s response to them were reviewed:

  • Forecast and Actual Weather Conditions

It was noted that the TAF for Halifax current at the time of the investigated event was valid for 24 hours from 4½ hours prior to the event. For the period around the occurrence time, it gave the surface wind as 360°/15 knots, visibility (equivalent to) 2400 metres in light drizzle and mist and cloud overcast at 400 feet with a TEMPO (temporary) of visibility (equivalent to) 4,800 metres in light rain and mist with cloud overcast at 800 feet.

However, the actual weather was not as good as had been forecast. The METAR issued half an hour prior to the event gave the wind as 320°/19 knots, visibility (equivalent to ) 400 metres and a RVR for runway 23 (equivalent to) 1067 metres in light drizzle and fog with a vertical visibility of just 100 feet. The SPECI issued nine minutes later then gave the wind as 320° 24-29 knots, the visibility (equivalent to) 2,000 metres and a runway 23 RVR in the range (equivalent to) 900 -1,800 metres in light freezing drizzle and mist with the cloud overcast at 200 feet. Just before the 767 touched down, another SPECI gave the wind as 330° 24-31knots, visibility 3,200 metres with the overcast now at 400 feet agl. This second SPECI also recorded a drop in the surface temperature and dew point from the earlier -1°C to -2°C and a third SPECI five minutes later recorded a further drop of both to -3°C.

  • ATC Relays of Pilot Reports of Braking Action

The standard phraseology for the communication of runway braking action was noted as being ‘good’, ‘medium’ or ‘poor’ whereas after their landing on runway 32, the Embraer crew advised ATC of “very poor” braking action and further stressed this in plain language. It was noted that although NAV Canada permits its controllers to use plain language to relay information, the sense of the message must not be altered and in this case, subsequent relays to the 767 crew had not mentioned that “very” poor braking action had been reported or included any reference to the “skating rink” analogy used by the reporting crew.

  • The Airport Response to Runway Contamination by Frozen Deposits

It was noted that the responsibilities of the airfield maintenance crew on shift at Halifax included the removal of frozen deposits from runways as required and these crews are managed by an Airfield Maintenance Supervisor (AMS). Shift change time was scheduled for the same time as the 767 landed. It was found that “approaching the end of each shift, there is a period of time when the departing crew is preparing the equipment for use by the next crew (during which) the airfield may be unattended for up to 30 minutes”.

On the day of the investigated event, snow in the morning had changed to freezing rain and then rain in the afternoon and since the temperature was expected to drop below freezing in the evening, a second airfield maintenance crew was called in to assist. By early afternoon, the two crews had cleared most of the width of runway 32 to “70% bare and damp” and had begun removing snow from Runway 23 in anticipation that the forecast weather for later in the day would favour it for landing. An hour prior to the 767 landing, the duty AMS issued an RSC report which included that there were windrows of snow on either edge of runway 23 and was told by the Airport Duty Manager (ADM) that these would have to be removed before the runway could be reopened to aircraft. This was achieved after a further half hour and was communicated in another RSC report at 1808, removing the windrows comment and increasing the available width of the 61 metre-wide runway by 6 metres to 48 metres and it was then re-opened. At about this time, airfield maintenance crew day shift “was returning to the maintenance building to prepare the vehicles for the night shift”.

  • The Halifax Runway Weather Information System

The Runway Weather Information System in use at the time of the investigated event consisted of 6 sensors, 3 embedded in the centreline of each runway which detected atmospheric conditions and relayed them in real time to computer screens in the offices of the AMS and the ADM and made them accessible on the AMS’s PED as long as it was refreshed manually to ensure that the most current conditions were shown.

A little under half an hour before the time of the airfield maintenance crew shift change (and the 767 landing), the runway weather information system’s status changed from ‘wet’, which indicates the presence of a continuous film of moisture on the surface of the sensor with temperature above 0°, to ‘ice warning’ which indicates that there is a continuous film of ice and water mixture at or below 0°C with insufficient chemical present to keep the mixture from freezing.

During this time, it was found that “the ADM had not been available to monitor the conditions” and that “the AMS was returning from the airfield, issuing his revised RSC and preparing for shift change”. As a result, this important change in system status “went unnoticed”.

Three Safety Messages were formally documented upon completion of the Investigation as follows:

  • To ensure the accuracy of Runway Safety Condition (RSC) reports, it is important that a comprehensive runway inspection be performed before a report is issued, especially in times of changing weather.
  • Monitoring the airfield at all times is important, particularly during rapidly changing weather, when runway surface conditions can deteriorate quickly.
  • The use of standard phraseology between pilots and air traffic controllers may help reduce the likelihood of misunderstanding the degree to which a runway may be contaminated.

Safety Action taken as a result of the occurrence by the Halifax International Airport Authority was noted as having included the following:

  • Implementation, effective for the next winter season, of a mandatory briefing checklist to ensure that the off-going Airfield Maintenance Supervisor properly briefs their incoming replacement during shift changeovers in inclement weather.
  • Selection of a single weather forecast and observation website for use by Airfield Maintenance Supervisors to be accessed via cellular-enabled tablets mounted in their vehicles to ensure they are all using the same weather information provider.
  • Installation of an improved runway weather information system which doubles the number of sensors on the airfield and is designed to automatically refresh on the portable electronic devices used by Airfield Maintenance Supervisors.

The Final Report of the Investigation was authorised for release on 2 October 2019 and it was officially released on 9 October 2019. No Safety Recommendations were made.

Link: https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/B763,_Halifax_NS_Canada,_2019?utm_source=SKYbrary&utm_campaign=227751b05b-%23684+Are+Safety+Management+Systems+failing+to&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e405169b04-227751b05b-276643500

Report: ATR 72-600 crew in Taiwan excursion incident did not see centreline on touchdown

Silhouette image of generic AT76 model; specific model in this crash may look slightly different
Date:20-APR-2019
Time:21:19 LT
Type:
ATR 72-600 (72-212A)
Owner/operator:Far Eastern Air Transport
Registration:B-28082
C/n / msn:1464
Fatalities:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 76
Other fatalities:0
Aircraft damage:None
Category:Serious incident
Location:Taichung-Ching Chuan Kang Airport (RMQ/RCMQ) –    Taiwan
Phase:Landing
Nature:Passenger – Scheduled
Departure airport:Magong Airport (MZG/RCQC)
Destination airport:Taichung-Ching Chuan Kang Airport (RMQ)
Investigating agency: TTSB

Narrative:
Far Eastern Air Transport scheduled passenger flight FE3060, an ATR 72-600 aircraft, registration B-28082, took off at
20:52 local time from Penghu Airport to Taichung International Airport, with the captain, the first officer, 2 cabin crews and 72 passengers on board.
The crew completed the approach briefing and descent preparations at about 21:03 hours and started to descend. They executed the runway 36 ILS approach at Taichung Airport. After the plane passed through Changhua, the flight crew found thunderstorms with lighting in front of the route and the destination airport. After discussion, they judged that this situation would not change shortly, while could contact the ground, the flight crew believed that the visibility would be acceptable.

At 21:18 hours, the aircraft landed on runway 36 at Taichung Airport and deviated from the runway during the landing roll. The aircraft and runway facilities were not damaged and the persons on board were safe.

Findings Related to Probable Causes
1. The flight crew did not fully correct the aircraft’s left deviation before landing. They did not see the centerline and touched down on the left side of the runway. The appropriate wet runway landing techniques was not applied, and the flight crew did not properly correct the aircraft’s left deviation tendency after landing.

Weather about the time of the incident (1319Z):
RCMQ 201221Z 31007KT 0800 R36/1600D -RA VCTS BR SCT004 BKN008 FEW016CB OVC020 23/23 Q1009 NOSIG RMK A2981 TS SW MOV VRBL
RCMQ 201300Z 34008KT 0600 R36/1400N RA VCTS FG SCT004 BKN008 FEW016CB OVC020 23/23 Q1010 BECMG 0300 RA VCTS FG RMK A2983 RA AMT 4.0MM TS S STNRY
RCMQ 201404Z 05003KT 0600 R36/1400U TSRA SCT004 BKN008 FEW016CB OVC020 23/22 Q1010 NOSIG RMK A2985 TS SW MOV E
Sources:
Accident investigation:

Investigating agency:  TTSB
Status: Investigation completed
Duration: 1 year and 3 months
Download report:  Final report

Link: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/224218

Hong Kong Express investigates ground collision of two aircraft at Hong Kong International Airport

Luckily both aircraft were empty at the time. Photo credit: Getty Images
  • Luckily both aircraft were empty at the time.

Many of us know how expensive a nose-to-tail can be in a car, but imagine the cost when two multi-million dollar aircraft collide.

That’s the case for airline Hong Kong Express, which has had two of its Airbus A321 aircraft collide on the tarmac at Hong Kong International Airport.

The crew of the aircraft registered as ‘B-LEF’ probably couldn’t believe what had happened when its tug drove the A321 into the back of ‘B-LEG’, which was parked at a gate at the time.

“While a Hong Kong Express aircraft without passengers onboard was being towed on the taxiway by ground handling staff of China Aircraft Services Limited, it collided with a parked aircraft, also of the same airline,” the airline spokesperson said.
“The airline is currently communicating with its service provider and undertaking a detailed investigation of the incident.

“Both aircraft were damaged.”

Local police confirmed they were called to Chek Lap Kok following the incident which took place before 10am on Wednesday (local time) and would be submitting a report to the Civil Aviation Department.

“There was a minor collision between two aircraft and no casualties were reported,” a police spokesperson told the South China Morning Post.

The handling of the aircraft by the contracted third party was forming part of the airline’s investigation.

Hong Kong Express is a low-cost airline and operates single-class economy aircraft, the total capacity of the Airbus A321s is around 230 passengers.

Link: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2020/08/hong-kong-express-investigates-ground-collision-of-two-aircraft-at-hong-kong-international-airport.html

Report: Boeing 747-400 nearly hit the ground after descending below MDA at Tokyo-Haneda Airport

Silhouette image of generic B744 model; specific model in this crash may look slightly different
Aircraft Photo of HS-TGX | Boeing 747-4D7 | Thai Airways International | AirHistory.net #261293
Date:11-APR-2018
Time:23:50 LT
Type:
Boeing 747-4D7
Owner/operator:Thai Airways International
Registration:HS-TGX
C/n / msn:27725/1134
Fatalities:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 384
Other fatalities:0
Aircraft damage:None
Category:Serious incident
Location:8km northeast of Tokyo International Airport/Haneda (HND/RJTT) –    Japan
Phase:Approach
Nature:Passenger – Scheduled
Departure airport:Bangkok Suvarnabhumi Airport (BKK/VTBS), Thailand
Destination airport:Tokyo International Airport/Haneda (HND/RJTT), Japan
Investigating agency: JTSB

Narrative:
A Boeing 747-400 of Thai Airways International, operating flight THA/TG660 from Bangkok/Suvarnabhumi, Thailand to Tokyo/Haneda, Japan, experienced “Too Low” EGPWS warning during a night time approach to runway 16L of Haneda.

The flight was cleared for a VOR A approach for runway 16L after DARKS arrival. The aircraft arrived from the east and after passing over DARKS, aircraft have to cross SAZAN at or above an altitude of 1,100 ft while descending at a bearing of 274 ° toward Haneda VOR/DME (HME), and enter a circling approach (down-wind leg of runway 16L) after visually recognizing runway 16L and with turning to the right. Normally, pilots visually select a route in circling approach and approach landing runway. However, noise abatement procedures require aircraft to fly along or inside a specified course for landing on runway 16L.

In circling, MDA is established as a minimum altitude applied until commencing visual descending for landing. MDA in this approach procedure is 760 ft.

TG660 howefer, immediately began turning on the down-wind leg of runway 16L directly after crossing SAZAN, which was outside the specified approach procedure.
Both the PIC and the FO then visually recognized lights that appeared to be the approach guidance lights ahead in the left. The PIC commenced the base turn by turning left in an attempt to enter inside the designated course using the landmark beacon as a reference because the PIC realized that the aircraft was off the designated course.
The FO performed altiude an call-out passing over 500 ft. The PIC continued the approach saying, “Check, continue” in response to the call-out of the FO because runway was always visible.

Tokyo Tower then radioed : “Your altitude is too low, confirm, do you have runway 16L insight?”. Flight 660 responded saying, “Negative”.

Due to the low altitude, the PIC could not visually the recognize approach light beacon of runway 16L which was blocked by the container piers ahead on the left and lost sight of runway 16L.

Two seconds later the EGPWS caution “TOO LOW TERRAIN” was enunciated at an altitude of 304 ft (93 m).
The flight reported to Tokyo Tower “Now going around”. The lowest altitude the aircraft recorded was 282 ft (86 m).
The Boeing executed a go-around, and made a safe landing on runway 22 about 15 minutes later at 00:04 LT of 12 April.

Similar incident has happened on 22 December 2016, i.e. an A320-214 of Peach Aviation aligned wrong runway 23 of Haneda during a VOR A approach for runway 16L after DARKS arrival.

PROBABLE CAUSES
In this serious incident, it is probable that the Aircraft maneuvered an emergency operation to avoid crash into the ground because it came close to the ground surface in approach to Runway 16L at Tokyo International Airport.

It is probable that coming close to the ground was caused by the PIC’s concentration on modifying the lateral flight path continuing descent without paying an appropriate attention to the descent path, and by the FO’s unawareness of the too low descent path due to his concentration on monitoring the lateral path course.

Weather about the time of the serious incident (23:50 LT/14:50Z)
RJTT 111400Z 17014KT 9999 FEW015 SCT035 BKN050 18/15 Q1009 TEMPO 20018G28KT
RJTT 111500Z 19013KT 9999 FEW015 SCT025 BKN060 19/15 Q1009 NOSIG

Sources:
http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/detail2.php?id=2211
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/tg660#1100c236

Accident investigation:

Investigating agency: JTSB
Status:Investigation completed
Duration:2 years and 3 months
Download report:  Final report

Link: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/209441

Incident: Canadian North DH8A near Calgary on Jul 23rd 2020, hydraulic leak

A Canadian North de Havilland Dash 8-100, registration C-GRGO performing flight 5T-1797 from Edmonton,AB to Calgary,AB (Canada) with 11 passengers and 3 crew, was enroute at 12,000 feet when the crew received a #1 ISO VLV (Left hand Isolation Valve) indication, confirmed a partial loss of hydraulic quantity on the #1 system and worked the related checklists. The crew declared emergency and continued for a safe landing at Calgary about 18 minutes later.

Link: http://avherald.com/h?article=4daac48f&opt=0

Link: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/MPE1797/history/20200724/0000Z/CYEG/CYYC

Incident: Alkan D228 at Coffee Creek on Jul 22nd 2020, drum roll on touchdown

An Alkan Air Dornier Do-228, registration C-FUCN performing a flight from Whitehorse,YT to Coffee Creek Airstrip,YT (Canada) with 7 passengers and 2 crew, touched down at Coffee Creek Airstrip when the right main gear struck one of the fuel drums at the runway edge marking the touch down zone, the fuel drum subsequently struck the right side of the fuselage and the right horizontal stabilizer. The aircraft rolled out without further incident. There were no injuries, the aircraft received minor damage.

The Canadian TSB reported: “Subsequent to the occurrence, the fuel drums were replaced with high visibility plastic cones and the vegetation near the edge of the airstrip was cut to provide better visibility of the new touchdown zone markers.”

Link: http://avherald.com/h?article=4daac59c&opt=0

A fuel truck rammed an Aeroflot Airbus A321 at Sheremetyevo

The roof of the tanker is crumpled. The aircraft was also damaged. The fuel truck driver was injured.

Бензовоз протаранил самолет Аэрофлота Airbus A321 в Шереметьево
In Sheremetyevo, a fuel tanker rammed a plane

At Sheremetyevo airport, a fuel tanker collided with an Aeroflot Airbus A321.

The pictures published on the Web show that the roof of the tanker is crumpled. The aircraft was also damaged.

According to the press service of the airport, the liner was in a remote parking lot without a crew and passengers on board.

According to the emergency services, the driver of the refueling car was injured.

The incident at the airport occurred at 5.49 am on August 1. The plane was parked without a crew and passengers on board.

“The car and the aircraft are damaged, there are no casualties. The event did not affect the functioning of the airport … The circumstances and causes of the event are being established, ”the press service of Sheremetyevo said.

The footage shows that the fuel truck drove into the nose of the aircraft. Serious damage appeared on the front of the fuselage, as reported, the liner had to be temporarily suspended from flights.

More details on Courier.Sreda.Berdsk: https://kurer-sreda.ru/2020/08/01/587010-benzovoz-protaranil-samolet-aeroflota-airbus-a321-v-sheremetevo