These are your stories for today...
Be safe out there!
Tom
Smoke in cockpit forces Budapest-Lyon flight's emergency landing in Austria
Story by Reuters
VIENNA (Reuters) - Smoke in the cockpit
forced a plane carrying 143 passengers and six crew to the eastern French city of Lyon from Budapest to make an emergency landing in Graz, Austria's second city, Austrian police said on Monday.
"No people were injured in the incident. The cause of the smoke is currently unclear," police in the Austrian state of Styria, of which Graz is the capital, said in a statement.
The statement did not specify which airline the plane belonged to but the only flight from Budapest on Monday listed on Lyon-Saint Exupery airport's website was EasyJet flight 4400.
EasyJet's website said the flight was diverted to Graz and landed there at 3:25 p.m. (1325 GMT). It also listed a "follow-on flight" to Lyon from Graz scheduled for 5 p.m. but estimated to depart at 9:45 p.m.
Flight tracking website Flightradar24, which EasyJet features on its website, said the plane that landed in Graz was an Airbus 319.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/smoke-in-cockpit-forces-budapest-lyon-flights-emergency-landing-in-austria/ar-AA1GnN1s#:~:text=VIENNA%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20Smoke,Austrian%20police%20said%20on%20Monday.&text=%22No%20people%20were%20injured%20in%20the%20incident.
Six Killed in Small Plane Crash off San Diego Coast
By JOSH FUNK Associated Press
A small plane crashed off the San Diego coast shortly after takeoff, killing all six people on board, the Federal Aviation Administration said Monday.
The twin-engine Cessna 414 crashed at around 12:30 p.m. Sunday, the FAA said. The plane was returning to Phoenix one day after flying out from Arizona, according to the flight tracking website Flightaware.com.
The Coast Guard said searchers found a debris field later Sunday about 5 miles (8 kilometers) off the coast of Point Loma, a San Diego neighborhood that juts into the Pacific, U.S. Coast Guard officials. The water in the search area is about 200 feet (61 meters) deep.
Although the FAA said all six people on board the plane were killed, authorities haven’t identified them.
The FAA said the plane is owned by vitamin and nutritional supplement maker Optimal Health Systems. But the company based in Pima, Arizona, said in a statement that it sold the plane to a group of private individuals in 2023, meaning the FAA database could be out of date.
However, the company’s founder, Doug Grant, said in the statement that, “We personally know several of the passengers onboard and our sincerest condolences are offered to those affected by the tragedy, all of whom are incredible members of our small community.”
The FAA referred questions about the plane’s ownership to the National Transportation Safety Board, which didn’t immediately provide any further details about the crash.
The pilot told air traffic controllers that he was struggling to maintain his heading and climb as the plane twice turned towards shore before going back out to sea, according to audio posted by www.LiveATC.net and radar data posted by FlightAware. The controller urged the pilot to climb to 4,000 feet after he reported the plane was only about 1,000 feet in the air.
The controller directed the pilot to land at a nearby U.S. naval airport on Coronado Island, but the pilot said he was unable to see the airport. A short time later, the pilot repeatedly signaled the “Mayday” distress call before controllers lost radar contact.
A man who was out surfing when the plane crashed told NBC 7 in San Diego that he saw the plane come down at an angle, then climb back into the clouds before diving again and crashing into the water.
“The next time he came out of the clouds, he went straight into the water. But after I saw this splash, about six seconds later, it was dead silent. I knew that they went in the water, nose first, at a high speed,” Tyson Wislofsky said.
The crash comes weeks after a small Cessna crashed into a San Diego neighborhood in foggy weather and killed six people.
Santiago Airport: Latam Asunción plane canceled takeoff due to engine fire
Latam Airlines Paraguay stated that "flight LA1325 scheduled for today, June 9, 2025, which was scheduled to operate the Santiago de Chile-Asunción route at 2:30 p.m., had to be canceled due to a technical event occurring during the initial takeoff process." It added that "all applicable safety protocols were applied, and the plane returned to the gate, with all passengers disembarking."
Patricia Schüller Gamboa
The General Directorate of Civil Aeronautics (DGAC) reported that a Latam plane bound for Asunción, Paraguay, canceled its takeoff on Monday afternoon due to an engine fire.
Through its X account, the DGAC detailed that the “pilot of Latam Paraguay flight 1325 bound for #Asunción, canceled takeoff due to an engine fire.”
Faced with this situation, the Arturo Merino Benítez Airport Fire and Rescue Service applied the emergency procedure . In addition, the passengers had to be disembarked.
Meanwhile, Latam Airlines Paraguay stated that “flight LA1325 today, June 9, 2025, which was to operate the Santiago de Chile – Asunción route at 2:30 p.m., had to be canceled because a technical event occurred during the start of the takeoff process.”
Along with this, they indicated that "all corresponding safety protocols were applied, and the plane returned to the gate, and all passengers deplane."
"Latam Airlines Paraguay regrets any inconvenience this situation may cause to its passengers' schedules and informs them that they have already been rebooked on another flight scheduled for today," they added.
NTSB Final Report: Arthur B Canning Merlin Lite
Contributing To The Outcome Was The Pilot’S Failure To Maintain Airspeed And His Exceedance Of The Motorglider’S Critical Angle Of Attack
Location: Mulberry, Florida Accident Number: ERA24FA160
Date & Time: April 2, 2024, 10:38 Local Registration: N622PC
Aircraft: Arthur B Canning Merlin Lite Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Defining Event: Loss of engine power (total) Injuries: 1 Fatal
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General aviation - Personal
Analysis: The kit manufacturer manager reported that the accident flight was the pilot/builder’s second flight in the motorglider (file photo, below), the first of which was two days before the accident. A witness at the airport reported seeing the pilot taxi for takeoff and that the engine sounded “a bit rough,” but due to the nature of the small two-stroke engine he was not concerned. The witness reported that the motorglider took off and, when it reached about 100 ft to 150 ft above ground level (agl), the engine sputtered then went silent. Video footage showed that when the motorglider was about midfield, it turned right, then left, then pitched up before the left wing dropped and the motorglider began a near-vertical left rotating descent to ground impact consistent with a low-altitude stall and spin.
Postaccident examination of the motorglider revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the flight controls or airframe that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of the engine revealed that the original airbox had been replaced with an unrestricted cone-type air filter. The main carburetor jet had also been replaced with a smaller jet, which would have resulted in the engine running slightly lean (the builder had reported that he thought the engine had been running too rich). Additionally, a hole was noted in the center of the engine’s single piston. A metallurgical examination of the piston revealed light gray deposits covering portions of the crown surface around the hole.
The piston crown had features consistent with pre-ignition damage. This damage was likely the result of an excessively lean mixture due to the unrestricted air intake and smaller main jet. The hole in the piston would have resulted in a total loss of engine power. The distance from the accident site to the end of the available grass area was about 1,300 ft.
The kit manufacturer reported that the motorglider’s typical landing roll was about 200 ft or less. Had the pilot aggressively lowered the nose of the motorglider to maintain airspeed following the loss of engine power, it is likely that he could have avoided the low altitude aerodynamic stall/spin and landed within the remaining available runway.
Probable Cause and Findings: The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be -- The pilot/builder’s modifications of the motorglider’s engine, which resulted in an excessively lean fuel air mixture, preignition, piston failure, and a subsequent total loss of engine power during the initial climb. Contributing to the outcome was the pilot’s failure to maintain airspeed and his exceedance of the motorglider’s critical angle of attack following the loss of engine power, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall/spin at an altitude too low to recover.
FMI: www.ntsb.gov
Today in History
17 Years ago today: On 10 June 2008 Sudan Airways flight 109, an Airbus A310, overran the runway at Khartoum-Civil Airport (KRT) and burst into flames, killing 30 occupants; 184 survived the accident.
| Date: | Tuesday 10 June 2008 |
| Time: | 20:26 |
| Type: | Airbus A310-324 |
| Owner/operator: | Sudan Airways |
| Registration: | ST-ATN |
| MSN: | 548 |
| Year of manufacture: | 1990 |
| Total airframe hrs: | 53233 hours |
| Cycles: | 21524 flights |
| Engine model: | P&W PW4152 |
| Fatalities: | Fatalities: 30 / Occupants: 214 |
| Other fatalities: | 0 |
| Aircraft damage: | Destroyed, written off |
| Category: | Accident |
| Location: | Khartoum-Civil Airport (KRT) - Sudan |
| Phase: | Landing |
| Nature: | Passenger - Scheduled |
| Departure airport: | Damascus International Airport (DAM/OSDI) |
| Destination airport: | Khartoum-Civil Airport (KRT/HSSS) |
| Investigating agency: | AAICD |
| Confidence Rating: | Accident investigation report completed and information captured |
Narrative:
Sudan Airways flight 109, an Airbus A310, overran the runway at Khartoum-Civil Airport (KRT) and burst into flames, killing 30 occupants; 184 survived the accident.
The aircraft was operated with a deactivated
no. 1 engine reverser as per Minimum Equipment List (MEL) procedures, being a carry forward defect. This was accepted by the pilot who operated the return flight from Khartoum to Amman.
Sudan Airways Flight 109 was the return leg from Amman, Jordan to Khartoum, Sudan with an en route stop at Damascus, Syria. The airplane diverted to Port Sudan due to inclement weather at Khartoum. After staying on ground at Port Sudan for about 1:15 hour, and being informed that the weather was getting better, the captain decided to continue to Khartoum.
Weather was poor with CB clouds and a thunderstorm as the Airbus approached Khartoum. The flight was cleared to land on runway 36 with wind information given as 320 degrees at 7 knots. In reality however, there was a 15 knot tail wind. The runway was reported being wet.
The Airbus touched down 900 metres past the runway threshold and the captain selected both thrust reversers to maximum reverse. Reverser no. 2 deployed normally and no. 1 remained stowed. Because of asymmetrical reverse, the airplane skidded to the right. Ten seconds after touch down both reversers were stowed and thrust levers were set to idle. The captain put the aircraft back to the centre line by using differential braking. The captain then switched the anti-skid off and applied full braking on both pedals, causing the wheels to lock. The aircraft longitudinally overran the runway and came to a stop 215 meters after the runway end. Then it caught fire on its right side.
Fire services arrived late at the scene of the accident due to acute shortage in fire fighting personnel, and the fact that there was no means of communication between the fire station and the vehicles.
Cause of the accident:
"The accident was due to a long flaring distance (900 meters from R/W threshold) on a wet slippery runway without selecting Auto brake and with one deactivated engine reverse in such rainy conditions. The remaining available landing distance turned out to be too short to allow the captain to stop the aircraft before the end of the runway.
Contributing factors:
The wind information was not appropriate as it was tail wind at time of landing. The crew was not aware about the aircraft ground speed and the tail wind."
METAR:
14:30 UTC / 17:30 local time:
HSSS 101430Z 12013KT 3000 M TS/RA FEW050CB SCT056 BKN140 Q1011 NO SIG=
17:00 UTC / 20:00 local time:
HSSS 101700Z 27002KT 9/9 TS RA OV ST FEW050 SCT056 BKN140 26/26 Q1013 NO SIG=
18:30 UTC / 21:30 local time:
HSSS 101830Z 15010KT 9/9 FEW050 CB TS TO E SCT 056 Q1010=
19:00 UTC / 22:00 local time:
HSSS 101900Z 14007KT 9/9 FEW050 CB TS TOE SCT056 30/19 Q1010 NO SIG=
