5 fatalities

1994-01-07: Bae Jetstream 41 (N304UE) — United Express — Columbus-John Glenn (Port Columbus), United States of America

Columbus-John Glenn (Port Columbus), United States of AmericaLanding (descent or approach)

On January 7, 1994, a Bae Jetstream 41 (registration N304UE) operated by United Express was involved in an aviation accident near Columbus-John Glenn (Port Columbus), United States of America during landing or approach. 5 people were killed. Investigators recorded the probable cause as: The accident was the consequence of the following factors: (1) An aerodynamic stall that occurred when the flightcrew allowed the airspeed to decay to stall speed following a very poorly planned and executed approach characterized by an absence of procedural… This summary draws on records from the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (B3A); 8 related events involving the same aircraft type or operator are linked below.

Sourcesthe Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (B3A)Primary reportUpdated 1781209275Data APIEditorial standards

During an ILS approach, the airplane stalled and crashed 1.2 nm east of runway 28L. The flightcrew failed to maintain airspeed and properly configure the aircraft, and had low experience. The airline lacked specific callouts for airspeed deviations and adequate training.

Approach and Stall

The airplane stalled and crashed 1.2 nautical miles east of runway 28L during an ILS approach. The captain initiated the approach at high speed and crossed the final approach fix at high speed without first having the airplane properly configured for a stabilized approach. The airspeed was not monitored nor maintained by the flightcrew. The captain failed to apply full power and configure the airplane in a timely manner.

Flightcrew Experience

Both pilots had low flight time and experience in the airplane and in any EFIS-equipped airplane. Additionally, the captain had low time and experience as a captain. Inadequate consideration was given to the possible consequences of pairing a newly upgraded captain, on a new airplane, with a first officer who had no airline experience in air carrier operations. Current FAA regulations do not address this issue.

Company and Regulatory Factors

The airline had no specified callouts for airspeed deviations during instrument approaches. The company failed to provide adequate crew resource management training, and the FAA failed to require such training. The company also failed to provide adequate stabilized approach criteria, and the FAA failed to require such criteria. Furthermore, suitable training simulators were unavailable, precluding fully effective flightcrew training.

Probable cause

The accident was the consequence of the following factors: (1) An aerodynamic stall that occurred when the flightcrew allowed the airspeed to decay to stall speed following a very poorly planned and executed approach characterized by an absence of procedural discipline; (2) Improper pilot response to the stall warning, including failure to advance the power levers to maximum, and inappropriately raising the flaps; (3) Flightcrew inexperience in 'glass cockpit' automatic aircraft, aircraft type, and in seat position, a situation exacerbated by a side letter of agreement between the company and its pilots; (4) The company's failure to provide adequate crew resource management training, and the FAA's failure to require such training; (5) The company's failure to provide adequate stabilized approach criteria, and the FAA's failure to require such criteria; and (6) The unavailability of suitable training simulators that precluded fully effective flightcrew training.