Flight Safety Information - July 7, 2025 No. 134 In This Issue : Bizjet Accident Fatalities Soar in First Half of 2025 : Error in Speed, Distance Caused 2023 HondaJet Excursion : Frontier Airlines Passenger Arrested After Instigating Mid-Air Fight : American Airlines Pilots Flies Wrong 787 Aircraft to Italy : Single-engine plane crashes at Joliet Regional Airport : Spatial Disorientation Led to PC-12 In-flight Breakup : American Airlines 787 Pilots Makes U-Turn Twice to Barcelona : Calendar of Events Bizjet Accident Fatalities Soar in First Half of 2025 18 fatal turbine business aircraft accidents worldwide claimed 81 passengers and crewmembers A suspected landing gear failure caused a Lear 35A to veer off the runway at Arizona's Scottsdale Airport as it was landing, and slam into a Gulfstream G200 parked on the ramp. The accident left one dead and several injured. © screenshot from ABC News video By Gordon Gilbert • Contributor - Accidents and Regulations July 3, 2025 Eighteen fatal turbine business aircraft accidents worldwide claimed the lives of 81 passengers and crew in the first half, up from 17 fatal accidents and 54 fatalities in the first six months of 2024, according to preliminary data gathered by AIN. Notably, U.S.-registered business jets made up the only segment to complete the first six months with fewer fatalities than in the same period last year. Nine people lost their lives in three U.S.-registered business jet accidents last year versus eight people who died—also in three accidents—this year. On February 10, a parked Gulfstream G200 was struck by a U.S.-registered Learjet 35A that veered off the runway while landing in Scottsdale, Arizona, killing the Learjet pilot. Another fatal accident involving an N-numbered business jet occurred on March 13, when a Cessna Citation CJ2 on a planned ferry flight made a right turn and climbed to about 950 feet after takeoff before it began a rapid descent into the ground. The sole pilot aboard died. On May 22, a Citation S550 was destroyed when it crashed on an approach near San Diego. The pilot and five passengers were killed. All three accidents occurred under Part 91. Four accidents of non-U.S.-registered business jets took the lives of 15 in the first half, compared with a single crash that was fatal to two people in the same period of 2024. On Jan. 9, 2025, a privately operated, Brazilian-registered CitationJet CJ1+ overshot the runway on landing, broke up, and caught fire, resulting in the loss of the pilot’s life. On January 29, a Venezuelan government-operated Citation S/II crashed shortly after takeoff, killing all three occupants. Two pilots and four passengers died on January 31, when a chartered Mexico-registered Learjet 55 air ambulance crashed shortly after takeoff from a Philadelphia airport on a planned flight to Mexico. In addition to the six fatalities aboard the twinjet, one person on the ground was killed. On June 3, a Venezuela-registered Citation I crashed in the mountains after taking off from Caracas, killing all five aboard. Five fatal accidents of U.S.-registered business turboprops resulted in 18 deaths in the first half, compared with seven deaths in four accidents in the same period last year. Meanwhile, half of the 40 fatalities from six accidents involving non-N-numbered business turboprops in the first six months included the 20 who died when their chartered Ugandan-registered Beech 1900D crashed in South Sudan. Error in Speed, Distance Caused 2023 HondaJet Excursion Pilot and passengers escaped without injuries By Amy Wilder Writer June 13, 2025 Improper landing speed and distance calculations by the pilot caused a HondaJet HA-420 to overrun a wet runway at Summerville Airport (KDYB) in South Carolina on May 18, 2023, according to the NTSB’s final report. The pilot and five passengers were uninjured, but the aircraft was substantially damaged after it ran off the end of the runway, slid down an embankment, and caught fire. Registered as N255HJ, the aircraft departed Wilkes County Airport (KUKF) at 11:29 p.m. on an IFR flight and landed at KDYB around 12:14 a.m. in night visual conditions on a wet, 5,000-foot asphalt runway. The pilot told investigators he had used the aircraft’s cockpit display unit (CDU) to calculate a landing reference speed (Vref) of 119 to 120 knots and believed the runway length was sufficient. ADS-B data showed the aircraft crossing the runway threshold at 120 knots ground speed and 119 knots calibrated airspeed. However, based on the weather and landing weight, HondaJet engineers later determined that the correct Vref should have been approximately 112 knots, and that the landing distance required on a wet runway was about 4,829 feet. A CDU programmed for those conditions would have issued a warning: “LANDING FIELD LENGTH INSUFFICIENT.” The HondaJet touched down before the 1,000-foot markers. The pilot reported full brake application, but said the antiskid system cycled more slowly than usual, producing minimal braking. He considered aborting the landing, but a sudden “grab” from the left brake caused the aircraft to yaw and skid. The aircraft exited the end of the runway, descended an embankment, and came to rest on a rocky berm 360 feet beyond the pavement. A post-impact fire consumed the cockpit, center fuselage, and right wing, but all occupants exited safely. A post-accident inspection found no evidence of pre-impact braking system failures. However, a test anomaly involving the power brake and antiskid valve showed unexplained hysteresis, or a lag between input and result, when first examined on a non-certified bench setup. Subsequent testing at the manufacturer’s certified facility revealed no anomalies. While significant hysteresis “may lead to braking performance degradation,” the NTSB concluded there was insufficient evidence to link the valve behavior to the accident. At the time of the accident, the operator had not installed the 2022 HondaJet updated software and performance data for wet and contaminated runway operations. Although this supplement was free and recommended, compliance was not mandatory under Part 91. The aircraft was not equipped with a cockpit voice or flight data recorder, nor was one required. Investigators reconstructed the accident timeline using ADS-B and witness statements. Frontier Airlines Passenger Arrested After Instigating Mid-Air Fight By John Pullen A recent brawl on a Frontier Airlines flight sent one man both to the hospital and to jail. The fight broke out on a flight between Philadelphia International Airport and Miami International Airport earlier this week, when two men ended up in a physical altercation within a row of seats on the Airbus jet. The aggressor was ultimately detained by authorities upon arrival in Miami. Unruly passengers have been an increasingly common problem for both US carriers and the Federal Aviation Administration. This incident and recent, similar issues have left many concerned about unruly passengers. Chaos On The Way To Miami An altercation occurred between two passengers as the Frontier flight approached southern Florida. Prior to the attack, the instigator was reportedly making strange comments and mumbling threatening things under his breath, according to the New York Post. The man, a New Jersey resident, was even heard making death threats before a concerned passenger pressed the flight attendant call button for help. Upon this, the instigator, identified as Ishaan Sharma, turned around to the row behind him and grabbed whistleblower Keanu Evans by the throat. The following altercation resulted in Sharma getting hit several times by Evans, with passengers even pleading with Evans to stop as he matched Sharma's aggression. Frontier Airlines was not immediately available for comment. However, when speaking to WSVN, Evans expressed guilt about his forceful response to Sharma: “It makes me feel bad because I don’t want people to get the wrong idea about who I am as a person.” A Similar Incident Happened Early Last Month Photo: Markus Mainka | Shutterstock The incident that took place earlier this week was not isolated. In fact, flight disruptions caused by unruly passengers have continued to be a problem in the United States, prompting discussions about penalties for angry airline customers who force delays or diversions. For example, a recent incident on a Delta flight occurred after a disagreement over a carry-on bag resulted in an assault on a flight attendant. The incident happened at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, on a red-eye flight prior to departure. A passenger was told she had to place her carry-on bag in an overhead bin, which she refused. The irate passenger then proceeded to curse at other passengers and even shove a flight attendant, leading to her removal from the aircraft. Some passengers reported smelling alcohol, which might have played a role in the incident. American Airlines Pilots Flies Wrong 787 Aircraft to Italy After the unscheduled landing in Rome, American Airlines faced the logistical challenge of repositioning aircraft and crew. By Kevin Derby June 6, 20253 Mins Read FORT WORTH- An unexpected aircraft swap led American Airlines (AA) Flight AA780 from Philadelphia (PHL) to Naples (NAP) to divert mid-air after realizing the Boeing 787-9 it was operating wasn’t certified to land at Naples Airport. On June 2, 2025, the transatlantic flight, normally operated by a Boeing 787-8, had been upgraded to a larger 787-9 (registration N837AN) for operational reasons. However, this seemingly minor change had major consequences mid-descent. American Airlines 787-9 Diverts to Rome American Airlines Flight AA780 departed Philadelphia (PHL) at 7:42 PM and crossed the Atlantic without incident. But as the aircraft began its descent into Naples (NAP), the crew altered course and redirected the flight to Rome Fiumicino Airport (FCO), approximately 124 miles away from its intended destination. The reason wasn’t weather-related, as conditions in Naples were clear and no other flights had diverted. According to a scoop by aviation source @xJonNYC and reported by OMAAT, the Boeing 787-9 variant used that day was not authorized to land at Naples Airport. Why the 787-9 Was Restricted The Boeing 787-8 and 787-9 are similar, but key differences likely triggered the restriction. The 787-9 is slightly longer, with a higher maximum takeoff weight and different performance characteristics.Naples’ airport (NAP), nestled in a challenging terrain, may have runway length, taxiway, or apron limitations that permit the 787-8 but not the 787-9. Such restrictions are often set by local aviation authorities to ensure safety and operational feasibility. While American likely overlooked this during the swap, the incident underscores the importance of verifying aircraft compatibility with destination airports. American Airlines’ Quick Response After the unscheduled landing in Rome, American Airlines faced the logistical challenge of repositioning aircraft and crew. The airline already operated a Rome–Chicago (ORD) route using a 787-8, allowing them to make a strategic swap. The diverted 787-9 was reassigned to the Rome–Chicago service, freeing up a 787-8 (registration N880BJ) for the Naples flight. However, due to crew duty hour limitations, the airline couldn’t immediately continue the journey. The 787-8 and its crew overnighted in Rome and completed the short 38-minute hop to Naples the next day, June 4. The aircraft then returned to Philadelphia later that afternoon. It remains unclear whether the affected passengers were flown from Rome to Naples the following day or re-accommodated via other methods, such as trains or alternate flights. Operational Oversight The incident highlights the complexity of international flight operations and aircraft certifications. Although the 787-9 is only marginally larger than the 787-8, these differences can impact airport compatibility, especially in geographically constrained regions like Naples. Whether the oversight stemmed from a breakdown in internal communications or was triggered by nuanced local regulations, the case underscores the importance of aligning aircraft assignments with airport operational clearances. American Airlines’ prompt adaptation minimized overall disruption, but the root cause raises questions about procedural checks in aircraft dispatching. Stay tuned with us. Further, follow us on social media for the latest updates. Single-engine plane crashes at Joliet Regional Airport By Jessie Molloy Joliet Regional Airport on Tuesday, July 11, 2023. (Gary Middendorf – gmiddendorf@shawmedia/Gary Middendorf) July 06, 2025 at 6:00 am CDT Joliet — Joliet Police and Fire Department crews responded to a plane crash at the Joliet Regional Airport. The Joliet Police Department reported on Facebook that officers responded to the airport, 4000 W. Jefferson St., around 3 p.m. on Saturday to assist fire crews when a single-engine aircraft overturned upon landing. Joliet police and fire department crews at the scene of a single-engine plane crash at the Joliet Regional Airport, 4000 W. Jefferson St., Joliet on Saturday, July 5, 2025. No serious injuries were reported. (Photo by Denise M. Baran-Unland) Police report that the aircraft’s pilot was able to safely exit the plane on their own following the incident. No other occupants were on board at the time of the crash, according to Joliet police. Joliet Firefighters Local 44 also reported the incidents on Facebook, noting that no fire was showing when crews arrived on the scene. Eight fire department vehicles and two battalion chiefs responded to the scene. Joliet police said further details would be provided when they become available. Spatial Disorientation Led to PC-12 In-flight Breakup Risk assessment and oversight found insufficient © NTSB By Amy Wilder • Writer June 10, 2025 Spatial disorientation following autopilot disengagement led to the in-flight breakup of an air ambulance Pilatus PC-12 near Stagecoach, Nevada, on Feb. 24, 2023, according to the NTSB’s final report. The pilot, flight nurse, flight paramedic, and two passengers were killed. The PC-12, N273SM, was operated by Guardian Flight under the Care Flight brand. At 9:00 p.m. local time, the non-emergency medical transport departed Reno-Tahoe International Airport (KRNO) under an IFR clearance in night instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), with cloud bases at 1,200 feet agl and tops at FL240. According to the report, the pilot was cleared to climb to 25,000 feet but did not reach that altitude. About 11 minutes into the flight, the aircraft veered from its assigned route and began a series of altitude and heading changes. The NTSB concluded that the flight profile was consistent with a graveyard spiral, a form of spatial disorientation where the pilot misperceives a descending turn as level flight and, adding backpressure to the yoke to compensate for a perceived level descent, tightens the spiral until the aircraft crashes or loses structural integrity due to forces of flight. “The pilot’s loss of control due to spatial disorientation while operating in night instrument meteorological conditions…resulted in an in-flight breakup,” the NTSB found. Contributing factors included “the disengagement of the autopilot for undetermined reasons, as well as the operator’s insufficient flight risk assessment process and lack of organizational oversight.” Twice during the brief flight, the PC-12’s autopilot disengaged. The second disengagement occurred about two to four minutes before the accident. The autopilot was not reengaged, requiring the pilot to manually control the aircraft in IMC. No mechanical anomalies were found with the autopilot, trim servos, or other control systems. After the aircraft climbed to approximately 19,400 feet msl, it entered a steep descending right turn. The descent rate increased to more than 13,000 fpm before radar contact was lost near 11,100 feet msl. The distribution of wreckage and structural fractures was consistent with an in-flight breakup caused by aerodynamic overstress. The pilot was classified as a “float” pilot assigned to various bases, including Reno. He had been hired only five months prior, the NTSB noted, and had limited recent experience in the aircraft and operating area. Neither of the two medical personnel on board had been with the company for more than six months, and they had been paired just 14 days prior to the accident. No risk assessment for the accident flight was found, and the operator’s fixed-wing division lacked the crew pairing requirements applied to its rotorcraft operations. Although other operators had declined similar flights earlier in the day due to weather, the accident crew was not informed of this. An autopsy of the pilot revealed a three-centimeter brain tumor in the right parietal lobe—an area responsible for integrating sensory and navigational input. While the NTSB could not determine whether the tumor contributed to the accident, it acknowledged that the condition “may have impacted the pilot’s ability to synthesize and respond to sensory interpretation.” The aircraft was not equipped with cockpit voice or flight data recorders, but onboard systems and GPS data allowed investigators to reconstruct the flight path. No mechanical failures were found that would have precluded normal operation. American Airlines 787 Pilots Makes U-Turn Twice to Barcelona The Boeing 787-8, registered N875BD, was diverted back to BCN on two separate occasions during its July 3 service. By Helen William July 5, 20256 Mins Read BARCELONA- An American Airlines (AA) Boeing 787-8 operated flight AAL41 from Barcelona (BCN) to Chicago O’Hare (ORD) faced two mid-operation disruptions on July 3, 2025. The aircraft, identified as Boeing 787-8 having registration N875BD, returned to Barcelona twice on the same day, causing significant operational and passenger disruption. American Flight Returns to Barcelona Twice American Airlines flight AAL41, scheduled to depart from Josep Tarradellas Barcelona-El Prat Airport (BCN) to Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD), encountered unusual operational circumstances. The Boeing 787-8, registered N875BD, was diverted back to BCN on two separate occasions during its July 3 service. The first attempt to depart took place at 10:45 local time. However, after takeoff, the aircraft returned and landed back at Barcelona at 10:52, prompting an immediate response from emergency services, including fire and paramedics, who met the aircraft on the apron. After a brief holding period, another departure was planned and estimated for 10:52, but this second attempt also failed. A subsequent takeoff at 14:00 again resulted in a diversion, with the aircraft returning and landing back in Barcelona by 15:55. An Eyewitnesses (passenger) onboard Aer Lingus (EI) aircraft reported the diverted American Airlines jet being met by a full emergency response. Fire crews and paramedics were seen staging near the aircraft, although no official medical or technical reason has been publicly confirmed for the diversions. As of the latest update, no injuries or onboard emergencies have been reported. So it looks like a technical issue, and the airline is trying to resolve it as quickly as possible. A 4.7-year-old aircraft, registered as N875BD, has been grounded at Barcelona Airport since the incident. We reached out to American Airlines to find the actual reason; however, they have not responded to us at the time of publication of this post. Will update the post once we get an appropriate response from the airline. Similar Incident An American Airlines (AA) flight from Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AMS) to Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) was forced to return shortly after takeoff on January 7, 2025, due to a technical malfunction. The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, operating as flight AA203, safely landed back in Amsterdam after fuel dumping procedures. A second attempt to operate the return journey as flight AA9605 was also aborted the next day due to a hydraulic oil leak. Two Consecutive Mechanical Failures American Airlines flight AA203 departed Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AMS) at 1:46 PM UTC bound for Philadelphia International Airport (PHL). Shortly after takeoff, the flight crew encountered a technical fault and requested to level off at Flight Level 060 (6,000 feet), initially continuing on the planned departure route. As conditions evolved, the crew decided to remain closer to AMS and climbed to FL130 (13,000 feet) while flying at speeds below the clean configuration minimum. The crew initiated fuel dumping procedures over the North Sea to meet landing weight requirements and safely returned to Amsterdam at 3:16 PM UTC, approximately 90 minutes after departure. The aircraft involved, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner registered as N819AN, is 7.8 years old and powered by GEnX engines. Initial findings linked the issue to the aircraft’s flap system, a critical component affecting lift and landing configurations. Attempted Recovery Flight Also Aborted Following the initial incident, American Airlines scheduled a recovery flight the next day under flight number AA9605. The aircraft was planned to depart AMS at 1:30 PM local time and arrive in Philadelphia (PHL) by 3:32 PM local time. However, during pre-departure checks, the crew identified a hydraulic oil leak. As hydraulic systems are essential for flight control operations, the airline chose to cancel the flight, prioritizing passenger safety. This extended the aircraft’s ground time at AMS for further inspection and repairs. Photo: American Airlines New 787-9 Had Multiple issues American Airlines is grappling with operational setbacks involving its newly delivered Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner, registered as N846AN. The aircraft has encountered repeated mechanical issues since its delivery flight from Everett (PAE) to Dallas–Fort Worth (DFW). Initial flights connecting Dallas (DFW), Chicago (ORD), and Los Angeles (LAX) faced cancellations and delays, raising concerns about the aircraft’s reliability and Boeing’s quality control during delivery. The Boeing 787-9, registered as N846AN, arrived at American Airlines’ (AA) Dallas–Fort Worth (DFW) base on April 29, 2025. Equipped with updated interiors, the aircraft was expected to strengthen AA’s long-haul operations. Instead, it has been sidelined by a pattern of technical problems. Its service rollout began on June 4 with a non-revenue positioning flight (AA9783) from Dallas–Fort Worth (DFW) to Chicago O’Hare (ORD). However, shortly after departure, a mechanical fault forced the jet to return to DFW. Although it completed the repositioning the following day, further issues disrupted its commercial schedule. On June 6, flights AA2012 and AA2321 between Chicago (ORD) and Los Angeles (LAX) were both canceled due to maintenance complications. A partial recovery came on June 7 when the aircraft finally operated a delayed outbound flight from ORD to LAX. But its return leg suffered a severe 32-hour delay, rescheduled from 1 PM on June 7 to 9 PM on June 8. Out of four scheduled commercial flights, only one was completed, underscoring significant operational unreliability in the aircraft’s early deployment. Technical Concerns and Manufacturing Scrutiny Sources suggest that the aircraft has suffered from multiple technical faults, including engine performance issues and door malfunctions. While minor hiccups are expected in new aircraft, the consistency and frequency of N846AN’s problems are unusual. Aviation analysts, including @xJonNYC, have expressed uncertainty over whether these issues are part of typical service induction challenges or symptoms of deeper mechanical deficiencies. The repeated flight cancellations and returns point toward persistent, unresolved flaws. American Airlines has made several attempts to bring the aircraft into regular service, but each effort has been hindered by new faults. These disruptions reflect poorly not just on the airline’s fleet reliability but also on Boeing’s delivery standards, which have already faced increased scrutiny due to recent lapses in manufacturing quality control. Stay tuned with us. Further, follow us on social media for the latest updates. CALENDAR OF EVENTS . Airborne Public Safety Association -APSCON / APSCON Unmanned 2025 in Phoenix, AZ | July 14-18, 2025 . 3rd annual Asia Pacific Summit for Aviation Safety (AP-SAS), July 15-17, 2025, Singapore, organized by Flight Safety Foundation and CAAS. . Asia Pacific Aviation Safety Seminar 2025; 10-11 September 2025; Manila, Philippines . 2025 PROS IOSA SUMMIT - SEPT 10-11 - Denver, CO · ISASI ANNUAL SEMINAR 2025'September 29, 2025 – October 3, 2025, DENVER, COLORADO . Air Medical Transport Conference (AMTC™) - 2025 – October 27-29th (Omaha, Nebraska) . 29th annual Bombardier Safety Standdown, November 11-13, 2025; Wichita, Kansas · CHC Safety & Quality Summit, 11th – 13th November 2025, Vancouver, BC Canada Curt Lewis