ARFF Daily News
Published on:
Tuesday the 15th of April, 2025
NTSB Final Report: Cameron Balloons US ZL-70
Pilot’s Inability To Maintain Clearance From A Tree During The Landing Approach...
Location: Rio Rancho, New Mexico Accident Number: WPR25LA081
Date & Time: October 9, 2024, 08:05 Local Registration: N31010
Aircraft: Cameron Balloons US ZL-70 Aircraft Damage: Minor
Defining Event: Collision during takeoff/land Injuries: 1 Serious, 1 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General aviation - Personal
Analysis: The pilot of the balloon reported that he was descending the balloon to land in a field, with wind coming from the north at about 10 kts. When the balloon was about 30 ft above ground level, the wind shifted and started to come from the northwest with an approximate 15 kt gust. The balloon changed direction during the wind gust and the pilot attempted to correct by burning the balloon’s tow burners, however, the balloon impacted a tree. The balloon sustained minor damage to its basket and envelope, and the passenger sustained serious injuries.
The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
Probable Cause and Findings: The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be -- The pilot’s inability to maintain clearance from a tree during the landing approach due to a gusting wind shift.
FMI: www.ntsb.gov
Today in History
23 Years ago today: On 15 April 2002 Air China flight 129, a Boeing 767-200, impacted a mountain while on approach to Busan-Gimhae, South Korea, killing 129 occupants; 37 survived the accident.
Date: Monday 15 April 2002
Time: 11:21
Type: Boeing 767-2J6ER
Owner/operator: Air China
Registration: B-2552
MSN: 23308/127
Year of manufacture: 1985
Total airframe hrs: 39541 hours
Cycles: 14308 flights
Engine model: P&W JT9D-7R4E4
Fatalities: Fatalities: 129 / Occupants: 166
Other fatalities: 0
Aircraft damage: Destroyed, written off
Category: Accident
Location: 4,6 km N of Pusan-Kimhae Airport (PUS) - South Korea
Phase: Approach
Nature: Passenger - Scheduled
Departure airport: Beijing-Capital International Airport (PEK/ZBAA)
Destination airport: Busan-Gimhae (Pusan) International Airport (PUS/RKPK)
Investigating agency: KAIB
Confidence Rating: Accident investigation report completed and information captured
Narrative:
Air China flight 129, a Boeing 767-200, impacted a mountain while on approach to Busan-Gimhae, South Korea, killing 129 occupants; 37 survived the accident.
Air China flight 129 departed Beijing at 08:37 on a scheduled flight to Pusan-Gimhae in South Korea. The en route part of the flight was uneventful. At 11:06 the second officer contacted Gimhae Approach. At that moment the airplane was 32 nm from the airport at an altitude of FL170. The approach controller cleared the flight to descend to 6000 feet. Runway 36L was in use and the crew could expect a straight-in approach. at 11:09 the controller notified the crew that the runway was changed to 18R, with winds 210 degrees at 17 kts. This meant a circling approach which none of the crew members had flown yet at Pusan. The captain and first officer then discussed the approach to be flown. The captain cautioned: "We won't enlarge the traffic pattern, the mountains are
all over that side." At 11:13 the flight was further cleared down to 2600 feet. Two minutes later the approach controller radioed: "Air China 129, turn left heading 030 cleared for ILS DME runway 36L, then circle to runway 18 right, report field in sight." At 11:17 they captured the ILS and were cleared further down to the circling altitude of 700 feet. The landing gear was extended and flaps set at 20 degrees. Then the controller instructed the flight to contact Gimhae Tower and to circle west. The second officer responded but did not read back the frequency change. The captain then instructed the first officer to disconnect the autopilot and turn left. From his position in the right hand seat the first officer was able to observe the runway. As the aircraft passed abeam the
runway the autopilot was reengaged with heading select. At that moment the approach controller again contacted flight 129 instructing them to contact
the tower. The crew were busy looking outside to see when they passed abeam the end of the runway. Simultaneously the Gimhae Tower controller contacted
the flight using the emergency frequency. As they passed abeam the threshold at 11:20:02 they started timing to measure the commencement f turning to
base. Eleven seconds after the call on the emergency frequency, the second officer reported to the Tower controller that they were on the circle approach. At 11:20:17 the captain took over control from the first officer and said he was going to turn base. He slowly began a widening turn, causing the first officer to urge him: "turn quickly, not too late." Meanwhile the flight was cleared to land . At 11:20:32 the captain disconnected the autopilot and banked the plane to the right. Twenty-two seconds later the first officer cautioned: "Pay attention to the altitude keeping," and the captain asked him to help him get a visual on the runway. Due to the limited visibility they were not able to see the runway. The first officer then advised the captain to initiate a go around, but the captain did
not respond. At 11:21:15 the first officer said, "Pull up! Pull up!" Pitch attitude was increased to 11.4 degrees but thrust was not increased. Two seconds later the aircraft impacted a mountain, about 4.6 km from the runway.
FINDINGS RELATED TO PROBABLE CAUSES:
1. The flight crew of flight 129 performed the circling approach, not being aware of the weather minima of wide-body aircraft (B767-200) for landing, and in the approach briefing, did not include the missed approach, etc., among the items specified in Air Chinas operations and training manuals.
2. The flight crew exercised poor crew resource management and lost situational awareness during the circling approach to runway 18R, which led them to fly outside of the circling approach area, delaying the base turn, contrary to the captains intention to make a timely base turn.
3. The flight crew did not execute a missed approach when they lost sight of the runway during the circling approach to runway 18R, which led them to strike high terrain (mountain) near the airport.
4. When the first officer advised the captain to execute a missed approach about 5 seconds before impact, the captain did not react, nor did the first officer initiate the missed approach himself.
