30 Years ago today: On 26 June 1988 an Air France Airbus A320-111 crashed during a flyby at Mulhouse-Habsheim; killing 3 out of 136 occupants.

Date:Sunday 26 June 1988
Type: Airbus A320-111
Operator:Air France
C/n / msn:009
First flight:1988-01-06 (6 months)
Total airframe hrs:22
Engines:CFMI CFM56-5A1
Crew:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 6
Passengers:Fatalities: 3 / Occupants: 130
Total:Fatalities: 3 / Occupants: 136
Aircraft damage:Destroyed
Aircraft fate:Written off (damaged beyond repair)
Location:Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport (   France)
Phase:Initial climb (ICL)
Departure airport:Basel/Mulhouse-EuroAirport (BSL/LFSB), France
Destination airport:Basel/Mulhouse Airport (BSL/LFSB), France

The newly delivered Airbus A.320 was to perform for Air Charter a series of flights on behalf of the Mulhouse Flying Club. The crew were to overfly Mulhouse-Habsheim airport two times (first at low speed, gear down at 100 feet and the other at high speed in clean configuration) as part of an airshow.
The aircraft took off from Basle-Mulhouse (BSL) at 14:41 and climbed to 1000 feet agl. The crew started the descent three minutes later and Habsheim was in sight at 450 feet agl. The first officer informed the captain that the aircraft was reaching 100 feet at 14:45:14. The descent continued to 50 feet 8 seconds later and further to 30-35 feet. Go-around power was added at 14:45:35. The A320 continued and touched trees at the end of the runway at 14:45:40 with a 14 deg. pitch attitude and engine speed being 83% N1. The plane sank slowly into the forest and a fire broke out.

Probable Cause:

PROBABLE CAUSES: “The Commission believes that the accident resulted from the combination of the following conditions: 1) very low flyover height, lower than surrounding obstacles; 2) speed very slow and reducing to reach maximum possible angle of attack; 3) engine speed at flight idle; 4) late application of go-around power. This combination led to impact of the aircraft with the trees. The Commission believes that if the descent below 100 feet was not deliberate, it may have resulted from failure to take proper account of the visual and aural information intended to give the height of the aircraft.”